Let us look at a few other ways in which the United States has

touched the rights of women where protection has been secured her

by legislation outside of itself. One instance that has come to

my knowledge since I have been in your city, is in the case of

pensions for colored women. The United States not only secured

the ballot to the black male citizen outside of State authority,

but it has touched the family relation with its powerful hand. It

has assumed that the woman with whom a colored soldier was living

at the time of his death was his wife, notwithstanding he may

have lived for many years in recognized married relations with

another woman, and become the father of children by her during

this period. In one case coming under the cognizance of our

Washington lawyer, Mrs. Lockwood, a pension was, by United States

authority, thus granted to a woman living with such colored

soldier at the time of his death, although she had no other claim

upon it. This soldier, during the period of slavery, had been

married in his master's house to another woman by a regularly

ordained clergyman, and by that wife had become the father of

five or six children. This woman was his lawful widow, according

to State and church law. These children were his lawful children,

according to State and church law, but the United States stepped

in, and made this married woman an outcast, and left her children

in the world with the brand of illegitimacy. The women of the

Territories of Wyoming and Utah are not secure in their political

rights, because the women of the Nation have none. Scarcely a

session of Congress but some politician introduces a bill to

disfranchise the women of these Territories.

In regard to the religious aspects of this Utah question. I care

for it only so far as it touches woman's political rights,

although I do know that woman's political wrongs and her

religious wrongs have been very closely intermingled in the past.

I recall a Papal Bull of Urban II., in the 12th century, which

compelled priests to discard their wives, making of thousands of

women in England, wives who were not wed; of children, offspring

who had no recognized fathers. We of the National Woman Suffrage

Association have nothing to do with the religious rights of women

in Utah, except in so far as they intermingle with and touch

woman's political rights. But the Utah question, which now comes

up again, is not simply a religious question. The Government is

continuously striving to destroy the political rights of the

women of this Territory. Its Governor is a United States officer,

and in his last report to the Secretary of the Interior, he so

far transcended the duties of his office as to suggest the

disfranchisement of Utah women. Almost every session of Congress

sees some bill of similar import introduced.

The General Government did not confer this right, did not secure

even the exercise of it. The territorial Legislature, the same as

in Wyoming, secured to women the exercise of the right of

suffrage; the United States, according to its own theory, has no

authority to interfere with this right, because, according to

that theory, it has nothing at all to do with the suffrage

question. Yet it proposes to disfranchise those women as a

punishment for their religious belief; it proposes to make social

outcasts of them, as it has already done with the wives of some

of its black soldier voters.

Looking back through history we find no act of the Romish Church

more vile than that which compelled its priests to disown their

wives and legitimate children--none which so utterly demoralized

society, and destroyed its tens of thousands of women. And

although, as a body of reformers, I again say we do not touch

religion except where it, and politics together, infringe upon

the rights of women, I do not hesitate to say for myself

individually, that I have no faith in any form of religion, be it

what it may, Christian, Mohammedan, Buddhist, that receives

revelation only through some man; or farther than that, I will

say, I have no faith in any form of religion that does not place

man and woman on an exact equality of religious rights. Two forms

of religion of the present day which have risen through woman, or

as revelations to her, namely the Shaker and the Spiritual, do

give us equality of religious rights, for man and woman. But I

call your attention to the inconsistency of United States laws,

and their especial injustice to women by interference with those

rights secured them by State or Territorial laws, as in case of

the colored soldier's wife; as in case the assumption that the

United States had a right to prohibit the exercise of the

suffrage by a woman in New York, although New York itself did not

interfere; as in case of the virtual prohibition by the United

States of jury rights to the women of Wyoming; as in case of the

presumptuous suggestion of the Governor of Utah that its women

should be disfranchised; as in case of such bills so often

introduced in Congress.

I know something of the opinion of the women of the Nation, and I

know they intend to be recognized as citizens secured in the

exercise of all the powers and rights of citizens. If this

security has not come under the XIV. Amendment, it must come

under a XVI., for woman intends to possess "equal personal rights

and equal political privileges with all other citizens." She

asks for nothing outside the power of the United States, she asks

for nothing outside the duty of the United States to secure.

Politicians may as well look this fact squarely in the face and

become wise after the wisdom of the world, for in just so far as

they ignore and forget the women of the country, in just so far

will they themselves be ignored and forgotten by future

generations.

The following review of this important case is from the January

number, 1876, of the _Central Law Journal_, St. Louis, Missouri:

WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN ITS LEGAL ASPECT--A REVIEW OF THE CASE OF MINOR

_vs._ HAPPERSETT, 21 WALLACE, U. S. REPORTS.

As a rule, respect should undoubtedly be paid to judicial

decisions. When the court of last resort has considered and

passed upon a question of law, especially if it be one involving

a consideration of constitutional power, as well as of private

right, it is eminently proper that its conclusion should not be

disturbed, unless for reasons of the gravest import. But cases

present themselves at times, in which criticism is not only

justified, but is demanded; and it is only through its aid that

the ultimate truth of any question can be reached and its

principles be correctly established. Nor can courts of justice

take exception to such criticism, since the reports abound with

evidences of the fact that there is no judicial immunity from

error; and we believe that if the glamour of supposed legal

impeccability, that shrouds the judiciary in the eyes of many,

could be removed, a public service would be accomplished. In the

case under consideration an important question of constitutional

law was involved, the construction of which affected not only the

plaintiff therein, but the entire class of persons to which she

belonged, while the decision extends it still further, and makes

it applicable to every citizen of the United States. Thus, while

the particular case may be ended, the entire community has an

interest in the conclusion announced. It is not our purpose to

consider the subject of suffrage as an abstract right; with this

aspect of it we have nothing to do in this article. We shall

treat it solely as a legal right. Under a government of law,

indeed, there are, properly speaking, no abstract rights. All

rights, of person or of property, are legal rights, and it shall

be our purpose to show that the right of Federal suffrage is

recognized in the Constitution of the United States, and

certainly no one will deny its practical exercise during nearly

ninety years. An inspection of the Opinion will show that the

whole matter was summed up in the question, whether suffrage is a

right or privilege appertaining to citizenship of the United

States, for if it be, then the plaintiff's suit was rightly

brought. The opinion, which was delivered by the Chief Justice,

states the matter as follows:

It is contended that the provisions of the Constitution and

laws of the State of Missouri, which confine the right of

suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation

of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore

void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized

in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State

in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage, as one

of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which

the State can not by its laws or Constitution abridge.

And on page 170:

If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges

of a citizen of the United States, then the Constitution and

laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the

Constitution of the United States, as amended, and

consequently void. The direct question is therefore

presented, whether all citizens are necessarily voters. The

Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities

of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In

this case we need not determine what they are, but only

whether suffrage is necessarily one of them. It certainly is

nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no

voters in the State, of its own creation. The elective

officers of the United States are all elected directly or

indirectly by State voters.

We had supposed that if there was any question that now, at

least, might be regarded as finally settled, both by the late

appeal to arms, and by the Constitutional Amendments, it was that

of the subordination of State to National authority, over any and

all subjects in which the rights and privileges of citizens of

the United States are involved. If the amendments do not cover

this ground, then they are worse than useless. And yet this

decision is a blow at all that constitutes us a Nation. To

declare that the United States has no voters--that its officers

are all elected by State voters, is to completely reverse the

order of things, and subordinate the citizens of the United

States to State authority. It will be observed that this decision

goes far beyond the ground hitherto and ordinarily claimed by the

advocates of what are called "States' Rights."

It has usually been supposed that the States possessed the

authority to regulate the exercise of the franchise by the

Federal voter, but never before was the right itself denied as

appurtenant to Federal citizenship. But now the franchise itself

is declared to be non-existent--Federal officers are elected by

State voters. The subject itself is wholly withdrawn from Federal

supervision and control. Even the amendments can not confer

authority over a matter that has no existence. If, then, the

United States has no voters in the States, it can properly have

nothing to do with the subject of elections. If the citizen of

the United States has no right to vote except as a citizen of a

State, his Federal citizenship is, of course, subordinated to his

State citizenship. It logically follows that much of the recent

legislation on this subject by Congress is destitute of

authority. If members of the House of Representatives are elected

by State voters, as here declared, there is no reason why the

States may not, at their pleasure, recall their representatives,

or refuse to elect them, as in 1860 the Southern States claimed

it to be their right to do; and if a sufficient number can be

united in such a movement, the Federal Government will be

completely at their mercy. It may also well be doubted how far

the Southern States are bound by legislation in which they had no

part. Notwithstanding the provision of the XIV. Amendment, that

neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any

claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; it (as held by

the Supreme Court in two cases in 13th Wallace, Chief Justice

Chase dissenting), contracts for the sale or hire of slaves

effected before emancipation are valid, upon the ground that to

take away the remedy for their enforcement would be to impair

their obligation, how much less can the owner of a slave be

deprived of his property, which forms the subject-matter of that

contract, without compensation? If his contract can not be

impaired, surely the thing to which that contract relates can not

be taken from him, except upon compensation. Chief Justice Chase

was of the opinion that the above quoted provision of the XIV.

Amendment could be sustained only upon the ground that the XIII.

Amendment wiped out everything, contracts as well as slavery. Yet

the Court held all such contracts to be valid. And see, in this

connection, the case of Wilkinson _vs_. Leland, 2d Peters, 657.

It is idle to say that these suppositions are visionary. What has

happened once, may occur again. It can hardly be questioned that

if in 1860 the seceding States could have pointed to a decision

of the Supreme Court of the United States such as this, the whole

face of affairs might have been different, and the "erring

sisters" permitted to "go in peace"! The "lost cause" may not be

"lost," after all.

But to resume: The Court tells us in its opinion in this case,

that "there can not be a Nation without a people," but it seems

there may be a Nation without voters! Now the people of the

United States may not have a very profound knowledge of their

institutions, but their intelligence certainly rises to the level

of comprehending that a republican government can not be

established or maintained without voters. It would be a manifest

absurdity to say that in a government created by the people, they

are not voters. Inasmuch, then, as it is admitted by the Court,

if the right of suffrage be a privilege of the citizen of the

United States, that the State Constitution and laws confining it

to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States

and, consequently, void; as contended for by the plaintiff in

this case, we have really only to examine this single point: Does

the Constitution of the United States recognize the right of

suffrage as belonging to its citizens?

Future generations will look with astonishment at the fact that

such a question could be asked seriously. Not only was the

subject debated in the convention that framed the instrument, but

one of its ablest members, Alexander Hamilton, in the

fifty-second number of the _Federalist_, says:

The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly

regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.

It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and

establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it

open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would

have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have

submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States,

would have been improper for the same reason; and for the

additional reason, that it would have rendered too dependent

on the State Governments that branch of the Federal

Government which ought to be dependent on the people alone.

To have reduced the different qualifications in the

different States to one uniform rule, would probably have

been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would

have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by

the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay

within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State;

because it is conformable to the standard already

established, or which may be established by the State

itself. It will be safe to the United States; because, being

fixed by the State Constitutions, it is not alterable by the

State Governments, and it can not be feared that the people

of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in

such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by

the Federal Constitution.

Again, in the XV. Amendment, suffrage is recognized as an

existing right of Federal citizenship. It is not created by that

Amendment. It was already existing. The language is:

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 race, color, or previous condition of

servitude.

A right must exist before it can be denied. There can be no

denial of a thing that has no existence. If it should be said the

XV. Amendment relates only to the negro, we reply that this would

be no answer, even if true, which may be doubted; but the point

we are now discussing is the statement of the Court that the

United States has no voters in the States of its own creation, or

in other words, that Federal suffrage does not exist; we have

shown that this a mistake, it being recognized in the

Constitution; and as the argument of the Court was based on its

non-existence it consequently falls to the ground. This really

disposes of the case, but we will notice other points. The Court

says:

After the adoption of the XIV. Amendment, it was deemed

necessary to have a XV: ... The XIV. Amendment had already

provided that no State should make or enforce any law which

should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of

the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges

or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its

being denied on account of race, etc.? Nothing is more

evident than that the greater must include the less, and if

all were already protected, why go through with the form of

amending the Constitution to protect a part?

