This decision was appealed from for several unimportant reasons by
relatives of Mrs. Eddy, Francis W. and Jerome A. Bacon, minors; and
the case was carried to the Supreme Judicial Court. After many
delays it was finally decided in favor of the validity of the will,
March, 1885, R. M. Morse, jr., and S. J. Elder for the plaintiff,
and B. F. Butler and F. L. Washburn for the defendants. The court's
final decision, rendered by Hon. Charles Devens, is as follows:
ALBERT F. BACON and others, executors and others _vs._ CHANDLER
R. RANSOM, executor, and others.
Suffolk. March 18, 19, 1885. W. ALLEN, COLBURN AND HOLMES, _Js._,
absent.
After a bequest in trust to A. and B., to be by them expended in
securing the passage of laws granting women the right to vote,
had been decreed void as not being a charity, a daughter of the
testator bequeathed the residue of her estate (being about the
amount she had received from her father's estate) to A. and B.
"as their absolute property"; and added: "I request said A. and
B. to use said fund thus given to further what is called the
Woman's Rights Cause. But neither of them is under any legal
responsibility to any one or any court to do so." _Held_, that
the bequest was valid, and did not create a trust.
Bill in equity by the executors of the will of Lizzie F. Bacon,
and certain legatees thereunder, against the executor of the will
of Eliza F. Eddy, Lucy Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell, Susan B.
Anthony, and other legatees thereunder, and the attorney-general,
to compel the executor of said Eddy's will to pay over to the
plaintiffs the residue of her estate. The bill alleged the
following facts:
Francis Jackson, the father of said Eliza F. Eddy, died in 1861,
leaving a will, by the sixth article of which he gave $5,000 to
Wendell Phillips, Lucy Stone Blackwell and Susan B. Anthony, in
trust, "to be expended by them without any responsibility to any
one, at their discretion, in such sums, at such times, and in
such places as they may deem fit, to secure the passage of laws
granting women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote,
to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all
other civil rights enjoyed by men; and for the preparation and
circulation of books, the delivery of lectures, and such other
means as they may judge best." By the eighth article he gave
one-third of the residue to a trustee, to pay the income to his
daughter, Eliza F. Eddy, during her life, and upon her death
one-half of the income to the trustees and on the trusts named in
the sixth article, and the other half to Mrs. Eddy's daughter,
Mrs. Lizzie F. Bacon, during her life, and, on the death of Mrs.
Bacon, the principal to the trustees and on the trusts named in
the sixth article.
It was held by this court that these bequests were not a charity
(see _Jackson vs. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539_).
In consequence of this decision, certain agreements, releases,
and a partition were made, by which one-third of the residue of
Mr. Jackson's estate became the property of Mrs. Eddy, subject to
being held in trust for herself for life, and thereafter, as to
one-half, for her daughter, Mrs. Bacon, during her life. Mrs.
Eddy died December 29, 1881, leaving a will by which she gave
absolute legacies to the amount of $24,500 to various persons
therein named. This disposed of all her estate except what came
to her from her father's estate. Her will then provided as
follows:
"What is left, after paying the above legacies, I direct shall be
divided into two equal portions; one of said portions I leave to
Miss Susan B. Anthony of Rochester, in the State of New York, as
her absolute property, and the other portion I leave to Lucy
Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell, as her own absolute and separate
property, free from any control of him. I request said Susan and
Lucy to use said fund thus given to further what is called the
woman's rights cause; but neither of them is under any legal
responsibility to any one or any court to do so."
The will further alleged that this residue was substantially the
estate received from Francis Jackson; that the will was intended
by the testatrix to defeat the decision of this court, before
mentioned; that the testatrix had no personal acquaintance with
Lucy Stone or Susan B. Anthony; that said gift was intended as a
gift _in perpetuam_ to the said cause, and was, without limit of
time, upon trust in favor of said cause; and that said cause was
not a charity within the meaning of the law, and was null and
void.
The defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity. The case
was heard by C. Allen, _J._, on the bill and demurrer, and a
decree was entered sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the
bill. The plaintiffs appealed to the full court.
R. M. MORSE, Jr., and S. J. ELDER, for the plaintiffs.
B. F. BUTLER and F. L. WASHBURN, for the defendants.
Judge CHARLES DEVENS. The fact that the respective portions of
the estate bequeathed by Mrs. Eddy to Mrs. Stone and Miss Anthony
were in amount equal to-or precisely the same as those which came
to her by descent from her father, Francis Jackson, is not of
importance in the case at bar. It had been held in _Jackson vs.
Phillips, 14 Allen, 539_, that a certain bequest made by Mr.
Jackson in trust was not, legally speaking, a public charity, and
that it could not therefore pass to the beneficiaries named in
his will. The property which he thus attempted to bequeath
descended therefore to his legal representatives, of whom Mrs.
Eddy was one. She received it with the same right to deal with it
or dispose of it in her lifetime, or by will at her decease, that
she had in any other estate which was her lawful property.
The bill alleges "that said will was intended by the testatrix to
defeat the decision of the court, before mentioned; that the
testatrix had no personal acquaintance with Lucy Stone or Susan
B. Anthony; that said gift was intended as a gift _in perpetuam_
to the said cause." But if Mrs. Eddy has complied with the rules
of law in the disposition of her property, even if she has hoped
thereby to attain the same object as that desired by her father,
the decision referred to is not defeated, but is recognized and
conformed to; and, whatever her intention may have been, her
bequest is to be upheld.
Her gift to her beneficiaries is absolute in terms. They may do
what they will with the property bequeathed to them, as they may
with any other property which is lawfully their own. It is true
that the gift is accompanied by a request that they will use the
fund bequeathed "to further what is called the woman's rights
cause." A request made by one who has the right to direct is
often, perhaps generally, interpreted as a command. For this
reason, recommendatory or precatory words used in a bequest are
frequently treated as an express direction. Thus, if a legacy
were given to A., with a request that out of the sum bequeathed
he would pay to another a certain sum, or a portion thereof, it
might well be construed as a legacy, to the amount named, to such
person. The expression of the desire of the testator would be the
expression of his will, and the words in form recommendatory
would be held to be mandatory and imperative. Where such words
are used, it is therefore a question of the fair construction to
be attributed to them (_Whipple vs. Adams, 1 Met., 444; Warner
vs. Bates, 98 Mass., 274; Spooner vs. Lovejoy, 108 Mass., 529_).
But the testatrix in the case at bar has left nothing to
construction. Apparently aware that a request, where she had a
right to direct, might be treated as a command, and desirous to
make it entirely clear that no restraint or duty in any legal
sense was imposed upon her legatees, and that the request of the
will was such in the limited sense of the word only, and in no
respect mandatory, she adds thereto, referring to the legatees,
"But neither of them is under any legal responsibility to any one
or to any court to do so." Each of the legatees is therefore the
sole judge of whether she will follow, or how far or in what way
she will follow, the suggestion of the testatrix in the
disposition of the estate absolutely bequeathed to her. It is a
matter in which she is to be guided only by her judgment and
conscience, and no trust is imposed upon the property she
receives.
