able correspondent of the _Springfield Republican_), who with her
daughter made the arrangements for our reception, gave the
address of welcome, to which the president, Mrs. Stanton,
replied. Rev. Frederic Hinckley of Providence, spoke on "Unity of
Principle in Variety of Method," and showed that while differing
on minor points the various woman suffrage associations were all
working to one grand end. Anna Garlin Spencer made a few remarks
on "The Character of Reformers." Rev. Olympia Brown gave an
exceptionally brilliant speech a full hour in length on
"Universal Suffrage"; Harriette Robinson Shattuck's theme was
"Believing and Doing"; Lillie Devereux Blake's, "Demand for
Liberty"; Matilda Joslyn Gage's, "Centralization"; Belva A.
Lockwood's, "Woman and the Law". Mary F. Eastman followed showing
that woman's path was blocked at every turn, in the professions
as well as the trades and the whole world of work; Isabella
Beecher Hooker gave an able argument on the "Constitutional Right
of Women to Vote"; Martha McLellan Brown spoke equally well on
the "Ethics of Sex"; Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether of
Tennessee, gave a most amusing commentary on the spirit of the
old common law, cuffing Blackstone and Coke with merciless
sarcasm. Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon of Louisiana spoke with great
effect on "Woman's Intellectual Powers as Developed by the
Ballot." These two Southern ladies are alike able, witty and
pathetic in their appeals for justice to woman. Mrs. May Wright
Sewall's essay on "Domestic Legislation," showing how large a
share of the bills passed every year directly effect home life,
was very suggestive to those who in answer to our demand for
political power, say "Woman's sphere is home," as if the home
were beyond the control and influence of the State. Beside all
these thoroughly prepared addresses, Susan B Anthony, Dr.
Clemence Lozier, Dr. Caroline Winslow, ex-Secretary Lee of
Wyoming, spoke briefly on various points suggested by the several
speakers.
The white-haired and venerable philosopher, A. Bronson Alcott,
was very cordially received, after being presented in
complimentary terms by the president. Mr. Alcott paid a glowing
tribute to the intellectual worth of woman, spoke of the divinity
of her character, and termed her the inspiration font from which
his own philosophical ideas had been drawn. Not until the women
of our nation have been granted every privilege would the liberty
of our republic be assured.[79] The well-known Francis W. Bird
of Walpole, who has long wielded in the politics of the Bay
State, the same power Thurlow Weed did for forty years in New
York, being invited to the platform, expressed his entire
sympathy with the demand for suffrage, notwithstanding the common
opinion held by the leading men of Massachusetts, that the women
themselves did not ask it. He recommended State rather than
national action.
Rev. Ada C. Bowles of Cambridge, and Rev. Olympia Brown, of
Racine, Wis., opened the various sessions with prayer--striking
evidence of the growing self-assertion of the sex, and the rapid
progress of events towards the full recognition of the fact that
woman's hour has come. Touching deeper and tenderer chords in the
human soul than words could reach, the inspiring strains of the
celebrated organist, Mr. Ryder, rose ever and anon, now soft and
plaintive, now full and commanding, mingled in stirring harmony
with prayer and speech. And as loving friends had covered the
platform with rare and fragrant flowers, the aesthetic taste of
the most fastidious artist might have found abundant
gratification in the grouping and whole effect of the assemblage
in that grand temple. Thus through six prolonged sessions the
interest was not only kept up but intensified from day to day.
The National Association was received right royally in Boston. On
arriving they found invitations waiting to visit Governor Long at
the State House, Mayor Prince at the City Hall, the great
establishment of Jordan, Marsh & Co., and the Reformatory Prison
for Women at Sherborn. Invitations to take part were extended to
woman suffrage speakers in many of the conventions of that
anniversary week. Among those who spoke from other platforms,
were Matilda Joslyn Gage, Ellen H. Sheldon, Caroline B. Winslow,
M. D., editor of _The Alpha_, and Rev. Olympia Brown. The
president of the association, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
received many invitations to speak at various points, but had
time only for the "Moral Education," "Heredity," and "Free
Religious" associations. Her engagement at Parker Memorial Hall,
prevented her from accepting the governor's invitation, but
Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B Anthony led the way to the
State house and introduced the delegates from the East, the West,
the North and the South, to the honored executive head of the
State, who had declared himself, publicly, in favor of woman
suffrage. The ceremony of hand-shaking over, and some hundred
women being ranged in a double circle about the desk, Mrs. Hooker
stepped forward, saying:
Speak a word to us, Governor Long, we need help. Stand here,
please, face to face with these earnest women and tell us
where help is to come from.
The Governor responded, and then introduced his secretary, who
conducted the ladies through the building.
Mrs. HOOKER said: Permit me, sir, to thank you for this
unlooked-for and unusual courtesy in the name of our
president who should be here to speak for herself and for
us, and in the name of these loyal women who ask only that
the right of the _people_ to govern themselves shall be
maintained. In this great courtesy extended us by good old
Massachusetts as citizens of this republic unitedly
protesting against being taxed without representation, and
governed without our consent, we see the beginning of the
end--the end of our wearisome warfare--a warfare which
though bloodless, has cost more than blood, by as much as
soul-suffering exceeds that of mere flesh. I see as did
Stephen of old, a celestial form close to that of the Son of
Man, and her name is Liberty--always a woman--and she bids
us go on--go on--even unto the end.
Miss Anthony standing close to the governor, said in low,
pathetic tones:
Yes, we are tired. Sir, we are weary with our work. For
forty years some of us have carried this burden, and now, if
we might lay it down at the feet of honorable men, such as
you, how happy we should be.
The next day Mayor Prince, though suffering from a late severe
attack of rheumatism, cordially welcomed the delegates in his
room at the City Hall, and chatting familiarly with those who had
been at the Cincinnati convention and witnessed his great
courtesy, some one remarked that from that time Miss Anthony had
proclaimed him the prince among men, and Mrs. Stanton immediately
suggested that if the party with which he was identified were
wise in their day and generation they would accept his
leadership, even to the acknowledgement of the full citizenship
of this republic, and thus secure not only their gratitude but
their enthusiastic support in the next presidential election.
Having compassion upon his Honor because of his manifest physical
disability, the ladies soon withdrew and went directly to the
house of Jordan, Marsh & Co., where were assembled in a large
hall at the top of the building such a crowd of handsome, happy,
young girls as one seldom sees in this work-a-day world; that
well-known Boston firm within the last six months having fitted
up a large recreation room for the use of their employes at the
noon hour. Half a hundred girls were merrily dancing to the music
of a piano, but ceased in order to listen to words of cheer from
Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs. Hooker and Mrs. Sewall. At the close of their
remarks Mr. Jordan brought forward a reluctant young girl who
could give us, if she would, a charming recitation from "That
Lass o' Lowrie's," in return for our kindness in coming to them.
And after saying in a whisper to one who kindly urged compliance
to this unexpected call, that this had been such a busy day she
feared her dress was not all right, her face became unconscious
of self in a moment, and with true dramatic instinct, she gave
page after page of that wonderful story of the descent into the
mine and the recognition there of one whom she loved, precisely
as you would desire to hear it were the scene put upon the stage
with all the accessories of scenery and companion actors.
From Jordan, Marsh & Co.'s a large delegation proceeded to visit
the Reformatory Prison at Sherborn which was established three or
four years ago. The board of directors, consisting of three women
and two men, has charge of all the prisons of the State. Mrs.
Johnson, one of the directors, a noble, benevolent woman,
interested in the great charities of Boston, was designated by
Governor Long--through whose desire the Association visited the
prison--to do the honors and accompany the party from Boston. The
officers, matron and physician of the Sherborn prison, are all
women. Dr. Mosher, the superintendent, formerly the physician, is
a fair, noble-looking woman about thirty-five years of age. She
has her own separate house connected with the building. The
present physician, a delicate, cultured woman, with sympathy for
her suffering charges, is a recent graduate of Ann Arbor.
The entire work is done by the women sent there for restraint,
and the prison is nearly self-supporting; it is expected that
within another year it will be entirely so. Laundry work is done
for the city of Boston, shirts are manufactured, mittens knit,
etc. The manufacturing machinery will be increased the coming
year. The graded system of reward has been found successful in
the development of better traits. It has four divisions, and
through it the inmates are enabled to work up by good behavior
toward more pleasant surroundings, better clothes and food and
greater liberty. From the last grade they reach the freedom of
being bound out; of seventy-eight thus bound during the past year
but seven were returned. The whole prison, chapel, school-room,
dining-room, etc., possesses a sweet, clean, pure atmosphere. The
rooms are light, well-ventilated, vines trailing in the windows
from which glimpses of green trees and blue sky can be seen.
Added to all the other courtesies, there came the invitation to a
few of the representatives of the movement to dine with the Bird
Club at the Parker House, in the same cozy room where these
astute politicians have held their councils for so many years,
and whose walls have echoed to the brave words of many of New
England's greatest sons. The only woman who had ever been thus
honored before was Mrs. Stanton, who, "escorted by Warrington,"
dined with these honorable gentlemen in 1871. On this occasion
Susan B. Anthony and Harriet H. Robinson accompanied her. Around
the table sat several well-known reformers and distinguished
members of the press and bar. There was Elizur Wright whose name
is a household word in many homes as translator of La Fontaine's
fables for the children. Beside him sat the well-known Parker
Pillsbury and his nephew, a promising young lawyer in Boston. At
one end of the table sat Mr. Bird with Mrs. Stanton on his right
and Miss Anthony on his left. At the other end sat Frank Sanborn
with Mrs. Robinson (wife of "Warrington") on his right. On either
side sat Judge Adam Thayer of Worcester, Charles Field, Williard
Phillips of Salem, Colonel Henry Walker of Boston, Mr. Ernst of
the Boston _Advertiser_, and Judge Henry Fox of Taunton. The
condition of Russia and the Conkling imbroglio in New York; the
new version of the Testament and the reason why German Liberals,
transplanted to this soil, immediately become conservative and
exclusive, were all considered. Carl Schurz, with his narrow
ideas of woman's sphere and education, was mentioned by way of
example. In reply to the question how the Suffrage Association
felt in regard to Conkling's reelection. Mrs. Robinson said:
That the leaders, who are students of politics were unitedly
against him. Their only hope is in the destruction of the
Republican party, which is too old and corrupt to take up
any new reform.
Frank Sanborn, fresh from the perusal of the New Testament, asked
if women could find any special consolation in the Revised
Version regarding everlasting punishment. Mrs. Stanton replied:
Certainly, as we are supposed to have brought "original sin"
into the world with its fearful forebodings of eternal
punishment, any modification of Hades in fact or name, for
the _men_ of the race, the innocent victims of our
disobedience, fills us with satisfaction.
From the club the ladies hastened to the beautiful residence of
Mrs. Fenno Tudor, fronting Boston Common, where hundreds of
friends had already gathered to do honor to the noble woman so
ready to identify herself with the unpopular reforms of her day.
Among the many beautiful works of art, a chief attraction was the
picture of the grand-mother of Parnell, the Irish agitator, by
Gilbert Stuart. The house was fragrant with flowers, and the
unassuming manners of Mrs. Tudor, as she moved about among her
guests, reflected the glory of our American institutions in
giving the world a generation of common-sense women who do not
plume themselves on any adventitous circumstances of wealth or
position, but bow in respect to morality and intelligence
wherever they find it. At the close of the evening Mrs. Stanton
presented Mrs. Tudor with the "History of Woman Suffrage" which
she received with evident pleasure and returned her sincere
thanks.
At the close of the anniversary week in Boston, successful meetings
were held in various cities,[80] beginning at Providence, where Dr.
Wm. F. Channing made the arrangements. These conventions were the
first that the National Association ever held in the New England
States, presenting the national plan of woman's enfranchisement
through a sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
FOOTNOTES:
[53] "True labor reform: the ballot for woman, the unpaid laborer
of the whole earth."
