Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: History of Woman Suffrage, Volume III
Author: Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 1815-1902 [Editor], Anthony, Susan B. (Susan Brownell), 1820-1906 [Editor], Gage, Matilda Joslyn, 1826-1898 [Editor]
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Woman Suffrage, Volume III" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



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

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



[Illustration: Phoebe W. Couzins.]



  HISTORY

  of

  WOMAN SUFFRAGE.


  EDITED BY


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


  ILLUSTRATED WITH STEEL ENGRAVINGS.


  _IN THREE VOLUMES._


  VOL. III.

  1876-1885.


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


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


  Copyright, 1886, by SUSAN B. ANTHONY.



PREFACE.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.

VOL. III.


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



CONTENTS.

                                                                  PAGE

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CENTENNIAL YEAR--1876.

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


CHAPTER XXVIII.

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, HEARINGS AND REPORTS.

1877-1878-1879.

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


CHAPTER XXIX.

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.

1880-1881.

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


CHAPTER XXX.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.

1882-1883.

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


CHAPTER XXXI.

MASSACHUSETTS.

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


CHAPTER XXXII.

CONNECTICUT.

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


CHAPTER XXXIII.

RHODE ISLAND.

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


CHAPTER XXXIV.

MAINE.

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


CHAPTER XXXV.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

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


CHAPTER XXXVI.

VERMONT.

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


CHAPTER XXXVII.

NEW YORK--1860-1885.

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


CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PENNSYLVANIA.

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


CHAPTER XXXIX.

NEW JERSEY.

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


CHAPTER XL.

OHIO.

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


CHAPTER XLI.

MICHIGAN.

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


CHAPTER XLII.

INDIANA.

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


CHAPTER XLIII.

ILLINOIS.

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


CHAPTER XLIV.

MISSOURI.

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


CHAPTER XLV.

IOWA.

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


CHAPTER XLVI.

WISCONSIN.

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


CHAPTER XLVII.

MINNESOTA.

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


CHAPTER XLVIII.

DAKOTA.

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


CHAPTER XLIX.

NEBRASKA.

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


CHAPTER L.

KANSAS.

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


CHAPTER LI.

COLORADO.

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


CHAPTER LII.

WYOMING.

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


CHAPTER LIII.

CALIFORNIA.

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


CHAPTER LIV.

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

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


CHAPTER LV.

LOUISIANA--TEXAS--ARKANSAS--MISSISSIPPI.

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


CHAPTER LV. (CONTINUED).

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

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


CHAPTER LV. (CONCLUDED).

CANADA.

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


CHAPTER LVI.

GREAT BRITAIN.

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


CHAPTER LVII.

CONTINENTAL EUROPE.

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


CHAPTER LVIII.

REMINISCENCES.

BY E. C. S.                                                        922


Appendix                                                           955


INDEX                                                              985



CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CENTENNIAL YEAR--1876.

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


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

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

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

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

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

     CALL FOR THE EIGHTH ANNUAL WASHINGTON CONVENTION.--The National
     Woman Suffrage Association will hold its Eighth Annual Convention
     in Tallmadge Hall, Washington, D. C., January 27, 28, 1876. In
     this one-hundredth year of the Republic, the women of the United
     States will once more assemble under the shadow of the national
     capitol to press their claims to self-government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Therefore, in presence of the assembled nations of all the world,
     we protest against this government of the United States as an
     oligarchy of sex, and not a true republic; and we protest against
     calling this a centennial celebration of the independence of the
     people of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              IN THE SENATE, Tuesday, January 25, 1876.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Mr. COX: Mr. Speaker, I am requested to present a memorial,
     asking for a form of government in the District of Columbia which
     shall secure to its women the right to vote; and I ask the grace
     and favor to have this memorial printed in the _Record_.

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

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

     Mr. COX: There are no names appended except those of the officers
     of the National Woman Suffrage Association; and I hope they will
     be printed with the memorial.

     Mr. HENDEE: I trust the gentleman will allow this petition to be
     referred to the committee of which I am a member: the Committee
     for the District of Columbia. There being no objection, the
     memorial was read and referred to the Committee for the District
     of Columbia, and ordered to be printed in the _Record_.

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

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, of New York, said: _Mr. Chairman and
     Gentlemen of the Committee_: On behalf of the National
     Association, which has its officers in every State and territory
     of the Union, and which numbers many thousands of members, and on
     behalf of the Woman's Franchise Association of the District of
     Columbia, we appear before you, asking that the right of suffrage
     be secured equally to the men and women of this District. Art. 1,
     sec. 8, clauses 17, 18 of the Constitution of the United States
     reads:

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

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

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

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

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

     These principles are:

     _First_--The natural rights of each individual.

     _Second_--The exact equality of these rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Mrs. SARA ANDREWS SPENCER, Secretary of the District of Columbia
     Woman's Franchise Association, said: For no legal or political
     right I have ever claimed in the District of Columbia do I ask a
     stronger, clearer charter than the Declaration of Independence,
     and the constitution of the United States as it stood before the
     fourteenth amendment had entered the minds of men. A judicial
     decision, rendered by nine men, upon the rights of ten millions
     of women of this republic, need not, does not, change the
     convictions of one woman in regard to her own heaven-endowed
     rights, duties, and responsibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Therefore the honorable gentleman denies them the right to vote.

     Upon the civil rights bill, Senator Howe said:

          I do not know but what the passage of this bill will break
          up the common schools. I admit that I have some fear on that
          point. Every step of this terrible march has been met with a
          threat; but let justice be done although the common schools
          and the heavens do fall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two months afterward, the following reply was received:

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

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _President of the Woman Suffrage
     Association_:

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

     [Extract of minutes].            GEORGE WATSON, _Secretary_.

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

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

     CALL FOR THE MAY ANNIVERSARY, 1876.--The National Woman Suffrage
     Association will hold its Ninth Annual Convention in Masonic
     Hall, New York, corner of Sixth avenue and Twenty-third street,
     May 10, 11, 1876.

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

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

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

                                   MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _President_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

This May anniversary, commencing on the same day with the opening
of the centennial exhibition, was marked with more than usual
earnestness. As popular thought naturally turned with increasing
interest at such an hour to the underlying principles of
government, woman's demand for political equality received a new
impulse. The famous Smith sisters, of Glastonbury, Connecticut,
attended this convention, and were most cordially welcomed. The
officers[5] for the centennial year were chosen and a campaign[6]
and congressional[7] committee appointed to take charge of affairs
at Philadelphia and Washington. The resolutions show the general
drift of the discussions:[8]

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

     WHEREAS, Governments exist to protect the people in the enjoyment
     of their natural rights, and when any government becomes
     destructive of this end, it is the right of the people to resist
     and abolish it; and

     WHEREAS, The women of the United States, for one hundred years,
     have been denied the exercise of their natural right of
     self-government and self-protection; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That it is the natural right and most sacred duty of
     the women of these United States to rebel against the injustice,
     usurpation and tyranny of our present government.

     WHEREAS, The men of 1776 rebelled against a government which did
     not claim to be of the people, but, on the contrary, upheld the
     "divine right of kings"; and

     WHEREAS, The women of this nation to-day, under a government
     which claims to be based upon individual rights, to be "of the
     people, by the people, and for the people," in an infinitely
     greater degree are suffering all the wrongs which led to the war
     of the revolution; and WHEREAS, The oppression is all the more
     keenly felt because our masters, instead of dwelling in a foreign
     land, are our husbands, our fathers, our brothers and our sons;
     therefore,

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

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

     WHEREAS, We believe in the principles of the Declaration of
     Independence and of the Constitution of the United States, and
     believe a true republic is the best form of government in the
     world; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     WHEREAS, There are 7,000 more women than men in the District of
     Columbia, and no form of government for said District has allowed
     women any voice in making the laws under which they live;
     therefore,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Corresponding Secretary_.

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

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

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

          _Resolved_, That the right to the use of the ballot inheres
          in every citizen of the United States; and we pledge
          ourselves to secure the exercise of this right to all
          citizens, irrespective of sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.

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

In addition to these letters delegates were sent to both the
Republican and Democratic conventions. Sara Andrews Spencer and
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert were present at the Republican convention
at Cincinnati; both addressed the committee on platform and
resolutions, and Mrs. Spencer, on motion of Hon. George F. Hoar,
was permitted to address the convention. Mrs. Virginia L. Minor and
Miss Phoebe W. Couzins were the delegates to the Democratic
convention at St. Louis, and the latter addressed that vast
assembly.[9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

     General HAWLEY replied: It seems a very slight request, but our
     programme is published, our speakers engaged, our arrangements
     for the day decided upon, and we can not make even so slight a
     change as that you ask.

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

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

General Hawley also addressed a letter to Mrs. Stanton:

     DEAR MADAM: I regret to say it is impossible for us to make any
     change in our programme, or make any addition to it at this late
     hour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     _First_--The natural rights of each individual.

     _Second_--The equality of these rights.

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

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

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

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

          _Bills of attainder_ have been passed by the introduction of
          the word "male" into all the State constitutions, denying to
          women the right of suffrage, and thereby making sex a
          crime--an exercise of power clearly forbidden in article I,
          sections 9, 10, of the United States constitution.

          _The writ of habeas corpus_, the only protection against
          _lettres de cachet_ and all forms of unjust imprisonment,
          which the constitution declares "shall not be suspended,
          except when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public
          safety demands it," is held inoperative in every State of
          the Union, in case of a married woman against her
          husband--the marital rights of the husband being in all
          cases primary, and the rights of the wife secondary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                             LEWISE OLIVER.
     _Philadelphia_, July 13, 1876.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 19, the Citizens' Suffrage Association, of Philadelphia,
joined with the National Association in commemorating the first
woman's rights convention called by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, at Seneca Falls, N. Y., July 19, 1848--thus
celebrating the twenty-eighth anniversary of that historic event.
The meeting was presided over by Edward M. Davis, president of the
association, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, and one of the most
untiring workers in the cause. The venerable Lucretia Mott
addressed the meeting, and Miss Anthony read letters from several
of the earliest and most valued pioneers of the movement:

                                   TENAFLY, New Jersey, July 19, 1876.

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

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

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

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

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

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

               Sincerely yours,                ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


                                        DETROIT, July 17, 1876.

     _To Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Ann McClintock
     and daughters, Amy Post, and all associated with them and myself
     in the first Woman's Rights Convention, held in Seneca Falls, N.
     Y., July 19, 1848, as well as to our later and present
     associates, Greeting:_

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

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

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

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

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

                                             CATHARINE A. F. STEBBINS.


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

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

                                                   AMY POST.


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

     July 4, 1776, our revolutionary fathers--in convention
     assembled--declared their independence of the mother country;
     solemnly asserted the divine right of self-government and its
     relation to constituted authority. With liberty their shibboleth,
     the colonies triumphed in their long and fierce struggle with the
     mother country, and established an independent government. They
     adopted a "bill of rights" embodying their ideal of a free
     government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                             C. I. H. NICHOLS.


                                        LONDON, Eng., July 4, 1876.

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

     This being the centenary day of the proclamation of American
     independence, I must write a few lines, if but to let the friends
     know that though absent in body I am with you in the cause for
     which, in common with you, I have labored so long, and I hope not
     labored in vain.

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

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

                         Yours affectionately,     ERNESTINE L. ROSE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          And now there is but one step more--there is but one step
          more. We permit the lame, the halt and the blind to go to
          the ballot-box; we permit the foreigner and the black man,
          the slave and the freeman, to partake of the suffrage; there
          is but one thing left out, and that is the mother that
          taught us, and the wife that is thought worthy to walk side
          by side with us. It is woman that is put lower than the
          slave, lower than the ignorant foreigner. She is put among
          the paupers whom the law won't allow to vote; among the
          insane whom the law won't allow to vote. But the days are
          numbered in which this can take place, and she too will
          vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Some suggested that the women in their various towns and
cities, draped in black, should march in solemn procession, bells
slowly tolling, bearing banners with the inscriptions: "Taxation
without representation is tyranny," "No just government can be
formed without the consent of the governed," "They who have no
voice in the laws and rulers are in a condition of slavery."

Others suggested that instead of women wearing crape during the
centennial glorification, the men should sit down in sackcloth and
ashes, in humiliation of spirit, as those who repented in olden
times were wont to do. The best centennial celebration, said they,
for the men of the United States, the one to cover them with glory,
would be to extend to the women of the nation all the rights,
privileges and immunities that they themselves enjoy.

Others proposed that women should monopolize the day, have their
own celebrations, read their own declarations and protests
demanding justice, liberty and equality. The latter suggestion was
extensively adopted, and the Fourth of July, 1876, was remarkable
for the large number of women who were "the orators of the day" in
their respective localities.

[2] Letters were read from the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, of
Georgia; William J. Fowler, of Rochester, N. Y.; Isabella Beecher
Hooker, of Connecticut, and Susan B. Anthony.

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

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

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

_Vice-Presidents_--Lucretia Mott, Pa.; Ernestine L. Rose, England;
Paulina Wright Davis, R. I.; Clarina I. H. Nichols, Cal.; Amelia
Bloomer, Iowa; Mathilde Franceska Anneke, Wis.; Virginia L. Minor,
Mo.; Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Mich.; Julia and Abby Smith, Conn.;
Abby P. Ela, N. H.; Mrs. W. H. H. Murray, Mass.; Ann T. Greely,
Me.; Eliza D. Stewart, Ohio; Mary Hamilton Williams, Ind.;
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Ill.; Sarah Burger Stearns, Minn.; Ada
W. Lucas, Neb.; Helen E. Starrett, Kan.; Ann L. Quinby, Ky.;
Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Tenn.; Mrs. L. C. Locke, Texas; Emily
P. Collins, La.; Mary J. Spaulding, Ga.; Mrs. P. Holmes, Drake,
Ala.; Flora M. Wright, Fla.; Frances Annie Pillsbury, S. C.;
Cynthia Anthony, N. C.; Carrie F. Putnam, Va.; Anna Ella Carroll,
Md.; Abigail Scott Duniway, Oregon; Hannah H. Clapp, Nevada; Dr.
Alida C. Avery, Col.; Mary Olney Brown, Wash. Ter.; Esther A.
Morris, Wyoming Ter.; Annie Godbe, Utah.

_Advisory Committee_--Sarah Pugh, Pa.; Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Conn.; Charlotte B. Wilbour, N. Y.; Mary J. Channing, R. I.;
Elizabeth B. Schenck, Cal.; Judith Ellen Foster, Iowa; Lavinia
Goodell, Wis.; Annie R. Irvine, Mo.; Marian Bliss, Mich.; Mary B.
Moses, N. H.; Sarah A. Vibbart, Mass.; Lucy A. Snowe, Me.; Marilla
M. Ricker, N. H.; Mary Madden, Ohio; Emma Molloy, Ind.; Cynthia A.
Leonard, Ill.; Mrs. Dr. Stewart, Minn.; Julia Brown Bemis, Neb.;
Mrs. N. H. Cramer, Tenn.; Mrs. W. V. Tunstall, Tex.; Mrs. A.
Millspaugh, La.; Hannah M. Rogers, Fla.; Sally Holly, Va.; Sallie
W. Hardcastle, Md.; Mary P. Sautelle, Oregon; Mary F. Shields,
Col.; Amelia Giddings, Wash. Ter.; Amalia B. Post, Wyoming Ter.

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

_Recording Secretary_--Lillie Devereux Blake, New York.

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

_Executive Committee_--Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.;
Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., Elizabeth B. Phelps, Mathilde F. Wendt,
Phebe H. Jones, New York; Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; Sarah R.
L. Williams, Ohio; M. Adeline Thomson, Pennsylvania; Henrietta
Payne Westbrook, Pennsylvania; Nancy R. Allen, Iowa.

[6] _1876 Campaign Committee_--Susan B. Anthony, N. Y.; Matilda
Joslyn Gage, N. Y.; Phoebe W. Couzins, Mo.; Rev. Olympia Brown,
Conn.; Jane Graham Jones, Ill.; Abigail Scott Duniway, Oregon;
Laura De Force Gordon, Cal.; Annie C. Savery, Iowa.

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

[8] Among those who took part in the discussions were Dr. Clemence
Lozier, Susan B. Anthony, Helen M. Slocum, Sarah Goodyear, Helen M.
Cook, Abby and Julia Smith, Sara Andrews Spencer, Miss Charlotte
Ray, Lillie Devereux Blake and Matilda Joslyn Gage.

[9] Letters were written to these conventions from different
States. Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans, La.; Elizabeth A.
Meriwether, Memphis, Tenn.; Mrs. Margaret V. Longley, Cincinnati,
O., all making eloquent appeals for some consideration of the
political rights of women.

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

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

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

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

[14]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This song was written in 1852, at Cleveland, Ohio, by Frances Dana
Gage, expressly for John W. Hutchinson. Several of the friends were
staying with Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, on their way to the Akron
convention, where it was first sung.

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

[16] See Appendix.

[17] Henry Hutchinson, the son of John.

[18] A German legend says, God first made a mouse, but seeing he
had made a mistake he made the cat as an afterthought, therefore if
woman is God's afterthought, man must be a mistake.

[19] Afterwards killed by the Indians in Colorado.



CHAPTER XXVIII.

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, HEARINGS AND REPORTS.

1877-1878-1879.

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


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

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

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

The following appeal and petition were extensively circulated:

     _To the Women of the United States:_

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

          The undersigned citizens of the United States, residents of
          the State of ----, earnestly pray your honorable bodies to
          adopt measures for so amending the constitution as to
          prohibit the several States from disfranchising United
          States citizens on account of sex.

In addition to the general petition asking for a sixteenth
amendment, Matilda Joslyn Gage, this year (1877) sent an individual
petition, similar in form to those offered by disfranchised male
citizens, asking to be relieved from her political disabilities.
This petition was presented by Hon. Elias W. Leavenworth, of the
House of Representatives, member from the thirty-third New York
congressional district. It read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     WHEREAS one-half of the citizens of the republic being
     disfranchised are everywhere subjects of legislative caprice, and
     may be anywhere robbed of their most sacred rights; therefore,

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

     WHEREAS a monarchial government lives only through the ignorance
     of the masses, and a republican government can live only through
     the intelligence of the people; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That it is the duty of Congress to submit to the
     State legislatures propositions to so amend the Constitution of
     the United States as to make education compulsory, and to make
     intelligence a qualification for citizenship and suffrage in the
     United States; said amendments to take effect January 1, 1880,
     when all citizens of legal age, without distinction of sex, who
     can read and write the English language, may be admitted to
     citizenship.

     WHEREAS a century of experience has proven that the safety and
     stability of free institutions and the protection of all United
     States citizens in the exercise of their inalienable rights and
     the proper expression of the will of the whole people, are not
     guaranteed by the present form of the Constitution of the United
     States; therefore,

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

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

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

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


                                   BOSTON, 16th January, 1877.

     DEAR FRIEND: These lines will not reach you in time to be of use.
     I am sorry. But absence and cares must apologize for me. I think
     you are on the right track--the best method to agitate the
     question; and I am with you. I mean always to help everywhere and
     every one.

                                             WENDELL PHILLIPS.
     Miss ANTHONY.


                              MANCHESTER, Eng., January 3, 1877.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: It is with great pleasure that I write a
     word of sympathy and encouragement, on the occasion of your Ninth
     Annual Convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

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

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

                                   Yours truly,
                                             LYDIA E. BECKER.


                                   BOSTON, Mass., January 10, 1877.

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

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

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

                              Yours very cordially,
                                                FRANCIS E. ABBOT.


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

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

                                             ROBERT PURVIS.


                                   OAKLAND, Cal., January 9, 1877.

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

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

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

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

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

     DEAR EDITOR: If the little _Ballot-Box_ is not already stuffed to
     repletion with reports from Washington, I crave a little space to
     tell your readers that the convention was in all points
     successful. Lincoln Hall, which seats about fifteen hundred
     people, was crowded every session. The speaking was good, order
     reigned, no heart-burnings behind the scenes, and the press
     vouchsafed "respectful consideration."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         Yours sincerely,    ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

The press commented as follows:

     SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.--The woman suffragists, who had a benefit in
     the House of Representatives, on Friday, when their petitions
     were presented, transferred their affections to the Senate on
     Saturday to witness the presentation of a large number of
     petitions in that body. It is impossible to tell whether the
     results desired by the women will follow this concerted action,
     but it is certain that they have their forces better organized
     this year than they ever had before, and they have gone to work
     on a more systematic plan.--[_National Republican._

     SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE--THE TEN THOUSAND PETITIONERS
     ROYALLY TREATED.--That women will, by voting, lose nothing of
     man's courteous, chivalric attention and respect is admirably
     proven by the manner in which both houses of congress, in the
     midst of the most anxious and perplexing presidential conflict in
     our history, received their appeals from twenty-three States for
     a sixteenth amendment protecting the rights of women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     WHEREAS, Such minor matters as declaring peace and war, the
     coining of money, the imposition of tariff, and the control of
     the postal service, are forbidden the respective States; and
     whereas, upon the framing of the constitution, it was wisely
     held that these property rights would be unsafe under the
     control of thirteen varying deliberative bodies; and whereas, by
     a curious anomaly, power over suffrage, the basis and
     corner-stone of the nation, is held to be under control of the
     respective States; and

     WHEREAS, the experience of a century has shown that the personal
     right of self-government inhering in each individual, is wholly
     insecure under the control of thirty-eight varying deliberative
     bodies; and

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

     _Resolved_, That it is the immediate and most important duty of
     the government to secure this right on a national basis to all
     citizens, independent of sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great unanimity was reached in these sentiments and the enthusiasm
manifested gave promise of earnest labor and more hopeful results.
It was felt that there was reason to thank God and take courage.

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

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

          WHEREAS, Thousands of women of the United States have
          petitioned congress for an amendment to the constitution
          allowing women the right of suffrage; and whereas, many of
          the representative women of the country favoring such
          amendment are present in the city and have requested to be
          heard before the Senate in advocacy of said amendment,

          _Resolved_, That at a session of the Senate, to be held on
          ----, said representative women, or such of them as may be
          designated for that purpose, may be heard before the Senate;
          but for one hour only.

     Mr. EDMUNDS demanded the regular order.

     Mr. SARGENT advocated the resolution, and urged immediate action,
     as delay would detain the women in the city at considerable
     expense to them. He thought the question not so intricate that
     senators require time for consideration whether or not the women
     should be heard.

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

     Mr. SARGENT gave notice that he would call up his resolution
     to-morrow, and reminded the senators that no rule was so sacred
     that it could not be set aside by unanimous consent.

On the next day there was a lively discussion, Senators Edmunds,
Thurman and Conkling insisting there was no precedent; Mr. Sargent,
assisted by Senators Burnside, Anthony and Dawes, reminding them
of several occasions when the Senate had extended similar
courtesies. The resolution was voted down--31 to 13.[24]

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

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

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

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

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

The convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January, 8, 9, 1878. The
house was filled to overflowing at the first session. A large
number of representative women occupied the platform.[25] In
opening the meeting the president, Dr. Clemence Lozier, gave a
résumé of the progress of the cause. Mrs. Stanton made an argument
on "National Protection for National Citizens."[26] Mrs. Lockwood
presented the following resolutions, which called out an amusing
debate on the "man idea"--that he can best represent the home, the
church, the State, the industries, etc., etc.:

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

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

A committee was appointed[27] and at once repaired to the
white-house, where they were pleasantly received by President
Hayes. After learning the object of their visit, the president
named the different classes of industries for which no
commissioners had been appointed, asked the ladies to nominate
their candidates, and assured them he would favor a representation
by women.

     Miss JULIA SMITH of Glastonbury, Conn., the veteran defender of
     the maxim of our fathers, "no taxation without representation,"
     narrated the experience of herself and her sister Abby with the
     tax-gatherers. They attended the town-meeting and protested
     against unjust taxation, but finally their cows went into the
     treasury to satisfy the tax-collector.

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

     LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE reviewed the work in New York in getting
     the bill through the legislature to appoint women on school
     boards, which was finally vetoed by Governor Robinson.

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

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

     MARY A. S. CAREY, a worthy representative of the District of
     Columbia, the first colored woman that ever edited a newspaper in
     the United States, and who had been a worker in the cause for
     twenty years, expressed her views on the question, and said the
     colored women would support whatever party would allow them their
     rights, be it Republican or Democratic.

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

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

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

     Dr. CAROLINE B. WINSLOW of Washington, referred to the speech of
     Mrs. Lawrence, saying she hoped God would bless her for having
     the courage to speak as she did. There is no greater reform than
     for man and woman to be true to the marital relations.

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

     The Rev. OLYMPIA BROWN said that if they wanted wisdom and
     prosperity in the nation, health and happiness in the home, they
     must give woman the power to purify her surroundings; the right
     to make the outside world fit for her children to live in. Who
     are more interested than mothers in the sanitary condition of our
     schools and streets, and in the moral atmosphere of our towns and
     cities?

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

     LAVINIA C. DUNDORE, introduced as the lady who had made
     application for an appointment as a constable and been refused,
     made a pithy address, in which she alluded to her recent
     disappointment.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE spoke of the influence of the church on
     woman's liberties, and then referred to a large number of law
     books--ancient and modern, ecclesiastical and lay--in which the
     liberties of woman were more or less abridged; the equality of
     sexes which obtained in Rome before the Christian era, and the
     gradual discrimination in favor of men which crept in with the
     growth of the church.

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

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

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

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

     WHEREAS, The essential elements of justice are already recognized
     in the constitution; and, whereas, our fathers proposed to
     establish a purely secular government in which all forms of
     religion should be equally protected, therefore,

     _Resolved_, That it is preëminently unjust to tax the property of
     widows and spinsters to its full value, while the clergy are made
     a privileged class by exempting from taxation $1,500 of their
     property in some States, while in all States parsonages and other
     church property, amounting to millions of dollars, are exempted,
     which, if fairly taxed, would greatly lighten the national debt,
     and thereby the burdens of the laboring masses.

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

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

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

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

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

     ARTICLE 16, SEC. 1.--The right of citizens of the United States
     to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
     by any State on account of sex.

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

The Committee on Privileges and Elections granted hearings to the
National Association on January 11, 12, when the delegates,[28]
representing the several States, made their respective arguments
and appeals. Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., president of the
association, first addressed the committee and read the following
extract from a recent letter from Victor Hugo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          ARTICLE 6.--This Constitution, and the laws of the United
          States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, ... shall
          be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
          State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution
          or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

          ARTICLE 14, SEC. 1.--All persons born or naturalized in the
          United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
          citizens of the United States.... No State shall make or
          enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and
          immunities of citizens of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          ARTICLE 16.--The right of suffrage in the United States
          shall be based on citizenship, and shall be regulated by
          Congress, and all citizens of the United States, whether
          native or naturalized, shall enjoy this right equally,
          without any distinction or discrimination whatever founded
          on sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Jefferson said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     It is founded, therefore, on the fourfold combination of
     principles perfectly incompatible and eternally excluding each
     other; founded for the purpose of equally preserving these
     principles in spite of their incompatibility, and of carrying
     out their practical results--in other words, for the purpose of
     making an impossible thing possible. And a century of discussion
     has not yet made the constitution understood. It has no settled
     interpretation. Being a series of compromises, it can be
     expounded in favor of many directly opposite principles.

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

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

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

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

     On the other hand, what is centralization?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     There is no reason why the people of to-day should be governed by
     the laws and constitutions of men long since dead and buried.
     Surely those who understand the vital issues of this hour are
     better able to legislate for the living present than those who
     governed a hundred years ago. If the nineteenth century is to be
     governed by the opinions of the eighteenth, and the twentieth by
     the nineteenth, the world will always be governed by dead men....

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

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

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

     In closing, let me remind you, gentlemen, that woman has not been
     a heedless spectator of all the great events of the century, nor
     a dull listener to the grand debates on human freedom and
     equality. She has learned the lesson of self-sacrifice,
     self-discipline, and self-government in the same school with the
     heroes of American liberty.[29]

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, of New York, corresponding secretary of the
     association, said: _Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
     Committee_--You have heard the general argument for woman from
     Mrs. Stanton, but there are women here from all parts of the
     Union, and each one feels that she must say a word to show how
     united we stand. It is because we have respect for law that we
     come before you to-day. We recognize the fact that in good law
     lies the security of all our rights, but as woman has been denied
     the constructive rights of the declaration and constitution, she
     is obliged to ask for a direct recognition in the adoption of a
     sixteenth amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     _Resolved_, That the arguments upon the very important questions
     discussed before the committee have been presented with
     propriety, dignity and ability, and that the committee will
     consider the same on Tuesday next, at 10 A.M.

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

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

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

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

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

At the close of Miss Smith's remarks, Abby Hutchinson Patton sang
"Auld Lang Syne" in a very effective manner; one or two readings
followed, a few modern ballads were sung, and thus closed the
first of the many delightful receptions given by Mr. and Mrs.
Spofford to the officers and members of the National Association.

Mrs. Hooker spent several weeks at the Riggs House, holding
frequent woman suffrage conversazioni in its elegant parlors; also
speaking upon the question at receptions given in her honor by the
wives of members of congress, or residents of Washington.[31]

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

     _To the Editor of the Post:_

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

                                             Mrs. DAHLGREN.


                         EUTAW PLACE, BALTIMORE, January, 30, 1871.

     _To Mrs. Beecher Hooker:_

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

                         Yours respectfully,
                                             ALMIRA LINCOLN PHELPS.

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

                                   WASHINGTON, January 15, 1878.

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

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

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

                                   Yours sincerely,
                                         ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER.

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

     _To the Honorable Committee on Privileges and Elections:_

     GENTLEMEN--Allow me, in courtesy, as a petitioner, to present one
     or two considerations regarding a sixteenth amendment, by which
     it is proposed to confer the right of suffrage upon the women of
     the United States. I ask this favor also in the interests of the
     masses of silent women, whose silence does not give consent, but
     who, in most modest earnestness, deprecate having the political
     life forced upon them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                   Very respectfully,
                                          MADELEINE VINTON DAHLGREN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On January 30 the House Judiciary Committee granted Mrs. Hooker a
hearing. Of the eleven members of the committee nearly all were
present.[32] The room and all the corridors leading to it were
crowded with men and women eager to hear Mrs. Hooker's speech. At
the close of the two hours occupied in its delivery, Chairman Knott
thanked her in the name of the committee for her able argument.

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

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

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

By request of a large number of the senators,[33] the Committee on
Privileges and Elections granted a special hearing to Mrs. Hooker
on Washington's birthday--February 22, 1878. It being understood
that the wives of the senators were bringing all the forces of
fashionable society to bear in aid of Mrs. Dahlgren's protest
against the pending sixteenth amendment, the officers of the
National Association issued cards of invitation asking their
presence at this hearing. We copy from the Washington _Post_:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
          subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are _citizens_ of the
          United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
          shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
          privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
          Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or
          property without due process of law, nor deny to any person
          within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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

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

     Article 4 of the constitution says:

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

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

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

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

          RULE NO. 2.--_Attorneys_: It shall be requisite to the
          admission of attorneys or counselors to practice in this
          court, that they shall have been such for three years past
          in the Supreme Courts of the States to which they
          respectively belong, and that their private and professional
          character shall appear to be fair.

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

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

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

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

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

     Queen Elizabeth held the great seal at three several times during
     her remarkable reign. After the death of Lord-keeper Bacon she
     presided for two months in the _Aula Regia_.

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

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

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

Mrs. Lockwood's bill, with Senator Edmond's adverse report, was
reached on the Senate calendar April 22, 1878, and provoked a
spirited discussion. Hon. A. A. Sargent, made a gallant fight in
favor of the bill, introducing the following amendment:

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

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

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

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

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

     Mr. GARLAND: I wish to ask one question of the senator from
     California. Suppose the court should exclude women, but not on
     account of sex, then what is their remedy?

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

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

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

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

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

     Mr. SARGENT: I have the promise of the chairman of the committee
     that the bill will soon be reported back, and therefore I am
     willing that it go to the committee, and I make the motion that
     it be recommitted. [The motion was agreed to.]

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

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

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

     Hon. BAINBRIDGE WADLEIGH--_Dear Sir_: The more I think of it the
     more I regret that, as chairman of the Committee on Privileges
     and Elections, you regard with less favor the enfranchisement of
     women than did your distinguished predecessor, Senator Morton. At
     this moment, when your committee is discussing that subject, I
     sigh for the large outlook, the just mind, the unselfish decision
     of that great legislator. You were his friend, you respected his
     intellect, you believed in his integrity, you sit in his seat.
     You are to prepare the report that he would prepare were he still
     upon the earth. May I ask you to bring to that labor as fair a
     spirit, as unprejudiced an outlook, as just a decision as he
     would have done?

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

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

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

                              Your friend,            MARY CLEMMER.

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

     _The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred
     the Resolution (S. Res. 12) proposing an Amendment to the
     Constitution of the United States, and certain Petitions for and
     Remonstrances against the same, make the following Report:_

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

[Illustration: Marilla M. Ricker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the most severe judgment upon Mr. Wadleigh's action came from
his own constituents, who, at the close of the forty-fifth congress
excused his further presence in the United States Senate, sending
in his stead the Hon. Henry W. Blair, a valiant champion of
national protection for national citizens.[37]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulatory letters[39] and telegrams were received from all
portions of the United States and from the old world. Space admits
the publication of but a few, yet all breathed the same hopeful
spirit and confidence in future success. Abigail Bush, who presided
over the first Rochester convention, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

     * * * I beg to offer to the venerable pioneers of the movement,
     more especially to Lucretia Mott, a tribute of respectful
     admiration and gratitude for the services they have rendered in
     the cause of enfranchisement. * * * As regards the United
     kingdom, the movement in a practical form is but twelve years
     old, and in that period, although we have not obtained the
     parliamentary franchise, we have seen it supported by at least
     one-third of the House of Commons, and our claim admitted as one
     which must be dealt with in future measures of parliamentary
     reform. We have obtained the municipal franchise and the
     school-board franchise. Women have secured the right to enter the
     medical profession and to take degrees in the University of
     London, besides considerable amendment of the law regarding
     married women, though much remains to be done.

Senator Sargent, since minister to Berlin, wrote:

     I regret that the necessity to proceed at once to California will
     deprive me of the pleasure of attending your convention of July
     19, the anniversary of the spirited declaration of rights put
     forth thirty years ago by some of the noblest and most
     enlightened women of America. Women's rights have made vast
     strides since that day, in juster legislation, in widened spheres
     of employment, and in the gradual but certain recognition by
     large numbers of citizens of the justice and policy of extending
     the elective franchise to women. It is now very generally
     conceded that the time is rapidly approaching when women will
     vote. The friends of the movement have faith in the result; its
     enemies grudgingly admit it. Courage and work will hasten the
     day. The worst difficulties have already been overcome. The
     movement has passed the stage of ridicule, and even that of
     abuse, and has entered that of intelligent discussion, its worst
     adversaries treating it with respect. You are so familiar with
     all the arguments in favor of this great reform that I will not
     attempt to state them; but I wish to say that as an observer of
     public events, it is my deliberate judgment that your triumph is
     near at hand. There are vastly more men and women in the United
     States now who believe that women should have the right to vote
     than there were in 1848 who believed the slave should be freed.
     This is a government of opinions and the growing opinion will be
     irresistible.

                              Respectfully yours,      A. A. SARGENT.

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

                                   BOSTON, June 30, 1878.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY--Your urgent and welcome letter, inviting me
     to the thirtieth anniversary of the woman's rights movement at
     Rochester, came yesterday. Most earnestly do I wish I could be
     present to help mark this epoch in our movement, and join in
     congratulating the friends on the marvelous results of their
     labors. No reform has gathered more devoted and self-sacrificing
     friends. No one has had lives more generously given to its
     service; and you who have borne such heavy burdens may well
     rejoice in the large harvest; for no reform has, I think, had
     such rapid success. You who remember the indifference which
     almost discouraged us in 1848, and who have so bravely faced
     ungenerous opposition and insult since, must look back on the
     result with unmixed astonishment and delight. Temperance, and
     finance--which is but another name for the labor movement--and
     woman's rights, are three radical questions which overtop all
     others in value and importance. Woman's claim for the ballot-box
     has had a much wider influence than merely to protect woman.
     Universal suffrage is itself in danger. Scholars dread it; social
     science and journalists attack it. The discussion of woman's
     claim has done much to reveal this danger, and rally patriotic
     and thoughtful men in defense. In many ways the agitation has
     educated the people. Its success shows that the masses are sound
     and healthy; and if we gain, in the coming fifteen years, half as
     much as we have in the last thirty, woman will hold spear and
     shield in her own hands. If I might presume to advise, I should
     say close up the ranks and write on our flag only one claim--the
     ballot. Everything helps us, and if we are united, success cannot
     long be delayed.

                                   Very cordially yours,
                                             WENDELL PHILLIPS.


                                        BOSTON, July 16, 1878.

     MY DEAR FRIEND--The thirtieth anniversary of the first woman's
     rights convention ever held with special reference to demanding
     the elective franchise irrespective of sex well deserves to be
     commemorated in the manner set forth in the call for the same, at
     Rochester, on the 19th instant. As a substitute for my personal
     attendance, I can only send a brief but warm congratulatory
     epistle on the cheering progress which the movement has made
     within the period named. For how widely different are the
     circumstances under which that convention was held, and those
     which attend the celebration of its third decade! Then, the
     assertion of civil and political equality, alike for men and
     women, excited widespread disgust and astonishment, as though it
     were a proposition to repeal the laws of nature, and literally to
     "turn the world upside down"; and it was ridiculed and
     caricatured as little short of lunacy. Now, it is a subject of
     increasing interest and grave consideration, from the Atlantic to
     the Pacific, and what at first appeared to be so foolish in
     pretension is admitted by all reflecting and candid minds to be
     deserving of the most respectful treatment. Then, its avowed
     friends, were indeed "few and far between," even among those
     disfranchised as the penalty of their womanhood. Now, they can be
     counted by tens of thousands, and their number is
     augmenting--foremost in intelligence, in weight of character, in
     strength of understanding, in manly and womanly development, and
     in all that goes to make up enlightened citizenship. Then, with
     rare exceptions, women were everywhere remanded to poverty and
     servile dependence, being precluded from following those
     avocations and engaging in those pursuits which make competency
     and independence not a difficult achievement. Now, there is
     scarcely any situation or profession, in the arrangements of
     society, to which they may not and do not aspire, and in which
     many of them are not usefully engaged; whether in new and varied
     industrial employment, in the arts and sciences, in the highest
     range of literature, in philosophic and mathematical
     investigations, in the professions of law, medicine, and
     divinity, in high scholarship, in educational training and
     supervision, in rhetoric and oratory, in the lyceum, or in
     discharging the official duties connected with the various
     departments of the State and national governments.

     Almost all barriers are down except that which prevents women
     from going to the polls to help decide who shall be the
     law-makers and what shall be the laws, so that the general
     welfare may be impartially consulted, and the blessings of
     freedom and equal rights be enjoyed by all. That barrier, too,
     must give way wherever erected, as sure as time outlasts and
     baffles every device of wrong-doing, and truth is stronger than
     falsehood, and the law of eternal justice is as reliable as the
     law of gravitation. Yes! the grand fundamental truths of the
     Declaration of Independence shall yet be reduced to practice in
     our land--that the human race are created free and equal; that
     government derives its just powers from the consent of the
     governed, and that taxation without representation is tyranny.
     And I confidently predict that this will be witnessed before the
     expiration of another decade.

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

Mrs. Mott never seemed more hopeful for the triumph of our
principles than on this occasion. She expressed great satisfaction
in the number of young women who for the first time that day graced
our platform.[40] Though in her eighty-sixth year, her enthusiasm
in the cause for which she had so long labored seemed still
unabated, and her eye sparkled with humor as of yore while giving
some amusing reminiscences of encounters with opponents in the
early days. Always apt in biblical quotations she had proved
herself a worthy antagonist of the clergy on our platform. She had
slain many Abimelechs with short texts of Scripture, whose defeat
was the more humiliating because received at the hand of a woman.
As she recounted in her happiest vein the triumphs of her
coadjutors she was received with the heartiest manifestations of
delight by her auditors. She took a lively interest in the
discussion of the resolutions that had been presented by the
chairman of the committee, Matilda Joslyn Gage:

     _Resolved_, That a government of the people, by the people and
     for the people is yet to be realized; for that which is formed,
     administered and controlled only by men, is practically nothing
     more than an enlarged oligarchy, whose assumptions of natural
     superiority and of the right to rule are as baseless as those
     enforced by the aristocratic powers of the old world.

     _Resolved_, That in celebrating our third decade we have reason
     to congratulate ourselves on the marked change in woman's
     position--in her enlarged opportunities for education and labor,
     her greater freedom under improved social customs and civil laws,
     and the promise of her speedy enfranchisement in the minor
     political rights she has already secured.

     _Resolved_, That the International Congress[41] called in Paris,
     July 20, to discuss the rights of woman--the eminent Victor Hugo,
     its presiding officer--is one of the most encouraging events of
     the century, in that statesmen and scholars from all parts of the
     world, amid the excitement of the French Exposition, propose to
     give five days to deliberations upon this question.

     _Resolved_, That the majority report of the chairman of the
     Committee on Privileges and Elections, Senator Wadleigh of New
     Hampshire, against a sixteenth amendment to secure the political
     rights of woman in its weakness, shows the strength of our
     reform.

     _Resolved_, That the national effort to force citizenship on the
     Indians, the decision of Judge Sawyer in the United States
     Circuit Court of California against the naturalization of the
     Chinese, and the refusal of congress to secure the right of
     suffrage to women, are class legislation, dangerous to the
     stability of our institutions.

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

     _Resolved_, That the problems of labor, finance, suffrage,
     international rights, internal improvements, and other great
     questions, can never be satisfactorily adjusted without the
     enlightened thought of woman, and her voice in the councils of
     the nation.

     _Resolved_, That the question of capital and labor is one of
     special interest to us. Man, standing to woman in the position of
     capitalist, has robbed her through the ages of the results of her
     toil. No just settlement of this question can be attained until
     the right of woman to the proceeds of her labor in the family and
     elsewhere is recognized, and she is welcomed into every industry
     on the basis of equal pay for equal work.

     _Resolved_, That as the first duty of every individual is
     self-development, the lessons of self-sacrifice and obedience
     taught woman by the Christian church have been fatal, not only to
     her own vital interests, but through her, to those of the race.

     _Resolved_, That the great principle of the Protestant
     Reformation, the right of individual conscience and judgment
     heretofore exercised by man alone, should now be claimed by
     woman; that, in the interpretation of Scripture, she should be
     guided by her own reason, and not by the authority of the church.

     _Resolved_, That it is through the perversion of the religious
     element in woman--playing upon her hopes and fears of the future,
     holding this life with all its high duties in abeyance to that
     which is to come--that she and the children she has trained have
     been so completely subjugated by priestcraft and superstition.

This was the last convention ever attended by Lucretia Mott. Her
family had specially requested that she should not be urged to go;
but on seeing the call, she quietly announced her intention to be
at the meeting, and, with the ever faithful Sarah Pugh as her
companion, she made the journey from Philadelphia in the intense
heat of those July days. Mrs. Mott was the guest of her husband's
nephew, Dr. E.M. Moore, who, fearing that his aunt would be utterly
exhausted, called for her while she was in the midst of her closing
remarks. As she descended the platform, she continued speaking
while she slowly moved down the aisle, shaking hands upon either
side. The audience simultaneously rose, and on behalf of all,
Frederick Douglass ejaculated, "Good-by, dear Lucretia!"

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

One amusing encounter in the course of the debate is worthy of
note. Perhaps it was due to the intense heat that Mr. Douglass,
usually clear on questions of principle, was misled into opposing
the resolutions. He spoke with great feeling and religious
sentiment of the beautiful Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice.
When he finished, Mrs. Lucy Coleman, always keen in pricking
bubbles, arose and said: "Well, Mr. Douglass, all you say may be
true; but allow me to ask you why you did not remain a slave in
Maryland, and sacrifice yourself, like a Christian, to your master,
instead of running off to Canada to secure your liberty, like a
man? We shall judge your faith, Frederick, by your deeds."

An immense audience assembled at Corinthian Hall in the evening to
listen to the closing speeches[43] of the convention. Mrs. Robinson
of Boston gave an exhaustive review of the work in Massachusetts,
and her daughter, Mrs. Shattuck, gave many amusing experiences as
her father's[44] clerk in the legislature of that State.

The resolutions provoked many attacks from the clergy throughout
the State, led by Rev. A.H. Strong, D.D., president of the Baptist
Theological Seminary in Rochester, Of his sermon the _National
Citizen_ said:

     None too soon have we issued our resolutions, proclaiming woman's
     right to self-development--to interpret Scripture for herself, to
     use her own faculties. In speaking of what Christianity has done
     for woman, Dr. Strong stultifies his own assertions by referring
     to Switzerland and Germany "where you may see any day hundreds of
     women wheeling earth for railroad embankments." Does he not
     remember that Switzerland and Germany are Christian countries and
     that it is part of their civilization that while women do this
     work, some man takes the pay and puts it in his own pocket quite
     in heathen fashion? The reverend doctor in the usual style of
     opposition to woman--which is to quote something or other having
     no bearing upon the question--refers to Cornelia's "jewels,"
     forgetting to say that Cornelia delivered public lectures upon
     philosophy in Rome, and that Cicero paid the very highest tribute
     to her learning and genius.

     Dr. Strong advocates the old theory that woman and man are not
     two classes standing upon the same level, but that the two are
     one--that one on the time-worn theory of common law, the husband;
     and talks of the "dignity and delicacy of woman" being due to the
     fact of her not having been in public life, and that this
     "dignity and delicacy" would all evaporate if once she were
     allowed to vote, which reminds one of the story of Baron
     Munchausen's horn, into which a certain coach-driver blew all
     manner of wicked tunes. The weather being very cold, these tunes
     remained frozen in the horn. When hung by the fire, the horn
     began to thaw out, and these wicked tunes came pealing forth to
     the great amazement of the by-standers. The reverend gentlemen
     seems to think women are full of frozen wickedness, which if they
     enter public life will be thawed out to the utter demolition of
     their "dignity and delicacy" and the disgust of society. He deems
     it "too hazardous" to allow women to vote. "Bad women would
     vote." Well, what of it? Have they not equal right with bad men,
     to self-government? Bad is a relative term. It strikes us that
     the very reverend Dr. Strong is a "bad" man--a man who does not
     understand true Christianity--who is not just--who would strike
     those who are down--who would keep woman in slavery--who quotes
     the Bible as his authority: thus fettering woman's conscience,
     binding her will, and playing upon her hopes and fears to keep
     her in subjection.

     From Augustine, down, theologians have tried to compel people to
     accept their special interpretation of the Scripture, and the
     tortures of the inquisition, the rack, the thumb-screw, the
     stake, the persecutions of witchcraft, the whipping of naked
     women through the streets of Boston, banishment, trials for
     heresy, the halter about Garrison's neck, Lovejoy's death, the
     branding of Captain Walker, shouts of infidel and atheist, have
     all been for this purpose.

     We know the ignorance that exists upon these points. Few have yet
     begun to comprehend the influence that ecclesiasticism has had
     upon law. Wharton, a recognized authority upon criminal law,
     issued his seventh edition before he ascertained the vast bearing
     canon law had had upon the civil code, and we advise readers to
     consult the array of authorities, English, Latin, German, to
     which he, in his preface, refers. We hope to arouse attention
     and compel investigation of this subject by lawyers and
     theologians as well as by women themselves.

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

     These resolutions we have read with astonishment, admiration and
     delight. We should not have believed it possible that the
     convention could have been induced to adopt them. They will make
     forever memorable in the history of the organized woman movement,
     this thirtieth anniversary of its birth. They put the National
     Woman Suffrage Association in an inconceivably higher and nobler
     position than that occupied by any similar society. They go to
     the very root of the matter. They are a bold, dignified, and
     magnificent utterance. We congratulate the convention on a record
     so splendid in the eyes of all true liberals. From this day forth
     the whole woman movement must obey the inspiration of a higher
     courage and a grander spirit than have been known to its past.
     Opposition must be encountered, tenfold more bitter than was ever
     yet experienced. But truth is on the side of these brave women;
     the ringing words they have spoken at Rochester will thrill many
     a doubting heart and be echoed far down the long avenue of the
     years.

During the same week of the Rochester convention, the Paris
International Congress opened it sessions, sending us a telegram of
greeting to which we responded with two hundred and fifty francs as
a tangible evidence of our best wishes. The two remarkable features
of that congress were the promise of so distinguished a man as
Victor Hugo to preside over its deliberations, though at last
prevented by illness; and the fact that the Italian government sent
Mlle. Mozzoni as an official delegate to the congress to study the
civil position of woman in various countries, in order that an
ameliorating change of its code, in respect to woman, could be
wisely made.

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

     In one important respect this congress differed entirely from an
     American convention of like character--it made no demand for
     suffrage. The word was never mentioned except by the American
     delegates. In continental Europe the idea of demanding for woman
     a share in the government, is never considered. This is the more
     remarkable in France, as this claim was made at the time of the
     revolution. But every imaginable side of the question was
     discussed, except the side that comprehends all the others. To an
     American, therefore, European woman's rights is rather tame; it
     is like the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. But Europe is
     moving, and the next international congress will, undoubtedly,
     give more attention to suffrage and less to hygiene.

The Eleventh Washington Convention was held January 9, 10, 1879.
The resolutions give an idea of the status of the question, and the
wide range of discussion covered by the speakers:[45]

     _Resolved_, That the forty-fifth congress, in ignoring the
     individual petitions of more than three hundred women of high
     social standing and culture, asking for the removal of their
     political disabilities, while promptly enacting special
     legislation for the removal of the political disabilities of
     every man who petitioned, furnishes an illustration of the
     indifference of this congress to the rights of citizens deprived
     of political power.

     WHEREAS, Senator Blaine says, it is the very essence of tyranny
     to count any citizens in the basis of representation who are
     denied a voice in their laws and a choice in their rulers;
     therefore,

     _Resolved_, That counting women in the basis of representation,
     while denying them the right of suffrage, is compelling them to
     swell the number of their tyrants and is an unwarrantable
     usurpation of power over one-half the citizens of this republic.

     WHEREAS, In President Hayes' last message, he makes a truly
     paternal review of the interests of this republic, both great and
     small, from the army, the navy, and our foreign relations, to the
     ten little Indians in Hampton, Va., our timber on the western
     mountains, and the switches of the Washington railroads; from the
     Paris Exposition, the postal service, the abundant harvests, and
     the possible bull-dozing of some colored men in various southern
     districts, to cruelty to live animals, and the crowded condition
     of the mummies, dead ducks and fishes in the Smithsonian
     Institute--yet forgets to mention twenty million women robbed of
     their social, civil and political rights; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That a committee of three be appointed from this
     convention to wait upon the president and remind him of the
     existence of one-half of the American people whom he has
     accidentally overlooked, and of whom it would be wise for him to
     make some mention in his future messages.

     WHEREAS, All of the vital principles involved in the thirteenth,
     fourteenth and fifteenth constitutional amendments have been
     denied in their application to women by courts, legislatures and
     political parties; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That it is logical that these amendments should fail
     to protect even the male African for whom said courts,
     legislatures and parties declare they were expressly designed and
     enacted.

     _Resolved_, That the judges of the Supreme Court of the United
     States in denying Belva A. Lockwood admission to its bar, while
     she was entitled under the law and under its rules to that right,
     violated their oath of office.

     _Resolved_, That the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Edmonds
     chairman, in its report on the bill to allow women to practice
     law in the courts of the United States in which it declares that
     "further legislation is not necessary," evaded the plain question
     at issue before it in a manner unworthy of judges learned in the
     honorable profession of the law, and thereby sanctioned an
     injustice to the women of the whole country.

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

     _Resolved_, That it should forbear to exercise federal power to
     disfranchise the women of Utah, who have had a more just and
     liberal spirit shown them by Mormon men than Gentile women in the
     States have yet perceived in their rulers.

     WHEREAS, The proposed legislation for the Chinese women on the
     Pacific slope and for outcast women in our cities, and the
     opinion of the press that no respectable woman should be seen in
     the streets after dark, are all based upon the presumption that
     woman's freedom must be forever sacrificed to man's licence;
     therefore,

     _Resolved_, That the ballot in woman's hand is the only power by
     which she can restrain the liberty of those men who make our
     streets and highways dangerous to her, and secure the freedom
     that belongs to her by day and by night.


[Illustration: Frances E. Willard]


At the close of the convention it was decided at a meeting of the
executive committee to present an address to the president and both
houses of congress, and that a printed copy of the resolutions
should be laid on the desk of every member. The president having
granted a hearing,[46] the following address was presented:

     _To his Excellency, the President of the United States_:

     WHEREAS, Representatives of associations of women waited upon
     your excellency before the delivery of your first and second
     annual messages, asking that in those documents you would
     remember the disfranchised millions of citizens of the United
     States; and,

     WHEREAS, Upon careful examination of those messages, we find
     therein specifically enumerated, the interests, great and small,
     of all classes of men, and recommendations of needful legislation
     to protect their civil and political rights, but find no mention
     made of any need of legislation to protect the political, civil,
     or social rights of one-half of the people of this republic, and,

     WHEREAS, There is pending in the Senate a constitutional
     amendment to prohibit the several States from disfranchising
     United States citizens on account of sex, and a similar amendment
     is pending upon a tie vote in the House Judiciary Committee; and
     as petitions to so amend the constitution have been presented to
     both houses of congress from more than 40,000 well-known citizens
     of thirty-five States and five territories,

     THEREFORE, we respectfully ask your excellency, in your next
     annual message, to make mention of the disfranchised millions of
     wives, mothers and daughters of this republic, and to recommend
     to congress that women equally with men be protected in the
     exercise of their civil and political rights.

     On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.

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

The delegates from the territory of Utah were also received by the
president. They called his attention to the effect of the
enforcement of the law of 1862 upon 50,000 Mormon women, to render
them outcasts and their children nameless, asking the chief
executive of the nation to give some time to the consideration of
the bill pending under different headings in both houses. The
president asked them to set forth the facts in writing, that he
might carefully weigh so important a matter. A memorial was also
presented to congress by these ladies, closing thus:

     We further pray that in any future legislation concerning the
     marriage relation in any territory under your jurisdiction you
     will consider the rights and the consciences of the women to be
     affected by such legislation, and that you will consider the
     permanent care and welfare of children as the sure foundation of
     the State.

     And your petitioners will ever pray.

                                   EMMELINE B. WELLS.
                                   ZINA YOUNG WILLIAMS.

Mr. Cannon of Utah moved that the memorial be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary with leave to report at any time. It was
so referred. The Judiciary Committee of the Senate brought in a
bill legitimatizing the offspring of plural marriages to a certain
date; also authorizing the president to grant amnesty for past
offenses against the law of 1862.