As no trust is created, it would be superfluous to consider
whether, if the request of the testatrix were treated as a
command, one would then be indicated capable of enforcement
according to the rules of law.
_Bill dismissed._ [Signed:] MARCUS MORTON, _Chief-Justice_,
WALBRIDGE ABNER FIELD, CHARLES DEVENS,
WILLIAM ALLEN, CHARLES ALLEN,
WALDO COBURN, OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, Jr.
* * * * *
From these decisions our daughters should learn the importance of
having some knowledge of law. Had not Mrs. Eddy learned from
experience in her father's case that property could not be left in
trust to any societies except those called religious and
charitable, and made her bequest absolutely to persons, the gift of
$56,000 would have been lost to the woman suffrage movement. As it
was, nearly $10,000 was swallowed up in litigation to secure what
the donees did finally obtain. Considering that Mrs. Eddy[157] is
the only woman who has ever had both the desire and the power to
make a large bequest to this cause, its friends have great reason
to rejoice in her wisdom as well as her generosity.
Civilization would have been immeasurably farther advanced than it
now is, had the many rich women, who have left large bequests to
churches, and colleges for boys, concentrated their wealth and
influence on the education, elevation and enfranchisement of their
own sex. We trust that Mrs. Eddy's example may not be lost on the
coming generation of women.--[EDITORS.
FOOTNOTES:
[104] For details of early history see vol. I., chap. viii. See
also "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement," Roberts Bros.,
Boston.
[105] As an original question, no friend of woman suffrage can deny
that it was a mean thing to put the word "male" into the fourteenth
amendment. It was, doubtless, wise to adopt that amendment. It was
an extension of the right of suffrage, and so far in the line of
American progress, yet it was also an implied denial of the
suffrage to women.--[Warrington in the _Springfield Republican_.
[106] See Vol. II., page 178.
[107] John Neal came from Maine; Nathaniel and Armenia White from
New Hampshire; Isabella Hooker from Connecticut; Thomas W.
Higginson from Rhode Island; and John G. Whittier, Samuel May, jr.,
Gilbert Haven, John T. Sargent, Frank W. Bird, Wendell Phillips,
William Lloyd Garrison, William S. Robinson, Stephen and Abby
Kelley Foster, with a host of others, from Massachusetts. Lucy
Stone and Henry B. Blackwell, who then lived in New Jersey, were
also among the speakers.
[108] In giving an account of her efforts in this direction she
says: "After my return from Kansas in 1867, I felt that we ought to
do something for the cause in Massachusetts. There was at that time
no organization in the State, and there had been no revival of the
subject in the minds of the people since the war, which had
swallowed up every other interest. In the spring of 1868, I wrote
to Abby Kelley Foster, telling her my wish to have something done
in our own State, and she advised me to call together a few persons
known to be in favor of suffrage, some day during anniversary week,
in some parlor in Boston. I corresponded with Adin Ballou, E. D.
Draper, and others, on the subject, and talked the matter over with
Prof. T. T. Leonard, teacher of elocution, who offered his hall for
a place of meeting. I wrote a notice inviting all persons
interested in woman suffrage to come to Mr. Leonard's hall, on a
certain day and hour. At the time appointed the hall was full of
people. I opened the meeting, and stated why I had called it;
others took up the theme, and we had a lively meeting. All agreed
that something should be done, and a committee of seven was
appointed to call a convention for the purpose of organizing a
woman suffrage association. Caroline M. Severance, Stephen S.
Foster, Sarah Southwick and myself, were of this committee. We held
a number of meetings and finally decided to call a convention early
in the autumn of 1868. This convention was held in Horticultural
Hall, and the result was the organization of the New England Woman
Suffrage Association."
[109] _President_, Julia Ward Howe; _Vice-presidents_, William
Lloyd Garrison, Boston; Paulina W. Davis, Providence, R. I.; James
Freeman Clarke, Boston; Sarah Shaw Russell, Boston; Neil Dow, Me.;
Lucy Goddard, Boston; Samuel E. Sewall, Melrose; Lidian Emerson,
Concord; John Hooker, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Hartford, Ct.;
Harriot K. Hunt, Boston; James Hutchinson, jr., West Randolph, Vt.;
Armenia S. White, Concord, N. H.; Louisa M. Alcott, Concord; L.
Maria Child, Wayland; John Weiss, Watertown. _Corresponding
Secretary_, Sara Clark, Boston. _Recording Secretary_, Charles K.
Whipple, Boston. _Treasurer_, E. D. Draper, Boston. _Executive
Committee_: Lucy Stone, Newark, N. J.; T. W. Higginson, Newport, R.
I.; Caroline M. Severance, West Newton; Francis W. Bird, East
Walpole; Mary E. Sargent, Boston; Nathaniel White, Concord, N. H.;
Richard P. Hallowell, Boston; Stephen S. Foster, Worcester; Sarah
H. Southwick, Grantville; Rowland Connor, Boston; B. F. Bowles,
Cambridge; George H. Vibbert, Rockport; Olympia Brown, Weymouth;
Samuel May, jr., Leicester; Nina Moore, Hyde Park.
[110] Ednah D. Cheney, Rev. C. A. Bartol, Rev. F. E. Abbot, Rev.
Phoebe Hanaford and Hon. George F. Hoar.
[111] For report of American Association see Vol. II., page 756.
[112] Lucy Stone, Mary A. Livermore, Stephen S. and Abby Kelley
Foster, H. B. Blackwell, Rev. W. H. Channing, Rev. J. F. Clarke,
Rev. Gilbert Haven, Julia Ward Howe and Elizabeth K. Churchill made
eloquent speeches.
The first board of officers of the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage
Association was: _President_, Julia Ward Howe. _Vice-presidents_:
William Lloyd Garrison, Roxbury; Anne B. Earle, Worcester; John G.
Whittier, Amesbury; Lidian Emerson. Concord; Hon. Robert C. Pitman,
New Bedford; Mrs. Richmond Kingman, Cummington; Rev. R. B.
Stratton, Worcester; Edna D. Cheney, Jamaica Plain; Hon. Isaac
Ames, Haverhill; Sarah Shaw Ames, Boston; J. Ingersoll Bowditch,
West Roxbury; Lydia Maria Child, Wayland; Mary Dewey, Sheffield;
Hon. George F. Hoar, Worcester; Sarah Grimke, Hyde Park; Sarah R.
Hathaway, Boston; William I. Bowditch, Boston; Harriot K. Hunt, M.