"Man's work is from sun to sun,
But woman's work is never done."
"Taxation without representation is tyranny. Woman is taxed to
support pauperism and crime, and is compelled to feed and clothe
the law-makers who oppress her."
"Women are voting on education, the bulwark of the republic, in
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts."
"Women are voting on all questions in Wyoming and Utah. The vote of
women transformed Wyoming from barbarism to civilization."
"The financial problem for woman: equal pay for equal work, and one
hundred cents on the dollar."
"When a woman _Will_, she WILL, and you may depend on it, she WILL
vote."
[54] _California_, Jane B. Archibald; _Connecticut_, Julia E. Smith
(Parker), E. C. Champion; _Delaware_, Mary A. Stuart; _District of
Columbia_, Sara Andrews Spencer, Jane H. Spofford, Ellen H.
Sheldon, Sara J. Messer, Amanda M. Best, Belva A. Lockwood, Mary A.
S. Carey, Rosina M. Parnell, Mary L. Wooster, Helen Rand Tindall,
Lura McNall Orme; _Illinois_, Miss Jessie Waite, daughter of
Caroline V. and Judge Waite; _Indiana_, Zerelda G. Wallace, Emma
Mont McRae; Flora M. Hardin; _Iowa_, Nancy R. Allen; _Kansas_,
Della Ross; _Louisiana_, Elizabeth L. Saxon, _Maine_, Sophronia C.
Snow; _Maryland_, Lavinia Dundore; _Michigan_, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins; _Missouri_, Phoebe W. Couzins; _New Hampshire_, Marilla
M. Ricker; _New Jersey_, Lucinda B. Chandler; _New York_, Susan B.
Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Lillie Devereux Blake, Dr. A.
W. Lozier, Jennie de M. Lozier, M. D., Helen M. Slocum;
_Pennsylvania_, Rachel G. Foster, Julia T. Foster; _South
Carolina_, Mary R. Pell.
[55] Signed by Matilda Joslyn Gage, _Chairman Executive Committee_:
Susan B. Anthony, _Vice-president-at-large_; Sara Andrews Spencer,
_Corresponding Secretary_: Jane H. Spofford, _Treasurer_.
[56] This week has been devoted almost exclusively to the women,
who as temperance leaders, female suffragists and general
reformers, have become a power in the land which can no longer be
ridiculed or ignored. Yesterday Lincoln Hall was packed to its
utmost capacity with such an audience as no other entertainment or
amusement has ever before gathered in this city. Women of
refinement and cultivation, of thought and purpose, women of
standing and position in society, mothers of families, wives of
clergymen, were there by the hundreds, to listen to the words of
wisdom and eloquence that fell from the lips of that assembly, the
most carefully organized, thoroughly governed, harmoniously acting
association in this great country. Members of congress, professors
of colleges, judges and gentlemen of leisure, sat or stood in
admiration of the progress of the women, who are so earnestly
striving to regenerate our beloved republic, over which the shadow
of anarchy and dissolution is hovering with outspread wings. These
women are no longer trembling suppliants, feeling their way
cautiously and feebly amid an overpowering mass of obstructions;
they are now strong in their might, in their unity, and in the
righteousness of their cause. Men will do wisely if they attract
this power instead of repelling it; if they permit women to work in
concert with them, instead of compelling them to be arrayed against
them. The fate of Governor Robinson and Senator Ecelstine of New
York, indicates what they can do, and what they will do, if obliged
to assume the attitude of aggressors. Congress has heard no such
eloquence upon its floors this week as we have listened to from the
lips of these noble women.--[Washington correspondent of the
Portland (Me.) _Transcript_, Jan. 23, 1880.
These conventions occur yearly and although the ladies have fought
long and hard, and seem to have not yet reached a positive
assurance of success, still they continue to force the fight with
greater earnestness and redoubled energy, and their meetings are
conducted with much wisdom and decided spirit. There is one thing
to the credit of these ladies which cannot be said of the opposite
sex, and that is, their conventions are models of good order and
parliamentary eloquence, and they put their work through in a
graceful, business-like manner.--[Washington _Critic_, Jan. 21,
1880.
The announcement that the public session of the National Woman
Suffrage Convention would begin at one o'clock yesterday afternoon
at Lincoln Hall sufficed to attract a most brilliant audience,
composed principally of ladies, occupying every seat and thronging
the aisles. The inconvenience of remaining standing was patiently
endured by hundreds who seemed loth to leave while the convention
was in progress.--[Washington _National Republican_, Jan. 22, 1880.
The session of the Woman Suffrage Convention in Washington this
week has developed the fact that these strong-minded women are
making progress. The convention itself was composed of women of
marked ability, and its proceedings were marked by dignity and
decorum. The very best citizens of the city attended the
meetings.--[Washington correspondent Syracuse _Daily Standard_.
[57] Letters were read from Mary Powers Filley, N. H.; Martha G.
Tunstall, Texas; M. A. Darling, Mich.; May Wright Thompson, Ind.;
Sarah Burger Stearns, Minn.; Miss Martin, Ill.; W. G. Myers, O.;
Annie L. Quinby, Ky.; Zina Young Williams, Utah; Barbara J.
Thompson, Neb.; Mira L. Sturgis, Me.; Orra Langhorne, Va.; Emily P.
Collins, La.; Charles P. Wellman, esq., Ga.
[58] Judge Edmunds meeting Miss Anthony afterwards, complimented
her on having made an argument instead of what is usually given
before committees, platform oratory. He said her logic was sound,
her points unanswerable. Nor were the delegates familiar with that
line of argument less impressed by it, given as it was without
notes and amid many interruptions. It was one of those occasions
rarely reached, in which the speaker showed the full height to
which she was capable of rising. We have not space for the whole
argument, and the train of reasoning is too close to be
broken.--[M. J. G.
[59] Speeches were also made by Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Spencer and Miss
Anthony.
[60] _Alabama_, Mrs. P. Holmes Drake, Huntsville. _Connecticut_,
Elizabeth C. Champion, Bridgeport. _District of Columbia_, Belva A.
Lockwood, Eveleen L. Mason, Jerusha G. Joy, Ellen H. Sheldon, Sara
Andrews Spencer, Jane H. Spofford. _Illinois_, Elizabeth Boynton
Harbert, vice-president of the National Association and editor of
the "Woman's Kingdom" in the _Chicago Inter-Ocean_, Evanston;
Dr. Ann M. Porter, Danville. _Indiana_, Mary E. Haggart,
vice-president; Martha Grimes, Zerelda G. Wallace, May Wright
Thompson, A. P. Stanton, Indianapolis; Salome McCain, Frances
Joslin, Crawfordsville; Mrs. Helen M. Gougar, editor of the
"Bric-a-brac department" of the _Lafayette Courier_, Lafayette;
Thomas Atkinson, Oxford; Mrs. Dr. Rogers, Greencastle; Florence M.
Hardin, Pendelton. _Iowa_, Mrs. J. C. M'Kinney, Mrs. Weiser,
Decorah. _Kentucky_, Mary B. Clay, Richmond; Mrs. Carr, Mrs. E. T.
Housh, Louisville. _Louisiana_, Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans,
_Maryland_; Mary A. Butler, Baltimore. _Michigan_, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins, Detroit. _Missouri_, Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, Mrs. Eliza
J. Patrick, Mrs. Annie T. Anderson, Mrs. Caroline Johnson Todd,
Mrs. Endie J. Polk, Miss Phoebe Couzins, Miss M. A. Baumgarten,
Miss Emma Neave, Miss Eliza B. Buckley, St. Louis; Mrs. Frances
Montgomery, Oregon. _New Hampshire_, Parker Pillsbury, Concord.
_New Jersey_, Lucinda B. Chandler. _New York_, Mrs. Blake, Mrs.
Gage, Miss Anthony. _Ohio_, Mrs. Amanda B. Merrian, Mrs. Cordelia
A. Plimpton, Cincinnati; Sophia L. O. Allen, Eva L. Pinney, South
Newberry; Mrs. N. L. Braffet, New Paris. _Pennsylvania_, Rachel
Foster, Julia T. Foster, Philadelphia. _South Carolina_, Mary R.
Pell, Cowden P. O.
[61] _Colorado_, Florence M. Haynes, Greely. _Connecticut_,
Elizabeth C. Champion, Bridgeport. _District of Columbia_; Belva A.
Lockwood, Sara Andrews Spencer, Jane H. Spofford, Ellen H. Sheldon,
Eveleen L. Mason, Jersuha G. Joy, Helen Rand Tindall, Amanda M.
Best, Washington. _Illinois_, Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Sarah
Hackett Stephenson, Kate Newell Doggett, Catherine V. Waite,
Elizabeth J. Loomis, Alma Van Winkle, Chicago; Dr. Ann Porter,
Danville; Mrs. F. Lillebridge, Rockford; Ann L. Barnett, Lockport;
Mrs. F. A. Ross, Mrs. I. R. Lewison, Mansfield; Amanda Smith,
Prophetstown. _Indiana_, Helen M. Gougar, Lafayette; Dr. Rachel B.
Swain, Gertrude Garrison, Indianapolis. _Iowa_, Nancy R. Allen,
Maquoketa; Jane C. M'Kinney, Mrs. Weiser, Decorah; Virginia
Cornish, Hamburg; Ellen J. Foster, Clinton; Clara F. Harkness,
Humboldt. _Kansas_, Amanda B. Way, Elizabeth M'Kinney, Kenneth.
_Kentucky_, Mary B. Clay, Sallie Clay Bennett, Richmond.
_Louisiana_, Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans. _Maryland_, Mary A.
Butler, Baltimore. _Massachusetts_, Addie N. Ayres, Boston.
_Minnesota_, A. H. Street, Albert Lee. _Michigan_, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins, Detroit; Eliza Burt Gamble, Miss Mattie Smedly, East
Saginaw; P. Engle Travis, Hartford; Dr. Elizabeth Miller, South
Frankford. _Missouri_, Virginia L. Minor, Phoebe W. Couzins, Annie
T. Anderson, Caroline J. Todd, St. Louis; Dr. Augusta Smith,
Springfield. _New Hampshire_, Parker Pillsbury, Concord.
_Nebraska_, Harriet S. Brooks, Omaha; Dr. Amy R. Post, Hastings.
_New Jersey_, Margaret H. Ravenhill. _New York_, Susan B. Anthony,
Rochester; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville; Lillie Devereux
Blake, New York city. _Ohio_, Eva L. Pinney, South Newbury; Julia
B. Cole. _Oregon_, Mrs. A. J. Duniway (as substitute), Portland.
_Pennsylvania_, Rachel Foster, Julia T. Foster, Lucinda B.
Chandler, Philadelphia; Cornelia H. Scarborough, New Hope. _South
Carolina_, Mary R. Pell, Cowden P. O. _Tennessee_, Elizabeth Avery
Meriwether, Memphis. _Wisconsin_, Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine;
Almedia B. Gray, Schofield Mills. _Wyoming Territory_, Amelia B.
Post.
[62] HISTORICAL SOCIETY ROOMS, 140-42 DEARBORN AVE.,
CHICAGO, May 19, 1880.
_Mrs. E. C. Stanton, President National Woman Suffrage Association,
476 West Lake street:_
_Dear Madam:_ I write you in behalf of the Chicago Historical
Society, and with the hope that you will obligingly secure for and
present to this society a full manuscript record of the
_mass-meeting_ to be held in Farwell Hall in this city, June 2,
1880, duly signed by its officers. We hope too you will do the
society the great favor to deposit in its archives all the letters
and postals which you may receive in response to your invitations
to attend that meeting.
This meeting may be an important one and long to be remembered. It
is hard to measure the possibilities of 1880. I hope this meeting
will mark an epoch in American history equal to the convention held
in Independence Hall in 1776. How valuable would be the attested
manuscript record of that convention and the correspondence
connected therewith! The records of the Farwell-hall meeting may be
equally valuable one hundred years hence. Please let the records be
kept in the city in which the convention or mass-meeting is held.