It is sometimes perilous in argument to ask questions--we will

answer the Court in its own words. In the Slaughter-house cases,

the Court then said:

A few years' experience satisfied the thoughtful men who had

been the authors of the other two amendments, that,

notwithstanding the restraints of those articles on the

States, and the laws passed under the additional powers

granted to Congress, these were inadequate for the

protection of life, liberty, and property, without which

freedom to the slave was no boon. They were in all those

States denied the right of suffrage. The laws were

administered by the white man alone. It was urged that a

race of men distinctively marked as was the negro, living in

the midst of another and dominant race, could never be fully

secured in their person and their property without the right

of suffrage. Hence the XV. Amendment, which declares that

the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall

not be denied or abridged by any State on account of race,

color, or previous condition of servitude. The negro having,

by the XIV. Amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the

United States, is thus made a voter in every State of the

Union. (16 Wallace, 71.)

For the present argument, it is immaterial whether this result is

effected by the XIV., or XV. Amendment, or both. The point is,

that the Supreme Court here declares the negro to be a voter in

every State of the Union, by virtue of one or both amendments. He

is made a voter (a Federal voter) by the law of the United

States, and not by the State law. Being made a citizen of the

United States, he is thus made a voter in every State of the

Union. This is the very gist of the matter. The whole principle

is summed up in these few words. The franchise is an incident of

the status, or condition of citizenship. Freedom alone was not

enough. The XIII. Amendment made the negro free, but citizenship

was additionally necessary before he became a voter. As soon as

that was achieved, in that moment the franchise followed; to be

enjoyed, in the same manner as by other citizens. If ever a

suitor was entitled to rely with confidence upon judicial

utterances of great principles of law, Mrs. Minor was thus

entitled, in her case. She was a citizen of the United States by

birth; admitted to be possessed of every qualification but that

of sex. Her counsel appeared before this court and quoted its

very language above given, and asked the court to be consistent

with its own teachings. But no. There was no great and powerful

party to back her demand, as in the case of the negro. She was

merely a private individual, and the court contented itself with

saying that the right of suffrage when granted would be

protected! To which it may be replied, if women ever vote, they

will protect themselves; but, if their right should subsequently

be denied by the State, the Supreme Court, according to its own

rulings in this case, could give no protection, since it declares

the right to be wholly within the control of each State. But why

should the court require the women citizens of the United States

to produce a special grant of the right, when it required nothing

of the kind from the negro? Are there two laws in this country,

one for the negro, and another for woman? Does the Constitution

of the United States recognize or permit class distinctions to be

made between its citizens? Yet by this decision, the negro is

placed above the woman. He is her superior. His position is above

her. For our own part, we decline to accept any such construction

of that instrument, knowing that the time will ultimately come

when some claim similar to that of Mrs. Minor will meet with

proper recognition. To make its inconsistency still greater, the

court in this case declares that "allegiance and protection are

reciprocal obligations. The very idea of a political community,

such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the

promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons

associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the

association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its

protection," yet in this case that protection is denied. While

the negro, then, is thus declared to be a voter, by reason of his

citizenship, in every State of the Union, there is no law either

of the State or of the Nation, which in terms or by words confers

the ballot upon him. The XV. Amendment does not confer it, but

treats it as a right already existing, and forbids its

deprivation. Likewise the State law assumes its existence, and

makes no change, except to conform to the new condition of the

negro's citizenship. There is no change in the State laws, except

the omission of a word--the word "white"--from the clause "white

male citizens," in the State Constitution. But who ever heard of

a right being conferred by omission? And yet this change of a

single word by the State was an acknowledgment by it of the

supremacy of Federal law touching this subject; and was designed

to make the State law conform to the Federal law, which declares

(XIV. Amendment) that "no State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of

the United States." This conformity extends, however, only so far

as to embrace the negro citizen of the United States, leaving the

far larger class of women citizens of the United States still

under ban of disfranchisement, in plain violation of the

amendment. Under these circumstances, in the case under

consideration, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked

to interpose its authority, and effect by its decree that which

the State should have done, and declare that the word "male" must

be dropped, as well as the word "white."

Had this been done, the State law in its entirety would have

conformed to the paramount law of the United States, while as it

is, it conforms only in part. We are told that slavery was

abolished in Massachusetts, not by an enactment expressly adopted

for the purpose, but by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1781,

that its existence was inconsistent with the declaration in the

Bill of Rights that "all men are born free and equal."

(Bradford's History of Mass., 11, 227; Draper's Civil War, 1,

318; Story on Const., 11, p. 634, note.) So far, however, from

interfering, as it was its plain duty to have done, to protect

this class of United States citizens, the court has gone further

than perhaps it intended, and possibly destroyed the rights of

another class, for the decision, by declaring that the United

States has no voters, virtually renders the XV. Amendment of no

effect. There is nothing upon which it can operate. There being

no voters, there is of course no "right to vote," to be

"protected." So that every citizen of the United States is left

completely at the mercy of the State.

We will now consider that clause of the Constitution of the

United States in which, _as Hamilton said_, the right of suffrage

is defined and established for the citizens of the United States;

which, nevertheless, has most strangely been regarded as

conferring upon the States authority to disfranchise them.

Article 1, sec. 2. "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 section, it will be seen, consists

of two clauses, but there _is not a word as to the sex_ of the

elector. He or she must be one of the people, or citizens--that

is all. The "People" elect. They vote in their respective States,

of course; or, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "when

they act, they act in their States." (4 Wheaton, 403.) This first

clause, then, fixes the class of persons to whom belong this

right of suffrage--_Federal suffrage_--not State suffrage. It

would be absurd in the Federal Constitution to undertake to deal

with State suffrage, and it attempts nothing of the kind. The

right of Federal suffrage, then, attaches or belongs to this

class. The subsequent clause is subordinate to this, and relates

not to the right, but to the exercise of it by the voter. In

other words, it prescribes the qualifications of the elector, as

to how he shall exercise the right; the time, place, and manner

of voting, and the age at which the right shall be enjoyed. As to

all these matters, which are included in the subject of

"qualifications," instead of laying down a uniform rule, to be

applicable all over the Union, the convention thought it best to

adopt the regulations on this subject already in force in the

several States. When the Federal elector, therefore, comes to

vote for United States officers, he finds that he must simply

conform to the regulations laid down by the State for State

voters. But this confers upon the State no authority over the

Federal elector's right of suffrage; far less does it give the

State authority to deprive the Federal elector of this right,

under pretense of laying down for its own citizens an arbitrary

and impossible condition. In the nature of things, a republican

government could not part with this right of suffrage. As

Hamilton says, such right is justly regarded as a fundamental

article in such government. To part with it, would be to part

with its chiefest attribute of sovereignty, and nothing of the

kind was done, or intended.

Except so far, then, as this decision makes it so, there is not a

particle of authority vested in the States to deny this right of

Federal suffrage to the citizen of the United States. The

regulation of the exercise of the franchise is within their

control, as above stated, but the right itself is not theirs to

give or to withhold. _The right to vote for Federal officers_ is

wholly distinct from the right to vote for State officers; but

the fact of these two rights being blended in one and the same

person, and being usually exercised at the same time, has given

rise to the whole difficulty. In consequence of the fact of the

election being conducted by State officers, the State providing

all the machinery for voting, etc., we have become accustomed,

from long habit, to associate in our minds the one franchise with

the other, and thus confound rights that are wholly separate and

distinct.

We notice, in conclusion, the remark of the court touching the

non-assertion heretofore of this right by any one of the class

now claiming to be entitled to it, and the intimation, or

insinuation, that if the right really existed, it would have been

claimed before, etc. It is true that Mrs. Minor's case is of

"first impression," in the Supreme Court of the United States;

but we fail to see that this fact has anything to do with the

principle involved, or that there can be any such thing as a

"limitation" of rights that are fundamental. If the right exists,

and has a constitutional recognition, the time of its assertion

has nothing to do with it. Only weak minds will be influenced by

a fallacy like this. Because the women of a former day did not

see and feel the necessity of making this claim, is no reason why

those who do now see and feel that necessity should have that

claim denied. "Time has no more connection with, nor influence

upon principle, than principle has upon time. The wrong which

began a thousand years ago, is as much a wrong as if it began

to-day; and the right which originates to-day, is as much a right

as if it had the sanction of a thousand years. Time, with respect

to principles, is an eternal now. It has no operation upon them,

it changes nothing of their nature and qualities." (Paine's

Political Works, vol. 2, p. 328--Dissertation on Government.)

We are fully conscious that the subject upon which we have

written is by no means exhausted; the point, especially in

reference to bills of attainder, being wholly untouched. But the

limits of a single article will not admit of a full discussion of

the subject. Indeed, a treatise upon suffrage is one of the wants

of the profession. We leave it, however, to the candid judgment

of our readers, if we have not fully demonstrated the right of

Federal suffrage to be a necessary privilege of a citizen of the

United States, and, according to the court's own admission, such

being the case, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.

Thus closed woman's struggle for National protection of her civil and

political rights under the XIV. Amendment. In the case of Myra

Bradwell, which was commenced in September, 1869, two years before the

others, Chief-Justice Chase, one of the best and wisest Judges that

ever honored the American bench, dissented from the opinion of the

Supreme Court: that the fact of United States citizenship did not

secure to woman the right to practice law, and that a married woman

rested under a special disability in regard to her civil rights, thus

sustaining the action of Illinois in refusing to admit Mrs. Bradwell

to the bar of that State.

The decision in the case of Mrs. Minor, that the political rights of

women were wholly under the control of their respective States was

still more emphatic and discouraging. Had Judge Chase lived, we have

every reason to believe that in this case too, he would have

dissented, and that his opinion would have had great weight in the

general discussion. Although defeated at every point, woman's claim as

a citizen of the United States to the Federal franchise is placed upon

record in the highest court of the Nation, and there it will remain

forever. As Milton so grandly says in Paradise Lost:

What though the field be lost?

All is not lost: th' unconquerable will

And courage never to submit or yield!

FOOTNOTES:

[164] The elections in New Hampshire were held in the spring in former

years.

[165] An account of Mrs. Gardner's voting will be found in the

Michigan chapter.

[166] WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN THE COURTS.--SHAKESPEARE REVIVED.

In the case of Hamlet _vs._ Rex, Shakespeare's reports, occurs the

following:

SCENE--CHURCHYARD.--_Enter two clowns with spades._

_First Clown._ Is she to be buried in Christian burial that wilfully

seeks her own salvation?

_Second Clown._ I tell thee, she is; therefore make her grave

straight. The crowner hath set on her and finds it Christian burial.

_First Clown._ How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her own

defense?

_Second Clown._ Why,'tis found so.

_First Clown._ It must be so, _se offendendo_; it can not be else. For

here lies the point. If I drown myself wittingly, it argues an act;

and an act has three branches--it is to act, to do, and to perform.

Argal, she drowned herself wittingly.

_Second Clown._ Nay, but hear you good man, deliver.

_First Clown._ Give me leave. Here lies the water. Good. Here stands

the man. Good. If the man goes to this water and drowns himself, it is

nil he, will he, he goes. Mark you that. But if the water come to him

and drown him, he drowns not himself. Argal, he that is not guilty of

his own death shortens not his own life.

_Second Clown._ But is this law?

_First Clown._ Ay, marry is't, crowner quest law.

It hardly needed any better authority than the above to convince

simple-minded people of the truth of the observation made by

Blackstone that "law is the perfection of human reason." But if law is

great, those who expound it are greater.