D., Boston; Hon. Samuel E. Sewall, Melrose; A. Bronson Alcott,
Concord; Angelina G. Weld, Hyde Park; Hon. Henry Wilson, Natick;
Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Boston; Charlotte A. Joy, Mendon; Jacob
M. Manning, D. D., Lucy Sewall, M. D., Boston; Rev. Joseph May,
Newburyport; Maria Zakrzewska, M. D., Roxbury; Rev. William B.
Wright, Boston; Rev. Jesse H. Jones, Natick; Phoebe A. Hanaford,
Reading; Seth Hunt, Northampton: Maria S. Porter, Melrose.
_Executive Committee_: Rev. Rowland Connor, Boston; Caroline M.
Severance, West Newton; Rev. W. H. H. Murray, Boston; Gordon M.
Fiske, Palmer; Sarah A. Vibbert, Rockport; Rev. Gilbert Haven,
Maiden; Caroline Remond Putman, Salem; Frank B. Sanborn,
Springfield; Mercy B. Jackson, M. D., Boston; Samuel May, jr.,
Leicester; Margaret W. Campbell, Springfield; Rev. C. M. Wines,
Brookline; Mary A. Livermore, Melrose; William S. Robinson, Maiden;
Henry B. Blackwell, Boston; Lucy Stone, Boston; S. S. Foster,
Worcester; Mrs. Wilcox, Worcester; Ada R. Bowles, Cambridge.
_Corresponding Secretary_, Nina Moore, Hyde Park. _Recording
Secretary_, Charles C. Whipple, Boston. _Treasurer_, E. D. Draper,
Hopedale.
[113] Mary F. Eastman, Ada C. Bowles, Lorenza Haynes, Elizabeth K.
Churchill, Hulda B. Loud, Matilda Hindman and other agents in the
lecture field have also done a great deal of missionary work.
[114] The committee of arrangements were Mrs. Isaac Ames, Harriet
H. Robinson, Sarah B. Otis, Philip Wheeler, Jane Tenney, Mrs. A. A.
Fellows, Mrs. Jackson, Miss Talbot and Miss Halsey.
The speakers were: Wendell Phillips, Mary A. Livermore, Frederick
Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret
W. Campbell, Mary F. Eastman, Henry B. Blackwell, Lucy Stone and
others. Julia Ward Howe and Mr. C. P. Cranch, read original poems.
Two old-time tea-party songs, curiosities in their line, were read.
One, dated Boston, 1773, entitled "Lines on Bohea Tea," was written
by Susannah Clarke, great-aunt of W. S. Robinson; the other, copied
from Thomas' _Boston Journal_, of December 2, 1773, was written by
Mrs. Ames, a tailoress.
[115] _Committee of Arrangements_--Lucy Stone, Abby Kelley Foster,
Thomas J. Lothrop, Timothy K. Earle, Sarah E. Wall, Harriet H.
Robinson and E. H. Church. At this public gathering, Athol, Boston,
Haverhill, Leicester, Leominster, Lowell, Malden, Melrose, Milford,
North Brookfield, Taunton, and many other Massachusetts towns were
well represented.
[116] The speakers were Lucy Stone, Rev. W. H. Channing, Mary A.
Livermore, Mary F. Eastman, Kate N. Doggett, Rev. F. A. Hinckley,
Ednah D. Cheney, T. Wentworth Higginson, Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Anna Garlin Spencer and Julia E. Parker. Harriet H. Robinson read a
condensed history of Massachusetts in the woman suffrage movement.
Interesting letters were received from Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, F.
W. Bird, H. B. Blackwell, Margaret W. Campbell, Mrs. C. I. H.
Nichols and Frances D. Gage. Two original woman suffrage songs,
written by Anna Q. T. Parsons and Caroline A. Mason, were sung on
the occasion.
[117] Board of officers for 1885: _President_, Miss Abby W. May;
_Vice-president_, Mrs. Edna Dean Cheney; _Secretary_, Miss Brigham;
_Treasurer_, Miss S. F. King; _Assistant-secretary_, Miss Von
Arnim; _Directors_, Miss H, Lemist, Mrs. J. W. Smith, Mrs. M. P.
Lowe, Mrs. H. G. Jackson, Mrs. L. H. Merrick, Mrs. G. L. Ruffin,
Mrs. Walton, Mrs. Whitman, Miss Rogers, Miss E. Foster, Miss Shaw,
Miss Lougee, Miss L. M. Peabody, Dr. A. E. Fisher, Mrs. Buchanan,
Mrs. O. A. Cheney, Mrs. E. Hilt, Mrs. M. W. Nash, Mrs. M. H. Bray,
Mrs. Fifield, Mrs. J. F. Clarke, Miss L. P. Hale, Mrs. A. H.
Spalding; _Lecture Committee_, Miss Lucia M. Peabody, Mrs. Fifield
and Mrs. L. H. King.
[118] It is the only organization in the State whose business is
managed by its members. Its officers are a president, one or more
vice-presidents for each county, a secretary, treasurer, auditor,
and a standing committee of seven with power to add to its number.
These officers are elected annually. Executive meetings, in which
all members participate, are held monthly. _President_, Harriette
R. Shattuck; _Vice-presidents_, Dr. Salome Merritt, Joan D. Foster,
Emma F. Clarry, Louisa E. Brooks, Esther P. Hutchinson, Sarah S.
Eddy, Harriet M. Spaulding, Martha E. S. Curtis, Dr. Sarah E.
Sherman, Sarah G. Todd, Abbie M. Meserve, Sophia A. Forbes, Esther
B. Smith, Emma A. Todd. _Treasurer_, Sara A. Underwood; _Auditor_,
Lavina A. Hatch; _Secretaries_, Hannah M. Todd, Elizabeth B.
Atwell, Harriet H. Robinson; _Standing Committee_, H. R. Shattuck,
Dr. S. Merritt, H. H. Robinson, Lydia E. Hutchings, Mary R. Brown,
E. B. Attwill, Lucretia H. Jones.
[119] South Framingham, South Boston, Winchester, Rockland,
Wakefield, Uxbridge, Millbury, Bedford, Westboro', Salem, Lynn,
Lowell, Rowley, Concord, Woburn, Malden, Cambridge, Beverly Farms.
[120] Two of these, Harriet H. Robinson and Harriette R. Shattuck,
spoke at the first hearing before the Senate committee. It chanced
that Mrs. Robinson was the first woman to speak before this Special
Committee. The other delegates were: Mary R. Brown, Emma F. Clarry,
Louisa E. Brooks, Mrs. G. W. Simonds, Sarah S. Eddy, Mr. and Mrs.
D. W. Forbes, Mary H. Semple, Louisa A. Morrison and Cora B. Smart.
[121] The authors and compilers of these leaflets are Harriette R.
Shattuck, Sara A. Underwood, Hannah M. Todd and Mary R. Brown.
[122] The speakers at these hearings were Harriette R. Shattuck,
Mary R. Brown, Sidney D. Shattuck, Nancy W. Covell, Dr. Julia C.