I am a Republican. I hope the party to which I belong will be
consistent. On the highest stripe of its banner is inscribed
"Freedom and Equal Rights." I hope the party will not be so
inconsistent as to refuse to the "better half" of the people of the
United States the rights enjoyed by the liberated slaves at the
South.
The leaders should not be content _to suffer it to be so_, but
should work with a will to make it so. I have but little confidence
in the sincerity of the man who will shout himself hoarse about
"shot guns" and "intimidation" at the South, when ridicule and
sneers come from his "shot gun" pointed at those who advocate the
doctrine that our mothers, wives and sisters are as well qualified
to vote and hold official position as the average Senegambian of
Mississippi.
We should be glad to have you and your friends call at these rooms,
which are open and free for all.
Very Respectfully, A. D. HAGER, _Librarian_.
[63] By Mrs. Saxon of New Orleans, La.; Mrs. Meriwether of Memphis,
Mrs. Sallie Clay Bennett, daughter of Cassius M. Clay of Richmond
Ky.; and others. Mrs. Bennett related a little home incident. She
said: A few days ago she was in her front yard planting with her
own hands some roses, when "our ex-governor," passing by,
exclaimed: "Mrs. Bennett, I admire that in you; whatever one wants
well done he must do himself." She immediately answered: "That is
true Governor, and that is why we women suffragists have determined
to do our own voting hereafter." She then informed him that she
wanted to speak to him on that great question. He was rather
anxious to avoid the argument, and expressed his surprise and "was
sorry to see a woman like her, surrounded by so many blessings,
with a kind husband, numerous friends and loving children,
advocating woman suffrage! She ought to be contented with these.
She was not like Miss Anthony--" "Stop, Governor," I exclaimed,
"Don't think of comparing me to that lady, for I feel that I am not
worthy to touch the hem of her garments." She was, she said, indeed
the mother of five dear children, but she [Miss Anthony] is the
mother of a nation of women. She thought the women feared God
rather than man, and it was only this which encouraged them to
speak on this subject, so dear to their hearts, in public. One lady
gave as a reason why she wanted to vote, that it was because "the
men did not want them to," which evoked considerable merriment.
This induced the chair to remind the audience of Napoleon's rule:
"Go, see what your enemy does not want you to do and do it." Of the
audience the _Inter-Ocean_ said: "The speakers of all the sessions
were listened to with rapt attention by the audience, and the
points made were heartily applauded. It would be difficult to
gather so large an audience of our sex whose appearance would be
more suggestive of refinement and intelligence."
[64] Miss Anthony, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Spencer and Mrs.
Haggart.
[65] Twenty delegates from eleven different States, who had been in
attendance at Chicago, went to Cincinnati.
[66] Before which Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Meriwether, Miss Anthony, Mrs.
Spencer and Mrs. Blake spoke.
[67] Miss Anthony, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Meriwether, Mrs.
Saxon, Miss. Couzins, Rev. Olympia Brown, Misses Rachel and Julia
Foster.
[68] This was the last time this noble German woman honored our
platform, as her eventful life closed a few years after.
[69] Among others, from Assemblyman Lord,
State-Superintendent-of-Public-Instruction Whitford, J. M. Bingham
and Superintendent MacAlister.
[70] The delegates were Olympia Brown, _Racine_; L. C. Galt, M. M.
Frazier, _Mukwonago_; E. A. Brown, _Berlin_; E. M. Cooley,
_Eureka_; E. L. Woolcott, _Ripon_; O. M. Patton, M. D., _Appleton_;
H. Suhm, E. Hohgrave, _Sauk City_; M. W. Mabbs, C. M. Stowers,
_Manitowoc_; S. C. Guernsey, _Janesville_; H. T. Patchin, _New
London_; Jennie Pomeroy, _Grand Rapids_; Mrs. H. W. Rice,
_Oconomowoc_; Amy Winship, _Racine_; Almedia B. Gray, Matilda
Graves, Jessie Gray, _Scholfield Mills_; Mrs. Mary Collins,
_Mukwonago_; Mrs. Jere Witter, _Grand Rapids_; Mrs. Lucina E.
DeWolff, _Whitewater_. The Milwaukee delegates were: Dr. Laura R.
Wolcott, Mme. Mathilde Franceske Anneke, Mrs. A. M. Bolds, Mrs. A.
Flagge, Agnes B. Campbell, Mary A. Rhienart, Matilda Pietsch, N. J.
Comstock, Sarah R. Munro, M. D., Juliet H. Severance, M. D., Mrs.
Emily Firega, Carl Doerflinger. Maximillian Grossman and Carl
Herman Boppe.
[71] 1. Silent Invocation. 2. Music. 3. Eulogy, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton. 4. Tributes, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony. 5.
Music. 6. Tributes, Robert Purvis, May Wright Sewall, Phoebe W.
Couzins. 7. Closing Hymn--"_Nearer, my God, to Thee_."
[72] Of the floral decorations, to which reference is made above as
contributing so largely to the handsome appearance of the stage,
the harp was furnished through Mr. Wormley in behalf of the colored
admirers of Mrs. Mott, and the _epergne_ was provided for the
occasion by the National Association. There was also a basket of
flowers, conspicuous for its beauty, sent in by Senator Cameron of
Pennsylvania.
[73] The eulogy will be found in Volume I., page 407.
[74] See _National Citizen_ of February, 1881.
[75] Edward M. Davis, Susan B. Anthony, Marilla M. Ricker, Rachel
and Julia Foster, Frederick Douglass, Belva A. Lockwood, Robert
Purvis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This was the first time that Mrs.
Martha M'Clellan Brown, Miss Jessie Waite, Mrs. May Wright Sewall
and Mrs. Thornton Charles were on our Washington platform. The
latter read a poem on woman's sphere.
[76] A standing committee is a permanent one about which no
question can be raised in any congress. A special committee is a
transient one to be decided upon at the opening of each congress;
hence may be at any time voted out of existence. No one understood
this better than New York's Stalwart senator, and his plausible
manner of killing the measure deceived the very elect. Enough
senators were pledged to have carried Mr. McDonald's motion had it
been properly understood, but they, as well as some of the ladies
in the gallery, were entirely misled by Mr. Conkling's seeming
earnest intention to hasten the demands of the women by a
short-lived committee, and while those in the gallery applauded,
those on the floor defeated the measure they intended to carry.
[77] _Yeas_--Messrs. Beck, Booth, Brown, Coke, Davis (W. Va.),
Eaton, Edmunds, Farley, Garland, Groome, Hill (Ga.), Harris,
Ingalls, Kernan, Lamar, Morgan, Morrill, Pendleton, Platt, Pugh,
Ransom, Saulsbury, Slater, Vance, Vest and Withers--26.
_Nays_--Messrs. Anthony, Blair, Burnside, Butler, Call, Cameron
(Pa.), Cameron (Wis.), Conkling, Dawes, Ferry, Hoar, Johnston,
Jonas, Kellogg, Logan, McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Rollins,
Saunders, Teller, Williams and Windom--23.
[78] Of this reception the _National Republican_ said: The
attractions presented by the fair seekers of the ballot were so
much superior to those of the dancing reception going on in the
parlors above, that it was almost impossible to form a set of the
lanciers until after the gathering in the lower parlors had
entirely dispersed.
[79] Miss Anthony was presented with a beautiful basket of flowers
from Mrs. Mary Hamilton Williams of Fort Wayne, Ind., and returned
her thanks. Another interesting incident during the proceedings of
the convention was the presentation of an exquisite gold cross from
the "Philadelphia Citizens' Suffrage Association," to Miss Anthony.
Mrs. Sewall of Indianapolis, in a speech so tender and loving as to
bring tears to many eyes, conveyed to her the message and the gift.
Miss Anthony's acceptance was equally happy and impressive. As
during the last thirty years the press of the country has made
Susan B. Anthony a target for more ridicule and abuse than any
other woman on the suffrage platform, it is worth noting that all
who know her now vie with each other in demonstrations of love and
honor.--[E. C. S.
[80] PROVIDENCE, R. I.--First Light Infantry Hall, May 30, 31. Rev.
Frederick A. Hinckley gave the address of welcome.
PORTLAND, Me.--City Hall, June 2, 3. Rev. Dr. McKeown of the M. E.
Church made the address of welcome. Letter read from Dr. Henry C.
Garrish. Among the speakers were Charlotte Thomas, A. J. Grover.
DOVER, N. H.--Belknap Street Church, June 3, 4. Marilla M. Ricker
took the responsibility of this meeting.
CONCORD, N. H.--White's Opera House, June 4, 5. Speakers
entertained by Mrs. Armenia Smith White. Olympia Brown and Miss
Anthony spoke before the legislature in Representatives
Hall--nearly all the members present--the latter returned on Sunday
and spoke on temperance and woman suffrage at the Opera House in
the afternoon, Universalist church in the evening.
KEENE, N. H.--Liberty, Hall, June 9, 10. Prayer offered by Rev. Mr.
Enkins. Mayor Russell presided and gave the address of welcome.
HARTFORD, Ct.--Unity Hall. June 13, 14. Mrs. Hooker presiding;
Frances Ellen Burr, Emily P. Collins, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
Caroline Gilkey Rogers, Mary A. Pell taking part in the meetings.
NEW HAVEN, Ct.--Athaeneum, June 15, 16. Joseph and Abby Sheldon,
Catherine Comstock and others entertained the visitors and
speakers.
The speakers who made the entire New England tour were Rev. Olympia
Brown, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Meriwether, the Misses Foster
and Miss Anthony. The arrangements for all these conventions were
made by Rachel Foster of Philadelphia.
CHAPTER XXX.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.
1882-1883.
Prolonged Discussions in the Senate on a Special Committee to
Look After the Rights of Women, Messrs. Bayard, Morgan and Vest
in Opposition--Mr. Hoar Champions the Measure in the Senate, Mr.
Reed in the House--Washington Convention--Representative Orth and
Senator Saunders on the Woman Suffrage Platform--Hearings Before
Select Committees of Senate and House--Reception Given by Mrs.
Spofford at the Riggs House--Philadelphia Convention--Mrs. Hannah
Whitehall Smith's Dinner--Congratulations from the Central
Committee of Great Britain--Majority and Minority Reports in the
Senate--Nebraska Campaign--Conventions in Omaha--Joint Resolution
Introduced by Hon. John D. White of Kentucky, Referred to the
Select Committee--Washington Convention, January 24, 25, 26,
1883--Majority Report in the House.
Although the effort to secure a standing committee on the political
rights of women was defeated in the forty-sixth congress, by New
York's Stalwart Senator, Roscoe Conkling, motions were made early
in the first session of the forty-seventh congress, by Hon. George
F. Hoar in the Senate, and Hon. John D. White in the House, for a
special committee to look after the interests of women.[81] It
passed by a vote of 115 to 84 in the House, and by 35 to 23 in the
Senate. On December 13, 1881, the Senate Committee on Rules
reported the following resolution for the appointment of a special
committee on woman suffrage:
_Resolved_, That a select committee of seven senators be
appointed by the Chair, to whom shall be referred all
petitions, bills and resolves providing for the extension of
suffrage to women or the removal of their legal
disabilities.
DECEMBER 14.
Mr. HOAR: I move to take up the resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules yesterday, for the appointment of a select
committee on the subject of woman suffrage.
Mr. VEST: Mr. President, I am constrained to object to the
passage of this resolution, and I do it with considerable
reluctance. At present we have thirty standing committees of the
Senate; four joint and seven special committees, in addition to
the one now proposed.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair will inform the senator
from Missouri that a majority of the Senate has to decide whether
the resolution shall be considered.
Mr. VEST: I understood the Chair to state that it was before the
Senate.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It is before the Senate if there be
no objection. The Chair thought the senator made objection to its
consideration.
Mr. HOAR: It went over under the rule yesterday and comes up now.