The woman suffrage trial came on. The judges endeavored to follow the

arguments as far as possible, and to religiously earn their salaries

by the attention given, if no more. The arguments were finally

finished, and the women of the country waited expectantly to hear

their legal status defined.

It took just one week for the united judicial wisdom of this District

to consider this case in all its bearings, and then the decision came.

It was about as follows:

SCENE--DISTRICT COURT-ROOM.--_Enter Judges with law books._

_First Judge._ Women are voters but they can't vote. Voting is a

privilege and not a natural right, and must be conferred; it has

clearly been conferred by the supreme law of the land, therefore women

can not vote. A little voting is a good thing, but too much voting is

injurious to public interests, as is instanced in our large cities. If

women vote, there would be more voting than at present, consequently

women are not entitled to vote. The Constitution gives women the right

to vote. The organic law of the district does not. The latter, of

course, is void where it conflicts with the former, therefore can not

women vote. Congress has clearly recognized woman's right to the

ballot, wily or nily. But the ballot must come to the woman, not she

to the ballot, or else the law is violated. Congress must go further,

and point out to women how the ballot must come to her, or else will

she not be given Christian reception at the polls who willfully seek

to vote thereat. Therefore can not women vote.

_Second Judge._ Women are men, but men are not women. The former

include the latter, but the latter won't be included. That is to say,

the law regards men as women but not males as females. It is not every

right which can be exercised, as society will not admit of it. The

law, which is above society, says women shall vote, but society has

not acceded, and hence this court can not interfere. Therefore, I

concur that women can not vote.

_Third Judge._ I do not know but that the better way would have been

for Congress to have done otherwise than it did. Why it did as it did

is a question. But it did. It might have done more, or less, or both.

It might have done otherwise. In either case it would have done so.

And then it would have been. But as it is, it is perhaps as well as if

it should have been. Therefore can not women vote.

_Plaintiffs' Attorneys._ But is this law?

_The Three Judges._ Verily is't the law of the Supreme Court of the

District of Columbia.

This parody was written by J. W. Knowlton, son-in-law of Mr. Riddle.

[167] A report of this trial will be found in the California chapter.

[168] WHEREAS, Complaint has this day been made by ---- on oath before

me, William C. Storrs, commissioner, charging that Susan B. Anthony,

on or about the fifth day of November, 1872, at the city of Rochester,

N. Y., at an election held in the eighth ward of the city of Rochester

aforesaid, for a representative in the Congress of the United States,

did then and there vote for representative in Congress in the United

States, without having a lawful right to vote and in violation of

Section 19 of an act of Congress approved May 31, 1870, 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."

[169] The following ladies voted: Mrs. Hannah Anthony Mosher, Mrs.

Mary S. Hebard, Mrs. Nancy M. Chapman, Mrs. Jane M. Cogswell, Mrs

Martha N. French, Mrs. Margaret Leyden, Mrs. Lottie Bolles Anthony,

Mrs. Hannah Chatfield, Mrs. Susan M. Hough, Mrs. Sarah Truesdale, Mrs.

Mary Pulver, Mrs. Rhoda De Garmo, Mrs. Guelma Anthony McLean, Miss

Mary S. Anthony, Miss Ellen T. Baker. The following ladies registered

but were not allowed to vote: Mrs. Amy Post, Mrs. Mary Fish Curtis,

Mrs. Dr. Dutton, Mrs. Charlotte Wilbur Griffing, Mrs. Dr. Wheeler,

Mrs. Allen, Mrs. Lathrop.

[170] Ex-President Fillmore, Hon. Charles Sedgwick, Hon. E. G. Lapham,

David Wright, Esq., of Auburn.

[171] INDICTMENT AGAINST SUSAN B. ANTHONY--DISTRICT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW

YORK.--At a stated session of the District Court of the United States

of America, held in and for the Northern District of New York, at the

City Hall, in the city of Albany, in the said Northern District of New

York, on the third Tuesday of January, in the year of our Lord one

thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, before the Honorable Nathan

K. Hall, Judge of the said Court, assigned to keep the peace of the

said United States of America, in and for the said District, and also

to hear and determine divers Felonies, Misdemeanors and other offenses

against the said United States of America, in the said District

committed. Brace Millerd, James D. Wasson, Peter H. Bradt, James

McGinty, Henry A. Davis, Loring W. Osborn, Thomas Whitbeck, John

Mullen, Samuel G. Harris, Ralph Davis, Matthew Fanning, Abram Kimmey,

Derrick B. Van Schoonhoven, Wilhelmus Van Natten, James Kenney, Adam

Winne, James Goold, Samuel S. Fowler, Peter D. R. Johnson, Patrick

Carroll, good and lawful men of the said District, then and there

sworn and charged to inquire for the said United States of America,

and the body of said District, do, upon their oaths, present, that

Susan B. Anthony now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe,

with force and arms, etc., to wit: at and in the first election

district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of

Monroe, in said Northern District of New York, and within the

jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to wit: on the fifth day of

November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

seventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the first election

district of the said eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in said

county and in said Northern District of New York, which said election

was for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, to wit:

a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of

New York at large, and a Representative in the Congress of the United

States for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New

York, said first election district of said eighth ward of said city of

Rochester, being then and there a part of said twenty-ninth

Congressional District of the State of New York, did knowingly,

wrongfully, and unlawfully vote for a Representative in the Congress

of the United States for the State of New York at large, and for a

Representative in the Congress of the United States for said

twenty-ninth Congressional District, without a lawful right to vote in

said election district (the said Susan B. Anthony being then and there

a person of the female sex), as she, the said Susan B. Anthony then

and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute of the United

States of America in such case made and provided, and against the

peace of the United States of America and their dignity.

_Second Count_--And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do

further present that said Susan B. Anthony, now or late of Rochester,

in the county of Monroe, with force and arms, etc., to wit: at and in

the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of

Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in said Northern District of New

York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to wit:

on the fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand

eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the

first election district of the said eighth ward, of said city of

Rochester, in said county, and in said Northern District of New York,

which said election was for Representatives in the Congress of the

United States, to wit: a Representative in the Congress of the United

States for the State of New York at large, and a Representative in the

Congress of the United States for the twenty-ninth Congressional

District of the State of New York, said first election district of

said eighth ward, of said city of Rochester, being then and there a

part of said twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New

York, did knowingly, wrongfully and unlawfully vote for a candidate

for Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State

of New York at large, and for Representative in the Congress of the

United States for said twenty-ninth Congressional District, without

having a lawful right to vote in said election district (the said

Susan B. Anthony being then and there a person of the female sex), as

she, the said Susan B. Anthony then and there well knew, contrary to

the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case

made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of

America and their dignity.

RICHARD CROWLEY,

_Attorney of the United States for the Northern District

of New York._

(Endorsed). Jan. 24, 1873. RICHARD CROWLEY,

Pleads not guilty. _U. S. Attorney_.

[172] See Appendix.

[173] See Appendix.

[174] Thousands of copies were published in pamphlet form, with the

Court report of the trial, and circulated throughout the country.

[175] See Appendix.

[176] To the same effect see former decisions in Massachusetts: Coffin

_vs._ Coffin, 4 Mass., 25; Com. _vs._ Knapp, 10 Pic., 496; and see

also State _vs._ Snow, 18 Maine, 346; Doss _vs._ Com., 1 Grattan, 557;

Peo. _vs._ McFall, 1 Wheeler Crim. Rec., 108, note; Holder _vs._ The

State, 5 Georgia, 443; State _vs._ Allen, 1 McCord, 525; State _vs._

Jones, 5 Alabama, 666; Armstrong _vs._ The State, 4 Blackford, 247;

Patterson _vs._ The State, 2 English, 59.

[177] Gibbons _vs._ Ogden, 9th Wheaton, 221, Ch. J. Marshall. Ogden

_vs._ Saunder, 12 Wheaton, 332, Ch. J. Marshall.

[178] More recent investigation shows that this clause was originated

by Mr. Jefferson in 1784. See _The Nation_ for May 4, 1882, _and

authorities there referred to_. See Bancroft's "History of the United

States." Vol. II, p. 115.

CHAPTER XXVI.

AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

Circular Letter--Cleveland Convention--Association

Completed--Henry Ward Beecher, President--Convention in Steinway

Hall, New York--George William Curtis Speaks--The First Annual

Meeting held in Cleveland--Mrs. Tracy Cutler, President--Mass

meeting in Steinway Hall, New York, 1871--State Action

Recommended--Moses Coit Tyler Speaks--Mass Meetings in 1871 in

Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Pittsburgh--Memorial to

Congress--Letters from William Lloyd Garrison and others--Hon. G.

F. Hoar Advocates Woman Suffrage--Anniversary celebrated at St.

Louis--Dr. Stone, of Michigan--Thomas Wentworth Higginson,

President, 1872--Convention in Cooper Institute, New York--Two

Hundred Young Women march in. Meeting in Plymouth Church--Letters

from Louise May Alcott and Elizabeth Stuart Phelps--The Annual

Meeting in Detroit--Julia Ward Howe, President--Letter from James

T. Field--Mary F. Eastman Addresses the Convention. Bishop

Gilbert Haven President for 1875--Convention Steinway Hall, New

York--Hon. Charles Bradlaugh Speaks--Centennial Celebration, July

3d--Petition to Congress for a XVI. Amendment--Conventions in

Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Washington, and Louisville.

It was during the summer of 1869 that the initiative steps in the

formation of the American Woman Suffrage Association[179] were taken,

and the following letter circulated:

BOSTON, August 5, 1869.

Many friends of the cause of woman suffrage desire that its

interests may be promoted by the assembling and action of a

convention devised on a truly National and representative basis

for the organization of an American Woman Suffrage Association.

Without depreciating the value of Associations already existing,

it is yet deemed that an organization at once more comprehensive

and more widely representative than any of these is urgently

called for. In this view, the Executive Committee of the New

England Woman Suffrage Association has appointed the undersigned

a Committee of Correspondence to confer by letter with the

friends of woman suffrage throughout the country on the subject

of the proposed convention.

We ask to hear from you in reply, at your earliest convenience.

Our present plan is that the authority of the convention shall be

vested in delegates, to be chosen and accredited by the Woman

Suffrage Associations existing, or about to be formed, in the

several States of the Union. The number of delegates to be sent

by each Association and the precise time of the meeting of the

convention can be determined as soon as we shall have received

such answers to our present application as shall assure us of an

active and generous co-operation in the measure proposed, on the

part of the addressed.

LUCY STONE, CAROLINE M. SEVERANCE,

T. W. HIGGINSON, JULIA WARD HOWE,

GEO. H. VIBBERT.

Soon after, the following call was issued:

The undersigned, being convinced of the necessity for an American

Woman Suffrage Association, which shall embody the deliberate

action of the State organizations, and shall carry with it their

united weight, do hereby respectfully invite such organizations

to be represented in a Delegate Convention, to be held at

Cleveland, Ohio, November 24th and 25th, A.D., 1869.

The proposed basis of this Convention is as follows:

The delegates appointed by existing State organizations shall be

admitted, provided their number does not exceed, in each case,

that of the Congressional delegation of the State. Should it fall

short of that number, additional delegates may be admitted from

local organizations, or from no organization whatever, provided

the applicants be actual residents of the States they represent.

But no votes shall be counted in the Convention except of those

actually admitted as delegates. (Signed)

John Neal, Maine; Nathaniel White, Armenia S. White, William

T. Savage, New Hampshire; James Hutchinson, Jr., Vermont;

William Lloyd Garrison, Lydia Maria Child, David Lee Child,

George F. Hoar, Julia Ward Howe, Gilbert Haven, Caroline M.