Smith, Mr. S. C. Fay, Louisa A. Morrison, Sara A. Underwood and
Harriet H. Robinson.
[123] The speakers were Rev. J. T. Sargent, A. Bronson Alcott, H.
B. Blackwell, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, S. S. Foster, Mary A.
Livermore, Rev. B. F. Bowles, F. B. Sanborn, W. S. Robinson,
Gilbert Haven and many others.
[124] In the records of the executive meetings of this Association
I find the following votes. In October, 1872, it was voted, That
any invitation to speak at Republican meetings, extended to our
agents by Republican committees in this State, be accepted by them
until the coming election, their usual salaries being paid by this
Association; that Miss Loud be notified by Lucy Stone of our
arrangement in regard to Republican meetings, and be requested,
after the 15th instant, to hold her meetings in that manner as far
as practicable; that the balance of expenses of the woman's meeting
held at Tremont Temple be paid by this Association. [This was a
political meeting held by the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage
Association to endorse General Grant as the presidential candidate
of the Republican party.]
[125] The National Association of Massachusetts at its executive
session, August 23, passed the following:
_Resolved_, That while we respect the advice of our leaders, as
their private political opinion, we deem it worse than useless to
"stand by the Republican" or any other party while we are
deprived of the only means of enforcing a political opinion; and
that we advise all associations, to concentrate their efforts
upon securing the ballot to women, withholding all attempt at
political influence until they possess the right which alone can
make their influence effective.
[126] At the executive meeting of the New England Association, May,
1874, it was voted that a circular be sent to the friends of woman
suffrage, requesting them to meet in Boston, May 25, to consider
the expediency of calling a convention to form a political party
for woman suffrage.
[127] The call for this convention was signed by Harriet H.
Robinson, Rev. A. D. Sargent, Rev. G. H. Vibbert, William Johnson,
Mrs. T. R. Woodman, Helen Gale and Mrs. M. Slocum. Judge Robert C.
Pitman was the candidate for governor.
[128] This "Woman Suffrage ticket," the first ever offered to a
Massachusetts voter, received 41 votes out of the 1,340 cast in all
by the voters of the town, a larger proportion than that first cast
by the old Liberty party in Massachusetts, which began with only
307 votes in the whole State, and ended in the Free Soil and
Republican parties.
[129] Election day dawned and it rained hard, but the women braved
the storm. There they stood from 9 o'clock A.M. till a quarter of 5
P.M. and distributed votes, only leaving their positions long
enough to get a cup of coffee and a luncheon, which was provided at
the headquarters. They distributed 1,700 woman suffrage ballots and
1,000 circulars containing arguments on the rights of women. They
were treated with unexceptionable politeness and kindness by the
voters.
[130] The first time women went to the polls in Massachusetts was
in 1870, when forty-two women of Hyde Park, led by Angelina Grimke
Weld and Sarah Grimke, deposited their ballots, in solemn protest
"against the political ostracism of women, against leaving every
vital interest of a majority of the citizens to the monopoly of a
male minority." It is hardly needful to record that these ballots
were not counted.
[131] For summary of voting laws relating to women from 1691 to
1822, see "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement," by
Harriet H. Robinson: Roberts Brothers, Boston.
[132] Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Lucy Stone, Theodore Parker,
Wendell Phillips, and other speakers of ability, presented able
arguments in favor of giving women the right to vote.
[133] This memorial was printed by order of the legislature (Leg.
Doc. Ho. 57) and is called "Memorial of the Female Signers of the
Several Petitions of Henry A. Hardy and Others," presented March 1,
1849. The document is not signed and Mrs. Ferrin's name is not
found with it upon the records, neither does her name appear in the
journal of the House in connection with any of the petitions and
addresses she caused to be presented to the legislature of the
State. But for the loyal friendship of the few who knew of her work
and were willing to give her due credit, the name of Mary Upton
Ferrin [see Vol. I., page 208] and the memory of her labors as well
as those of many another silent worker, would have gone into the
"great darkness."
[134] The committee was addressed by Wendell Phillips, Julia Ward
Howe, Lucy Stone, Rev. James Freeman Clarke and Hon. George F.
Hoar.
[135] Two years before (1869), while sitting as visitor in the
gallery of the House of Representatives, I heard the whole subject
of woman's rights referred to the (bogus) committee on graveyards!
[136] It was perhaps intended to serve as a means of reinstating
Abby W. May and other women who had been defeated as candidates for
reelection on the Boston school-board. The names of Isa E. Gray,
Mrs. C. B. Richmond, Elizabeth P. Peabody and John M. Forbes led
the lists of petitioners.
[137] At the first annual election for school committees in cities
and towns in 1879-80, about 5,000 women became registered voters.
[138] Lucretia P. Hale, Abby W. May, Lucia M. Peabody, Mary J. S.
Blake, Kate G. Wells, Lucretia Crocker.
[139] This act, so brief and so _expressive_, is worthy to be
remembered. It simply reads: "_Be it enacted, etc., as follows_:
SEC. 1. No person shall be deemed ineligible to serve upon a school
committee by reason of sex.
SEC. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. (_Approved
June 30, 1874._)
By force of habit, the legislature said not a word in the law about
_women_. There are now (1885) 102 women members of school-boards in
Massachusetts.
[140] See "Women under the law of Massachusetts," Henry H. Sprague.
Boston: W. B. Clarke & Carruth.
[141] The authority for this old "thumb" tradition, that "a man had
the right to whip his wife with a stick no bigger than his thumb,"
is found in an early edition of _Phillip's Evidence_. That book was
authority in English common law and in it Phillips is quoted as
saying, that according to the law of his day a husband "might
lawfully chastise his wife with a reasonable weapon, as a
_broomstick_," adding, however, "but if he use an unreasonable
weapon, such as an iron bar, and death ensue, it would be
murder."--[Chamberlin, p. 818.
[142] In an old will, made a hundred and fifty years ago, a husband
of large means bequeathed to his "dearly beloved wife" $50 and a
new suit of clothes, with the injunction that she should return to
her original, or family home. And with this small sum, as her share
of his property, he returned her to her parents.
[143] The little actual gain in votes since 1874, in favor of
municipal or general suffrage for women, might cause the careless
observer to draw the inference that no great progress had been made
in legislative sentiment during all these years. In 1870 the vote
in the House of Representatives on the General Woman Suffrage Bill
was 133 to 68. In 1885 the bill giving municipal suffrage was
defeated in the House by a vote of 130 to 61. But this is not a
true index of the progress of public opinion.
[144] Mrs. Ellen M. Richards was the first woman who entered.
[145] The Harvard Annex, so called, began its seventh year with
sixty-five young ladies enrolled for study. The enrollment for the
preceding six years was as follows: First year, 29: second, 47;
third 40; fourth, 39; fifth, 49, sixth, 55. Some of the students
come from distant places, but a majority are from the Cambridge and
neighboring high-schools. The institution occupies this year for
the first time a building which has been conveniently arranged for
its purposes. The endowment of the association which manages the
work now amounts to $85,000.