Mr. EDMUNDS: It is the regular order now.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Certainly. The Chair thought the
senator from Missouri objected to its consideration.
Mr. VEST: No, sir.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The resolution is before the Senate
and open to debate.
Mr. VEST: I have had the honor for a few years to be a member of
the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and my colleagues
on that committee will bear witness with me to the trouble and
annoyance which at every session have arisen in regard to giving
accommodations to the special committees. Two sessions ago there
was a conflict between the Senate and House in regard to
furnishing committee-rooms for three special committees, and it
is only upon the doctrine of _pedis possessio_ that the Senate
to-day holds three committee-rooms in the capitol, the House
still laying claim as a matter of law, through their Committee on
Public Buildings and Grounds, for the possession of these rooms.
At the special session, on account of the exigencies in regard to
rooms, we were compelled to take the retiring-room assigned near
the gallery to the ladies, and cut it into two rooms, to
accommodate select committees.
At this session we have created two special committees more, and
I should like to make the inquiry when and where this manufacture
of special committees is to cease? As soon as any subject becomes
one of comment in the newspapers, or, respectfully I say it, a
hobby with certain zealous partisans throughout the country,
application is made to the Senate of the United States and a
special committee is to be appointed. For this reason, and for
the simple reason that a stop must be had somewhere to the
raising of special committees, I oppose the proposition now
before the Senate.
But, Mr. President, I will be entirely ingenuous and give another
reason. This is simply a step toward the recognition of woman
suffrage, and I am opposed to it upon principle in its inception.
In my judgment it has nothing but mischief in it to the
institutions and to the society of this whole country. I do not
propose to enter into a discussion of that subject to-day, but it
will be proper for me to make this statement, and I make it
intending no reflection upon the zealous ladies who have engaged
for the past ten years in manufacturing a public sentiment upon
this question. I received to-day a letter from a distinguished
lady in my own State, for whom I have personally the greatest
admiration and respect, calling my attention to the fact that I
propose to deny justice to the women of the country. Mr.
President, I deny it. It is because I believe that the
conservative influence of society in the United States rests with
the women of the country that I propose not to degrade the wife
and mother to the ward politician, the justice of the peace, or
the notary public. It is because I believe honestly that all the
best influences for the conservation of society rest upon the
women of the country in their proper sphere that I shall oppose
this and every other step now and henceforth as violating, as I
believe, one of the great essential fundamental laws of nature
and of society.
Mr. President, the revenges of nature are sure and unerring, and
these revenges are just as certain in political matters and in
social matters as in the physical world. Now and here I desire to
record once for all my conviction that in this movement to take
the women of the country out of their proper sphere of social
influence, that great and glorious sphere in which nature and
nature's God have placed them, and rush them into the political
arena, the attempt is made to put them where they were never
intended to be; and I now and here record my opposition to it.
This may seem to be but a small matter, but as this letter shows,
and I reveal no private confidence, it recognizes the first great
step in this reform, as its advocates are pleased to term it. My
practice and conviction as a public man is to fight every wrong
wherever I believe it to exist. I am opposed to this movement. I
am opposed to it upon principle, upon conviction, and I shall
call for the yeas and nays in order to record my vote against it.
DECEMBER 15.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th inst.
Mr. VEST: Mr. President, I disclaim any intention again to incite
or excite any general discussion in regard to woman suffrage. The
senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar], for whom I have very great
regard, was yesterday pleased to observe that the State
governments furnished by the senator from Missouri and other
senators in the past had been no argument in favor of manhood
suffrage. Mr. President, I have been under the impression that
the American people to-day are the best governed, the best
clothed, the best fed, the best housed, the happiest people upon
the face of the globe, and that, too, notwithstanding the fact
that they have been under the domination of the Republican party
for twenty long years. I have also been under the impression that
the institutions of the States and of the United States are an
improvement upon all governmental theories and schemes hitherto
known to mortal man; but we are to learn to-day from the senator
from Massachusetts that this government and the State governments
have been failures, and that woman suffrage must be introduced in
order to purify the political atmosphere and elevate the
suffrage.
Mr. HOAR: Will the senator allow me to interrupt him for a
moment?
Mr. VEST: Of course.
Mr. HOAR: I desire to disclaim the meaning which the honorable
senator seems to have put upon my words. I agree with him that
the American governments have been the best on the face of the
earth, but it is because of their adoption of that principle of
equality more than any other government, the logical effect of
which will compel them to yield the right prayed for to women,
that they are the best. But still best as they are, I said, and
mean to say, that the business of governing mankind has been the
one business on the face of the earth which has been done most
clumsily, which has been, even where most excellent, full of
mistakes, expense, injustice, and wrong-doing. What I said was
that I did not think the persons to whom that privileged function
had been committed so far were entitled to claim any special
superiority for the masculine intellect in the results which it
had achieved.
Mr. VEST: To say that the governments, State and national, now in
existence upon this continent are imperfect is but to announce
the truism that everything made by man is necessarily imperfect.
But I stand here to declare to-day that the governments of the
States, and the national government, in theory, although failing
sometimes in practice, are a standing monument to the genius and
intellect of the men who created them. But the senator from
Massachusetts was pleased to say further, that woman suffrage
should obtain in this country in the interest of education. I
permit not that senator to go further than myself in the line of
universal public education. I have declared, over and over again,
in every county in my State for the past ten years, that
universal education should accompany universal suffrage, that the
school-house should crown every mound in prairie and forest, that
it was the temple of liberty and the altar of law and order.
I well remember that I was thrilled with the eloquence of the
distinguished senator from Massachusetts at the last session of
the last congress, when, upon a bill to provide for general
education by a donation of the public lands, he so pathetically
and justly described the mass of dark ignorance and illiteracy
projected upon the people of the South under the policy of the
Republican party, and the senator then stood here and said that
the people of Massachusetts extended the public lands to relieve
the people of the South from this monstrous burden. What does the
senator propose to do to-day? He proposes with one stroke of the
pen to double, and more than double, the illiterate suffrage of
the United States. The senator says that one-half the people of
the United States are represented in this measure of woman
suffrage. I deny it, sir. If the senator means that the women of
America, comprising one-half of the population, are interested in
this measure, I deny it most emphatically and most peremptorily.
Not one-tenth of them want it. Not one-tenth of the mothers and
sisters and Christian women of this land want to be turned into
politicians or to meddle in a sphere to which God and nature have
not assigned them.
Sir, there are some ladies--and I do not intend to term them
anything but ladies--who are zealously engaged in this cause, and
they have flooded this hall with petitions, and have called their
women's rights conventions all over the land. I assail not their
motives, but I deny that they represent the women of the United
States. I say that if woman suffrage obtains, the worst class of
the women of the country will rush to the polls and the best
class will remain away by a large majority. That is my deliberate
judgment and firm conviction. But, Mr. President, a word in
regard to the committees. I desire no general discussion upon
woman suffrage, and simply alluded in passing to what had been
said by the senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The hour of one o'clock has arrived,
and the morning hour is closed.
DECEMBER 16.
Mr. JONES of Florida: I desire to call up a resolution now lying
on the table, which I introduced on the 14th instant, calling for
information from the Secretary of War touching a ship-canal
across the peninsula of Florida.
Mr. HOAR: Mr. President--
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Florida asks leave
to call up a resolution submitted by him.
Mr. HOAR: My resolution was before the Senate yesterday, and
comes up in order. I hope we shall vote on it.
Mr. JONES of Florida: I will only say that my resolution was laid
over temporarily on the objection of the senator from Vermont
[Mr. Edmunds], which he will not insist upon.
Mr. HOAR: Allow me to call the attention of the Chair to the
fact; it is not the question of a resolution which has not been
taken up. The resolution reported by me from the Committee on
Rules was taken up, and was under discussion when the senator
from Missouri [Mr. Vest] was taken from the floor by the
expiration of the morning hour, in the midst of his remarks.
Certainly his right to conclude his remarks takes precedence of
other business under the usual practice of the Senate.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair thought the senator from
Missouri had ended his remarks, or he would not have interposed
when he did.
Mr. HOAR: No, sir.
Mr. JONES of Florida: My resolution involves no debate. It is
merely a resolution of inquiry.
Mr. HOAR: The other will be disposed of, I hope, in a few
moments.
Mr. JONES of Florida: The resolution to which I refer went over
informally on the objection of the senator from Vermont, and I
think he has no objection now.
Mr. HOAR: The other will be disposed of in a moment, and I hope
we shall vote on it.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair lays before the Senate the
resolution of the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar].
The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th instant.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair would state to the senator
from Missouri [Mr. Vest] that the Chair supposed yesterday that
he had finished his remarks, or the Chair would not have stopped
him at that moment. The question is on agreeing to the
resolution, on which the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] is
entitled to the floor.
Mr. VEST: Mr. President, I was on the eve of finishing my remarks
yesterday when the morning hour expired, and I do not now wish to
detain the Senate. I was about to say at that time that the
Senate now has forty-one committees, with a small army of
messengers and clerks, one-half of whom, without exaggeration,
are literally without employment. I shall not pretend to specify
the committees of this body which have not one single bill,
resolution, or proposition of any sort pending before them, and
have not had for months. I am very well aware that if I should
name one of them, Liberty would lie bleeding in the streets at
once, and that committee would become the most important on the
list of committees of the Senate. I shall not venture to do that.
I am informed by the Sergeant-at-arms that if this resolution is
adopted he must have six additional messengers to be added to
that body of ornamental employes who now stand or sit at the
doors of the respective committee-rooms. I have heard that this
committee is for the purpose of giving a committee to a senator
in this body. I have heard the statement made, but I cannot
believe it, and I am very certain that no senator will undertake
to champion the resolution upon any such ground.
The senator from Massachusetts was pleased to say that the
Committee on the Judiciary had so many important questions
pending before it, that the subject of woman suffrage should not
be added to them. The Committee on Territories is open to any
complaint or suggestion by the ladies who advocate woman
suffrage, in regard to this subject in the territories; and the
Committee on Privileges and Elections to which this subject
should go most appropriately, as affecting the suffrage, has not
now before it, as I am informed, one single bill, resolution, or
proposition of any sort whatever. That committee is also open to
inquiry upon this subject.
But, Mr. President, out of all committees without business, and
habitually without business, in this body, there is one that
beyond any question could take jurisdiction of this matter and do
it ample justice. I refer to that most respectable and antique
institution, the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. For thirty
years it has been without business. For thirty long years the
placid surface of that parliamentary sea has been without one
single ripple. If the senator from Massachusetts desires a
tribunal for calm judicial equilibrium and examination, a
tribunal far from the "madding crowd's ignoble strife," a
tribunal eminently respectable, dignified and unique, why not
send this question to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims? When
I name the _personnel_ of that committee it will be evident that
any consideration on any subject touching the female sex would
receive not only deliberate but immediate attention, for the
second member upon that committee is my distinguished friend from
Florida [Mr. Jones], and who can doubt that he would give his
undivided attention to the subject? [Laughter.] It is eminently
proper that this subject should go to that committee because if
there is any revolutionary claim in this country it is that of
woman suffrage. [Laughter.] It revolutionizes society; it
revolutionizes religion; it revolutionizes the constitution and
laws; and it revolutionizes the opinions of those so
old-fashioned among us as to believe that the legitimate and
proper sphere of woman is the family circle as wife and mother
and not as politician and voter--those of us who are proud to
believe that--
A woman's noblest station is retreat;
Her fairest virtues fly from public sight;
Domestic worth--that shuns too strong a light.
Before that Committee on Revolutionary Claims why could not this
most revolutionary of all claims receive immediate and ample
attention? More than that, as I said before, if there is any
tribunal that could give undivided time and dignified attention,
is it not this committee? If there is one peaceful haven of rest,
never disturbed by any profane bill or resolution of any sort, it
is the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. It is, in parliamentary
life, described by that ecstatic verse in Watts' hymn:
There shall I bathe my wearied soul
In seas of endless rest,
And not one wave of trouble roll
Across my peaceful breast.