Severance, James Freeman Clarke, Abby Kelly Foster, Stephen

S. Foster, Frank B. Sanborn, Phebe A. Hanaford,

Massachusetts; Elizabeth B. Chase, T. W. Higginson, Rowland

G. Hazard, Rhode Island; H. M. Rogers, Seth Rogers, Marianna

Stanton, Connecticut; George William Curtis, Lydia Mott,

Henry Ward Beecher, Frances D. Gage, Samuel J. May, Celia

Burleigh, W. H. Burleigh, Aaron M. Powell, Anna C. Field,

Gerrit Smith, E. S. Bunker, New York; Lucy Stone, Henry B.

Blackwell, John Gage, Portia Gage, Antoinette B. Blackwell,

A. J. Davis, Mary F. Davis, New Jersey; Mary Grew,

Pennsylvania; Thomas Garret, Fielder Israel, Delaware;

Hannah M. Tracy Cutler, A. J. Boyer, Margaret V. Longley, J.

J. Belleville, Miriam M. Cole, S. Bolton, Ohio; Amanda Way,

George W. Julian, Laura Giddings Julian, Lizzie M. Boynton,

Indiana; Mary A. Livermore, C. B. Waite, Myra Bradwell,

James B. Bradwell, Sharon Tyndale, J. P. Weston, Robert

Collyer, Joseph Haven, Illinois; Moses Coit Tyler, James A.

B. Stone, Mrs. H. L. Stone, Michigan; Lilie Peckham, Augusta

J. Chapin, Wisconsin; Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Mrs. S. B.

Stearns, Minnesota; Charles Robinson, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols,

John Ekin, D.D., J. P. Root, Kansas; Mrs. W. T. Hazard,

Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mrs. Beverly Allen, James E. Yeatman,

Mary E. Beede, J. C. Orrick, Mrs. George D. Hall, Missouri;

Guy W. Wines, Charles J. Woodbury, Tennessee; Mary Atkins

Lynch, Louisiana; Elizabeth C. Wright, Texas; Grace

Greenwood, Dist. Columbia; A. K. Safford, Arizona; J. A.

Brewster, California: Hon. G. C. Jones, Dowagiac, Hon.

William S. Farmer, Eau Claire, Hon. T. W. Ferry, of Grand

Haven; Hon. S. H. Blackman, Paw Paw, Rev. J. Straub,

Lansing, and S. H. Brigham, editor of the Lansing

_Republican_, Michigan; Mrs. Austin Adams, and Edna T.

Snell, of Dubuque, Miss Mattie E. Griffiths, Prof. and Mrs.

Belle Mansfield, Mt. Pleasant, T. M. Mills, Ed. Des Moines

_State Register_, Ex-Gov. and Mrs. B. F. Gue, and Hon. Mr.

and Mrs. Pomeroy, Ft. Dodge, Iowa; Mrs. J. C. Burbank, Mrs.

Smith (State Librarian), Rev. J. Marvin, and Capt. Russell

Blakely, of St. Paul, Mrs. Elliott, of Minneapolis, Mr. and

Mrs. A. Knight, of St. Peter, Minnesota; Rev. H. Eddy,

pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Milwaukee,

Wisconsin; Mrs. E. O. G. Willard, of Chicago, Illinois.

The first American Woman Suffrage Convention assembled at Case

Hall, Cleveland, O., on Wednesday morning, November 24th. The

attendance from the city was very large; the vast hall being well

filled, both floor and balcony. The Convention was called to

order by Mrs. Lucy Stone. Twenty-one States were

represented--eighteen by regularly accredited delegates; thus

making it truly National. Great harmony pervaded all the

deliberations of the Committees and the discussions of the

Convention.

On motion of F. B. Sanborn, of Massachusetts, Judge J. B.

Bradwell, of Chicago, was chosen temporary Chairman, and on

motion of Mrs. Lucy Stone, Mrs. Mary F. Davis, of New Jersey, was

elected temporary Secretary. Upon taking the chair, Judge

Bradwell returned his thanks for the honor conferred upon him. It

was unnecessary for him to speak at length in regard to the

object of the meeting; it had been stated in the call read by

Mrs. Stone. He said they were met for the formation of an

American Woman Suffrage Association, which shall be represented

in every State of this great Nation; and not only every State,

but every city, town, and county from the Atlantic to the

Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. On motion of Mr.

Sanborn a Committee on Credentials[180] was appointed by the

President. All State delegations were requested to report their

names to the Committee, and also to fill any vacancies which

might exist, if persons were present from their respective

States.

Pending the report of the Committee on Credentials, Mrs. Lucy

Stone presented letters from several persons[181] who had been

unable to attend the Convention, but desired to give expression

to their sympathy with its object. In a few preliminary remarks

she expressed the pleasure she felt at the sight of such a large

and intelligent audience at the first session of the Convention,

which many had supposed would be but merely a business meeting.

It was an evidence of the increasing interest which is being felt

upon the subject of woman suffrage. She alluded to the Convention

held in this city sixteen years ago, and was glad to see several

familiar faces which were present on that occasion. Mrs. H. M.

Tracy Cutler, of Cleveland, delivered an eloquent appeal for

women.

Judge Bradwell said that under the laws in some States the right

of woman to a certain degree of citizenship is acknowledged.

Foreign-born women may be naturalized, and even without the

consent of their husbands. In all probability Vermont will soon

confer upon woman the right of suffrage. In that State the women

considerably outnumber the men, and if some of them should move

to the West, they might say, "We voted and were citizens in

Vermont, and, under the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States, we claim the right to vote here."

Mrs. C. G. Ames, of California, alluded to a case which occurred

in San Francisco. A woman was informed that she might be

protected through the courtesy of the consul, but that she had no

claim to protection as a citizen of the Government.

The Committee on Credentials presented the names of

delegates[182] who were already present as entitled to seats in

the Convention. Other names were added as they were reported to

the Convention during the session.

There were also in attendance persons from Virginia, Mississippi,

and Nebraska, who conferred with the Chairman of the Committee on

credentials with reference to their admission to the body of

delegates. They were all _bona fide_ residents in the States they

represented, but they seemed so undecided in reference to the

question of woman suffrage, finding it hardly possible to tell

whether they were for it or against it, that it was thought not

best for them to propose themselves as self-constituted

delegates. Near the close of the Convention, those from Nebraska

and Virginia sought the Chairman of the Committee to say that if

another convention were to be held, they could heartily and

conscientiously take seats as delegates; for if they had any

doubts as to the justice and utility of woman suffrage in the

outset, they had been wholly removed by the arguments to which

they had listened. Twenty-one States were thus represented in the

Convention, making it truly National.

On motion of Mr. Blackwell, the President was authorized to

appoint a committee,[183] consisting of one from each State on

the permanent organization of the Convention. Pending the

announcement of the committee, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, of Boston,

delivered an address to the Convention, replete with the noblest

wisdom and the soundest morality. Her utterance was both

prophetic and hortatory. She cautioned women not to do injustice

to others, while seeking justice for themselves; advised them

that they must prepare for the new responsibilities they coveted;

and that they would better learn to command, by learning well how

to serve. She closed her grand and inspiring address with this

sentence: "Oh! of all the names given to us to warn off the demon

and invoke the angel, let us hold fast to this word--service!"

The Convention reassembled at two o'clock, the hall being filled

in every part. Before proceeding to business, the President

invited to seats upon the platform, Stephen S. Foster, Miss Susan

B. Anthony, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Andrew Jackson

Davis, Mrs. Leland, of Wisconsin; Mr. and Mrs. John Gage, of

Vineland, New Jersey, all of whom he designated as faithful

veteran laborers in the good cause. He also invited all officers

of Woman Suffrage Associations, members of the press and the

clergy without distinction of sex or color.

The proceedings were opened with an impressive prayer by Rev.

Antoinette Brown Blackwell, of New Jersey. The Committee on

Permanent Organization reported the list of officers[184] of the

Convention, which was adopted. The announcement of the name of T.

W. Higginson as President was received with loud applause. On

taking the Chair, he spoke substantially as follows:

_Ladies and Gentlemen and Fellow Citizens_: I feel truly grateful

to the members of this Convention for the honor they have done me

by choosing me for this responsible position. I take it not as a

personal compliment to myself, but as a graceful act of courtesy

on the part of the West, which is so largely represented, to the

East, which is but slightly represented--perhaps our California

friends would rather hear us say from the great central Keystone

States of the Nation, to the little border States on the Atlantic

coast. It is eminently fit and proper that this Convention should

select for its place of meeting the great State of Ohio, which

takes the lead in the woman suffrage movement, as well as in

other good things. It was the first to organize a State Woman

Suffrage Association, and the first in which a committee of the

Legislature recommended extending to woman the right of suffrage.

It is befitting, then, that this Convention should desire Ohio as

the stepping stone from which an American Suffrage Association

shall rise into existence.

[Illustration: Lucy Stone.]

My own State is but a small one. At the commencement of the war

it was hardly thought worth while to attempt to raise troops in

Rhode Island, for if they should be able to muster a regiment it

would be necessary to go out of the State to find room to drill.

But regiments were raised and they stood side by side with those

of Ohio during the great struggle, and your record is theirs.

Rhode Island, too, stands shoulder to shoulder with Ohio in the

cause of woman suffrage. The call for this Convention was signed

by the representatives of twenty-five States; that for, the

Woman's Rights Convention, in 1850, was signed by those of but

six, yet Ohio and Rhode Island were two of that number. I do not

blush at the smallness of my State, but I rejoice in its

prominence in this movement. I am glad to claim her as the only

State which stands as a unit in the Senate of the United States

in favor of giving the ballot to woman. Messrs. Sprague and

Anthony, the Senators from that State, agree upon this point,

although if they ever agreed upon any other matter, I never heard

of it.

Fellow-delegates and citizens, we have come together as

supporters of a grand reformatory movement, and there is but one

plain course for us to pursue. Some years ago I attended a

meeting of progressive Friends, in Pennsylvania. The subject of

Woman's Rights came up for discussion, and opinions were

expressed pro and con, when suddenly there came striding up the

aisle an awkward boy, half-witted and about half-drunk. He

stepped to the platform, flung his cap to the floor, and said

that he wanted to give his testimony. "I don't know much about

this subject or any other, but my mother was a woman!" The boys

in the galleries laughed, and the Quakers, sitting with their

hats on their heads, looking as solemn as if the funeral of the

whole human race was being held and they were the chief mourners,

did not relax a muscle of their faces, but thought I to myself,

"That overgrown boy, drunk or sober, has solved the whole

question." Women may doubt and hesitate, uncertain whether they

want to vote or not, but men have only one position to take--to

withdraw their opposition, and leave it to the women to decide

for themselves.

Many intelligent and respectable ladies fear a conspiracy against

their freedom--imagining that at times of elections detachments

of police would seize and rudely drag the weak, fainting sisters

to the polls against their will. They seem to regard the matter

in the same light as a boy who went to the theatre night after

night, but invariably went to sleep. Upon being asked what he

went for, he replied: "Why I've got to go because I've a season

ticket." And so some women seem to think that the right of

suffrage will be like the boy's season ticket, and they must vote

whether they will or not. When we can not drive men to the polls,

when there is no law to compel them to serve or save their

country at the ballot-box, if they stay away from selfishness or

indifference, it is not likely that we will be more successful

with the women. No compulsion is intended. We will lay before

woman the great responsibility that rests upon her, her sacred

duty as a wife and mother, we will open up to her a career of the

highest usefulness in the world, in which she may more perfectly

than ever before fulfill the destiny for which she is created,

and then she may individually accept the ballot or not, according

to the dictates of her own conscience. All men can do is to take

down the barriers and say to her: "Vote, if you please." It is to

give more dignity and sacredness to woman; to enlarge and not

limit her field of usefulness; but not to take her out of her

appropriate sphere. It says to the wife: "Do all you can to save

your sons and husbands at home, strew around them its most

hallowed influences; but if you fail there, you have another

chance at the ballot-box to abolish, by your votes, the

liquor-sellers that are dragging them down to ruin."