[146] This lady was Lucy Downing, a sister of the first governor of
Massachusetts. She was the wife of Emanuel Downing, a lawyer of the
Inner Temple, a friend of Governor Winthrop and afterward a man of
mark in the infant colony. In a letter to her brother, Lucy Downing
expresses the desire of herself and husband to come to New England
with their children, but laments that if they do come her son
George cannot complete his studies. She says: "You have yet noe
societies nor means of that kind for the education of youths in
learning. It would make me goe far nimbler to New England, if God
should call me to it, than otherwise I should, and I believe a
colledge would put noe small life into the plantation." This letter
was written early in 1636, and in October of the same year the
General Court of the Massachusetts colony agreed to give L400
towards establishing a school or college in Newtowne (two years
later called Cambridge). Soon afterwards Rev. John Harvard died and
left one-half of his estate to this "infant seminary," and in 1638
it was ordered by the General Court that the "Colledge to be built
at Cambridge shall be called Harvard Colledge."
Early in 1638 Lucy Downing and her husband arrived in New England,
and the name of George Downing stands second on the list of the
first class of Harvard graduates in 1642. The Downings had other
sons who do not seem to have been educated at Harvard, and
daughters who were put out to service. The son for whom so much was
done by his mother, was afterwards known as Sir George Downing, and
he became rich and powerful in England. Downing street in London is
named for him. In after life he forgot his duty to his mother, who
so naturally looked to him for support; and her last letter written
from England after her husband died, when she was old and feeble,
tells a sad story of her son's avarice and meanness, and leaves the
painful impression that she suffered in her old age for the
necessaries of life.
It is hard to estimate how much influence the earnest longing of
this one woman for the better education of her son, had in the
founding of this earliest college in Massachusetts. But for her
thinking and speaking at the right time the enterprise might have
been delayed for half a century. It is to be deplored that Lucy
Downing established the unwise precedent of educating one member of
the family at the expense of the rest; an example followed by too
many women since her time. Harvard College itself has followed it
as well, in that it has so long excluded from its privileges that
portion of the human family to which Lucy Downing belonged.
Although women have never been permitted to become students of this
college, or of any of the schools connected with it, yet they have
always taken a great interest in its pecuniary welfare, and the
University is largely indebted to the generosity of women for its
endowment and support. From the records of Harvard College, it
appears that funds have been contributed by 167 women, which
amount, in the aggregate, to $325,000. Out of these funds a
proportion of the university scholarships were founded, and at
least one of its professors' chairs. In its Divinity school alone
five of the ten scholarships bear the names of women. Caroline A.
Plummer of Salem gave $15,000 to found the Plummer Professorship of
Christian Morals. Sarah Derby bequeathed $1,000 towards founding
the Hersey Professorship of Anatomy and Physic. The Holden Chapel
was built with money given for that purpose by Mrs. Samuel Holden
and her daughters. Anna E. P. Sever, in 1879, left a legacy to this
college of $140,000. [See Harvard Roll of Honor for women in
_Harvard Register_ in 1880-81.] Other known benefactors of Harvard
University are: Lady Moulson, Hannah Sewall, Mary Saltonstall,
Dorothy Saltonstall, Joanna Alford, Mary P. Townsend, Ann Toppan,
Eliza Farrar, Ann F. Schaeffer, Levina Hoar, Rebecca A. Perkins,
Caroline Merriam, Sarah Jackson, Hannah C. Andrews, Nancy Kendall,
Charlotte Harris, Mary Osgood, Lucy Osgood, Sarah Winslow, Julia
Bullock, Marian Hovey, Anna Richmond, Caroline Richmond, Clara J.
Moore and Susan Cabot.--[H. H. R.
The question is often asked, why are women so much more desirous
than men to see their children educated? Because it is a right that
has been denied to themselves. To them education means liberty,
wealth, position, power. When the black race at the South were
emancipated, they were far more eager for education than the poor
whites, and for the same reason.--[EDS.
[147] Ruth Barnaby, aged 101 in 1875, Elizabeth Phillips and Hannah
Greenway were also members of this branch of the profession. The
last was midwife to Mrs. Judge Sewall, who was the mother of
nineteen children. Judge Samuel E. Sewall mentions this fact in his
diary, recently published.
[148] Dr. Jackson had a large practice in Boston, and filled for
five years the chair of professor of diseases of children in the
Boston University School of Medicine.
[149] In 1840, a Massachusetts woman could not legally be treasurer
of even a sewing society without having some man responsible for
her. In 1809, it was necessary that the subscriptions of a married
woman for a newspaper or for charities should be in the name of her
husband.
[150] Olympia Brown's own account of this transaction is as
follows: In 1864, soon after my settlement in Weymouth, I
solemnized a marriage. It was the first time a woman had officiated
in this capacity, and there was so much talk about the legality of
the act, that I petitioned the legislature to take such action as
was necessary in order to make marriages solemnized by me legal.
The committee to whom it was referred reported that no legislation
was necessary.
[151] This little book is worthy of mention, from the fact that it
is probably the first publication of its kind in Massachusetts, if
not in America. The whole title of the book is, "Observations on
the Rights of Women, with their appropriate duties agreeable to
Scripture, reason and common sense." Mrs. Crocker, in her
introduction, says: "The wise author of Nature has endowed the
female mind with equal powers and faculties, and given them the
same right of judging and acting for themselves as he gave the male
sex." She further argues that, "According to Scripture, woman was
the first to transgress and thus forfeited her original right of
equality, and for a time was under the yoke of bondage, till the
birth of our blessed Savior, when she was restored to her equality
with man."
This is a very fine beginning, and would seem to savor strongly of
the modern woman's rights doctrine; but, unfortunately, the author,
with charming inconsistency, goes on to say,--"We shall strictly
adhere to the principle of the impropriety of females ever
trespassing on masculine grounds, as it is morally incorrect, and
physically impossible."
[152] In 1836 there was a small woman's club of Lowell factory
operatives, officered and managed entirely by women. This may be a
remote first cause of the origin of the New England Women's Club,
since it bears the same relation to that flourishing institution,
that the native crab does to the grafted tree. This was the first
woman's club in the State, if not in the whole country.