For thirty years there has been no excitement in that committee,
and it needs to-day, in Western phrase, some "stirring-up." By
all natural laws stagnation breeds disease and death; and what
could stir up this most venerable and respectable institution
more than an application of the strong-minded, with short hair
and shorter skirts, invading its dignified realm and elucidating
all the excellences of female suffrage? Moreover, if these ladies
could ever succeed, in the providence of God, in obtaining a
report from that committee, it would end this question forever;
for the public at large and myself included, in view of that
miracle of female blandishment and female influence, would
surrender at once, and female suffrage would become
constitutional and lawful. Sir, I insist upon it that in
deference to this committee, in deference to the fact that it
needs this sort of regimen and medicine, this whole subject
should be so referred. [Laughter.]
Mr. MORRILL: Mr. President, I do not desire to say anything as to
the merits of the resolution, but I understand the sole purpose
of raising this committee is to have a committee-room. So far as
I know, there are some five or six committees now which are
destitute of rooms, and it would be impossible for the Committee
on Public Buildings and Grounds to assign any room to this
committee--the object which I understand is at the foundation of
the introduction of the proposition; that is to say, to give
these ladies an opportunity to be heard in some appropriate
committee-room on the questions which they wish to agitate and
submit.
Mr. HOAR: They would find room in some other committee-room. They
could have the room of the Committee on Privileges and Elections,
if there were no other place.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the adoption of
the resolution reported by the senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. HARRIS: Did not the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] offer an
amendment?
Mr. GARLAND: As I understand, he moved to refer the subject to
the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Does the Chair understand that the
senator from Missouri has offered an amendment?
Mr. VEST: Yes, sir; I move to refer the matter to the Committee
on Revolutionary Claims.
Mr. CONGER: Let the resolution be reported.
The acting secretary read the resolution.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Missouri offers an
amendment, that the subject be referred to the standing Committee
on Revolutionary Claims. The question is on the amendment of the
senator from Missouri. [Putting the question.] The noes appear to
have it.
Mr. FARLEY called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered
and taken.
Mr. BLAIR [after having voted in the negative]: I have voted
inadvertently. I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr.
Pugh]. Were he present he would have voted "yea," as I have voted
"nay." I withdraw my vote.
Mr. WINDOM: I am paired with the senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Davis], but as I understand he would vote "nay" on this question,
I vote "nay."
Mr. INGALLS: I am paired with the senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Lamar].
The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 31. So the motion was not
agreed to.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question recurs on the adoption
of the resolution.
Mr. BAYARD: Is it in order for me to move the reference of the
subject to the Committee on the Judiciary?
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It is in order to move to refer the
resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chair
understands.
Mr. BAYARD: Then I make a motion that the resolution be sent to
the Committee on the Judiciary. I would state that I voted with
some regret and hesitancy upon the motion of the senator from
Missouri [Mr. Vest] to refer this matter to the Committee on
Revolutionary Claims. My regret was owing to the fact that I do
not wish even to seem to treat a subject of this character in a
spirit of levity, or to indicate the slightest disrespect by such
a reference, to those whose opinions upon this subject differ
essentially from my own. I cast the vote because I considered it
would be taking the subject virtually away from the consideration
of congress at its present session. I do, however, hold that
there is no necessity for the creation of a special committee to
attend to this subject. The Committee on the Judiciary has within
the last few years, upon many occasions, attempted to deal with
it. Since you, sir, and I have been members of that committee--
Mr. HOAR: Mr. President--
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Will the senator from Delaware yield
to the senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. BAYARD: I will, if he thinks it necessary to interrupt me.
Mr. HOAR: I desire to ask the senator, if he is willing, having
been lately a member of the committee to which he refers, whether
it is not the rule of that committee to allow no hearings to
individual petitioners, a rule which is departed from only in
very rare and peculiar cases?
Mr. BAYARD: I will reply to the honorable senator that the
occasion which arose to my mind and caused me to remember the
action of that committee was the audience given by it to a very
large delegation of woman suffragists, _to wit_, the
representatives of a convention held in this city, who to the
number, I think, of twenty-five, came into the committee-room of
the Committee on the Judiciary, and were heard, as I remember,
for more than one day, or certainly had more than one hearing,
before that committee, of which you, sir, and I were members.
Mr. HOAR: If the senator will pardon me, however, he has not
answered my question. I asked the senator not whether on one
particular occasion they gave a hearing on this subject, but
whether it is not the rule of that committee, occasioned by the
necessity of its business, from which it departs only in very
rare cases, not to give hearings?
Mr. BAYARD: I cannot answer whether a rule so defined as that
suggested by the honorable senator from Massachusetts exists in
that committee. It is my impression, however, that cases are
frequently, by order of that committee, argued before it. We have
had very elaborate and able arguments upon subjects connected
with the Pacific railroads, I remember; and we have had arguments
upon various subjects. It is constantly our pleasure to hear
members of the Senate upon a variety of questions before that
committee. It may be only a proof that women's rights are not
unrecognized nor their influence unfelt when I state the fact
that if there be such a rule as is suggested by the honorable
senator from Massachusetts of excluding persons from the audience
of that committee, on the occasion of the application of the
ladies a hearing was granted, and they came in force,--not only
force in numbers, but force in the character and intelligence of
those who appeared before the committee. They were listened to
with great respect, but their views were not concurred in by the
committee as it was then composed. We were all entertained by the
bright wit, the clever and, in my judgment, in many respects, the
just sarcasm of our honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Vest],
but my habit is not to consider public measures in a jocular
light; it is not to consider a question of this kind in a jocular
light. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of this
proposition, whatever may be the reasons for or against it, no
man can doubt that it will strike at the very roots of the
present organization of society, and that its consequences will
be most profound and far-reaching should the advocates of the
measure proposed prevail.
Therefore it is that I think this subject should not be
considered separately; it should not have a special
committee--either of advocates or opponents arranged for its
consideration; but it should go where proposed amendments to the
fundamental law of the land have always been sent for
consideration,--to that committee to which judicial questions,
questions of a constitutional nature, have always in the history
of this government been committed. There is no need, there is no
justice, there is no wisdom in attempting to separate the fate of
this question, which affects society so profoundly and generally,
from the other questions that affect society. It cannot be made a
specialty: it ought not to be. You cannot tear this question from
the great contest of human passions, affections, and interests
which surround it, and treat it as a thing by itself. It has many
sides from which it may be viewed, some that are not proper or
fitting for this forum, and a discussion now in public. There are
the claims of religion itself to be considered in connection with
this case. Civil rights, social rights, political rights,
religious rights, all are bound up in the consideration of a
measure like this. In its consideration you cannot safely attempt
to segregate this question and leave it untouched and
uninfluenced by all those other questions by which it is
surrounded and in the consideration of which it is bound to be
connected and concerned. Therefore, without going further,
prematurely, into a discussion of the merits of the proposition
itself or its desirability, I say that it should take the usual
course which the practice and laws of this body have given to
grave public questions. Let it go to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and let them, under their sense of duty, deal with it
according to its gravity and importance, and if it be here
returned let it be passed upon by the grave deliberations of the
Senate itself. I hope the special committee proposed will not be
raised, and I trust the Senate will concur with me in thinking
that the subject should be sent to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. LOGAN rose.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired.
Mr. LOGAN: I want to say just one word.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It requires unanimous consent.
Mr. LOGAN: I do not wish to make a speech; I merely desire to say
a word in response to what the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard]
has said in relation to the reference to the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. HARRIS: I ask unanimous consent that the senator from
Illinois may proceed.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: There being no objection unanimous
consent will be presumed to have been given for the senator from
Illinois to make his explanation.
Mr. LOGAN: This question having been once before the Judiciary
Committee, and it being a request by many ladies, who are
citizens of the United States just as we are, that they should
have a special committee of the Senate before which they can be
heard, I deem it proper and right, without any committal whatever
in reference to my own views, that they should have that
committee. It is nothing but fair, just, and right that they
should have a committee organized as nearly as can be in the
Senate in favor of the views they desire to present. It is
treating them only as other citizens would desire to be treated
before a body of this character. I am, therefore, opposed to the
reference of the proposition to the Judiciary Committee, and I
hope the Senate will give these ladies a special committee where
they can be heard, and that that committee may be so organized as
that it will be as favorable to their views as possible, so that
they may have a fair hearing. That is all I desire to say.
Mr. MORRILL: I hope this subject will be concluded this morning,
otherwise it is to come up constantly and monopolize all the time
of the morning hour. I do not think it will require many minutes
more to dispose of it now.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair will entertain a motion on
that subject.
Mr. MORRILL: I move to set aside other business until this
resolution shall be disposed of. If it should continue any length
of time of course I would withdraw the suggestion.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Vermont--
Mr. VOORHEES: Mr. President, I feel constrained to call for the
regular order.
DECEMBER 19, 1881.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Are there further "concurrent or
other resolutions"?
Mr. HOAR: I call up the resolution in regard to woman suffrage,
reported by me from the Committee on Rules.
Mr. JONES of Florida: I ask for information how long the morning
hour is to extend?
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The regular business of the morning
hour is closed. The morning hour, however, will not expire until
twenty minutes past one. The senator from Massachusetts asks to
have taken up the resolution reported by him from the Committee
on Rules.
Mr. HOAR: I hope we may have a vote on the resolution this
morning.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the amendment
proposed by the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard], that the
subject be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HOAR: It is not intended by the resolution to commit the
Senate, or any senator in the slightest degree to any opinion
upon the question of woman suffrage, but it is merely the
question of a convenient mode of hearing. I hope we shall be
allowed to have a vote on the resolution.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Is the Senate ready for the question
on the motion of the senator from Delaware?
Mr. BAYARD and Mr. FARLEY called for the yeas and nays, and they
were ordered.
Mr. BECK: Mr. President, I have received a number of
communications from very respectable ladies in my own State upon
this important question; but I am unable to comply with their
request and support the female suffrage which they advocate. I
shall vote for the reference to the Committee on the Judiciary in
order that there may be a thorough investigation of the question.
I wholly disagree with the suggestion of the senator from
Illinois [Mr. Logan], that a committee ought to be appointed as
favorable to the views of these ladies as possible. I desire a
committee that will have no views, for or against them, except
what is best for the public good. Such a committee I understand
the Committee on the Judiciary to be.
I desire to say only in a word that the difficulty I have and the
question I desire the Committee on the Judiciary to report upon
is, the effect of this question upon suffrage. By the fifteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States there can be
no discrimination made in regard to voting on account of race,
color or previous condition. Intelligence is properly regarded as
one of the fundamental principles of fair suffrage. We have been
compelled in the last ten years to allow all the colored men of
the South to become voters. There is a mass of ignorance there to
be absorbed that will take years and years of care in order to
bring that class up to the standard of intelligent voters. The
several States are addressing themselves to that task as
earnestly as possible. Now it is proposed that all the women of
the country shall vote; that all the colored women of the South,
who are as much more ignorant than the colored men as it is
possible to imagine, shall vote. Not one perhaps in a hundred of
them can read or write. The colored men have had the advantages
of communication with other men in a variety of forms. Many of
them have considerable intelligence; but the colored women have
not had equal chances. Take them from their wash-tubs and their
household work and they are absolutely ignorant of the new duties
of voting citizens. The intelligent ladies of the North and the
West and the South cannot vote without extending that privilege
to that class of ignorant colored people. I doubt whether any man
will say that it is safe for the republic now, when we are going
through the problem we are obliged to solve, to fling in this
additional mass of ignorance upon the suffrage of the country.
Why, sir, a rich corporation or a body of men of wealth could buy
them up for fifty cents apiece, and they would vote without
knowing what they were doing for the side that paid most. Yet we
are asked to confer suffrage upon them, and to have a committee
appointed as favorable to that view as possible, so as to get a
favorable report upon it!