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

     The vice-president, Mr. Wheeler of New York, presented the
     petition of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Susan
     B. Anthony, officers of the National Association, praying for the
     passage of Senate joint resolution No. 12, providing for an
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States, protecting
     the rights of women, and also that the House Judiciary Committee
     be relieved from the further consideration of a similar
     resolution.

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

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

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

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

          WHEREAS, More than 40,000 men and women, citizens of
          thirty-five States and five territories, have petitioned the
          forty-fifth congress asking for an amendment to the federal
          constitution prohibiting the several States from
          disfranchising United States citizens on account of sex; and

          WHEREAS, A resolution providing for such constitutional
          amendment is upon the calendar (Senate resolution No. 12,
          second session forty-fifth congress), and a similar
          resolution is pending upon a tie vote in the Judiciary
          Committee of the House of Representatives; and

          WHEREAS, The women of the United States constitute one-half
          of the people of this republic and have an inalienable right
          to an equal voice with men in the nation's councils; and

          WHEREAS, Women being denied the right to have their opinions
          counted at the ballot-box, are compelled to hold all other
          rights subject to the favors and caprices of men; and

          WHEREAS, In answer to the appeals of so large a number of
          honorable petitioners, it is courteous that the forty-fifth
          congress should express its opinion upon this grave question
          of human rights; therefore,

          We pray your honorable body to take from the calendar and
          pass Senate resolution No. 12, providing for an amendment to
          the constitution protecting the rights of women; and

          We further pray you to relieve the House Judiciary Committee
          from the further consideration of the woman suffrage
          resolution brought to a tie vote in that committee, February
          5, 1878, that it may be submitted to the House of
          Representatives for immediate action.

          And your petitioners will ever pray.

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.

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

At the opening of the last session of the forty-fifth congress most
earnest appeals (copies of which were sent to every member of
congress) came from all directions for the presentation of a
minority report from the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The
response from our representatives was prompt and most encouraging.
The first favorable report our question had ever received in the
Senate of the United States was presented by the Hon. George F.
Hoar, February 1, 1879:

     _The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Privileges and
     Elections, to whom were referred the resolution proposing an
     amendment to the constitution prohibiting discrimination in the
     right of suffrage on account of sex, and certain petitions in aid
     of the same, submit the following minority report:_

     The undersigned dissent from the report of the majority of the
     committee. The demand for the extension of the right of suffrage
     to women is not new. It has been supported by many persons in
     this country, in England and on the continent, famous in public
     life, in literature and in philosophy. But no single argument of
     its advocates seems to us to carry so great a persuasive force as
     the difficulty which its ablest opponents encounter in making a
     plausible statement of their objections. We trust we do not fail
     in deference to our esteemed associates on the committee when we
     avow our opinion that their report is no exception to this rule.

     The people of the United States and of the several States have
     founded their political institutions upon the principle that all
     men have an equal right to a share in the government. The
     doctrine is expressed in various forms. The Declaration of
     Independence asserts that "all men are created equal" and that
     "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
     governed." The Virginia bill of rights, the work of Jefferson and
     George Mason, affirms that "no man or set of men are entitled to
     exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the rest of
     the community but in consideration of public services." The
     Massachusetts bill of rights, the work of John Adams, besides
     reaffirming these axioms, declares that "all the inhabitants of
     this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall
     establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to
     elect officers, and to be elected for public employment." These
     principles, after full and profound discussion by a generation of
     statesmen whose authority upon these subjects is greater than
     that of any other that ever lived, have been accepted by
     substantially the whole American people as the dictates alike of
     practical wisdom and of natural justice. The experience of a
     hundred years has strengthened their hold upon the popular
     conviction. Our fathers failed in three particulars to carry
     these principles to their logical result. They required a
     property qualification for the right to vote and to hold office.
     They kept the negro in slavery. They excluded women from a share
     in the government. The first two of these inconsistencies have
     been remedied. The property test no longer exists. The fifteenth
     amendment provides that race, color, or previous servitude shall
     no longer be a disqualification. There are certain qualifications
     of age, of residence, and, in some instances of education,
     demanded; but these are such as all sane men may easily attain.

     This report is not the place to discuss or vindicate the
     correctness of this theory. In so far as the opponents of woman
     suffrage are driven to deny it, for the purpose of an argument
     addressed to the American people, they are driven to confess that
     they are in the wrong. This people are committed to the doctrine
     of universal suffrage by their constitutions, their history and
     their opinions. They must stand by it or fall by it. The poorest,
     humblest, feeblest of sane men has the ballot in his hand, and no
     other man can show a better title to it. Those things wherein men
     are unequal--intelligence, ability, integrity, experience, title
     to public confidence by reason of previous public service--have
     their natural and legitimate influence under a government wherein
     each man's vote is counted, to quite as great a degree as under
     any other form of government that ever existed.

     We believe that the principle of universal suffrage stands to-day
     stronger than ever in the judgment of mankind. Some eminent and
     accomplished scholars, alarmed by the corruption and recklessness
     manifested in our great cities, deceived by exaggerated
     representations of the misgovernment of the Southern States by a
     race just emerging from slavery, disgusted by the extent to which
     great numbers of our fellow-citizens have gone astray in the
     metaphysical subtleties of financial discussion, have uttered
     their eloquent warnings of the danger of the failure of universal
     suffrage. Such utterances from such sources have been frequent.
     They were never more abundant than in the early part of the
     present century. They are, when made in a serious and patriotic
     spirit, to be received with the gratitude due to that greatest of
     public benefactors--he who points out to the people their dangers
     and their faults.

     But popular suffrage is to be tried not by comparison with ideal
     standards of excellence, but by comparison with other forms of
     government. We are willing to submit our century of it to this
     test. The crimes that have stained our history have come chiefly
     from its denial, not from its establishment. The misgovernment
     and corruption of our great cities have been largely due to men
     whose birth and training have been under other systems. The
     abuses attributed by political hostility to negro governments at
     the South--governments from which the intelligence and education
     of the State held themselves sulkily aloof--do not equal those
     which existed under the English or French aristocracy within the
     memory of living men. There have been crimes, blunders,
     corruptions, follies in the history of our republic. Aristides
     has been banished from public employment, while Cleon has been
     followed by admiring throngs. But few of these things have been
     due to the extension of the suffrage. Strike out of our history
     the crimes of slavery, strike out the crimes, unparalleled for
     ferocity and brutality, committed by an oligarchy in its attempt
     to overthrow universal suffrage, and we may safely challenge for
     our national and State governments comparison with monarchy or
     aristocracy in their best and purest periods.

     Either the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence and the
     bills of rights are true, or government must rest on no principle
     of right whatever, but its powers may be lawfully taken by force
     and held by force by any person or class who have strength to do
     it, and who persuade themselves that their rule is for the public
     interest. Either these doctrines are true, or you can give no
     reason for your own possession of the suffrage except that you
     have got it. If this doctrine be sound, it follows that no class
     of persons can rightfully be excluded from their equal share in
     the government, unless they can be proved to lack some quality
     essential to the proper exercise of political power.

     A person who votes helps, first, to determine the measures of
     government; second, to elect persons to be intrusted with public
     administration. He should therefore possess, first, an honest
     desire for the public welfare; second, sufficient intelligence to
     determine what measure or policy is best; third, the capacity to
     judge of the character of persons proposed for office; and,
     fourth, freedom from undue influence, so that the vote he casts
     is his own, and not another's. That person or class casting his
     or their own vote, with an honest desire for the public welfare,
     and with sufficient intelligence to judge what measure is
     advisable and what person may be trusted, fulfill every condition
     that the State can rightfully impose.

     We are not now dealing with the considerations which should
     affect the admission of citizens of other countries to acquire
     the right to take part in our government. All nations claim the
     right to impose restrictions on the admission of foreigners
     trained in attachment to other countries or forms of rule, and to
     indifference to their own, whatever they deem the safety of the
     State requires. We take it for granted that no person will deny
     that the women of America are inspired with a love of country
     equal to that which animates their brothers and sons. A capacity
     to judge of character, so sure and rapid as to be termed
     intuitive, is an especial attribute of woman. One of the greatest
     orators of modern times has declared:

          I concede away nothing which I ought to assert for our sex
          when I say that the collective womanhood of a people like
          our own seizes with matchless facility and certainty on the
          moral and personal peculiarities and character of marked and
          conspicuous men, and that we may very wisely address
          ourselves to such a body to learn if a competitor for the
          highest honors has revealed that truly noble nature that
          entitled him to a place in the hearts of a nation.

     We believe that in that determining of public policies by the
     collective judgment of the State which constitutes
     self-government, the contribution of woman will be of great
     importance and value. To all questions into the determination of
     which considerations of justice or injustice enter, she will
     bring a more refined moral sense than that of man. The most
     important public function of the State is the provision for the
     education of youths. In those States in which the public school
     system has reached its highest excellence, more than ninety per
     cent. of the teachers are women. Certainly the vote of the women
     of the State should be counted in determining the policy that
     shall regulate the school system which they are called to
     administer.

     It is seldom that particular measures of government are decided
     by direct popular vote. They are more often discussed before the
     people after they have taken effect, when the party responsible
     for them is called to account. The great measures which go to
     make up the history of nations are determined not by the voters,
     but by their rulers, whether those rulers be hereditary or
     elected. The plans of great campaigns are conceived by men of
     great military genius and executed by great generals. Great
     systems of finance come from the brain of statesmen who have made
     finance a special study. The mass of the voters decide to which
     party they will intrust power. They do not determine particulars.
     But they give to parties their general tone and direction, and
     hold them to their accountability. We believe that woman will
     give to the political parties of the country a moral temperament
     which will have a most beneficent and ennobling effect on
     politics.

     Woman, also, is specially fitted for the performance of that
     function of legislative and executive government which, with the
     growth of civilization, becomes yearly more and more
     important--the wise and practical economic adjustment of the
     details of public expenditures. It may be considered that it
     would not be for the public interest to clothe with the suffrage
     any class of persons who are so dependent that they will, as a
     general rule, be governed by others in its exercise. But we do
     not admit that this is true of women. We see no reason to believe
     that women will not be as likely to retain their independence of
     political judgment, as they now retain their independence of
     opinion in regard to the questions which divide religious sects
     from one another. These questions deeply excite the feelings of
     mankind, yet experience shows that the influence of the wife is
     at least as great as that of the husband in determining the
     religious opinion of the household. The natural influence exerted
     by members of the same family upon each other would doubtless
     operate to bring about similarity of opinion on political
     questions as on others. So far as this tends to increase the
     influence of the family in the State, as compared with that of
     unmarried men, we deem it an advantage. Upon all questions which
     touch public morals, public education, all which concern the
     interest of the household, such a united exertion of political
     influence cannot be otherwise than beneficial.

     Our conclusion, then, is that the American people must extend the
     right of suffrage to woman or abandon the idea that suffrage is a
     birthright. The claim that universal suffrage will work mischief
     in practice is simply a claim that justice will work mischief in
     practice. Many honest and excellent persons, while admitting the
     force of the arguments above stated, fear that taking part in
     politics will destroy those feminine traits which are the charm
     of woman, and are the chief comfort and delight of the household.
     If we thought so we should agree with the majority of the
     committee in withholding assent to the prayer of the petitioners.
     This fear is the result of treating the abuses of the political
     function as essential to its exercise. The study of political
     questions, the forming an estimate of the character of public men
     or public measures, the casting a vote, which is the result of
     that study and estimate, certainly have in themselves nothing to
     degrade the most delicate and refined nature. The violence, the
     fraud, the crime, the chicanery, which, so far as they have
     attended masculine struggles for political power, tend to prove,
     if they prove anything, the unfitness of men for the suffrage,
     are not the result of the act of voting, but are the expressions
     of course, criminal and evil natures, excited by the desire for
     victory. The admission to the polls of delicate and tender women
     would, without injury to them, tend to refine and elevate the
     politics in which they took a part. When, in former times, women
     were excluded from social banquets, such assemblies were scenes
     of ribaldry and excess. The presence of women has substituted for
     them the festival of the Christian home.

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

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

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

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

          _Fourth_--They are incapable of military duty.

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

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

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

          _Eighth_--There are but thirty thousand petitioners.

          _Ninth_--It would be unjust to impose "the heavy burden of
          governing, which so many men seek to evade, on the great
          mass of women who do not wish for it, to gratify the few who
          do."

          _Tenth_--Women now have the sympathy of judges and juries
          "to an extent which would warrant loud complaint on the part
          of their adversaries of the sterner sex."

          _Eleventh_--Such a change should be made, if at all, by the
          States. Three-fourths of the States should not force it on
          the others. In any State in which "any considerable part of
          the women wish for the right to vote, it will be granted
          without the intervention of congress."

     The first objection of the committee is to the large increase of
     the number of the voting population. We believe on the other
     hand, that to double the numbers of the constituent body, and to
     compose one-half that body of women, would tend to elevate the
     standard of the representative both for ability and manly
     character. Macaulay in one of his speeches on the Reform bill
     refers to the quality of the men who had for half a century been
     members for the five most numerous constituencies in
     England--Westminster, Southwark, Liverpool, Bristol and Norwich.
     Among them were Burke, Fox, Sheridan, Romilly, Windham, Tierney,
     Canning, Huskisson. Eight of the nine greatest men who had sat in
     parliament for forty years sat for the five largest represented
     towns. To increase the numbers of constituencies diminishes the
     opportunity for corruption. Size is itself a conservative force
     in a republic. As a permanent general rule the people will desire
     their own best interest. Disturbing forces, evil and selfish
     passions, personal ambitions, are necessarily restricted in their
     operation. The larger the field of operation, the more likely are
     such influences to neutralize each other.

     The objection of inexperience in public affairs applies, of
     course, alike to every voter when he first votes. If it be valid,
     it would have prevented any extension of the suffrage, and would
     exclude from the franchise a very large number of masculine
     voters of all ages.

     That women are quite generally dependent on the other sex is
     true. So it is true that men are quite generally dependent on the
     other sex. It is impossible so to measure this dependence as to
     declare that man is more dependent on woman or woman upon man. It
     is by no means true that the dependence of either on the other
     affects the right to the suffrage.

     Capacity for military duty has no connection with capacity for
     suffrage. The former is wholly physical. It will scarcely be
     proposed to disfranchise men who are unfit to be soldiers by
     reason of age or bodily infirmity. The suggestion that the
     country may be plunged into wars by a majority of women who are
     secure from military dangers is not founded in experience. Men of
     the military profession, and men of the military age are commonly
     quite as eager for war as non-combatants, and will hereafter be
     quite as indifferent to its risks and hardships as their mothers
     and wives.

     The argument that women are without the power to enforce the laws
     which their numerical strength may enable them to make, proceeds
     from the supposition that it is probable that all the women will
     range themselves upon one side in politics and all the men on the
     other. Such supposition flatly contradicts the other arguments
     drawn from the dependence of women and from their alleged
     unwillingness to assume political burdens. So men over fifty
     years of age are without the power to enforce obedience to laws
     against which the remainder of the voters forcibly rebel. It is
     not physical power alone, but power aided by the respect for law
     of the people, on which laws depend for their enforcement.

     The sixth, eighth and ninth reasons of the committee are the same
     proposition differently stated. It is that a share in the
     government of the country is a burden, and one which, in the
     judgment of a majority of the women of the country, they ought
     not to be required to assume. If any citizen deem the exercise of
     this franchise a burden and not a privilege, such person is under
     no constraint to exercise it. But if it be a birthright, then it
     is obvious that no other power than that of the individual
     concerned can rightfully restrain its exercise. The committee
     concede that women ought to be clothed with the ballot in any
     State where any considerable part of the women desire it. This is
     a pretty serious confession. On the vital, fundamental question
     whether the institutions of this country shall be so far changed
     that the number of persons in it who take a part in the
     government shall be doubled, the judgment of women is to be and
     ought to be decisive. If woman may fitly determine this question,
     for what question of public policy is she unfit? What question of
     equal importance will ever be submitted to her decision? What has
     become of the argument that women are unfit to vote because they
     are dependent on men, or because they are unfit for military
     duty, or because they are inexperienced, or because they are
     without power to enforce obedience to their laws?

     The next argument is that by the present arrangement the
     administration of justice is so far perverted that one-half the
     citizens of the country have an advantage from the sympathies of
     juries and judges which "would warrant loud complaint" on the
     part of the other half. If this be true, it is doubtless due to
     an instinctive feeling on the part of juries and judges that
     existing laws and institutions are unjust to women, or to the
     fact that juries composed wholly of men are led to do injustice
     by their susceptibility to the attractions of women. But
     certainly it is a grave defect in any system of government that
     it does not administer justice impartially, and the existence of
     such a defect is a strong reason for preferring an arrangement
     which would remove the feeling that women do not have fair play,
     or for so composing juries that, drawn from both sexes, they
     would be impartial between the two.

     The final objection of the committee is that "such a change
     should be made, if at all, by the States. Three-fourths of the
     States should not force it upon the others. Whenever any
     considerable part of the women in any State wish for the right to
     vote, it will be granted without the intervention of congress."
     Who can doubt that when two-thirds of congress and three-fourths
     of the States have voted for the change, a considerable number of
     women in the other States will be found to desire it, so that,
     according to the committee's own belief, it can never be forced
     by a majority on unwilling communities? The prevention of unjust
     discrimination by States against large classes of people in
     respect to suffrage is even admitted to be a matter of national
     concern and an important function of the national constitution
     and laws. It is the duty of congress to propose amendments to the
     constitution whenever two-thirds of both houses deem them
     necessary. Certainly an amendment will be deemed necessary, if it
     can be shown to be required by the principles on which the
     constitution is based, and to remove an unjust disfranchisement
     from one-half the citizens of the country. The constitutional
     evidence of general public demand is to be found not in
     petitions, but in the assent of three-fourths of the States
     through their legislatures or conventions.

     The lessons of experience favor the conclusion that woman is fit
     for a share in government. It may be true that in certain
     departments of intellectual effort the greatest achievements of
     women have as yet never equaled the greatest achievements of
     men. But it is equally true that in those same departments women
     have exhibited an intellectual ability very far beyond that of
     the average of men and very far beyond that of most men who have
     shown very great political capacity. But let the comparison be
     made in regard to the very thing with which we have to deal. Of
     men who have swayed chief executive power, a very considerable
     proportion have attained it by usurpation or by election,
     processes which imply extraordinary capacity on their part as
     compared with other men. The women who have held such power have
     come to it as sovereigns by inheritance, or as regents by the
     accident of bearing a particular relation to the lawful sovereign
     when he was under some incapacity. Yet it is an undisputed fact
     that the number of able and successful female sovereigns bears a
     vastly greater proportion to the whole number of such sovereigns,
     than does the number of able and successful male sovereigns to
     the whole number of men who have reigned. An able, energetic,
     virtuous king or emperor is the exception and not the rule in the
     history of modern Europe. With hardly an exception the female
     sovereigns or regents have been wise and popular. Mr. Mill, who
     makes this point, says:

          We know how small a number of reigning queens history
          presents in comparison with that of kings. Of this small
          number a far larger proportion have shown talents for rule,
          though many of them have occupied the throne in difficult
          periods. When to queens and empresses we add regents and
          viceroys of provinces, the list of women who have been
          eminent rulers of mankind swells to a great length....
          Especially is this true if we take into consideration Asia
          as well as Europe. If a Hindoo principality is strongly,
          vigilantly and economically governed; if order is preserved
          without oppression; if cultivation is extending and the
          people prosperous, in three cases out of four that
          principality is under a woman's rule. This fact, to me an
          entirely unexpected one, I have collected from a long
          official knowledge of Hindoo governments.

     Certainly history gives no warning that should deter the American
     people from carrying out the principles upon which their
     government rests to this most just and legitimate conclusion.
     Those persons who think that free government has anywhere failed,
     can only claim that this tends to prove, not the failure of
     universal suffrage, but the failure of masculine suffrage. Like
     failure has attended the operation of every other great human
     institution, the family, the school, the church, whenever woman
     has not been permitted to contribute to it her full share. As to
     the best example of the perfect family, the perfect school, the
     perfect church, the love, the purity, the truth of woman are
     essential, so they are equally essential to the perfect example
     of the self-governing State.

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

Thousands of copies of this report were published and franked to
every part of the country. On February 7, just one week after the
presentation of the able minority report, the bill allowing women
to practice before the Supreme Court passed the Senate[47] and
received the signature of President Hayes. Senators McDonald, Hoar
and Sargent made the principal speeches. We give Mr. Hoar's speech
in full because of its terse and vigorous presentation of the fact
that congress is a body superior to the Supreme Court of the United
States. Mr. Hoar said:

     _Mr. President_--I understand the brief statement which was made,
     I think, during this last session by the majority of the
     Judiciary Committee in support of their opposition to this bill,
     did not disclose that the majority of that committee were opposed
     to permitting women to engage in the practice of law or to be
     admitted to practice it in the Supreme Court of the United
     States, but the point they made, was that the legislation of the
     United States left to the Supreme Court the power of determining
     by rule who should be admitted to practice before that tribunal,
     and that we ought not by legislation to undertake to interfere
     with its rules. Now, with the greatest respect for that tribunal,
     I conceive that the law-making and not the law-expounding power
     in this government ought to determine the question what class of
     citizens shall be clothed with the office of the advocate. I
     believe that leaving to the Supreme Court by rule to determine
     the qualifications or disqualifications of attorneys and
     counselors in that court is an exception to the nearly uniform
     policy of the States of the Union. Would it be tolerated if the
     Supreme Court undertook by rule to establish any other
     disqualification, any of those disqualifications which have
     existed in regard to holding any other office in the country?
     Suppose the court were of the opinion we had been too fast in
     relieving persons who took part in the late rebellion from their
     disabilities, and that it would not admit persons who had so
     taken part to practice before the Supreme Court; is there any
     doubt that congress would at once interfere? Suppose the Supreme
     Court were of opinion that the people of the United States had
     erred in the amendment which had removed the disqualification
     from colored persons and declined to admit such persons to
     practice in that court; is there any doubt that congress would
     interfere and would deem it a fit occasion for the exercise of
     the law-making power?

     Now, Mr. President, this bill is not a bill merely to admit women
     to the privilege of engaging in a particular profession; it is a
     bill to secure to the citizen of the United States the right to
     select his counsel, and that is all. At present a case is tried
     and decided in the State courts of any State of this Union which
     may be removed to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the
     courts of the State, women are permitted to practice as
     advocates, and a woman has been the advocate under whose
     direction and care and advocacy the case has been won in the
     court below. Is it tolerable that the counsel who has attended
     the case from its commencement to its successful termination in
     the highest court of the State should not be permitted to attend
     upon and defend the rights of that client when the case is
     transferred to the Supreme Court of the United States? Everybody
     knows, at least every lawyer of experience knows, the
     impossibility of transferring with justice to the interests of a
     client, a cause from one counsel to another. A suit is instituted
     under the advice of a counsel on a certain theory, a certain
     remedy is selected, a certain theory of the cause is the one on
     which it is staked. Now that must be attended to and defended by
     the counsel under whose advice the suit has taken its shape; the
     pleadings have been shaped in the courts below.

     Under the present system, a citizen of any State in the Union
     having selected a counsel of good moral character who has
     practiced three years, who possesses all-sufficient professional
     and personal qualifications, and having had a cause brought to a
     successful result in the State court, is denied by the present
     existing and unjust rule having counsel of his choice argue the
     cause in the Supreme Court of the United States.

     The greatest master of human manners, who read the human heart
     and who understood better than any man who ever lived the
     varieties of human character, when he desired to solve just what
     had puzzled the lawyers and doctors, placed a woman upon the
     judgment seat; and yet, under the present existing law, if Portia
     herself were alive, she could not defend the opinion she had
     given, before the Supreme Court of the United States.

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

     The senators who voted to-day against the bill "to relieve
     certain legal disabilities of women" are marked men and have
     reason to fear the result of their action.--[Telegraph to the New
     York _Tribune_, February 7.

     The women get into the Supreme Court in spite of the
     determination of the justices. They gained a decided advantage
     to-day in the passage by the Senate of a bill providing that any
     woman who shall have been a member of the highest court in any
     State or territory, or of the Supreme Court of the District of
     Columbia, for three years, may be admitted to the Supreme Court.
     The bill was called up by Senator McDonald, in antagonism to Mr.
     Edmunds' amendment to the constitution which was the pending
     order. Mr. Edmunds objected to the consideration of the bill and
     voted against it. There was not much discussion, the main
     speeches being by Mr. Sargent and Mr. Hoar.--[Special dispatch to
     the New York _World_, February 7.

     A WOMAN'S RIGHTS VICTORY IN THE SENATE.--The Lockwood bill,
     giving women authority to practice before the Supreme Court of
     the United States, passed the Senate yesterday by a vote of two
     to one, and now it only requires the approval of Mr. Hayes to
     become a law. The powerful effect of persistent and industrious
     lobbying is manifested in the success of this bill. When it was
     first introduced, it is doubtful if one-fourth the members of
     congress would have voted for it. Some of the strong-minded
     women, who were interested in the bill, stuck to it, held the
     fort from day to day, and talked members and senators into
     believing it a just measure. Senator McDonald gave Mr. Edmunds a
     rebuff yesterday that he will not soon forget. The latter
     attempted to administer a rebuke to the Indiana senator for
     calling up a bill during the absence of the senator who had
     reported it. Mr. McDonald retorted that he knew the objection of
     the senator from Vermont was made for the purpose of defeating
     the bill and not, as pretended, to give an absent senator
     opportunity to speak upon it.--[Washington _Post_, February 8.

     The credit for this victory belongs to Mrs. Belva Lockwood, of
     this city, who, having been refused admission to the bar of the
     United States Supreme Court, appealed to congress, and by dint of
     hard work has finally succeeded in having her bill passed by both
     houses. She called on Mrs. Hayes last evening, who complimented
     her upon her achievement, and informed her that she had sent a
     bouquet to Senator Hoar, in token of his efforts in behalf of the
     bill.--[Washington _Star_, February 8.

     The bill was carried through merely by the energetic advocacy of
     Senators McDonald, Sargent and Hoar, whose oratorical efforts
     were reënforced by the presence of Mrs. Lockwood. After the
     struggle was over, all the senators who advocated the bill were
     made the recipients of bouquets, while the three senators whose
     names we have given received large baskets of flowers. This is a
     pleasing omen of that purification of legal business which it is
     hoped will flow from the introduction of women to the courts. It
     was not flowers that used to be distributed at Washington and
     Albany in the old corrupt times, among legislators, in testimony
     of gratitude for their votes. Let us hope that venal legislation
     at Washington will be extirpated by the rise of this beautiful
     custom.--[New York _Nation_.

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

     How humiliated poor old Judge Magruder must feel, since the
     congress of the United States paid the woman whom he forbade to
     open her mouth in his august presence, in his little court, so
     much consideration as to pass an act opening to her the doors of
     the Supreme Court of the United States. All honor to the brave
     woman, who by her own unaided efforts thus achieved honor,
     fortune and fame--the just rewards of her own true
     worth.--[_Havre Republican_, Havre de Grace, Maryland.

     ENTER PORTIA.--An act of congress was not necessary to authorize
     women to be lawyers, if their legal acquirements fitted them for
     that vocation; nor was it necessary to state, as an expression of
     opinion by the national legislature, that some women are so fully
     qualified for the legal profession that no barriers should be
     permitted to stand in their way. It was needed simply as a key
     whereby the hitherto locked door of the Supreme Court of the
     United States may be opened if a woman lawyer, with the usual
     credentials, should knock thereon. That is all; and there is no
     new question opened for profitless debate. The ability of some
     women to be lawyers is like the ability of others to make
     bread--it rests upon the facts. There is no room for elaborate
     argument to prove either their fitness or unfitness for legal
     studies, so long as in Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, the
     District of Columbia, Iowa and North Carolina there are women in
     more or less successful practice and repute. * * * Nowhere are
     these great attributes of civilization and regulated
     liberty--law, conservatism, justice, equity and mercy in the
     administration of human affairs put in broader light or truer,
     than they are by the words that Shakespeare puts in the mouth of
     this woman jurist.--[_Public Ledger_, Philadelphia, February 12.

     When congress recently passed a law allowing women to practice in
     the Supreme Court, it was not a subject of any special or eager
     comment. A woman who is a lawyer sent flowers to the desks of the
     members who voted for the bill, and before they had faded,
     comment was at an end. The home was still safe and the country
     was not in peril. It was one of the questions which had settled
     itself and was a foregone conclusion. * * * United States Senator
     Edmunds of Vermont, has fallen into disfavor with the ladies for
     voting against the above bill.--[From John W. Forney's
     _Progress_, February 22.

On March 3, by motion of Hon. A. G. Riddle, Mrs. Lockwood was
admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court,[48] taking
the official oath and receiving the classic sheep-skin; and the
following week she was admitted to practice before the Court of
Claims. The forty-sixth congress contained an unusually large
proportion of new representatives, fresh from the people, ready for
the discussion of new issues, and manifesting a chivalric spirit
toward the consideration of woman's claims as a citizen. On
Tuesday, April 29, the following resolution was submitted to the
Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives:

     _Resolved_, That a select committee of nine members be appointed
     by the speaker, to be called a Committee on the Rights of Women,
     whose duty it shall be to consider and report upon all petitions,
     memorials, resolutions and bills that may be presented in the
     House relating to the rights of women.

Admitting the justice of a fair consideration of a question
involving every human right of one-half of the population of this
country, Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, James A. Garfield of Ohio,
Wm. P. Frye of Maine, immediately declared themselves in favor of
the appointment of said committee, and Speaker Randall, the
chairman, ordered it reported to the House. A similar resolution
was introduced in the Senate, before the adjournment of the special
session. This showed a clearer perception of the magnitude of the
question, and the need of its early and earnest consideration, than
at any time during the previous thirty years of argument, heroic
struggle and sacrifice on the altar of woman's freedom.

The anniversary of 1879 was held in St. Louis, Missouri, May 7, 8,
9. Mrs. Virginia L. Minor and Miss Phoebe W. Couzins made all
possible arrangements for the success of the meeting and the
comfort of the delegates.[49] Mrs. Minor briefly stated the object
of the convention and announced that, as the president of the
association had not arrived, Mrs. Joslyn Gage would take the chair.
Miss Couzins gave the address of welcome:

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

     It becomes my pleasant duty to welcome you to the hospitalities
     of my native city. To extend to you who for the first time meet
     beyond the Mississippi, a greeting--not only in behalf of the
     friends of woman suffrage, but for those of our citizens who,
     while not in full sympathy with your views, have a desire to hear
     you in deliberative council and to cordially tender you the same
     courtesies offered other conventions which have chosen St. Louis
     as their place of annual gathering.

     And I am the more happy to do this because of the opportunity it
     affords me to disabuse your minds of certain impressions which
     have gone abroad concerning our slowness of action in the line of
     advanced ideas. Certainly in some phases of that reformation to
     which you and your co-laborers have pledged your lives, your
     fortunes--the cause of woman--St. Louis is the leader.

     When, eighteen or twenty years since, Harriet Hosmer desired to
     study anatomy, to perfect herself in her art, not a college in
     New England would open its doors to her; she traveled West, and
     through the generous patronage of Wayman Crow of this city, she
     became a pupil of the dean of the St. Louis Medical college.

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

     And here in St. Louis began the advance march which has finally
     broken down the walls of the highest judicial fortress, the
     Supreme Court of the United States. Washington University, in
     response to my request, unhesitatingly opened its doors, and for
     the first time in the history of America, woman was accorded the
     right to a legal course of training with man, and, at its close,
     after successful examination, I was freely accorded the degree of
     Bachelor of Laws! A city or a State that could perpetrate the
     anomaly of a female bachelor, is certainly not far behind the
     radicalism of the age.

     Again, as I turn to its record on suffrage, I find as early as
     1866 the Hon. B. Gratz Brown of Missouri made a glowing speech
     for woman's enfranchisement, in the United States Senate, on Mr.
     Cowan's motion to strike out "male" from the District of Columbia
     suffrage bill, which resulted in an organization in 1867, through
     the efforts of Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, its first president. And
     again, I remember when that hydra-headed evil arose in our midst,
     degrading all women and violating all the sweet and sacred
     sanctities of life--a blow at our homes and a lasting stigma on
     our civilization--the people of this community, led by the
     chancellor of Washington University, at the ballot-box but
     recently laid that monster away in a tomb, never, I trust, to be
     resurrected.

     And now, Mrs. President, let me add, in words which but faintly
     express the emotion of my heart, the gratitude we feel towards
     the noble women who have borne the burden and heat of the day.
     They who have been ridiculed, villified, maligned, but through it
     all maintained an unswerving allegiance to truth. In the name of
     all true womanhood I welcome this association in our midst as
     worthy of the highest honor.

     We have lived to see the enlargement of woman's thought in all
     directions. From our laboratories, libraries, observatories,
     schools of medicine and law, universities of science, art and
     literature, she is advancing to the examination of the problems
     of life, with an eye single only to the glory of truth. Like the
     Spartan of old she has thrown her spear into the thickest of the
     fray, and will fight gloriously in the midst thereof till she
     regains her own. No specious sophistry or vain delusion--no
     time-honored tradition or untenable doctrine can evade her
     searching investigation.

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

Of the many letters[50] read in the convention none was received
with greater joy than the few lines, written with trembling hand,
from Lucretia Mott, then in the eighty-seventh year of her age:

                                   ROADSIDE, Fourth Month, 26, 1879.

     MY DEAR SUSAN ANTHONY--It would need no urgent appeal to draw me
     to St. Louis had I the strength for the journey. You will have no
     need of my worn-out powers. Our cause itself has become
     sufficiently attractive. Edward M. Davis has a joint letter on
     hand for my signature, so this is enough, with my mite toward
     expenses. And to all assembled in St. Louis best wishes for--yes,
     full faith in your success. I have signed Edward's letter, so it
     is hardly necessary for me to say,

                                             LUCRETIA MOTT.

The distinguishing feature of this convention was an afternoon
session of ladies alone, prompted by an attempt to reënact a law
for the license of prostitution, which had been enforced in St.
Louis a few years before and repealed through the united efforts of
the best men and women of the city. Mrs. Joslyn Gage opened the
meeting by reading extracts from the Woman's Declaration of Rights
presented at the centennial celebration, and drew especial
attention to the clause referring to two separate codes of morals
for men and women, arising from woman's inferior political
position:

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

     The other question which can very properly be discussed at the
     present time is, "Why in this country, and in all civilized
     nations, do one-half of the population die under five years of
     age, and in some countries a very large proportion under one
     year?"

A letter was read from Mrs. Josephine E. Butler. As the experiment
of licensing prostitution had been extensively tried in England,
and she had watched the effects of the system not only in her own
country but on the continent, her opinions on this question are
worthy of consideration:

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

     DEAR FRIENDS--As I am unable to be present at your convention on
     May 7, 8, 9, and as you ask for a communication from me, I gladly
     write you on some of the later phases of our struggle against
     legalized prostitution. A brave battle has been fought in St.
     Louis against that iniquity, and we have regarded it with
     sympathy and admiration; but you are not yet safe against the
     devices of those who uphold this white slavery, nor are we safe,
     although we know that in the end we shall be conquerors. You tell
     me that "England is held up as an example of the beneficial
     working of the legalizing of vice." England holds a peculiar
     position in regard to the question. She was the last to adopt
     this system of slavery and she adopted it in that thorough manner
     which characterizes the Anglo-Saxon race. In no other country has
     prostitution been regulated by law. It has been understood by the
     Latin races, even when morally enervated, that the law could not
     without risk of losing its majesty violate justice. In England
     alone the regulations are law. Their promoters, by their
     hardihood in asking parliament to decree injustice, have brought
     on unconsciously to themselves, the beginning of the end of the
     whole system. The Englishman is a powerful agent for evil as for
     good. In the best times of our history my countrymen possessed
     preëminently vigorous minds in vigorous bodies. But when the
     animal nature has outgrown the moral, the appetites burst their
     proper restraints, and man has no other notion of enjoyment save
     bodily pleasure; he passes by a quick and easy transition into a
     powerful brute. And this is what the upper-class Englishman has
     to a deplorable extent become. There is no creature in the world
     so ready as he to domineer, to enslave, to destroy. But together
     with this development towards evil, there has been in our country
     a counter development. Moral faith is still strong among us.
     There are powerful women, as well as strong, pure, and
     self-governed men, of the real old Anglo-Saxon type. It was in
     England then, which adopted last the hideous slavery, that there
     arose first a strong national protest in opposition. English
     people rose up against the wicked law before it had been in
     operation three months. English men and women determined to carry
     abolition not at home only, but abroad, and they promptly carried
     their standard to every country on the continent of Europe. In
     all these countries men and women came forward at the first
     appeal, and said, "We are ready, we only waited for you,
     Anglo-Saxons, to take the lead; we have groaned under the
     oppression, but there was not force enough among us to take the
     initiative step."

     We have recently had a visit from Monsieur Aimi Humbert of
     Switzerland, our able general secretary for the continent. Much
     encouragement was derived from the reports which reached us from
     France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and even Spain, where a noble
     lady, Donna Concepcion Arenal of Madrid, and several gentlemen
     have warmly espoused our cause. The progress is truly
     encouraging; yet, on the other hand, it is obvious that the
     partisans of this legislation have recently been smitten with a
     kind of rage for extending the system everywhere, and are on the
     watch to introduce it wherever we are off our guard. In almost
     all British colonies they are very busy. At the Cape of Good
     Hope, where the Cape parliament had repealed the law, the
     governor, Sir Bartle Frere, has been induced by certain
     specialists and immoral men, to reïntroduce it. But since he
     could not count on the parliament at Cape Town for doing this, he
     has reintroduced the miserable system by means of a proclamation
     or edict, without the sanction and probably, to a great extent,
     without the knowledge of parliament. The same game is being
     played in other colonies. These facts seem to point to a more
     decided and bitter struggle on the question than we have yet
     seen. An energetic member of our executive committee, M. Pierson
     of Zetten, in Holland, says:

          I look upon legalized prostitution as the system in which
          the immorality of our age is crystalized, and that in
          attacking it we attack in reality the great enemies which
          are hiding themselves behind its ramparts. But if we do not
          soon overthrow these ramparts we must not think our work is
          fruitless. A great work is already achieved; sin is once
          more called sin instead of necessary evil, and the true
          standard of morality--equal for men and women, for rich and
          poor--is once more raised in the face of all the nations.

     This legalization of vice which recognized the "necessity" of
     impurity for man and the institution of slavery for woman, is the
     most open denial which modern times have seen of the principle of
     the sacredness of the individual human being. It is the
     embodiment of socialism in its worst form. An English high-class
     journal confessed this, when it dared to demand that women who
     are unchaste shall henceforth be dealt with "not as human beings,
     but as foul sewers," or some such "material nuisance" without
     souls, without rights and without responsibilities. When the
     leaders of public opinion in a country have arrived at such a
     point of combined depotism as to recommend such a manner of
     dealing with human beings, there is no crime which that country
     may not legalize. Were it possible to secure the absolute
     physical health of a whole province, or an entire continent by
     the destruction of one, only one poor and sinful woman, woe to
     that nation which should dare, by that single act of destruction,
     to purchase this advantage to the many! It will do it at its
     peril.

     We entreat our friends in America to renew their alliance with us
     in the sacred conflict. Union will be strength. The women of
     England are beginning to understand their responsibilities. Like
     yourselves, we are laboring to obtain the suffrage. The wrong
     which has fallen upon us in this legalizing of vice has taught us
     the need of power in legislation. Meanwhile, the crusade against
     immorality is educating women for the right use of suffrage when
     they obtain it. The two movements must go hand in hand.

Altogether this was an impressive occasion in which women met heart
to heart in discussing the deepest humiliations of their sex. After
eloquent speeches by Mrs. Meriwether, Mrs. Spencer, Mrs. Leonard,
Mrs. Thompson and Rev. Olympia Brown, the audience slowly
dispersed.

The closing scenes of the evening were artistic and interesting.
The platform was tastefully decked with flags and flowers, and the
immense audience that had assembled at an early hour--hundreds
unable to gain admission--made this the crowning session of the
convention. Miss Couzins announced the receipt of an invitation
from Mr. John Wahl, inviting the convention to visit the Merchants'
Exchange, "with assurances of high regard." The announcement was
heard with considerable merriment by those who remembered her
criticisms on Mr. Wahl for his failure to deliver the address of
welcome at the opening of the convention. She also announced the
receipt of an invitation from Secretary Kalb to visit the
fair-grounds, and moved that the convention first visit the
Exchange and then proceed to the fair-grounds in carriages, the
members of the Merchants' Exchange, of course paying the bill. The
motion was carried amidst applause. An invitation was also received
from Dr. Eliot, chancellor of Washington University, to attend the
art lecture of Miss Schoonmaker at the Mary Institute, Monday
evening. In a letter to the editor of the _National Citizen_, Mrs.
Stanton thus describes the incident of the evening:

     The delegates from the different States, through May Wright
     Thompson of Indianapolis, presented Miss Anthony with two baskets
     of exquisite flowers. She referred in the most happy way to Miss
     Anthony's untiring devotion to all the unpopular reforms through
     years of pitiless persecution, and thanked her in behalf of the
     young womanhood of the nation, that their path had been made
     smoother by her brave life. Miss Anthony was so overcome with the
     delicate compliments and the fragrant flowers at her feet, that
     for a few moments she could find no words to express her
     appreciation of the unexpected acknowledgement of what all
     American women owe her. As she stood before that hushed audience,
     her silence was more eloquent than words, for her emotion was
     shared by all. With an effort she at last said:

          Friends, I have no words to express my gratitude for this
          marked attention. I have so long been the target for
          criticism and ridicule, I am so unused to praise, that I
          stand before you surprised and disarmed. If any one had come
          to this platform and abused all womankind, called me hard
          names, ridiculed our arguments or denied the justice of our
          demands, I could with readiness and confidence have rushed
          to the defence, but I cannot make any appropriate reply for
          this offering of eloquent words and flowers, and I shall not
          attempt it.

     Being advertised as the speaker of the evening, she at once began
     her address, and as she stood there and made an argument worthy a
     senator of the United States, I recalled the infinite patience
     with which, for upwards of thirty years, she had labored for
     temperance, anti-slavery and woman suffrage, with a faithfulness
     worthy the martyrs in the early days of the Christian church, and
     said to myself, verily the world now as ever crucifies its
     saviors.

     Thanks to the untiring industry of Mrs. Minor and Miss Couzins,
     the convention was in every way a success, morally, financially,
     in crowded audiences, and in the fair, respectful and
     complimentary tone of the press. Looking over the proceedings and
     resolutions, the thought struck me that the National Association
     is the only organization that has steadily maintained the
     doctrine of federal power against State rights. The great truths
     set forth in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of United
     States supremacy, so clearly seen by us, seem to be vague and dim
     to our leading statesmen and lawyers if we may judge by their
     speeches and decisions. Your superb speech on State rights should
     be published in tract form and scattered over this entire nation.
     How can we ever have a homogeneous government so long as
     universal principles are bounded by State lines.

The delegates remaining in the city went on Change in a body at 12
o'clock Saturday, on invitation of the president, John Wahl. They
were courteously received and speeches were made by Mesdames
Couzins, Stanton, Anthony, Meriwether and Thompson. Mrs.
Meriwether's speech was immediately telegraphed in full to Memphis.
All wore badges of silk on which in gold letters appeared "N. W. S.
A., May 10, 1879, Merchants' Exchange." From the Exchange the
ladies proceeded in carriages to the fair-grounds, and Zoölogical
Gardens where they took refreshments.

On Saturday evening Miss Couzins gave a delightful reception. Her
parlors were crowded until a late hour, where the friends of woman
suffrage had an opportunity to use their influence socially in
converting many distinguished guests. On Sunday night Mrs. Stanton
was invited by the Rev. Ross C. Houghton to occupy his pulpit in
the Union Methodist church, the largest in the city of that
denomination. She preached from the text in Genesis i., 27, 28. The
sermon was published in the _St. Louis Globe_ the next morning.[51]
Mrs. Thompson was also invited to occupy a Presbyterian pulpit,
but imperative duties compelled her to leave the city.

The enthusiasm aroused by the convention in woman's enfranchisement
was encouraging to those who had so long and earnestly labored in
this cause.[52] This was indeed a week of profitable work. With
arguments and appeals to man's reason and sense of justice on the
platform, to his religious emotions and conscience in the pulpit,
to his honor and courtesy in the parlor, all the varied influences
of public and private life were exerted with marked effect; while
the press on the wings of the wind carried the glad tidings of a
new gospel for woman to every town and hamlet in the State.


FOOTNOTES:

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

As by repeated judicial decisions, woman's right to vote under the
fourteenth amendment has been denied, we must now unitedly demand a
sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, that shall
secure this right to the women of the nation. In certain States and
territories where women had already voted, they have been denied
the right by legislative action. Hence it must be clear to every
thinking mind that this fundamental right of citizenship must not
be left to the ignorant majorities in the several States; for
unless it is secured everywhere, it is safe nowhere.

We urge all suffrage associations and friends of woman's
enfranchisement throughout the country to send delegates to this
convention, freighted with mammoth petitions for a sixteenth
amendment. Let all other proposed amendments be held in abeyance to
the sacred rights of the women of this nation. The most reverent
recognition of God in the constitution would be justice and
equality for woman. On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage
Association,

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



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

[22] The speakers at this May anniversary were Mrs. Devereux Blake,
Rev. Olympia Brown, Clara Neyman, Helen Cooke, Helen M. Slocum,
Mrs. Hooker, Mrs. Gage and Acting-Governor Lee of Wyoming
territory.

[23] This reception-room, a great convenience to the ladies
visiting the Capitol, has since been removed; and a small, dark,
inaccessible room on the basement floor set aside for their use.

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

_Nays_--Bailey, Bayard, Beck, Booth, Butler, Christiancy, Cockrell,
Coke, Conkling, Davis of W. Va., Eaton, Edmunds, Eustis, Grover,
Hamlin, Harris, Hereford, Hill, Howe, Kernan, Kirkwood, Lamar,
McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Morgan, Plumb, Randolph, Saulsbury,
Thurman, Wadleigh--31.

[25] Grace Greenwood, Clara Barton, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Mrs.
Juan Lewis, Mrs. Morgan of Mississippi, Dr. Mary A. Thompson of
Oregon, Marilla M. Ricker, Julia E. Smith, Rev. Olympia Brown, Mrs.
Blake, Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs. Spencer, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Dr.
Lozier and others.

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

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

[28] At this hearing the speakers were Clemence S. Lozier, M. D.,
New York; Julia E. Smith, Connecticut; Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New
Jersey; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Illinois; Matilda Joslyn Gage,
New York; Priscilla Rand Lawrence, Massachusetts; Rev. Olympia
Brown, Connecticut; Mary A. Thompson, M. D., Oregon; Mary Powers
Filley, New Hampshire; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Sara
Andrews Spencer, District of Columbia; Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Connecticut; Mary A. Stewart, Delaware.

[29] In the whole course of our struggle for equal rights I never
felt more exasperated than on this occasion, standing before a
committee of men many years my juniors, all comfortably seated in
armchairs, I pleading for rights they all enjoyed though in no
respect my superiors, denied me on the shallow grounds of sex. But
this humiliation I had often felt before. The peculiarly
aggravating feature of the present occasion was the studied
inattention and contempt of the chairman, Senator Wadleigh of New
Hampshire. Having prepared my argument with care, I naturally
desired the attention of every member of the committee, all of
which, with the exception of Senator Wadleigh, I seemingly had. He
however took special pains to show that he did not intend to
listen. He alternately looked over some manuscripts and newspapers
before him, then jumped up to open or close a door or window. He
stretched, yawned, gazed at the ceiling, cut his nails, sharpened
his pencil, changing his occupation and position every two minutes,
effectually preventing the establishment of the faintest magnetic
current between the speakers and the committee. It was with
difficulty I restrained the impulse more than once to hurl my
manuscript at his head.--[E. C. S.

[30] The first hearing was held in the committee room, but that not
being large enough to accommodate the crowds that wished to hear
the arguments, the use of the Senate reception room was granted for
the second, which although very much larger, was packed, with the
corridors leading to it, long before the committee took their
places.

[31] Mr. and Mrs. Holt, of 1,339 L street, entertained their
friends and a numerous company of distinguished guests on Friday
evening, in honor of Mrs. Beecher Hooker. She delivered one of her
ablest speeches on the woman suffrage question. She was listened to
with breathless silence by eminent men and women, who confessed, at
the termination of her speech, that they were "almost persuaded" to
join her ranks--the highest tribute to her eloquent defense of her
position. Mrs. Hooker's intellect is not her only charm. Her
beautiful face and attractive manners all help to make converts.
Mrs. Julia N. Holmes, the poet, one of the most admired ladies
present, and Mrs. Southworth, the novelist, wore black velvet and
diamonds. Mrs. Hodson Burnett, that "Lass o' Lowrie," in colored
and rose silk with princess scarf, looked charmingly. Mrs. Senator
Sargent, Mrs. Charles Nordhoff and her friends, the elegant Miss
Thurman, of Cincinnati, and Miss Joseph, a brilliant brunette with
scarlet roses and jet ornaments, of Washington, were much observed.
Mrs. Dr. Wallace, of the _New York Herald_, wore cuir colored
gros-grain with guipure lace trimmings, flowers and diamonds. Miss
Coyle was richly attired. Mrs. Ingersoll, wife of the exceptional
orator, was the center of observation with Mrs. Hooker; she wore
black velvet, roses, and diamonds--has a noble presence and Grecian
face. General Forney, of Alabama, Hon. John F. Wait, M. C., Captain
Dutton and Colonel Mallory, of U. S. Army, Judge Tabor (Fourth
Auditor), Dr. Cowes, Col. Ingersol, Mrs. Hoffman, of New York, a
prominent lady of the Woman's Congress, lately assembled in this
city, wore a distinguished toilette. Mrs. Spofford, of the Riggs
House, was among the most noticeable ladies present, elegant and
delightful in style and manner. Dr. Josephs and Col. G. W. Rice, of
Boston, were of the most conspicuous gentlemen present, who retired
much edified with the entertainment of the evening.

                                             H. LOUISE GATES.

Society was divided Saturday evening between the literary club
which met at Willard's under the auspices of Mrs. Morrell, and the
reception given at the residence of Senator Rollins, on Capitol
Hill, to Mrs. Beecher Hooker, who spoke on the question of woman
suffrage. It was said of Theodore Parker, if all his hearers stood
on the same lofty plane that he did, his theology would be all
right for them, and so in this matter of woman's rights. If all the
advocates were as cultivated, refined, and convincing as Mrs.
Hooker, one might almost be tempted to surrender. She certainly
possesses that rare magnetic influence which seems to say, "Lend me
your ears and I shall take your heart." Among her listeners we
noticed Mrs. Joseph Ames, Grace Greenwood, Senator and Mrs.
Rollins, Senator and Mrs. Wadleigh, Miss Rollins, Mrs. Solomon
Bundy, Mrs. J. M. Holmes, Mrs. Brainerd, Mr. and Mrs. Doolittle,
Dr. Patton and son, Prof. Thomas Taylor, Miss Robena Taylor, Mrs.
Spofford, of the Riggs House, Prof. G. B. Stebbins, Mrs. Captain
Platt, and Mr. and Mrs. Holt.--[Washington _Post_.


[32] The members of the committee present were Hon. Proctor Knott
(the chairman), General Benjamin F. Butler, Messrs. Lynde, Frye,
Conger, Lapham, Culberson, McMahon. Among the ladies were Mesdames
Knott, Conger, Lynde, Frye.

[33] Mrs. Hooker has won, just as we predicted she would. Senators
Howe, Ferry, Coke, Randolph, Jones, Blaine, Beck, Booth, Allison,
Wallace, Eaton, Johnston, Burnside, Saulsbury, Merrimon, and
Presiding-officer Wheeler, together with nineteen other senators,
have formally invited her to address the Committee on Privileges
and Elections on February 22, an invitation which she has
enthusiastically accepted. Nobody but congressmen will be admitted
to hear the distinguished advocate of woman suffrage.--[Washington
_Post_.

[34] Among those present were Mrs. Senator Beck, Mrs. Stanley
Matthews, Mrs. Sargent, Mrs. Spofford, Mrs. Holmes, Mrs. Snead,
Mrs. Baldwin, Miss Blodgett of New York; Mrs. Baldwin, Mrs.
Spencer, Mrs. Juan Lewis of Philadelphia; Mrs. Morgan of
Mississippi, Mrs. Brooks, Mrs. Olcott, Mrs. Bartlett, Miss Sweet,
Mrs. Myers, Mrs. Gibson, Miss Jenners, Mrs. Levison, Mrs. Hereford,
Mrs. Folsom, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Lynde, Mrs. Eldridge, Miss Snowe,
Mrs. Curtis, Mrs. Hutchinson Patton, Mrs. Boucher and many others.
Of the committee and Senate there were Senators Wadleigh, Cameron
of Wisconsin; Merrimon, Mitchell, Hoar, Vice-president Wheeler,
Senators Jones, Bruce, Beck and others. Several representatives
and their wives also were there, and seemed deeply
interested.--[Washington _Post_.

[35] Mrs. Ricker makes a specialty of looking after the occupants
of the jail--so freely is her purse opened to the poor and
unfortunate that she is known as the prisoners' friend. Many an
alleged criminal owes the dawning of a new life, and the
determination to make it a worthy one, to the efforts of this noble
woman. And Mrs. Ricker's special object in seeking this office was
that prisoners might make depositions before her and thus be saved
the expense of employing notaries from the city.

[36] THE SELFISH RATS--A FABLE BY LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE.--Once some
gray old rats built a ship of State to save themselves from
drowning. It carried them safely for awhile until they grew eager
for more passengers, and so took on board all manner of rats that
had run away from all sorts of places--Irish rats and German rats,
and French rats, and even black rats and dirty sewer rats.

Now there were many lady mice who had followed the rats, and the
rats therefore thought them very nice, but in spite of that would
not let them have any place on the ship, so that they were forced
to cling to a few planks and were every now and then overwhelmed by
the waves. But when the mice begged to be taken on board saying,
"Save us also, we beg you!" The rats only replied, "We are too
crowded already; we love you very much, and we know you are very
uncomfortable, but it is not expedient to make room for you." So
the rats sailed on safely and saw the poor little mice buffeted
about without doing the least thing to save them.

_Moral_: Woe to the weaker.

[37] Senator Blair has just been elected (June, 1885) to a second
term, thus insuring his services to our cause in the Senate for
another six years.