[153] A few ladies met at the house of Dr. Harriot K. Hunt to
consider a plan for organization. Its avowed object was "to supply
the daily increasing need of a great central resting place, for the
comfort and convenience of those who may wish to unite with us, and
ultimately become a center for united and organized social thought
and action." Its first president was Caroline M. Severance. On the
executive board were the names of Julia Ward Howe, Ednah D. Cheney,
Lucy Goddard, Harriet M. Pitnam, Jane Alexander, Abby W. May, and
many others who have since become well known. This club held its
first meetings in private houses, but it has for several years
occupied spacious club rooms on Park street in Boston. Julia Ward
Howe is its president. The club has its own historian, and when
this official gives the result of her researches to the public,
there will be seen how many projects for the elevation of women and
the improvement of social life have had their inception in the
brains of those who assemble in the parlors of the New England
Woman's Club. In 1874, it projected the movement by which women
were first elected on the school committee of Boston, and also
prepared the petition to be sent to the Massachusetts legislature
of 1879, the result of which was the passage of the law allowing
women to vote for school committees. In the _Woman's Journal_ for
1883 will be found a sketch of this club.
[154] "Taxation of Women in Massachusetts"; "Woman Suffrage
a Right, not a Privilege," and "The Forgotten Woman in
Massachusetts."
[155] Its projectors were A. Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson,
Professor W. T. Harris, Frank B. Sanborn, Professor Benjamin
Pierce, Dr. H. K. Jones, Elizabeth P. Peabody and Ednah D. Cheney.
[156] This act is almost as brief as a certain clause in one of the
election laws of the State of Texas, which says: "The masculine
gender shall include the feminine and neuter."
[157] We deeply regret that we have been unable to procure a good
photograph of our generous benefactor, as it was our intention to
make her engraving the frontispiece of this volume, and thus give
the honored place to her through whose liberality we have been
enabled at last to complete this work. We are happy to state that
Mrs. Eddy's will was not contested by any of the descendents of the
noble Francis Jackson, but by Jerome Bacon, a millionaire, the
widower of her eldest daughter who survived the mother but one
week. When the suit was entered the daughters of Mrs. Eddy, Sarah
and Amy, her only surviving children, in a letter to the executor
of the estate, Hon. C. R. Ransom, said: "We hereby consent and
agree that, in case this suit now pending in the court shall be
decided against the claims of Lucy Stone and Susan B. Anthony, we
will give to them the net amount of any sum that as heirs may be
awarded to us, in accordance with our mother's will."
CHAPTER XXXII.
CONNECTICUT.
Prudence Crandall--Eloquent Reformers--Petitions for
Suffrage--The Committee's Report--Frances Ellen Burr--Isabella
Beecher Hooker's Reminiscences--Anna Dickinson in the Republican
Campaign--State Society Formed, October 28, 29,
1869--Enthusiastic Convention in Hartford--Governor Marshall
Jewell--He Recommends More Liberal Laws for Women--Society Formed
in New Haven, 1871--Governor Hubbard's Inaugural, 1877--Samuel
Bowles of the _Springfield Republican_--Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
Chaplain, 1870--John Hooker, esq., Champions the Suffrage
Movement.
While Connecticut has always been celebrated for its puritanical
theology, political conservatism and rigid social customs, it was
nevertheless the scene of some of the most hotly contested of the
anti-slavery battles. While its leading clergymen and statesmen
stoutly maintained the letter of the old creeds and constitutions,
the Burleighs, the Mays, and the Crandalls strove to illustrate the
true spirit of religion and republicanism in their daily lives by
"remembering those that were in bonds as bound with them."
The example of one glorious woman like Prudence Crandall,[158] who
suffered shameful persecutions in establishing a school for colored
girls at Canterbury, in 1833, should have been sufficient to rouse
every woman in Connecticut to some thought on the basic principles
of the government and religion of the country. Yet we have no
record of any woman in that State publicly sustaining her in that
grand enterprise, though no doubt her heroism gave fresh
inspiration to the sermons of Samuel J. May, then preaching in the
village of Brooklyn, and the speeches and poems of the two eloquent
reformers, Charles C. and William H. Burleigh. The words and deeds
of these and other great souls, though seeming to slumber for many
years, gave birth at last to new demands for another class of
outraged citizens. Thus liberty is ever born of the hateful spirit
of persecution. One question of reform settled forever by
the civil war, the initiative for the next was soon taken. In
_The Revolution_ of January 16, 1868, we find the following
well-considered report on woman's enfranchisement, presented by a
minority of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments to the
legislature of Connecticut at its session of 1867:
The undersigned members of the committee believe that the prayer
of the petitioners ought to be granted. It would be much easier
for us to reject the petition and silently to acquiesce in the
opinions of the majority upon the subject to which it relates,
but our attention was challenged and an investigation invited by
the bold axioms upon which the cause of suffrage for woman was
claimed to rest, and the more we have examined the subject the
more convinced we have become that the logic of our institutions
requires a concession of that right. It is claimed by some that
the right to vote is not a natural right, but that it is a
privilege which some have acquired, and which may be granted to
others at the option of the fortunate holders. But they fail to
inform us how the possessors first acquired the privilege, and
especially how they acquired the rightful power to withhold that
privilege from others, according to caprice or notions of
expediency. We hold this doctrine to be pernicious in tendency,
and hostile to the spirit of a republican government; and we
believe that it can only be justified by the same arguments that
are used to justify slavery or monarchy--for it is an obvious
deduction of logic that if one thousand persons have a right to
govern another thousand without their consent, one man has a
right to govern all.
Mr. Lincoln tersely said, "If slavery is not wrong nothing is
wrong." So it seems to us that if the right to vote is not a
natural right, there is no such thing as a natural right in human
relations. The right to freedom and the right to a ballot both
spring from the same source. The right to vote is only the right
to a legitimate use of freedom. It is plain that if a man is not
free to govern himself, and to have a voice in the taxation of
his own property, he is not really free in any enlightened sense.
Even Edward I. of England said, "It is a most equitable rule that
what concerns all should be approved by all." This must
rightfully apply to women the same as to men. And Locke, in his
essay on civil government, said, "Nothing is more evident than
that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born
to the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same
faculties, should also be equal, one with another, without
subordination or subjection." Talleyrand said, as an argument for
monarchy, "The moment we reject an absolutely universal suffrage,
we admit the principle of aristocracy." The founders of this
nation asserted with great emphasis and every variety of
repetition, the essential equality of human rights as a
self-evident truth. The war of the Revolution was justified by
the maxim, "Taxation without representation is tyranny"; and all
republics vindicate their existence by the claim that
"Governments derive their just power from the consent of the
governed." Yet woman, in Connecticut, is governed without her
consent, and taxed without representation.
Lord Camden, one of England's ablest jurists, long ago declared,
"My position is this--taxation and representation are
inseparable. The position is founded in a law of nature--nay
more, it is itself an eternal law of nature." Our forefathers
held to this principle, and fought seven years to establish it.
They maintained their favorite theory of government against
immense odds, and transmitted to their posterity the great work
of putting it logically into practice. It is acknowledged by this
legislature that "taxation without representation is tyranny,"
and that "governments derive their just power from the consent of
the governed." If these phrases are anything more than the
meaningless utterances of demagogues, anything more than the
hypocritical apologies of rebellious colonies in a strait--then
we submit that a _prima facie_ case for woman's right to vote has
already been made out. To declare that a voice in the government
is the right of all, and then give it to less than half, and that
to the fraction to which the theorist himself happens to belong,
is to renounce even the appearance of principle.