I would earnestly recommend to this Convention the importance of

efficient and perfect organization, and not only in this body,

but throughout the country. In the judgment of those who called

this meeting, the great movement for woman suffrage is too far

advanced to be further prosecuted only by local and accidental

organizations. In most of the States, State Associations are of

but recent origin, and in many they do not exist at all. The

efforts hitherto made were all well and useful in their way, but

not enough to meet the demands of the present. It is the aim to

establish this Association on a national representative basis,

embracing all the States in the Union. We seek this because we

need it. The enterprise is too vast to be left to hasty or

accidental organizations only. We want something solid and

permanent. The Congress of the United States rests upon a

narrower basis than does the organization at which we aim. That

represents but half the people of the country while this is for

all. It is eminently needful that we give the greatest care and

deliberations to the work. We must have the counsel of various

minds, laying aside local differences. We are of different habits

and opinions, and do not think alike on all subjects. Upon many

questions we "agree to differ," but on this great question we

are, and must be, all united. Efficient organization will be a

powerful aid in helping forward the grandest reform that was ever

launched upon the human race. With this understanding I accept

the position of President of this Convention, losing my own

individuality as one of its members. In conclusion, I ask your

patience with my short-comings and your co-operation in

conducting its proceedings.

Mrs. Cutler read a courteous communication from H. S. Stevens

Esq., kindly offering to furnish carriages free to those members

of the Convention who may wish to see the city, during their

stay. Col. Higginson said that in the early days of woman

suffrage, he had seen a rivalry among livery stable keepers to

furnish carriages to take persons engaged in the movement out of

town, and he regarded this offer as in singular contrast to that.

On motion of Mrs. Lucy Stone, the Committee on Permanent

Organization of the Convention was also charged with the duty of

preparing a basis of organization, constitution, and by-laws for

a National Woman Suffrage Association, and to report a list of

officers for the same. The President invited all local Woman

Suffrage organizations to make themselves known through their

members present, and to participate in the deliberations of the

Convention. The following resolution, offered by Mrs. Lucy Stone,

was adopted.

_Resolved_, That the members of the Associated Press, now in

session in this city, be invited to attend this Convention

and take part in its proceedings, and that Mr. Boyer, Mr. F.

B. Sanborn, and Mrs. Cole, of Dayton, be a Committee to

convey the invitation to that body.

A telegram was received from GRACE GREENWOOD, as follows:

To T.W. HIGGINSON, _President of the Woman's Suffrage

Convention:_

Kept at home by illness. God speed the cause.

GRACE GREENWOOD.

Brief speeches were made by Rev. Mrs. Hanaford, of Massachusetts;

Mary F. Davis and Lucy Stone, of New Jersey; and Giles B.

Stebbins, of Michigan, who introduced the following resolution,

which was unanimously carried:

_Resolved_, That the National Labor Congress, representing

five hundred thousand of the workingmen of our country, at

its late session at Philadelphia, by recognizing the equal

membership and rights of men and women, of white and colored

alike, showed a spirit of broad and impartial justice worthy

of all commendation, and we hail its action as a proof of

the power of truth over prejudice and oppression, which must

be of signal benefit to its members, in helping that

self-respect, intelligence, and moral culture by which the

fair claims of labor are to be gained and the weaker truly

ennobled and elevated.

Mr. H. B. BLACKWELL presented the following:

CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

PREAMBLE: The undersigned, friends of woman suffrage,

assembled in delegate Convention in Cleveland, Ohio,

November 24th and 25th, 1869, in response to a call widely

signed and after a public notice duly given, believing that

a truly representative National organization is needed for

the orderly and efficient prosecution of the suffrage

movement in America, which shall embody the deliberate

action of State and local organizations, and shall carry

with it their united weight, do hereby form the American

Woman Suffrage Association.

ARTICLE I.

NAME: This Association shall be known as the American Woman

Suffrage Association.

ARTICLE II.

OBJECT: Its object shall be to concentrate the efforts of

all the advocates of woman, suffrage in the United States

for National purposes only, viz:

SEC. 1. To form auxiliary State Associations in every State

where none such now exist, and to co-operate with those

already existing, which shall declare themselves auxiliary

before the first day of March next, the authority of the

auxiliary Societies being recognized in their respective

localities, and their plan being promoted by every means in

our power.

SEC. 2. To hold an annual meeting of delegates for the

transaction of business and the election of officers for the

ensuing year; also, one or more national conventions for the

advocacy of woman suffrage.

SEC. 3. To publish tracts, documents, and other matter for

the supply of State and local societies and individuals at

actual cost.

SEC. 4. To prepare and circulate petitions to State

Legislatures, to Congress, or to constitutional conventions

in behalf of the legal and political equality of woman; to

employ lecturers and agents, and to take any measures the

Executive Committee may think fit, to forward the objects of

the Association.

ARTICLE III.--ORGANIZATION.

SEC. 1. The officers of this Association shall be a

President, eight Vice-Presidents at Large, Chairman of the

Executive Committee, Foreign Corresponding Secretary, two

Recording Secretaries, and a Treasurer, all of whom shall be

_ex-officio_ members of the Executive Committee from each

State and Territory, and from the District of Columbia, as

hereinafter provided.

SEC. 2. Every President of an auxiliary State society shall

be _ex-officio_ a vice-president of this Association.

SEC. 3. Every chairman of the Executive Committee of an

auxiliary State society shall be _ex-officio_ a member of

the Executive Committee of this Association.

SEC. 4. In cases where no auxiliary State society exists, a

suitable person may be selected by the annual meeting, by

the Executive Committee, as Vice-President or member of the

Executive Committee, to serve only until the organization of

said State Association.

SEC. 5. The Executive Committee may fill all vacancies that

may occur prior to the next annual meeting.

SEC. 6. All officers shall be elected annually at any annual

meeting of delegates, on the basis of the Congressional

representation of the respective States and Territories,

except as above provided.

SEC. 7. No distinction on account of sex shall ever be made

in the membership or in the selection of officers of this

Society; but the general principle shall be that one half of

the officers shall, as nearly as convenient, be men, and one

half women.

SEC. 8. No money shall be paid by the Treasurer except under

such restrictions as the Executive Committee may provide.

SEC. 9. Five members of the Executive Committee, when

convened by the Chairman, after fifteen days written notice

previously mailed to each of its members, shall constitute a

quorum. But no action thus taken shall be final, until such

proceedings shall have been ratified in writing by at least

fifteen members of the Committee.

SEC. 10. The Chairman shall convene a meeting whenever

requested to do so by five members of the Executive

Committee.

ARTICLE IV.

This Association shall have a branch office in every State

in connection with the office of the auxiliary State Society

therein, and shall have a central office at such place as

the Executive Committee may determine.

ARTICLE V.

This Constitution may be amended at any annual meeting, by a

vote of three-fifths of the delegates present therein.

ARTICLE VI.

Any person may become a member of the American Woman

Suffrage Association by signing the Constitution and paying

the sum of $1 annually, or life members by paying the sum of

$10, which membership shall entitle the individual to attend

the business meetings of delegates and participate in their

deliberations.

ARTICLE VII.

Honorary members may be appointed by the annual meeting or

by the Executive Committee, in consideration of services

rendered.

The officers of the Association were then appointed:

_President_--Henry Ward Beecher.

_Vice Presidents at Large_--T. W. Higginson, Mary A.

Livermore, William Lloyd Garrison, Mrs. W. T. Hazard, George

W. Curtis, Celia M. Burleigh, George W. Julian, Margaret V.

Longley.

_Chairman of Executive Committee_--Lucy Stone.

_Foreign Corresponding Secretary_--Julia Ward Howe.

_Corresponding Secretary_--Myra Bradwell.

_Recording Secretaries_--Henry B. Blackwell, Amanda Way.

_Treasurer_--Frank B. Sanborn.

_Vice-Presidents_--Maine, Rev. Amory Battles; New Hampshire,

Armenia S. White; Vermont, Hon. C. W. Willard;

Massachusetts, Caroline M. Severance; Rhode Island, Rowland

G. Hazard; Connecticut, Seth Rogers; New York, Oliver

Johnson; New Jersey, Antoinette Brown Blackwell;

Pennsylvania, Robert Purvis; Delaware, Mrs. Hanson Robinson;

Ohio, Dr. H. M. Tracy Cutler; Indiana, Lizzie M. Boynton;

Illinois, C. B. Waite; Wisconsin, Rev. H. Eddy; Michigan,

Moses Coit Tyler; Minnesota, Mrs. A. Knight; Kansas, Hon.

Charles Robinson; Iowa, Amelia Bloomer; Missouri, Hon. Isaac

H. Sturgeon; Tennessee, Hon. Guy W. Wines; Florida, Alfred

Purdie; Oregon, Mrs. General Rufus Saxton; California, Rev.

Charles G. Ames; Virginia, Hon. J. C. Underwood; Washington

Territory, Hon. Rufus Leighton; Arizona, Hon. A. K. P.

Safford.

_Executive Committee_--Maine, Mrs. Oliver Dennett; New

Hampshire, Hon. Nathaniel White; Vermont, Mrs. James

Hutchinson, Jr.; Massachusetts, Rev. Rowland Connor; Rhode

Island, Elizabeth B. Chace; Connecticut, Rev. Olympia Brown;

New York, Mrs. Theodore Tilton; New Jersey, Mary F. Davis;

Pennsylvania, Mary Grew; Delaware, Dr. John Cameron; Ohio,

Andrew J. Boyer; Indiana, Rev. Charles Marshall; Illinois,

Hon. J. B. Bradwell; Wisconsin, Lilie Peckham; Michigan,

Lucinda H. Stone; Minnesota, Abby J. Spaulding; Kansas, Mrs.

C. I. H. Nichols; Iowa, Belle Mansfield; Missouri, Mrs.

Francis Minor; Tennessee, Rev. Charles J. Woodbury; Florida,

Mrs. Dr. Hawkes; California, Mrs. Mary E. Ames; Virginia,

Hon. A. M. Fretz; District of Columbia, Grace Greenwood.

The addresses of the evening were made by Judge Bradwell and Mary

A. Livermore, of Illinois; Miriam M. Cole, of Ohio; Lilie

Peckham, of Wisconsin; Frank B. Sanborn, editor of the

Springfield, Mass., _Republican_; and Dr. Lees, of Leeds,

England. At the Thursday morning session the attendance was

large, and the interest in the Convention seemed to be

increasing. The forenoon was devoted to a consideration of the

basis of the National organization, its constitution and by-laws.

The discussions[185] were earnest, temperate, in excellent

spirit, every woman keeping within the five minutes' rule, and

speaking to the point--a circumstance commented on pleasantly by

the President. The articles of the Constitution and By-Laws were

discussed _seriatim_, and adopted, and then the Constitution, as

a whole, was adopted. A letter was presented by Mrs. Lucy Stone,

from the proprietor of the Birch House, Water Street, offering to

entertain a few delegates--free. She also read the following:

CLEVELAND, _November 25, 1869_.

_To the Delegates of the Woman's National Convention_:--The

Faculty of the Homeopathic College hereby extend their most

cordial invitation to your honorable body to visit the

College. Conveyances for the same will be in readiness at

any time desired. In this College, now in its twentieth

annual session, woman, with the exception of one winter, has

always been equal with man in privilege and honor, and here

she shall always share an equal privilege and honor, so long

as she is willing to conform to the same standard of

culture.

Yours, most respectfully,

T. P. WILSON, _Dean_.

H. V. BIGGAR, _Registrar_.

Judge BRADWELL offered the following, which was adopted:

_Resolved_, That we urgently request all State and National

Associations, formed for the purpose of aiding in giving

suffrage to woman, to become auxiliary to, or co-operate

with the American Woman's Suffrage Association, believing

that by concert of action on the part of all Societies and

Associations formed in the nation for this purpose, suffrage

will sooner be extended to woman.