[38] DELEGATES TO THE THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY.--Alabama, Priscilla
Holmes Drake; California, Ellen Clark Sargent; District of
Columbia, Frederick Douglass, Belva A. Lockwood, Sara Andrews
Spencer, Caroline B. Winslow, M. D.; Indiana, Margaret C. Conklin,
Mary B. Naylor, May Wright Thompson; Massachusetts, Harriet H.
Robinson, Harriette R. Shattuck; Maryland, Lavinia C. Dundore;
Michigan, Catherine A. F. Stebbins, Frances Titus, Sojourner Truth;
Missouri, Phoebe W. Couzins; New Hampshire, Parker Pillsbury; North
Carolina, Elizabeth Oakes Smith; New Jersey, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Sarah M. Hurn; New York, _Albany county_, Arethusa L.
Forbes; _Dutchess_, Helen M. Loder; _Lewis_, Mrs. E. M. Wilcox;
_Madison_, Helen Raymond Jarvis; _Monroe_, Susan B. Anthony, Amy
Post, Sarah H. Willis, Mary H. Hallowell, Mary S. Anthony, Lewia C.
Smith and many others; _Orleans_, Mrs. Plumb, Mrs. Clark;
_Onondaga_, Lucy N. Coleman, Dr. Amelia F. Raymond, Matilda Joslyn
Gage; _Ontario_, Elizabeth C. Atwell, Catherine H. Sands, Elizabeth
Smith Miller, Helen M. Pitts; _Queens_, Mary A. Pell; _Wayne_,
Sarah K. Rathbone, Rebecca B. Thomas; _Wyoming_, Charlotte A.
Cleveland; _Genesee_, the Misses Morton; _New York_, Clemence S.
Lozier, M. D., Helen M. Slocum, Sara A. Barret, M. D., Hamilton
Wilcox; Ohio, Mrs. Ellen Sully Fray; Pennsylvania, Lucretia Mott,
Sarah Pugh, Adeline Thomson, Maria C. Arter, M. D., Mrs. Watson;
South Carolina, Martha Schofield; Wisconsin, Mrs. C. L. Morgan.

[39] From Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Lucy Stone,
Caroline H. Dall, Boston; Hon. A. A. Sargent, Washington; Clara
Barton, Mathilde F. Wendt, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Aaron M. Powell,
Father Benson, Margaret Holley, Mary L. Booth, Sarah Hallock,
Priscilla R. Lawrence, Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Samuel May,
Elizabeth Powell Bond, John W. Hutchinson, Lucinda B. Chandler,
Sarah E. Wall, Massachusetts; Caroline M. Spear, Robert Purvis,
Edward M. Davis, Philadelphia; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Julia E.
Smith, Lavinia Goodell, Connecticut; Lucy A. Snowe, Ann T. Greeley,
Maine; Caroline F. Barr, Bessie Bisbee Hunt, Mary A. Powers Filley,
New Hampshire; Catherine Cornell Knowles, Rhode Island; Antoinette
Brown Blackwell, New Jersey; Annie Laura Quinby, Joseph B. Quinby,
Sarah R. L. Williams, Rosa L. Segur, Ohio; Sarah C. Owen, Michigan;
Laura Ross Wolcott, M. D., Mary King, Angie King, Wisconsin;
Frances E. Williard, Clara Lyons Peters, Elizabeth Boynton Harbert,
Illinois; Rachel Lockwood Child, Janet Strong, Nancy R. Allen,
Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Sarah Burger Stearns, Hattie M. White,
Minnesota; Mary F. Thomas, M. D., Emma Molloy, Indiana; Matilda
Hindman, Sarah L. Miller, Pennsylvania; Anna K. Irvine, Virginia L.
Minor, Missouri; Elizabeth H. Duvall, Kentucky; Mrs. G.W. Church,
Tennessee; Mrs. Augusta Williams, Elsie Stuart, Kansas; Ada W.
Lucas, Nebraska; Emeline B. Wells, Annie Godbe, Utah; Mary F.
Shields, Alida C. Avery, M. D., Colorado; Harriet Loughary, Mrs. L.
F. Proebstel, Mrs. Coburn, Abigail Scott Duniway, Oregon; Clarina
I. H. Nichols, Elizabeth B. Schenck, Sarah J. Wallis, Abigail Bush,
Laura de Force Gordon, California; Mrs. A.H.H. Stuart, Washington
Territory; Helen M. Martin, Arkansas; Helen R. Holmes, District of
Columbia; Caroline V. Putnam, Virginia; Elizabeth Avery Meriwether,
Tennessee; Elizabeth L. Saxon, Louisiana; Martha Goodwin Tunstall,
Texas; Priscilla Holmes Drake, Buell D. M'Clung, Alabama; Ellen
Sully Fray, Ontario; Theodore Stanton, France; Ernestine L. Rose,
Caroline Ashurst Biggs, Lydia E. Becker, England.

[40] While May Wright Thompson was speaking she turned to Mrs.
Stanton and said. "How thankful I am for these bright young women
now ready to fill our soon-to-be vacant places. I want to shake
hands with them all before I go, and give them a few words of
encouragement. I do hope they will not be spoiled with too much
praise."

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

[42] Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Coleman, Mr. Wilcox,
Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Dundore, Mrs. Stebbins, Mrs. Sands, Mrs. Amy
Post, and Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes-Smith, who having resided in North
Carolina had not been on our platform for many years, were among
the speakers.

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

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

[45] Ellen Clark Sargent, California; Elizabeth Oakes Smith, North
Carolina; Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New Jersey; Mrs. Devereux Blake,
Mrs. Joslyn Gage, Helen M. Slocum, Helen Cooke, Susan B. Anthony,
New York; Julia Brown Dunham, Iowa; Marilla M. Ricker, New
Hampshire; Lavinia C. Dundore, Maryland; Robert Purvis, Julia and
Rachel Foster, Pennsylvania; Emeline B. Wells, Zina Young Williams,
Utah; Ellen H. Sheldon, Dr. Caroline Winslow, Sara Andrews Spencer,
Belva A. Lockwood, Frederick Douglass, Julia A. Wilbur, Dr. Cora M.
Bland, Washington.

[46] The president invited the ladies into the library, that they
might be secure from interruption, and gave them throughout a most
respectful and courteous hearing, asking questions and showing
evident interest in the subject, and at the close promising sincere
consideration of the question.

[47] At its final action, the bill was called up by Hon. J. E.
McDonald of Indiana. After some discussion it was passed without
amendment--40 to 20. _Yeas_--Allison, Anthony, Barnum, Beck,
Blaine, Booth, Burnside, Cameron (Pennsylvania), Cameron
(Wisconsin), Dawes, Dorsey, Ferry, Garland, Gordon, Hamlin, Hoar,
Howe, Ingalls, Jones (Florida), Jones (Nevada), Kellogg, Kirkwood,
McCreery, McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Matthews, Mitchell,
Oglesby, Ransom, Rollins, Sargent, Teller, Voorhees, Wadleigh,
Windom, Withers. _Nays_--Baily, Chaffee, Coke, Davis (Illinois),
Davis (West Virginia), Eaton, Edmunds, Eustis, Grover, Harris,
Hereford, Hill, Kernan, Maxey, Merrimon, Morgan, Randolph,
Saulsbury, Wallace, White.

[48] Conspicuous in the large and distinguished audience present
were Senator M'Donald, Attorney-general Williams, Hon. Jeremiah
Wilson, Judge Shellabarger, Hon. George W. Julian, who with many
others extended hearty congratulations to Mrs. Lockwood.

[49] _Washington, D. C._--Sara A. Spencer. _Illinois_--Clara Lyon
Peters, Watseka; Mrs. G. P. Graham, Martha L. Mathews, Amanda E.
and Matilda S. Frazer, Aledo; Hannah J. Coffee, Abby B. Trego,
Orion; Mrs. Senator Hanna, Fairfield; Sarah F. Nourse, Moline;
Mrs. E. P. Reynolds, Rock Island; Cynthia Leonard, Chicago.
_Missouri_--Virginia L. Minor, Mrs. M. A. Peoquine, Mrs. P. W.
Thomas, Eliza J. Patrick, Mrs. E. M. Dan, Eliza A. Robbins, Phoebe
W. Couzins, Alex. Robbins, St. Louis; James L. Allen, Oregon; Miss
A. J. Sparks, Warrensburg. _Wisconsin_--Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine.
_New York_--Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Mary R. Pell,
Florence Pell. _Indiana_--Helen Austin, Richmond; May Wright
Thompson, Amy E. Dunn, Gertrude Garrison, Mary E. Haggart,
Indianapolis. _Tennessee_--Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Minor Lee
Meriwether, Memphis, _Kentucky_--Mary B. Clay, Richmond.
_Louisiana_--Emily P. Collins, Ponchatoula. _Ohio_--Eva L. Pinney,
South Newbury. _Pennsylvania_--Mrs. L. P. Danforth, Julia and
Rachel Foster, Philadelphia.

[50] Letters sympathizing with the purposes of the convention were
received from Lucretia Mott, Pa.; Clarina I. H. Nichols, Cal.;
Lucinda B. Chandler, N. J.; Annie Laura Quinby, Ky.; Mrs. N. R.
Allen, Ia.; Isabella B. Hooker, Ct.; Emeline B. Wells, Utah; Sarah
Burger Stearns, Minn.; Mary A. Livermore, Mass.; Elizabeth Oakes
Smith, N. Y.; Hannah Tracy Cutler, M. D., Ill.; Mrs. S. F.
Proebstell, Ore.; Mrs. C. C. Knowles, R. I.; Dr. Clemence S.
Lozier, Lillie Devereux Blake, N. Y. (with a fable, "Nothing New");
Lavinia Goodell, Wis.; Elizabeth H. Duvall, Ky.; Alida C. Avery, M.
D., Col.; Hattie M. Crumb, Mo.; Mrs. J. H. Pattee, Ill.; Caroline
B. Winslow, M. D., Washington; Miss Kate Trimble, Ky.; Mrs. M.
M'Clellan Brown, Pa.; Alice Black, Mo.; Margaret M. Baker, Mo.;
Mrs. Elsie Stewart, Kan.; Edward M. Davis, Pa.; Mrs. Scott Saxton,
Louisville; Kate Gannett Wells, Boston; Anna R. Irvine, Mo.; Sarah
M. Kimball, Salt Lake; Lelia E. Partridge, Pa.; Ellen H. Sheldon,
D. C.; Rev. W. C. Gannett, Minn.; Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans;
Mrs. J. Swain, Ill.; Geo. M. Jackson, John Finn, A Practical Woman,
St. Louis; Maria Harkner, Mrs. J. Martin, Kate B. Ross, Ill.; Emma
Molloy, Ind.; Maria J. Johnston, Mo.; Zenas Brockett, N.Y.; Kate N.
Doggett, president of the Association for the Advancement of Women;
Rebecca N. Hazard, president of the American Woman Suffrage
Society; Madam Anneke, for the Wisconsin Suffrage Association; The
Hutchinson Family ("Tribe of John"); South Newbury Ohio Woman
Suffrage Society. Foreign letters were also received from Jessie
Morrison Wellstood, Edinburgh; Lydia E. Becker, Manchester,
England, editor _Woman's Suffrage Journal_.

[51] Though an extra edition was struck off not a paper was to be
had by 10 o'clock in the morning. Gov. Stannard and other prominent
members of the suffrage association bought and mailed every copy
they could obtain.

[52] On the Tuesday following the convention a large number of St.
Louis people met and formed a woman suffrage society, auxiliary to
the National. Miss Anthony who had remained over, called the
meeting to order; Mrs. E. C. Johnson made an effective speech; Mrs.
Minor was chosen president. Over fifty persons enrolled as
members. The second meeting held a fortnight after, was also
crowded--twenty-five new members were obtained.



CHAPTER XXIX.

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.

1880-1881.

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


The custom of holding conventions at the seat of government in
mid-winter has many advantages. Congress is then in session, the
Supreme Court sitting, and society, that mystic, headless, power,
at the height of its glory. Being the season for official
receptions, where one meets foreign diplomats from every civilized
nation, it is the time chosen by strangers to visit our beautiful
capital. Washington is the modern Rome to which all roads lead, the
bright cynosure of all eyes, and is alike the hope and fear of
worn-out politicians and aspiring pilgrims. From this great center
varied influences radiate to the vast circumference of our land.
Supreme-court decisions, congressional debates, presidential
messages and popular opinions on all questions of fashion,
etiquette and reform are heralded far and near, awakening new
thought in every State in our nation and, through their
representatives, in the aristocracies of the old world. Hence to
hold a suffrage convention in Washington is to speak to the women
of every civilized nation.

The Twelfth Annual Convention of the National Association assembled
in Lincoln Hall, January 21, 1880. Many distinguished ladies and
gentlemen occupied the platform, which was tastefully decorated
with flags and flowers, and around the walls hung familiar
mottoes,[53] significant of the demands of the hour. On taking the
chair Susan B. Anthony made some appropriate remarks as to the
importance of the work of the association during the presidential
campaign. Mrs. Spencer called the roll, and delegates[54] from
sixteen States responded.

Mrs. Gage read the call:

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

     The question as to whether we are a nation, or simply a
     confederacy of States, that has agitated the country from the
     inauguration of the government, was supposed to have been settled
     by the war and confirmed by the amendments, making United States
     citizenship and suffrage practically synonymous. Not, however,
     having been pressed to its logical results, the question as to
     the limits of State rights and national power is still under
     discussion, and is the fundamental principle that now divides the
     great national parties. As the final settlement of this principle
     involves the enfranchisement of woman, our question is one of
     national politics, and the real issue of the hour. If it is the
     duty of the general government to protect the freedmen of South
     Carolina and Louisiana in the exercise of their rights as United
     States citizens, the government owes the same protection to the
     women in Massachusetts and New York. This year will again witness
     an exciting presidential election, and this question of momentous
     importance to woman will be the issue then presented. Upon its
     final decision depends not only woman's speedy enfranchisement,
     but the existence of the republic.

     A sixteenth amendment to the national constitution, prohibiting
     the States from disfranchising United States citizens on the
     ground of sex, will be urged upon the forty-sixth congress by
     petitions, arguments and appeals. The earnest, intelligent and
     far-seeing women of every State should assemble at the coming
     convention, and show by their wise counsels that they are worthy
     to be citizens of a free republic. All associations in the
     United States which believe it is the duty of congress to submit
     an amendment protecting woman in the exercise of the right of
     suffrage, are cordially invited to send delegates. Those who
     cannot attend the convention, are urged to address letters to
     their representatives in congress, asking them to give as careful
     attention to the proposed amendment and to the petitions and
     arguments urged in its behalf, as though the rights of men, only,
     were involved. A delegate from each section of the country will
     be heard before the committees of the House and Senate, to whom
     our petitions will be referred.[55]

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

     _Resolved_, That we are a nation and not a mere confederacy, and
     that the right of citizens of the United States to
     self-government through the ballot should be guaranteed by the
     national constitution and protected everywhere under the national
     flag.

     _Resolved_, That while States may have the right to regulate the
     time, place and manner of elections, and the qualifications of
     voters upon terms equally applicable to all citizens, they should
     be forbidden under heavy penalties to deprive any citizen of the
     right to self-government on account of sex.

     _Resolved_, That it is the duty of the forty-sixth congress to
     immediately submit to the several States the amendment to the
     national constitution recently proposed by Senator Ferry and
     Representative Loring, and approved by the National Suffrage
     Association.

     _Resolved_, That it is the duty of the House of Representatives
     to pass immediately the resolution recommended by the Committee
     on Rules directing the speaker to appoint a committee on the
     rights of women.

     _Resolved_, That the giant labor reform of this age lies in
     securing to woman, the great unpaid and unrecognized laborer and
     producer of the whole earth, the fruits of her toil.

     _Resolved_, That the theory of a masculine head to rule the
     family, the church, or the State, is contrary to republican
     principles, and the fruitful source of rebellion and corruption.

     _Resolved_, That the assumption of the clergy, that woman has no
     right to participate in the ministry and offices of the church is
     unauthorized theocratic tyranny, placing a masculine mediator
     between woman and her God, which finds no authority in reason,
     and should be resisted by all women as an odious form of
     religious persecution.

     _Resolved_, That it is the duty of the congress of the United
     States to provide a reform school for girls and a home for the
     children whom no man owns or protects, and who are left to die
     upon the streets of the nation's capital, or to grow up in
     ignorance, vice and crime.

     _Resolved_, That since man has everywhere committed to woman the
     custody and ownership of the child born out of wedlock, and has
     required it to bear its mother's name, he should recognize
     woman's right as a mother to the custody of the child born in
     marriage, and permit it to bear her name.

     _Resolved_, That the National Association will send a delegate
     and an alternate to each presidential nominating convention to
     demand the rights of woman, and to submit to each party the
     following plank for presidential platform: _Resolved_, That the
     right to use the ballot _inheres_ in the citizen of the United
     States, and we pledge ourselves to secure protection in the
     exercise of this right to all citizens irrespective of sex.

     _Resolved_, That one-half of the number of the supervisors of the
     tenth census, and one-half of the collectors of said census,
     should be educated, intelligent women, who can be safely
     entrusted to enumerate women and children, their occupations,
     ages, diseases and deaths, and who would not be likely to
     overlook ten millions of housekeepers.

     _Resolved_, That Ulysses S. Grant won his first victories through
     the military plans and rare genius of a woman, Anna Ella Carroll,
     of Maryland, and while he has been rewarded with the presidential
     office through two terms, and a royal voyage around the world,
     crowned with glory and honor, Miss Carroll has for fifteen years
     been suffering in poverty unrecognized and unrewarded.

     _Resolved_, That the thanks of this association are hereby
     tendered to Governor Chas. B. Andrews, of Connecticut, for
     remembering in each annual message to ask for justice to women.

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

                                   MEMPHIS, Tenn., December 11, 1889.

     DEAR MRS. SPENCER: You want petitions. Well I have two which I
     got up some time ago, but did not send on because I thought the
     names too few to count much. The one is of _white_ women 130 in
     number. The other contains 110 names of black women. This last is
     a curiosity, and was gotten up under the following circumstances:

     Some ladies were dining with me and we each promised to get what
     names we could to petitions for woman suffrage. My servant who
     waited on table was a coal-black woman. She became interested
     and after the ladies went away asked me to explain the matter to
     her, which I did. She then said if I would give her a paper she
     could get a thousand names among the black women, that many of
     them felt that they were as much slaves to their husbands as ever
     they had been to their white masters. I gave her a petition, and
     said to her, "Tell the women this is to have a law passed that
     will not allow the men to _whip their wives_, and will put down
     drinking saloons." "Every black woman will go for that law!" She
     took the paper and procured these 110 signatures against the
     strong opposition of black men who in some cases threatened to
     whip their wives if they signed. At length the opposition was so
     great my servant had not courage to face it. She feared some
     bodily harm would be done her by the black men. You can see this
     is a genuine negro petition from the odd way the names are
     written, sometimes the capital letter in the middle of the name,
     sometimes at the end.

                         Yours,       ELIZABETH AVERY MERIWETHER.

In response to 66,000 documents containing appeals to women, issued
by the National Association, 250 petitions, signed by over 12,000,
arrived in Washington in time for presentation to congress before
the assembling of the convention, and were read on the floor of the
Senate, with the leading names, January 14, 16, 20, 21, by
forty-seven senators.

In the House of Representatives this courtesy (reading petitions
and names), requires unanimous consent, and one man, Hon. J. J.
Davis of North Carolina, who had no petition from the women of his
State, objected. Sixty-five representatives presented the petitions
at the clerk's desk, under the rule, January 14, 15, 16. In answer
to these appeals to both Houses, on Monday, January 19, Hon. T. W.
Ferry, of Michigan, introduced in the Senate a joint resolution for
a sixteenth amendment, which with all the petitions was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary. Tuesday, January 20, Hon. George B.
Loring, of Massachusetts, introduced the same resolution in the
House of Representatives, and it was referred, with all the
petitions, to the Committee on the Judiciary. There were also
during this congress presented over 300 petitions from law-abiding,
tax-paying women, praying for the removal of their political
disabilities.

On Friday and Saturday, January 23, 24, these committees granted
hearings of two hours each to delegates from ten States who had
been in attendance at the convention. Thoughtful attention was
given to arguments upon every phase of the question, and senators
and representatives expressed a strong determination to bring the
subject fairly before the people.

The committees especially requested that only the delegates should
be present, wishing, as they said, to give their sole attention to
the arguments undisturbed by the crowds who usually seek
admittance. Even the press was shut out. These private sessions
with most of the members present, and the close attention they gave
to each speaker, were strong proof of the growth of our reform, as
but a few years before representatives sought excuses for absence
on all such occasions.

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

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

     The CHAIRMAN: Several members of the committee are unable to be
     here. Mr. Lamar is detained at his home in Mississippi by
     sickness; Mr. Carpenter is confined to his room by sickness; Mr.
     Conkling has been unwell; I do not know how he is this morning;
     and Mr. Garland is chairman of the Committee on Territories,
     which has a meeting this morning that he could not fail to
     attend. I do not think we are likely to have any more members of
     the committee than are here now, and we will hear you, ladies.

     Mrs. ZERELDA G. WALLACE of Indiana said: _Mr. Chairman, and
     Gentlemen of the Committee_: It is scarcely necessary to say that
     there is not an effect without a cause. Therefore it would be
     well for the statesmen of this nation to ask themselves the
     question, What has brought the women from all parts of this
     nation to the capital at this time? What has been the strong
     motive that has taken us away from the quiet and comfort of our
     own homes and brought us before you to-day? As an answer to that
     question I will read an extract from a speech made by one of
     Indiana's statesmen. He found out by experience and gave us the
     benefit of it:

          You can go to meetings; you can vote resolutions; you can
          attend great demonstrations in the street; but, after all,
          the only occasion where the American citizen expresses his
          acts, his opinions, and his power is at the ballot-box; and
          that little ballot that he drops in there is the written
          sentiment of the times, and it is the power that he has as a
          citizen of this great republic.

     That is the reason why we are here; the reason why we want to
     vote. We are not seditious women, clamoring for any peculiar
     rights; it is not the woman question that brings us before you
     to-day; it is the human question underlying this movement. We
     love and appreciate our country; we value its institutions. We
     realize that we owe great obligations to the men of this nation
     for what they have done. To their strength we owe the subjugation
     of all the material forces of the universe which give us comfort
     and luxury in our homes. To their brains we owe the machinery
     that gives us leisure for intellectual culture and achievement.
     To their education we owe the opening of our colleges and the
     establishment of our public schools, which give us these great
     and glorious privileges. This movement is the legitimate result
     of this development, and of the suffering that woman has
     undergone in the ages past.

     A short time ago I went before the legislature of Indiana with a
     petition signed by 25,000 of the best women in the State. I
     appeal to the memory of Judge McDonald to substantiate the truth
     of what I say. Judge McDonald knows that I am a home-loving,
     law-abiding, tax-paying woman of Indiana, and have been for fifty
     years. When I went before our legislature and found that one
     hundred of the vilest men in our State, merely by the possession
     of the ballot, had more influence with our lawmakers than the
     wives and mothers it was a startling revelation.

     You must admit that in popular government the ballot is the most
     potent means for all moral and social reforms. As members of
     society, we are deeply interested in all the social problems with
     which you have grappled so long unsuccessfully. We do not intend
     to depreciate your efforts, but you have attempted to do an
     impossible thing; to represent the whole by one-half, and because
     we are the other half we ask you to recognize our rights as
     citizens of this republic.

     JULIA SMITH PARKER of Glastonbury, Conn., said: _Gentlemen_: You
     may be surprised to see a woman of over four-score years appear
     before you at this time. She came into the world and reached
     years of discretion before any person in this room was born. She
     now comes before you to plead that she can vote and have all the
     privileges that men have. She has suffered so much individually
     that she thought when she was young she had no right to speak
     before the men; but still she had courage to get an education
     equal to that of any man at the college, and she had to suffer a
     great deal on that account. She went to New Haven to school, and
     it was noised around that she had studied the languages. It was
     such an astonishing thing for girls at that time to have the
     advantages of education, that I had actually to go to cotillon
     parties to let people see that I had common sense. [Laughter.]

     She has had to pay $200 a year in taxes without knowing what
     becomes of it. She does not know but that it goes to support
     grog-shops. She knows nothing about it. She has had to suffer her
     cows to be sold at the sign-post six times. She suffered her
     meadow land, worth $2,000, to be sold for a tax less than $50. If
     she could vote as the men do she would not have suffered this
     insult; and so much would not have been said against her as has
     been said if men did not have the whole power. I was told that
     they had the power to take anything that I owned if I would not
     exert myself to pay the money. I felt that I ought to have some
     little voice in determining what should be done with what I paid.
     I felt that I ought to own my own property; that it ought not to
     be in these men's hands; and I now come to plead that I may have
     the same privileges before the law that men have. I have seen
     what a difference there is, when I have had my cows sold, by
     having a voter to take my part.

     I have come from an obscure town on the banks of the Connecticut,
     where I was born. I was brought up on a farm. I never had an idea
     that I should come all the way to Washington to speak before
     those who had not come into existence when I was born. Now, I
     plead that there may be a sixteenth amendment, and that women may
     be allowed the privilege of owning their own property. I have
     suffered so much myself that I felt it might have some effect to
     plead before this honorable committee. I thank you, gentlemen,
     for hearing me so kindly.

     ELIZABETH L. SAXON of Louisiana, said: _Gentlemen_: I feel that
     after Mrs. Wallace's plea there is no necessity for me to say
     anything. I come from the extreme South, she from the West.
     People have asked me why I came. I care nothing for suffrage
     merely to stand beside men, or rush to the polls, or to take any
     privilege outside of my home, only, as Mrs. Wallace says, for
     humanity. I never realized the importance of this cause, until we
     were beaten back on every side in the work of reform. If we
     attempted to put women in charge of prisons, believing that
     wherever woman sins and suffers women should be there to teach,
     help and guide, every place was in the hands of men. If we made
     an effort to get women on the school-boards we were combated and
     could do nothing.

     In the State of Texas, I had a niece living whose father was an
     inmate of a lunatic asylum. She exerted as wide an influence as
     any woman in that State; I allude to Miss Mollie Moore, who was
     the ward of Mr. Cushing. I give this illustration as a reason why
     Southern women are taking part in this movement. Mr. Wallace had
     charge of that lunatic asylum for years. He was a good,
     honorable, able man. Every one was endeared to him; the State
     appreciated him as superintendent of this asylum. When a
     political change was made and Gov. Robinson came in, Dr. Wallace
     was ousted for political purposes. It almost broke the hearts of
     some of the women who had sons, daughters or husbands there. They
     determined at once to try and have him reinstated. It was
     impossible, he was out, and what could they do?

     A gentleman said to me a few days ago, "These women ought to
     marry." I am married; I am a mother; and in our home the sons and
     brothers are all standing like a wall of steel at my back. I have
     cast aside the prejudices of the past. They lie like rotted hulks
     behind me.

     After the fever of 1878, when our constitutional convention was
     about to convene, I suppressed the agony and grief of my own
     heart (for one of my children had died) and took part in the
     suffrage movement in Louisiana with the wife of Chief-Justice
     Merrick, Mrs. Sarah A. Dorsey, and Mrs. Harriet Keating of New
     York, the niece of Dr. Lozier. These three ladies aided me
     faithfully and ably. I went to Lieutenant-Governor Wiltz, and
     asked him if he would present or consider a petition which I
     wished to bring before the convention. He read the petition. One
     clause of our State law is that no woman can sign a will. Some
     ladies donated property to an asylum. They wrote the will and
     signed it themselves, and it was null and void, because they were
     women. That clause, perhaps, will be wiped out. Many gentlemen
     signed the petition on that account. Governor Wiltz, then
     lieutenant-governor, told me he would present the petition. He
     was elected president of the convention. I presented my first
     petition, signed by the best names in the city of New Orleans
     and in the State. I had the names of seven of the most prominent
     physicians. Three prominent ministers signed it for moral
     purposes alone. When Mrs. Dorsey was on her dying bed the last
     time she ever signed her name was to a letter to go before that
     convention. Mrs. Merrick and myself addressed the convention. We
     made the petition then that we make here; that we, the mothers of
     the land, should not be barred on every side in the cause of
     reform. I pledged my father on his dying bed that I would never
     cease work until woman stood with man equal before the law.

     I beg of you, gentlemen, to consider this question seriously. We
     stand precisely in the position of the colonies when they plead,
     and, in the words of Patrick Henry, were "spurned with contempt
     from the foot of the throne." We have been jeered and laughed at;
     but the question has passed out of the region of ridicule. This
     clamor for woman suffrage, for woman's rights, for equal
     representation, is extending all over the land.

     I plead because my work has been combated in the cause of reform
     everywhere that I have tried to accomplish anything. The children
     that fill the houses of prostitution are not of foreign blood and
     race. They come from sweet American homes, and for every woman
     that went down some mother's heart broke. I plead by the power of
     the ballot to be allowed to help reform women and benefit
     mankind.

     MARY A. STEWART of Delaware said: The negroes are a race
     inferior, you must admit, to your daughters, and yet that race
     has the ballot, and why? It is said they earned it and paid for
     it with their blood. Whose blood paid for yours? The blood of
     your forefathers and our forefathers. Does a man earn a hundred
     thousand dollars and lie down and die, saying, "It is all my
     boys'"? Not a bit of it. He dies saying, "Let my children, be
     they cripples, be they idiots, be they boys, or be they girls,
     inherit all my property alike." Then let us inherit the sweet
     boon of the ballot alike. When our fathers were driving the great
     ship of State we were willing to sail as deck or cabin
     passengers, just as we felt disposed; we had nothing to say; but
     to-day the boys are about to run the ship aground, and it is high
     time that the mothers should be asking, "What do you mean to do?"
     In our own little State the laws have been very much modified in
     regard to women. My father was the first man to blot out the old
     English law allowing the eldest son the right of inheritance to
     the real-estate. He took the first step, and like all those who
     take first steps in reform he received a mountain of curses from
     the oldest male heirs.

     Since 1868 I have, by my own individual efforts, by the use of
     hard-earned money, gone to our legislature time after time and
     have had this law and that law passed for the benefit of women;
     and the same little ship of State has sailed on. To-day our men
     are just as well satisfied with the laws in force in our State
     for the benefit of women as they were years ago. A woman now has
     a right to make a will. She can hold bonds and mortgages of her
     own. She has a right to her own property. She cannot sell it
     though, if it is real-estate, simply because the moment she
     marries, her husband has his right of courtesy. The woman does
     not grumble at that; but still when he dies owning real-estate,
     she gets only the rental value of one-third, which is called the
     widow's dower. Now I think the man ought to have the rental value
     of one-third of the woman's maiden property or real-estate, and
     it ought to be called the widower's dower. It would be just as
     fair for one as for the other. All that I want is equality.

     The women of our State, as I said before, are taxed without
     representation. The tax-gatherer comes every year and demands
     taxes. For twenty years I have paid tax under protest, and if I
     live twenty years longer I shall pay it under protest every time.
     The tax-gatherer came to my place not long since. "Well," said I,
     "good morning, sir." Said he, "Good morning." He smiled and said,
     "I have come bothering you." Said I, "I know your face well. You
     have come to get a right nice little woman's tongue-lashing."
     Said he, "I suppose so, but if you will just pay your tax I will
     leave." I paid the tax, "But," said I, "remember I pay it under
     protest, and if I ever pay another tax I intend to have the
     protest written and make the tax-gatherer sign it before I pay
     the tax, and if he will not sign that protest then I shall not
     pay, and there will be a fight at once," Said he, "Why do you
     keep all the time protesting against paying this small tax?" Said
     I, "Why do you pay your tax?" "Well," said he, "I would not pay
     it if I did not vote." Said I, "That is the very reason why I do
     not want to pay it. I cannot vote." Who stay at home from the
     election? The women, and the black and white men who have been to
     the whipping-post. Nice company to put your wives and daughters
     in.

     It is said that the women do not want to vote. Every woman
     sitting here wants to vote, and must we be debarred the privilege
     of voting because some luxurious woman, rolling around in her
     carriage in her little downy nest that some good, benevolent man
     has provided for her, does not want to vote? There was a society
     that existed up in the State of New York called the Covenanters
     that never voted. Were all you men disfranchised because that
     class or sect up in New York would not vote? Did you all pay your
     taxes and stay at home and refrain from voting because the
     Covenanters did not vote? Not a bit of it. You went to the
     election and told them to stay at home if they wanted to, but
     that you, as citizens, were going to take care of yourselves.
     That was right. We, as citizens, want to take care of ourselves.

     One more thought, and I will be through. The fourteenth and
     fifteenth amendments, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a
     great many smart men in the country, and smart women, too, give
     the right to women to vote without any "if's" or "and's" about
     it, and the United States protects us in it; but there are a few
     who construe the law to suit themselves, and say that those
     amendments do not mean that, because the congress which passed
     the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments had no such intention.
     Well, if that congress overlooked us, let the wiser congress of
     to-day take the eighth chapter and the fourth verse of the
     Psalms, which says, "What is man that Thou art mindful of him?"
     and amend it by adding, "What is woman, that they never thought
     of her?"

     NANCY R. ALLEN of Iowa said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
     Judiciary Committee_: I am a representative of a large class of
     women of Iowa, who are heavy taxpayers. There is now a petition
     being circulated throughout our State, to be presented to the
     legislature, praying that women be exempted from taxation until
     they have some voice in the management of the affairs of the
     State. You may ask, "Do not your husbands protect you? Are not
     all the men protecting you?" We answer that our husbands are
     grand, noble men, who are willing to do all they can for us, but
     there are many who have no husbands and who own a great deal of
     property in the State of Iowa. Particularly in great moral
     reforms the women there feel the need of the ballot. By
     presenting long petitions to the legislature they have succeeded
     in having better temperance laws enacted, but the men have failed
     to elect the officials who will enforce those laws. Consequently
     they have become as dead letters upon the statute books.

     To refer again to taxes. I have a list showing that in my city
     three women pay more taxes than all the city officials together.
     They are good temperance women. Our city council is composed
     almost entirely of saloon-keepers, brewers and men who patronize
     them. There are some good men, but they are in the minority, and
     the voices of these women are but little regarded. All these
     officials are paid, and we have to help support them. As Sumner
     said, "Equality of rights is the first of rights." If we can only
     be equal with man under the law, it is all that we ask. We do not
     propose to relinquish our domestic life, but we do ask that we
     may be represented.

Remarks were also made by Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Archibald and Mrs.
Spencer. The time having expired, the committee voted to give
another hour to Miss Anthony to state the reasons why we ask
congress to submit a proposition to the several legislatures for a
sixteenth amendment, instead of asking the States to submit the
question to the popular vote of their electors.[58] When Miss
Anthony had finished, the chairman, Senator Thurman of Ohio, said:

     I have to say, ladies, that you will admit that we have listened
     to you with great attention, and I can certainly say, with great
     interest; your appeals will be duly and earnestly considered by
     the committee.

     Mrs. WALLACE: I wish to make just one remark in reference to what
     Senator Thurman said as to the popular vote being against woman
     suffrage. The popular vote is against it, but not the popular
     voice. Owing to the temperance agitation in the last six years,
     the growth of the suffrage sentiment among the wives and mothers
     of this nation has largely increased.


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

     The CHAIRMAN _pro tem._ (Mr. HARRIS of Virginia): The order of
     business for the present session of the committee is the delivery
     of arguments by delegates of the Woman Suffrage Convention now
     holding its sessions in Washington. I am informed that the
     delegates are in attendance upon the committee. We will be
     pleased to hear them. A list of the names, of the ladies
     proposing to speak, with a memorandum of the limit of time
     allotted to each, has been handed to me for my guidance; and, in
     the absence of the chairman [Mr. Knott] it will be my duty to
     confine the speakers to the number of minutes apportioned to them
     respectively upon the paper before me. As an additional
     consideration for adhering to the regulation, I will mention that
     members of the committee have informed me that, having made
     engagements to be at the departments and elsewhere on business
     appointments, they will be compelled to leave the committee-room
     upon the expiration of the time assigned. The first name upon the
     list is that of Mrs. Emma Mont. McRae of Indiana, to whom five
     minutes are allowed.

     Mrs. MCRAE said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Judiciary
     Committee_: In Indiana the cause of woman has made marked
     advancement. At the same time we realize that we need the right
     to vote in order that we may have protection. We need the ballot
     because through the medium of its power alone we can hope to
     wield that influence in the making of laws affecting our own and
     our children's interests.

     Some recent occurences in Indiana, one in particular in the
     section of the State from which I come, have impressed us more
     sensibly than ever before with the necessity of this right. The
     particular incident to which I refer was this: In the town of
     Muncie, where I reside, a young girl, who for the past five years
     had been employed as a clerk in the post-office, and upon whom a
     widowed mother was dependent for support, was told on the first
     of January that she was no longer needed in the office. She had
     filled her place well; no complaint had been made against her.
     She very modestly asked the postmaster the cause of her
     discharge, and he replied: "We have a man who has done work for
     the party and we must give that man a place; I haven't room for
     both of you." Now, there you have at once the reason why we want
     the ballot; we want to be able to do something for the party in a
     substantial way, so that men may not tell us they have no room
     for us because we do nothing _for the party_. When they have the
     ballot women will work for "the party" as a means of enabling
     them to hold places in which they may get bread for their mothers
     and for their children if necessity requires.

     Miss JESSIE T. WAITE of Illinois said: _Mr. Chairman, and
     Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee_: In the State of Illinois
     we have attained to almost every right except that of the ballot.
     We have been admitted to all the schools and colleges; we have
     become accustomed to parliamentary usages; to voting in literary
     societies and in all matters connected with the interests of the
     colleges and schools; we are considered members in good standing
     of the associations, and, in some cases, the young ladies in the
     institutes have been told they hold the balance of power. The
     same reason for woman suffrage that has been given by the
     delegate from Indiana [Mrs. McRae] holds good with reference to
     the State of Illinois. Women must have the ballot that they may
     have protection in getting bread for themselves and their
     families, by giving to the party that looks for their support
     some substantial evidence of their strength. Experience has
     demonstrated, especially in the temperance movement, how
     fruitless are all their efforts while the ballot is withheld from
     their hands. They have prayed; they have petitioned; they have
     talked; they have lectured; they have done all they could do,
     except to vote; and yet all avails them nothing. Miss Frances
     Williard presented to the legislature of Illinois a petition of
     such length that it would have reached around this room. It
     contained over 180,000 signatures. The purpose of the petition
     was to have the legislature give the women of the State the right
     to vote upon the question of license or no license in their
     respective districts.

     In some of the counties of our State we have ladies as
     superintendents of schools and professors in colleges. One of the
     professors in the Industrial University at Champaign is a lady.
     Throughout the State you may find ladies who excel in every
     branch of study and in every trade. It was a lady who took the
     prize at "the Exposition" for the most beautiful piece of
     cabinet-work. This is said to have been a marvel of beauty and
     extraordinary as a specimen of fine art. She was a foreigner; a
     Scandinavian, I believe. Another lady is a teacher of
     wood-carving. We have physicians, and there are two attorneys,
     Perry and Martin, now practicing in the city of Chicago.
     Representatives of our sex are also to be found among real-estate
     agents and journalists, while, in one or two instances as
     preachers they have been recognized in the churches.

     CATHERINE A. STEBBINS of Michigan said: "Better fifty years of
     Europe than a cycle of Cathay!" So said the poet; and I say,
     Better a week with these inspired women in conference than years
     of an indifferent, conventional society! Their presence has been
     a blessing to the people of this District, and will prove in the
     future a blessing to our government. These women from all
     sections of our country, with a moral and spiritual enthusiasm
     which seeks to lift the burdens of our government, come to you,
     telling of the obstacles that have beset their path. They have
     tried to heal the stricken in vice and ignorance; to save our
     land from disintegration. One has sought to reform the drunkard,
     to save the moderate drinker, to convert the liquor-seller;
     another, to shelter the homeless; another, to lift and save the
     abandoned woman. "Abandoned?" once asked a prophet-like man of
     our time, who added, "There never was an abandoned woman without
     an abandoned man!" Abandoned of whom? let us ask. Surely not by
     the merciful Father. No; neither man nor woman is ever abandoned
     by him, and he sends his instruments in the persons of some of
     these great-hearted women, to appeal to you to restore their
     God-given freedom of action, that "the least of these" may be
     remembered.

     But in our councils no one has dwelt upon _one_ of the great
     evils of our civilization, the scourge of war; though it has been
     said that women will fight. It is true there are instances in
     which they have considered it a duty; there were such in the
     rebellion. But the majority of women would not declare war, would
     not enlist soldiers and would not vote supplies and equipments,
     because many of the most thoughtful believe there _is_ a better
     way, and that women can bring a moral power to bear that shall
     make war needless.

     Let us take one picture representative of the general features of
     the war--we say nothing of our convictions in regard to the
     conflict. Ulysses S. Grant or Anna Ella Carroll makes plans and
     maps for the campaign; McClellan and Meade are commanded to
     collect the columbiads, muskets and ammunition, and move their
     men to the attack. At the same time the saintly Clara Barton
     collects her cordials, medicines and delicacies, her lint and
     bandages, and, putting them in the ambulance assigned, joins the
     same moving train. McClellan's men meet the enemy, and
     men--brothers--on both sides fall by the death-dealing missiles.
     Miss Barton and her aids bear off the sufferers, staunch their
     bleeding wounds, soothe the reeling brain, bandage the crippled
     limbs, pour in the oil and wine, and make as easy as may be the
     soldier's bed. What a solemn and heartrending farce is here
     enacted! And yet in our present development men and women seek to
     reconcile it with the requirements of religion and the
     necessities of our conflicting lives. So few recognize the
     absolute truth!

     Mrs. DEVEREUX BLAKE said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
     Committee_: I come here with your own laws in my hands--and the
     volume is quite a heavy one, too--to ask you whether women are
     citizens of this nation? I find in this book, under the heading
     of the chapter on "Citizenship," the following:

          Sec. 1,992. All persons born in the United States and not
          subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,
          are declared to be citizens of the United States.

     I suppose you will admit that women are, in the language of the
     section, "persons," and that we cannot reasonably be included in
     the class spoken of as "Indians not taxed." Therefore I claim
     that we are "citizens." The same chapter also contains the
     following:

          Sec. 1,994. Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married
          to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be
          lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen.

     Under this section also we are citizens. I am myself, as indeed
     are most of the ladies present, married to a citizen of the
     United States; so that we are citizens under this count if we
     were not citizens before. Then, further, in the legislation known
     as "The Civil Rights Bill," I find this language:

          All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States
          shall have the same right, in every State and territory, to
          make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
          evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
          proceedings for the security of persons and property as is
          enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
          punishments, pains, penalties, etc.

     One would think the logical conclusion from that which I have
     last read would be that _all citizens_ are entitled to equal
     protection everywhere. It appears to mean that. Then I turn to
     another piece of legislation--that which is known as "The
     Enforcement Act"--one which some of you, gentlemen, did not like
     very much when it was enacted--and there I find another
     declaration on the same question. The act is entitled "An Act to
     Enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to Vote in the
     Several States of this Union, and for other purposes." The right
     of "citizens" to vote appears to be conceded by this act. In the
     second section it says:

          It shall be the duty of every such person and officer to
          give to all citizens of the United States the same and equal
          opportunity to perform such prerequisite, and to become
          qualified to vote, without distinction of race, color or
          previous condition of servitude.

     I ask you, gentlemen of the committee, as lawyers, whether you do
     not think that, after we have been declared to be citizens, we
     have the right to claim the protection of this enforcement act?
     When you gentlemen from the North rise in your places in the
     halls of congress and make these walls ring with your eloquence,
     you are prone to talk a great deal about the right of every
     United States citizen to the ballot, and the necessity of
     protecting every such citizen in its exercise. What do you mean
     by it?

     It occurs to me here to call your attention to a matter of recent
     occurrence. As you know, there has been a little unpleasantness
     in Maine--a State which is not without a representative among the
     members of the Judiciary Committee--and certain gentlemen there,
     especially Mr. Blaine, have been greatly exercised in their minds
     because, as they allege, the people of Maine have not been
     permitted to express their will at the polls. Why, gentlemen, I
     assert that a majority of the people of Maine have never been
     permitted to express their will at the polls. A majority of the
     people of Maine are women, and from the foundation of this
     government have never exercised any of the inalienable rights of
     citizens. Mr. Blaine made a speech a day or two ago in Augusta.
     He began by reciting the condition of affairs, owing to the
     effort, as he states, "to substitute a false count for an honest
     ballot," and congratulated his audience upon the
     instrumentalities by which they had  triumphed--

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

     He goes on in this vein to speak of those whom he calls "the
     people of Maine." Well, gentlemen, I do not think you will deny
     that _women are people_. It appears to me that what Mr. Blaine
     said in that connection was nonsense, unless indeed he forgot
     that there were any others than men among the people of the State
     of Maine. I don't suppose that you, gentlemen, are often so
     forgetful. Mr. Blaine said further:

          The Republicans of Maine and throughout the land felt that
          they were not merely fighting the battle of a single year,
          but for all the future of the State; not merely fighting the
          battle of our own State alone, but for all the States that
          are attempting the great problem of State government
          throughout the world. The corruption or destruction of the
          ballot is a crime against free government, and when
          successful is a subversion of free government.

     Does that mean the ballot _for men only_ or the ballot _for the
     people_, men and women too? If it is to be received as meaning
     anything, it ought to mean not for one sex alone, but for both.
     Mr. Lincoln declared, in one of his noblest utterances, that no
     man was good enough to govern another man without that man's
     consent. Of course he meant it in its broadest terms; he meant
     that no man or woman was good enough to govern another man or
     woman without that other man's or woman's consent.

     Mr. Blaine, on another occasion, in connection with the same
     subject-matter, had much to say of the enormity of the oppression
     practiced by his political opponents in depriving the town of
     Portland of the right of representation in view of its paying
     such heavy taxes as it does pay. He expressed the greatest
     indignation at the attempt, forgetting utterly that great body of
     women who pay taxes but are deprived of the right of
     representation. In this connection it may be pertinent for me to
     express the hope, by way of a suggestion, that hereafter, when
     making your speeches, you will not use the term "citizens" in a
     broad sense, unless you mean to include women as well as men, and
     that when you do not mean to include women you will speak of male
     citizens as a separate class, because the term, in its general
     application, is illogical and its meaning obscure if not
     self-contradictory.

     President Hayes was so pleased with one of the sentences in his
     message of a year ago that in his message of this year he has
     reiterated it. It reads thus:

          That no temporary or administrative interests of government
          will ever displace the zeal of our people in defense of the
          primary rights of citizenship, and that the power of public
          opinion will override all political prejudices and all
          sectional and State attachments in demanding that all over
          our wide territory the name and character of citizen of the
          United States shall mean one and the same thing and carry
          with them unchallenged security and respect.

     Let me suggest what he ought to have said unless he intended to
     include women, although I am afraid that Mr. Hayes, when he wrote
     this, forgot that there were women in the United States,
     notwithstanding that his excellent wife, perhaps, stood by his
     side. He ought to have said:

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

     If Mr. Hayes had thus expressed himself, he would have made a
     perfectly logical and clear statement. Gentlemen, I hope that
     hereafter, when speaking or voting in behalf of the citizens of
     the United States, you will bear this in mind and will remember
     that women are citizens as well as men, and that they claim the
     same rights.

     This question of woman suffrage cannot much longer be ignored. In
     the State from which I come, although we have not a right to
     vote, we are confident that the influence which women brought to
     bear in determining the result of the election last fall had
     something to do with sending into retirement a Democratic
     governor who was opposed to our reform, and electing a
     Republican who was in favor of it. Recollect, gentlemen, that the
     expenditure of time and money which has been made in this cause
     will not be without its effect. The time is coming when the
     demand of an immense number of the women of this country cannot
     be ignored. When you see these representatives coming from all
     the States of the Union to ask for this right, can you doubt
     that, some day, they will succeed in their mission? We do not
     stand before you to plead as beggars; we ask for that which is
     our right. We ask it as due to the memory of our ancestors, who
     fought for the freedom of this country just as bravely as did
     yours. We ask it on many considerations. Why, gentlemen, the very
     furniture here, the carpet on this floor, was paid for with our
     money. We are taxed equally with the men to defray the expenses
     of this congress, and we have a right equally with them to
     participate in the government.

     In closing, I have only to ask, is there no man here present who
     appreciates the emergencies of this hour? Is there no one among
     you who will rise on the floor of congress as the champion of
     this unrepresented half of the people of the United States? The
     time is not far distant when we shall have our liberties, and the
     politician who can now understand the importance of our cause,
     the statesman who can now see, and will now appreciate the
     justice of it, that man, if true to himself, will write his name
     high on the scroll of fame beside those of the men who have been
     the saviors of the country. Gentlemen I entreat you not to let
     this hearing go by without giving due weight to all that we have
     said. You can no more stay the onward current of this reform than
     you can fight against the stars in their courses.

     Mr. WILLITS of Michigan: _Mr. Chairman_: I would like to make a
     suggestion here. The regulation amendment, as it has heretofore
     been submitted, provided that the right of citizens of the United
     States to vote should not be abridged on account of sex. I notice
     that the amendment which the ladies here now propose has prefixed
     to it this phrase: "The right of suffrage in the United States
     shall be based on citizenship." I call attention to this because
     I would like to have them explain as fully as they may why they
     incorporate the phrase, "shall be based on citizenship." Is the
     meaning this, that all citizens shall have the right to vote, or
     simply that citizenship shall be the basis of suffrage? The
     words, "or for any reason not applicable to all citizens of the
     United States," also seem to require explanation. The proposition
     in the form in which it is now submitted, I understand, covers a
     little more than has been covered by the amendment submitted in
     previous years.

     SARA A. SPENCER of Washington, D. C.: If the committee will
     permit me, I will say that the amendment in its present form is
     the concentrated wish of the women of the United States. The
     women of the country sent to congress petitions asking for three
     different forms of constitutional amendment, and when preparing
     the one now before the committee these three were concentrated in
     the one now before you (identical with that of the resolution
     offered in the House by Hon. George B. Loring and by Hon. T. W.
     Ferry in the Senate), omitting, at the request of each of the
     three classes of petitioners, all phrases which were regarded by
     any of them as objectionable. The amendment as now presented is
     therefore the combined wish of the women of the country, viz.,
     that citizenship in the United States shall mean suffrage, and
     that no one shall be deprived of the right to vote for reasons
     not equally applicable to all citizens.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE said: It is necessary to refer to a
     remarkable decision of the Supreme Court. The case of Virginia L.
     Minor, claiming the right to vote under the fourteenth amendment,
     was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, October
     term, 1874; decision rendered adversely by Chief-Justice Waite,
     March, 1875, upon the ground that "the United States had no
     voters in the States of its own creation." This was a most
     amazing decision to emanate from the highest judicial authority
     of the nation, and is but another proof how fully that body is
     under the influence of the dominant political party.

     Contrary to this decision, I unhesitatingly affirm that the
     United States has possessed voters in States of its own creation
     from the very date of the constitution. In Article I, Sec. 2, the
     constitution provides that

          The House of Representatives shall be composed of members
          chosen every second year by the people of the several
          States, and the electors in each State shall have the
          qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous
          branch of the State legislature.

     The persons so designated are voters under State laws; but by
     this section of the national constitution they are made United
     States voters. It is directed under what conditions of State
     qualification they may cast votes in their respective States for
     members of the lower house of congress. The constitution here
     created a class of United States voters by adoption of an already
     voting class. Did but this single instance exist, it would be
     sufficient to nullify Chief-Justice Waite's decision, as Article
     VI, Sec. 2, declares

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

     This supreme law at its very inception created a class of United
     States voters. If in the Minor case alone, the premises of the
     Supreme Court and Chief-Justice Waite were wrong, the decision
     possesses no legal value; but in addition to this class, the
     United States, by special laws and amendments has from time to
     time created other classes of United States voters.

     Under the naturalization laws citizenship is recognized as the
     basis of suffrage. No State can admit a foreigner to the right of
     the ballot, even under United States laws, unless he is already a
     citizen, or has formally declared his intention of becoming a
     citizen of the United States. The creation of the right here is
     national; its regulation, local.

     Men who commit crimes against the civil laws of the United States
     forfeit their rights of citizenship. State law cannot
     re-habilitate them, but within the last five years 2,500 such men
     have been pardoned by congressional enactment, and thus again
     been made voters in States by United States law. Is it not
     strange that with a knowledge of these facts before him
     Chief-Justice Waite could base his decision against the right of
     a woman to the ballot, on the ground that the United States had
     no voters in the States of its own creation?

     Criminals against the military law of the United States, who
     receive pardon, are still another class of voters thus created. A
     very large body of men, several hundred thousand, forfeited their
     rights of citizenship, their ballot, by participation in the
     rebellion; they were political criminals. When general amnesty
     was proclaimed they again secured the ballot. They had been
     deprived of the suffrage by United States law and it was restored
     to them by the same law.

     It may be replied that the rebellious States had been reduced to
     the condition of territories, over whose suffrage the general
     government had control. But let me ask why, then, a large class
     of men remained disfranchised after these States again took up
     local government? A large class of men were especially exempted
     from general amnesty and for the restoration of their political
     rights were obliged to individually petition congress for the
     removal of their political disabilities, and these men then
     became "voters in States," by action of the United States. Here,
     again, the United States recognized citizenship and suffrage as
     synonymous. If the United States has no voters of its own
     creation in the States, what are these men? A few, the leaders in
     the rebellion, are yet disfranchised, and no State has power to
     change this condition. Only the United States can again make them
     voters in States.

     Under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments the colored men of
     the South, who never had possessed the ballot, and those colored
     men of the North over whom some special disqualification hung,
     were alike made voters by United States law. It required no
     action of Delaware, Indiana, New York, or any of those States in
     which the colored man was not upon voting equality with the white
     men, to change their constitutions or statutes in order to do
     away with such disqualifications. The fourteenth amendment
     created another class of United States voters in States, to the
     number of a million or more. The fourteenth amendment, and the
     act of congress to enforce it, were at once recognized to be
     superior to State law--abrogating and repealing State
     constitutions and State laws contradictory to its provisions.

     By an act of congress March 3, and a presidential proclamation of
     March 11, 1865, all deserters who failed to report themselves to
     a provost marshall within sixty days, forfeited their rights of
     citizenship as an additional penalty for the crime of desertion,
     thus losing their ballot without possibility of its restoration
     except by an act of congress. Whenever this may be done
     collectively or individually, these men will become State voters
     by and through the United States law.

     As proving the sophistry used by legal minds in order to hide
     from themselves and the world the fact that the United States has
     power over the ballot in States, mention may be made of a case
     which, in 1866, came before Justice Strong, then a member of the
     Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, but since a justice of the Supreme
     Court of the United States. For sophistical reasoning it is a
     curiosity in legal decisions. One point made by Judge Strong was,
     that congress may deprive a citizen of the opportunity to enjoy
     a right belonging to him as a citizen of a State even the right
     of voting, but cannot deprive him of the right itself. This is on
     a par with saying that congress may deprive a citizen of the
     opportunity to enjoy a right belonging to him as an individual,
     even the right of life, but cannot deprive him of life itself.

     A still more remarkable class of United States voters than any
     yet mentioned, exists. Soon after the close of the war congress
     enacted a law that foreigners having served in the civil war and
     been honorably discharged from the army, should be allowed to
     vote. And this, too, without the announcement of their intention
     of becoming citizens of the republic. A class of United States
     voters were thus created out of a class of non-citizens.