It is plain to your committee that neither the State nor the
nation can have peace on this suffrage question until some fair
standard shall be adopted which is not based on religion, or
color, or sex, or any accident of birth--a test which shall be
applicable to every adult human being. In a republic the ballot
belongs to every intelligent adult person who is innocent of
crime. There is an obvious and sufficient reason for excluding
minors, state-prison convicts, imbeciles and insane persons, but
does the public safety require that we shall place the women of
Connecticut with infants, criminals, idiots and lunatics? Do they
deserve the classification? It seems to your committee that to
enfranchise woman--or rather to cease to deprive her of the
ballot, which is of right hers, would be reciprocally beneficial.
We believe that it would elevate the character of our
office-holders; that it would purify our politics; that it would
render our laws more equitable; that it would give to woman a
protection against half the perils which now beset her; that it
would put into her hands a key that would unlock the door of
every respectable occupation and profession; that it would insure
a reconstruction of our statute laws on a basis of justice, so
that a woman should have a right to her own children, and a right
to receive and enjoy the proceeds of her own labor. John Neal
estimates that the ballot is worth fifty cents a day to every
American laborer, enabling each man to command that much higher
wages. Does not gentlemanly courtesy, as well as equal justice,
require that that weapon of defense shall be given to those
thousands of working women among us who are going down to
prostitution through three or four half-paid, over-crowded
occupations?
It is said that woman is now represented by her husband, when she
has one; but what is this representation worth when in
Connecticut, two years ago, all of the married woman's personal
property became absolutely her husband's, including even her
bridal presents, to sell or give away, as he saw fit--a statute
which still prevails in most of the States? What is that
representation worth when even now, in this State, no married
woman has the right to the use of her own property, and no woman,
even a widow, is the natural guardian of her own children? Even
in Connecticut, under man's representation, a widow whose husband
dies without a will is regarded by law as an encumbrance on the
estate which she, through years of drudgery, has helped to
acquire. She can inherit none of the houses or land, but has
merely the use of one-third, while the balance goes to his
relatives--rich, perhaps, and persons whom she never saw. Does
not this suggest reasons why woman should wish to represent
herself?
It is said that women do not desire the ballot. This is by no
means certain. It can be ascertained only by taking a vote. It is
not proved by the fact that they have not yet generally clamored
for the right, nor by the fact that some protest against it. In
Persia, it is a law of society that virtuous women shall appear
in public with their faces covered, and instead of murmuring at
the restraint, they are universal in upholding it, and wonder at
the immodesty and effrontery of English women who appear upon the
streets unveiled. Custom hardens us to any kind of degradation.
When woman was not admitted to the dinner-table as an equal with
man, she undoubtedly thought the exclusion was perfectly proper,
and quite in the nature of things, and the dinner-table became
vile and obscene. When she was forbidden to enter the church, she
approved the arrangement, and the church became a scene of
hilarity and bacchanalian revel. When she was forbidden to take
part in literature, she thought it was not her sphere, and
disdained the alphabet, and the consequence was that literature
became unspeakably impure, so that no man can now read in public
some of the books that were written before woman brought chastity
and refinement into letters. The Asiatics are probably not in
favor of political liberty, or the American Indians in favor of
civilization; but that does not prove that these would be bad for
them, especially if thousands of the most enlightened did desire
and demand the change. It is assumed that women are not in favor
of this right; how can this be better ascertained than by
submitting to them the question to vote upon--"yes" or "no."
If this legislature shall be averse to trusting woman to give her
opinion even on the question of her own enfranchisement, we
recommend that an amendment, striking the word "male" from the
State constitution, be submitted to the qualified electors of the
State. Can there be any possible danger in trusting those who
have trusted us? They, not we, are the law-makers. An assembly is
elected only because it would be inconvenient for all the
citizens to vote upon every statute. But when any change in the
fundamental law is seriously asked, it should be remitted to the
people without hesitation, especially when that proposed change
will render our logic consistent, and our institutions
harmonious; when it will enforce the democratic doctrine that, in
society, every human being has a right to do anything that does
not interfere with the rights of others, and when it will
establish equality in place of partiality, and vindicate the
principle of All Rights for All. We therefore recommend the
adoption of the following resolution: [Here follows a resolution
submitting to the people an amendment of the constitution giving
women the right to vote equally with men.]
The members of the committee who signed this early declaration in
favor of the rights of women should be remembered with honor. They
are Henry Ashley, William Steele and J. D. Gallup, jr. The
resolution recommended received 93 votes in the House of
Representatives, against 111 in opposition. So strong an expression
in favor of it at that time is a noteworthy fact in the history of
the cause.
The petitions that called out this able report were secured through
the influence of Frances Ellen Burr, who may be said to have been
the pioneer of woman suffrage in Connecticut. She had made several
attempts, through conversations with influential friends, to
organize a State society many years before. From the inauguration
of the State association until the present time Miss Burr has been
one of its most efficient members, and has done more to popularize
the question of woman suffrage throughout the State than any other
person. Her accomplishments as a writer and speaker, as a reporter
and stenographer, as well as her connection with the _Hartford
Times_ (a journal that has a very large circulation in the State),
edited by her brother, have qualified her for wide and efficient
influence. Her niece, Mrs. Ella Burr McManus, edits a column in
that paper, under the head of "Social Notes." She is also an
advocate of suffrage for women, and makes telling points, from week
to week, on this question. In issuing the first numbers of _The
Revolution_, the earliest words of good cheer came from Frances
Ellen Burr.[159]
The general rebellion among women against the old conditions of
society and the popular opinions as to their nature and destiny,
has been organized in each State in this Union by the sudden
awakening of some self-reliant woman, in whose soul had long
slumbered new ideas as to her rights and duties, growing out of
personal experiences or the distant echoes of onward steps in other
localities. In Connecticut this woman was Isabella Beecher Hooker,
who had scarcely dared to think, and much less to give shape in
words, to the thoughts that, like unwelcome ghosts, had haunted her
hours of solitude from year to year. Elizabeth Barrett Browning
describes a hero as one who does what others do but say; who says
what others do but think; and thinks what others do but dream. The
successive steps by which Mrs. Hooker's dreams at last took shape
in thoughts, words and actions, and brought her to the woman
suffrage platform, are well told by herself:
My mind had long been disturbed with the tangled problem of
social life, but it involved so many momentous questions that I
could not see where to begin nor what to do. I could only protest
in my heart, and leave the whole matter for God[160] to deal with
in his wisdom. Thus matters stood until the year 1861, when Anna
Dickinson, then a girl of nineteen, came to Hartford to speak in
behalf of the Republican party, particularly on its hostility to
the extension of slavery. I shall never forget the dismay--I know
not what else to call it--which I felt at the announcement of her
first speech in one of our public halls, lest harm should come to
the political cause that enlisted my sympathies, and anxiety
about the speaker, who would have to encounter so much adverse
criticism in our conservative and prejudiced city. It was
certainly a most startling occurrence, that here in my very home,
where there had been hardly a lisp in favor of the rights of
women, this girl should speak on political subjects, and that,
too, upon the invitation of the leaders of a great political
party. Here was a stride, not a mere step; and a stride almost to
final victory for the suppressed rights of women.