I want the Committee on the Judiciary to tell the congress and
the country whether they think it is good policy now to confer
suffrage on all the colored women of the South, ignorant as they
are known to be, and thus add to the ignorance that we are now
struggling with, and whether the republic can be sustained upon
such a basis as that. For that reason, and because I want that
information from an unbiased committee, because I know that
suffrage has been degraded sufficiently already, and because it
would be degraded infinitely more if a report favorable to this
extension of suffrage should be adopted and passed through
congress, I am opposed to this movement. No matter if there are a
number of respectable ladies who are competent to vote and desire
it to be done, because of the very fact that they cannot be
allowed this privilege without giving all the mass of ignorant
colored women in the country the right to vote, thus bringing in
a mass of ignorance that would crush and degrade the suffrage of
this country almost beyond conception, I shall vote to refer the
subject to the Judiciary Committee, and I shall await their
report with a good deal of anxiety.
Mr. MORGAN: Mr. President--
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired, and
the unfinished business is before the Senate.
DECEMBER 20, 1881.
Mr. HOAR: I now call up the resolution for appointing a special
committee on woman suffrage.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour having expired, the
senator from Massachusetts calls up the resolution which was
under consideration yesterday.
Mr. INGALLS: What is the regular order?
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: There is no regular unfinished
business. The senator from Florida [Mr. Call] gave notice
yesterday that he would ask the indulgence of the Senate to-day
to consider the subject of homestead rights.
Mr. HOAR: I hope this matter may be disposed of. It is very
unpleasant to me to stand before the Senate in this way, taking
up its time with this matter in a five minutes' debate every day
in succession for an unlimited period of time. It is a matter
which every senator understands. It has nothing to do with the
merits of the woman suffrage question at all. It is a mere desire
on the part of these people to have a particular form of hearing,
which seems to me the most convenient for the Senate, and I hope
the Senate will be willing to vote on the resolution and let it
pass.
Mr. MORGAN: I have no objection to proceeding to the
consideration of the resolution, but I desire to address the
Senate upon it.
Mr. HOAR: I think I must ask now as a favor of the senator from
Alabama that he let the resolution be disposed of promptly.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Alabama states that
he has no objection to the present consideration of the
resolution, but he asks leave to make some remarks upon it. The
Chair hearing no objection to the consideration of the
resolution, it is before the Senate.
Mr. FARLEY: I object to the consideration of the resolution.
Mr. HOAR: I move to take it up.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Massachusetts calls
it up as a matter of right. If a majority of the Senate agree to
take up the resolution it is before the Senate, and the Chair
will put the question. The question is on agreeing to the motion
of the senator from Massachusetts to proceed to the consideration
of the resolution. [The motion was agreed to; and the Senate
resumed the consideration of the resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th instant, which was
read.]
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The pending question is on the
motion of the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] to refer the
subject to the Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and
nays have been ordered.
Mr. MORGAN: Mr. President, I stand in a different relation to
this question from that of the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Beck],
who said yesterday that he had received a number of
communications from very respectable ladies in his own State upon
this very important subject, and yet felt constrained by a sense
of duty to deny the action which they solicited at the hands of
congress. I am not informed that any woman from Alabama has ever
sent a petition to the Senate, or to either house, upon this
matter. Indeed, it is my impression that no petitions or letters
have ever been addressed by any lady in the State of Alabama to
either house of congress upon this question. It may be that that
peculiar type of civilization which drives women from their homes
to the ballot-box to seek redress and protection against their
husbands has never yet reached the State of Alabama, and I shall
not be disagreeably disappointed if it should never come upon our
people, for they have lived in harmony and in prosperity now for
many years. Besides the relief which the State has seen proper to
give to married women in respect of their separate estates, we
have not thought it wise or politic in any sense to go further
and undertake to make a line of demarkation between the husband
and wife as politicians. On the contrary, according to our
estimate of a proper civilization, we look to the family relation
as being the true foundation of our republican institutions.
Strike out the family relation, disband the family, destroy the
proper authority of the person at the head of the family, either
the wife or the husband, and you take from popular government all
legitimate foundation.
The measure which is now brought before the Senate of the United
States is but the initial measure of a series which has been
urged upon the attention of States and territories, and upon the
attention of the Congress of the United States in various forms
to draw a line of political demarkation through a man's
household, through his fireside, and to open to the intrusion of
politics and politicians that sacred circle of the family where
no man should be permitted to intrude without the consent of both
the heads of the family. What picture could be more disagreeable
or more disgusting than to have a pot-house politician introduce
himself into a gentleman's family, with his wife seated at one
side of the fireplace and himself at the other, and this man
coming between to urge arguments why the wife should oppose the
policy that the husband advocates, or that the husband should
oppose the policy that the wife advocates?
If this measure means anything it is a proposition that the
Senate of the United States shall first vote to carry into effect
this unjust and improper intrusion into the home circle. Suppose
this resolution to raise a select committee should be passed:
that committee will have its hands full and its ears full of
petitions and applications and speeches from strong-minded women,
and of course it must make some report to the Senate; and we
shall have this subject introduced in here as one that requires a
peculiar application of the powers of the Senate for its
digestion and for the completion of the bills and measures
founded upon it. At the next session of congress this select
committee will become a standing committee of the Senate, and
then we shall have that which appears to be the most potential
and at the same time the most dangerous element in politics
to-day, agitation, agitation, agitation. It seems that the
legislators of the United States Government are not to be allowed
to pass in quiet judgment upon measures of this character, but
like many other things which are addressing themselves to the
attention of the people on this side of the water and the other,
they must all be moved against the Senate and against the House
by agitation. You raise your committee and allow the agitators to
come before them, yea, more than that, you invite them to come;
and what is the result? The Congress of the United States will
for the next ten or perhaps twenty years be continually assailed
for special and peculiar legislation in favor of the women of the
land.
I do not understand that a woman in this country has any more
right to a select committee than a man has. It would be just as
rational and as proper in every legislative and parliamentary
sense to have a select committee for the consideration of the
rights of men as to have a committee for the consideration of the
rights of women. I object, sir, to this disseverance between the
sexes, and I object to the Senate of the United States giving its
sanction in advance or in any way to this character of
legislation. It is a false principle, and it will work evil, and
only evil, in this country.
What jurisdiction do you expect to exercise in the Senate of the
United States for the benefit of the women in respect of suffrage
or in respect of separate estates? Where are the boundaries of
your jurisdiction? You find them in the territories and in the
District of Columbia. If you expect to proceed into the States
you must have the Constitution of the United States amended so as
to put our wives and our daughters upon the footing of those who
are provided for in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. Your
jurisdiction is limited to the territories and to the District of
Columbia.
Inasmuch as this measure, I understand, has been made a party
measure by the decree of a caucus, I propose to make some little
inquiry into the past legislation of the Congress of the United
States under Republican rule in respect of the extension of the
right of suffrage to certain classes of people in this country. I
will take up first the territories.
Let us look for a moment at the result of woman suffrage in some
of the territories. The territorial legislature of Utah has gone
forward and conferred the right of suffrage upon women. The
population in the last decade has reached from 64,000, I believe,
to about 150,000. The territorial legislature of Utah conferred
upon the females of that territory the right of suffrage, and how
have they exercised that right? Sir, I am ashamed to say it, but
it is known to the world that the power of Mormonism and polygamy
in Utah territory is sustained by female suffrage. You cannot get
rid of those laws. Ninety per cent. of the legislative power of
Utah territory is Mormon and polygamous. If female suffrage is to
be incorporated into the laws of our country with a view to the
amelioration of our morals or our political sentiments, we stand
aghast at the spectacle of what has been wrought by its exercise
in the territory of Utah. There stands a power supporting the
crime of polygamy through what they call a divine inspiration, or
teaching from God, and all the power of the judges of the United
States and of the Congress of the United States has been
unavailing to break it down. Who have upheld it? Those who in the
family circle represent one husband to fifteen women. A continual
accumulation of the power of the church and of polygamy is going
on, and when the Gentiles, as they are called, enter that
territory with the view of breaking it up they are confronted by
the women, who are allowed to vote, and from whom we should
naturally expect a better and a higher morality in reference to
subjects of the kind. But this only shows the power of man over
woman. It only shows how through her tender affections, her
delicate sensibilities, and her confiding spirit she can be made
the very slave and bond-servant of man, and can scarcely ever be
made an independent participant in the stronger exercise of the
powers which God seems to have intrusted to him. Never was there
a picture more disgusting or more condemnatory of the extension
of the franchise to women as contradistinguished from men than is
presented in the territory of Utah to-day.
Where is the necessity of raising the number of voters in the
United States from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000? That would be the
direct effect of conferring suffrage upon the women, for they are
at least one-half, if not a little more than one-half, of the
entire population of the country above the age of twenty-one. We
have now masses of voters so enormous in numbers as that it seems
to be almost beyond the power of the law to execute the purposes
of the elective franchise with justice, with propriety, and
without crime. How much would these difficulties and these
intrinsic troubles be increased if we should raise the number of
voters from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 in the United States? That
would be the direct and immediate effect of conferring the
franchise upon the women. What would be the next effect of such
an extension of the suffrage? It was described by my friend from
Missouri [Mr. Vest] and by other senators who have spoken upon
this subject. The effect would be to drive the ladies of the
land, as they are termed, the well-bred and well-educated women,
the women of nice sensibilities, within their home circle, there
to remain, while the ruder of that sex would thrust themselves
out on the hustings and at the ballot-box, and fight their way to
the polls through negroes and others who are not the best of
company even at the polls, to say nothing of the disgrace of
association with them. You would paralyze one-third at least of
the women of this land by the very vulgarity of the overture made
to them that they should go struggling to the polls in order to
vote in common with the herd of men. They would not undertake it.
The most intelligent and trustworthy part of the suffrage thus
placed upon the land would never be available, while that which
was not worthy of respect either for its character or for its
information would take the matter in hand and move along in the
circle of politicians to cast their suffrages at the ballot-box.
As the States to be formed out of the territories are admitted
into the Union, they will come stamped with the characteristics
which the legislatures of the territories have imprinted upon
them; and if after due consideration in those territories the men
who have the regulation of public affairs should come to the
conclusion that it was best to have woman suffrage, then we can
allow them, under existing laws, to go on and perfect their
systems and apply for admission into the Union with them as they
may choose to adopt them and to shape them. The law upon that
subject as it exists is liberal enough, for it gives to the
legislatures the right to regulate the qualifications of
suffrage. It leaves it to each local community, wherever it may
be throughout the territories of the United States, to determine
for itself what it may prefer to have.
Is it the object in the raising of this committee only that it
shall have so many speeches made, so much talk about it, or is it
to be the object of the committee to have legislation brought
here? If you bring legislation here, what will you bring? An
amendment to the constitution like the fourteenth amendment, or
else some provision obligatory upon the territories by which
female suffrage shall be allowed there, whether the people want
it or whether they do not? For my part, before this session of
congress ends I intend to introduce a bill to repeal woman
suffrage in the territory of Utah, knowing and believing that
that will be the most effectual remedy for the extirpation of
polygamy in that unfortunate territory. If you choose to repeal
the laws of any territory conferring the right of suffrage upon
women you have the power in congress to do it; but there are no
measures introduced here and none advocated in that direction.
The whole drift of this movement is in the other direction. This
committee is sought to be raised either for the accommodation of
some senator who wants a chairmanship and a clerk, or it is
sought to be raised for the purpose of encouraging a raid on the
laws and traditions of this country, which I think would end in
our total demoralization, I therefore oppose this measure in the
beginning, and I expect to oppose it as far as it may go.