     I have mentioned eight classes of United States voters, and yet
     not one of the States has been deprived of the powers necessary
     to local self-government. To States belong all matters of
     strictly local interest, such as the incorporation of towns and
     cities, the settlement of county and other boundaries; laws of
     marriage, divorce, protection of life and property, etc. It has
     been said, the ordaining and establishment of a constitution for
     the government of a State is always the act of a State in its
     highest sovereign capacity, but if any question as to nationality
     ever existed, it was settled by the war. Even State constitutions
     were found unable to stand when in conflict with a law of the
     United States or an amendment to its constitution. All are bound
     by the authority of the nation.

     This theory of State sovereignty must have a word. When the Union
     was formed several of the States did not even frame a
     constitution. It was in 1818 that Connecticut adopted her first
     State constitution. Rhode Island had no constitution until 1842.
     Prior to these years the government of these States was
     administered under the authority of royal charters brought out
     from England.

     Where was their State sovereignty? The rights even of suffrage
     enjoyed by citizens of these States during these respective
     periods of forty-two and sixty-six years, were either secured
     them by monarchial England or republican United States. If by the
     latter all voters in these two States during these years were
     United States voters. It is a historical fact that no State save
     Texas was ever for an hour sovereign or independent. The
     experience of the country proves there is but one real
     sovereignty. It has been said, with truth,

          There is but one sovereign State on the American continent
          known to international or constitutional law, and that is
          the republic itself. This forms the United States and should
          be so called.

     I ask for a sixteenth amendment because this republic is a nation
     and not a confederacy of States. I ask it because the United
     States not only possesses inherent power to protect its citizens
     but also because of its national duty to secure to all its
     citizens the exercise of their rights of self-government. I ask
     it because having created classes of voters in numberless
     instances, it is most flagrant injustice to deny this protection
     to woman. I ask it because the Nation and not the State is
     supreme.

     PHOEBE W. COUZINS of Missouri, to whom had been assigned the
     next thirty minutes, said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
     Judiciary Committee_: I am invited to speak of the dangers which
     beset us at this hour in the decision of the Supreme Court of the
     United States in Mrs. Minor's case, which not only stultifies its
     previous interpretation of the recent constitutional amendments
     and makes them a dead letter, but will rank, in the coming ages,
     in the history of the judiciary, with the Dred Scott decision.
     The law, as explained in the Dred Scott case, was an infamous
     one, which trampled upon the most solemn rights of the loyal
     citizens of the government, and declared the constitution to mean
     anything or nothing, as the case might be. Yet the decision in
     that case had a saving clause, for it was not the unanimous voice
     of a Democratic judiciary. Dissenting opinions were nobly uttered
     from the bench. In the more recent case, under the rule of a
     Republican judiciary created by a party professing to be one of
     justice, the rights of one-half of the people were deliberately
     abrogated without a dissenting voice. This violation of the
     fundamental principles of our government called forth no protest.
     In all of the decisions against woman in the Republican court,
     there has not been found one Lord Mansfield, who, rising to the
     supreme height of an unbiased judgment, would give the immortal
     decree that shall crown with regal dignity the mother of the
     race: "I care not for the dictates of judges, however eminent, if
     they be contrary to principle. If the parties will have judgment,
     let justice be done, though the heavens fall."

     The Dred Scott decision declared as the law of citizenship, "to
     be a citizen is to have actual possession and enjoyment, or the
     perfect right to the acquisition and enjoyment of an entire
     equality of privileges, civil and political." But the slave-power
     was then dominant and the court decided that a black man was not
     a citizen because he had not the right to vote. But when the
     constitution was so amended as to make "all persons born or
     naturalized in the United States citizens thereof," a negro, by
     virtue of his United States citizenship, was declared, under the
     amendments, a voter in every State in the Union. And the Supreme
     Court reaffirmed this right in the celebrated slaughter-house
     cases (16 Wallace, 71). It said, "The negro, having by the
     fourteenth amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United
     States, is thus made a voter in every State in the Union."

     But when the loyal women of Missouri, apprehending that "all
     persons beneath the flag were made citizens and voters by the
     fourteenth amendment," through Mrs. Minor, applied to the Supreme
     Court for protection in the exercise of that same right, this
     high tribunal, reversing all its former decisions, proclaims
     State sovereignty superior to national authority. This it does in
     this strange language: "Being born in the United States, a woman
     is a person and therefore a citizen"--we are much obliged to them
     for that definition of our identity as persons--"but the
     constitution of the United States does not confer the right of
     suffrage upon any one." And then, in the face of its previous
     decisions, the court declared: "The United States has no voters
     in the States of its own creation", that the elective officers of
     the United States are all elected, directly or indirectly by
     State voters. It remands woman to the States for her protection,
     thus giving to the State the supreme authority and overthrowing
     the entire results of the war, which was fought to maintain
     national supremacy over any and all subjects in which the rights
     and privileges of the citizens of the United States are involved.

     No supreme allegiance, gentlemen of the committee, can be claimed
     for or by a government, if it has no citizens of its own
     creation, and constitutional amendments cannot confer authority
     over matters which have no existence in the constitution. Thus,
     our supreme law-givers hold themselves up for obloquy and
     ridicule in their interpretation of the most solemn rights of
     loyal citizens, and make our constitutional law to mean anything
     or nothing as the case may be. You will see, gentlemen, that the
     very point which the South contended for as the true one is here
     acknowledged to be the true one by the Supreme Court--that of
     State rights superior to national authority. The whole of the
     recent contest hinged upon this. The appeal to arms and the
     constitutional amendments were to establish the subordination of
     the State to national supremacy, to maintain the national
     authority over any and all subjects in which the rights and
     privileges of the citizens of the United States were involved;
     but this decision in Mrs. Minor's case completely nullifies the
     supreme authority of the government, and gives the States more
     than has hitherto been claimed for them by the advocates of State
     rights. The subject of the franchise is thus wholly withdrawn
     from federal supervision and control. If "the United States has
     no citizens of its own creation," of course no supreme allegiance
     can be claimed over the various citizens of the States.

     The constitutional amendments cannot confer authority over a
     matter which has no existence in the constitution. If it has no
     voters, it can have nothing whatever to do with the elections and
     voting in the States; yet the United States invaded the State of
     New York, sent its officers there to try, convict, and sentence
     Miss Anthony for exercising a right in her own State which they
     declared the United States had no jurisdiction over. They send
     United States troops into the South to protect the negro in his
     right to vote, and then declare they have no jurisdiction over
     his voting. Then, mark the grave results which may and can follow
     this decision and legislation. I do not imagine that the Supreme
     Court, in its cowardly dodging of woman's right to all the rights
     and privileges which citizenship involves, designed to completely
     abrogate the principles established by the recent contest, or to
     nullify the ensuing legislation on the subject. But it certainly
     has done all this; for it must logically follow that if the
     United States has no citizens, it cannot legislate upon the
     rights of citizens, and the recent amendments are devoid of
     authority. It has well been suggested by Mr. Minor, in his
     criticism of the decision, that if members of the House of
     Representatives are elected by _State_ voters, as the Supreme
     Court has declared, there is no reason why States may not refuse
     to elect them as in 1860, and thus deprive congress of its power.
     And if a sufficient number could be united to recall at their
     pleasure these representatives, what authority has the federal
     government, under this decision, for coërcing them into
     subjection or refusing them a separation, if all these voters in
     the States desired an independent existence? None whatever. Mr.
     Garfield, in the House, in his speech last March, calls attention
     to this subject, but does not allude to the fact that the Supreme
     Court has already opened the door. He says:

          There are several ways in which our government may be
          annihilated without the firing of a gun. For example,
          suppose the people of the United States should say, we will
          elect no representatives to congress. Of course this is a
          violent supposition; but suppose that they do not. Is there
          any remedy? Does our constitution provide any remedy
          whatever? In two years there would be no House of
          Representatives; of course, no support of the government and
          no government. Suppose, again, the States should say,
          through their legislatures, we will elect no senators. Such
          abstention alone would absolutely destroy this government;
          and our system provides no process of compulsion to prevent
          it. Again, suppose the two houses were to assemble in their
          usual order, and a majority of one in this body or in the
          Senate should firmly band themselves together and say, we
          will vote to adjourn the moment the hour of meeting arrives,
          and continue so to vote at every session during our two
          years of existence--the government would perish, and there
          is no provision of the constitution to prevent it.

     The States may inform their representatives that they can do
     this; and, under this position, they have the power and the right
     so to do.

     Gentlemen, we are now on the verge of one of the most important
     presidential campaigns. The party in power holds its reins by a
     very uncertain tenure. If the decision shall favor the one which
     has been on the anxious bench for lo! these twenty years, and in
     probation until hope has well-nigh departed, what may be its
     action if invested again with the control of the destinies of
     this nation? The next party in power may inquire, and answer, by
     what right and how far the Southern States are bound by the
     legislation in which they had no part or consent. And if the
     Supreme Court of a Republican judiciary now declares, _after_ the
     war, _after_ the constitutional amendments, that federal suffrage
     does not exist and never had an existence in the constitution, it
     follows that the South has the right to regulate and control all
     of the questions arising upon suffrage in the several States
     without any interference on the part of an authority which
     declares it has no jurisdiction. An able writer has said:

          All injustice at last works out a loss. The great ledger of
          nations does not report a good balance for injustice. It has
          always met fearful losses. The irrepealable law of justice
          will, sooner or later, grind a nation to powder if it fail
          to establish that equilibrium of allegiance and protection
          which is the essential end of all government. Woe to that
          nation which thinks lightly of the duties it owes to its
          citizens and imagines that governments are not bound by
          moral laws.

     It was the tax on tea--woman's drink prerogative--which
     precipitated the rebellion of 1776. To allay the irritation of
     the colonies, all taxes were rescinded save that on tea, which
     was left to indicate King George's dominion. But our
     revolutionary fathers and mothers said, "No; the tax is paltry,
     but the principle is great"; and Eve, as usual, pointed the moral
     for Adam's benefit. A most suggestive picture, one which aroused
     the intensest patriotism of the colonies, was that of a woman
     pinioned by her arms to the ground by a British peer, with a
     British red-coat holding her with one hand and with the other
     forcibly thrusting down her throat the contents of a tea-pot,
     which she heroically spewed back in his face; while the figure of
     Justice, in the distance, wept over this prostrate Liberty. Now,
     gentlemen, we might well adopt a similar representation. Here is
     Miss Smith of Glastonbury, Conn., whose cows have been sold every
     year by the government, contending for the same principle as our
     forefathers--that of resistance to taxation without
     representation. We might have a picture of a cow, with an
     American tax-collector at the horns, a foreign-born assessor at
     the heels, forcibly selling the birthright of an American
     citizen, while Julia and Abby Smith, in the background, with
     veiled faces, weep over the degeneracy of Republican leadership.

     But there are those in authority in the government who do not
     believe in this decision by the Supreme Court of the United
     States. The attorney-general, in his instructions to the United
     States marshals and their deputies or assistants in the Southern
     States, when speaking of the countenance and support of all good
     citizens of the United States in the respective districts of the
     marshals, remarks:

          It is not necessary to say that it is upon such countenance
          and support that the United States mainly rely in their
          endeavor to enforce the right to vote which they have given
          or have secured.

     You notice the phraseology. Again, he says:

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

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

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

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

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

     And that is what we ask for women.

     In conclusion, gentlemen, I say to you that a sense of justice is
     the sovereign power of the human mind, the most unyielding of
     any; it rewards with a higher sanction, it punishes with a deeper
     agony than any earthly tribunal. It never slumbers, never dies.
     It constantly utters and demands justice by the eternal rule of
     right, truth and equity. And on these eternal foundation-stones
     we stand.

     Crowning the dome of this great building there stands the
     majestic figure of a woman representing Liberty. It was no
     idealistic thought or accident of vision which gave us Liberty
     prefigured by a woman. It is the great soul of the universe
     pointing the final revelation yet to come to humanity, the
     prophecy of the ages--the last to be first.[59]

When the proposition to print these speeches came before the House
a prolonged debate against it showed the readiness of the
opposition to avail themselves of every legal technicality to
deprive women of equal rights and privileges. But the measure
finally passed and the documents were printed. To the Hon. Elbridge
G. Lapham of New York we were largely indebted for the success of
this measure.

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

     In the Supreme Court of the United States, on Monday, on motion
     of Mrs. Belva Lockwood, Samuel R. Lowry of Alabama was admitted
     to practice. Mr. Lowry is president of the Huntsville, Ala.,
     industrial school, and a gentleman of high attainments. It was
     quite fitting that the first woman admitted to practice before
     this court should move the admission of the first Southern
     colored man. Both will doubtless make good records as
     representatives of their respective classes. This scene was
     characterized by George W. Julian as one of the most impressive
     he ever witnessed--a fitting subject for an historical painting.

In 1880, women were for the first time appointed census
enumerators. Gen. Francis Walker, head of that department, said
there was no legal obstacle to the appointment of women as
enumerators, and he would gladly confirm the nomination of suitable
candidates. Very different was the action of the head of the
post-office department, who refused, on the ground of sex, the
application of 500 women for appointment as letter-carriers.

In view of the important work to be done in a presidential
campaign, the National Association decided to issue an appeal to
the women of the country to appoint delegates from each State and
territory, and prepare an address to each of the presidential
nominating conventions. In Washington a move was made for an act of
incorporation in order that the Association might legally receive
bequests. Tracts containing a general statement of the status of
the movement were mailed to all members of congress and officers of
the government.

At a meeting of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Randall, a Democratic
member of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Garfield, a Republican member of
Ohio, reminded Mr. Frye of Maine that he had been instructed by
that committee, nearly a year before, to present to the House a
resolution on the rights of women. The _Congressional Record_ of
March 27 contains the following:

     Mr. FRYE: I am instructed by the Committee on Rules to report a
     resolution providing for the appointment of a special committee
     on the political rights of women, and to move that it be placed
     on the House calendar.

     Mr. CONGER: Let it be read.

     The clerk read the resolution as follows:

          _Resolved by the House of Representatives_, That the speaker
          appoint a special committee of nine members, to whom shall
          be referred all memorials, petitions, bills and resolutions
          relating to the rights of the women of the United States,
          with power to hear the same and report thereon by bill or
          otherwise. The resolution was referred to the House
          calendar.

This was a proof of the advancing status of our question that both
Republican and Democratic leaders regarded the "rights of women"
worthy the consideration of a special committee.

In the spring of 1880, the National Association held a series of
mass meetings in the States of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and
Michigan, commencing with the May anniversary in Indianapolis, at
which sixteen States were represented.[60] The convention was held
in Park Theatre, Miss Anthony presiding. The arrangements devolved
chiefly on Mrs. May Wright Thompson, who discharged her
responsibilities in a most praiseworthy manner, providing
entertainment for the speakers, and paying all the expenses from
the treasury of the local association. A series of resolutions was
presented, discussed by a large number of the delegates, and
adopted.

In accordance with the plan decided upon in Washington of attending
all the nominating conventions, the next meeting was held in
Chicago, beginning on the same day with the Republican convention.
Farwell Hall was filled at an early hour; Miss Anthony in the
chair. A large number of delegates[61] were present from every
part of the Union, among whom were many of the most distinguished
advocates of woman suffrage. Mrs. Harbert gave an eloquent address
of welcome.

Committees were appointed to visit the delegates from the different
States to the Republican convention, to secure seats for the
members of the National Association, and to ask that a plank
recommending a sixteenth amendment be incorporated in the platform
adopted by the Republican party. The proprietor of the Palmer House
gave the use of a large parlor to the Association for business
meetings and the reception of Republican delegates, many of whom
were in favor of a woman's plank in their platform, and of giving
the ladies seats in the convention. Strenuous efforts had been made
to this end. One hundred and eighteen senators and representatives
addressed a letter to the chairman of the National Republican
committee--Don Cameron--asking that seventy-six seats should be
given in the convention to the representatives of the National
Woman Suffrage Association. It would naturally be deemed that a
request, proceeding from such a source, would be heeded. The men
who made it were holding the highest positions in the body politic;
but the party managers presumed to disregard this request, and also
the vote of the committee. The question of furnishing seats for our
delegates was brought up before the close of their deliberations by
Mr. Finnell, of Kentucky, who said:

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

Mr. Cary of Wyoming, made some remarks showing that woman suffrage
in his territory had been to the advantage of the Republican party,
and seconded the motion of Mr. Finnell, which was adopted. The
following resolution of the Arkansas delegation to the National
Republican convention was read and received with enthusiasm:

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

It is here to be noted that not only were the Arkansas delegation
of Republicans favorable to the recognition of woman suffrage in
the platform of that party, but that the Southern delegates were
largely united in that demand. Mr. New told the ladies that the
Grant men had voted as a unit in favor of the women, while the
Blaine and Sherman men unanimously voted against them.

But the ladies, well knowing the uncertainty of politicians, were
soon upon the way to the committee-room, to secure positive
assurance from the lips of the chairman himself--Don Cameron of
Pennsylvania--that such tickets should be forthcoming, when they
were stopped by a messenger hurrying after them to announce the
presence of the secretary of the committee, Hon. John New, at their
headquarters, in the grand parlor of the Palmer House, with a
communication in regard to the tickets. He said the seventy-six
seats voted by the committee had been reduced to _ten_ by its
chairman, and these ten were not offered to the Association in its
official capacity, but as complimentary or "guest tickets," for a
seat on the platform back of the presiding officers.

The Committee on Resolutions, popularly known as the platform
committee, held a meeting in the Palmer House, June 2, to which
Belva A. Lockwood obtained admission. On motion of Mr. Fredley of
Indiana, Mrs. Lockwood was given permission to present the memorial
of the National Woman Suffrage Association to the Republican party.

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

     Seventy-six delegates from local, State and National suffrage
     associations, representing every section of the United States,
     are here to-day to ask you to place the following plank in your
     platform:

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

     We ask you to pledge yourselves to protect the rights of one-half
     of the American people, and to thus carry your own principles to
     their logical results. The thirteenth amendment of 1865,
     abolishing slavery, the fourteenth of 1867, defining citizenship,
     and the fifteenth of 1870, securing United States citizens in
     their right to vote, and your prolonged and powerful debates on
     all the great issues involved in our civil conflict, stand as
     enduring monuments to the honor of the Republican party. Impelled
     by the ever growing demand among women for a voice in the laws
     they are required to obey, for their rightful share in the
     government of this republic, various State legislatures have
     conceded partial suffrage. But the great duty remains of securing
     to woman her right to have her opinions on all questions counted
     at the ballot-box.

     You cannot live on the noble words and deeds of those who
     inaugurated the Republican party. You should vie with those men
     in great achievements. Progress is the law of national life. You
     must have a new, vital issue to rouse once more the enthusiasm of
     the people. Our question of human rights answers this demand. The
     two great political parties are alike divided upon finance,
     free-trade, labor reform and general questions of political
     economy. The essential point in which you differ from the
     Democratic party is national supremacy, and it is on this very
     issue we make our demand, and ask that our rights as United
     States citizens be secured by an amendment to the national
     constitution. To carry this measure is not only your privilege
     but your duty. Your pledge to enfranchise ten millions of women
     will rouse an enthusiasm which must count in the coming closely
     contested election. But above expediency is right, and to do
     justice is ever the highest political wisdom.

The committee then adjourned to meet at the Sherman-house club
room, where they reässembled at 8 o'clock. Soon after the calling
to order of our own convention in Farwell Hall, word came that a
hearing had been accorded before the platform committee. This
proved to be a sub-committee. Ten minutes were given Miss Anthony
to plead the cause of 10,000,000--yes, 20,000,000 citizens of this
republic(?), while, watch in hand, Mr. Pierrepont sat to strike the
gavel when this time expired. Ten minutes!! Twice has the great
Republican party, in the plentitude of its power, allowed woman
_ten_ minutes to plead her cause before it. Ten minutes twice in
the past eight years, while all the remainder of the time it has
been fighting for power and place and continued life, heedless of
the wrongs and injustice it was constantly perpetrating towards
one-half the people. Ten minutes! What a period in the history of
time. Small hope remained of a committee, with such a chairman,
introducing a plank for woman suffrage.

The whole Arkansas delegation had expressed itself in favor; most
of the Kentucky delegation were known to be so, while New York not
only had friends to woman suffrage among its number, but even an
officer of the State association was a delegate to the Republican
convention. These men were called upon, a form of plank placed in
their hands and they were asked to offer it as an amendment when
the committee reported, but that plan was blocked by a motion that
all resolutions should be referred to the committee for action.

Senator Farr of Michigan, a colored man, was the only member of the
platform committee who suggested the insertion of a woman suffrage
plank, the Michigan delegation to a man, favoring such action. The
delegates were ready in case opportunity offered, to present the
address to the convention. But no such moment arrived.

The mass convention had been called for June 2, but the crowds in
the city gave promise of such extended interest that Farwell Hall
was engaged for June 1, and before the second day's proceedings
closed, funds were voluntarily raised by the audience to continue
the meeting the third day. So vast was the number of letters and
postals addressed to the convention from all parts of the country
from women who desired to vote, that the whole time of each session
could have been spent in reading them--one day's mail alone
bringing letters and postals from twenty-three States and three
territories. Some of these letters contained hundreds of names,
others represented town, county, and State societies. Many were
addressed to the different nominating conventions, Republican,
Greenback, Democratic, while the reasons given for desiring to
vote, ranged from the simple demand, through all the scale of
reasons connected with good government and morality. So highly
important a contribution to history did the Chicago Historical
Society[62] deem these expressions of woman's desire to vote, that
it made a formal request to be put in possession of _all_ letters
and postals, with a promise that they should be carefully guarded
in a fire-proof safe.

After the eloquent speeches[63] of the closing session, Miss Alice
S. Mitchell sang Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic,"
Mrs. Harbert playing the accompaniment, and the immense audience of
3,000 people joining in the chorus. This convention held three
sessions each day, and at all except the last an admission fee was
charged, and yet the hall was densely crowded throughout. For
enthusiasm, nothing ever surpassed these meetings in the history of
the suffrage movement. A platform and resolution were adopted as
the voice of the convention.

     The special object of the National Woman Suffrage Association is
     to secure national protection for women in the exercise of their
     right of suffrage. It recognizes the fact that our government was
     formed on the political basis of the consent of the governed, and
     that the Declaration of Independence struck a blow at every
     existing form by declaring the individual to be the source of all
     power. The members of this association, outside of our great
     question, have diverse political affiliations, but for the
     purpose of gaining this great right to the ballot, its members
     hold their party predilections in abeyance; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That in this year of presidential nominations and
     political campaigns, we announce our determination to support no
     party by whatever name called, unless such party shall, in its
     platform, first emphatically endorse our demand for a recognition
     of the exact and permanent political equality of all citizens.

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

     When a new political party is formed it should be based upon the
     principles of justice to all classes hitherto unrecognized. The
     finance question, as broad as it is, does not reach down to the
     deepest wrong in the nation. Beneath this question lies that of
     the denial of the right of self-government to one-half the
     people. It is impossible to secure the property rights of the
     people without first recognizing their personal rights. More than
     any class of men, woman represents the great unpaid laborer of
     the world--a slave, who, as wife and daughter, absolutely works
     for her board and clothes. The question of finance deeply
     interests woman, but her opinions upon it are valueless while
     deprived of the right of enforcing them at the ballot box. You
     are here in convention assembled, not alone to nominate a
     candidate for president, but also to promulgate your platform of
     principles to the world. Now is your golden opportunity. The
     Republican party presents no vital issue to the country; its
     platform is a repetition of the platitudes of the past twenty
     years. It has ceased to be a party of principles. It lives on the
     past. The deeds of dead men hold it together. Its disregard of
     principles has thrown opportunity into your hands. Will you make
     yourselves the party of the future? Will you recognize woman's
     right of self-government? Will you make woman suffrage an
     underlying principle in your platform? If you will make these
     pledges, the National Association will work for the triumph of
     your party in the approaching closely contested campaign.

The ladies were accorded hearings by several delegations previous
to the assembling of the convention. A resolution committee of one
from each State was appointed, and each member allowed two minutes
to present either by speech or writing such principles as it
requested incorporated in the platform. Lucinda B. Chandler, being
a Greenbacker on principle, was a regularly elected delegate and by
courtesy was added to a sub-committee on resolutions. The one
prepared by the National Association was placed in her hands, but,
as she was forbidden to speak upon it, her support could only be
given by vote, and a meaningless substitute took its place. The
courtesy of placing Mrs. Chandler upon the committee was like much
of man's boasted chivalry to woman, a seeming favor at the expense
of right.

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

Committees were at once appointed to visit the different
delegations. Women were better treated by the Democrats at
Cincinnati than by the Republicans at Chicago. A committee-room in
Music Hall was at once placed at their disposal, placards pointing
to their headquarters were printed by the local committee at its
own expense, and sixteen seats given to the ladies upon the floor
of the house, just back of the regular delegates. A hearing[66]
before the platform committee was granted with no limit as to time.
At the close a delegate approached the table, saying, "I favor
giving woman a plank," "So do I," replied Mr. Watterson, chairman
of the committee. Many delegates in conversation, favored the
recognition of woman's political rights, and a large number of the
platform committee favored the introduction of the following plank:

     That the Democratic party, recognizing the rapid growth of the
     woman suffrage question, suggests a consideration of this
     important subject by the people in anticipation of the time, near
     at hand, when it must become a political issue.

But although the platform committee sat until 2 A.M., no such
result was reached, in consequence, it was said, of the objection
of the extreme Southern element which feared the political
recognition of negro women of the South.

The delegations from Maine, Kansas and New York were favorable, and
offered the Association the use of their committee-rooms at the
Burnett House and the Grand Hotel whenever desired. Mayor Prince of
Boston not only offered a committee-room but secured seats for the
delegates on the floor of the house. Mr. Henry Watterson, of the
Louisville _Courier-Journal_, as chairman of the Platform
Committee, extended every courtesy within his power. Mayor Harrison
of Chicago did his best to secure to the delegates a hearing before
the convention. He offered to escort Miss Anthony to the platform
that she might at least present the address. "You may be
prevented," suggested one. "I'd like to see them do it," he
replied. "Have I not just brought about a reconciliation between
Tammany and the rest of New York?" Taking Miss Anthony upon his arm
and telling her not to flinch, he made his way to the platform,
when the chairman, Hon. Wade Hampton of South Carolina, politely
offered her a seat, and ordered the clerk to read the address:

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

     On behalf of the women of the country we appear before you,
     asking the recognition of woman's political rights as one-half
     the people. We ask no special privileges, no special legislation.
     We simply ask that you live up to the principles enunciated by
     the Democratic party from the time of Jefferson. By what
     principle of democracy do men assume to legislate for women?
     Women are part of the people; your very name signifies government
     by the people. When you deny political rights to women you are
     false to your own principles.

     The Declaration of Independence recognized human rights as its
     basis. Constitutions should also be general in character. But in
     opposition to this principle the party in power for the last
     twenty years has perverted the Constitution of the United States
     by the introduction of the word "male" three times, thereby
     limiting the application of its guarantees to a special class. It
     should be your pride and your duty to restore the constitution to
     its original basis by the adoption of a sixteenth amendment,
     securing to women the right of suffrage; and thus establish the
     equality of all United States citizens before the law.

     Not for the first time do we make of you these demands. At your
     nominating convention in New York, in 1868, Susan B. Anthony
     appeared before you, asking recognition of woman's inherent
     natural rights. At your convention of 1872, in Baltimore,
     Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B. Anthony made a similar
     appeal. In 1876, at St. Louis, Phoebe W. Couzins and Virginia L.
     Minor presented our claims. Now, in 1880, our delegates are
     present here from the Middle States, from the West and from the
     South. The women of the South are rapidly uniting in their demand
     for political recognition, as they have been the most deeply
     humiliated by a recognition of the political rights of their
     former slaves.

     To secure to 20,000,000 of women the rights of citizenship is to
     base your party on the eternal principles of justice; it is to
     make yourselves the party of the future; it is to do away with a
     more extended slavery than that of 4,000,000 of blacks; it is to
     secure political freedom to half the nation; it is to establish
     on this continent the democratic theory of the equal rights of
     the people.

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

          WHEREAS, Believing in the self-evident truth that all
          persons are created with certain inalienable rights, and
          that for the protection of these rights governments are
          instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of
          the governed; therefore,

          _Resolved_, That the Democratic party pledges itself to use
          all its powers to secure to the women of the nation
          protection in the exercise of their right of suffrage.

     On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

              MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

That the women however, in the campaign of 1880, received the best
treatment at the hands of the National Prohibition party is shown
by the following invitation received at the Bloomington convention:

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

     The woman suffragists are respectfully invited to meet with and
     participate in the proceedings of the National Prohibition
     Convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, June, 1880.

                        JAMES BLACK, _Chairman of National Committee._

     Per J. W. HAGGARD.

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

     We also demand that women having privileges as citizens in other
     respects, shall be clothed with the ballot for their own
     protection, and as a rightful means for a proper settlement of
     the liquor question.

After attending all these nominating conventions, some of the
delegates[67] went to Wisconsin where the State and National
Associations held a joint convention, in the Opera House at
Milwaukee, June 4, 5. Madam Anneke gave the address of welcome.[68]
Fresh from the exciting scenes of the presidential conventions, the
speakers were unusually earnest and aggressive. The resolutions
discussed at the Indianapolis convention were considered and
adopted. Carl Doerflinger read a greeting in behalf of the German
Radicals of the city. Letters were read from prominent persons,
expressing their interest in the movement.[69] Dr. Laura Ross
Wolcott made all the arrangements and contributed largely to the
expenses of the convention. The roll of delegates shows that the
State, at least, was well represented.[70]

Thus through the terrible heat of June this band of earnest women
held successive conventions in Bloomington, Ill., Grand Rapids,
Mich., Lafayette and Terre Haute, Ind. They were most hospitably
entertained, and immense audiences greeted them at every point.
Mrs. Cordelia Briggs took the entire responsibility of the social
and financial interests of the convention at Grand Rapids, which
continued for three days with increasing enthusiasm to the close.
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar made the arrangements for Lafayette which were
in every way successful.

After the holding of these conventions, delegations from the
National Association called on the nominees of the two great
parties to ascertain their opinions and proposed action, if any, on
the question of woman suffrage. Mrs. Blake, and other ladies
representing the New York city society, called on General Hancock
at his residence and were most courteously received. In the course
of a long conversation in which it was evident that he had given
some thought to the question, he said he would not veto a District
of Columbia Woman Suffrage bill, provided such a bill should pass
congress, thereby putting himself upon better record than Horace
Greely the year of his candidacy, who not only expressed himself as
opposed to woman suffrage, but also declared that, if elected, he
would veto such a bill provided it passed congress.

Miss Anthony visited James A. Garfield at his home in Mentor, Ohio.
He was very cordial, and listened with respect to her presentation
of the question. Although from time to time in congress he had
uniformly voted with our friends, yet he expressed serious doubts
as to the wisdom of pressing this measure during the pending
presidential campaign.

As it was deemed desirable to get some expression on paper from the
candidates the following letter, written on official paper, was
addressed to the Republican and Democratic nominees:

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

     Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: As vice-president-at-large of
     the National Woman Suffrage Association, I am instructed to ask
     you, if, in the event of your election, you, as President of the
     United States, would recommend to congress, in your message to
     that body, the submission to the several legislatures of a
     sixteenth amendment to the national constitution, prohibiting the
     disfranchisement of United States citizens on account of sex.
     What we wish to ascertain is whether you, as president, would use
     your _official influence_ to secure to the women of the several
     States a _national guarantee_ of their right to a voice in the
     government on the same terms with men. Neither platform makes any
     pledge to secure political equality to women--hence we are
     waiting and hoping that one candidate or the other, or both, will
     declare favorably, and thereby make it possible for women, with
     self-respect, to work for the success of one or the other or both
     nominees. Hoping for a prompt and explicit statement, I am, sir,
     very respectfully yours,

                                             SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

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

                                   MENTOR, O., August 25, 1880.

     Dear MISS ANTHONY: Your letter of the 17th inst. came duly to
     hand. I take the liberty of asking your personal advice before I
     answer your official letter. I assume that all the traditions and
     impulses of your life lead you to believe that the Republican
     party has been and is more nearly in the line of liberty than its
     antagonist the Democratic party; and I know you desire to advance
     the cause of woman. Now, in view of the fact that the Republican
     convention has not discussed your question, do you not think it
     would be a violation of the trust they have reposed in me, to
     speak, "as their nominee"--and add to the present contest an
     issue that they have not authorized? Again, if I answer your
     question on the ground of my own private opinion, I shall be
     compelled to say, that while I am open to the freest discussion
     and fairest consideration of your question, I have not yet
     reached the conclusion that it would be best for woman and for
     the country that she should have the suffrage. I may reach it;
     but whatever time may do to me, that fruit is not yet ripe on my
     tree. I ask you, therefore, for the sake of your own question, do
     you think it wise to pick my apples now? Please answer me in the
     frankness of personal friendship. With kind regards, I am very
     truly yours,

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


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

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

     _First_. The Republican party did run well for a season in the
     "line of liberty"; but since 1870, its congressional enactments,
     majority reports, Supreme Court decisions, and now its
     presidential platform, show a retrograde movement--not only for
     women, but for colored men--limiting the power of the national
     government in the protection of United States citizens against
     the injustice of the States, until what we gained by the sword is
     lost by political surrenders. And we need nothing but a
     Democratic administration to demonstrate to all Israel and the
     sun the fact, the sad fact, that all _is lost_ by the
     _Republican_ party, and not _to be lost_ by the _Democratic_
     party. I mean, of course, the one vital point of national
     supremacy in the protection of United States citizens in the
     enjoyment of their right to vote, and the punishment of States or
     individuals thereof, for depriving citizens of the exercise of
     that right. The first and fatal mistake was in ceding to the
     States the right to "abridge or deny" the suffrage to
     foreign-born men in Rhode Island, and all women throughout the
     nation, in direct violation of the principle of national
     supremacy. And from that time, inch by inch, point by point has
     been surrendered, until it is only in _name_ that the Republican
     party is the party of national supremacy. Grant did not protect
     the negro's ballot in 1876--Hayes cannot in 1880--nor could
     Garfield in 1884--for the "sceptre has departed from Judah."

     _Second_. For the candidate of a party to _add_ to the
     discussions of the contest an issue unauthorized or unnoted in
     its platform, when that issue was one vital to its very life,
     would, it seems to me, be the grandest act imaginable. And, for
     doing that very thing, with regard to the protection of the
     negroes of the South, you are to-day receiving more praise from
     the best men of the party, than for any and all of your
     utterances _inside_ the line of the platform. And I _know_, if
     you had in your letter of acceptance, or in your New York speech,
     declared yourself in favor of "perfect equality of rights for
     women, civil and political," you would have touched an electric
     spark that would have fired the heart of the women of the entire
     nation, and made the triumph of the Republican party more grand
     and glorious than any it has ever seen.

     _Third_. As to picking fruit before it is ripe! Allow me to
     remind you that very much fruit is _never_ picked; some gets
     nipped in the blossom; some gets worm-eaten and falls to the
     ground; some rots on the trees before it ripens; some, too slow
     in ripening, gets bitten by the early frosts of autumn; while
     some rich, rare, ripe apples hang unpicked, frozen and worthless
     on the leafless trees of winter! Really, Mr. Garfield, if, after
     passing through the war of the rebellion and sixteen years in
     congress;--if, after seeing, and hearing, and repeating, that _no
     class_ ever got justice and equality of chances from any
     government except it had the power--the ballot--to clutch them
     for itself;--if, after all your opportunities for growth and
     development, you cannot yet see the truth of the great principle
     of individual self-government;--if you have only reached the idea
     of class-government, and that, too, of the most hateful and cruel
     form--bounded by sex--there must be some radical defect in the
     ethics of the party of which you are the chosen leader.

     No matter which party administers the government, women will
     continue to get only subordinate positions and half-pay, not
     because of the party's or the president's lack of chivalric
     regard for woman, but because, in the nature of things, it is
     impossible for any government to protect a disfranchised class in
     equality of chances. Women, to get justice, must have political
     freedom. But pardon this long trespass upon your time and
     patience, and please bear in mind that it is not for the many
     _good_ things the Republican party and its nominee have done in
     extending the area of liberty, that I criticise them, but because
     they have failed to place the women of the nation on the plane of
     political equality with men. I do not ask you to go beyond your
     convictions, but I do most earnestly beg you to look at this
     question from the stand-point of woman--alone, without father,
     brother, husband, son--battling for bread! It is to help the
     millions of these unfortunate ones that I plead for the ballot in
     the hands of all women. With great respect for your frank and
     candid talk with one of the disfranchised, I am very sincerely
     yours,

                                             SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

As Mr. Garfield was the only presidential nominee of either of the
great parties who deigned a reply to the National Association, we
have given his letter an honored place in our history, and desire
to pay this tribute to his memory, that while not fully endorsing
our claims for political equality he earnestly advocated for woman
all possible advantages of education, equal rights in the trades
and professions, and equal laws for the protection of her civil
rights.

The Thirteenth Annual Washington Convention assembled in Lincoln
Hall, January 18, 1881. The first session was devoted to memorial
services in honor of Lucretia Mott. A programme[71] for the
occasion was extensively circulated, and the response in character
and numbers was such an audience as had seldom before crowded that
hall. The spacious auditorium was brilliant with sunlight and the
gay dresses, red shawls and flowers of the ladies of the
fashionable classes. Mrs. Hayes with several of her guests from the
White House occupied front seats. The stage was crowded with
members of the association, Mrs. Mott's personal friends and wives
of members of congress. The decorations which had seldom been
surpassed in point of beauty and tastefulness of arrangement,
formed a fitting setting for this notable assemblage of women. The
background was a mass of colors, formed by the graceful draping of
national flags, here and there a streamer of old gold with heavy
fringe to give variety, while in the center was a national shield
surmounted by two flags. On each side flags draped and festooned,
falling at the front of the stage with the folds of the rich maroon
curtains. Graceful ferns and foliage plants had been arranged,
while on a table stood a large harp formed of beautiful red and
white flowers.[72] At the other end was a stand of hot-house
flowers, while in the center, resting on a background of maroon
drapery, was a large crayon picture of Lucretia Mott. Above the
picture a snow-white dove held in its beak sprays of smilax,
trailing down on either side, and below was a sheaf of ripened
wheat, typical of the life that had ended. The occasion which had
brought the ladies together, the placid features of that kind and
well-remembered face, had a solemnizing effect upon all, and
quietly the vast audience passed into the hall. The late-comers
finding all the seats occupied stood in the rear and sat in the
aisles.

Presently Miss Couzins, stepping to the front of the stage said
gently, "In accordance with the custom of Mrs. Mott and the
time-honored practice of the Quakers, I ask you to unite in an
invocation to the Spirit." She bowed her head. The audience
followed her example. For several minutes the solemn stillness of
devotion pervaded the hall. When Miss Couzins had taken her seat
the quartette choir of St. Augustine's church (colored) which was
seated on the platform, sang sweetly an appropriate selection,
after which Mrs. Stanton delivered the eulogy,[73] holding the
rapt attention of her audience over an hour. At the close Frederick
Douglass said:

     He had listened with interest to the fine analysis of the life
     and services of Lucretia Mott. He was almost unwilling to have
     his voice heard after what had been said. He was there to show by
     his presence his profound respect and earnest love for Lucretia
     Mott. He recognized none whose services in behalf of his race
     were equal to hers. Her silence even in that cause was more than
     the speech of others. He had no words for this occasion.

Robert Purvis at the request of a number of colored citizens of
Washington, presented a beautiful floral harp to Mr. Davis, the
son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, the only representative of her family
present. He paid a tender tribute to the noble woman whose
life-long friendship he had enjoyed. Mr. Davis having a seat on the
platform, received the gift with evident emotion, and returning
thanks, he said:

     He would follow the example of Mrs. Mott who seldom kept a gift
     long, and present these rare flowers to Mrs. Spofford, the
     treasurer of the Association.

     Miss ANTHONY said: The highest tribute she could pay, was, that
     during the past thirty years she had always felt sure she was
     right when she had the approval of Lucretia Mott. Next to that of
     her own conscience she most valued the approval of her sainted
     friend. And it was now a great satisfaction that in all the
     differences of opinion as to principles and methods in our
     movement, Mrs. Mott had stood firmly with the National
     Association, of which she was to the day of her death the honored
     and revered vice-president.

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

     In looking around this magnificent audience I cannot help asking
     myself the question, Where are the young girls? They should be
     here. It is the birthright of every girl to know the life and
     deeds of every noble woman. I think Lucretia Mott was as much
     above the average woman as Abraham Lincoln above the average man.

Miss Couzins closed with a few graceful words. She expressed her
pleasure in meeting so magnificent an audience, and thought the
whole occasion was a beautiful tribute to one of America's best and
noblest women. She hoped the mothers present would carry away the
impressions they had received and teach their daughters to hold the
name of Lucretia Mott ever in grateful remembrance. The choir sang
"Nearer, My God, to Thee." The entire audience arose and joined in
the singing, after which they slowly dispersed, feeling that it had
indeed been a pentacostal occasion.

An able paper from Alexander Dumas, on "Woman Suffrage as a means
of Moral Improvement and Prevention of Crime,"[74] was translated
for this meeting by Thomas Mott, the only son of James and Lucretia
Mott. This convention continued two days, with the usual number of
able speakers.[75] It was announced at the last session that an
effort would be made by Senator McDonald, next day, to call up a
resolution providing for the appointment of a standing committee
for women; accordingly the ladies' gallery in the Senate was well
filled with delegates.

From the _Congressional Record_, January 20, 1881:

     Mr. MCDONALD: On February 16, 1880, I submitted a resolution
     providing for the appointment of a committee of nine senators,
     whose duty it shall be to receive, consider and report upon all
     petitions, memorials, resolutions and bills relating to the
     rights of women of the United States, said committee to be called
     "Committee on the Rights of Women." It is on the calendar, and I
     ask for its present consideration.

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

     The chief clerk read the resolution, as follows:

          _Resolved_, That a committee of nine senators be appointed
          by the Senate, whose duty it shall be to receive, consider
          and report upon all petitions, memorials, resolutions and
          bills relating to the rights of women of the United States,
          said committee to be called the Committee on the Rights of
          Women.

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

     Mr. MCDONALD: Mr. President, it seems to me that the time has
     arrived when the rights of the class of citizens named in the
     resolution should have some hearing in the national legislature.
     We have standing committees upon almost every other subject, but
     none to which this class of citizens can resort. When their
     memorials come in they are sometimes sent to the Committee on the
     Judiciary, sometimes to the Committee on Privileges and
     Elections, and sometimes to other committees. The consequence is
     that they pass around from committee to committee and never
     receive any consideration. In the organization and growth of the
     Senate a number of standing committees have been from time to
     time created and continued from congress to congress, until many
     of them have but very little duty now to perform. It seems to me
     to be very appropriate to consider this question now, and provide
     some place in the capitol, some room of the Senate, some branch
     of the government, where this class of applicants can have a full
     and fair hearing, and have such measures as may be desired to
     secure to them such rights brought fairly and properly before
     the country. I hope there will be no opposition to the resolution
     but that it will be adopted by unanimous consent.

     Mr. CONKLING: Does the senator from Indiana wish to raise a
     permanent committee on this subject to take its place and remain
     on the list of permanent committees?

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

     Mr. CONKLING: Mr. President, I was in hopes that the honorable
     senator from Indiana, knowing how sincere and earnest he is in
     this regard, intended that an end should be made soon of this
     subject; that the prayer of these petitioners should be granted
     and the whole right established; but now it seems that he wishes
     to create a perpetual committee, so that it is to go on
     interminably, from which I infer that he intends that never shall
     these prayers be granted. I suggest to the senator from Indiana
     that, if he be in earnest, if he wishes to crown with success
     this great and beneficent movement, he should raise a special
     committee, which committee would understand that it was to
     achieve and conclude its purpose, and this presently, and not
     postpone indefinitely in the vast forever the realization of this
     hope. I trust, therefore, that the senator from Indiana will make
     this a special committee, and will let that special committee
     understand that before the sun goes down on the last day of this
     session it is to take final, serious, intelligent action, for
     which it is to be responsible, whether that action be one way or
     the other.[76]

     Mr. MCDONALD: The senator from New York misapprehends one purpose
     of this committee. I certainly have no desire that the rights of
     this class of our citizens should be deferred to that far-distant
     future to which he has made reference, nor would this committee
     so place them. If it be authorized by the Senate, it will be the
     duty of the committee to receive all petitions, memorials,
     resolutions and bills relating to the rights of women, not merely
     presented now but those presented at any future time. It is
     simply to provide a place where one-half the people of the United
     States may have a tribunal in this body before which they can
     have their cases considered. I apprehend that these rights are
     never to be ended. I do not suppose that the time will ever come
     in the history of the human race when there will not be rights of
     women to be considered and passed upon. Therefore, to make this
     merely a special committee would not accomplish the purpose I had
     in view. While it would of course give a committee that would
     receive and hear such petitions as are now presented and consider
     such bills as should now be brought forward, it would be better
     to have a committee from term to term, where these same plaints
     could be heard, the same petitions presented, the same bills
     considered, and where new rights, whatever they might be, can be
     discussed and acted upon. Therefore I cannot accept the
     suggestion of the senator from New York to make this a special
     committee.

     Mr. DAVIS of West Virginia: I think it a bad idea to raise an
     extra committee. I move that the resolution be referred to the
     Committee on Rules, I think it ought to go there. That is where
     the rules generally require all such resolutions to be referred.

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

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

Amid all the pleasure of political excitement the social amenities
were not forgotten. A brilliant reception[78] and supper were given
to the delegates by Mrs. Spofford at the Riggs House. During the
evening Mrs. Stanton presented the beautiful life-size photograph
of Lucretia Mott which had adorned the platform at the convention,
to Howard University, and read the following letter from Edward M.
Davis:

     Mrs. ELIZABETH CADY STANTON--_Dear Madam_: As an expression of my
     gratitude to the colored people of the District for their
     beautiful floral tribute to the memory of my dear mother, I
     desire in the name of her children to present to Howard
     University the photograph of Lucretia Mott which adorned the
     platform during the convention. It is a fitting gift to an
     institution that so well illustrates her principles in opening
     its doors to all youth without regard to sex or color. With
     sincere regret that I cannot be present this evening at the
     reception, I am gratefully yours,

                                             EDWARD M. DAVIS.

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

In the spring of 1881, the National Association held a series of
conventions through New England, beginning with the May anniversary
in Boston, of which we give the following description from the
_Hartford Courant_:

     Among the many anniversaries in Boston the last week in May, one
     of the most enthusiastic was that of the National Woman Suffrage
     Association, held in Tremont Temple. The weather was cool and
     fair and the audience fine throughout, and never was there a
     better array of speakers at one time on any platform. The number
     of thoughtful, cultured young women appearing in these
     conventions, is one of the hopeful features for the success of
     this movement. The selection of speakers for this occasion had
     been made at the Washington convention in January, and different
     topics assigned to each that the same phases of the question
     might not be treated over and over again.


[Illustration: Jane H. Spofford]


     Mrs. Harriet Hansom Robinson (wife of "Warrington," so long the
     able correspondent of the _Springfield Republican_), who with her
     daughter made the arrangements for our reception, gave the
     address of welcome, to which the president, Mrs. Stanton,
     replied. Rev. Frederic Hinckley of Providence, spoke on "Unity of
     Principle in Variety of Method," and showed that while differing
     on minor points the various woman suffrage associations were all
     working to one grand end. Anna Garlin Spencer made a few remarks
     on "The Character of Reformers." Rev. Olympia Brown gave an
     exceptionally brilliant speech a full hour in length on
     "Universal Suffrage"; Harriette Robinson Shattuck's theme was
     "Believing and Doing"; Lillie Devereux Blake's, "Demand for
     Liberty"; Matilda Joslyn Gage's, "Centralization"; Belva A.
     Lockwood's, "Woman and the Law". Mary F. Eastman followed showing
     that woman's path was blocked at every turn, in the professions
     as well as the trades and the whole world of work; Isabella
     Beecher Hooker gave an able argument on the "Constitutional Right
     of Women to Vote"; Martha McLellan Brown spoke equally well on
     the "Ethics of Sex"; Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether of
     Tennessee, gave a most amusing commentary on the spirit of the
     old common law, cuffing Blackstone and Coke with merciless
     sarcasm. Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon of Louisiana spoke with great
     effect on "Woman's Intellectual Powers as Developed by the
     Ballot." These two Southern ladies are alike able, witty and
     pathetic in their appeals for justice to woman. Mrs. May Wright
     Sewall's essay on "Domestic Legislation," showing how large a
     share of the bills passed every year directly effect home life,
     was very suggestive to those who in answer to our demand for
     political power, say "Woman's sphere is home," as if the home
     were beyond the control and influence of the State. Beside all
     these thoroughly prepared addresses, Susan B Anthony, Dr.
     Clemence Lozier, Dr. Caroline Winslow, ex-Secretary Lee of
     Wyoming, spoke briefly on various points suggested by the several
     speakers.

     The white-haired and venerable philosopher, A. Bronson Alcott,
     was very cordially received, after being presented in
     complimentary terms by the president. Mr. Alcott paid a glowing
     tribute to the intellectual worth of woman, spoke of the divinity
     of her character, and termed her the inspiration font from which
     his own philosophical ideas had been drawn. Not until the women
     of our nation have been granted every privilege would the liberty
     of our republic be assured.[79] The well-known Francis W. Bird
     of Walpole, who has long wielded in the politics of the Bay
     State, the same power Thurlow Weed did for forty years in New
     York, being invited to the platform, expressed his entire
     sympathy with the demand for suffrage, notwithstanding the common
     opinion held by the leading men of Massachusetts, that the women
     themselves did not ask it. He recommended State rather than
     national action.

     Rev. Ada C. Bowles of Cambridge, and Rev. Olympia Brown, of
     Racine, Wis., opened the various sessions with prayer--striking
     evidence of the growing self-assertion of the sex, and the rapid
     progress of events towards the full recognition of the fact that
     woman's hour has come. Touching deeper and tenderer chords in the
     human soul than words could reach, the inspiring strains of the
     celebrated organist, Mr. Ryder, rose ever and anon, now soft and
     plaintive, now full and commanding, mingled in stirring harmony
     with prayer and speech. And as loving friends had covered the
     platform with rare and fragrant flowers, the æsthetic taste of
     the most fastidious artist might have found abundant
     gratification in the grouping and whole effect of the assemblage
     in that grand temple. Thus through six prolonged sessions the
     interest was not only kept up but intensified from day to day.

     The National Association was received right royally in Boston. On
     arriving they found invitations waiting to visit Governor Long at
     the State House, Mayor Prince at the City Hall, the great
     establishment of Jordan, Marsh & Co., and the Reformatory Prison
     for Women at Sherborn. Invitations to take part were extended to
     woman suffrage speakers in many of the conventions of that
     anniversary week. Among those who spoke from other platforms,
     were Matilda Joslyn Gage, Ellen H. Sheldon, Caroline B. Winslow,
     M. D., editor of _The Alpha_, and Rev. Olympia Brown. The
     president of the association, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
     received many invitations to speak at various points, but had
     time only for the "Moral Education," "Heredity," and "Free
     Religious" associations. Her engagement at Parker Memorial Hall,
     prevented her from accepting the governor's invitation, but
     Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B Anthony led the way to the
     State house and introduced the delegates from the East, the West,
     the North and the South, to the honored executive head of the
     State, who had declared himself, publicly, in favor of woman
     suffrage. The ceremony of hand-shaking over, and some hundred
     women being ranged in a double circle about the desk, Mrs. Hooker
     stepped forward, saying:

          Speak a word to us, Governor Long, we need help. Stand here,
          please, face to face with these earnest women and tell us
          where help is to come from.

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

          Mrs. HOOKER said: Permit me, sir, to thank you for this
          unlooked-for and unusual courtesy in the name of our
          president who should be here to speak for herself and for
          us, and in the name of these loyal women who ask only that
          the right of the _people_ to govern themselves shall be
          maintained. In this great courtesy extended us by good old
          Massachusetts as citizens of this republic unitedly
          protesting against being taxed without representation, and
          governed without our consent, we see the beginning of the
          end--the end of our wearisome warfare--a warfare which
          though bloodless, has cost more than blood, by as much as
          soul-suffering exceeds that of mere flesh. I see as did
          Stephen of old, a celestial form close to that of the Son of
          Man, and her name is Liberty--always a woman--and she bids
          us go on--go on--even unto the end.

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

          Yes, we are tired. Sir, we are weary with our work. For
          forty years some of us have carried this burden, and now, if
          we might lay it down at the feet of honorable men, such as
          you, how happy we should be.

     The next day Mayor Prince, though suffering from a late severe
     attack of rheumatism, cordially welcomed the delegates in his
     room at the City Hall, and chatting familiarly with those who had
     been at the Cincinnati convention and witnessed his great
     courtesy, some one remarked that from that time Miss Anthony had
     proclaimed him the prince among men, and Mrs. Stanton immediately
     suggested that if the party with which he was identified were
     wise in their day and generation they would accept his
     leadership, even to the acknowledgement of the full citizenship
     of this republic, and thus secure not only their gratitude but
     their enthusiastic support in the next presidential election.
     Having compassion upon his Honor because of his manifest physical
     disability, the ladies soon withdrew and went directly to the
     house of Jordan, Marsh & Co., where were assembled in a large
     hall at the top of the building such a crowd of handsome, happy,
     young girls as one seldom sees in this work-a-day world; that
     well-known Boston firm within the last six months having fitted
     up a large recreation room for the use of their employés at the
     noon hour. Half a hundred girls were merrily dancing to the music
     of a piano, but ceased in order to listen to words of cheer from
     Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs. Hooker and Mrs. Sewall. At the close of their
     remarks Mr. Jordan brought forward a reluctant young girl who
     could give us, if she would, a charming recitation from "That
     Lass o' Lowrie's," in return for our kindness in coming to them.
     And after saying in a whisper to one who kindly urged compliance
     to this unexpected call, that this had been such a busy day she
     feared her dress was not all right, her face became unconscious
     of self in a moment, and with true dramatic instinct, she gave
     page after page of that wonderful story of the descent into the
     mine and the recognition there of one whom she loved, precisely
     as you would desire to hear it were the scene put upon the stage
     with all the accessories of scenery and companion actors.

     From Jordan, Marsh & Co.'s a large delegation proceeded to visit
     the Reformatory Prison at Sherborn which was established three or
     four years ago. The board of directors, consisting of three women
     and two men, has charge of all the prisons of the State. Mrs.
     Johnson, one of the directors, a noble, benevolent woman,
     interested in the great charities of Boston, was designated by
     Governor Long--through whose desire the Association visited the
     prison--to do the honors and accompany the party from Boston. The
     officers, matron and physician of the Sherborn prison, are all
     women. Dr. Mosher, the superintendent, formerly the physician, is
     a fair, noble-looking woman about thirty-five years of age. She
     has her own separate house connected with the building. The
     present physician, a delicate, cultured woman, with sympathy for
     her suffering charges, is a recent graduate of Ann Arbor.