Able addresses were made during the afternoon by Rev. Charles

Marshall, pastor of one of the Presbyterian churches of

Indianapolis; Lizzie Boynton and Mrs. Swank, of Indiana; Lucy

Stone, of New Jersey; Ex-Gov. Root, of Kansas; Mary E. Ames, of

California; and Addie Ballou, of Minnesota. Rebecca Rickoff, of

Cleveland, recited an original poem, "The Convict's Mother," with

marked effect. During the entire session the hall was filled to

its utmost limit. The Convention met for the closing session at

an early hour. The hall was densely filled in every part, the man

at the ticket-office having been literally inundated with

"quarters." Mrs. Dr. Cutler occupied the chair. Mrs. STONE

announced that she would go through the audience to get names of

members of the Association, which any one could become on payment

of a dollar.

Brief speeches were made by Mr. Bellville and Mr. Lamphear, of

Ohio; Mr. Henry Blackwell, of New Jersey; and Rev. Rowland

Connor, of Massachusetts, and then Mrs. Julia Ward Howe delivered

a second address of remarkable power and unparalleled beauty. She

spoke the day before as the prophet of the Convention--this

evening, she spoke as its historian. Her address was faultless,

peerless, perfect, and though read from a manuscript, moved the

large audience deeply. Next followed Mrs. Celia Burleigh, of New

York, a woman of rare grace and culture, with an address packed

with thought and wisdom, uttered in the choicest language. Mrs.

Caroline M. Severance, of Boston, succeeded her with another

speech of like polish and impressiveness, and then the great

congregation rose, and closed the interesting meetings of the two

days with the singing of the grand old doxology, "Praise God from

whom all blessings flow," after which the Convention adjourned

_sine die_.

* * * * *

A Mass Convention for the advocacy of Woman Suffrage, under the

auspices of the American Woman Suffrage Association, was held at

Steinway Hall, New York City, May 11th and 12th, 1870. Upon each

of those days three sessions were held, and at each session the

attendance was numerous and enthusiastic. The Convention was

presided over by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Upon the platform were

seated many earnest, active supporters, and advocates of the

cause.[186]

The address of Rev. HENRY WARD BEECHER was as follows: _Ladies

and Gentlemen_:--It is but a little while ago that the question

whether a woman might, with modesty and propriety, appear upon

the public platform to speak her sentiments upon moral and

philanthropic questions, agitated the whole community. Although I

do not regard myself as excessively conservative, I remember

very well when the appointment of women, by the Anti-Slavery

Society of New England, to act on committees with men, grievously

shocked my prejudices; and I said to myself, "Well, where will

this matter end?" I remember very well that when many persons,

whose names are now quite familiar to the people, first began to

speak on the anti-slavery question, I felt that if the diffidence

and modesty and delicacy of woman had not been sacrificed, it

had, at any rate, been put in peril; and that, although a few

might survive, the perilous example would pervert and destroy the

imitators and followers.

It was in the year 1856 that I first made a profession of my

faith in Woman's Rights. During the Fremont campaign I had so far

had my eyes opened and my understanding enlightened, as to see

that if it is right for the people of Great Britain to put a

politician at the head of their government, and she a woman--if,

in all the civilized nations of the world, it is deemed both

seemly and proper for women to be in public meetings and take

part therein, provided they are duchesses or the ladies of

lords--if it is right, in other words, for aristocracy to give to

their women the right of public speech, then it is right, also,

for democracy to give their women the right of public speech.

Does any one question whether Lucy Stone may speak? or Mrs.

Livermore? or Mrs. Stanton? There is not a city or town in the

nation that does not hail their coming; and there are no persons

so refined, and no persons so conservative as not to listen to

them; and there are none that listen who do not always admit that

women may speak. God does not give such gifts for nothing.

We are in a community that is constantly growing, expanding,

developing. We do not believe that human nature has reached its

limits. There are new combinations, new developments, taking

place. Nor do we believe that men have reached the ultimatum of

their practical efficiency, any more than women have. It is in

the order of things, that having met, tried, and settled this

question--the right of woman to public speech--we should meet the

next question, the right of women to act. She has a right to

think,--has she a right to practice? May she vote, or sit upon

committees in matters pertaining to local or National interests?

It is this question which is under discussion now. It seems wild

and wandering to many, but not more wild and wandering than

fifteen years ago, to the great majority of our citizens, seemed

the question of woman's right to public speech. I venture to say

that within the fifteen years next coming it will seem strange to

the great mass of the people that it should have been considered

of doubtful propriety for woman to exercise the privilege, or, I

should rather say, the duty of suffrage.

And so within the last few years this question has risen up, to

the suppression, I may say, of everything else; for everything

else is conceded. I don't know what advanced step may be next

proposed. If I did, I should propose it to-day--for this reason,

that I notice that each advance becomes the acceptance of the

disputed question immediately in its rear. When the doctrine of

physiognomy--Lavater's doctrine--was first propounded, men

laughed it to scorn, and contemned the idea that there could be

anything true or noble in it, until phrenology came and asserted

that the brain's proportional parts could be known, and that the

mind could be outwardly ascertained, and then men said: "Oh,

this phrenology is a humbug! Physiognomy is rational; we can see

how a man can judge that way; there is something in physiognomy."

So they swallowed physiognomy in order to be strong enough to

combat phrenology. Animal magnetism, I believe, came up next; and

the people ridiculed it as they had ridiculed those that had gone

before. They now thought that there might be some sense in

physiognomy and phrenology, but animal magnetism was

preposterous. Then came mesmerism. "Why," people said, "this is

nothing in the world but animal magnetism, in which, of course,

there is some reason." Then came spiritualism. "Oh," people said,

"that is nothing but mesmerism." So they admitted each anterior

heresy for the sake of refuting the new one. And now, may a woman

be an artist? May she sing in public? May she speak in public?

"Well," said people, "she can sing, if she has the gift; there is

no harm in that; but this delivering an oration, this is not

woman's sphere." Then if we say, "Shall a woman vote?" they say,

"Oh! vote! vote! Let her speak if she wants to speak; but as for

voting, that will never do!"

Therefore, as I have said, if I could but see the next point

ahead, I would immediately proclaim it, because then people would

say, "Let women vote if they want to vote, but that is as far as

we can go." I rejoice in your presence this morning. I, for one,

need not assert that I am from my whole heart and conviction

thoroughly of opinion that the nature of woman, the purity and

sweetness of the family, the integrity and strength of the State,

will all be advantaged when woman shall be, like man, a

participator in public affairs.

* * * * *

Rev. JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE said--Ladies and gentlemen:--This is a

very serious question, whichever way we look at it. I do not

suppose that, if the women of the country were to be admitted

to-day to vote, the consequences would appear to-day, or for some

time to come, because women everywhere would vote very much as

those around them are in the habit of voting. Young men growing

up generally vote as their fathers and brothers are in the habit

of voting--those with whom they are in the habit of

communication; so it would be with women. They would probably,

for some time to come, vote very much as their husbands, fathers,

and brothers do now. The ultimate result, however, is of the

greatest consequence; and nobody can tell exactly what it will

be. I, for one, believe that it will be very beneficial, and it

is for that reason that I am here to-day.

I believe, in the first place, that women ought to vote, because

it seems to me that this is in the direction of all human

progress, and in the direction of civilization. Civilization,

thus far, has constantly occupied itself in bringing woman up to,

and putting her by the side of man. In the barbarous stage of

society, woman is the slave and tool of man; in the Asiatic age

she is the plaything and ornament with which man amuses himself;

but in Christendom there is a tendency to place woman side by

side with man in everything, and just as far as it has been done

we find the benefit of it. Woman ought to be made the companion

of man in his great work of government. The reason why people

think politics is a low and vulgar pursuit is that woman has

never been in politics. Where man goes alone he is easily

corrupted. Soldiers in the army are degraded, despite the

patriotic nobleness of their motive, by the absence of woman,

and men are degraded at the polls, as well as everywhere else,

through not having women by their side.

I believe in this movement, not only because it is in the

direction of all modern civilization, but because it is in

accordance with the idea of American government, and the policy

of American institutions. A State is saved by being faithful to

its own idea, or lost by faithlessness to that idea. Now the

American idea is faith in the people. We know perfectly well

there are evils connected with republicanism, as there are with

everything; but we have chosen the good of a republic with this

great, broad basis of universal suffrage. People say, "Well, but

there is no natural right to vote." We knew that very well

before, because there is no voting in a state of nature. Voting

is a social contrivance. Because it is not a natural right, is it

any less unjust to deprive a large part of the people of it?

There are no roads in a state of nature. For that reason, shall

we say to a woman, "You shall not walk in the road?" Wherever the

male and female qualities go together, we are better for it, and

therefore it is our business to put them together in the

government. Put away all the absurd restrictions on woman, and

let her do what God intended her to do. Let us trust nature and

God, and give to woman the opportunity to do whatever she is able

to accomplish.

I have another reason for woman suffrage, and that is, that

nothing can be said against it. Our good friend, Dr. Bushnell,

has written a book in which he says that if woman is allowed to

vote she must be allowed to govern; and, being a subject nature,

she can not govern. In other words, as she is a subject nature,

let her stay at home and govern her household all the time!

People say she ought to influence gently and quietly, and not to

govern by force. Now if there is anything which means influence

and not force, except indirectly and secondarily, it is the

ballot-box! We had an administration two years ago which had all

the force of the country at command, and the people went to the

ballot-box and destroyed it so completely that we have almost

forgotten we ever had so bad a Government as that of Andrew

Johnson.

All the strength and bravery and determination of this world are

not so much confined to the male sex as some ornaments of that

sex would have us believe. We want the women--the wives and

sisters and mothers of the land, to help save our men from

political corruption. It is what God has ordained, and the time

is coming when it shall be effected.

Mrs. M. M. COLE read the following letter:

VINELAND, N. J., May 10, 1870.

MY DEAR FRIENDS: I once had a neighbor who was for years

entirely crippled with rheumatism, and she, when asked, "How

are you to-day?" invariably answered, "Better, I thank you,

to-day than I was yesterday. Hope I shall be right smart

to-morrow." So, friends, I could say, unasked, I am better

this year than I was last, and I hope to keep on in this

line until 1876, and be able then to stand with you once

more upon the platform of equal rights, and shout

"Hallelujahs" over the ratification of the Sixteenth

Amendment; over the crowning of my labors of twenty-five

years, during which time I have not failed to ask for the

right of suffrage for all citizens of this Republic, of sane

mind and adult years, without regard to race, color, or sex.

"The good time coming is almost here."

Yours in faith,

FRANCES D. GAGE.

The President read a letter just received from Mr. Tilton:

NEW YORK, May 11, 1870.

_Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, President of the American Woman

Suffrage Association_: Honored Sir: I am commissioned by the

unanimous voice of the Union Woman Suffrage Society, now

assembled in Apollo Hall, to present to yourself, and

through you to the Association over which you are presiding

in Steinway Hall, our friendly salutations, our hearty good

will, and our sincere wishes for mutual co-operation in the

cause of woman's enfranchisement.

Fraternally yours, THEODORE TILTON,

President of the Union Woman Suffrage Society.

At his own desire the President was unanimously requested to make

reply on the behalf of the American Woman Suffrage Association.

Mr. Beecher remarked, "If there are two general associations for

the same purpose, it is because we mean, in this great work, to

do twice as much labor as one society could possibly do."

Rev. OSCAR CLUTE said: Every favored movement of civilization has

been simply a recognition of the rights and privileges that

inhere in humanity. Take for instance the idea of the divine

right of kings--which has been so thoroughly scouted by our

republicanism. The abandonment of that idea upon the part of our

fathers was a great stride in the path of civilization. And at

this time in almost all parts of the world something is being

done toward giving the masses a clearer idea of those rights

which inhere in them.