Now let us notice for a moment the case of the District of
Columbia. There are some senators here who have given themselves
a great deal of trouble in the advocacy of the right of suffrage
of the people of the United States, and especially of the colored
people. They put themselves to great trouble, and doubtless at
some expense of feeling, to worry and beset and harry gentlemen
who come from certain States of this Union, in reference to the
votes of the negroes: and yet these very gentlemen have been
either in this House or in the other when the Republican party
has had a two-thirds majority of both branches and has
deliberately taken from the people of the District of Columbia
the right to elect any officer from a constable to a mayor, all
because when the experiment was tried here it was found that the
negroes were a little too strong. There was too much African
suffrage in the ballot-box, and they must get rid of it, and to
get rid of it on terms of equality they have disfranchised every
man in the District of Columbia.
I shall have more faith in the sincerity of the declarations of
gentlemen of their desire to have the women vote when I see that
they have made some step toward the restoration of the right of
suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia. While they
let this blot remain upon our law, while they allow this damning
conviction to stand, they may stare us in the face and accuse us
continually of a want of candor and sincerity on this subject,
but they will address their arguments to me in vain, even as
coming from men who have an infatuation upon the subject. I do
not believe a word of it, Mr. President.
I cannot be convinced against these facts that this new movement
in favor of female suffrage means anything more than to add
another patch to the worn-out garment of Republicanism, which
they patched with Mahoneism in Virginia, with repudiation
elsewhere, and which they now seek to patch further by putting on
the delicate little silk covering of woman suffrage. I do not
believe that this movement has its root and branch in any sincere
desire to give to the women of this land the right of suffrage. I
think it is a mere party movement with a view of attempting to
draw into the reach of the Republican party some little support
from the sympathy and interest they suppose the ladies will take
in their cause if they should advocate it here. No bill, perhaps,
is expected to be reported. The committee will sit and listen and
profess to be charmed and enlightened and instructed by what may
be said, and then the subject will be passed by without any
actual effort to secure the passage of a bill.
Introduce your bills and let them go to the Judiciary Committee,
where the rights of men are to be considered as well as the
rights of women. If this subject is of that pressing national
importance which senators seem to think it is, it is not to be
supposed that the Committee on the Judiciary will fail to give it
profound and early attention. When you bring a select committee
forward under the circumstances under which this is to be raised,
you must not expect us to give credit generally to the idea that
the real purpose is to advance the cause of woman suffrage, but
rather that the real purpose is to advance the cause of political
domination in this country. I can see no reason for the raising
of this select committee, unless it be to furnish some senator,
as I have remarked, with a clerk and messenger. If that were the
avowed reason or could even be intimated, I think I should be
disposed to yield that courtesy to the senator, whoever he might
be; but I cannot do it under the false pretext that the real
object is to bring forward measures here for the introduction of
woman suffrage into the District of Columbia, where we have no
suffrage, or into the territories, where they have all the
suffrage that the territorial legislatures see proper to give
them. I therefore shall oppose the resolution.
Mr. BAYARD: I move the that Senate proceed to the consideration
of executive business. [The motion was agreed to.]
JANUARY 9, 1882.
Mr. HOAR: I now ask for the consideration of the resolution
relating to a select committee on woman suffrage.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: There being ten minutes left of the
morning hour, the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] asks for
the consideration of the resolution relating to woman suffrage.
The pending question is on the motion of the senator from
Delaware [Mr. Bayard] to refer the subject-matter to the
Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and nays have been
ordered.
The principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUTLER (when Mr. Pugh's name was called): I was requested by
the senator from Alabama [Mr. Pugh] to announce his pair with the
senator from New York [Mr. Miller].
The roll-call was concluded.
Mr. TELLER: On this question I am paired with the senator from
Alabama [Mr. Morgan]. If the senator from Alabama were present, I
should vote "nay."
Mr. MCPHERSON (after having voted in the affirmative): I rise to
ask the privilege of withdrawing my vote. I am paired with my
colleague [Mr. Sewell] on all political questions, and this seems
to have taken a political shape.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from New Jersey
withdraws his vote.
The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 31. So the motion was not
agreed to.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question recurs on the adoption
of the resolution.
Mr. EDMUNDS: Let it be read for information. The secretary read
the resolution.
Mr. EDMUNDS: "Shall" ought to be stricken out and "may" inserted,
because the Senate ought always to have the power to refer any
particular measure as it pleases.
Mr. HOAR: I have no objection to that modification.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Massachusetts
accepts the suggestion of the senator from Vermont, and the word
"may" will be substituted for "shall."
Mr. HILL of Georgia: I wish to say that I have opposed all
resolutions, whether originating on the other side of the chamber
or on this side, appointing special committees. They are all
wrong. They are not founded, in my judgment, on a correct
principle. There is no necessity to raise a select committee for
this business. The standing committees of the Senate are ample to
do everything that it is proposed the select committee asked for
shall do. The only result of appointing more special committees
is to have just that many more clerks, just that much more
expense, just that many more committee-rooms. This is not the
first time I have opposed the raising of a select committee.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired, and it
requires unanimous consent for the senator from Georgia to
proceed with his remarks.
JANUARY 21, 1882.
Mr. HOAR: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration
of the resolution.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: If there is no objection, unanimous
consent will be assumed.
Mr. FARLEY and others: I object.
Mr. HOAR: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration
of the resolution.
Mr. SHERMAN: Let it be proceeded with informally, subject to the
call for other business.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the motion of the
senator from Massachusetts. [Putting the question.] The Chair is
uncertain from the sound and will ask for a division.
The motion was agreed to; there being on a division--ayes 32,
noes 20.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The resolution is before the Senate
and the senator from Georgia [Mr. Hill] has the floor.
Mr. HILL of Georgia: Mr. President, I do not intend to say one
word on the subject of woman suffrage. I shall not get into that
discussion which was alluded to by the senator from
Massachusetts. The senator will remember, if he refreshes his
recollection, that when my late colleague, now no longer a
senator, made a motion for the appointment of a select committee
in relation to the inter-oceanic canal, I opposed it distinctly,
though it came from my colleague, upon the ground that the
appointment of select committees ought to stop, that it was
wrong; and I oppose this resolution for the same reason. I voted
against a resolution to raise a select committee offered by a
senator on this side of the chamber at the present session, and I
have voted against all resolutions of that character.
No senator, in my judgment, will rise in his place in the Senate
and say that it is necessary to appoint a special committee to
consider the matters referred to in the resolution. It is true I
am a member of the committee, and perhaps ought not to refer to
it, but we have a standing committee, of which the distinguished
senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] is chairman, the Committee
on Privileges and Elections, that, I take occasion to say, is a
very proper committee for this matter to go to; and that
committee has almost nothing on earth to do. There is but one
single subject-matter now before it, and I believe there will be
scarcely another question before that committee at this session.
There is not a contested election; there is not a dispute about
anybody's seat; and yet it is a Committee on Privileges and
Elections. What is the reason for going on continually and
appointing these select committees, when there are standing
committees here, properly organized to consider the very question
specified by the resolution, with nothing to do?
Now, I am going to say one other thing, I do not pretend that the
purpose I am now about to state is the purpose of the senator
from Massachusetts. I have no reflections to make as to what this
resolution is intended for, but we do know that there is an idea
abroad that select committees are generally appointed for the
purpose of giving somebody a chairmanship, that somebody may have
a clerk. That is not the case here, I dare say. I do not mean to
intimate that it is the case here, but it ought to be put a stop
to; it is all wrong. I think, though, that there ought to be a
resolution passed by this body giving every senator who has not a
committee a clerk. Everybody knows that every chairman of a
committee has a clerk in the clerk of that committee. The other
senators, at least in my opinion, ought each to have a clerk. I
would vote for such a resolution. I believe it would be right,
and I believe the country would approve it. Every senator knows
that he has more business to attend to here than he can possibly
perform. Why, sir, if I were to attend to all the business in the
departments and otherwise that my constituents ask me to perform,
I could not discharge half my duties in this chamber; and every
senator, I dare say, has the same experience. It is to the
public interest, therefore, in my judgment, that every senator
should have a clerk. I am unable to employ a clerk from my own
funds; many other senators are more fortunately situated; but
still I must do that or move the appointment of a special
committee for the purpose in an indirect way of getting a clerk.
It is not right.
It has been said that if senators each have a clerk, for
instance, a clerk at $100 a month salary during the session,
which would be a very small matter, the members of the other
House would each want a clerk. It does not follow. There is a
vast difference. A member of the other House represents a narrow
district, a single district; a senator represents a whole State.
Take the State of New York. There are thirty-three
representatives in the House from the State of New York; there
are but two senators here from that State. Those two senators in
all likelihood have as much business to perform here for their
constituents as the thirty-three members of the House. There is,
therefore, an eminent reason why a senator should have a clerk
and why a member of the House should not.
I cannot vote for the appointment of select committees unless you
raise a select committee for every senator in the body so as to
give him a clerk. You have appointed select committees for this
business and for that. It gives a few men an advantage when the
business of the country does not require it, whereas if you
appointed a clerk for each senator, with a nominal salary of $100
per month during the session, it would enable every senator to do
his work more efficiently both here and for his constituents; it
would put all the senators on a just equality; it would be in
furtherance of the public interest; and it would avoid what I
consider (with all due deference and not meaning to be offensive)
the unseemly habit of constantly moving the appointment of select
committees in this body. This is all I have to say. I vote
against the resolution simply because I am opposed to the
appointment of a select committee for this or any other purpose
that I can now think of.
The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the adoption of
the resolution.
Mr. VEST called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and
the principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JONES of Florida (when his name was called): I propose to
vote for this resolution, but at the same time I do not regard my
vote as in any way committing myself on the subject of female
suffrage. If they think an investigation of this subject should
be had in this way, I for one am willing to have it. I vote
"yea."
Mr. TELLER, (when his name was called): On this question I am
paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]; otherwise I
should vote "yea."
The roll-call having been concluded, the result was
announced--yeas 35, nays 23; so the resolution was agreed
to.[82]
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 20, 1881.
Mr. WHITE of Kentucky: I ask consent to offer for consideration
at this time the resolution which I send to the clerk's desk.
The clerk read as follows:
_Resolved_, That a select committee of seven members of the
House of Representatives be appointed by the Speaker, to
whom shall be referred all petitions, bills and resolves
providing for the extension of suffrage to women, or for the
removal of legal disabilities.
Mr. MILLS of Texas: I object.
Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania: A similar resolution has already been
referred to the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER (Mr. Keifer of Ohio): Objection being made to its
consideration at this time, the resolution will be referred to
the Committee on Rules.
The resolution was referred accordingly.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 25, 1882.
Mr. REED of Maine: I rise to make a privileged report. The
Committee on Rules, to whom were referred sundry resolutions
relating to the subject, have instructed me to report the
resolution which I send to the desk.
The clerk read as follows:
_Resolved_, That a select committee of nine members be
appointed, to whom shall be referred all petitions, bills
and resolves asking for the extension of suffrage to women
or the removal of their legal disabilities.
The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the report of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. HOLMAN of Indiana: I ask that the latter portion of the
resolution be again read. It was not heard in this part of the
house.
The resolution was again read.
Mr. TOWNSHEND of Illinois: I rise to make a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TOWNSHEND: My inquiry is whether that resolution should not
go to the House calendar.
The SPEAKER: It is a privileged report under the rules of the
House from the Committee on Rules. The question is on the
adoption of the resolution.
Mr. MCMILLIN of Tennessee: I make the point of order that it must
lie over for one day.
The SPEAKER: It is the report of a committee privileged under the
rules.
Mr. MCMILLIN: The committee are privileged to report, but under
the rule the report has to lie over a day.
The SPEAKER: The gentleman from Tennessee will oblige the Chair
by directing his attention to any rule which requires such a
report to lie over one day. It changes no standing rule or order
of the House.
Mr. MCMILLIN: It does, by making a change in the number and
nature of the committees. All measures of a particular class, the
resolution states, must be referred to the proposed committee,
whereas heretofore they have been referred to a different
committee. Therefore the resolution changes the rules of the
House.
The SPEAKER: The Chair is of opinion the resolution does not
rescind or change any standing rule of the House. The question is
on the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. SPRINGER: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the
Chair to the fact that this does distinctly change one of the
standing rules of the House. One of the standing rules is--
The SPEAKER: The Chair has passed on that question, and no appeal
has been taken from his decision.