     The entire work is done by the women sent there for restraint,
     and the prison is nearly self-supporting; it is expected that
     within another year it will be entirely so. Laundry work is done
     for the city of Boston, shirts are manufactured, mittens knit,
     etc. The manufacturing machinery will be increased the coming
     year. The graded system of reward has been found successful in
     the development of better traits. It has four divisions, and
     through it the inmates are enabled to work up by good behavior
     toward more pleasant surroundings, better clothes and food and
     greater liberty. From the last grade they reach the freedom of
     being bound out; of seventy-eight thus bound during the past year
     but seven were returned. The whole prison, chapel, school-room,
     dining-room, etc., possesses a sweet, clean, pure atmosphere. The
     rooms are light, well-ventilated, vines trailing in the windows
     from which glimpses of green trees and blue sky can be seen.

     Added to all the other courtesies, there came the invitation to a
     few of the representatives of the movement to dine with the Bird
     Club at the Parker House, in the same cozy room where these
     astute politicians have held their councils for so many years,
     and whose walls have echoed to the brave words of many of New
     England's greatest sons. The only woman who had ever been thus
     honored before was Mrs. Stanton, who, "escorted by Warrington,"
     dined with these honorable gentlemen in 1871. On this occasion
     Susan B. Anthony and Harriet H. Robinson accompanied her. Around
     the table sat several well-known reformers and distinguished
     members of the press and bar. There was Elizur Wright whose name
     is a household word in many homes as translator of La Fontaine's
     fables for the children. Beside him sat the well-known Parker
     Pillsbury and his nephew, a promising young lawyer in Boston. At
     one end of the table sat Mr. Bird with Mrs. Stanton on his right
     and Miss Anthony on his left. At the other end sat Frank Sanborn
     with Mrs. Robinson (wife of "Warrington") on his right. On either
     side sat Judge Adam Thayer of Worcester, Charles Field, Williard
     Phillips of Salem, Colonel Henry Walker of Boston, Mr. Ernst of
     the Boston _Advertiser_, and Judge Henry Fox of Taunton. The
     condition of Russia and the Conkling imbroglio in New York; the
     new version of the Testament and the reason why German Liberals,
     transplanted to this soil, immediately become conservative and
     exclusive, were all considered. Carl Schurz, with his narrow
     ideas of woman's sphere and education, was mentioned by way of
     example. In reply to the question how the Suffrage Association
     felt in regard to Conkling's reëlection. Mrs. Robinson said:

          That the leaders, who are students of politics were unitedly
          against him. Their only hope is in the destruction of the
          Republican party, which is too old and corrupt to take up
          any new reform.

     Frank Sanborn, fresh from the perusal of the New Testament, asked
     if women could find any special consolation in the Revised
     Version regarding everlasting punishment. Mrs. Stanton replied:

          Certainly, as we are supposed to have brought "original sin"
          into the world with its fearful forebodings of eternal
          punishment, any modification of Hades in fact or name, for
          the _men_ of the race, the innocent victims of our
          disobedience, fills us with satisfaction.

     From the club the ladies hastened to the beautiful residence of
     Mrs. Fenno Tudor, fronting Boston Common, where hundreds of
     friends had already gathered to do honor to the noble woman so
     ready to identify herself with the unpopular reforms of her day.
     Among the many beautiful works of art, a chief attraction was the
     picture of the grand-mother of Parnell, the Irish agitator, by
     Gilbert Stuart. The house was fragrant with flowers, and the
     unassuming manners of Mrs. Tudor, as she moved about among her
     guests, reflected the glory of our American institutions in
     giving the world a generation of common-sense women who do not
     plume themselves on any adventitous circumstances of wealth or
     position, but bow in respect to morality and intelligence
     wherever they find it. At the close of the evening Mrs. Stanton
     presented Mrs. Tudor with the "History of Woman Suffrage" which
     she received with evident pleasure and returned her sincere
     thanks.

At the close of the anniversary week in Boston, successful meetings
were held in various cities,[80] beginning at Providence, where Dr.
Wm. F. Channing made the arrangements. These conventions were the
first that the National Association ever held in the New England
States, presenting the national plan of woman's enfranchisement
through a sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.


FOOTNOTES:

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

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

"Taxation without representation is tyranny. Woman is taxed to
support pauperism and crime, and is compelled to feed and clothe
the law-makers who oppress her."

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

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

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

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

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

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

[56] This week has been devoted almost exclusively to the women,
who as temperance leaders, female suffragists and general
reformers, have become a power in the land which can no longer be
ridiculed or ignored. Yesterday Lincoln Hall was packed to its
utmost capacity with such an audience as no other entertainment or
amusement has ever before gathered in this city. Women of
refinement and cultivation, of thought and purpose, women of
standing and position in society, mothers of families, wives of
clergymen, were there by the hundreds, to listen to the words of
wisdom and eloquence that fell from the lips of that assembly, the
most carefully organized, thoroughly governed, harmoniously acting
association in this great country. Members of congress, professors
of colleges, judges and gentlemen of leisure, sat or stood in
admiration of the progress of the women, who are so earnestly
striving to regenerate our beloved republic, over which the shadow
of anarchy and dissolution is hovering with outspread wings. These
women are no longer trembling suppliants, feeling their way
cautiously and feebly amid an overpowering mass of obstructions;
they are now strong in their might, in their unity, and in the
righteousness of their cause. Men will do wisely if they attract
this power instead of repelling it; if they permit women to work in
concert with them, instead of compelling them to be arrayed against
them. The fate of Governor Robinson and Senator Ecelstine of New
York, indicates what they can do, and what they will do, if obliged
to assume the attitude of aggressors. Congress has heard no such
eloquence upon its floors this week as we have listened to from the
lips of these noble women.--[Washington correspondent of the
Portland (Me.) _Transcript_, Jan. 23, 1880.

These conventions occur yearly and although the ladies have fought
long and hard, and seem to have not yet reached a positive
assurance of success, still they continue to force the fight with
greater earnestness and redoubled energy, and their meetings are
conducted with much wisdom and decided spirit. There is one thing
to the credit of these ladies which cannot be said of the opposite
sex, and that is, their conventions are models of good order and
parliamentary eloquence, and they put their work through in a
graceful, business-like manner.--[Washington _Critic_, Jan. 21,
1880.

The announcement that the public session of the National Woman
Suffrage Convention would begin at one o'clock yesterday afternoon
at Lincoln Hall sufficed to attract a most brilliant audience,
composed principally of ladies, occupying every seat and thronging
the aisles. The inconvenience of remaining standing was patiently
endured by hundreds who seemed loth to leave while the convention
was in progress.--[Washington _National Republican_, Jan. 22, 1880.

The session of the Woman Suffrage Convention in Washington this
week has developed the fact that these strong-minded women are
making progress. The convention itself was composed of women of
marked ability, and its proceedings were marked by dignity and
decorum. The very best citizens of the city attended the
meetings.--[Washington correspondent Syracuse _Daily Standard_.

[57] Letters were read from Mary Powers Filley, N. H.; Martha G.
Tunstall, Texas; M. A. Darling, Mich.; May Wright Thompson, Ind.;
Sarah Burger Stearns, Minn.; Miss Martin, Ill.; W. G. Myers, O.;
Annie L. Quinby, Ky.; Zina Young Williams, Utah; Barbara J.
Thompson, Neb.; Mira L. Sturgis, Me.; Orra Langhorne, Va.; Emily P.
Collins, La.; Charles P. Wellman, esq., Ga.

[58] Judge Edmunds meeting Miss Anthony afterwards, complimented
her on having made an argument instead of what is usually given
before committees, platform oratory. He said her logic was sound,
her points unanswerable. Nor were the delegates familiar with that
line of argument less impressed by it, given as it was without
notes and amid many interruptions. It was one of those occasions
rarely reached, in which the speaker showed the full height to
which she was capable of rising. We have not space for the whole
argument, and the train of reasoning is too close to be
broken.--[M. J. G.

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

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

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

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

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

_Dear Madam:_ I write you in behalf of the Chicago Historical
Society, and with the hope that you will obligingly secure for and
present to this society a full manuscript record of the
_mass-meeting_ to be held in Farwell Hall in this city, June 2,
1880, duly signed by its officers. We hope too you will do the
society the great favor to deposit in its archives all the letters
and postals which you may receive in response to your invitations
to attend that meeting.

This meeting may be an important one and long to be remembered. It
is hard to measure the possibilities of 1880. I hope this meeting
will mark an epoch in American history equal to the convention held
in Independence Hall in 1776. How valuable would be the attested
manuscript record of that convention and the correspondence
connected therewith! The records of the Farwell-hall meeting may be
equally valuable one hundred years hence. Please let the records be
kept in the city in which the convention or mass-meeting is held.

I am a Republican. I hope the party to which I belong will be
consistent. On the highest stripe of its banner is inscribed
"Freedom and Equal Rights." I hope the party will not be so
inconsistent as to refuse to the "better half" of the people of the
United States the rights enjoyed by the liberated slaves at the
South.

The leaders should not be content _to suffer it to be so_, but
should work with a will to make it so. I have but little confidence
in the sincerity of the man who will shout himself hoarse about
"shot guns" and "intimidation" at the South, when ridicule and
sneers come from his "shot gun" pointed at those who advocate the
doctrine that our mothers, wives and sisters are as well qualified
to vote and hold official position as the average Senegambian of
Mississippi.

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

                    Very Respectfully,       A. D. HAGER, _Librarian_.

[63] By Mrs. Saxon of New Orleans, La.; Mrs. Meriwether of Memphis,
Mrs. Sallie Clay Bennett, daughter of Cassius M. Clay of Richmond
Ky.; and others. Mrs. Bennett related a little home incident. She
said: A few days ago she was in her front yard planting with her
own hands some roses, when "our ex-governor," passing by,
exclaimed: "Mrs. Bennett, I admire that in you; whatever one wants
well done he must do himself." She immediately answered: "That is
true Governor, and that is why we women suffragists have determined
to do our own voting hereafter." She then informed him that she
wanted to speak to him on that great question. He was rather
anxious to avoid the argument, and expressed his surprise and "was
sorry to see a woman like her, surrounded by so many blessings,
with a kind husband, numerous friends and loving children,
advocating woman suffrage! She ought to be contented with these.
She was not like Miss Anthony--" "Stop, Governor," I exclaimed,
"Don't think of comparing me to that lady, for I feel that I am not
worthy to touch the hem of her garments." She was, she said, indeed
the mother of five dear children, but she [Miss Anthony] is the
mother of a nation of women. She thought the women feared God
rather than man, and it was only this which encouraged them to
speak on this subject, so dear to their hearts, in public. One lady
gave as a reason why she wanted to vote, that it was because "the
men did not want them to," which evoked considerable merriment.
This induced the chair to remind the audience of Napoleon's rule:
"Go, see what your enemy does not want you to do and do it." Of the
audience the _Inter-Ocean_ said: "The speakers of all the sessions
were listened to with rapt attention by the audience, and the
points made were heartily applauded. It would be difficult to
gather so large an audience of our sex whose appearance would be
more suggestive of refinement and intelligence."

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

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

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

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

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

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

[70] The delegates were Olympia Brown, _Racine_; L. C. Galt, M. M.
Frazier, _Mukwonago_; E. A. Brown, _Berlin_; E. M. Cooley,
_Eureka_; E. L. Woolcott, _Ripon_; O. M. Patton, M. D., _Appleton_;
H. Suhm, E. Hohgrave, _Sauk City_; M. W. Mabbs, C. M. Stowers,
_Manitowoc_; S. C. Guernsey, _Janesville_; H. T. Patchin, _New
London_; Jennie Pomeroy, _Grand Rapids_; Mrs. H. W. Rice,
_Oconomowoc_; Amy Winship, _Racine_; Almedia B. Gray, Matilda
Graves, Jessie Gray, _Scholfield Mills_; Mrs. Mary Collins,
_Mukwonago_; Mrs. Jere Witter, _Grand Rapids_; Mrs. Lucina E.
DeWolff, _Whitewater_. The Milwaukee delegates were: Dr. Laura R.
Wolcott, Mme. Mathilde Franceske Anneke, Mrs. A. M. Bolds, Mrs. A.
Flagge, Agnes B. Campbell, Mary A. Rhienart, Matilda Pietsch, N. J.
Comstock, Sarah R. Munro, M. D., Juliet H. Severance, M. D., Mrs.
Emily Firega, Carl Doerflinger. Maximillian Grossman and Carl
Herman Boppe.

[71] 1. Silent Invocation. 2. Music. 3. Eulogy, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton. 4. Tributes, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony. 5.
Music. 6. Tributes, Robert Purvis, May Wright Sewall, Phoebe W.
Couzins. 7. Closing Hymn--"_Nearer, my God, to Thee_."

[72] Of the floral decorations, to which reference is made above as
contributing so largely to the handsome appearance of the stage,
the harp was furnished through Mr. Wormley in behalf of the colored
admirers of Mrs. Mott, and the _epergne_ was provided for the
occasion by the National Association. There was also a basket of
flowers, conspicuous for its beauty, sent in by Senator Cameron of
Pennsylvania.

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

[74] See _National Citizen_ of February, 1881.

[75] Edward M. Davis, Susan B. Anthony, Marilla M. Ricker, Rachel
and Julia Foster, Frederick Douglass, Belva A. Lockwood, Robert
Purvis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This was the first time that Mrs.
Martha M'Clellan Brown, Miss Jessie Waite, Mrs. May Wright Sewall
and Mrs. Thornton Charles were on our Washington platform. The
latter read a poem on woman's sphere.

[76] A standing committee is a permanent one about which no
question can be raised in any congress. A special committee is a
transient one to be decided upon at the opening of each congress;
hence may be at any time voted out of existence. No one understood
this better than New York's Stalwart senator, and his plausible
manner of killing the measure deceived the very elect. Enough
senators were pledged to have carried Mr. McDonald's motion had it
been properly understood, but they, as well as some of the ladies
in the gallery, were entirely misled by Mr. Conkling's seeming
earnest intention to hasten the demands of the women by a
short-lived committee, and while those in the gallery applauded,
those on the floor defeated the measure they intended to carry.

[77] _Yeas_--Messrs. Beck, Booth, Brown, Coke, Davis (W. Va.),
Eaton, Edmunds, Farley, Garland, Groome, Hill (Ga.), Harris,
Ingalls, Kernan, Lamar, Morgan, Morrill, Pendleton, Platt, Pugh,
Ransom, Saulsbury, Slater, Vance, Vest and Withers--26.

_Nays_--Messrs. Anthony, Blair, Burnside, Butler, Call, Cameron
(Pa.), Cameron (Wis.), Conkling, Dawes, Ferry, Hoar, Johnston,
Jonas, Kellogg, Logan, McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Rollins,
Saunders, Teller, Williams and Windom--23.

[78] Of this reception the _National Republican_ said: The
attractions presented by the fair seekers of the ballot were so
much superior to those of the dancing reception going on in the
parlors above, that it was almost impossible to form a set of the
lanciers until after the gathering in the lower parlors had
entirely dispersed.

[79] Miss Anthony was presented with a beautiful basket of flowers
from Mrs. Mary Hamilton Williams of Fort Wayne, Ind., and returned
her thanks. Another interesting incident during the proceedings of
the convention was the presentation of an exquisite gold cross from
the "Philadelphia Citizens' Suffrage Association," to Miss Anthony.
Mrs. Sewall of Indianapolis, in a speech so tender and loving as to
bring tears to many eyes, conveyed to her the message and the gift.
Miss Anthony's acceptance was equally happy and impressive. As
during the last thirty years the press of the country has made
Susan B. Anthony a target for more ridicule and abuse than any
other woman on the suffrage platform, it is worth noting that all
who know her now vie with each other in demonstrations of love and
honor.--[E. C. S.

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

PORTLAND, Me.--City Hall, June 2, 3. Rev. Dr. McKeown of the M. E.
Church made the address of welcome. Letter read from Dr. Henry C.
Garrish. Among the speakers were Charlotte Thomas, A. J. Grover.

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

CONCORD, N. H.--White's Opera House, June 4, 5. Speakers
entertained by Mrs. Armenia Smith White. Olympia Brown and Miss
Anthony spoke before the legislature in Representatives
Hall--nearly all the members present--the latter returned on Sunday
and spoke on temperance and woman suffrage at the Opera House in
the afternoon, Universalist church in the evening.

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

HARTFORD, Ct.--Unity Hall. June 13, 14. Mrs. Hooker presiding;
Frances Ellen Burr, Emily P. Collins, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
Caroline Gilkey Rogers, Mary A. Pell taking part in the meetings.

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

The speakers who made the entire New England tour were Rev. Olympia
Brown, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Meriwether, the Misses Foster
and Miss Anthony. The arrangements for all these conventions were
made by Rachel Foster of Philadelphia.



CHAPTER XXX.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.

1882-1883.


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

Although the effort to secure a standing committee on the political
rights of women was defeated in the forty-sixth congress, by New
York's Stalwart Senator, Roscoe Conkling, motions were made early
in the first session of the forty-seventh congress, by Hon. George
F. Hoar in the Senate, and Hon. John D. White in the House, for a
special committee to look after the interests of women.[81] It
passed by a vote of 115 to 84 in the House, and by 35 to 23 in the
Senate. On December 13, 1881, the Senate Committee on Rules
reported the following resolution for the appointment of a special
committee on woman suffrage:

          _Resolved_, That a select committee of seven senators be
          appointed by the Chair, to whom shall be referred all
          petitions, bills and resolves providing for the extension of
          suffrage to women or the removal of their legal
          disabilities.

                                                  DECEMBER 14.

     Mr. HOAR: I move to take up the resolution reported by the
     Committee on Rules yesterday, for the appointment of a select
     committee on the subject of woman suffrage.

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

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

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

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

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

     Mr. EDMUNDS: It is the regular order now.

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

     Mr. VEST: No, sir.

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

     Mr. VEST: I have had the honor for a few years to be a member of
     the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and my colleagues
     on that committee will bear witness with me to the trouble and
     annoyance which at every session have arisen in regard to giving
     accommodations to the special committees. Two sessions ago there
     was a conflict between the Senate and House in regard to
     furnishing committee-rooms for three special committees, and it
     is only upon the doctrine of _pedis possessio_ that the Senate
     to-day holds three committee-rooms in the capitol, the House
     still laying claim as a matter of law, through their Committee on
     Public Buildings and Grounds, for the possession of these rooms.
     At the special session, on account of the exigencies in regard to
     rooms, we were compelled to take the retiring-room assigned near
     the gallery to the ladies, and cut it into two rooms, to
     accommodate select committees.

     At this session we have created two special committees more, and
     I should like to make the inquiry when and where this manufacture
     of special committees is to cease? As soon as any subject becomes
     one of comment in the newspapers, or, respectfully I say it, a
     hobby with certain zealous partisans throughout the country,
     application is made to the Senate of the United States and a
     special committee is to be appointed. For this reason, and for
     the simple reason that a stop must be had somewhere to the
     raising of special committees, I oppose the proposition now
     before the Senate.

     But, Mr. President, I will be entirely ingenuous and give another
     reason. This is simply a step toward the recognition of woman
     suffrage, and I am opposed to it upon principle in its inception.
     In my judgment it has nothing but mischief in it to the
     institutions and to the society of this whole country. I do not
     propose to enter into a discussion of that subject to-day, but it
     will be proper for me to make this statement, and I make it
     intending no reflection upon the zealous ladies who have engaged
     for the past ten years in manufacturing a public sentiment upon
     this question. I received to-day a letter from a distinguished
     lady in my own State, for whom I have personally the greatest
     admiration and respect, calling my attention to the fact that I
     propose to deny justice to the women of the country. Mr.
     President, I deny it. It is because I believe that the
     conservative influence of society in the United States rests with
     the women of the country that I propose not to degrade the wife
     and mother to the ward politician, the justice of the peace, or
     the notary public. It is because I believe honestly that all the
     best influences for the conservation of society rest upon the
     women of the country in their proper sphere that I shall oppose
     this and every other step now and henceforth as violating, as I
     believe, one of the great essential fundamental laws of nature
     and of society.

     Mr. President, the revenges of nature are sure and unerring, and
     these revenges are just as certain in political matters and in
     social matters as in the physical world. Now and here I desire to
     record once for all my conviction that in this movement to take
     the women of the country out of their proper sphere of social
     influence, that great and glorious sphere in which nature and
     nature's God have placed them, and rush them into the political
     arena, the attempt is made to put them where they were never
     intended to be; and I now and here record my opposition to it.
     This may seem to be but a small matter, but as this letter shows,
     and I reveal no private confidence, it recognizes the first great
     step in this reform, as its advocates are pleased to term it. My
     practice and conviction as a public man is to fight every wrong
     wherever I believe it to exist. I am opposed to this movement. I
     am opposed to it upon principle, upon conviction, and I shall
     call for the yeas and nays in order to record my vote against it.


                                                  DECEMBER 15.

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

     Mr. VEST: Mr. President, I disclaim any intention again to incite
     or excite any general discussion in regard to woman suffrage. The
     senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar], for whom I have very great
     regard, was yesterday pleased to observe that the State
     governments furnished by the senator from Missouri and other
     senators in the past had been no argument in favor of manhood
     suffrage. Mr. President, I have been under the impression that
     the American people to-day are the best governed, the best
     clothed, the best fed, the best housed, the happiest people upon
     the face of the globe, and that, too, notwithstanding the fact
     that they have been under the domination of the Republican party
     for twenty long years. I have also been under the impression that
     the institutions of the States and of the United States are an
     improvement upon all governmental theories and schemes hitherto
     known to mortal man; but we are to learn to-day from the senator
     from Massachusetts that this government and the State governments
     have been failures, and that woman suffrage must be introduced in
     order to purify the political atmosphere and elevate the
     suffrage.

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

     Mr. VEST: Of course.

     Mr. HOAR: I desire to disclaim the meaning which the honorable
     senator seems to have put upon my words. I agree with him that
     the American governments have been the best on the face of the
     earth, but it is because of their adoption of that principle of
     equality more than any other government, the logical effect of
     which will compel them to yield the right prayed for to women,
     that they are the best. But still best as they are, I said, and
     mean to say, that the business of governing mankind has been the
     one business on the face of the earth which has been done most
     clumsily, which has been, even where most excellent, full of
     mistakes, expense, injustice, and wrong-doing. What I said was
     that I did not think the persons to whom that privileged function
     had been committed so far were entitled to claim any special
     superiority for the masculine intellect in the results which it
     had achieved.

     Mr. VEST: To say that the governments, State and national, now in
     existence upon this continent are imperfect is but to announce
     the truism that everything made by man is necessarily imperfect.
     But I stand here to declare to-day that the governments of the
     States, and the national government, in theory, although failing
     sometimes in practice, are a standing monument to the genius and
     intellect of the men who created them. But the senator from
     Massachusetts was pleased to say further, that woman suffrage
     should obtain in this country in the interest of education. I
     permit not that senator to go further than myself in the line of
     universal public education. I have declared, over and over again,
     in every county in my State for the past ten years, that
     universal education should accompany universal suffrage, that the
     school-house should crown every mound in prairie and forest, that
     it was the temple of liberty and the altar of law and order.

     I well remember that I was thrilled with the eloquence of the
     distinguished senator from Massachusetts at the last session of
     the last congress, when, upon a bill to provide for general
     education by a donation of the public lands, he so pathetically
     and justly described the mass of dark ignorance and illiteracy
     projected upon the people of the South under the policy of the
     Republican party, and the senator then stood here and said that
     the people of Massachusetts extended the public lands to relieve
     the people of the South from this monstrous burden. What does the
     senator propose to do to-day? He proposes with one stroke of the
     pen to double, and more than double, the illiterate suffrage of
     the United States. The senator says that one-half the people of
     the United States are represented in this measure of woman
     suffrage. I deny it, sir. If the senator means that the women of
     America, comprising one-half of the population, are interested in
     this measure, I deny it most emphatically and most peremptorily.
     Not one-tenth of them want it. Not one-tenth of the mothers and
     sisters and Christian women of this land want to be turned into
     politicians or to meddle in a sphere to which God and nature have
     not assigned them.

     Sir, there are some ladies--and I do not intend to term them
     anything but ladies--who are zealously engaged in this cause, and
     they have flooded this hall with petitions, and have called their
     women's rights conventions all over the land. I assail not their
     motives, but I deny that they represent the women of the United
     States. I say that if woman suffrage obtains, the worst class of
     the women of the country will rush to the polls and the best
     class will remain away by a large majority. That is my deliberate
     judgment and firm conviction. But, Mr. President, a word in
     regard to the committees. I desire no general discussion upon
     woman suffrage, and simply alluded in passing to what had been
     said by the senator from Massachusetts.

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


                                                  DECEMBER 16.

     Mr. JONES of Florida: I desire to call up a resolution now lying
     on the table, which I introduced on the 14th instant, calling for
     information from the Secretary of War touching a ship-canal
     across the peninsula of Florida.

     Mr. HOAR: Mr. President--

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

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

     Mr. JONES of Florida: I will only say that my resolution was laid
     over temporarily on the objection of the senator from Vermont
     [Mr. Edmunds], which he will not insist upon.

     Mr. HOAR: Allow me to call the attention of the Chair to the
     fact; it is not the question of a resolution which has not been
     taken up. The resolution reported by me from the Committee on
     Rules was taken up, and was under discussion when the senator
     from Missouri [Mr. Vest] was taken from the floor by the
     expiration of the morning hour, in the midst of his remarks.
     Certainly his right to conclude his remarks takes precedence of
     other business under the usual practice of the Senate.

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

     Mr. HOAR: No, sir.

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

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

     Mr. JONES of Florida: The resolution to which I refer went over
     informally on the objection of the senator from Vermont, and I
     think he has no objection now.

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

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

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair would state to the senator
     from Missouri [Mr. Vest] that the Chair supposed yesterday that
     he had finished his remarks, or the Chair would not have stopped
     him at that moment. The question is on agreeing to the
     resolution, on which the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] is
     entitled to the floor.

     Mr. VEST: Mr. President, I was on the eve of finishing my remarks
     yesterday when the morning hour expired, and I do not now wish to
     detain the Senate. I was about to say at that time that the
     Senate now has forty-one committees, with a small army of
     messengers and clerks, one-half of whom, without exaggeration,
     are literally without employment. I shall not pretend to specify
     the committees of this body which have not one single bill,
     resolution, or proposition of any sort pending before them, and
     have not had for months. I am very well aware that if I should
     name one of them, Liberty would lie bleeding in the streets at
     once, and that committee would become the most important on the
     list of committees of the Senate. I shall not venture to do that.
     I am informed by the Sergeant-at-arms that if this resolution is
     adopted he must have six additional messengers to be added to
     that body of ornamental employés who now stand or sit at the
     doors of the respective committee-rooms. I have heard that this
     committee is for the purpose of giving a committee to a senator
     in this body. I have heard the statement made, but I cannot
     believe it, and I am very certain that no senator will undertake
     to champion the resolution upon any such ground.

     The senator from Massachusetts was pleased to say that the
     Committee on the Judiciary had so many important questions
     pending before it, that the subject of woman suffrage should not
     be added to them. The Committee on Territories is open to any
     complaint or suggestion by the ladies who advocate woman
     suffrage, in regard to this subject in the territories; and the
     Committee on Privileges and Elections to which this subject
     should go most appropriately, as affecting the suffrage, has not
     now before it, as I am informed, one single bill, resolution, or
     proposition of any sort whatever. That committee is also open to
     inquiry upon this subject.

     But, Mr. President, out of all committees without business, and
     habitually without business, in this body, there is one that
     beyond any question could take jurisdiction of this matter and do
     it ample justice. I refer to that most respectable and antique
     institution, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. For thirty
     years it has been without business. For thirty long years the
     placid surface of that parliamentary sea has been without one
     single ripple. If the senator from Massachusetts desires a
     tribunal for calm judicial equilibrium and examination, a
     tribunal far from the "madding crowd's ignoble strife," a
     tribunal eminently respectable, dignified and unique, why not
     send this question to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims? When
     I name the _personnel_ of that committee it will be evident that
     any consideration on any subject touching the female sex would
     receive not only deliberate but immediate attention, for the
     second member upon that committee is my distinguished friend from
     Florida [Mr. Jones], and who can doubt that he would give his
     undivided attention to the subject? [Laughter.] It is eminently
     proper that this subject should go to that committee because if
     there is any revolutionary claim in this country it is that of
     woman suffrage. [Laughter.] It revolutionizes society; it
     revolutionizes religion; it revolutionizes the constitution and
     laws; and it revolutionizes the opinions of those so
     old-fashioned among us as to believe that the legitimate and
     proper sphere of woman is the family circle as wife and mother
     and not as politician and voter--those of us who are proud to
     believe that--

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

     Before that Committee on Revolutionary Claims why could not this
     most revolutionary of all claims receive immediate and ample
     attention? More than that, as I said before, if there is any
     tribunal that could give undivided time and dignified attention,
     is it not this committee? If there is one peaceful haven of rest,
     never disturbed by any profane bill or resolution of any sort, it
     is the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. It is, in parliamentary
     life, described by that ecstatic verse in Watts' hymn:

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

     For thirty years there has been no excitement in that committee,
     and it needs to-day, in Western phrase, some "stirring-up." By
     all natural laws stagnation breeds disease and death; and what
     could stir up this most venerable and respectable institution
     more than an application of the strong-minded, with short hair
     and shorter skirts, invading its dignified realm and elucidating
     all the excellences of female suffrage? Moreover, if these ladies
     could ever succeed, in the providence of God, in obtaining a
     report from that committee, it would end this question forever;
     for the public at large and myself included, in view of that
     miracle of female blandishment and female influence, would
     surrender at once, and female suffrage would become
     constitutional and lawful. Sir, I insist upon it that in
     deference to this committee, in deference to the fact that it
     needs this sort of regimen and medicine, this whole subject
     should be so referred. [Laughter.]

     Mr. MORRILL: Mr. President, I do not desire to say anything as to
     the merits of the resolution, but I understand the sole purpose
     of raising this committee is to have a committee-room. So far as
     I know, there are some five or six committees now which are
     destitute of rooms, and it would be impossible for the Committee
     on Public Buildings and Grounds to assign any room to this
     committee--the object which I understand is at the foundation of
     the introduction of the proposition; that is to say, to give
     these ladies an opportunity to be heard in some appropriate
     committee-room on the questions which they wish to agitate and
     submit.

     Mr. HOAR: They would find room in some other committee-room. They
     could have the room of the Committee on Privileges and Elections,
     if there were no other place.

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

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

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

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

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

     Mr. CONGER: Let the resolution be reported.

     The acting secretary read the resolution.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Missouri offers an
     amendment, that the subject be referred to the standing Committee
     on Revolutionary Claims. The question is on the amendment of the
     senator from Missouri. [Putting the question.] The noes appear to
     have it.

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

     Mr. BLAIR [after having voted in the negative]: I have voted
     inadvertently. I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr.
     Pugh]. Were he present he would have voted "yea," as I have voted
     "nay." I withdraw my vote.

     Mr. WINDOM: I am paired with the senator from West Virginia [Mr.
     Davis], but as I understand he would vote "nay" on this question,
     I vote "nay."

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

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

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

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

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

     Mr. BAYARD: Then I make a motion that the resolution be sent to
     the Committee on the Judiciary. I would state that I voted with
     some regret and hesitancy upon the motion of the senator from
     Missouri [Mr. Vest] to refer this matter to the Committee on
     Revolutionary Claims. My regret was owing to the fact that I do
     not wish even to seem to treat a subject of this character in a
     spirit of levity, or to indicate the slightest disrespect by such
     a reference, to those whose opinions upon this subject differ
     essentially from my own. I cast the vote because I considered it
     would be taking the subject virtually away from the consideration
     of congress at its present session. I do, however, hold that
     there is no necessity for the creation of a special committee to
     attend to this subject. The Committee on the Judiciary has within
     the last few years, upon many occasions, attempted to deal with
     it. Since you, sir, and I have been members of that committee--

     Mr. HOAR: Mr. President--

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

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

     Mr. HOAR: I desire to ask the senator, if he is willing, having
     been lately a member of the committee to which he refers, whether
     it is not the rule of that committee to allow no hearings to
     individual petitioners, a rule which is departed from only in
     very rare and peculiar cases?

     Mr. BAYARD: I will reply to the honorable senator that the
     occasion which arose to my mind and caused me to remember the
     action of that committee was the audience given by it to a very
     large delegation of woman suffragists, _to wit_, the
     representatives of a convention held in this city, who to the
     number, I think, of twenty-five, came into the committee-room of
     the Committee on the Judiciary, and were heard, as I remember,
     for more than one day, or certainly had more than one hearing,
     before that committee, of which you, sir, and I were members.

     Mr. HOAR: If the senator will pardon me, however, he has not
     answered my question. I asked the senator not whether on one
     particular occasion they gave a hearing on this subject, but
     whether it is not the rule of that committee, occasioned by the
     necessity of its business, from which it departs only in very
     rare cases, not to give hearings?

     Mr. BAYARD: I cannot answer whether a rule so defined as that
     suggested by the honorable senator from Massachusetts exists in
     that committee. It is my impression, however, that cases are
     frequently, by order of that committee, argued before it. We have
     had very elaborate and able arguments upon subjects connected
     with the Pacific railroads, I remember; and we have had arguments
     upon various subjects. It is constantly our pleasure to hear
     members of the Senate upon a variety of questions before that
     committee. It may be only a proof that women's rights are not
     unrecognized nor their influence unfelt when I state the fact
     that if there be such a rule as is suggested by the honorable
     senator from Massachusetts of excluding persons from the audience
     of that committee, on the occasion of the application of the
     ladies a hearing was granted, and they came in force,--not only
     force in numbers, but force in the character and intelligence of
     those who appeared before the committee. They were listened to
     with great respect, but their views were not concurred in by the
     committee as it was then composed. We were all entertained by the
     bright wit, the clever and, in my judgment, in many respects, the
     just sarcasm of our honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Vest],
     but my habit is not to consider public measures in a jocular
     light; it is not to consider a question of this kind in a jocular
     light. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of this
     proposition, whatever may be the reasons for or against it, no
     man can doubt that it will strike at the very roots of the
     present organization of society, and that its consequences will
     be most profound and far-reaching should the advocates of the
     measure proposed prevail.

     Therefore it is that I think this subject should not be
     considered separately; it should not have a special
     committee--either of advocates or opponents arranged for its
     consideration; but it should go where proposed amendments to the
     fundamental law of the land have always been sent for
     consideration,--to that committee to which judicial questions,
     questions of a constitutional nature, have always in the history
     of this government been committed. There is no need, there is no
     justice, there is no wisdom in attempting to separate the fate of
     this question, which affects society so profoundly and generally,
     from the other questions that affect society. It cannot be made a
     specialty: it ought not to be. You cannot tear this question from
     the great contest of human passions, affections, and interests
     which surround it, and treat it as a thing by itself. It has many
     sides from which it may be viewed, some that are not proper or
     fitting for this forum, and a discussion now in public. There are
     the claims of religion itself to be considered in connection with
     this case. Civil rights, social rights, political rights,
     religious rights, all are bound up in the consideration of a
     measure like this. In its consideration you cannot safely attempt
     to segregate this question and leave it untouched and
     uninfluenced by all those other questions by which it is
     surrounded and in the consideration of which it is bound to be
     connected and concerned. Therefore, without going further,
     prematurely, into a discussion of the merits of the proposition
     itself or its desirability, I say that it should take the usual
     course which the practice and laws of this body have given to
     grave public questions. Let it go to the Committee on the
     Judiciary, and let them, under their sense of duty, deal with it
     according to its gravity and importance, and if it be here
     returned let it be passed upon by the grave deliberations of the
     Senate itself. I hope the special committee proposed will not be
     raised, and I trust the Senate will concur with me in thinking
     that the subject should be sent to the Committee on the
     Judiciary.

     Mr. LOGAN rose.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired.

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It requires unanimous consent.

     Mr. LOGAN: I do not wish to make a speech; I merely desire to say
     a word in response to what the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard]
     has said in relation to the reference to the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

     Mr. LOGAN: This question having been once before the Judiciary
     Committee, and it being a request by many ladies, who are
     citizens of the United States just as we are, that they should
     have a special committee of the Senate before which they can be
     heard, I deem it proper and right, without any committal whatever
     in reference to my own views, that they should have that
     committee. It is nothing but fair, just, and right that they
     should have a committee organized as nearly as can be in the
     Senate in favor of the views they desire to present. It is
     treating them only as other citizens would desire to be treated
     before a body of this character. I am, therefore, opposed to the
     reference of the proposition to the Judiciary Committee, and I
     hope the Senate will give these ladies a special committee where
     they can be heard, and that that committee may be so organized as
     that it will be as favorable to their views as possible, so that
     they may have a fair hearing. That is all I desire to say.

     Mr. MORRILL: I hope this subject will be concluded this morning,
     otherwise it is to come up constantly and monopolize all the time
     of the morning hour. I do not think it will require many minutes
     more to dispose of it now.

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

     Mr. MORRILL: I move to set aside other business until this
     resolution shall be disposed of. If it should continue any length
     of time of course I would withdraw the suggestion.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Vermont--

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


                                                  DECEMBER 19, 1881.

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

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

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The regular business of the morning
     hour is closed. The morning hour, however, will not expire until
     twenty minutes past one. The senator from Massachusetts asks to
     have taken up the resolution reported by him from the Committee
     on Rules.

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the amendment
     proposed by the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard], that the
     subject be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

     Mr. HOAR: It is not intended by the resolution to commit the
     Senate, or any senator in the slightest degree to any opinion
     upon the question of woman suffrage, but it is merely the
     question of a convenient mode of hearing. I hope we shall be
     allowed to have a vote on the resolution.

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

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

     Mr. BECK: Mr. President, I have received a number of
     communications from very respectable ladies in my own State upon
     this important question; but I am unable to comply with their
     request and support the female suffrage which they advocate. I
     shall vote for the reference to the Committee on the Judiciary in
     order that there may be a thorough investigation of the question.
     I wholly disagree with the suggestion of the senator from
     Illinois [Mr. Logan], that a committee ought to be appointed as
     favorable to the views of these ladies as possible. I desire a
     committee that will have no views, for or against them, except
     what is best for the public good. Such a committee I understand
     the Committee on the Judiciary to be.

     I desire to say only in a word that the difficulty I have and the
     question I desire the Committee on the Judiciary to report upon
     is, the effect of this question upon suffrage. By the fifteenth
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States there can be
     no discrimination made in regard to voting on account of race,
     color or previous condition. Intelligence is properly regarded as
     one of the fundamental principles of fair suffrage. We have been
     compelled in the last ten years to allow all the colored men of
     the South to become voters. There is a mass of ignorance there to
     be absorbed that will take years and years of care in order to
     bring that class up to the standard of intelligent voters. The
     several States are addressing themselves to that task as
     earnestly as possible. Now it is proposed that all the women of
     the country shall vote; that all the colored women of the South,
     who are as much more ignorant than the colored men as it is
     possible to imagine, shall vote. Not one perhaps in a hundred of
     them can read or write. The colored men have had the advantages
     of communication with other men in a variety of forms. Many of
     them have considerable intelligence; but the colored women have
     not had equal chances. Take them from their wash-tubs and their
     household work and they are absolutely ignorant of the new duties
     of voting citizens. The intelligent ladies of the North and the
     West and the South cannot vote without extending that privilege
     to that class of ignorant colored people. I doubt whether any man
     will say that it is safe for the republic now, when we are going
     through the problem we are obliged to solve, to fling in this
     additional mass of ignorance upon the suffrage of the country.
     Why, sir, a rich corporation or a body of men of wealth could buy
     them up for fifty cents apiece, and they would vote without
     knowing what they were doing for the side that paid most. Yet we
     are asked to confer suffrage upon them, and to have a committee
     appointed as favorable to that view as possible, so as to get a
     favorable report upon it!

     I want the Committee on the Judiciary to tell the congress and
     the country whether they think it is good policy now to confer
     suffrage on all the colored women of the South, ignorant as they
     are known to be, and thus add to the ignorance that we are now
     struggling with, and whether the republic can be sustained upon
     such a basis as that. For that reason, and because I want that
     information from an unbiased committee, because I know that
     suffrage has been degraded sufficiently already, and because it
     would be degraded infinitely more if a report favorable to this
     extension of suffrage should be adopted and passed through
     congress, I am opposed to this movement. No matter if there are a
     number of respectable ladies who are competent to vote and desire
     it to be done, because of the very fact that they cannot be
     allowed this privilege without giving all the mass of ignorant
     colored women in the country the right to vote, thus bringing in
     a mass of ignorance that would crush and degrade the suffrage of
     this country almost beyond conception, I shall vote to refer the
     subject to the Judiciary Committee, and I shall await their
     report with a good deal of anxiety.

     Mr. MORGAN: Mr. President--

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


                                                  DECEMBER 20, 1881.

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

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

     Mr. INGALLS: What is the regular order?

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: There is no regular unfinished
     business. The senator from Florida [Mr. Call] gave notice
     yesterday that he would ask the indulgence of the Senate to-day
     to consider the subject of homestead rights.

     Mr. HOAR: I hope this matter may be disposed of. It is very
     unpleasant to me to stand before the Senate in this way, taking
     up its time with this matter in a five minutes' debate every day
     in succession for an unlimited period of time. It is a matter
     which every senator understands. It has nothing to do with the
     merits of the woman suffrage question at all. It is a mere desire
     on the part of these people to have a particular form of hearing,
     which seems to me the most convenient for the Senate, and I hope
     the Senate will be willing to vote on the resolution and let it
     pass.

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

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Alabama states that
     he has no objection to the present consideration of the
     resolution, but he asks leave to make some remarks upon it. The
     Chair hearing no objection to the consideration of the
     resolution, it is before the Senate.

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

     Mr. HOAR: I move to take it up.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Massachusetts calls
     it up as a matter of right. If a majority of the Senate agree to
     take up the resolution it is before the Senate, and the Chair
     will put the question. The question is on agreeing to the motion
     of the senator from Massachusetts to proceed to the consideration
     of the resolution. [The motion was agreed to; and the Senate
     resumed the consideration of the resolution reported from the
     Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th instant, which was
     read.]

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The pending question is on the
     motion of the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] to refer the
     subject to the Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and
     nays have been ordered.

     Mr. MORGAN: Mr. President, I stand in a different relation to
     this question from that of the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Beck],
     who said yesterday that he had received a number of
     communications from very respectable ladies in his own State upon
     this very important subject, and yet felt constrained by a sense
     of duty to deny the action which they solicited at the hands of
     congress. I am not informed that any woman from Alabama has ever
     sent a petition to the Senate, or to either house, upon this
     matter. Indeed, it is my impression that no petitions or letters
     have ever been addressed by any lady in the State of Alabama to
     either house of congress upon this question. It may be that that
     peculiar type of civilization which drives women from their homes
     to the ballot-box to seek redress and protection against their
     husbands has never yet reached the State of Alabama, and I shall
     not be disagreeably disappointed if it should never come upon our
     people, for they have lived in harmony and in prosperity now for
     many years. Besides the relief which the State has seen proper to
     give to married women in respect of their separate estates, we
     have not thought it wise or politic in any sense to go further
     and undertake to make a line of demarkation between the husband
     and wife as politicians. On the contrary, according to our
     estimate of a proper civilization, we look to the family relation
     as being the true foundation of our republican institutions.
     Strike out the family relation, disband the family, destroy the
     proper authority of the person at the head of the family, either
     the wife or the husband, and you take from popular government all
     legitimate foundation.

     The measure which is now brought before the Senate of the United
     States is but the initial measure of a series which has been
     urged upon the attention of States and territories, and upon the
     attention of the Congress of the United States in various forms
     to draw a line of political demarkation through a man's
     household, through his fireside, and to open to the intrusion of
     politics and politicians that sacred circle of the family where
     no man should be permitted to intrude without the consent of both
     the heads of the family. What picture could be more disagreeable
     or more disgusting than to have a pot-house politician introduce
     himself into a gentleman's family, with his wife seated at one
     side of the fireplace and himself at the other, and this man
     coming between to urge arguments why the wife should oppose the
     policy that the husband advocates, or that the husband should
     oppose the policy that the wife advocates?

     If this measure means anything it is a proposition that the
     Senate of the United States shall first vote to carry into effect
     this unjust and improper intrusion into the home circle. Suppose
     this resolution to raise a select committee should be passed:
     that committee will have its hands full and its ears full of
     petitions and applications and speeches from strong-minded women,
     and of course it must make some report to the Senate; and we
     shall have this subject introduced in here as one that requires a
     peculiar application of the powers of the Senate for its
     digestion and for the completion of the bills and measures
     founded upon it. At the next session of congress this select
     committee will become a standing committee of the Senate, and
     then we shall have that which appears to be the most potential
     and at the same time the most dangerous element in politics
     to-day, agitation, agitation, agitation. It seems that the
     legislators of the United States Government are not to be allowed
     to pass in quiet judgment upon measures of this character, but
     like many other things which are addressing themselves to the
     attention of the people on this side of the water and the other,
     they must all be moved against the Senate and against the House
     by agitation. You raise your committee and allow the agitators to
     come before them, yea, more than that, you invite them to come;
     and what is the result? The Congress of the United States will
     for the next ten or perhaps twenty years be continually assailed
     for special and peculiar legislation in favor of the women of the
     land.

     I do not understand that a woman in this country has any more
     right to a select committee than a man has. It would be just as
     rational and as proper in every legislative and parliamentary
     sense to have a select committee for the consideration of the
     rights of men as to have a committee for the consideration of the
     rights of women. I object, sir, to this disseverance between the
     sexes, and I object to the Senate of the United States giving its
     sanction in advance or in any way to this character of
     legislation. It is a false principle, and it will work evil, and
     only evil, in this country.

     What jurisdiction do you expect to exercise in the Senate of the
     United States for the benefit of the women in respect of suffrage
     or in respect of separate estates? Where are the boundaries of
     your jurisdiction? You find them in the territories and in the
     District of Columbia. If you expect to proceed into the States
     you must have the Constitution of the United States amended so as
     to put our wives and our daughters upon the footing of those who
     are provided for in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. Your
     jurisdiction is limited to the territories and to the District of
     Columbia.

     Inasmuch as this measure, I understand, has been made a party
     measure by the decree of a caucus, I propose to make some little
     inquiry into the past legislation of the Congress of the United
     States under Republican rule in respect of the extension of the
     right of suffrage to certain classes of people in this country. I
     will take up first the territories.

     Let us look for a moment at the result of woman suffrage in some
     of the territories. The territorial legislature of Utah has gone
     forward and conferred the right of suffrage upon women. The
     population in the last decade has reached from 64,000, I believe,
     to about 150,000. The territorial legislature of Utah conferred
     upon the females of that territory the right of suffrage, and how
     have they exercised that right? Sir, I am ashamed to say it, but
     it is known to the world that the power of Mormonism and polygamy
     in Utah territory is sustained by female suffrage. You cannot get
     rid of those laws. Ninety per cent. of the legislative power of
     Utah territory is Mormon and polygamous. If female suffrage is to
     be incorporated into the laws of our country with a view to the
     amelioration of our morals or our political sentiments, we stand
     aghast at the spectacle of what has been wrought by its exercise
     in the territory of Utah. There stands a power supporting the
     crime of polygamy through what they call a divine inspiration, or
     teaching from God, and all the power of the judges of the United
     States and of the Congress of the United States has been
     unavailing to break it down. Who have upheld it? Those who in the
     family circle represent one husband to fifteen women. A continual
     accumulation of the power of the church and of polygamy is going
     on, and when the Gentiles, as they are called, enter that
     territory with the view of breaking it up they are confronted by
     the women, who are allowed to vote, and from whom we should
     naturally expect a better and a higher morality in reference to
     subjects of the kind. But this only shows the power of man over
     woman. It only shows how through her tender affections, her
     delicate sensibilities, and her confiding spirit she can be made
     the very slave and bond-servant of man, and can scarcely ever be
     made an independent participant in the stronger exercise of the
     powers which God seems to have intrusted to him. Never was there
     a picture more disgusting or more condemnatory of the extension
     of the franchise to women as contradistinguished from men than is
     presented in the territory of Utah to-day.

     Where is the necessity of raising the number of voters in the
     United States from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000? That would be the
     direct effect of conferring suffrage upon the women, for they are
     at least one-half, if not a little more than one-half, of the
     entire population of the country above the age of twenty-one. We
     have now masses of voters so enormous in numbers as that it seems
     to be almost beyond the power of the law to execute the purposes
     of the elective franchise with justice, with propriety, and
     without crime. How much would these difficulties and these
     intrinsic troubles be increased if we should raise the number of
     voters from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 in the United States? That
     would be the direct and immediate effect of conferring the
     franchise upon the women. What would be the next effect of such
     an extension of the suffrage? It was described by my friend from
     Missouri [Mr. Vest] and by other senators who have spoken upon
     this subject. The effect would be to drive the ladies of the
     land, as they are termed, the well-bred and well-educated women,
     the women of nice sensibilities, within their home circle, there
     to remain, while the ruder of that sex would thrust themselves
     out on the hustings and at the ballot-box, and fight their way to
     the polls through negroes and others who are not the best of
     company even at the polls, to say nothing of the disgrace of
     association with them. You would paralyze one-third at least of
     the women of this land by the very vulgarity of the overture made
     to them that they should go struggling to the polls in order to
     vote in common with the herd of men. They would not undertake it.
     The most intelligent and trustworthy part of the suffrage thus
     placed upon the land would never be available, while that which
     was not worthy of respect either for its character or for its
     information would take the matter in hand and move along in the
     circle of politicians to cast their suffrages at the ballot-box.

     As the States to be formed out of the territories are admitted
     into the Union, they will come stamped with the characteristics
     which the legislatures of the territories have imprinted upon
     them; and if after due consideration in those territories the men
     who have the regulation of public affairs should come to the
     conclusion that it was best to have woman suffrage, then we can
     allow them, under existing laws, to go on and perfect their
     systems and apply for admission into the Union with them as they
     may choose to adopt them and to shape them. The law upon that
     subject as it exists is liberal enough, for it gives to the
     legislatures the right to regulate the qualifications of
     suffrage. It leaves it to each local community, wherever it may
     be throughout the territories of the United States, to determine
     for itself what it may prefer to have.

     Is it the object in the raising of this committee only that it
     shall have so many speeches made, so much talk about it, or is it
     to be the object of the committee to have legislation brought
     here? If you bring legislation here, what will you bring? An
     amendment to the constitution like the fourteenth amendment, or
     else some provision obligatory upon the territories by which
     female suffrage shall be allowed there, whether the people want
     it or whether they do not? For my part, before this session of
     congress ends I intend to introduce a bill to repeal woman
     suffrage in the territory of Utah, knowing and believing that
     that will be the most effectual remedy for the extirpation of
     polygamy in that unfortunate territory. If you choose to repeal
     the laws of any territory conferring the right of suffrage upon
     women you have the power in congress to do it; but there are no
     measures introduced here and none advocated in that direction.
     The whole drift of this movement is in the other direction. This
     committee is sought to be raised either for the accommodation of
     some senator who wants a chairmanship and a clerk, or it is
     sought to be raised for the purpose of encouraging a raid on the
     laws and traditions of this country, which I think would end in
     our total demoralization, I therefore oppose this measure in the
     beginning, and I expect to oppose it as far as it may go.

     Now let us notice for a moment the case of the District of
     Columbia. There are some senators here who have given themselves
     a great deal of trouble in the advocacy of the right of suffrage
     of the people of the United States, and especially of the colored
     people. They put themselves to great trouble, and doubtless at
     some expense of feeling, to worry and beset and harry gentlemen
     who come from certain States of this Union, in reference to the
     votes of the negroes: and yet these very gentlemen have been
     either in this House or in the other when the Republican party
     has had a two-thirds majority of both branches and has
     deliberately taken from the people of the District of Columbia
     the right to elect any officer from a constable to a mayor, all
     because when the experiment was tried here it was found that the
     negroes were a little too strong. There was too much African
     suffrage in the ballot-box, and they must get rid of it, and to
     get rid of it on terms of equality they have disfranchised every
     man in the District of Columbia.

     I shall have more faith in the sincerity of the declarations of
     gentlemen of their desire to have the women vote when I see that
     they have made some step toward the restoration of the right of
     suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia. While they
     let this blot remain upon our law, while they allow this damning
     conviction to stand, they may stare us in the face and accuse us
     continually of a want of candor and sincerity on this subject,
     but they will address their arguments to me in vain, even as
     coming from men who have an infatuation upon the subject. I do
     not believe a word of it, Mr. President.

     I cannot be convinced against these facts that this new movement
     in favor of female suffrage means anything more than to add
     another patch to the worn-out garment of Republicanism, which
     they patched with Mahoneism in Virginia, with repudiation
     elsewhere, and which they now seek to patch further by putting on
     the delicate little silk covering of woman suffrage. I do not
     believe that this movement has its root and branch in any sincere
     desire to give to the women of this land the right of suffrage. I
     think it is a mere party movement with a view of attempting to
     draw into the reach of the Republican party some little support
     from the sympathy and interest they suppose the ladies will take
     in their cause if they should advocate it here. No bill, perhaps,
     is expected to be reported. The committee will sit and listen and
     profess to be charmed and enlightened and instructed by what may
     be said, and then the subject will be passed by without any
     actual effort to secure the passage of a bill.

     Introduce your bills and let them go to the Judiciary Committee,
     where the rights of men are to be considered as well as the
     rights of women. If this subject is of that pressing national
     importance which senators seem to think it is, it is not to be
     supposed that the Committee on the Judiciary will fail to give it
     profound and early attention. When you bring a select committee
     forward under the circumstances under which this is to be raised,
     you must not expect us to give credit generally to the idea that
     the real purpose is to advance the cause of woman suffrage, but
     rather that the real purpose is to advance the cause of political
     domination in this country. I can see no reason for the raising
     of this select committee, unless it be to furnish some senator,
     as I have remarked, with a clerk and messenger. If that were the
     avowed reason or could even be intimated, I think I should be
     disposed to yield that courtesy to the senator, whoever he might
     be; but I cannot do it under the false pretext that the real
     object is to bring forward measures here for the introduction of
     woman suffrage into the District of Columbia, where we have no
     suffrage, or into the territories, where they have all the
     suffrage that the territorial legislatures see proper to give
     them. I therefore shall oppose the resolution.

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


                                                  JANUARY 9, 1882.