In our own country, the object of the woman suffrage reformers

is, not to overturn anything already established that is good and

pure and noble, but to extend to women those rights which inhere

in them as human beings. It is not claimed for women that they

shall have any advantage over men, but simply that they shall

have the right to labor and receive their earnings. That they

shall have such facilities of education as men enjoy. Give woman

equal opportunities. Her sphere is, undoubtedly, to engage in

such labor, to get such culture, and do such good work as she

finds ready to her hands, and to help on in the cause of

humanity. The ballot is the key that opens to woman all the

avenues of labor and of culture. If all the avenues of education

and labor were open to women, we should find them growing up with

higher and nobler ambition than the girls of to-day. The laws at

present in force are detrimental to the interests of women not

only in regard to property, but to marriage itself. Some

provision is necessary by which women themselves can bring their

efforts to bear upon these laws, and the ballot is the only

effective measure for the purpose.

Mrs. JULIA WARD HOWE said: My dear friends--Sometimes, when I

begin to speak at conventions for the advocacy of woman suffrage,

I feel self-dismayed in thinking that I ought to educate my

audience all over from beginning to end. But this would require

so much time that no one convention would ever get through with

it; so I content myself with saying, as simply and as strongly as

I can, what happens to be in my mind. That particular thought

which is now uppermost is the great pleasure of our meeting

to-day. We come together here, trusting to see in your kind faces

the reflection of our great hope; and to find in your ears the

echo of that great promise which some of us expected to hear a

long while ago, and which all of us now see growing and

strengthening until its harmony seems to us to fill the world.

We don't come together here to ignore oppositions, but to

reconcile them. Oppositions are divinely appointed. I do believe

that their distance can not be increased with safety to the

economy of the world. But love is the tropical equator. His fiery

currents are able to quicken and vivify the whole globe. They

circulate equally at the arctic and antarctic extremities. The

work that we are doing in common is not unfavorably affected by

oppositions. The poles are God's anointed and stand firm; but

opposition has quickened the currents of love until it has melted

the social ice at the extremities for us, and even the snows

which very prematurely, I do assure you, begin to fall upon the

heads of some of us. I have been speaking and writing on this

subject for a year and a half, and I find the subject always

getting outside of my efforts much more rapidly than my efforts

are able to get outside of it. At every new meeting I find the

speech of the last meeting much too small. Whether the question

grows or the speech shrinks I do not know, but I am inclined to

think the former. I never knew any member of my nursery to

require so much letting out, expanding, as this question. From

all of this I am inclined to think that we have set our hands to

a great work, to a long and hard labor, to a reform of human

society; to a reduplication of human power and well-being.....

MRS. SARA J. LIPPINCOTT, more widely known as "Grace Greenwood,"

stated that she had believed in woman suffrage since she was old

enough to believe in anything that was right and to denounce

anything that was wrong. She was not counted among the

extremists. Indeed, she claimed the right only for three classes

of persons, namely, single women who have property of their own,

married women, and all such other women as may desire it. I am

willing that a property qualification should be exacted. Require,

if you will, that each woman voter shall possess a gold watch,

and keep it wound and up to time--a clothes wringer and a sewing

machine; that she shall be able to concoct a pudding, sew on a

button, and, at a pinch, keep a boarding-house and support a

husband respectably....

The PRESIDENT read the reply which he had prepared to the letter

of Mr. Tilton as follows:

NEW YORK, May 11, 1870.

_To Theodore Tilton, President of the Woman Suffrage Society

Meeting in Apollo Hall_: Dear Sir: Your letter of

congratulation was received with great pleasure by the mass

Convention assembled in Steinway Hall, under the auspices of

the American Woman Suffrage Association, and I am instructed

by their unanimous vote to express their gratification, and

to reciprocate your sentiments of cordial good-will. In this

great work upon which you have entered--the enfranchisement

of woman--we have a common aim and interest, and we shall

rejoice at any success which is achieved by your zeal and

fidelity.

I am, very truly, yours, HENRY WARD BEECHER.

Mrs. MARY F. DAVIS, of New Jersey, read a report from the

executive committee of the New Jersey Woman Suffrage Association.

Col. T. W. HIGGINSON spoke as follows: Mr. President, Ladies and

gentlemen--I was thinking during the brilliant speech of Mrs.

Lippincott, what an awful reflection the existence of that woman

was upon the Government of the country in which we live--that she

should reside in sight of the Capitol of Washington and never get

nearer the interior of that building than the reporter's desk.

Fancy a House of Representatives in which she should have an

opportunity of talking to her fellow-delegates as she has talked

to us this afternoon. Fancy the life, the new interest, the

animation that will come into those desolate debates in Congress

whenever she sets her foot as Senator or Representative within

those halls, and the rest of the women come after her. If she was

there, she might perhaps be met by the old objection, that,

whatever her words may be, she did not have the physical force to

sustain them. The composition of our delegates in both houses of

Congress is not, as a general rule, so formidable as to lead one

to suppose that they were particularly sent there for their

muscle. Bring before you the array of the men whom you send to

represent the nation. See how absurd it is to suppose that they

were chosen for anything but their intellect. Hear this lady

talk, and when you compare what you have heard with the debates

in Congress, it does not seem to me that even intellect was the

main consideration.

I believe that no man ever made use of that hackneyed argument,

that women couldn't vote because they couldn't discharge military

duty, unless there was in that man something that needed the

teaching of womanhood to make him do his military duty, and do it

well. I never heard that argument made that I do not suspect that

there is something amiss in that man's lungs, or his liver, or at

any rate his brain. The military duties of the nation have

nothing to do with the elective franchise. Every soldier who

comes back from military service finds the way to the polls

blocked up by dozens of men who, at the time of the draft,

suddenly developed lamenesses, either of limbs, or of excuses;

men who wanted to see if there wasn't some wound or trouble by

which they could be relieved from the obvious necessity. You

recollect the man that Mr. Clarke spoke to you of this morning,

who, at the sacking of Lawrence, hid himself in the cellar, while

his wife guided with a lantern the border ruffians who were in

search of him. She relied apparently upon the ingenuity of the

husband to hide himself effectively--a reliance in which she was

not disappointed. Not having found him, they decided to set fire

to the house, and then she asked permission to bring out her

household furniture and save it from the flames. To finish up she

dragged out a great roll of carpet. Had anybody sat down on that

roll of carpet they would have heard the ready scream of her

brave but suffering husband. If that man was like multitudes of

men, if he were a man like Horace Greeley in his opinions, the

moment the carpet was unrolled, the carpet knight would step out,

and his first remark to his wife would probably be, "My dear, you

can now return to the kitchen. I will do the voting, because I

have the physical strength to stand by the Government."

Woman, in time of war, has her mission, as man has his. It is

idle to talk about her "sphere"--as her sphere is generally

interpreted. Even in the most disastrous war, the mission of

woman is plainly to be discerned in deeds of self-denial and

self-sacrifice. Women have worked themselves literally to death

through the toils and exposures of war. Of all the semblances of

argument that can be brought against the right of woman to the

suffrage--of all the figments of the brain that men devise, there

is nothing idler than to object to this right on the ground that

suffrage and bearing arms should go together. In times of war the

women of our country did aid and comfort and bless our suffering

armies, and hundreds of returned soldiers owe their restoration

to health and life to the ministering labors and devotedness of

some woman. Such men will not use the argument that woman should

not have the suffrage because she can not bear arms.

The ballot of woman is needed to render our civilization more

complete and harmonious. I knew a lady who rode with the first

party of ladies over the mountains into a mining town of

California. The whole population turned out to see the novel

spectacle. What did they say when the women came among them? Did

they say, "Go away from here; this is no place for women; you

will unsex yourself?" Oh, no! The first sound heard from that

silent and expectant throng of miners was a rough voice calling

out, "Three cheers for the ladies who have come to make us

better!" It is this coming of the new influence--not a purer

influence merely, for doubtless a great part of what is called

the purity of woman is but the purity of ignorance, that rough

contact with the world would seem to endanger--it is not merely

the greater purity, but it is because she is the other part of

the human race; it is because without her we have fathers in the

State, but no mothers; it is because without her in our

legislative halls, we have laws that take from the mother the

right to every child she bears; it is because without her in our

courts, lawyers use foul words that shame the purity of woman.

Until woman takes a place with man in the legislation of the

world, and in the administration of justice, she will suffer, and

man through her will suffer; also, it is not because woman is so

far above man that we claim her rights in this matter. It is

because she is the other half of man and society is imperfect,

and will remain so until she takes her proper place in the labors

of the world. If a pair of scissors be broken in two, and you

have it riveted together, it is not because you concede angelic

superiority to either half, but simply because it takes two

halves to make a whole.

Mrs. CUTLER was the first speaker of the evening session. Ladies

and Gentlemen:--When the cloud of slavery agitation arose--a

cloud at first no bigger than a man's hand, but which at length

became a great tempest, overshadowing all the land, and when the

thunders rolled, and the lightnings flashed, and when we felt

that almost the doom of our nation had come, then we women read,

as one of our number has so grandly expressed it--we read by the

light of a hundred thousand lamps, the judgment of the Almighty

against the institution of slavery. That institution was wrong

because it took away human rights. But what were the rights? The

right to live was not among them--for the slave lived. The right

to bread was not among them--for he was fed and clothed. The

rights that were taken away were the rights inherent in all human

beings to the results of their own labor, to the freedom of the

body and the mind. And when the country once became aroused to

the full significance of this slavery question, the heart of

every mother in the land throbbed in sympathy with the enslaved.

At last War said to us, "These people have not been remembered in

their bonds, and our sons and brothers are now called from us,

and we must offer them upon the altar of sacrifice!" And,

wondering, we read anew the Declaration of Independence, and

swore fealty to its precepts, now to be written with a pen of

iron dipped in the hearts' blood of our sons. It is past, and all

men are free and equal in America.

But there is one thing yet to be done in order that our country

may come fully within the provisions of the well-nigh inspired

expression of our forefathers, "Governments derive their just

powers from the consent of the governed." The women of America

pay taxes for the support of the Government, and their consent

should be had in matters affecting their welfare and their lives.

We have been making our work known for years, but it has been to

no purpose, and we have come to the conclusion that the only way

to remedy the evil is to get the ballot.... There is nothing to

be asked for now but the ballot. I shall never ask for anything

less than that while I live.

Rev. HENRY WARD BEECHER, the President, then addressed the

Convention. Ladies and Gentlemen:--We expect that every great

movement in the community will, from various reasons, meet with

ridicule and depreciation, as well as plain, honest resistance.

Nor are we indisposed to take our share in the merriment that is

made. We are, however, indisposed to have it said that this is a

complaining movement on the part of women. For, although there

may be occasions of single outbursts of this kind, this movement

has no such parentage, and it is progressing under no such

motives. It has long been in the hearts of many that women should

be raised to an equality in civil affairs with men, but that

great discussion which aroused and instructed the conscience of

the nation, and, above all, that issue of war which brought men

down to the very foundations of their belief, has been fruitful

in raising a multitude of questions which are advancing now and

which are to be consummated. Among these is the question, "Are

women equal with men?" You might as well ask, "Are all men equal

to each other?" For you adjudicate no questions in this country

on the ground of superiority or inferiority of classes among men.

It makes no difference, therefore, in regard to this question,

whether women be superior or inferior. The question is simply

this: have they not, before the law, the same rights that men

have, and ought they not to have, in the administration of public

interests, precisely the same power that men have? Now, in

arguing this question--in urging it upon the community, I find a

fear first, lest woman's nature should deteriorate. Kings were

always afraid that if their nobles got power it would make them

dissolute and reckless and grasping, and the nobles were always

afraid of the burgher class, that if they should get political

honor, it would only puff them up and make them unmanageable, and

the burgher class, when they have obtained their political

privileges, were afraid to extend a share in these privileges to

the yeomanry, the peasantry. You never saw one upper class who

held a prerogative that could ever be made to see any reason why

the inferior class should have a share of it. It is the universal

law of the superior class to keep the privileges to themselves,

and the privileges have usually had to be wrested from them.