Mr. SPRINGER: I desire to call the attention of the Chair to Rule
10, which specifically provides for the appointment of the full
number of committees this House is to have, and this is not one
of them.
The SPEAKER: Not one of the standing committees, but a select
committee.
Mr. SPRINGER: That rule provides there shall be a certain number
of committees, the names of which are therein given.
Mr. REED: I sincerely hope this will not be made a matter of
technical discussion or debate. It is a matter upon which members
of this House must have opinions which they can express by
voting, in a very short time, without taking up the attention of
the House beyond what is really necessary for a bare discussion
of the merits of the question.
Mr. MCMILLIN: Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?
Mr. REED: Certainly.
Mr. MCMILLIN: Would you not, as a parliamentarian, concede that
this does change the existing rules of the House?
Mr. REED: By no manner of means, especially when the accomplished
Speaker has decided the other way, and no gentleman has taken an
appeal from his decision. [Laughter.]
Mr. MCMILLIN: Then you have no opinion beyond his decision?
The SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Springer] that this resolution does not change any of the
standing committees of the House which are provided for in Rule
10.
Mr. SPRINGER: It provides for a new committee.
The SPEAKER: It provides for a select committee. The subject was
referred to the Committee on Rules by order of the House, and
this is a report on the resolution so referred.
Mr. SPRINGER: The rule provides that no standing rule or order of
the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.
The SPEAKER: The Chair would decide that this does not propose
any change or rescinding of any standing rule of the House.
Mr. SPRINGER: Does the Chair hold that the making of a new rule
is not a change of the existing rules?
The SPEAKER: The Chair does not decide anything of the kind.
Mr. SPRINGER: What does the Chair decide?
The SPEAKER: The Chair does not undertake to decide any such
question, for it is not now presented.
Mr. SPRINGER: Is this not a new rule?
The SPEAKER: It is not.
Mr. SPRINGER: It is not?
The SPEAKER: It is a provision for a select committee.
Mr. SPRINGER: Can you have a committee without a rule of the
House providing for it?
The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the resolution
reported from the Committee on Rules.
Mr. ATKINS: On that question I call for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken and there were--yeas 115, nays 84, not
voting 93; so the resolution was carried.[83]
Mr. REED moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was
adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table. The latter motion was agreed to.
On Monday, March 13, 1882, the Chair announced the appointment of
the following gentlemen as the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage
authorized by the House: Mr. Camp of New York, Mr. White of
Kentucky, Mr. Sherwin of Illinois, Mr. Stone of Massachusetts,
Mr. Hepburn of Iowa, Mr. Springer of Illinois, Mr. Vance of North
Carolina, Mr. Muldrow of Mississippi and Mr. Stockslager of
Indiana.
The Annual Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall as usual,
January 18, 19, 20, 1882. The afternoon before the convention, at
an executive session held at the Riggs House, forty delegates were
present from fourteen different States.[84] Among these were five
from Massachusetts, and for the first time that State was
represented on the platform of the National Association. Mrs.
Stanton gave the opening address, and made some amusing criticisms
on a recent debate on Senator Hoar's proposition for a special
committee on the rights and disabilities of women. Such a committee
had been under debate for several years and it was during this
convention that the bill passed the Senate.
Invitations to attend the convention were sent to all the members
of congress, and many were present during the various sessions.
Miss Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary, read the minutes of the last
convention, and, instead of the usual dry skeleton of facts, she
gave a glowing description of that eventful occasion. Clara B.
Colby gave an interesting narration of the progress of woman
suffrage in Nebraska, and of the efforts being made to carry the
proposition pending before the people, to strike the word "male"
from the constitution in the coming November election.
Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley of Providence, R. I., spoke upon "Our
Demand in the Light of Evolution." He said:
It is about a century since our forefathers declared that
"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed," and about a half century since woman began to see that
she ought to be included in this declaration. At present the
expressions of the Declaration of Independence are a "glittering
generality," for only one-half of the people "consent." Modern
science has demonstrated the truth of evolution--like causes
produce like results--and this is seen in the progress of
government and of woman. From the time when physical force ruled,
up to the present, when _ostensibly_ in the United States every
person is his own ruler, there have been many steps. The
importance of the masses has steadily taken the place of the
importance of individuals. At first the idea was "You shall obey
because I say so"; then, "You shall obey because I am your
superior, and will protect you"; now it is "Everyone shall be his
own protector." But we do not live up to this idea while only
one-half instead of the whole of "everyone" is his own protector.
The phases of woman's advancement are fitly described by the four
words--slave, subject, inferior, dependent; and no step in this
advance has been accomplished without a hard struggle. The logic
of evolution in government points to universal suffrage. The same
logic points to unqualified individual freedom for woman.
Mrs. Blake in reporting from her State said:
Governor Cornell was the first New York Governor to mention woman
in an inaugural address, and the bill allowing women to vote in
school elections was passed the same winter. There was a great
deal of opposition in different parts of the State to the voting
of women. In some country districts where the polls are in the
school-houses, certain men went early and locked the doors,
filled the room with smoke and even put tobacco on the stoves to
make it as disagreeable for the women as possible. More
respectable men had to ventilate and clean the rooms to make them
decent for either man or woman. From this lowest class of
opponents up to those who say: "My dear, you'd better not make
yourself conspicuous!" the spirit is the same. Believing that
under our constitution women are already entitled to the ballot,
we do not ask for a constitutional amendment, but for a bill
extending the suffrage at once.
Mrs. COLBY in contrast to this stated that in Nebraska the
greatest courtesy had always been shown to women who voted at
school elections. There is only one organized effort against
woman suffrage, and that is made by the "Sons of Liberty!" "O,
Consistency, thou art a jewel!"
The following resolution introduced into the Senate, January 11, by
Mr. Morgan of Alabama, was finally referred to the Committee on
Woman Suffrage. This was the first subject brought before them for
action.
_Resolved_, That the committee on "The extension of suffrage
to women, or the removal of their disabilities," be directed
to examine into the state of the law regulating the right of
suffrage in the territory of Utah, and report a bill to set
aside and annul any law or laws enacted by the legislature
of said territory conferring upon women the right of
suffrage.
Miss Couzins made an admirable speech on the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That Senator Morgan's bill to deprive the
_women_ of Utah of the right of suffrage because of the
social institutions and religious faith originated and
maintained by the _men_ of the territory, is a travesty on
common justice. While the wife has not absolute possession
of even one husband, and the husband has many wives, surely
the men and not the women, if either, should be deprived of
the suffrage.
Miss COUZINS said: The task of dealing fairly and justly with
this territorial complication should never be committed to the
blundering legislation of man alone. His success as a legislator
and executive for woman in the past does not inspire a confidence
that in this most serious problem he will be any the less an
unbiased judge and law-giver. This government of men permitted
the establishment of a religious colony, so called, whose basis
of faith was the complete humiliation of women; recognized the
system by appointing its chief, Brigham Young, governor of the
territory, under whose fostering care polygamy grew to its
present proportions.
That woman has not thrown off the yoke of religious despotism can
be readily appreciated when we recognize the fact that man, from
time immemorial, has played upon her religious faith to exalt his
own attributes and degrade hers; that through this teaching her
abiding belief in his superior capacity to interpret scriptural
truths for her has been the means of sacrificing her power of
mind, her tender affections, her delicate sensibilities, on the
altar of his base selfishness throughout the ages. Orthodoxy
recognizes no "inspiration" for woman to-day. She is not "called"
save to serve man. Under its teaching her thought has been
padlocked in the name of Divinity, and her lips sealed in
sacrilegious pretense of authority from heaven; and nothing so
clearly bespeaks the degenerating influence of the ages of this
masculine teaching as the absolute faith manifested by the women
of Utah in this _ipse dixit_ of man's religious doctrine. Their
emancipation must necessarily be slow.
The paternal government allowed polygamy to be planted, take
root, and grow in a wilderness where the attraction of nobler
minds and freer thoughts was not known. The victims came from the
political despotisms of the old world to be shackled in a land of
freedom with a still darker despotism, and under the aegis of the
American flag they have borne children as a religious duty they
owed to God and man; and surely it can not be expected, even with
that grand emancipator, from king and priestcraft rule, the
ballot, that at once they will vote themselves outcast and their
children illegitimate.
It took the white men of this nation one hundred years to put
away that relic of barbarism, slavery; the removal of the twin
relic will come through liberty for woman, higher education for
children, and the incoming tide of Gentile immigration. The
fitting act of justice is not disfranchisement of woman, as
Senator Morgan proposes, and the reenactment of that old Adamic
cry: "The woman whom thou gavest," but the disfranchisement of
man, who is the only polygamist, and the stepping down and out of
the sex as a legislator under whose fostering care this evil has
grown. Retire to your sylvan groves and academic shades,
gentlemen, as Mrs. Stanton suggests, and let the Deborahs, the
Huldahs, and the Vashtis come to the front, and let us see what
we can do toward the remedy of your wretched legislation. But
suffrage for women in Utah has accomplished great good. I spent
one week there in close observation. Outside of their religious
convictions, the women are emphatic in condemnation of wrong.
Their votes banished the liquor saloon. I saw no drunkenness
anywhere; the poison of tobacco smoke is not allowed to vitiate
the air of heaven, either on the streets or in public assemblies.
Their court-room was a model of neatness and good order. Plants
were in the windows and handsome carpets graced the floor. During
my stay, the daughter of a Mormon, the then advocate-general of
the territory, was admitted to the bar by Chief-Justice McKean of
the United States Court, who, in fitting and beautiful language,
welcomed her to the profession as a woman whose knowledge of the
law fitted her to be the peer of any man in his court. She told
me that she detested polygamy, but felt that she could render
greater service to the emancipation of her sex inside of Utah
than out. At midnight I wandered, with one of my own sex, about
the streets to test the assertion that it was as safe for women
then as at mid-day. No bacchanalian shout rent the air; no man
was seen reeling in maudlin imbecility to his home. No guardians
put in an appearance, save the stars above our heads; no sound
awoke the stillness but the purling of the mountain brooks which
washed the streets in cleanliness and beauty. What other city on
this continent can present such a showing? With murder for man
and rapine for woman where man alone is maker and guardian of the
laws, it behooves him to pause ere he launches invectives at the
one result of woman's votes.
Mrs. Gougar, on our Washington platform for the first time,
delighted the audience with her readiness and wit. She has a good
voice, fine presence, and speaks fluently, without notes.
She spoke of the reformatory prison for women in her State, and
said that the statistics showed that eighty-two per cent. of the
women confined there were sent out reformed. Speaking of the
gallantry of men, she cited a case of a man who came to an
Indiana lawyer and desired him to make a will. The following
conversation ensued: "I want you to make this will so that my
wife will have $400 a year; that's enough for any woman." "Is she
the only wife you ever had?" "Yes." "How long have you been
married?" "Forty-two years." "How many children have you had?"
"Eleven." "Did you have all your property before marriage?" "No;
didn't have a cent; I've earned it all." "Has your wife helped
you in any way to earn it?" "Why, yes, I suppose she has; but
then I want to fix my will so she can only have $400 a year; it's
enough." "Well, sir, you will have to move out of the State of
Indiana then, for the law provides for the wife better than that,
and you will have to get another lawyer." It is needless to say
that this lawyer is a staunch champion of woman suffrage, and it
is pleasant to know that there are more such men being educated
by this agitation.
Mrs. Maxwell gave a fine recitation of "The Dying Soldier," at one
of the evening sessions. It was evident by the sparkling eyes of
the Indiana delegation that the ladies had in reserve some pleasant
surprise for the convention, which at last revealed itself in the
person of Judge Orth, a live member of congress from Indiana, who
stood up like a man and avowed his belief in woman suffrage. His
words were few but to the point, and his hearers all knew exactly
where he stood on the question.