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: There being ten minutes left of the
     morning hour, the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] asks for
     the consideration of the resolution relating to woman suffrage.
     The pending question is on the motion of the senator from
     Delaware [Mr. Bayard] to refer the subject-matter to the
     Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and nays have been
     ordered.

     The principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

     Mr. BUTLER (when Mr. Pugh's name was called): I was requested by
     the senator from Alabama [Mr. Pugh] to announce his pair with the
     senator from New York [Mr. Miller].

     The roll-call was concluded.

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

     Mr. MCPHERSON (after having voted in the affirmative): I rise to
     ask the privilege of withdrawing my vote. I am paired with my
     colleague [Mr. Sewell] on all political questions, and this seems
     to have taken a political shape.

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

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

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

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

     Mr. EDMUNDS: "Shall" ought to be stricken out and "may" inserted,
     because the Senate ought always to have the power to refer any
     particular measure as it pleases.

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

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

     Mr. HILL of Georgia: I wish to say that I have opposed all
     resolutions, whether originating on the other side of the chamber
     or on this side, appointing special committees. They are all
     wrong. They are not founded, in my judgment, on a correct
     principle. There is no necessity to raise a select committee for
     this business. The standing committees of the Senate are ample to
     do everything that it is proposed the select committee asked for
     shall do. The only result of appointing more special committees
     is to have just that many more clerks, just that much more
     expense, just that many more committee-rooms. This is not the
     first time I have opposed the raising of a select committee.

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


                                                  JANUARY 21, 1882.

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

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

     Mr. FARLEY and others: I object.

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

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

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the motion of the
     senator from Massachusetts. [Putting the question.] The Chair is
     uncertain from the sound and will ask for a division.

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

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

     Mr. HILL of Georgia: Mr. President, I do not intend to say one
     word on the subject of woman suffrage. I shall not get into that
     discussion which was alluded to by the senator from
     Massachusetts. The senator will remember, if he refreshes his
     recollection, that when my late colleague, now no longer a
     senator, made a motion for the appointment of a select committee
     in relation to the inter-oceanic canal, I opposed it distinctly,
     though it came from my colleague, upon the ground that the
     appointment of select committees ought to stop, that it was
     wrong; and I oppose this resolution for the same reason. I voted
     against a resolution to raise a select committee offered by a
     senator on this side of the chamber at the present session, and I
     have voted against all resolutions of that character.

     No senator, in my judgment, will rise in his place in the Senate
     and say that it is necessary to appoint a special committee to
     consider the matters referred to in the resolution. It is true I
     am a member of the committee, and perhaps ought not to refer to
     it, but we have a standing committee, of which the distinguished
     senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] is chairman, the Committee
     on Privileges and Elections, that, I take occasion to say, is a
     very proper committee for this matter to go to; and that
     committee has almost nothing on earth to do. There is but one
     single subject-matter now before it, and I believe there will be
     scarcely another question before that committee at this session.
     There is not a contested election; there is not a dispute about
     anybody's seat; and yet it is a Committee on Privileges and
     Elections. What is the reason for going on continually and
     appointing these select committees, when there are standing
     committees here, properly organized to consider the very question
     specified by the resolution, with nothing to do?

     Now, I am going to say one other thing, I do not pretend that the
     purpose I am now about to state is the purpose of the senator
     from Massachusetts. I have no reflections to make as to what this
     resolution is intended for, but we do know that there is an idea
     abroad that select committees are generally appointed for the
     purpose of giving somebody a chairmanship, that somebody may have
     a clerk. That is not the case here, I dare say. I do not mean to
     intimate that it is the case here, but it ought to be put a stop
     to; it is all wrong. I think, though, that there ought to be a
     resolution passed by this body giving every senator who has not a
     committee a clerk. Everybody knows that every chairman of a
     committee has a clerk in the clerk of that committee. The other
     senators, at least in my opinion, ought each to have a clerk. I
     would vote for such a resolution. I believe it would be right,
     and I believe the country would approve it. Every senator knows
     that he has more business to attend to here than he can possibly
     perform. Why, sir, if I were to attend to all the business in the
     departments and otherwise that my constituents ask me to perform,
     I could not discharge half my duties in this chamber; and every
     senator, I dare say, has the same experience. It is to the
     public interest, therefore, in my judgment, that every senator
     should have a clerk. I am unable to employ a clerk from my own
     funds; many other senators are more fortunately situated; but
     still I must do that or move the appointment of a special
     committee for the purpose in an indirect way of getting a clerk.
     It is not right.

     It has been said that if senators each have a clerk, for
     instance, a clerk at $100 a month salary during the session,
     which would be a very small matter, the members of the other
     House would each want a clerk. It does not follow. There is a
     vast difference. A member of the other House represents a narrow
     district, a single district; a senator represents a whole State.
     Take the State of New York. There are thirty-three
     representatives in the House from the State of New York; there
     are but two senators here from that State. Those two senators in
     all likelihood have as much business to perform here for their
     constituents as the thirty-three members of the House. There is,
     therefore, an eminent reason why a senator should have a clerk
     and why a member of the House should not.

     I cannot vote for the appointment of select committees unless you
     raise a select committee for every senator in the body so as to
     give him a clerk. You have appointed select committees for this
     business and for that. It gives a few men an advantage when the
     business of the country does not require it, whereas if you
     appointed a clerk for each senator, with a nominal salary of $100
     per month during the session, it would enable every senator to do
     his work more efficiently both here and for his constituents; it
     would put all the senators on a just equality; it would be in
     furtherance of the public interest; and it would avoid what I
     consider (with all due deference and not meaning to be offensive)
     the unseemly habit of constantly moving the appointment of select
     committees in this body. This is all I have to say. I vote
     against the resolution simply because I am opposed to the
     appointment of a select committee for this or any other purpose
     that I can now think of.

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

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

     Mr. JONES of Florida (when his name was called): I propose to
     vote for this resolution, but at the same time I do not regard my
     vote as in any way committing myself on the subject of female
     suffrage. If they think an investigation of this subject should
     be had in this way, I for one am willing to have it. I vote
     "yea."

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

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


                   IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 20, 1881.

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

     The clerk read as follows:

          _Resolved_, That a select committee of seven members of the
          House of Representatives be appointed by the Speaker, to
          whom shall be referred all petitions, bills and resolves
          providing for the extension of suffrage to women, or for the
          removal of legal disabilities.

     Mr. MILLS of Texas: I object.

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

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

     The resolution was referred accordingly.


                   IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 25, 1882.

     Mr. REED of Maine: I rise to make a privileged report. The
     Committee on Rules, to whom were referred sundry resolutions
     relating to the subject, have instructed me to report the
     resolution which I send to the desk.

     The clerk read as follows:

          _Resolved_, That a select committee of nine members be
          appointed, to whom shall be referred all petitions, bills
          and resolves asking for the extension of suffrage to women
          or the removal of their legal disabilities.

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

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

     The resolution was again read.

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

     The SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.

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

     The SPEAKER: It is a privileged report under the rules of the
     House from the Committee on Rules. The question is on the
     adoption of the resolution.

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

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

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

     The SPEAKER: The gentleman from Tennessee will oblige the Chair
     by directing his attention to any rule which requires such a
     report to lie over one day. It changes no standing rule or order
     of the House.

     Mr. MCMILLIN: It does, by making a change in the number and
     nature of the committees. All measures of a particular class, the
     resolution states, must be referred to the proposed committee,
     whereas heretofore they have been referred to a different
     committee. Therefore the resolution changes the rules of the
     House.

     The SPEAKER: The Chair is of opinion the resolution does not
     rescind or change any standing rule of the House. The question is
     on the adoption of the resolution.

     Mr. SPRINGER: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the
     Chair to the fact that this does distinctly change one of the
     standing rules of the House. One of the standing rules is--

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

     Mr. SPRINGER: I desire to call the attention of the Chair to Rule
     10, which specifically provides for the appointment of the full
     number of committees this House is to have, and this is not one
     of them.

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

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

     Mr. REED: I sincerely hope this will not be made a matter of
     technical discussion or debate. It is a matter upon which members
     of this House must have opinions which they can express by
     voting, in a very short time, without taking up the attention of
     the House beyond what is really necessary for a bare discussion
     of the merits of the question.

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

     Mr. REED: Certainly.

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

     Mr. REED: By no manner of means, especially when the accomplished
     Speaker has decided the other way, and no gentleman has taken an
     appeal from his decision. [Laughter.]

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

     The SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois
     [Mr. Springer] that this resolution does not change any of the
     standing committees of the House which are provided for in Rule
     10.

     Mr. SPRINGER: It provides for a new committee.

     The SPEAKER: It provides for a select committee. The subject was
     referred to the Committee on Rules by order of the House, and
     this is a report on the resolution so referred.

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

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

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

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

     Mr. SPRINGER: What does the Chair decide?

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

     Mr. SPRINGER: Is this not a new rule?

     The SPEAKER: It is not.

     Mr. SPRINGER: It is not?

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

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

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

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

     The yeas and nays were ordered.

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

     Mr. REED moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was
     adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on
     the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

     On Monday, March 13, 1882, the Chair announced the appointment of
     the following gentlemen as the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage
     authorized by the House: Mr. Camp of New York, Mr. White of
     Kentucky, Mr. Sherwin of Illinois, Mr. Stone of Massachusetts,
     Mr. Hepburn of Iowa, Mr. Springer of Illinois, Mr. Vance of North
     Carolina, Mr. Muldrow of Mississippi and Mr. Stockslager of
     Indiana.

The Annual Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall as usual,
January 18, 19, 20, 1882. The afternoon before the convention, at
an executive session held at the Riggs House, forty delegates were
present from fourteen different States.[84] Among these were five
from Massachusetts, and for the first time that State was
represented on the platform of the National Association. Mrs.
Stanton gave the opening address, and made some amusing criticisms
on a recent debate on Senator Hoar's proposition for a special
committee on the rights and disabilities of women. Such a committee
had been under debate for several years and it was during this
convention that the bill passed the Senate.

Invitations to attend the convention were sent to all the members
of congress, and many were present during the various sessions.
Miss Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary, read the minutes of the last
convention, and, instead of the usual dry skeleton of facts, she
gave a glowing description of that eventful occasion. Clara B.
Colby gave an interesting narration of the progress of woman
suffrage in Nebraska, and of the efforts being made to carry the
proposition pending before the people, to strike the word "male"
from the constitution in the coming November election.

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

     It is about a century since our forefathers declared that
     "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
     governed," and about a half century since woman began to see that
     she ought to be included in this declaration. At present the
     expressions of the Declaration of Independence are a "glittering
     generality," for only one-half of the people "consent." Modern
     science has demonstrated the truth of evolution--like causes
     produce like results--and this is seen in the progress of
     government and of woman. From the time when physical force ruled,
     up to the present, when _ostensibly_ in the United States every
     person is his own ruler, there have been many steps. The
     importance of the masses has steadily taken the place of the
     importance of individuals. At first the idea was "You shall obey
     because I say so"; then, "You shall obey because I am your
     superior, and will protect you"; now it is "Everyone shall be his
     own protector." But we do not live up to this idea while only
     one-half instead of the whole of "everyone" is his own protector.
     The phases of woman's advancement are fitly described by the four
     words--slave, subject, inferior, dependent; and no step in this
     advance has been accomplished without a hard struggle. The logic
     of evolution in government points to universal suffrage. The same
     logic points to unqualified individual freedom for woman.

Mrs. Blake in reporting from her State said:

     Governor Cornell was the first New York Governor to mention woman
     in an inaugural address, and the bill allowing women to vote in
     school elections was passed the same winter. There was a great
     deal of opposition in different parts of the State to the voting
     of women. In some country districts where the polls are in the
     school-houses, certain men went early and locked the doors,
     filled the room with smoke and even put tobacco on the stoves to
     make it as disagreeable for the women as possible. More
     respectable men had to ventilate and clean the rooms to make them
     decent for either man or woman. From this lowest class of
     opponents up to those who say: "My dear, you'd better not make
     yourself conspicuous!" the spirit is the same. Believing that
     under our constitution women are already entitled to the ballot,
     we do not ask for a constitutional amendment, but for a bill
     extending the suffrage at once.

     Mrs. COLBY in contrast to this stated that in Nebraska the
     greatest courtesy had always been shown to women who voted at
     school elections. There is only one organized effort against
     woman suffrage, and that is made by the "Sons of Liberty!" "O,
     Consistency, thou art a jewel!"

The following resolution introduced into the Senate, January 11, by
Mr. Morgan of Alabama, was finally referred to the Committee on
Woman Suffrage. This was the first subject brought before them for
action.

          _Resolved_, That the committee on "The extension of suffrage
          to women, or the removal of their disabilities," be directed
          to examine into the state of the law regulating the right of
          suffrage in the territory of Utah, and report a bill to set
          aside and annul any law or laws enacted by the legislature
          of said territory conferring upon women the right of
          suffrage.

Miss Couzins made an admirable speech on the following resolution:

          _Resolved_, That Senator Morgan's bill to deprive the
          _women_ of Utah of the right of suffrage because of the
          social institutions and religious faith originated and
          maintained by the _men_ of the territory, is a travesty on
          common justice. While the wife has not absolute possession
          of even one husband, and the husband has many wives, surely
          the men and not the women, if either, should be deprived of
          the suffrage.

     Miss COUZINS said: The task of dealing fairly and justly with
     this territorial complication should never be committed to the
     blundering legislation of man alone. His success as a legislator
     and executive for woman in the past does not inspire a confidence
     that in this most serious problem he will be any the less an
     unbiased judge and law-giver. This government of men permitted
     the establishment of a religious colony, so called, whose basis
     of faith was the complete humiliation of women; recognized the
     system by appointing its chief, Brigham Young, governor of the
     territory, under whose fostering care polygamy grew to its
     present proportions.

     That woman has not thrown off the yoke of religious despotism can
     be readily appreciated when we recognize the fact that man, from
     time immemorial, has played upon her religious faith to exalt his
     own attributes and degrade hers; that through this teaching her
     abiding belief in his superior capacity to interpret scriptural
     truths for her has been the means of sacrificing her power of
     mind, her tender affections, her delicate sensibilities, on the
     altar of his base selfishness throughout the ages. Orthodoxy
     recognizes no "inspiration" for woman to-day. She is not "called"
     save to serve man. Under its teaching her thought has been
     padlocked in the name of Divinity, and her lips sealed in
     sacrilegious pretense of authority from heaven; and nothing so
     clearly bespeaks the degenerating influence of the ages of this
     masculine teaching as the absolute faith manifested by the women
     of Utah in this _ipse dixit_ of man's religious doctrine. Their
     emancipation must necessarily be slow.

     The paternal government allowed polygamy to be planted, take
     root, and grow in a wilderness where the attraction of nobler
     minds and freer thoughts was not known. The victims came from the
     political despotisms of the old world to be shackled in a land of
     freedom with a still darker despotism, and under the ægis of the
     American flag they have borne children as a religious duty they
     owed to God and man; and surely it can not be expected, even with
     that grand emancipator, from king and priestcraft rule, the
     ballot, that at once they will vote themselves outcast and their
     children illegitimate.

     It took the white men of this nation one hundred years to put
     away that relic of barbarism, slavery; the removal of the twin
     relic will come through liberty for woman, higher education for
     children, and the incoming tide of Gentile immigration. The
     fitting act of justice is not disfranchisement of woman, as
     Senator Morgan proposes, and the reënactment of that old Adamic
     cry: "The woman whom thou gavest," but the disfranchisement of
     man, who is the only polygamist, and the stepping down and out of
     the sex as a legislator under whose fostering care this evil has
     grown. Retire to your sylvan groves and academic shades,
     gentlemen, as Mrs. Stanton suggests, and let the Deborahs, the
     Huldahs, and the Vashtis come to the front, and let us see what
     we can do toward the remedy of your wretched legislation. But
     suffrage for women in Utah has accomplished great good. I spent
     one week there in close observation. Outside of their religious
     convictions, the women are emphatic in condemnation of wrong.
     Their votes banished the liquor saloon. I saw no drunkenness
     anywhere; the poison of tobacco smoke is not allowed to vitiate
     the air of heaven, either on the streets or in public assemblies.
     Their court-room was a model of neatness and good order. Plants
     were in the windows and handsome carpets graced the floor. During
     my stay, the daughter of a Mormon, the then advocate-general of
     the territory, was admitted to the bar by Chief-Justice McKean of
     the United States Court, who, in fitting and beautiful language,
     welcomed her to the profession as a woman whose knowledge of the
     law fitted her to be the peer of any man in his court. She told
     me that she detested polygamy, but felt that she could render
     greater service to the emancipation of her sex inside of Utah
     than out. At midnight I wandered, with one of my own sex, about
     the streets to test the assertion that it was as safe for women
     then as at mid-day. No bacchanalian shout rent the air; no man
     was seen reeling in maudlin imbecility to his home. No guardians
     put in an appearance, save the stars above our heads; no sound
     awoke the stillness but the purling of the mountain brooks which
     washed the streets in cleanliness and beauty. What other city on
     this continent can present such a showing? With murder for man
     and rapine for woman where man alone is maker and guardian of the
     laws, it behooves him to pause ere he launches invectives at the
     one result of woman's votes.

Mrs. Gougar, on our Washington platform for the first time,
delighted the audience with her readiness and wit. She has a good
voice, fine presence, and speaks fluently, without notes.

     She spoke of the reformatory prison for women in her State, and
     said that the statistics showed that eighty-two per cent. of the
     women confined there were sent out reformed. Speaking of the
     gallantry of men, she cited a case of a man who came to an
     Indiana lawyer and desired him to make a will. The following
     conversation ensued: "I want you to make this will so that my
     wife will have $400 a year; that's enough for any woman." "Is she
     the only wife you ever had?" "Yes." "How long have you been
     married?" "Forty-two years." "How many children have you had?"
     "Eleven." "Did you have all your property before marriage?" "No;
     didn't have a cent; I've earned it all." "Has your wife helped
     you in any way to earn it?" "Why, yes, I suppose she has; but
     then I want to fix my will so she can only have $400 a year; it's
     enough." "Well, sir, you will have to move out of the State of
     Indiana then, for the law provides for the wife better than that,
     and you will have to get another lawyer." It is needless to say
     that this lawyer is a staunch champion of woman suffrage, and it
     is pleasant to know that there are more such men being educated
     by this agitation.

Mrs. Maxwell gave a fine recitation of "The Dying Soldier," at one
of the evening sessions. It was evident by the sparkling eyes of
the Indiana delegation that the ladies had in reserve some pleasant
surprise for the convention, which at last revealed itself in the
person of Judge Orth, a live member of congress from Indiana, who
stood up like a man and avowed his belief in woman suffrage. His
words were few but to the point, and his hearers all knew exactly
where he stood on the question.

The next evening the Nebraska delegation, determining not to be
outdone, captured one of their United States senators and
triumphantly brought him on the platform. It was a point gained to
have a congressman publicly give in his adhesion to the question,
but how much greater the achievement to appear in the convention
with a United States senator. It was a proud moment for Mrs. Colby
when Senator Saunders, a large man of fine proportions, stepped to
the front. But alas! her triumph over the Indiana ladies was short
indeed, for while the senator surpassed the representative in size
and official honors, he fell far below him in the logic of his
statements and the earnestness of his principles. In fact the
audience and the platform were in doubt at the close of his remarks
as to his true position on the question. Mrs. May Wright Sewall,
who followed him, sparkled with the satisfaction she expressed in
paying most glowing tributes to the men of Indiana and their State
institutions. She said:

     The principal objection to woman suffrage has always been that it
     will take women from their homes and destroy all home life. She
     showed that there is not an interest of home which is not
     represented in the State, and that the subordination of the State
     to the family has kept pace with the subordination of physical to
     spiritual force. Woman has an interest in everything which
     affects the State, and only lacks the legitimate instrument of
     these interests--the ballot--with which to enforce them. Life
     regulates legislation. Domestic life is woman's sphere, but a
     sphere of much larger dimensions than has ever yet been accorded
     it, these dimensions reaching out and controlling the functions
     of the State. The ballot is not a political or a military, but a
     domestic necessity.

Mrs. Harriette R. Shattuck spoke on the golden rule, asking men to
put themselves in the place of disfranchised women, and then
legislate for them as they would be legislated for. Mrs. Robinson
gave a résumé of the legal, political and educational position of
women in Massachusetts. Mrs. Hooker showed that political equality
would dignify woman in home life, give added weight to her opinions
on all questions, and command new respect for her from all classes
of men. Mrs. Colby gave an interesting address on "The Social
Evolution of Woman":

     She traced the history of woman from the time when she was bought
     and sold, up to the present. She said that the first believer in
     woman's rights was the one who first proposed that women should
     be allowed to eat with their husbands. This once granted,
     everything else has followed of necessity, and the ballot will be
     the crowning right. Once women were not allowed to sing soprano
     because it was the "governing part." From these and many like
     indignities woman has gradually evolved until she now stands on
     an equality with man in many social rights.

Martha McClellan Brown read an able essay on "The Power of the
Veto." She is a woman of fine presence, pleasing manners and a well
trained voice that can fill any hall. Her address was one of the
best in the convention and all felt that in her we had a valuable
acquisition to our Association. Mrs. Gage gave an able address on
"The Moral Force of Woman Suffrage."

During the first day of the convention a request, signed by the
officers of the association, was sent to the Special Committee on
Woman Suffrage in the Senate, asking for a hearing on the sixteenth
amendment to the constitution. The hearing was granted on Friday
morning, January 20, 1882. A distinguished speaker in England
having advised the friends of suffrage there to employ young and
attractive women to advocate the measure, as the speediest means of
success, Miss Anthony took the hint in making the selection for the
first hearing before the committee of those who had never been
heard before,[85] of whom some were young, and all attractive as
speakers. Miss Anthony said that she would introduce some new
speakers to the committee, in order to disprove the allegation that
"it was always the same old set." The committee listened to them
with undivided attention throughout, and at the conclusion of the
hearing the following resolution, offered by Senator George of
Mississippi, was adopted unanimously:

          _Resolved_, That the committee are under obligations to the
          representatives of the women of the United States for their
          attendance this morning, and for the able and instructive
          addresses which have been made, and that the committee
          assure them that they will give to the subject of woman
          suffrage the careful and impartial consideration which its
          grave importance demands.

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

     As we stood in the committee-room and presented our plea for
     freedom, we felt that at last we had obtained a fair hearing,
     whatever its result might be. And the most encouraging sign of
     the impression made by our words was the change in the faces of
     some of the members of the committee as the speaking went on. At
     first there was a look of indifference and scorn--merely
     toleration; this gradually changed to interest mingled with
     surprise; finally, as Miss Anthony closed with one of her most
     eloquent appeals, all the faces showed a decided and almost eager
     interest in what we had to say. Senator George, who certainly
     looked more unpropitious than any other one, assured the ladies
     that he would give to the subject of woman suffrage that careful
     and impartial consideration which its grave importance demands.
     This, from one who heralded his entrance by inquiring of Miss
     Anthony, in stentorian tones, if she "wanted to go to war," was,
     to say the least, a concession. The speakers were closely
     questioned by some members of the committee, who afterwards told
     us "that they had never heard a speech on the subject before and
     were surprised to find so much in the demand, and to see such
     ability as was manifested by the women before them."

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

     Gentlemen, when the news of the appointment of this committee was
     flashed over the wires, you cannot imagine the satisfaction that
     thrilled the hearts of your countrywomen. After fourteen years of
     constant petitioning, we are grateful for even this slight
     recognition at last. I never before felt such an interest in any
     congressional committee, and I have no doubt that all who are
     interested in this reform, share in my feelings. Fortunately your
     names make a great couplet in rhyme,

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

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

The gentlemen rising in turn received with a gracious bow "The
History of Woman Suffrage" which, Mrs. Stanton told them, would
furnish all the arguments they needed to defend their clients
against the ignorance and prejudice of the world. Mr. George of
Mississippi asked why this agitation was confined to Northern
women; he had never heard the ladies of the South express the wish
to vote. Mrs. Stanton referred him to those to whom the volume
before him was dedicated. "There," said she, "you will find the
names of two ladies from one of the most distinguished families in
South Carolina, who came North over forty years ago, and set this
ball for woman's freedom in motion. But for those noble women,
Sarah and Angelina Grimkè, we might not stand here to-day pleading
for justice and equality." As the speakers had requested the
committee to ask questions, they were frequently interrupted. All
urged the importance of a national protection, preferring
congressional action, to submitting the proposition to the popular
vote of the several States. On this point Mr. Jackson of Tennessee
asked many pertinent questions. Mrs. Shattuck, writing of this
occasion to the _Boston Transcript_, said:

     One of the speakers eloquently testified to the interest of many
     Southern women in this subject, and urged the Southern members of
     the committee not to declare that the women of the South do not
     want the ballot until they have investigated the matter. After
     the hearing three Southern ladies, wives of congressmen, thanked
     her for what she had said. The member from Mississippi showed a
     great deal of interest and really became quite waked up before
     the session ended. But, when we look at it in one light, there is
     something exceedingly humiliating in the thought that women
     representing the best intellect and the highest morality of our
     country, should come here in their grand old age and ask men for
     that which is theirs by right. Is it not time that this
     aristocracy of sex should be overthrown? Several of the senators
     were so moved by the speeches that they personally expressed
     their thanks, and one who has long been friendly, said the
     speeches were far above the average committee-hearings on any
     subject. We might well have replied that the reason is because
     all the speakers feel what they say and know that the question is
     one of vital importance.

     In securing these hearings before this special committee of the
     Senate the friends feel they have reached a milestone in the
     progress of their reform. To secure the attention for four hours
     of seven representative men of the United States, must have more
     effect than would a hundred times that amount of time and labor
     expended upon their constituents. If one of these senators, for
     instance, should become convinced of the justice of woman's claim
     to the ballot, his constituency would begin to look upon that
     question with respect, whereas it would take years to bring that
     same constituency up to the position where they could elect such
     a representative. To convince the representatives is to sound the
     keynote, and it is for this reason that these hearings before the
     Senate committee are of such paramount importance to the suffrage
     cause.

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

January 23 the House Committee on Rules[87] gave a hearing to Mrs.
Jane Graham Jones of Chicago, Mrs. May Wright Sewall and Miss
Anthony. During this congress the question of admitting the
territory of Dakota as a State was discussed in the Senate. Our
committee stood ready to oppose it unless the word "male" were
stricken from the proposed constitution.

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

     He told of his conversion to woman suffrage from the time when he
     believed women and men were ordained to be unequal, just as in
     nature the mountain is different from the valley--he looking down
     at her, she gazing up at him--until the time when he began to see
     that women are not of necessity the valleys, nor men of necessity
     the mountains; and so on, until now he believes women entitled
     to stand on an equal plane with men, socially and politically.

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

     If that condition was not one of slavery which obliged a woman to
     rise early and cook the family breakfast while her husband lay in
     bed; to work all day long, and then in the evening, while he
     smoked his pipe or enjoyed himself at the corner grocery, to mend
     and patch his old clothes. But she thought the position of woman
     was changing for the better. Even among the Indians a better
     feeling is beginning to prevail. It is Indian etiquette for the
     man to kill the deer or bear, and leave it on the spot where it
     is struck down for the woman to carry home. She must drag it over
     the ground or carry it on her back as best she may, while he
     quietly awaits her coming in the family wigwam. A certain Indian,
     after observing that white folks did differently by their women,
     once resolved to follow their example. But such was the force of
     public opinion that, when it was discovered that he brought home
     his own game, both he and his wife were murdered. This shows what
     fearful results prejudice may bring about; and the only
     difference between the prejudice which ruled his tribe in regard
     to woman and that which rules white American men to-day, is a
     difference in degree, dependent upon the difference in
     enlightenment. The principle is the same. The result would be the
     same were each equally ignorant.

The familiar faces of Edward M. Davis, Mary Grew, Adeline Thompson,
Sarah Pugh, Anna McDowell and two of Lucretia Mott's noble
daughters, gladdened many a heart during the various sessions of
the convention. Beautiful tributes were paid to Mrs. Mott by
several of the speakers. The Philadelphia convention was
supplemented by a most delightful social gathering, without mention
of which a report of the occasion would be incomplete:

     Like many historical events, this was entirely unpremeditated, no
     one who participated in its pleasures had any forewarning, aside
     from an informal invitation to lunch with Mrs. Hannah Whitehall
     Smith and her generous husband, both earnest friends of
     temperance and important allies of the woman suffrage movement.
     Mrs. Smith met the guests at the station in Philadelphia, tickets
     in hand, marshaling them to their respective seats in the cars as
     if born to command, and on arriving at Germantown, transferred
     them to carriages in waiting, with the promptness of a railroad
     official. Without noise or confusion one and all crossed the
     threshold of her well-ordered mansion, and with other invited
     guests were soon seated in the spacious parlor, talking in groups
     here and there. "Ah!" said Mrs. Smith on entering, "this will
     never do, think of all the good things that will be lost in these
     side talks. My plan is to have a general conversation, a kind of
     love-feast, each telling her experience. It would be pleasant to
     know how each has reached the same platform, through the tangled
     labyrinths of human life." Soon all was silence and one after
     another related the special incidents in childhood, girlhood and
     mature years that had turned her thoughts to the consideration of
     woman's position. The stories were as varied as they were
     pathetic and amusing, and were listened to amidst smiles and
     tears with the deepest interest. And when all[89] had finished
     the tender revelations of the hopes and fears, the struggles and
     triumphs through which each soul had passed, these sacred
     memories seemed to bind us anew together in a friendship that we
     hope may never end. A sumptuous lunch followed, and amid much
     gaiety and laughter the guests dispersed, giving the hospitable
     host and hostess a warm farewell--a day to be remembered by all
     of us.

Our Senate committee, through its chairman, Hon. Elbridge G.
Lapham, very soon reported in favor of the submission of a
sixteenth amendment. We had had a favorable minority report in the
House in 1871 and in the Senate in 1879--but this was the first
favorable majority report we had ever had in either house:

                                   IN THE SENATE, MONDAY, June 5, 1882.

     Mr. LAPHAM: I am instructed by the Select Committee on Woman
     Suffrage, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. No.
     60) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
     States, to report it with a favorable recommendation, without
     amendment, for the consideration of the Senate. This is a
     majority report, and the minority desire the opportunity to
     present their report also, and have printed the reasons which
     they give for dissenting. As this is a question of more than
     ordinary importance, I should like to have 1,000 extra copies of
     the report printed for the use of the committee.

     Mr. GEORGE: I present the views of the minority of the committee,
     consisting of the senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jackson], the
     senator from Nevada [Mr. Fair], and myself.

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

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

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

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

          _Resolved_, That 1,000 additional copies of the report and
          views of the minority on Senate Joint Resolution No. 60 be
          printed for the use of the Select Committee on Woman
          Suffrage.

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

     _The Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, to whom was referred
     Senate Resolution No. 60, proposing an amendment to the
     Constitution of the United States to secure the right of suffrage
     to all citizens without regard to sex, having considered the
     same, respectfully report: _

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

     A very brief history of the origin of this movement in the United
     States and of the progress made in the cause of female suffrage
     will not be out of place at this time. A World's Anti-slavery
     Convention was held in London on June 12, 1840, to which
     delegates from all the organized societies were invited. Several
     of the American societies sent women as delegates. Their
     credentials were presented, and an able and exhaustive discussion
     was had by many of the leading men of America and Great Britain
     upon the question of their being admitted to seats in the
     convention. They were allowed no part in the discussion. They
     were denied seats as delegates, and, by reason of that denial, it
     was determined to hold conventions after their return to the
     United States, for the purpose of asserting and advocating their
     rights as citizens, and especially the right of suffrage. Prior
     to this, and as early as the year 1836, a proposal had been made
     in the legislature of the State of New York to confer upon
     married women their separate rights of property. The subject was
     under consideration and agitation during the eventful period
     which preceded the constitutional convention of New York in the
     year 1846, and the radical changes made in the fundamental law in
     that year. In 1848 the first act "For the More Effectual
     Protection of the Property of Married Women" was passed by the
     legislature of New York and became a law. It passed by a vote of
     93 to 9 in the Assembly and 23 to 1 in the Senate. It was
     subsequently amended so as to authorize women to engage in
     business on their own account and to receive their own earnings.
     This legislation was the outgrowth of a bill prepared several
     years before under the direction of the Hon. John Savage,
     chief-justice of the Supreme Court, and of the Hon. John C.
     Spencer, one of the ablest lawyers in the State, one of the
     revisers of the statutes of New York, and afterward a cabinet
     officer. Laws granting separate rights of property and the right
     to transact business, similar to those adopted in New York, have
     been enacted in many, if not in most of the States, and may now
     be regarded as the settled policy of American legislation on the
     subject.

     After the enactment of the first law in New York, as before
     stated, and in the month of July, 1848, the first convention
     demanding suffrage for women was held at Seneca Falls in said
     State. The same persons who had been excluded from the World's
     Convention in London were prominent and instrumental in calling
     the meeting and in framing the declaration of sentiments adopted
     by it, which, after reciting the unjust limitations and wrongs to
     which women are subjected, closed in these words:

          Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half of
          the people of this country and their social and religious
          degradation; in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and
          because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed and
          fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist
          that they have immediate admission to all the rights and
          privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United
          States. In entering upon the great work before us we
          anticipate no small amount of misconception,
          misrepresentation and ridicule; but we shall use every
          instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We
          shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State
          and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit
          and the press in our behalf. We hope this convention will be
          followed by a series of conventions embracing every part of
          the country.

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

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

     This declaration was signed by seventy of the women of Western
     New York, among whom was one or more of those who addressed your
     committee on the subject of the pending amendment, and there were
     present, participating in and approving of the movement, a large
     number of prominent men, among whom were Elisha Foote, a lawyer
     of distinction, and since that time Commissioner of Patents, and
     the Hon. Jacob Chamberlain, who afterwards represented his
     district in the other House. From the movement thus inaugurated,
     conventions have been held from that time to the present in the
     principal villages, cities and capitals of the various States, as
     well as the capital of the nation.

     The First National Convention upon the subject was held at
     Worcester, Mass., in October, 1850, and had the support and
     encouragement of many leading men of the republic, among whom we
     name the following: Gerrit Smith, Joshua R. Giddings, Ralph Waldo
     Emerson, John G. Whittier, A. Bronson Alcott, Samuel J. May,
     Theodore Parker, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Elizur
     Wright, William J. Elder, Stephen S. Foster, Horace Greeley,
     Oliver Johnson, Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Mann. The Fourth
     National Convention was held at the city of Cleveland, Ohio,
     October, 1853. The Rev. Asa Mahan, president of Oberlin College,
     and Hon. Joshua R. Giddings were there. Horace Greeley and
     William Henry Channing addressed letters to the convention. The
     letter of Mr. Channing stated the proposition to be  that--

          The right of suffrage be granted to the people, universally,
          without distinction of sex; and that the age for attaining
          legal and political majority be made the same for women as
          for men.

     In 1857, Hon. Salmon P. Chase, chief-justice of the Supreme Court
     of the United States, then governor of Ohio, recommended to the
     legislature a constitutional amendment on the subject, and a
     select committee of the Senate made an elaborate report,
     concluding with a resolution in the following words:

          _Resolved_, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to
          report to the Senate a bill to submit to the qualified
          electors, at the next general election for senators and
          representatives, an amendment to the constitution, whereby
          the elective franchise shall be extended to the citizens of
          Ohio _without distinction of sex_.

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

          We believe that political equality, by leading the thoughts
          and purposes of men and women into the same channel, will
          more completely carry out the designs of nature. Woman will
          be possessed of a positive power, and hollow compliments
          will be exchanged for well-grounded respect when we see her
          nobly discharging her part in the great intellectual and
          moral struggles of the age that wait their solution by a
          direct appeal to the ballot-box. Woman's power is at present
          poetical and unsubstantial; let it be practical and real.
          There is no reality in any power that cannot be coined in
          votes.

     The effect of these discussions and efforts has been the gradual
     advancement of public sentiment towards conceding the right of
     suffrage without distinction of sex. In the territories of
     Wyoming and Utah, full suffrage has already been given. In regard
     to the exercise of the right in the territory of Wyoming, the
     present governor of that territory, Hon. John W. Hoyt, in an
     address delivered in Philadelphia, April 3, 1882, in answer to a
     question as to the operation of the law, said:

          First of all, the experience of Wyoming has shown that the
          only actual trial of woman suffrage hitherto made--a trial
          made in a new country where the conditions were not
          exceptionably favorable--has produced none but the most
          desirable results. And surely none will deny that in such a
          matter a single ounce of experience is worth a ton of
          conjecture. But since it may be claimed that the sole
          experiment of Wyoming does not afford a sufficient guaranty
          of general expediency, let us see whether reason will not
          furnish a like answer. The great majority of women in this
          country already possess sufficient intelligence to enable
          them to vote judiciously on nearly all questions of a local
          nature. I think this will be conceded. Secondly, with their
          superior quickness of perception, it is fair to assume that
          when stimulated by a demand for a knowledge of political
          principles--such a demand as a sense of the responsibility
          of the voter would create--they would not be slow in rising
          to at least the rather low level at present occupied by the
          average masculine voter. So that, viewing the subject from
          an intellectual stand-point merely, such fears as at first
          spring up, drop away, one by one, and disappear. But it must
          not be forgotten that a very large proportion of questions
          to be settled by the ballot, both those of principle and
          such as refer to candidates, have in them a _moral_ element
          which is vital. And here we are safer with the ballot in the
          hands of woman; for her keener insight and truer moral sense
          will more certainly guide her aright--and not her alone, but
          also, by reflex action, all whose minds are open to the
          influence of her example. The weight of this answer can
          hardly be overestimated. In my judgment, this moral
          consideration far more than offsets all the objections that
          can be based on any assumed lack of an intellectual
          appreciation of the few questions almost wholly commercial
          and economical. Last of all, a majority of questions to be
          voted on touch the interests of woman as they do those of
          man. It is upon her finer sensibilities, her purer
          instincts, and her maternal nature that the results of
          immorality and vice in every form fall with more crushing
          weight.

     A criticism has been made upon the exercise of this right by the
     women of Utah that the plural wives in that territory are under
     the control of their polygamous husbands. Be that as it may, it
     is an undoubted fact that there is probably no city of equal size
     on this continent where there is less disturbance of the peace,
     or where the citizen is more secure in his person or property,
     either by day or night, than in the city of Salt Lake. A
     qualified right of suffrage has also been given to women in
     Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Vermont, New
     Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kentucky, and New York. Of
     the operation of the law in the last-named State, Governor
     Cornell in a message to the legislature on May 12, said:

          The recent law, 1882, making women eligible as school
          trustees, has produced admirable results, not only in
          securing the election of many of them as trustees of
          schools, but especially in elevating the qualifications of
          men proposed as candidates for school-boards, and also in
          stimulating greater interest in the management of schools
          generally. The effect of these new experiences is to widen
          the influence and usefulness of women.

     So well satisfied are the representatives in the legislature of
     that State with these results that the assembly, by a large
     majority, recently passed to a third reading an act giving the
     full right of suffrage to women, the passage of which has been
     arrested in the Senate by an opinion of the attorney-general that
     a constitutional amendment is necessary to accomplish the object.
     In England women are allowed to vote at all municipal elections,
     and hold the office of guardian of the poor. In four States,
     Nebraska, Indiana, Oregon, and Iowa, propositions have passed
     their legislatures and are now pending, conferring the right of
     suffrage upon women.

     Notwithstanding all these efforts, it is the opinion of the best
     informed men and women, who have devoted more than a third of a
     century to the consideration and discussion of the subject, that
     an amendment to the federal constitution, analogous to the
     fifteenth amendment of that instrument, is the most safe, direct,
     and expeditious mode of settling the question. It is the question
     of the enfranchisement of half the race now denied the right, and
     that, too, the most favored half in the estimation of those who
     deny the right. Petitions, from time to time, signed by many
     thousands, have been presented to congress, and there are now
     upon our files seventy-five petitions representing eighteen
     different States. Two years ago treble the number of petitions,
     representing over twenty-five States, were presented.

     If congress should adopt the pending resolution, the question
     would go before the intelligent bodies who are chosen to
     represent the people in the legislatures of the various States,
     and would receive a more enlightened and careful consideration
     than if submitted to the masses of the male population, with all
     their prejudices, in the form of an amendment to the
     constitutions of the several States. Besides, such an amendment,
     if adopted, would secure that uniformity in the exercise of the
     right which could not be expected by action from the several
     States. We think the time has arrived for the submission of such
     an amendment to the legislatures of the States. We know the
     prejudices which the movement for suffrage to all without regard
     to sex, had to encounter from the very outset, prejudices which
     still exist in the minds of many. The period for employing the
     weapons of ridicule and enmity has not yet passed. Now, as in the
     beginning, we hear appeals to prejudice and the baser passions of
     men. The anathema, "woe betide the hand that plucks the wizard
     beard of hoary error," is yet employed to deter men from acting
     upon their convictions as to what ought to be done with reference
     to this great question. To those who are inclined to cast
     ridicule upon the movement, we quote the answer made while one of
     the early conventions was in session in the State of New York:

          A collection of women arguing for political rights and for
          the privileges usually conceded only to the other sex is one
          of the easiest things in the world to make fun of. There is
          no end to the smart speeches and the witty remarks that may
          be made on the subject. But when we seriously attempt to
          show that a woman who pays taxes ought not to have a voice
          in the manner in which the taxes are expended, that a woman
          whose property and liberty and person are controlled by the
          laws should have no voice in framing those laws, it is not
          so easy. If women are fit to rule in a monarchy, it is
          difficult to say why they are not qualified to vote in a
          republic; nor can there be greater indelicacy in a woman
          going to the ballot-box than there is in a woman opening a
          legislature or issuing orders to an army.

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

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

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

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

          Women have quite as much interest in good government as men,
          and I have never heard or read of any satisfactory reason
          for excluding them from the ballot-box; I have no more doubt
          of their ameliorating influence upon politics than I have of
          the influence they exert everywhere else.--[GEORGE WILLIAM
          CURTIS.

          In view of the terrible corruption of our politics, people
          ask, can we maintain universal suffrage? I say no, not
          without women. The only bear-gardens in our community are
          the town-meeting and the caucus. Why is this? Because these
          are the only places at which women are not present.--[Bishop
          GILBERT HAVEN.

          I repeat my conviction of the right of woman suffrage.
          Because suffrage is a right and not a grace, it should be
          extended to women who bear their share of the public cost,
          and who have the same interest that I have in the selection
          of officials and the making of laws which affect their
          lives, their property, and their happiness.--[Governor LONG
          of Massachusetts.

          However much the giving of political power to woman may
          disagree with our notions of propriety, we conclude that,
          being required by that first prerequisite to greater
          happiness, the law of equal freedom, such a concession is
          unquestionably right and good.--[HERBERT SPENCER.

          In the administration of a State neither a woman as a woman,
          nor a man as a man has any special functions, but the gifts
          are equally diffused in both sexes. The same opportunity for
          self-development which makes man a good guardian will make
          woman a good guardian, for their original nature is the
          same.--[PLATO.

     It has become a custom, almost universal, to invite and to
     welcome the presence of women at political assemblages, to listen
     to discussions upon the topics involved in the canvass. Their
     presence has done much toward the elevation, refinement, and
     freedom from insincerity and hypocrisy, of such discussions. Why
     would not the same results be wrought out by their presence at
     the ballot-box? Wherever the right has been exercised by law,
     both in England and this country, such has been its effect in the
     conduct of elections.

     The framers of our system of government embodied in the
     Declaration of Independence the statement that to secure the
     rights which are therein declared to be inalienable and in
     respect to which all men are created equal, "governments are
     instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent
     of the governed." The system of representative government they
     inaugurated can only be maintained and perpetuated by allowing
     all citizens to give that consent through the medium of the
     ballot-box--the only mode in which the "consent of the governed"
     can be obtained. To deny to one-half of the citizens of the
     republic all participation in framing the laws by which they are
     to be governed, simply on account of their sex, is political
     despotism to those who are excluded, and "taxation without
     representation" to such of them as have property liable to
     taxation. Their investiture with separate estates leads,
     logically and necessarily, to their right to the ballot as the
     only means afforded them for the protection of their property, as
     it is the only means of their full protection in the enjoyment of
     the immeasurably greater right to life and liberty. To be
     governed without such consent is clear denial of a right declared
     to be inalienable.

     It is said that the majority of women do not desire and would not
     exercise the right, if acknowledged. The assertion rests in
     conjecture. In ordinary elections multitudes of men do not
     exercise the right. It is only in extraordinary cases, and when
     their interests and patriotism are appealed to, that male voters
     are with unanimity found at the polls. It would doubtless be the
     same with women. In the exceptional instances in which the
     exercise of the right has been permitted, they have engaged with
     zeal in every important canvass. Even if the statement were
     founded in fact, it furnishes no argument in favor of excluding
     women from the exercise of the franchise. _It is the denial of
     the right of which they complain._ There are multitudes of men
     whose vote can be purchased at an election for the smallest and
     most trifling consideration. Yet all such would spurn with scorn
     and unutterable contempt a proposition to purchase their _right
     to vote_, and no consideration would be deemed an equivalent for
     such a surrender. Women are more sensitive upon this question
     than men, and so long as this right, deemed by them to be sacred,
     is denied, so long the agitation which has marked the progress of
     this contest thus far will be continued.

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

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

     The constitution is wisely conservative in the provision for its
     own amendment. It is eminently proper that whenever a large
     number of the people have indicated a desire for an amendment,
     the judgment of the amending power should be consulted. In view
     of the extensive agitation of the question of woman suffrage, and
     the numerous and respectable petitions that have been presented
     to congress in its support, I unite with the committee in
     recommending that the proposed amendment be submitted to the
     States.

                                             H. B. ANTHONY.

June 5, 1882, Mr. George, from the Committee on Woman Suffrage,
submitted the following views of the minority:

     The undersigned are unable to concur in the report of the
     majority recommending the adoption of the joint resolution
     proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
     for reasons which they will now proceed to state.

     We do not base our dissent upon any ground having relation to the
     expediency or inexpediency of vesting in women the right to vote.
     Hence we shall not discuss the very grave and important social
     and political questions which have arisen from the agitation to
     admit to equal political rights the women of our country, and to
     impose on them the burden of discharging, equally with men,
     political and public duties. Whether so radical a change in our
     political and social system would advance the happiness and
     welfare of the American people, considered as a whole, without
     distinction of sex, is a question on which there is a marked
     disagreement among the most enlightened and thoughtful of both
     sexes. Its solution involves considerations so intimately
     pertaining to all the relations of social and private life--the
     family circle--the status of women as wives, mothers, daughters,
     and companions, to the functions in private and public life which
     they ought to perform, and their ability and willingness to
     perform them--the harmony and stability of marriage, and the
     division of the labors and cares of that union--that we are
     convinced that the proper and safe discussion and weighing of
     them would be best secured by deliberations in the separate
     communities which have so deep an interest in the rightful
     solution of this grave question. Great organic changes in
     government, especially when they involve, as this proposed change
     does, a revolution in the modes of life, long-standing habits,
     and the most sacred domestic relations of the people, should
     result only upon the demand of the people, who are to be affected
     by them. Such changes should originate with, and be molded and
     guided in their operation and extent by, the people themselves.
     They should neither precede their demand for them, nor be delayed
     in opposition to their clearly expressed wishes. Their happiness,
     their welfare, their advancement, are the sole objects of the
     institution of government; of these they are not only the best,
     but they are the exclusive judges. They have commissioned us to
     exercise for their good the great powers which they have
     intrusted to us by their letter of attorney, the constitution;
     not to assume to ourselves a superior wisdom, or usurp a
     guardianship over them, dictating reforms not demanded by them,
     and attempting to grasp power not granted.

     The organization of our political institutions is such that the
     great mass of the powers of government, the proper exercise of
     which so deeply concerns the welfare of the people, is left to
     the States. In that depository the will of the people is most
     certainly ascertained, and the exercise of power is more directly
     under their guidance. Our free institutions have had their great
     development and owe their stability more to causes connected with
     the direct exercise of the power of the people in local
     self-government than to all other causes combined. Recent events,
     though tending strongly to centralization, have not destroyed in
     the public mind the inestimable value of local self-government.
     Among the powers which have hitherto been esteemed as most
     essential to the public welfare is the power of the States to
     regulate their domestic institutions in their own way; and among
     those institutions none has been preserved by the States with
     greater jealousy than their absolute control over marriage and
     the relation between the sexes.

     Another power of the States, deemed by the people when they
     assented to the Constitution of the United States most essential
     to the public welfare, was the right of each State to determine
     the qualifications of electors. Wherever the federal constitution
     speaks of elections for a federal office, it adopts the
     qualifications for electors prescribed by the State in which the
     election is to be held.

     Nor has this fundamental rule been departed from in the fifteenth
     amendment. That impairs it only to the extent that race, color,
     or previous condition of servitude shall not be made a ground of
     exclusion from the right of suffrage. In all else that pertains
     to the qualifications of electors the absolute will of the State
     prevails. This amendment was inserted from considerations which
     pertain to no other part of the question of suffrage. The negro
     race had been recently emancipated; it was supposed that the
     antagonism between them and their old masters and the prejudice
     of race would be such as to obstruct the equal enjoyment of the
     rights of freedom conferred by the national forces, and would
     prevent the white race of the South from admitting the negro
     race, however deserving it might be, to equal political
     privileges. And, moreover, it was deemed by the North a point of
     honor that, having conferred freedom on the negro, he should be
     provided with the right of suffrage.

     None of these considerations applies in the present case. It is
     not pretended that any such antagonism or prejudice exists
     between the sexes. It is not pretended that women have been
     redeemed from an intolerable slavery by the power of the
     government. It is not pretended that the sex in whose hands is
     the political power of the States is unwilling, from any cause,
     to do full justice to the other; for it is conceded that if the
     proposed amendment should be adopted, its incorporation into the
     constitution must result from the voluntary action of that sex in
     which is vested this political power. No good reason has been
     given why the congress of the United States should force or even
     hasten the States into such action, and no such reason can be
     given without a reversal of the theories on which our free
     institutions are based.

     The history given by the majority, of the legislation of the
     several States in relation to the rights of persons and property
     of married women showing as it does a steady advance in the
     abolition of their common-law disabilities, conclusively
     demonstrates that this question may be safely left for solution
     where it now is and has always hitherto belonged. The public mind
     is now being agitated in many of the States as to the rights of
     women, not only as to suffrage, but as to their engaging in the
     various employments from which they have hitherto been excluded.
     This exclusion from certain employments has not been the result
     of municipal but of social laws--the strongest of all human
     regulations. As these social laws have been modified, so the
     sphere of woman's activities and usefulness has been enlarged.
     These social laws are in the main the groundwork of the exclusion
     of women from the right of suffrage. In the establishment of
     these laws, as in their modification, women themselves have even
     a greater influence than men. Their disability to vote is,
     therefore, self-imposed; when they shall will otherwise, it is
     not too much to say that the disability will no longer exist. If
     in the future it shall be found that these laws deny a right to
     women the enjoyment of which they desire, and for the exercise of
     which they are qualified, it cannot be doubted that they will
     give way. If, on the contrary, neither of these shall be
     discovered, it will happen that the exclusion of suffrage will
     not be considered as a denial of a right, but as an exemption
     granted to women from cares and burdens which a tender and
     affectionate regard for womanhood refuses to cast on them.

     We are convinced, therefore, that the best mode of disposing of
     the question is to leave its solution to that power most amenable
     to the influences and usages of society in which women have so
     large and so potential a share, confident that at no distant day
     a right result will be reached in each State which will be
     satisfactory to both sexes and perfectly consistent with the
     welfare and happiness of the people. Certainly this must be so if
     the people themselves, the source and foundation of all power,
     are capable of self-government.

     At two of its meetings the committee listened with great pleasure
     to several eminent ladies who appeared before it as advocates of
     the proposed amendment. At none of the meetings of the committee,
     including that at which the members voted on the proposed
     amendment, was there any discussion of this important subject;
     none was asked for or desired by any member of the committee, and
     the vote was taken. The reports of the majority and of the
     minority of the committee are therefore to be construed only as
     the individual opinions of the members who respectively concur in
     them. They are in no sense to be treated as the judgment of a
     deliberative body charged with the examination of this important
     subject.

     The foregoing leads us to but one recommendation: that the
     committee should be discharged from the further consideration of
     the subject, that the resolution raising it be rescinded, and
     that the proposed amendment be rejected.

                                             J. Z. GEORGE,
                                             HOWELL E. JACKSON,
                                             JAMES G. FAIR.

In a letter from Miss Caroline Biggs to the president of the
National Association the following congratulations came from the
friends of suffrage in England:


                  CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR      }
                       WOMAN SUFFRAGE, 64 Berners Street, LONDON, W. }

     At a meeting of the Executive Committee, on May 18, 1882, the
     following resolution was proposed by Mrs. Lucas, seconded by Miss
     Jane Cobden, and passed unanimously:

          _Resolved_, That the Executive Committee of the National
          Society for Woman Suffrage have heard with hearty
          satisfaction that a select committee of the United States
          Senate in Washington has passed by a majority of votes the
          recommendation to adopt a constitutional amendment in favor
          of women's suffrage. They feel that the cause of woman is
          one in all countries, and they offer their most cordial
          congratulations to the women of America on the important
          step which has just been gained, and their warmest
          good-wishes for a speedy success in obtaining a measure
          which will guarantee justice and equal rights to half the
          population of a sister country.

Nebraska now became the center of interest, as a constitutional
amendment to secure the right of suffrage to woman was submitted to
be voted upon in the November election. As the submission of such a
proposition makes an important crisis in the history of a State, as
well as in the suffrage movement, the notes of preparation were as
varied as multitudinous throughout the nation, rousing all to
renewed earnestness in the work. Both the American and National
associations decided to hold their annual conventions in Omaha, the
chief city of the State, and to support as many speakers[90] as
possible through the campaign, that meetings might be held and
tracts distributed in every county of the State, an Herculean
undertaking, as Nebraska comprises 230,000 inhabitants scattered
over an area of 76,000 square miles, divided into sixty-six
counties; and yet this is what the friends of the measure proposed
to do. The American Association[91] held its convention September
12, 13, 14. The National[92] continued three days, September 27,
28, 29.

The Opera House, in which the National Association held its
meeting, was completely filled during all the sessions. The address
of welcome was given by Hon. A. J. Poppleton, one of the most
distinguished lawyers in that State. He said:

     I deem it no light compliment that, in the face of an explicit
     declaration that I am not in favor of woman suffrage, I have been
     asked to make, on behalf of the people of Omaha and the State, an
     address of welcome to the many distinguished men and women whom
     this occasion has brought together. Doubtless the consideration
     shown me is a recognition of the fact that I have been a
     life-long advocate of the advancement of women through the
     agencies of equality in education, equality in employment,
     equality in wages, equality in property-rights and personal
     liberty, in short, a fair, open, equal field in the struggle for
     life. That I cannot go beyond this and embrace equal suffrage, is
     due rather to long adherence to the political philosophy of
     Edmund Burke than any lack of conviction of the absolute equality
     of men and women in natural rights.