In the first place, what has been the effect upon woman of

enlarging the sphere of her influence? There can be no question

that from generation to generation since the introduction of

Christianity the sphere of woman has been enlarging. She has been

growing up in the scale of power; has she been going down in the

scale of moral character? You know as well as I do that they are

better, and that, instead of deteriorating their character, it

has improved them and augmented the volume of their being, and

they are women still.

But it is said that "in politics it is different." In what way is

it different? Do you hesitate to say, "Jane, on your way to

school please take these letters and drop them into the

letter-box at the corner," and your daughter does it. There is

much more trouble in doing that than to drop a ballot in the

ballot-box. Nobody thinks anything of it, although there are men

there, too. Is a woman demeaned by dropping her ballot into the

box? Does the act injure her? "Oh, no; it is not the act--it is

the scenes that she would have to meet. Go to the polls, and see

what voting means." Yes; go and see what bachelor voting means.

It is exactly the thing that we want to improve. Did you ever see

a crowd of men, the rudest in the world, who, when a lady walked

among them, did not open spontaneously and let her pass through

as if she was an angel? It is asked sometimes, "Would you like to

have your wife or daughter go to the polls and vote?" Yes--on my

arm; yes. I venture to say that there is not a precinct in the

city where well-bred ladies will not only be allowed to vote

themselves, but would carry peace in the exercise of the right to

others. "Would you have a woman participate in the scenes

preliminary to an election?" I will tell you that the moment that

women begin to vote there will be no scenes "preliminary" in

which women may not appear. It is this very jointure of the

family influence that we look to as a part of the influence that

should bring reformation into our politics; for if our politics

are to be masculine forever I despair of the republic. No!

whatever thing on God's earth a woman's conscience tells her to

do, she can do it, though she stood in the gates of hell, and be

every particle a woman just as much. Is there anything in this

world that has so great a reputation for lawlessness as a camp?

And yet, when our armies went into this conflict, how many

hundreds of women went, not as companions, but to minister to the

boys. They went down into the camps, and through the whole war

consorted with the rudest of men, and not one single syllable did

they ever hear from the lips of those men that a pure ear should

not hear. They ate the soldiers' fare--they performed the most

menial services; but it was love that inspired and sustained them

in their toils. And will any man say that after these four years

had passed, and these ministers of mercy came back again, that

because they had been mixed up with this rabble crew, they were

the less women? Were they not the more women? These are sisters

of charity--these are heroines without a record in any human

literature. Have they been injured by mixing with the rude

affairs of war in camps and among soldiers? When women take upon

themselves such necessary duties they take vulgarity from

vulgarity, and coarseness becomes refined, for it is the heart of

woman that brings life among men, and restores Paradise.

But it is said that it would do women no good to have the vote,

because they would vote as their husbands would. Well, I am very

glad to hear that you are all so happily mated. I have a pretty

large flock, and my observation has been that there was not such

perfect unanimity. The tidings brought to me are that there are

women who have minds of their own, and I don't think a woman

would make up her mind to vote with her husband unless she

conscientiously believed that he voted the right way. It is said

again that it would introduce division into the family, and that

a division about politics is the most bitter thing in the world.

No; there is one thing in which a difference is more bitter than

politics. What? Religion. There is no such diverging influence in

this world as a difference in religion. Yet when I look into

these matters I find that families all through the community are

divided on the subject of religion. I have known scores and

scores of families in which there were Baptists and persons of

other denominations, and they found no trouble in getting along.

You will always find where husband and wife can not agree, they

will peaceably differ. There is no danger of their ever

disturbing the family relations by that.

We are still holding, it seems, the old barbaric notion of the

inferiority of woman. Every higher class preaches, preaches,

preaches--about the inferiority of everything and everybody below

it. All the world believes that the nation in which the man is

born is the highest nation in the world. Why, we believe that we

Americans are the biggest people in the world, the Englishman

believes the English people to be the highest in the world. There

is not the least doubt in the mind of a Frenchman that he was God

Almighty's first favorite, and so on, nation by nation. So it is

with classes. So, also, it seems to be with man. All the men in

the world join hands together and agree that whatever may be the

classification as between man and man, all men are infinitely

superior to woman. Now I hold that in some things woman is

inferior to man, and in some things greatly superior to man, and

that in the general average she is fully his equal. A woman is

God's chief engineer in the home. She ought to have a clear eye

and a deep heart and a wide understanding. You can't make a woman

too broad, too strong, too high, too deep in all generous

enthusiasm for the purposes of the family, for it takes strong

women to bring up strong men and strong women. In regard to this

matter I wonder that people should attempt to separate so much by

guess. Hear people say, "What will be the effect?" As if this

thing was not already demonstrated--as if history was not already

a picture of what the result will be. Will you be good enough to

tell me which woman you think to-day is the superior? There is

the problem: the Asiatic woman is the woman we hear tell about;

just look at her--a do-nothing, a know-nothing woman! The

European woman is the woman that has been cultured. Which is the

superior to-day? which commands most respect?

Delicacy in woman is sentiment, not appearance, not enamel, not

languishing airs. But it is asked, why make this disturbance? Why

not let a woman, if it is desired that she should be a student,

inquire of her husband? Suppose she hasn't got one. Young

gentlemen that are so fond of talking about the matter say, let

the women stay at home and take care of their families. Let me

ask you if you will agree to give every woman a family that

hasn't got one? If you will not, then hold your tongue. But even

taking the question in the way they put it, how would these young

men like their fathers to say, "Tom, Bill, you are both

Republicans. You have gone away from my notions; I am a good,

stanch, old-fashioned Democrat; and my advice to you, boys, is

that you stay at home and read, and think these matters over, and

I will go and vote for you,"--how would the boys like that?

Everybody is willing to be above everybody else, and this thing

of one man assuming that he is the superior of another, and

asking that other to knuckle down to him, is not popular. You

don't like it. And women don't like it any better than you

do--and they ought not to like it, either. Women can have all the

benefit of holding an opinion, but they shall not have the power

of expressing it. They go through all the labor and trouble of

loading, but can't fire off. Now, I affirm, that it is wrong to

give women the responsibilities of public life without giving

them the safety of public life, too.

But what practical use will the ballot be to women? Tell me what

practical use the ballot will be to men; then I will tell you of

what use it will be to women. A man that denies the right of

woman to the ballot must deny it to any body and all bodies. I

affirm another thing. I affirm that the ballot is a natural

right. To say that voting is an artificial thing is merely an

evasion. If there is any such thing as natural rights in the

world, it is the right of every person to have a voice in the

government that he shall live under, and in the electing of the

magistrate who shall make the laws by which he is to be governed.

But they say women don't want to vote. Well, I didn't want to

learn my letters, but I had to, and, on the whole, I am not sorry

for it. If men say women don't want the ballot, my reply is, they

need it, at any rate. In behalf of the poor and needy, I plead

for suffrage. They are the persons who are in just that place

where the hail of misfortune plays pitilessly upon them. I plead

for suffrage for women, not because the rich and refined need

it--they have already more than their heart could wish--but for

the great sisterhood of common women.

But, it is said, is it not subverting the order of the Bible; is

it not subverting those sound Christian maxims in respect to the

subordination of woman to man? Well, if you think it is, let the

husband vote first and the wife vote after; that settles that

point. I have looked through the Ten Commandments, and although I

find a great many things that you shall not do, I don't find

anywhere it says that you shall not vote; and I don't think that

there is a place in the Bible where it says that a woman shall

not vote; nor, since it pleased God to make thousands and

thousands of women that are superior to men, I don't believe that

he ever wrote a line to say that a woman who was superior should

be inferior. My friends, the true rendering of Scripture is this:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul,

and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself. In the kingdom of love

there is neither high nor low. Love knows no distinctions. It is

all equal in the kingdom of God; and wherever the human family

are supremely possessed by that one supreme, beneficent feeling

of love, there never can arise these disturbing elements.

* * * * *

Mrs. LIVERMORE said: _Ladies and Gentlemen_--Mr. Beecher very

pertinently said that women are allowed to _know_, but not to

_say_; they may make all the preparations necessary to

intelligent voting, but that they shall not vote. That is exactly

what is doing a vast deal of mischief the world over. If they are

not allowed to vote, and express their opinions upon the laws by

which they are to be governed, and if they are not to have opened

to them all proper fields of labor, they will turn their

attention to dressmaking, and to millinery, and to all the other

hot-beds of our fast modern life. It is doing great harm; and

that is one reason I earnestly plead in their behalf for the

ballot. Men say women shall not have the ballot. They must

petition and beg for it. Have not petitions been already made?

Have not 200,000 names been sent in to Congress already? Then

they say you must "organize;" and when that is done, and they

find the country rocked as by a traveling volcano, they then

say, "All women do not want to vote; all the women in the country

should ask for it, and beg for it, and petition for it."

Let me relate an incident that occurred in Boston at the office

of Chief Justice Chapman, four or five weeks ago. A man, a

guardian, came there with a writ of _habeas corpus_, which placed

in his charge two children in no wise related to him, and he

asked that he might have the control of the children, in

opposition to the claim of their mother, who desired to keep

them. The facts were briefly these: the woman had been happily

married; her husband died and left her a widow with two young

children. By the laws of the State of Massachusetts at that time,

she was not allowed to be their guardian, nor the guardian of any

body else's children. So the Judge of Probate appointed a

guardian for the children, who magnanimously allowed them to

remain in their mother's care. After two or three years she

committed the unpardonable crime of marrying again, a thing that

no man was ever guilty of. The marriage was perfectly acceptable

to her former husband's relatives, but the guardian was so

displeased with it, that he got out a writ of _habeas corpus_,

and demanded of Chief Justice Chapman that the children be

remanded to his custody. We are apt to boast of Massachusetts and

its laws, but here was a case in which the Chief Justice, after

hearing the case, actually remanded these children to the

possession of that man. The court-room was crowded; the

excitement was intense; the poor mother sank down in a deadly

faint. I say such laws are an outrage upon womanhood, and they

arise simply and solely from a deep contempt for womanhood. This

contempt is palpable throughout all the entire code of laws.

Another argument that is frequently made against the extension of

the suffrage to woman is this: "If women go to the polls it is

going to take them away from their homes and families." These

arguments are urged with as much pertinacity as if the polls were

open three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, and

twenty-four hours each day, and that all that people did was to

lie around the polls and vote, and vote, and vote, and vote.

Another statement is, that it is because women have been kept out

of politics that they are pure and good. Well, now, it is a poor

rule that won't work both ways, and if disfranchisement has made

such angels of women, suppose you try it a little on men. I have

a firm belief that the men need, infinitely more than the women

do, the influence that woman will bring with her to the ballot;

not because woman is better, but because she is the other half of

humanity. It reminds me of the account of the battle of

Gettysburg, given by a colonel of a Western regiment. His

regiment was placed among the reserves, on an eminence, where

they could see the battle as it went on. "There we stood," said

the colonel; "our brave men trying to serve their country; able

to do it, and anxious to do it. Yet we were kept the whole of the

first day watching the fight go on. On the second day another

regiment, which had been much associated with ours, was called

into action. We saw them marching, their guns aslant, as if there

was no battle being carried on, or deeds of death and

destruction--and all the while, as they marched, the grape, and

the canister, and the shot, and the shell, tore their ranks

terribly; and men fell dead in all directions; and still those

who yet remained carried their guns in the same position, and

kept time, and closed up, and closed up, until my agitation

became so unendurable that I forgot all else, and cried out,

'Oh, God! why don't they call the reserves into action? We could

help them.'"