     In the winter of 1852-3, when a student at Poughkeepsie, N. Y.,
     while the spot on which we now stand was Indian country as yet
     untouched by the formative power of national legislation, I
     listened to Miss Susan B. Anthony, Miss Antoinette Brown and
     others in the advocacy of the rights of women. It seems a strange
     fortune that brings now, nearly thirty years after, one of those
     speakers, crowned with a national reputation, into a State carved
     out of that Indian country and containing 60,000 people, in
     advocacy of equal suffrage for her sex. This single fact
     proclaims in thunder tones the bravery, the fidelity, the
     devotion of these pioneers of reform, and challenges for them the
     sympathy, respect, esteem and admiration of every good man and
     woman in America.

     The thirty years commencing about 1850 have been prolific of
     momentous changes. It is the era of the sewing machine, of the
     domestication of steam and electricity, the overthrow of the
     great rebellion, the destruction of slavery, the consolidation of
     the German empire, the fall of the second Napoleon, the birth of
     the French republic, the incorporation of India into the British
     empire, and the revolution of commerce by the Pacific railways
     and the Suez canal. Great changes have likewise taken place in
     the structure of our own State and national legislation, the most
     conspicuous and pronounced result being the centralization of
     power in the federal government. It has been preëminently a
     period of amelioration, a long stride in the direction of
     tolerance of opinion, belief, speech and creed. Hospitals,
     asylums, schools, colleges and the manifold agencies of an
     advanced Christian civilization for alleviating the average lot
     of humanity, have grown and multiplied beyond the experience of
     former times, and men like Matthew Vassar, George Peabody and
     John Hopkins have hastened to consecrate the abundant fruits of
     honorable lives to the exaltation and advancement of the race.

     But in no direction have greater changes occurred in this country
     than in the condition of woman in respect to employment, wages,
     personal and property rights. In all heathen countries at this
     hour the mass of women are slaves or worse, wholly deprived of
     civil rights. In most Christian countries their legal status is
     one of absolute subordination in person and property to men. In
     this republic alone have we attained an altitude where some small
     measure of justice is meted out to women by the laws. In 1850 a
     fair measure of her rights was the grim edict of the common law
     holding her in guardianship prior to marriage, and upon marriage
     making her and all her possessions practically the property of
     her husband, while a cruel, unreasonable and vicious public
     opinion excluded her from all except menial and ill-paid service.
     One by one and year by year these barriers have given way, until
     in many States her property and personal rights enjoy the
     complete shelter of the law. Now more than half the occupations
     and employments of this age of industrial activity and progress
     are thronged with the faithful, efficient and contented labor of
     women.

     The law has broken forever the thraldom of an odious and hopeless
     marriage by reasonable laws for divorce for just cause, given her
     the custody of her children, vested her with the absolute power
     of disposition and control over her property, inherited or
     acquired, freed it from the claims of her husband's creditors,
     and clothed her with ample legal remedies even against her
     husband. Perhaps Nebraska alone of all the States, by its court
     of last resort, has upheld the power of the wife to make
     contracts with her husband and enforce them against him in her
     own name by the appropriate legal remedies. This surely is
     progress. Beyond this there lies but one field to win or fortress
     to reduce. Then surely the worn soldier in the long campaign
     crowned with the garlands of victory may rest from the battle.

     Not many years ago, coming from Wisconsin, I think, a girl
     presented herself in the Illinois courts for admission to the
     bar, and after a rigid and unsparing examination she was admitted
     with public compliment. She took an office in the great city of
     Chicago and in the short remnant of an uncertain life so wrought
     in her profession as to attain an average professional income,
     and win the undivided respect and esteem of her professional
     associates. And when from a far country, whither she had gone in
     hope to escape a fell disease, her lifeless corpse was brought
     back for sepulture, many of the foremost lawyers of Chicago
     gathered about her bier and bore emphatic testimony to her
     virtues as a woman and her attainments as a lawyer. To me no
     greater work has been done by any American woman. When Alta
     Hulett unobtrusively, silently but indomitably pressed her way to
     the front of the legal profession, and established herself there,
     she vindicated the right of her sex to contend for the highest
     prizes of life, and left her countrywomen a legacy which will
     ultimately blazon her name imperishably in the history of the
     advancement of women; and every American woman who, like her,
     goes to the front of any honorable occupation, employment or
     profession, and stays there, becomes her coädjutor in work and a
     sharer in her reward.

     Laden with the trophies of thirty years of conflict, of progress,
     of measurable success, the vice-president of the National Woman
     Suffrage Association and her associates present themselves to
     Nebraska and ask a hearing upon the final issue, "Shall this work
     be crowned by granting to women in this State the highest
     privilege of the citizen--suffrage?" On behalf of the people of a
     State whose legislature has granted everything else to
     women--whose devotion to free speech, untrammeled discussion and
     an independent press has been conspicuous in its constitutional
     and legislative history--I welcome them to this city and State,
     and bespeak for them a patient, candid, respectful, appreciative
     hearing.

Miss Anthony replied briefly to Mr. Poppleton's eloquent address
and returned the thanks of the convention for the courtesy with
which its members had been received by the citizens of Omaha.[93]
She then read a letter from the president of the convention:

                                  TOULOUSE, France, September 1, 1882.

     _To the National Woman Suffrage Association in Convention
     assembled:_

     DEAR FRIENDS: People never appreciate the magnitude and
     importance on any step in progress, at the time it is taken, nor
     the full moral worth of the characters who inspire it, hence it
     will be in line with the whole history of reform from the
     beginning if woman's enfranchisement in Nebraska should in many
     minds seem puerile and premature, and its advocates fanatical and
     unreasonable. Nevertheless the proposition speaks for itself. A
     constitutional amendment to crown one-half of the people of a
     great State with all their civil and political rights, is the
     most vital question the citizens of Nebraska have ever been
     called on to consider; and the fact cannot be gainsaid that some
     of the purest and ablest women America can boast, are now in the
     State advocating the measure.

     For the last two months I have been assisting my son in the
     compilation of a work soon to be published in America, under the
     title, "The Woman Question in Europe," to which distinguished
     women in different nations have each contributed a sketch of the
     progress made in their condition. One interesting and significant
     fact as shown in this work, is, that in the very years we began
     to agitate the question of equal rights, there was a simultaneous
     movement by women for various privileges, industrial, social,
     educational, civil and political, throughout the civilized world.
     And this without the slightest concert of action, or knowledge of
     each other's existence, showing that the time had come in the
     natural evolution of the species, in the order of human
     development, for woman to assert her rights, and to demand the
     recognition of the feminine element in all the vital interests of
     life.

     To battle against a palpable fact in philosophy and the
     accumulated facts in achievement that can be seen on all sides in
     woman's work for the last forty years, from slavery to equality,
     is as vain as to fight against the law of gravitation. We shall
     as surely reach the goal we purposed when we started, as that the
     rich prairies of Nebraska will ere long feed and educate millions
     of brave men and women, gathered from every nation on the globe.
     Every consideration for the improvement of your home life, for
     the morality of your towns and cities, for the elevation of your
     schools and colleges, and the loftiest motives of patriotism
     should move you, men of Nebraska, to vote for this amendment.
     Galton in his great work on Heredity says:

          We are in crying want of a greater fund of ability in all
          stations of life, for neither the classes of statesmen,
          philosophers, artisans nor laborers, are up to the modern
          complexity of their several professions. An extended
          civilization like ours comprises more interests than the
          ordinary statesmen or philosophers of our race are capable
          of dealing with, and it exacts more intelligent work than
          our ordinary artisans and laborers, are capable of
          performing. Our race is overweighted, and appears likely to
          be dragged into degeneracy by demands that exceed its
          powers. If its average ability were raised a grade or two, a
          new class of statesmen would conduct our complex affairs at
          home and abroad, as easily as our best business men now do
          their own private trades and professions. The needs of
          centralization, communication, and culture, call for more
          brains and mental stamina, than the average of our race
          possesses.

     Does it need a prophet to tell us where to begin this work? Does
     not the physical and intellectual condition of the women of a
     nation decide the capacity and power of its men? If we would give
     our sons the help and inspiration of woman's thought and interest
     in the complex questions of our present civilization, we must
     first give her the power that political responsibility secures.
     With the ballot in her own right hand, she would feel a new sense
     of dignity, and command among men a respect they have never felt
     before.

     Nebraska has now the opportunity of making this grand experiment
     of securing justice, liberty, equality, for the first time in the
     world's history, to woman, through her education and
     enfranchisement, of lifting man to that higher plane of thought
     where he may be able wisely to meet all the emergencies of the
     period in which he is called on to act. Let every man in Nebraska
     now so do his duty, that, when the sun goes down on the eighth of
     November, the glad news may be sent round the world that at last
     one State in the American republic has fully accorded the sacred
     right of self-government to all her citizens, black and white,
     men and women. With sincere hope for this victory,

                         Cordially yours,       ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

Many interesting letters were received from friends at home and
abroad, of which we give a few. The following is from our Minister
Plenipotentiary at the German Court:

                                   BERLIN, September 9, 1882.

     Miss ANTHONY: _Esteemed Friend_: At this great distance I can
     only sympathize with the earnest effort to be made this fall to
     secure political recognition for women in Nebraska. I am glad
     that the prospect is so good and that Nebraska, which gave a
     name, with Kansas, to the first successful resistance to the
     encroachments of slavery, is the arena where the battle is to be
     fought under such promise of a just result. By recognizing the
     right of its women to an equal share in all the duties and
     responsibilities of life, Nebraska will honor itself while
     securing for all time wholesome laws and administration.

     I believe society would more benefit itself than grant a favor to
     women by extending the suffrage to them. All the interests of
     women are promoted by a government that shall guard the family
     circle, restrain excess, promote education, shield the young from
     temptation. While the true interests of men lie in the same
     direction, women more generally appreciate these facts and
     illustrate in their lives a desire for their attainment. Could we
     bring to the ballot-box the great fund of virtue, intelligence
     and good intention stored up in the minds and hearts of our wives
     and sisters, how great the reinforcement would be for all that is
     noble, patriotic and pure in public life! Who should fear the
     result who desires the public welfare? From the stand-point of
     better principles applied to the direction of public affairs and
     the best individuals in office, the argument seems impregnable.

     It is getting late to resist this measure on the ground that the
     character of women themselves would be lowered by contact with
     politics. That objection is identical with the motive which
     causes the Turk to shut up his women in a harem and closely veil
     them in public. He fears their delicacy will be tarnished if they
     speak to any man but their proprietor. So prejudice feared woman
     would be unsexed if she had equal education with man. The
     professions were closed to women for the same consideration.
     Women have vindicated their ability to endure the education and
     engage in the dreaded pursuits, yet society is not dissolved, and
     these fearful imaginings have proved idle dreams. As every
     advance made by woman since the days when it was a mooted
     law-point how large could be the stick with which her husband
     could punish her, down to the day when congress opened to her the
     bar of the United States Supreme Court, has been accompanied by
     constantly refuted assertions that she and society were about to
     be ruined. I think we can safely trust to her good sense, virtue
     and delicacy to preserve for us the loved and venerated object we
     have always known, even if society shall yield the still further
     measure of complete enfranchisement, and thus add to her social
     dignity, duties and responsibilities.

     No class has ever been degraded by the ballot. All have rather
     been elevated by it. We cannot rationally anticipate less
     desirable personal consequences to those whose tendencies are
     naturally good, than to those on whom the ballot has been
     conferred belonging to a lower plane of being. But these
     considerations go only to show the policy of granting suffrage to
     women. From the stand-point of justice the argument is more
     pressing. If woman asks for the ballot shall man deny it? By what
     right? Certainly not by the right of a majority; for women are at
     least as numerous. Certainly not by any right derived from
     nature; for our common mother has set no brand on woman. If one
     woman shall ask for a voice in the regulation of society of
     which she is at least one-half, who shall say her nay? If any
     woman shall ask it, who shall deny it because another woman does
     not ask it? There are many men who do not value their
     citizenship; shall other men therefore be deprived of the ballot?
     Suppose many women would not avail themselves of such a function,
     are those with higher, or other views, to be therefore kept in
     tutelage?

     I trust you may succeed in this work in Nebraska. It is of
     supreme importance to the cause. The example of Nebraska would
     soon be followed by other States. The current of such a reform
     knows no retiring ebb. The suffrage once acquired will never be
     relinquished; first, because it will recommend itself, as it has
     in Wyoming, by its results; second, because the women will
     jealously guard their rights, and defend them with their ballots.
     Wishing I could do more than send you good wishes for the
     cause,[94] I am, respectfully yours,

                                             A. A. SARGENT.

The following letter is from a daughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton
(a graduate of Vassar College, and classmate of Miss Elizabeth
Poppleton), who two years before, on the eve of her departure for
Europe, gave her eloquent address on Edmund Burke in that city:

                                   TOULOUSE, France, September 3, 1882.

     _To the Voters of my Generation in Nebraska:_

     It is not my desire to present to you any argument, but only to
     give you an episode in my own life. I desire to lay before you a
     fact, not a fiction; a reality, not a supposition; an experience
     not a theory.

     I was born in a free republic and in my veins runs very
     rebellious blood. An ancestor of my father was one of those
     intrepid men who left the shores of old England and sailed forth
     to establish on a distant continent the grandest republic that
     has ever yet been known. That, you see, is not good blood to
     submit to injustice. And on my mother's side we find a sturdy old
     Puritan from whom our stock is traced, fleeing from England
     because of the faith that was in him, and joining his rebellious
     life to one of that honest Holland nation which had defied so
     nobly the oppressions of the Catholic church and Spanish
     inquisition. As if this were not sufficiently independent blood
     to pass on to other generations, my own father became an
     abolitionist, and step by step fought his belief to victory, and
     my mother early gave her efforts to the elevation of woman. It is
     all this, together with my living in the freëst land on the globe
     and in a century rife with discussions of all principles of
     government, that has made me in every fiber a believer in
     republican institutions.

     Having been reared in a large family of boys where we enjoyed
     equal freedom, and having received the same collegiate education
     as my brothers, it is not until lately that I have felt the crime
     of my womanhood. I have dwelt thus upon the antecedents and
     influences of my life in order to ask you one question: Do you
     not think I can appreciate the real meaning, the true sacredness
     of a republic? Do you not believe I feel the duties it demands
     of its citizens? But I want you to hold your reply in abeyance,
     till I give you one bit more of history.

     A ship at sea crossing on the Atlantic between Europe and
     America. Of two persons on this vessel I wish to speak to you. Of
     one I have already told you much; I need but add that my two
     years spent in Europe,[95] previous to my return to America for a
     few months last winter, had not made me less American, less a
     lover of republicanism. And now this ship, baffling the February
     storm, was sweeping nearer the land where the people reign. My
     heart beat high as I thought it was in my native country where
     women were free, more honored than in any nation in the world. As
     I stood on the deck, the strong sea-wind blowing wildly about me,
     and the ocean bearing on its heart-wave mountains, visions of the
     grandeur of the nation lying off beyond the western horizon, rose
     before me. And it was a proud heart that cried--"My Country!"

     And the other person I want to speak of? It is a man, a German,
     coming to the United States to escape military service in
     Prussia. He came in the steerage; was poor and ignorant. He could
     speak no English, not one word of your language and mine. His
     fellows were all Irish, so I offered to be an interpreter for
     him. I visited the steerage quarters, and returned with a heavy
     heart. Such brutal faces as I saw! Ignorance, cruelty,
     subserviency, were everywhere depicted. Herds of human beings
     that I feared, they looked so dull and brutal. The full meaning
     of a terrible truth rushed upon me. Soon these men would be my
     sovereigns--I their subject!

     I had just spent a year in that German's native land, and I
     remembered that I had seen their women doing the work of men in
     the fields, husbands returning from their day's labor
     empty-handed, and their wives toiling on behind bent under heavy
     burdens, and as I thought on this, our ship bore him and me
     towards the land that glories in having given birth to Lucretia
     Mott. In the country where he had been reared, I had seen women
     harnessed with beasts of burden, dragging laden wagons, and yet
     our vessel carried him and me at each moment towards a safe
     harbor, in a land that pays homage to the memory of Margaret
     Fuller. Our ship sailed on, taking him from a land where he had
     been taught to worship royalty, whatever its worth or crime;
     where he had paid cringing submission to an arbitrary rule of
     police; where he had been surrounded by the degrading effects of
     the mightiest military system on the globe. The ship plowed on
     and on through the waves, bringing him to a republic, not one
     principle of which he comprehended.

     And now we sail up New York bay. The day is bright, and a
     softening haze hangs over all. Surely this is some vision-land.
     Yes, it is indeed a vision-land, for it has never known the
     presence of a royal line; against its oppressors it fought in no
     mean rebellious spirit, but rose in revolution with its motto,
     "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
     governed," written on its brow to be known of all men. And I
     think as we slowly sail up the bay on our vessel, Does that
     deadened soul respond to what lies before him? Does there in his
     heart rise the prayer, Oh, God! make me true to the duties about
     to be laid upon me; make me worthy of being free? Yes, then, for
     the first time I felt the full depth of the indignity offered to
     my womanhood. I felt my enthusiasm for America wavering--love of
     country dead. _My_ country!--I have no country.

     Young men of Nebraska, I ask you to free your minds from
     prejudice, to be just towards the demands of another human soul,
     to be frank, to be wholly truthful, and answer my demand: Why
     should I not be a citizen of this republic? In replying, read
     between the lines of my tedious story and bear in mind the words
     of Voltaire: "Who would dare change a law that time has
     consecrated? Is there anything more respectable than an ancient
     abuse! Reason is more ancient, replied Zadig."

                                   Respectfully,      HARRIOT STANTON.


                    MANCHESTER NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE, }
                         MANCHESTER, England, September 5, 1882.    }

     DEAR MISS ANTHONY: Will you accept a word of cheer and God-speed
     from your sisters in England in your crusade for the emancipation
     of woman in Nebraska? You carry with you the hopes and
     sympathetic wishes of all on this side of the water. If you win,
     as I trust you may, your victory will have a distinct influence
     on the future of our parliamentary campaign, which we hope to
     begin in early spring in England. In the name of English women I
     would appeal to the men of Nebraska to assent to the great act of
     justice to women which is proposed to them by their elected
     representatives, and by so doing to aid in the enfranchisement of
     women all over the world.

                         Yours faithfully,         LYDIA E. BECKER.


                                        LONDON, September 1, 1882.

     DEAR MISS ANTHONY: Having heard that the next convention of the
     National Woman Suffrage Association will meet at Omaha this
     month, I cannot refrain from sending a few lines to assure our
     friends who are working so steadfastly in America for the same
     sacred cause as our own, of our loving sympathy and good-wishes
     for success in the coming struggle. The eyes and hearts of
     hundreds of women are, like my own, turned to Nebraska, where so
     momentous an issue is to be decided two months hence. The news of
     their vote, if rightly given, will "echo round the world" like
     the first shot fired at Concord. It will be the expression of
     their determination to establish their freedom by giving freedom
     to others, and their example will be followed by Indiana and
     Oregon, and soon by the other States of the Union and by England.
     Everything points with us to a speedy triumph of the principle of
     equal justice for woman. Next November, about the time when
     Nebraska will be voting for equal suffrage, the women in Scotland
     will be voting for the first time in their municipal elections.
     The session of 1882 will be memorable in future for having passed
     the act which gives a married woman the right to hold her own
     property, make contracts, sue and be sued, in the same manner as
     if she were a single woman. It is nearly thirty years since we
     first began our efforts in this matter, and each succeeding step
     has been won very slowly and with great difficulty through the
     efforts of those who are working to obtain the suffrage. Mr.
     Gladstone still expresses the hope that next session will place
     the franchise on a "fair" basis, meaning thereby the same right
     of voting for counties as for boroughs. We maintain that the
     franchise can never be said to be on a fair basis while women are
     debarred from the right of voting. Our progress and your progress
     will keep even pace together, for if women are free in America no
     long time can elapse before they are free here. We can but offer
     you our sympathy and we beg this favor of you, that as soon as
     you have the returns of the vote ascertained, you will telegraph
     the news to us, that our English societies may keep the day of
     rejoicing heart in heart with the American National Association.

     With cordial sympathy in all your efforts, I am, faithfully
     yours,

                                             CAROLYN ASHURST BIGGS.


     _To the National Woman Suffrage Association, in Convention
     assembled, at Omaha, Nebraska, September 26, 27, 28:_

     DEAR FRIENDS: The most pressing work before the National Woman
     Suffrage Convention, is bringing all its forces to bear upon
     congress for the submission of a sixteenth amendment to the
     national constitution, which shall prohibit States from
     disfranchising citizens of the United States, on the ground of
     sex, or for any cause not equally applicable to all citizens.
     While we of the National are glad to see an amendment to a State
     constitution proposed, securing suffrage to woman, as is the case
     in Nebraska this fall, we must not be led by it to forget or
     neglect our legitimate work, an amendment to the national
     constitution, which will secure suffrage at one and the same
     moment to the women of each State. While all action of any kind
     and everywhere is good because it is educational, the only real,
     legitimate work of the National Woman Suffrage Association, is
     upon congress. Never have our prospects been brighter than
     to-day. A select committee on woman suffrage having been
     appointed in both houses during the last session of congress, and
     a resolution introduced in the Senate, proposing an amendment to
     the Constitution of the United States, to secure the right of
     suffrage to all citizens irrespective of sex, having been
     referred to this select committee and receiving a favorable
     majority report thereon, we have every reason to expect the
     submission of such an amendment at the next session of congress.

     The work then, most necessary, is with each representative and
     senator; and the legislatures of the several States should be
     induced to pass resolutions requesting the senators and
     representatives from each State to give voice and vote in favor
     of the submission of such an amendment. This work is vitally
     important for the coming winter, and none the less so, even
     should Nebraska vote aye November 7, upon the woman suffrage
     amendment to its own constitution. In view of the probability of
     the submission of a sixteenth amendment at the coming session of
     congress, I offer the following resolution, which I consider one
     of the most important of the series I have been asked to prepare
     for adoption by the convention:

          _Resolved_, That it is the duty of every woman to work with
          the legislature of her own State, to secure from it the
          passage of a joint resolution requesting its senators and
          representatives in congress to use voice and vote in favor
          of the submission of an amendment to the national
          constitution which shall prohibit States from disfranchising
          citizens on the ground of sex.

     I hope the above resolution will be unanimously adopted, and that
     each woman will strive to carry its provisions into effect as a
     religious duty. With my best wishes for a grand and successful
     convention, and the hope that Nebraska will set itself right
     before the world by the adoption of the woman suffrage amendment
     this fall, I am,

                         Very truly yours,     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.[96]

_The Republican_ in describing the closing scenes of the
convention, said:

     Fully 2,500 people assembled last evening to listen to the
     closing proceedings of the convention. The stage, which was
     beautifully furnished and upholstered, was completely occupied by
     the ladies of the Association; and as they all were in full
     dress, in preparation for the reception at the Paxton Hotel, the
     sight was a brilliant one. As respects the audience, not only the
     seats, but the lobbies were crowded, and hundreds upon hundreds
     were turned away. Manager Boyd remarked as we passed in, "You
     will see to-night the most magnificent gathering that has ever
     been in the Opera House," and such truly it was--the intellect,
     fashion and refinement of the city. Addresses were given by M'me
     Neyman, whose earnest and eloquent words were breathlessly heard;
     Mrs. Minor of St. Louis, whose utterances were serious and
     weighty; and Miss Phoebe Couzins, who touched the springs of
     sentiment, sympathy, pathos and humor by turns. After answering
     two or three objections that had not been fully touched upon,
     Miss Couzins fairly carried away the house, when she said in
     conclusion, "Miss Anthony and myself, and another who has
     addressed you are the only spinsters in the movement. We, indeed,
     expect to marry, but we don't want our husbands to marry slaves
     [great merriment]; we are waiting for our enfranchisement. And
     now, if you want Miss Anthony and myself to move into your
     State--" this hit, with all it implied, set the audience into a
     convulsion of cheers and laughter which was quite prolonged; and
     after the merriment had subsided, Miss Couzins completed her
     sentence by saying, "We are under sailing orders to receive
     proposals!" whereupon the applause broke out afresh. "However,"
     she added, seeing Miss Anthony shake her head, "it takes a very
     superior woman to be an old maid, and on this principle I think
     Miss Anthony will stick to her colors." Miss Couzins quoted
     Hawthorne as speaking through "Zenobia":

          "It is my belief, yea, my prophecy, that when my sex shall
          have attained its freedom there will be ten eloquent women
          where there is now one eloquent man," and instanced this
          convention as an illustration of what might be expected.

Miss Couzins was followed by Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Neyman and Miss
Hindman. The resolutions,[97] which were presented by Mrs. Sewall,
among their personal commendations expressed the appreciation of
the Association for the services rendered by Mrs. Clara Bewick
Colby, in making preparations for the convention. Mrs. Colby in
making her acknowledgments said:

     There was another to whom the Association owed much for the work
     done which has made possible the brilliant success of the
     convention--one to whom, while across the water their thoughts
     and hearts had often turned; and she was sure that all present
     would gladly join in extending a welcome to the late president,
     and now chairman of the executive committee of the State
     association, Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks.

Mrs. Brooks came forward amid applause, and said:

     That at this late hour while a speech might be silvern, silence
     was golden; and she would say no more than, on behalf of all the
     members and officers of the State association, and the friends of
     the cause in Omaha, to tender their most grateful thanks to the
     National Association for "the feast of reason and the flow of
     soul" with which they have been favored during the last three
     days.

At the close of the convention the spacious parlors of the Paxton
House were crowded. Over a thousand ladies and gentlemen passed
through, shaking hands with the delegates and congratulating them
on the great success of the convention.

Another enthusiastic meeting was held at Lincoln, the capital of
the State, and radiating from this point in all directions these
missionaries of the new gospel of woman's equality traversed the
entire State, scattering tracts and holding meetings in churches,
school-houses and the open air, and thus the agitation was kept up
until the day of election. As it was the season for agricultural
fairs, the people were more easily drawn together, and the ladies
readily availed themselves, as they had opportunity, of these great
gatherings. Two notable debates were held in Omaha in answer to the
many challenges sent by the opposition. Miss Couzins, the first to
enter the arena, was obliged to help her antagonist in his
scriptural quotations, while Miss Anthony was compelled to supply
hers with well-known statistics. It was evident that neither of the
gentlemen had sharpened his weapons for the encounter.

To look over the list of counties visited and the immense distances
traveled in public and private conveyances, enables one in a
measure to appreciate the physical fatigue these ladies endured. In
reading of their earnest speeches, debates, conversations at every
fireside and dinner-table, in every car and carriage as they
journeyed by the way or waited at the station, their untiring
perseverance must command the unqualified admiration of those who
know what a political campaign involves. During those six weeks of
intense excitement they were alike hopeful and anxious as to the
result. At last the day dawned when the momentous question of the
enfranchisement of 75,000 women was to be decided. Every train
brought some of the speakers to their headquarters in Omaha, with
cheering news from the different localities they had canvassed. And
now one last effort must be made, they must see what can be done at
the polls. Some of the ladies went in carriages to each of the
polling booths and made earnest appeals to those who were to vote
for or against the woman's amendment. Others stood dispensing
refreshments and the tickets they wished to see voted, all day
long. And while the men sipped their coffee and ate their viands
with evident relish, the women appealed to their sense of justice,
to their love of liberty and republican institutions. Vain would be
the attempt to describe the patient waiting, the fond hopes, the
bright visions of coming freedom, that had nerved these brave women
to these untiring labors, or to shadow in colors dark enough the
fears, the anxieties, the disappointments, all centered in that
November election. A fitting subject for an historical picture was
that group of intensely earnest women gathered there, as the last
rays of the setting sun warned them that whether for weal or for
woe the decisive hour had come; no word of theirs could turn defeat
to victory.

The hours of anxious waiting were not long, the verdict soon came
flashing on every wire, from the north, the south, the west: "No!"
"No!" "No!" The mothers, wives and daughters of Nebraska must still
wear the yoke of slavery; they who endured with man the hardships
of the early days and bravely met the dangers of a pioneer life,
they who have reared two generations of boys and taught them the
elements of all they know, who have stood foremost in all good
works of charity and reform, who appreciate the genius of free
institutions, native-born American citizens, are still to be
governed by the ignorant, vicious classes from the old world. What
a verdict was this for one of the youngest States in the American
republic in the nineteenth century!

But these heroic women did not sit down in sackcloth and ashes to
weep over the cruel verdict. Anticipating victory, they had engaged
the Opera House to hold their jubilee if the women of Nebraska were
enfranchised; or, if the returns brought them no cause for
rejoicing, they would at least exalt the educational work that had
been done in the State, and dedicate themselves anew to this
struggle for liberty. They had survived three defeats, in Kansas,
Michigan, Colorado, and tasted the bitterness of repeated
disappointments, and another could not crush them. When the hour
arrived, an immense audience welcomed them in the Opera House, and
from this new baptism of sorrow they spoke more eloquently than
ever before. In their calm, determined manner they seemed to say
with Milton's hero:

     "All is not lost: the unconquerable will is ours."

A report of the Fifteenth Annual Washington Convention, Jan. 23,
24, 25, 1883, was written by Miss Jessie Waite of Chicago, and
published in the _Washington Chronicle_, from which we give the
following extracts:

     The proceedings of the Association were inaugurated at Lincoln
     Hall Monday evening by a novel lecture, entitled "Zekle's Wife,"
     by Mrs. Amy Talbot Dunn of Indianapolis. The personality of Mrs.
     Dunn is so entirely lost in that of Zekle's wife that it is hard
     to realize that the old lady of so many and so varied experiences
     is a happy young wife. As a character sketch Mrs. Dunn's "Zekle's
     Wife" stands on an equality with Denman Thompson's "Joshua
     Whitcomb" and with Joe Jefferson's "Rip Van Winkle." To sustain a
     conception so foreign to the natural characteristics of the actor
     without once allowing the interest of the audience to flag,
     requires originality of thought, independence of idea, and genius
     for action. Mrs. Dunn, herself the author of her sketch,
     possesses to a remarkable degree the power to impress upon her
     audience the feeling that the old lady from "Kaintuck" is before
     them, not only to say things for their amusement, but also to
     impress upon them those great truths which have presented
     themselves to her mind during the fifty years of her married
     life. "Zekle's Wife" is a keen, shrewd, warm-hearted, lovable old
     woman, without education or culture, yet with an innate sense of
     refinement and a touching undercurrent of desire "not to be too
     hard on Zekle." As she tells her story, which she informs us is a
     true one from real life, she engages the attention and wins the
     sympathy of all her hearers, and frequent bursts of applause
     evidence the satisfaction of the audience.

     The convention proper opened on Tuesday morning with the
     appointment of various committees,[98] and reports[99] from the
     different States filled up most of the time during the day. May
     Wright Sewall said:

          Women must learn that power gives power; that intelligence
          alone can appreciate or be influenced by intelligence; that
          justice alone is moved by appeals based on justice. More
          than anything in the course of suffrage labor does the
          Nebraska campaign justify the primary method of this
          National Association. We have a right to expect that each
          legislature will be composed of the picked men of the State.
          We have a right to believe that as the intelligence, wisdom
          and justice of the picked men of the nation are superior to
          the same qualities in the mass of men, so is the fitness of
          national and State legislators to consider the demands for
          the ballot.

     Mrs. Mills of Washington sang, as a solo, "Barbara Fritchie," in
     excellent style. Mrs. Caroline Hallowell Miller (wife of Francis
     Miller, esq., late assistant attorney for the District of
     Columbia) spoke with the greatest ease and most remarkable
     command of language. She is in every sense a strong woman. She
     said that, born and reared as she was in a Virginia town noted
     for its intense conservatism, where she had seen a woman stripped
     to the waist and brutally beaten by order of the law (her skin
     happened to be of a dark color) whose only crime was that of
     alleged impertinence, and that impertinence provoked by improper
     conduct on the part of a young man; that, reared in such a cradle
     as this, still, through the blessing of a good home, she had
     learned to deeply appreciate the noble efforts of women who dared
     to tread new paths, to break their own way through the dense
     forest of prejudice and ignorance. Man cannot represent woman. If
     woman breaks any law of man, of nature, or of God, she alone must
     suffer the penalty. "This fact seems to me," said Mrs. Miller,
     "to settle the whole question."

     Miss Anthony read the following letter from Hon. Benjamin F.
     Butler, who, she said, had the honor of being an advocate of this
     cause, in addition to being governor of Massachusetts:

                                   WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 23, 1883.

          MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I received your kind note asking me to
          attend the National Convention of the friends of woman
          suffrage at Washington, for which courtesy I am obliged. My
          engagements, which have taken me out of the commonwealth,
          cover all, and more than all, of my time, and I find I am to
          hurry back, leaving some of them undisposed of. It will
          therefore be impossible for me to attend the convention.

          As I have already declared my conviction that the fourteenth
          amendment fully covers the right of all persons to vote, and
          as I assume that the women of the country are persons, and
          very important persons to its happiness and prosperity, I
          never have been able to see any reason why women do not come
          within its provisions. I think such will be the decision of
          the court, perhaps quite as early as you may be able to get
          through congress and the legislatures of the several States
          another amendment. But both lines of action may well be
          followed, as they do not conflict with each other. This
          course was taken in the case of the fifteenth amendment,
          which was supposed to be necessary to cover the case of the
          negro, although many of the friends of the colored man
          looked coldly upon that amendment, because it seemed to be
          an admission that the fourteenth amendment was not
          sufficient. Therefore I can without inconsistency, I think,
          bid you "God speed" in your agitation for the sixteenth
          amendment. It will have the effect to enlighten the public
          mind as to the scope of the fourteenth amendment. I am very
          truly, your friend and servant,

                                             BENJ. F. BUTLER.

     Mrs. Blake presented a series of resolutions, which were laid on
     the table for consideration:

          WHEREAS, In larger numbers than ever before the women of the
          United States are demanding the repeal of arbitrary
          restrictions which now debar them from the use of the
          ballot; and

          WHEREAS, The recent defeat in Nebraska of a constitutional
          amendment, giving the women of the State the right to vote,
          proves that failure is the natural result of an appeal to
          the masses on a question which is best understood and
          approved by the more intelligent citizens; therefore,

          _Resolved_, That we call upon this congress to pass, without
          delay, the sixteenth amendment to the federal constitution
          now pending in the Senate.

          _Resolved_, That all competitive examinations for places in
          the civil service of the United States should be open on
          equal terms to citizens of both sexes, and that any
          so-called civil service reform that does not correct the
          existing unjust discrimination against women employés, and
          grade all salaries on merit and not sex, is a dishonest
          pretense at reform.

          WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States declares that
          no State shall be admitted to the Union unless it have a
          republican form of government; and whereas, no true republic
          can exist unless all the inhabitants are given equal civil
          and political rights; therefore,

          _Resolved_, That we earnestly protest against the admission
          of Dakota as a State, unless the right of suffrage is
          secured on equal terms to all her citizens.

          _Resolved_, That the women of these United States have not
          deserved the infliction of this punishment of
          disfranchisement, and do most earnestly demand that they be
          relieved from the cruelties it imposes upon them.

          WHEREAS, During the war hundreds of women throughout our
          land entered the service of the nation as hospital nurses;
          and

          WHEREAS, Many of these women were disabled by wounds and by
          disease, while many were reduced to permanent invalidism by
          the hardships they endured; therefore,

          _Resolved_, That these women should be placed on the pension
          list and rewarded for their services.

     After the reading of the resolutions an animated discussion
     followed, Miss Anthony showing in scathing terms the injustice of
     the employment of women to do equal work with men at half the
     salaries, in the departments at Washington and elsewhere. An
     additional resolution was adopted declaring that paying Dr. Susan
     A. Edson for her services as attendant physician to President
     Garfield, $1,000 less than was paid for an equivalent service
     rendered by Dr. Boynton, a more recent graduate of the same
     college from which she received her diploma, is an unjust
     discrimination on account of sex.

          Mrs. SEWALL said men in the departments were given extra
          leave of absence each year to go home to vote, and suggested
          that women be given (until the time comes for them to vote)
          extra leave to meditate upon the ballot.

          Miss ANTHONY said she had addressed a letter to each
          secretary asking that such women as desired be given
          permission to attend the meetings of this convention without
          loss of time to them. She had received but one answer, which
          was from Secretary Folger, who wrote: "_The condition of the
          public business prevents us from acceding to your request_."

          Mrs. HARRIETTE R. SHATTUCK of Boston said: Tired as some of
          the audience must be of hearing the same old argument in
          favor of the ballot for women repeated from year to year,
          they could not possibly be more tired than the friends of
          the cause were of hearing the same old objections repeated
          from year to year. While the forty-year-old objections are
          raised the forty-year-old rejoinders must be given. We must
          continue to agitate until we force people to listen. It is
          like the ringing of a bell. At first no one notices it; in a
          little while, a few will listen; finally, the perpetual
          ding-dong, ding-dong, will force itself to be heard by every
          one. The oldest of all the old arguments is that of right
          and justice, and the tune which my little bell shall ring is
          merely this: "_It is right!_" This cry of woman for liberty
          and equality increases every day, and it is a cry that must
          some day be heard and responded to.

     Mrs. Virginia L. Minor of St. Louis was then introduced as the
     woman who stands to this cause in the same relation that Dred
     Scott had stood to the Republican party. Miss Couzins said that
     in introducing Mrs. Minor she wanted to say one word about the
     work Mrs. Minor had done for the soldiers, during the sanitary
     fair and all through the war. She had canned fruit, refusing the
     money offered in payment, returning it all to be used for the
     sick and wounded soldiers [applause]. Mrs. Minor spoke in a calm,
     deliberate manner, with perfect conviction in the truth of her
     statements and with a winning sweetness of expression that
     indicated the highest sensibilities of a refined nature. She
     showed that women voted in the early days of the country, and
     that undoubtedly it was the intention of the framers of the
     constitution that they should do so. This right had been taken
     away when the constitution was amended and the word "male"
     inserted. What is now desired is simply restoration of that which
     had been taken away. She believed that this restoration was made,
     unwittingly, by the addition of the fourteenth amendment, which,
     without doubt, makes women citizens. It is men who have abused
     the republican institution of suffrage; it is women who desire to
     restore it to its proper exercise. Miss Anthony read a letter
     from Mrs. Wallace, the wife of one of the former governors of
     Indiana:

                              INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., January 21, 1883.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: When in the call I read that for fourteen
          consecutive years the National Woman Suffrage Association
          had held a convention in Washington, I was oppressed by two
          thoughts: First, how hard it is to overcome prejudice and
          ignorance when they have been fortified by the usages and
          customs of ages; and secondly, the sublime faith, courage
          and perseverance of the advocates of woman's
          enfranchisement, and their confidence in the ultimate
          triumph of justice. After all, by what are governments
          organized and maintained? By brute force alone? Despotisms
          may be, but republics never. What are the qualifications for
          the ballot? The power to fight? Are they not rather
          intelligence, virtue, truth and patriotism? I scarce think
          the most obstinate and egotistical of our opponents will
          assert that men possess a monopoly of these virtues, or even
          a moiety of them. As to their fighting capacities, of which
          we hear so much, I think they would have cut a sorry figure
          in the wars which they have been compelled to wage in order
          to establish and maintain this government, if they had not
          had the sympathy and coöperation of woman. I entirely agree
          with you that, while agitation in the States is necessary as
          a means of education, a sixteenth amendment to the national
          constitution is the quickest, surest and least laborious way
          to secure the success of this great work for human liberty.
          Any legislature of Indiana in the last six years would have
          ratified such an amendment. With highest regards for
          yourself and the best wishes for the success of the
          convention, I remain,

                         Yours, etc.,     ZERELDA G. WALLACE.

     After several other speakers,[100] Madame Clara Neyman of New
     York city, delivered what was, without question, one of the best
     addresses of the convention. She spoke with a slightly German
     accent, which only served to enhance the interest and hold the
     attention of the audience. Her eloquence and argument could not
     fail to convince all of her earnest purpose. After showing the
     philosophy of reform movements, and every step of progress, she
     said:

          Woman's enfranchisement will be wrought out by peaceful
          means. We shall use no fire-arms, no torpedoes, no heavy
          guns to gain our freedom. No precious human lives will be
          sacrificed; no tears will be shed to establish our right. We
          shall capture the fortresses of prejudice and injustice by
          the force of our arguments; we shall send shell after shell
          into these strongholds until their defective reasoning gives
          way to victorious truth. "Inability to bear arms," says
          Herbert Spencer, "was the reason given in feudal times for
          excluding woman from succession," and to-day her position is
          lowest where the military spirit prevails. A sad
          illustration of this is my own country. Being a born German,
          and in feeling, kindred, and patriotism attached to the
          country of my birth and childhood, it is hard for me to make
          such a confession. But the truth must be told, even if it
          hurts. It has been observed by those who travel in Europe,
          that Germany, which has the finest and best universities,
          which stands highest in scholarship, nevertheless tolerates,
          nay, enforces the subjection of woman. The freedom of a
          country stands in direct relation to the position of its
          women. America, which has proclaimed the freedom of man, has
          developed _pari passu_ a finer womanhood, and has done more
          for us than any other nation in existence. A new type of
          manhood has been reared on American soil--a type which
          Tennyson describes in his Princess:

               Man shall be more of woman, she of man;
               He gain in sweetness and in moral height,
               Nor lose the thews that wrestle with the world;
               She, mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
               Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind;
               Till at the last they set them each to each,
               Like perfect music unto noble words.
               Then comes the statelier Eden back to man;
               Then springs the crowning race of human kind.

     At the evening session the time was divided between Lillie
     Devereux Blake and Phoebe W. Couzins. Mrs. Blake spoke on the
     question, "Is it a Crime to be a Woman?"

          She showed in a clear, logical manner that wherever a woman
          was apprehended for crime the discrimination against her was
          not because of the crime she had committed, but because the
          crime was committed by a woman. Every woman in this country
          is treated by the law as if she were to blame for being a
          woman. In New York an honorable married woman has no right
          to her children. A man may beat his wife all he pleases; but
          if he beats another man the law immediately interferes,
          showing that the woman is not protected simply because she
          is so indiscreet as to _be a woman_. If it is not a crime to
          be a woman, why are women subjected to unequal payment with
          men for the same service? Why are they forced at times to
          don men's clothes in order to obtain employment that will
          keep them from starvation?

          Miss COUZINS said that the American-born woman was "a woman
          without a country"; but before she had closed she had proved
          that this country belonged exclusively to the women. It was
          a woman, Queen Isabella, that enabled a man to discover this
          country, and in the old flag the initials were "I" and "F,"
          representing Isabella and Ferdinand, showing that it was
          acknowledged that the woman's initial was the more important
          in this matter and to be first considered. It was a woman,
          Mary Chilton, that first landed on Plymouth rock. It was a
          woman, Betsy Ross, that designed our beautiful flag, the
          original eagle on our silver dollar, and the seal of the
          United States without which no money is legal. All the way
          down in our national history woman has been hand in hand
          with man, has assisted, supported and encouraged him, and
          now there are women ready to help reform the life of the
          body politic, and side by side with man work to purify,
          refine and ennoble the world. Miss Couzins seemed Inspired
          by her own thoughts and carried the audience along with her
          in her flights of eloquence.

     Being asked to make a few closing remarks, Mrs. May Wright Sewall
     said:

          Difficult, indeed, is the task of closing a three days'
          convention; vain is the hope to do it with fitting words
          which shall not be mere repetitions of what has been said on
          this platform. The truth which bases this claim lies in a
          nut-shell, and the shell seems hard to be cracked. It is
          unfair, when comparing the ability of men and women, to
          compare the average woman to the exceptional man, but this
          is what man always does. If, perchance, he admits not only
          the equality but the superiority of woman, he tells her she
          must not vote because she is so nearly an angel, so much
          better than he is, and this, in the face of the fact that
          every angel represented or revealed has been shown in the
          form of a _handsome young man_. If any class then must
          abstain from meddling in politics on account of relation to
          the angels, it is the men! But she informed the gentlemen
          she had no fears for them on that ground, for their
          relationship was not _near_ enough to cause any serious
          inconvenience. Speaking of the objections to women
          undertaking grave or deep studies, that woman lacks the
          logical faculty, that she has only intuition, nerve-force,
          etc., Mrs. Sewall said: It is true of every woman who has
          done the worthiest work in science, literature, or reform,
          from Diotima, the teacher of Socrates, to Margaret Fuller,
          the pupil of Channing and the peer of Emerson, that ignoring
          the methods of nerves and instincts, she has placed herself
          squarely on the basis of observation, investigation and
          reason. Men will admit that these women had strength and
          logic, but say they are exceptional women. So are Gladstone,
          Bismarck, Gambetta, Lincoln and Garfield exceptional men.
          She mentioned Miss Anthony's proposed trip to Europe, and
          said that she had not had a holiday for thirty years.

          Miss ANTHONY said she wished to call attention to the report
          of the Special Committee of the Senate, which distinctly
          stated that the question had had "general agitation," and
          that the petitions at different times presented were both
          "_numerous_ and respectable." This was sufficient answer,
          coming from such high authority, that of Senator Anthony, to
          all the insinuations and unjust remarks about the petitions
          presented to congress, and with regard to the assertion that
          women themselves did not want the ballot. She expressed her
          obligations to the press, and mentioned that the _Sunday
          Chronicle_ had announced its intention of giving much
          valuable space to the proceedings, and that when she had
          learned this, she had ordered 1,000 copies, which she would
          send to the address of any friend in the audience free of
          charge.

     The "Star Spangled Banner" was then sung, Miss Couzins and Mrs.
     Shattuck singing the solos, Mr. Wilson of the Foundry M. E.
     Church, leading the audience in the chorus, the whole producing a
     fine effect. Miss Anthony said the audience could see how much
     better it was to have a man to help, even in singing. This
     brought down the house.

     In closing this report, a word may be said of the persons most
     conspicuous in it. This year several remarkable additions have
     been made to our number, and it is of these especially that we
     would speak. Mrs. Minor of St. Louis, in her manner has all the
     gentleness and sweetness of the high-born Southern lady; her
     personal appearance is very pleasant, her hair a light chestnut,
     untouched with gray; her face has lost the color of youth, but
     her eyes have still their fire, toned down by the sorrow they
     have seen. Madame Neyman is also new to the Washington platform.
     She is a piquant little German lady, with vivacious manner, most
     agreeable accent, and looked in her closely-fitting black-velvet
     dress as if she might have just stepped out of a painting. In
     direct contrast is Mrs. Miller of Maryland--a large, dark-haired
     matron, past middle age, but newly born in her enthusiasm for the
     cause. She is a worker as well as a talker, and is a decided
     acquisition to the ranks. The other novice in the work is Mrs.
     Amy Dunn, who has taken such a novel way to render assistance.
     Mrs. Dunn is tall and slender, with dark hair and eyes. She is a
     shrewd observer, does not talk much socially, but when she says
     anything it is to the point. Her character sketch, "Zekle's
     Wife," will be a stepping-stone to many a woman on her way to the
     suffrage platform.

     Two women who have done and are doing a great work in this city,
     and who are not among the public speakers, are Mrs. Spofford, the
     treasurer, wife of the proprietor of the Riggs House, and Miss
     Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary of the Association. To these ladies
     is due much of the success of the convention. Mrs. Sheldon is of
     diminutive stature, with gray hair, and Mrs. Spofford is of large
     and queenly figure, with white hair. Her magnificent presence is
     always remarked at the meetings.

     The following were among the letters read at this convention:

              10 DUCHESS STREET, PORTLAND PLACE, LONDON, Eng., Jan. 12.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: To you and our friends in convention
          assembled, I send greeting from the old world. It needs but
          little imagination to bring Lincoln Hall, the usual fine
          audiences, and the well-known faces on the platform, before
          my mind, so familiar have fifteen years of these conventions
          in Washington made such scenes to me. How many times, as I
          have sat in your midst and listened to the grand speeches of
          my noble coädjutors, I have wondered how much longer we
          should be called upon to rehearse the oft-repeated arguments
          in favor of equal rights to all. Surely the grand
          declarations of statesmen at every period in our history
          should make the principle of equality so self-evident as to
          end at once all class legislation.

          It is now over half a century since Frances Wright with
          eloquent words first asserted the political rights of women
          in our republic; and from that day to this, inspired
          apostles in an unbroken line of succession have proclaimed
          the new gospel of the motherhood of God and of humanity. We
          have plead our case in conventions of the people, in halls
          of legislation, before committees of congress, and in the
          Supreme Court of the United States, and our arguments still
          remain unanswered. History shows no record of a fact like
          this, where so large a class of virtuous, educated,
          native-born citizens have been subjugated by the national
          government to foreign domination. While our American
          statesmen scorn the thought that even the most gifted son of
          a monarch, an emperor or a czar should ever occupy the proud
          position of a president of these United States, and by
          constitutional provision deny to all foreigners this high
          privilege, they yet allow the very riff-raff of the old
          world to make laws for the proudest women of the republic,
          to make the moral code for the daughters of our people, to
          sit in judgment on all our domestic relations.

          England has taken two grand steps within the last year in
          extending the municipal suffrage to the woman of Scotland
          and in passing the Married Woman's Property bill. They are
          holding meetings all over the country now in favor of
          parliamentary suffrage. Statistics show that women generally
          _exercise_ the rights already accorded. They have recently
          passed through a very heated election for members of the
          school-board in various localities. Miss Lydia Becker was
          elected in Manchester, and Miss Eva Müller in one of the
          districts of London, and several other women in different
          cities.

          A little incident will show you how naturally the political
          equality of woman is coming about in Queen Victoria's
          dominions. I was invited to dine at Barn Elms, a beautiful
          estate on the banks of the Thames, a spot full of classic
          associations, the residence of Mr. Charles McLaren, a member
          of parliament. Opposite me at dinner sat a bright young girl
          tastefully attired; on my right the gentleman to whom she
          was engaged; at the head of the table a sparkling matron of
          twenty-five, one of the most popular speakers here on the
          woman suffrage platform. The dinner-table talk was such as
          might be heard in any cultivated circle--art, literature,
          amusements, passing events, etc., etc.--and when the repast
          was finished, ladies and gentlemen, in full dinner dress,
          went off to attend an important school-board meeting, our
          host to preside and the young lady opposite me to make the
          speech of the evening, and all done in as matter-of-fact a
          way as if the party were going to the opera. Members of
          parliament and lord-mayors preside and speak at all their
          public meetings and help in every way to carry on the
          movement, giving money most liberally; and yet how seldom
          any of our senators or congressmen will even speak at our
          meetings, to say nothing of sending us a check of fifty or a
          hundred dollars. I trust that we shall accomplish enough
          this year to place the women of republican America at least
          on an even platform with monarchical England. With sincere
          wishes for the success of the convention, cordially yours,

                                             ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


                                      LONDON, January 10, 1883.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I was very glad indeed to receive notice
          of your mid-winter conference in time to send you a few
          words about the progress of our work in England. I believe
          our disappointment at the result of the vote in Nebraska
          must have been greater than yours, as, being on the spot,
          you saw the difficulties to be surmounted. I had so hoped
          that the men of a free new State would prove themselves
          juster and wiser than the men of our older civilizations,
          whose prejudice and precedents are such formidable barriers.
          But we cannot, judging from a distance, look upon the work
          of the campaign as thrown away. Twenty-five thousand votes
          in favor of woman suffrage in the face of such enormous odds
          is really a victory, and the legislatures of these States
          are deeply pledged to ratify the constitutional amendment,
          if passed by congress. We look forward hopefully to the
          discussion in congress. The majority report of the Senate
          cannot fail to secure attention, and I hope your present
          convention will bring together national forces that will
          greatly influence the debate.

                                             CAROLINE A. BIGGS.


                         51 RUE DE VARENNE, PARIS, January 15, 1883.

          MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: Perhaps a brief account of what has
          been done with the two packages of "The History of Woman
          Suffrage" which you sent me for distribution in Europe may
          prove interesting to the convention. In the first place,
          sets in sheep have been deposited already, or will have been
          before spring, in all the great continental libraries from
          Russia to France, and from Denmark to Turkey. In the second
          place, copies in cloth have been presented to reformers,
          publicists, editors, etc, in every country of the old
          world. This generous distribution of a costly work has
          already begun to produce an effect. Besides a large number
          of private letters from all parts of Europe acknowledging
          the receipt of the volumes and bestowing on their contents
          the highest praise, the History has been reviewed in
          numerous reform, educational and socialistic periodicals and
          newspapers in almost every modern European tongue. Nor is
          this all. Every week a new pamphlet or book is sent me, or
          comes under my notice, in which this History is cited,
          sometimes at great length, and is pronounced to be the
          authority on the American women's movement. I have carefully
          kept all these letters, newspaper notices, etc., and at the
          proper time I hope to prepare a little pamphlet for your
          publisher on European opinion concerning your great work.

                         Very truly yours,           THEODORE STANTON.


                         51 RUE DE VARENNE, PARIS, January 15, 1883.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: My husband has just read me a letter he
          has written you concerning the enthusiastic reception your
          big History has had among liberal people on this side of the
          Atlantic, but he did not inform you that he should send the
          American public next spring a similar though much smaller
          work, entitled "The Woman Question in Europe." The Putnams
          of New York are now busy on the volume. You in the new world
          have little idea how the leaders of the women's movement
          here watch everything you do in the United States. The great
          fact which my husband's volume will teach you in America is
          the important and direct influence your movement is having
          on the younger, less developed, but growing revolution in
          favor of our sex, now in progress in every country of the
          old world. While assisting in the preparation of the
          manuscript for this book this fact has been thrust upon my
          notice at every instant, and never before did I fully
          realize the grand rôle the United States is acting in this
          nineteenth century, for, rest assured, the moment European
          women are emancipated monarchy gives way to the republic
          everywhere.

               Most sincerely yours,        MARGUERITTE BERRY STANTON.


                    134 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, S. E., January 25, 1883.

          DEAR SUSAN ANTHONY: I believe that this is the only week of
          the whole winter when I could not come to you nor attend
          your convention, much as I wish to do so. It has been an
          exceptional week to me in the way of work and engagements,
          full of both as I always am. I could not call on you last
          Monday, as I was in my own crowded parlors from 1 till 10
          o'clock at night. I tell you this that you may know that I
          did not of my own accord stay away from you. I have not had
          a moment to write you a coherent letter, such as I would be
          willing you should read. But I _have_ saved the best reports
          of the convention, and it shall have a good notice in the
          _Independent_ of week after next. It shall have only praise.
          Of course I could write a brighter, more characteristic
          notice could I myself have attended. Should you stay over
          next Sunday I can see you yet; but if not, remember I think
          of you always with the warmest interest, and meet you always
          with unchanged affection.

                         Ever your friend,          MARY CLEMMER.

          May God bless and keep you, I ever pray.[101]


                    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, March 1, 1883.

     Mr. WHITE, by unanimous consent, from the Special Committee on
     Woman Suffrage, reported back the joint resolution (H. Res., 255)
     proposing an amendment to the constitution, which was referred to
     the House calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to
     be printed.

     Mr. SPRINGER: As a member of that committee I have not seen the
     report, and do not know whether it meets with my
     concurrence.[102]

     Mr. WHITE: I ask by unanimous consent that the minority may have
     leave to submit their views, to be printed with the majority
     report.

     The SPEAKER: The Chair hears no objection.

     MR. WHITE, from the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted
     the following:

          _The Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, to whom was
          referred House Resolution No. 255, proposing an amendment to
          the Constitution of the United States to secure the right of
          suffrage to citizens of the United States without regard to
          sex, having considered the same, respectfully report:_

          In attempting to comprehend the vast results that could and
          would be attained by the adoption of the proposed article to
          the constitution, a few considerations are presented that
          are claimed by the friends of woman suffrage to be worthy of
          the most serious attention, among which are the following:

          I. There are vast interests in property vested in women,
          which property is affected by taxation and legislation,
          without the owners having voice or representation in regard
          to it. The adoption of the proposed amendment would remove a
          manifest injustice.

          II. Consider the unjust discriminations made against women
          in industrial and educational pursuits, and against those
          who are compelled to earn a livelihood by work of hand or
          brain. By conferring upon such the right of suffrage, their
          condition, it is claimed, would be greatly improved by the
          enlargement of their influence.

          III. The questions of social and family relations are of
          equal importance to and affect as many women as men. Giving
          to women a voice in the enactment of laws pertaining to
          divorce and the custody of children and division of property
          would be merely recognizing an undeniable right.

          IV. Municipal regulations in regard to houses of
          prostitution, of gambling, of retail liquor traffic, and of
          all other abominations of modern society, might be shaped
          very differently and more perfectly were women allowed the
          ballot.

          V. If women had a voice in legislation, the momentous
          question of peace and war, which may act with such fearful
          intensity upon women, might be settled with less bloodshed.

          VI. Finally, there is no condition, status in life, of rich
          or poor; no question, moral or political; no interest,
          present or future; no ties, foreign or domestic; no issues,
          local or national; no phase of human life, in which the
          mother is not equally interested with the father, the
          daughter with the son, the sister with the brother.
          Therefore the one should have equal voice with the other in
          molding the destiny of this nation.

          Believing these considerations to be so important as to
          challenge the attention of all patriotic citizens, and that
          the people have a right to be heard in the only
          authoritative manner recognized by the constitution, we
          report the accompanying resolution with a favorable
          recommendation in order that the people, through the
          legislatures of their respective States, may express their
          views:

          JOINT RESOLUTION _proposing an amendment to the Constitution
          of the United States_:

          _Resolved_ by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
          United States of America in congress assembled, (two-thirds
          of each House concurring therein), That the following
          article be proposed to the legislatures of the several
          States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
          States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said
          legislatures, shall be valid as part of said constitution,
          namely:

          SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to
          vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
          by any State on account of sex.

          SEC. 2. The congress shall have power, by appropriate
          legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article.

Thus closed the forty-seventh congress, and although with so little
promise of any substantial good for women, yet this slight
recognition in legislation was encouraging to those who had so long
appealed in vain for the attention of their representatives. A
committee to even consider the wrongs of woman was more than had
ever been secured before, and one to propose some measures of
justice, sustained by the votes of a few statesmen awake to the
degradation of disfranchisement, gave some faint hope of more
generous action in the near future. The tone of the debates[103] in
these later years even, on the nature and rights of women, is
wholly unworthy the present type of developed womanhood and the age
in which we live.


FOOTNOTES:

[81] During the autumn Miss Anthony, Mrs. Jones, Miss Snow and Miss
Couzins, spending some weeks in Washington, asked for an audience
with President Chester A. Arthur, and urged him to recommend in his
first message to congress the appointment of a standing committee
and the submission of a sixteenth amendment.

[82] _Yeas_--Aldrich, Allison, Anthony, Blair, Cameron of Pa.,
Cameron of Wis., Conger, Davis of Ill., Dawes, Edmunds, Ferry,
Frye, Harrison, Hawley, Hill of Col., Hoar, Jones of Fla., Jones of
Nev., Kellogg, Lapham, Logan, McDill, McMillan, Miller of Cal.,
Mitchell, Morrill, Platt, Plumb, Ransom, Rollins, Saunders, Sawyer,
Sewell, Sherman, Windom--35.

_Nays_--Bayard, Beck, Brown, Butler, Camden, Cockrell, Coke, Davis
of W. Va., Fair, Farley, Garland, Hampton, Hill of Ga., Jackson,
Jonas, McPherson, Maxey, Saulsbury, Slater, Vance, Vest, Walker,
Williams--23.

_Absent_--Call, George, Gorman, Groome, Grover, Hale, Harris,
Ingalls, Johnston, Lamar, Mahone, Miller of N. Y., Morgan,
Pendleton, Pugh, Teller, Van Wyck, Voorhees--18.

The members of the committee were Senators Lapham of New York,
Anthony of Rhode Island, Blair of New Hampshire, Jackson of
Tennessee, George of Mississippi, Ferry of Michigan and Fair of
Nevada.

[83] _Yeas_--Aldrich, Anderson, Bayne, Beach, Belford, Bingham,
Black, Bliss, Brewer, Briggs, Browne, Brumm, Buck, Burrows, Julius
C., Butterworth, Calkins, Camp, Campbell, Candler, Cannon,
Carpenter, Caswell, Converse, Crapo, Davis, George R., Dawes,
Deering, De Motte, Dezendorf, Dingley, Dwight, Farwell, Sewall S.,
Finley, Flower, Geddes, Grout, Hardenburgh, Harris, Henry, S.,
Haseltine, Haskell, Hawk, Hazelton, Heilman, Henderson, Hepburn,
Hill, Hiscock, Horr, Houk, Hubbell, Humphrey, Hutchinson, Jacobs,
Jadwin, Jones, Phineas, Kasson, Kelley, Ladd, Lord, Marsh, Mason,
McClure, McCoid, McCook, McKinley, Miles, Miller, Moulton, Murch,
Nolan, Norcross, O'Neill, Orth, Page, Parker, Paul, Payson, Poole,
Pierce, Pettibone, Pound, Prescott, Ranney, Ray, Reed, Rice. Theron
M., Richardson, D. P., Ritchie, Robeson, Robinson, Geo. D.,
Robinson, James S., Ryan, Scranton, Shallenberger, Sherwin,
Skinner, Smith, A. Herr, Smith, Dietrich C., Spaulding, Spooner,
Steele, Stephens, Stone, Strait, Taylor, Updegraff, J. T.,
Updegraff, Thomas, Valentine, Van Aernam, Walker, Watson, West,
White, Williams, Chas. G., Willits--115.

_Nays_--Aiken, Atkins, Berry, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Bragg,
Buchanan, Buckner, Cabell, Caldwell, Cassiday, Chapman, Clark,
Clements, Cobb, Colerick, Cox, William R., Covington, Cravens,
Culberson, Curtin, Deuster, Dibrell, Dowd, Evins, Forney, Frost,
Fulkerson, Garrison, Guenther, Gunter, Hammond, N. J., Hatch,
Herbert, Hewitt, G. W. Hoge, Holman, House, Jones, George W.,
Jones, James K., Joyce, Kenna, Klotz, Knott, Latham, Leedom,
Manning, Martin, Matson, McMillin, Mills, Money, Morrison,
Mutchler, Oates, Phister, Reagan, Rosecrans, Ross, Schackleford,
Shelley, Simonton, Singleton, Jas. W., Singleton, Otho R., Sparks,
Speer, Springer, Stockslager, Thompson, P. B., Thompson, Wm. G.,
Tillman, Tucker, Turner, Henry G., Turner, Oscar, Upson, Vance,
Warner, Whittihore, Williams, Thomas, Willis, Wilson, Wise, George
D., Young--84.

[84] _Connecticut_, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen Burr.
_Colorado_, Mrs. Elizabeth G. Campbell, _District of Columbia_,
Ellen H. Sheldon, Jane H. Spofford, Dr. Caroline B. Winslow, Ellen
M. O'Conner, Eliza Titus Ward, Belva A. Lockwood, Mrs. H. L.
Shephard, Martha Johnson. _Indiana_, Helen M. Gongar, May Wright
Sewall, Laura Kregelo, Alexiana S. Maxwell. _Maine_, Sophronia C.
Snow. _Massachusetts_, Mrs. Harriet H. Robinson, Harriette R.
Shattuck, Laura E. Brooks, Mary R. Brown, Emma F. Clary.
_Nebraska_, Clara B. Colby. _New Jersey_, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs.
Chandler. _New York_, Mrs. Caroline Gilkey Rogers, Mrs. Blake, Mrs.
Gage, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Helen M. Loder. _Pennsylvania_, Mrs.
McClellan Brown, Rachel G. Foster, Emma C. Rhodes. _Rhode Island_,
Rev. Frederick A Hinckley, Mrs. Burgess. _Wisconsin_, Miss Eliza
Wilson and Mrs. Painter.

[85] Short speeches were made by Mrs. Robinson and Mrs. Shattuck of
Massachusetts, Mrs. Sewall and Mrs. Gougar of Indiana, Mrs. Saxon
of Louisiana, Mrs. Colby of Nebraska.

[86] When Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage and Mrs. Blake of New York, Mrs.
Hooker of Connecticut and Mrs. Saxon of Louisiana, and Mrs. Sewall,
by special request of the chairman, again addressed the committee.

[87] Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Robeson, and Mr. Reed were present.

[88] Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Sewall, Mrs. McClellan Brown, Mrs.
Colby, Miss Couzins, Miss Anthony, Edward M. Davis, Robert Purvis,
Mrs. Shattuck, Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley, Mrs. Robinson.

[89] Those present were Mesdames Spofford, Stanton, Robinson,
Shattuck, Sewall and Saxon; Misses Thompson, Anthony, Couzins and
Foster. Many pleasant ladies from the Society of Friends were there
also and contributed to the dignity and interest of the occasion.

[90] The speakers in the American convention were Lucy Stone, Henry
B. Blackwell, Margaret W. Campbell, Mary E. Haggart, Judge Kingman
and Governor Hoyt of Wyoming, Hannah Tracy Cutler, Mary B. Clay,
Dr. Mary F. Thomas, Rebecca N. Hazzard, Ada M. Bittenbender, Mrs.
O. C. Dinsmore, Matilda Hindman, Rev. W. E. Copeland, Erasmus M.
Correll.

The speakers at the National convention were Virginia L. Minor,
Phoebe Couzins, Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Bloomer, Mrs. McKinney, Mrs.
Shattuck, Mrs. Neyman, Mrs. Colby, Mrs. Sewall, Mrs. Mason, Mrs.
Brooks, Mrs. Blake, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Dinsmore, Miss Hindman, Mrs.
Gougar, Mr. Correll and Mrs. Harbert. Many of those from both
associations took part in the canvass. Miss Rachel G. Foster went
out in the spring and made all the arrangements for the work of the
National. She studied the geography of the State, and the
railroads, and mapped out all the meetings for its twelve speakers.

[91] For full reports of the American convention see the _Woman's
Journal_, edited by Lucy Stone and published in Boston.

[92] For reports of the National see _Our Herald_, edited by Helen
M. Gougar and published in Lafayette, Ind. The daily papers of
Omaha had full reports, the most fair by the _Republican_, edited
by Mr. Brooks.

[93] Their many courtesies are well summed up by Miss Foster in a
letter to _Our Herald_:--DEAR HERALD: As your readers will know
from the report of the executive meetings, it was decided to have a
headquarters for National Woman Suffrage Association speakers at
Omaha. When your editor left, the arrangements had not been
completed for office-room and furnishings. It is finally decided
that I, as secretary of the National Woman's Suffrage Association,
remain in charge of this Omaha office, with Mrs. C. B. Colby as my
associate, while Mrs. Bittenbender has charge of the headquarters
at Lincoln, and manages the American and State speakers, these two
officers of the campaign committee being in constant consultation.

I cannot too strongly express the gratitude which our committee,
and especially our National Woman's Suffrage Association, owes to
the kind firm of Kitchen Brothers, proprietors of the Paxton Hotel.
During our late convention their attention has been unremitting,
and they now crown it by giving us, rent free, a large,
well-lighted office to be occupied until election as the Omaha
headquarters of our campaign committee. I was somewhat puzzled
about the suitable furnishings for the room, but Mr. Kitchen told
me he would attend to that himself, and through his kindness it
will be made very comfortable for us to occupy for the next five
weeks.

Messrs. Dewey and Stone of this city, large dealers in furniture,
have given the use of a handsome and convenient desk which will
enable us to bring order out of chaos. So you can imagine us,
surrounded by all convenient appliances, hard at work in our new
quarters a good part of every day for this last month before
election. We can certainly not complain that we are not made
welcome to the best the city affords by these kind citizens of
Omaha. Why, we even had a special engine and car given us by the
accommodating manager of the Burlington & Missouri railroad to run
one of our speakers from Omaha to Lincoln to enable her to attend a
meeting which would otherwise have lacked a speaker. Mr.
Montmorency, on behalf of the Burlington & Missouri railroad,
extended this courtesy (and in our need at that hour it was highly
appreciated) to us because of the work in which we are engaged. As
all know ere this, both this road and the Union Pacific have given
to our speakers and delegates generous reductions over all their
lines in this State.

Mayor Boyd, owner of the Opera House, has also done his share to
aid us toward success, in his great reduction of ordinary rates to
us while we occupy his handsome building with our suffrage mass
meetings. We have the Opera House now secured for October 4, 13,
19, 26, November 2 and 6, on which dates large meetings will be
addressed by some of our principal speakers. The first date is to
be filled by Miss Phoebe Couzins, on "The Woman Without a Country."

The full report of our proceedings at the Omaha and Lincoln
conventions, with the newspaper comments upon the size and
character of the audiences there assembled, as well as the
courtesies which I have just mentioned, will convince our readers
that we are seemingly welcome guests here in Nebraska, and I may
say especially in Omaha. I will keep the _Herald_ posted from week
to week upon campaign committee work.

                         Yours for success,      RACHEL G. FOSTER.

Headquarters of Suffrage Campaign Committee, Paxton House, Omaha,
October 2, 1882.

[94] A private letter was received from Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent,
enclosing a check for $50.

[95] Miss Stanton, having studied astronomy with Professor Maria
Mitchell, went to Europe to take a degree in Mathematics from the
College of France; but before completing her course, she shared the
fate of too many of our American girls; she expatriated herself by
marrying a foreigner.

[96] Letters were also received from Rebecca Moore, England; Mrs.
Z. G. Wallace, Indianapolis; Frederick Douglass, Washington, D. C.;
Theodore Stanton, Paris, France; Sarah Knox Goodrich, Clarina
Howard Nichols, California, and many others.

[97] WHEREAS, The National Woman Suffrage Association has labored
unremittingly to secure the appointment of a committee in the
congress of the United States to receive and consider the petitions
of women and whereas, this Association realizes the importance of
such a committee,

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this Association are due and are
hereby tendered to congress for the appointment at its last session
of a Select Woman Suffrage Committee in each house.

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this Association are hereby tendered
to Senators Lapham, Ferry, Blair and Anthony, of the Select
Committee, for their able majority report.

_Resolved_, That it is the paramount duty of congress at its next
session to submit a sixteenth amendment to the constitution which
shall secure the enfranchisement of the women of the republic.

_Resolved_, That the recent action of King Christian of Denmark, in
conferring the right of municipal suffrage upon the women in
Iceland, and the similar enlargement of woman's political freedom
in Scotland, India and Russia, are all encouraging evidences of the
progress of self-government even in monarchical countries. And
farther, that while the possession of these privileges by our
foreign sisters is an occasion of rejoicing to us, it still but
emphasizes the inconsistency of a republic which refuses political
recognition to one-half of its citizens.

_Resolved_, That the especial thanks of the officers and delegates
of this convention are due and are hereby most cordially tendered
to Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby, for the exceptionally efficient manner
in which she has discharged the onerous duties which devolved upon
her in making all preparations for this convention and for the
grand success which her efforts have secured.

_Resolved_, That the National Woman Suffrage Association on the
occasion of this, its fourteenth annual convention, does, in the
absence of its honored president, desire to send greeting to
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and to express to her the sympathetic
admiration with which the members of this body have followed her in
her reception in a foreign land.

[98] Committee on Resolutions, composed of Lillie Devereux Blake of
New York city, Virginia L. Minor of St. Louis, Harriet R. Shattuck
of Boston, May Wright Sewall of Indianapolis, and Ellen H. Sheldon
of the District of Columbia.

[99] Mrs. Spofford, the treasurer, reported that $5,000 were spent
in Nebraska in the endeavor to carry the amendment in that State.

[100] Short speeches were made by Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs.
McKinney, Mrs. Loder and others.

[101] This was the last word from this dear friend to one of our
number. I met her afterward as Mrs. Hudson with her husband in
London. We dined together one evening at the pleasant home of
Moncure D. Conway. She was as full as ever of plans for future
usefulness and enjoyment. From England she went for a short trip on
the continent. In parting I little thought she would so soon finish
her work on earth. E. C. S.

[102] Mr. Springer had never been present at a single meeting of
the committee, though always officially notified. Neither did Mr.
Muldrow of Mississippi ever honor the committee with his presence.
However, Mr. Stockslager of Indiana and Mr. Vance of North Carolina
were always in their places, and the latter, we thought, almost
persuaded to consider with favor the claims of women to political
equality.

[103] Reports of congressional action and the conventions of
1884-85 have been already published in pamphlet form, and we shall
print the reports hereafter once in two years, corresponding with
the terms of congress. Our plan is to bind these together once in
six years, making volumes of the size of those already published.
These pamphlets, as well as the complete History in three volumes,
are for sale at the publishing house of Charles Mann, 8 Elm Park,
Rochester, N. Y.



CHAPTER XXXI.

MASSACHUSETTS.

BY HARRIET H. ROBINSON.

     The Woman's Hour--Lydia Maria Child Petitions Congress--First New
     England Convention--The New England, American and Massachusetts
     Associations--_Woman's Journal_--Bishop Gilbert Haven--The
     Centennial Tea-party--County Societies--Concord
     Convention--Thirtieth Anniversary of the Worcester
     Convention--School Suffrage Association--Legislative
     Hearing--First Petitions--The Remonstrants Appear--Women in
     Politics--Campaign of 1872--Great Meeting in Tremont
     Temple--Women at the Polls--Provisions of Former State
     Constitutions--Petitions, 1853--School-Committee Suffrage,
     1879--Women Threatened with Arrest--Changes in the Laws--Woman
     Now Owns her own Clothing--Harvard Annex--Woman in the
     Professions--Samuel E. Sewall and William I. Bowditch--Supreme
     Court Decisions--Sarah E. Wall--Francis Jackson--Julia Ward
     Howe--Mary E. Stevens--Lucia M. Peabody--Lelia Josephine
     Robinson--Eliza (Jackson) Eddy's Will.


From 1860 to 1866 there is no record to be found of any public
meeting on the subject of woman's rights, in Massachusetts.[104]
During these years the war of the rebellion had been fought.
Pending the great struggle the majority of the leaders, who were
also anti-slavery, had thought it to be the wiser policy for the
women to give way for a time, in order that all the working energy
might be given to the slave. "It is not the woman's but the negro's
hour"; "After the slave--then the woman," said Wendell Phillips in
his stirring speeches, at this date. "Keep quiet, work for us,"
said other of the anti-slavery leaders to the women. "Wait! help us
to abolish slavery, and then we will work for you." And the women,
who had the welfare of the country as much at heart as the men,
kept quiet; worked in hospital and field; sacrificed sons and
husbands; did what is always woman's part in wars between man and
man--and waited. If anything can make the women of the State regret
that they were silent as to their own claims for six eventful years
that the freedom of the black man might be secured, it is the
fact that now in 1885 his vote is ever adverse to women's
enfranchisement. When the fourteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution was proposed, in which the negro's liberty and his
right to the ballot were to be established, an effort was made to
secure in it some recognition of the rights of woman. Massachusetts
sent a petition, headed with the name of Lydia Maria Child, against
the introduction of the word "male" in the proposed amendment. When
this petition was offered to the greatest of America's emancipation
leaders, for presentation to congress, he received and presented it
under protest. He thought the woman question should not be
forced at such a time, and the only answer from congress this
"woman-intruding" petition received was found in the fourteenth
amendment itself, in which the word "male," with unnecessary
iteration, was repeated, so that there might be no mistake in
future concerning woman's rights, under the Constitution of the
United States.[105]

The war was over. The rights of the black man, for whom the women
had worked and waited, were secured, but under the new amendment,
by which his race had been made free, the white women of the United
States were more securely held in political slavery. It was time,
indeed, to hold conventions and agitate anew the question of
woman's rights. The lesson of the war had been well learned. Women
had been taught to understand politics, the "science of
government," and to take an interest in public events; and some who
before the war had not thought upon the matter, began to ask
themselves why thousands of ignorant _men_ should be made voters
and they, or their sex, still kept in bondage under the law.

In 1866, May 31, the first meeting of the American Equal Rights
Association was held at the Meionaon in Boston.[106] In 1868 the
call for a New England convention was issued and the meeting was
held November 18, 19, at Horticultural Hall, Boston. James Freeman
Clarke presided. In this convention sat many of the distinguished
men and women of the New England States,[107] old-time advocates,
together with newer converts to the doctrine, who then became
identified with the cause of equal rights irrespective of sex. This
convention was called by the Rev. Olympia Brown.[108] The hall was
crowded with eager listeners anxious to hear what would be said on
a subject thought to be ridiculous by a large majority of people in
the community. Some of the teachers of Boston sent a letter to the
convention, signed with their names, expressing their interest as
women. Henry Wilson avowed his belief in the equal rights of woman,
but thought the time had not yet come for such a consummation, and
said that, for this reason, he had voted against the question in
the United States Senate; "though," he continued, "I was afterwards
ashamed of having so voted." Like another celebrated Massachusetts
politician, he believed in the principle of the thing, but was
"agin its enforcement." At this date the popular interest
heretofore given to the anti-slavery question was transferred to
the woman suffrage movement.

The New England Woman Suffrage Association was formed at this
convention. Julia Ward Howe was elected its president, and made her
first address on the subject of woman's equality with man. On its
executive board were many representative names from the six New
England States.[109] By the formation of this society, a great
impetus was given to the suffrage cause in New England. It held
conventions and mass-meetings, printed tracts and documents, and
put lecturers in the field. It set in motion two woman suffrage
bazars, and organized subscription festivals, and other enterprises
to raise money to carry on the work. It projected the American, and
Massachusetts suffrage associations; it urged the formation of
local and county suffrage societies, and set up the _Woman's
Journal_. The New England Association held its first anniversary in
May, 1869, and the meeting was even more successful than the
opening one of the preceding year. On this occasion Mrs. Livermore
spoke in Boston for the first time, and many new friends coming
forward gave vigor and freshness to the movement.[110] Wendell
Philips, Lucy Stone and Gilbert Haven, spoke at this convention. It
was on this occasion that the "good Bishop," as he afterward came
to be called, was met on leaving the meeting by one who did not
know his opinion on the subject. This person expressed surprise on
seeing him at a woman's rights meeting, and said: "_What! you_
here?" "Yes," said he, "I _am_ here! I _believe_ in this reform. I
am going to start in the beginning, and ride with the procession."
After this, not until his earthly journey was finished, was his
place in "the procession" found vacant. Since 1869 the New England
Association has held its annual meeting in Boston during
anniversary week, in May, when reports from various States are
offered, concerning suffrage work done during the year. The
American Woman Suffrage Association was organized in 1869. Since
its formation it has held its annual conventions in some of the
chief cities of the several States.[111] A meeting was held in
Horticultural Hall, Boston, January 28, 1870, to organize the
Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association.[112]

The Massachusetts Association is the most active of the three
societies named. Its work is generally local though it has sent
help to Colorado, Michigan, and other Western States. It has kept
petitions in circulation, and has presented petitions and memorials
to the State legislatures. It has asked for hearings and secured
able speakers for them. It has held conventions, mass-meetings,
Fourth of July celebrations. It has helped organize local Woman
suffrage clubs and societies, and has printed for circulation
numerous woman suffrage tracts. The amount of work done by its
lecturing agents can be seen by the statement of Margaret W.
Campbell, who alone, as agent of the American, the New England and
the Massachusetts associations, traveled in twenty different States
and two territories, organizing and speaking in conventions.[113]
As part of the latest work of this society may be mentioned its
efforts to present before the women of the State, in clear and
comprehensive form, an explanation of the different sections of the
new law "allowing women to vote for school committees." As soon as
the law passed the legislature of 1879, a circular of instructions
to women was carefully prepared by Samuel E. Sewall, an eminent
lawyer and member of the board of the Massachusetts Association, in
which all the points of law in relation to the new right were ably
presented. Thousands of copies of this circular were sent to women
all over the State.

The Centennial Tea Party was held in Boston, December 15, 1873, in
response to the following call:

     The women of New England who believe that "taxation without
     representation is tyranny," and that our forefathers were
     justified in defying despotic power by throwing the tea into
     Boston harbor, invite the men and women of New England to unite
     with them in celebrating the one-hundredth anniversary of that
     event in Fanueil Hall.[114]

Three thousand people were in attendance, and it was altogether an
enthusiastic occasion and one long to be remembered.

The record of conventions and meetings held by the Massachusetts
Association by no means includes all such gatherings held in
different towns and cities of the State. The county and local
societies have done a vast amount of work. The Hampden society was
started in 1868, with Eliphalet Trask, Frank B. Sanborn and
Margaret W. Campbell as leading officers. This was the first county
society formed in the State. Julia Ward Howe, a fresh convert of
the recent convention went to Salem to lecture on woman suffrage,
and the Essex county society was formed with Mrs. Sarah G. Wilkins
and Mrs. Delight R. P. Hewitt--the only two Salem women who went to
the 1850 convention at Worcester--on its executive board. The
Middlesex county society followed, planned by Ada C. Bowles and
officered by names well known in that historic old county. The
Hampshire and Worcester societies brought up the rear; the former
planned by Seth Hunt of Northampton. Notable conventions were held
by the Middlesex society in 1876--one in Malden, one in Melrose and
one in Concord, organized and conducted by its president, Harriet
H. Robinson. This last celebrated town had never before been so
favored. These meetings were conducted something after the style of
local church conferences. They were well advertised, and many
people came. A collation was provided by the ladies of each town,
and the feast of reason was so judiciously mingled with the
triumphs of cookery, that converts to the cause were never so
easily won. Many women present said to the president: "I never
before heard a woman's rights speech. If these are the reasons why
women should vote, I believe in voting."

The Concord convention was held about a month after the great
centennial celebration of April 19, 1875--a celebration in which no
woman belonging to that town took any official part. Nor was there
any place of honor found for the more distinguished women who had
come long distances to share in the festivities. Some of the women
were descendents of Governor John Hancock, Dr. Samuel Prescott,
Major John Buttrick, Rev. William Emerson and Lieutenant Emerson
Cogswell. Though no seat of honor in the big tent in which the
speeches were made was given to the women of to-day, silent
memorials of those who had taken part in the events of one hundred
years ago, had found a conspicuous place there--the scissors that
cut the immortal cartridges made by the women on that eventful day,
and the ancient flag that the fingers of some of the mothers of the
Revolution had made. Though the Concord women were not permitted to
share the centennial honors, they were not deprived of the
privilege of paying their part of the expenses incident to the
occasion. To meet these, an increased tax-rate was assessed upon
all the property owners in the town; and, since one-fifth of the
town tax of Concord is paid by women, it will be seen what was
their share in the great centennial celebration of 1876.

The knowledge of the proceedings at Concord added new zest to the
spirit of the three conventions, and the events of the day were
used by the speakers to point the moral of the woman's rights
question. Lucy Stone made one of her most effective and eloquent
speeches upon this subject. She said:

     FELLOW CITIZENS (I had almost said fellow subjects): What we need
     is that women should feel their mean position; when that happens,
     they will soon make an effort to get out of it. Everything is
     possible to him that wills. All that is needed for the success of
     the cause of woman suffrage is to have women know that they want
     to vote. Concord and Lexington got into a fight about the
     centennial, and Concord voted $10,000 for the celebration in
     order to eclipse Lexington. One-fifth of the tax of Concord is
     paid by the women, yet not one of these women dared to go to the
     town hall and cast her vote upon that subject. This is exactly
     the same thing which took place one hundred years ago--taxation
     without representation, against which the _men_ of Concord then
     rebelled. If I were an inhabitant of Concord, I would let my
     house be sold over my head and my clothes off my back and be
     hanged by the neck before I would pay a cent of it! Men of
     Melrose, Concord and Malden, why persecute us? Would you like to
     be a slave? Would you like to be disfranchised? Would you like to
     be bound to respect the laws which you cannot make? There are
     15,000,000 of women whom the government denies legal rights.

It might be supposed that a spot upon which the battle for freedom
and independence was first begun would always be the vantage ground
of questions relating to personal liberty. But such is not the
fact. Concord was never an anti-slavery town, though some of its
best citizens took active part in all the abolition movements. When
the time came that women were allowed to vote for school
committees, the same intolerant spirit which ignored and shut them
out of the centennial celebration was again manifested toward
them--not only by the leading magnates, but also by the petty
officials of the town. Some of them have from the first shown a
great deal of ingenuity in inventing ways to intimidate and mislead
the women voters.

At the annual convention of the Massachusetts Association, in May,
1880, the following resolution was passed:

     WHEREAS, We believe in keeping the land-marks and traditions of
     our movement; and

     WHEREAS, It will be thirty years next October since the first
     woman's rights meeting was held in the State, and it seems
     fitting that there should be some celebration of the event;
     therefore,

     _Resolved_, That we will hold a woman suffrage jubilee in
     Worcester, October 23 and 24 next, to commemorate the anniversary
     of our first convention.

A committee[115] of arrangements was chosen, and the meeting was
held. There were present many whose silver hairs told of long and
faithful service. The oldest ladies there were Mrs. Lydia Brown of
Lynn, Mrs. Wilbour of Worcester, and Julia E. Smith Parker of
Glastonbury, Conn. On the afternoon of the first day there was an
informal gathering of friends in the ante-room of Horticultural
Hall. Old-time memories were recalled by those who had not seen
each other for many years, and the common salutation was: "How gray
you've grown!" Many of them had indeed grown gray in the service,
and their faces were changed, but made beautiful by a life devoted
to a noble purpose. There were many present who had attended the
convention of thirty years ago--Abby Kelley Foster, Lucy Stone,
Antoinettë Brown Blackwell, Paulina Gerry, Rev. Samuel May, Rev. W.
H. Channing, Joseph A. Howland, Adeline H. Howland, Dr. Martha H.
Mowry and many, many others. It was very pleasant indeed to hear
these veterans whose clear voices have spoken out so long and so
bravely for the cause. The speaking[116] at all the sessions was
excellent, and the spirit of the convention was very reverent and
hopeful.

The tone of the press concerning woman's rights meetings had
changed greatly since thirty years before. "Hen conventions" had
gone by, and a woman's meeting was now called by its proper name.
Representatives of leading newspapers from all parts of the State
were present, and the reports were written in a just and friendly
spirit.


[Illustration: Harriet H. Robinson]


The Massachusetts School Suffrage Association was formed in 1880,
Abby W. May, president.[117] Its efforts are mostly confined to
Boston. An independent movement of women voters in Boston, distinct
from all organizations, was formed in 1884, and subdivided into
ward and city committees. These did much valuable work and secured
a larger number of voters than had qualified in previous years. In
1880 the number of registered women in the whole State was 4,566,
and in Boston 826. In 1884, chiefly owing to the ward and city
committees, the number in Boston alone was 1,100. This year (1885)
a movement among the Roman Catholic women has raised the number who
are assessed to vote to 1,843; and it is estimated that when the
tax-paying women are added, the whole number will be about 2,500.

The National Woman Suffrage Association[118] of Massachusetts was
formed in January, 1882, of members who had joined the National
Association at its thirteenth annual meeting, held in Tremont
Temple, Boston, May 26, 27, 1881. According to Article II. of its
constitution, its object is to secure to women their right to the
ballot, by working for national, State, municipal, school, or any
other form of suffrage which shall at the time seem most expedient.
While it is auxiliary to the National Association, it reserves
to itself the right of independent action. It has held
conventions[119] in Boston and some of the chief cities of the
State, sent delegates to the annual Washington Convention[120] and
published valuable leaflets.[121] It has rolled up petitions to the
State legislature and to congress. Its most valuable work has been
the canvass made in certain localities in the city and country in
1884, to ascertain the number of women in favor of suffrage, the
number opposed and the number indifferent. The total result showed
that there were 405 in favor, 44 opposed, 166 indifferent, 160
refusing to sign, 39 not seen; that is, over nine who would sign
themselves in favor to one who would sign herself opposed. This
canvass was made by women who gave their time and labor to this
arduous work, and the results were duly presented to the
legislature.

In 1883 this Association petitioned the legislature to pass a
resolution recommending congress to submit a proposition for a
sixteenth amendment to the national constitution. The Senate
Committee on Woman Suffrage granted a hearing March 23, and soon
after presented a favorable report; but the resolution, when
brought to a vote, was lost by 21 to 11. This was the first time
that the National doctrine of congressional action was ever
presented or voted upon in the Massachusetts legislature. A second
hearing[122] was granted on February 28, 1884, before the Committee
on Federal Relations. They reported leave to withdraw.

The associations mentioned are not the only ones that are aiding
the suffrage movement. Its friends are found in all the women's
clubs, temperance associations, missionary movements, charitable
enterprises, educational and industrial unions and church
committees. These agencies form a network of motive power which is
gradually carrying the reform into all branches of public work.

The _Woman's Journal_ was incorporated in 1870 and is owned by a
joint stock company, shares being held by leading members of the
suffrage associations of New England. Shortly after it was
projected, the _Agitator_, then published in Chicago by Mary A.
Livermore, was bought by the New England Association on condition
that she should "come to Boston for one year, at a reasonable
compensation, to assist the cause by her editorial labor and
speaking at conventions." Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell,
invited by the same society to "return to the work in
Massachusetts," at once assumed the editorial charge. T. W.
Higginson, Julia Ward Howe and W. L. Garrison were assistant
editors. "Warrington," Kate N. Doggett, Samuel E. Sewall, F. B.
Sanborn, and many other good writers, lent a helping hand to the
new enterprise. The _Woman's Journal_ has been of great value to
the cause. It has helped individual women and brought their
enterprises into public notice. It has opened its columns to
inexperienced writers and advertised young speakers. To sustain the
paper and furnish money for other work, two mammoth bazars or fairs
were held in Music Hall in 1870, 1871. Nearly all the New England
States and many of the towns in Massachusetts were represented by
tables in these bazars. Donations were sent from all directions and
the women worked, as they generally do in a cause in which they are
interested, to raise money to furnish the sinews of war. The
newspapers from day to day were full of descriptions of the
splendors of the tables, and the reporters spoke well of the women
who had taken this novel method to carry on their movement. People
who had never heard of woman suffrage before came to see what sort
of women were those who thus made a public exhibition of their zeal
in this cause. In remote places, as well as nearer the scene of
action, many people who had never thought of the significance of
the woman's rights movement, began to consider it through reading
the reports of the woman suffrage bazar.

Female opponents of the suffrage movement began to make a stir as
early as 1868. A remonstrance was sent into the legislature, from
two hundred women of Lancaster, giving the reasons why women should
not enjoy the exercise of the elective franchise: "It would
diminish the purity, the dignity and the moral influence of woman,
and bring into the family circle a dangerous element of discord."
In _The Revolution_ of August 5, 1869, Parker Pillsbury said:

     Dolly Chandler and the hundred and ninety-four other women who
     asked the Massachusetts legislature not to allow the right of
     suffrage, were very impudent and tyrannical, too, in petitioning
     for any but themselves. They should have said: "We, Dolly
     Chandler and her associates, to the number of a hundred and
     ninety-five in all, do not want the right of suffrage; and we
     pray your honorable bodies to so decree and enact that we shall
     never have it." So far they might go. But when they undertake to
     prevent a hundred and ninety-four thousand other women who do
     want the ballot and who have an acknowledged right to it, and are
     laboring for it day and night, it is proper to ask, What business
     have Dolly Chandler and her little coterie to interpose? Nobody
     wants them to vote unless they themselves want to. They can stay
     at home and see nobody but the assessor, the tax-gatherer and the
     revenue collector, from Christmas to Christmas, if they so
     prefer. Those gentlemen they will be pretty likely to see,
     annually or quarterly, and to feel their power, too, if they have
     pockets with anything in them, in spite of all petitions to the
     legislature.

It did not occur to these women that by thus remonstrating they
were doing just what they were protesting against. What _is_ a
vote? An expression of opinion or a desire as to governmental
affairs, in the shape of a ballot. The "aspiring blood of
Lancaster" should have mounted higher than this, since, if it
really was the opinion of these remonstrants that woman cannot vote
without becoming defiled, they should have kept themselves out of
the legislature, should have kept their hands from petitioning and
their thoughts from agitation on either side of the subject. Just
such illogical reasoning on the woman suffrage question is often
brought forward and passes for the profoundest wisdom and
discreetest delicacy! The same arguments are used by the
remonstrants of to-day, who are now fully organized and doing very
efficient political work in opposing further political action by
women. In their carriages, with footman and driver, they solicit
names to their remonstrances. As a Boston newspaper says:

     The anti-woman suffrage women get deeper and deeper into politics
     year by year in their determination to keep out of politics. By
     the time they triumph they will be the most accomplished
     politicians of the sex, and unable to stop writing to the papers,
     holding meetings, circulating remonstrances, any more than the
     suffrage sisterhood.

These persons, men and women, bring their whole force to bear
before legislative committees at woman suffrage hearings, and use
arguments that might have been excusable forty years ago. However
this is merely a phase of the general movement and will work for
good in the end. It can no more stop the progress of the reform
than it can stop the revolution of the globe.

Political agitation on the woman suffrage question began in
Massachusetts in 1870. A convention to discuss the feasibility of
forming a woman suffrage political party was held in Boston, at
which Julia Ward Howe presided, and Rev. Augusta Chapin offered
prayer. The question of a separate nomination for State officers
was carefully considered.[123] Delegates were present from the
Labor Reform and Prohibition parties, and strong efforts were made
by them to induce the convention to nominate Wendell Phillips, who
had already accepted the nomination of those two parties, as
candidate for governor. The convention at one time seemed strongly
in favor of this action, the women in particular thinking that in
Mr. Phillips they would find a staunch and well tried leader. But
more politic counsels prevailed, and it was finally concluded to
postpone a separate nomination until after the Republican and
Democratic conventions had been held. A State central committee was
formed, and at once began active political agitation. A memorial
was prepared to present to each of the last-named conventions; and
the candidates on the State tickets of the four political parties
were questioned by letter concerning their opinions on the right of
the women to the ballot. At the Republican State convention held
October 5, 1870, the question was fairly launched into politics, by
the admission, for the first time, of two women, Lucy Stone and
Mary A. Livermore, as regularly accredited delegates. Both were
invited to speak, and the following resolution drawn up by Henry B.
Blackwell, was presented by Charles W. Slack:

     _Resolved_, That the Republican party of Massachusetts is mindful
     of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their
     patriotic devotion to the cause of liberty; that we rejoice in
     the action of the recent legislature in making women eligible as
     officers of the State; that we thank Governor Claflin for having
     appointed women to important political trusts; that we are
     heartily in favor of the enfranchisement of women, and will hail
     the day when the educated, intelligent and enlightened conscience
     of the women of Massachusetts has direct expression at the ballot
     box.

This resolution was presented to the committee, who did not agree
as to the propriety of reporting it to the convention, and they
instructed their chairman, George F. Hoar, to state the fact and
refer the resolution back to that body for its own action. A warm
debate arose, in which several members of the convention made
speeches on both sides of the question. The resolution was finally
defeated, 137 voting in its favor, and 196 against it. Although
lost, the large vote in the affirmative was thought to mean a great
deal as a guaranty of the good faith of the Republican party, and
the women were willing to trust to its promises. It was thought
then, as it has been thought since, that most of the friends of
woman suffrage were in the Republican party, and that the interests
of the cause could best be furthered by depending on its action.
The women were, however, mistaken, and have learned to look upon
the famous resolution in its true light. It is now known as the
_coup d'état_ of the Worcester convention of 1870, which
really had more votes than it was fairly entitled to. After
that,--"forewarned, forearmed," said the enemies of the enterprise,
and woman suffrage resolutions have received less votes in
Republican conventions.

When the memorial prepared by the State Central Committee was
presented to the Democratic State convention, that body, in
response, passed a resolution conceding the _principle_ of women's
right to suffrage, but at the same time declared itself against its
being _enforced_, or put into practice. To finish the brief record
of the dealings of the Democratic party, with the women of the
State, it may be said that since 1870, it has never responded to
their appeals, nor taken any action of importance on the question.

In 1871 a resolution endorsing woman suffrage was passed in the
Republican convention. In June, 1872, the national convention at
Philadelphia, passed the following:

     _Resolved_, That the Republican party is mindful of its
     obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble
     devotion to the cause of freedom; their admission to wider fields
     of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction; and the honest demand
     of any class of citizens for additional rights, should be treated
     with respectful consideration.

The Massachusetts Republican State Convention, following this lead,
again passed a woman suffrage resolution:

     _Resolved_, That we heartily approve the recognition of the
     rights of woman contained in the fourteenth clause of the
     national Republican platform; that the Republican party of
     Massachusetts, as the representative of liberty and progress, is
     in favor of extending suffrage to all American citizens
     irrespective of sex, and will hail the day when the educated
     intellect and enlightened conscience of woman shall find direct
     expression at the ballot-box.

This was during the campaign of 1872, when General Grant's chance
of reëlection was thought to be somewhat uncertain, and the
Republican women in all parts of the country were called on to
rally to his support. The National Woman Suffrage Association had
issued "an appeal to the women of America," asking them to
coöperate with the Republican party and work for the election of
its candidates. In response to this appeal a ratification meeting
was held at Tremont Temple, in Boston, at which hundreds stayed to
a late hour listening to speeches made by women on the political
questions of the day. An address was issued from the "Republican
women of Massachusetts to the women of America." In this address
they announced their faith in and willingness to "trust the
Republican party and its candidates, as saying what they mean and
meaning what they say, and in view of their honorable record we
have no fear of betrayal on their part." Mrs. Livermore, Lucy Stone
and Huldah B. Loud took part in the canvass, and agents employed by
the Massachusetts Association were instructed to speak for the
Republican party.[124] Women writers furnished articles for the
newspapers and the Republican women did as much effective work
during the campaign as if each one had been a "man and a voter."
They did everything but vote. All this agitation was a benefit to
the Republican party, but not to woman suffrage, because for a time
it arrayed other political parties against the movement and caused
it to be thought merely a party issue, while it is too broad a
question for such limitation.

General Grant was reëlected and the campaign was over. When the
legislature met and the suffrage question came up for discussion,
that body, composed in large majority of Republicans, showed the
women of Massachusetts the difference between "saying what you mean
and meaning what you say," the Woman Suffrage bill being defeated
by a large majority. The women learned by this experience that
nothing is to be expected of a political party while it is in
power. To close the subject of suffrage resolutions in the platform
of the Republican party, it may be said that they continued to be
put in and seemed to mean something until after 1875, when they
became only "glittering generalities," and were as devoid of real
meaning or intention as any that were ever passed by the old Whig
party on the subject of abolition. Yet from 1870 to 1874 the
Republican party had the power to fulfill its promises on this
question. Since then, it has been too busy trying to keep breath in
its own body to lend a helping hand to any struggling reform. At
the Republican convention, held in Worcester in 1880, an attempt
was made by Mr. Blackwell to introduce a resolution endorsing the
right conferred upon women in the law allowing them to vote for
school committees, passed by the legislature of 1879. This
resolution was rejected by the committee, and when offered in
convention as an amendment, it was voted down without a single
voice, except that of the mover, being raised in its support. Yet
this resolution only asked a Republican convention to endorse an
existing right, conferred on the women of the State by a Republican
legislature! A political party as a party of freedom must be very
far spent when it refuses at its annual convention to endorse an
act passed by a legislature the majority of whose members are
representatives elected from its own body. Since that time the
Republican party has entirely ignored the claims of woman. In 1884,
at its annual convention, an effort was made, as usual, by Mr.
Blackwell, to introduce a resolution, but without success, and yet
some of the best of our leaders advised the women to "stand by the
Republican party."[125]

The question of forming a woman suffrage political party had, since
1870, been often discussed.[126] In 1875 Thomas J. Lothrop proposed
the formation of a separate organization. But it was not until 1876
that any real effort in this direction was made. The Prohibitory
(or Temperance) party sometimes holds the balance of political
power in Massachusetts, and many of the members of that party are
also strong advocates of suffrage. The feeling had been growing
for several years that if forces could be joined with the
Prohibitionists some practical result in politics might be reached,
and though there was a difference of opinion on this subject, many
were willing to see the experiment tried.

The Prohibitory party had at its convention in 1876 passed a
resolution inviting the women to take part in its primary meetings,
with an equal voice and vote in the nomination of candidates and
transaction of business. After long and anxious discussions, the
Massachusetts Woman Suffrage State Central Committee, in whose
hands all political action rested, determined to accept this
invitation. A woman suffrage political convention was held, at
which the Prohibitory candidates were endorsed and a joint State
ticket was decided on, to be headed "Prohibition and Equal Rights."
These tickets were sent to women all over the State, and they were
strongly urged to go to the polls and distribute them on election
day. Lucy Stone, Mary A. Livermore and other leading speakers took
part in the campaign, and preparations were completed by which it
was expected both parties would act harmoniously together. Clubs
were formed at whose headquarters were seen men and women gathered
together to organize for political work. From some of these
headquarters hung transparencies with "Baker and Eddy" on one side,
and "Prohibition and Equal Rights" on the other. Caucuses and
conventions were held in Chelsea, Taunton, Malden, Lynn, Concord,
and other places. A Middlesex county (first district) senatorial
convention was called and organized by women, and its proceedings
were fully reported by the Boston newspapers.[127]

The nominations made at these caucuses were generally unanimous,
and it seemed at the time as if the two wings of the so-called
"Baker party" would work harmoniously together. But, with a few
honorable exceptions, the Prohibitionists, taking advantage of the
fact that the voting power of the women was over, once outside the
caucus, repudiated the nominations, or held other caucuses and shut
the doors of entrance in the faces of the women who represented
either the suffrage or the Prohibitory party. This was the case
invariably, excepting in towns where the majority of the voting
members of the Prohibitory party were also in favor of woman
suffrage. This result is what might have been expected. Of what use
was woman in the ranks of any political party, with no vote outside
the caucus?

After being thus ignored in one of their caucuses in Malden,
Middlesex county, the suffragists in that town determined to hold
another caucus. This was accordingly done, and two "straight"
candidates were nominated as town representatives to the
legislature. A "Woman Suffrage ticket"[128] was thereupon printed
to offer to the voters on election day. The next question was, who
would distribute these ballots most effectively at the polls. Some
men thought that the women themselves should go and present in
person the names of their candidates. At first the women who had
carried on the campaign shrank from this last test of their
faithfulness; but, after carefully considering the matter, they
concluded that it was the right thing to do. The repugnance felt at
that time, at the thought of "women going to the polls" can hardly
be appreciated to-day. Since they have begun to vote in
Massachusetts the terror expressed at the idea of such a proceeding
has somewhat abated; but in 1876 it was thought to be a rash act
for a woman to appear at the polls in company with men. Some
attempt was made to deter them from their purpose, and stories of
pipes and tobacco and probable insults were told; but they had no
terrors for women who knew better than to believe that their
neighbors would be turned into beasts (like the man in the fairy
tale) for this one day in the year.[129]

It was a sight to be remembered, to behold women "crowned with
honor" standing at the polls to see the freed slave go by and vote,
and the newly-naturalized fellow-citizen, and the blind, the
paralytic, the boy of twenty-one with his newly-fledged vote, the
drunken man who did not know Hayes from Tilden, and the man who
read his ballot upside down. All these voted for the men they
wanted to represent them, but the women, being neither colored, nor
foreign, nor blind, nor paralytic, nor newly-fledged, nor drunk,
nor ignorant, but only _women_, could not vote for the men they
wanted to represent them.[130]

The women learned several things during this campaign in
Massachusetts. One was, that weak parties are no more to be trusted
than strong ones; and another, that men grant but little until the
ballot is placed in the hands of those who make the demand. They
learned also how political caucuses and conventions are managed.
The resolution passed by the Prohibitionists enabled them to do
this. So the great "open sesame" is reached. It is but fair to
state that since 1876 the Prohibitory party has treated the woman
suffrage question with consideration. In its annual convention it
has passed resolutions endorsing woman's claims to political
equality, and has set the example to other parties of admitting
women as delegates. At the State convention in 1885 the following
resolution was adopted by a good majority:

     _Resolved_, That women having interests to be promoted and rights
     to be protected, and having ability for the discharge of
     political duties, should have the right to vote and to be voted
     for, as is accorded to man.

In the early history of Massachusetts, when the new colony was
governed by laws set down in the Province charter (1691, third year
of William and Mary) women were not excluded from voting. The
clause in the charter relating to this matter says:

     The great and general court shall consist of the governor and
     council (or assistants for the time being) and of such
     freeholders as shall be from time to time elected or deputed by
     the major part of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the
     respective towns or places, who shall be present at such
     elections.

In the original constitution (1780) women were excluded from voting
except for certain State officers.[131] In the constitutional
convention of 1820, the word "male" was first put into the
constitution of the State, in an amendment to define the
qualifications of voters. In this convention, a motion was made at
three different times, during the passage of the act, to strike out
the intruding word, but the motion was voted down. Long before the
second attempt was made to revise the constitution of the State,
large numbers of women began to demand suffrage. Woman's sphere of
operations and enterprise had become so widened, that they felt
they had not only the right, but also an increasing fitness for
civil life and government, of which the ballot is but the sign and
the symbol.

In the constitutional convention of 1853, twelve petitions were
presented, from over 2,000 adult persons, asking for the
recognition of woman's right to the ballot, in the proposed
amendments to the constitution of the State. The committee reported
leave to withdraw, giving as their reason that the "consent of the
governed" was shown by the small number of petitioners. Hearings
before this committee were granted.[132] The chairman of this
committee, in presenting the report, moved that all debate on the
subject should cease in thirty minutes, and on motion of Benjamin
F. Butler of Lowell, the whole report, excepting the last clause,
was stricken out. There was then left of the whole document
(including more than two closely-printed pages of reasoning) only
this: "It is inexpedient for this convention to take any action."

Legislative action on the woman's rights question began in 1849,
when William Lloyd Garrison presented the first petition on the
subject to the State legislature. Following him was one from
Jonathan Drake and others, "for a peaceable secession of
Massachusetts from the Union." Both these petitions were probably
considered by the legislature to which they were addressed as of
equally incendiary character, since they both had "leave to
withdraw." In 1851 an order was introduced asking "whether any
legislation was necessary concerning the wills of married women?"
In 1853 a bill was enacted "to exempt certain property of widows
and unmarried women from taxation." In the legislature of 1856 the
first great and important act relating to the property rights of
women was passed. It was to the effect that women could hold all
property earned or acquired independently of their husbands. This
act was amended and improved the next session.

In 1857 a hearing was held before the Committee on the Judiciary to
listen to arguments in favor of the petition of Lucy Stone and
others for equal property rights for women and for the "right of
suffrage." Another hearing was held in the same place in February,
1858, before the Joint Special Committee on the Qualifications of
Voters. A second hearing on the right of suffrage for women was
held the following week before the same committee. Thomas W.
Higginson made an address and Caroline Kealey Dall read an essay.

In 1858, Stephen A. Chase of Salem, from the same Committee on the
Qualifications of Voters, made a long report on the petitions. This
report closed with an order that the State Board of Education make
inquiry and report to the next legislature "whether it is not
practicable and expedient to provide by law some method by which
the women of this State may have a more active part in the control
and management of the schools." There is nothing in legislative
records to show that the State Board of Education reported
favorably; but from the above statement it appears that ten years
before Samuel E. Sewall's petition on the subject, a movement was
made towards making women "eligible to serve as members of
school-committees."

The petitions for woman's rights were usually circulated by women
going from house to house. They did the drudgery, endured the
hardships and suffered the humiliations attendant upon the early
history of our cause; but their names are forgotten, and others
reap the benefit of their labors. These women were so modest and so
anxious for the success of their petitions, that they never put
their own names at the head of the list, preferring the signature
of some leading man, so that others seeing his name, might be
induced to follow his example. Among the earliest of these silent
workers was Mary Upton Ferrin. Her petitions were for a change in
the laws concerning the property rights of married women, and for
the political and legal rights of all women. In 1849 she prepared a
memorial to the Massachusetts legislature in which are embodied
many of the demands for woman's equality before the law, which have
so often been made to that body since that time.[133]

In 1861 the legislature debated a bill to allow a widow, "if she
have woodland as a part of her dower, the privilege of cutting wood
enough for one fire." This bill failed, and the widow, by law, was
_not_ allowed to keep herself warm with fuel from her own wood-lot.
In 1863 a bill providing that "a wife may be allowed to be a
witness and proceed against her husband for desertion," was
reported inexpedient, and a bill was passed to _prevent_ women from
forming copartnerships in business. In 1865, Gov. John A. Andrew,
seeing the magnitude of the approaching woman question, in his
annual message to the legislature, made a memorable suggestion:

     I know of no more useful object to which the commonwealth can
     lend its aid, than that of a movement, adopted in a practical
     way, to open the door of emigration to young women who are wanted
     for teachers and for every appropriate, as well as domestic,
     employment in the remote West, but who are leading anxious and
     aimless lives in New England.

By the "anxious and aimless" it was supposed the governor meant the
widowed, single or otherwise unrepresented portion of the citizens
of the State. No action was taken by the legislature on this
portion of the governor's message. But a member of the Senate
actually made the following proposition before that body:

     That the "anxious and aimless women" of the State should assemble
     on the Common on a certain day of the year (to be hereafter
     named), and that Western men who wanted wives, should be invited
     to come here and select them.

Legislators who make such propositions, do not foresee that the
time may come, when perhaps those nearest and dearest to them, may
be classed among the superfluous or "anxious and aimless" women!

In 1865 bills allowing married women to testify in suits at law
where their husbands are parties, and permitting them to hold trust
estates were rejected. It will be seen that though all this
legislation was adverse to woman's interest, the question had
forced itself upon the attention of the members of both House and
Senate. In 1866 a joint committee of both houses was appointed to
consider:

     If any additional legislation can be adopted, whereby the means
     of obtaining a livelihood by the women of this commonwealth may
     be