My husband and I, full of anxiety and apprehension, but full,
too, of determination to stand by one who so bravely shook off
her trammels, went to hear this new Joan of Arc, and in a few
minutes after she began we found ourselves, with the rest of the
large audience, entranced by her eloquence. At the close of the
meeting we went with many others to be introduced and give her
the right hand of fellowship. She came home with us for the
night, and after the family retired she and I communed together,
heart to heart, as mother and daughter, and from this sweet,
grand soul, born to the freedom denied to all women except those
known as Quakers, I learned to trust as never before the
teachings of the inner light, and to know whence came to them the
recognition of equal rights with their brethren in the public
assembly.
It was she who brought me to the knowledge of Mrs. John Stuart
Mill, and her remarkable paper on "The Enfranchisement of Women,"
in _The Westminster Review_. She told me, too, of Susan B.
Anthony, a fearless defender of true liberty and woman's right of
public speech; but I allowed an old and ignorant prejudice
against her and Mrs. Stanton to remain until the year 1864, when,
going South to nurse a young soldier who was wounded in the war,
I met Mrs. Caroline Severance from Boston, who was residing in
South Carolina, where her husband was in the service of the
government, who confirmed what Miss Dickinson had told me of Miss
Anthony, and unfolded to me the whole philosophy of the woman
suffrage movement.
She afterwards invited me to her home near Boston, where I joined
Mr. Garrison and others in issuing a call for a convention, which
I attended, and aided in the formation of the New England Woman
Suffrage Association. At this meeting, which I will not attempt
to describe, I met Paulina Wright Davis, whose mere presence upon
the platform, with her beautiful white hair and her remarkable
dignity and elegance, was a most potent argument in favor of
woman's participation in public affairs. I sought an introduction
to her, and confessing my prejudice against Mrs. Stanton and Miss
Anthony, whom I had never yet seen, she urged me to meet them as
guests at her home in Providence; and a few weeks later, under
the grand old trees of her husband's almost ducal estate, we went
over the whole subject of man's supremacy and woman's subjection
that had lain so many years a burden upon my heart, and, sitting
at their feet, I said: "While I have been mourning in secret over
the degradation of woman, you have been working, through
opposition and obloquy, to raise her to self-respect and
self-protection through enfranchisement, knowing that with equal
political rights come equal social and industrial opportunities.
Henceforth, I will at least share your work and your obloquy."
In September, 1869, just one year from that time, after spending
several weeks in correspondence with friends all over the State,
and making careful preliminary arrangements, I issued a call for
the first woman suffrage convention that was ever held in
Connecticut, at which a State society was formed. To my surprise
and satisfaction, the city press each day devoted several columns
to reports of our proceedings, and the enthusiasm manifested by
the large audiences was as unexpected as it was gratifying. The
speakers were worthy of the reception given them, and few
occasions have gathered upon one platform so notable an
assemblage of men and women.[161] The resolutions which formed
the basis of the discussions were prepared and presented by Mr.
Hooker:
_Resolved_, That there is no consideration whatever that
makes the right of suffrage valuable to men, or that makes
it the duty or the interest of the nation to concede it to
men, that does not make it valuable to women, and the duty
and interest of the nation to concede it to women.
_Resolved_, That the ballot will bring to woman a higher
education, larger industrial opportunities, a wider field
for thought and action, a sense of responsibility in her
relations to the public welfare, and, in place of mere
complaisance and flattery, the higher and truer respect of
men.
_Resolved_, That political affairs, involving nearly all
those questions that relate to the welfare of the nation and
the progress of society towards a perfect Christian
civilization, ought to interest deeply every intelligent
mind and every patriotic heart; and, while women love their
country and the cause of Christian progress no less than
men, they ought to have the same opportunity with men to
exert a political power in their behalf.
_Resolved_, That in the alarming prevalence of public
dishonesty and private immorality, which the present forces
on the side of public and private virtue are proving wholly
unable to control, it is our firm conviction that women,
educated to the responsibilities of a participation with men
in political rights, would bring to the aid of virtuous men
a new and powerful element of good, which cannot be spared,
and for which there can be no substitute.
_Resolved_, That in advocating the opening to woman of this
larger sphere, we do not undervalue her relations as a wife
and mother, than which none can be more worthy of a true
woman's love and pride; but it is only by a full development
of her faculties and a wide range for her thought that she
can become the true companion of an intelligent husband, and
the wise and inspiring educator of her children; while mere
domestic life furnishes no occupation to the great number of
women who never marry, and a very inadequate one to those
who, at middle age, with large experience and ripe wisdom,
find their children grown up around them and no longer
needing their care.
_Resolved_, That all laws which recognize a superior right
in the husband to the children whom the wife has borne, or a
right on the part of the husband to the property of the
wife, beyond the right given to her in his property, and all
laws which hold that husband and wife do not stand in all
respects in the relation of equals, ought to be abrogated,
and the perfect equality of husband and wife established.
_Resolved_, That this equality of position and rights we
believe to have been intended by the Creator as the ultimate
perfection of the social state, when he said, "Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness, and let THEM have
dominion"; and to have been a part of our Savior's plan for
a perfect Christian society, in which an Apostle says,
"there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female."
The _Hartford Courant_, in its description of the convention, said:
After a speech by Mr. Garrison, the Hutchinsons sang some of the
religious songs of the Southern negroes with excellent taste, and
then, led by them, the whole audience united in the chorus; and
as the melody rose strong and clear a pathos fell upon the
assembly that brought tears to many eyes. The tableau upon the
stage was striking and memorable. There stood the family of
singers, with the same cheerful, hopeful courage in their
uplifted faces with which for twenty years they have sung of the
good time _almost_ here, of every reform; there stood William
Lloyd Garrison, stern Puritan, inflexible apostle, his work
gloriously done in one reform, lending the weight of his
unwearied, solid intellect to that which he believes is the last
needed; there was Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, a Roman matron in
figure, her noble head covered with clustering ringlets of white,
courageous after a quarter of a century of unsullied devotion,
though she had just confessed that sometimes she was almost
weary; there was Miss Anthony, unselfish, patient, wise and
practical; the graceful Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, the poet of the
movement; the tall and elegant Mrs. Celia Burleigh; the
benevolent Dr. Clemence Lozier; Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, with
spiritual face and firm purpose, just taking her place in the
reform that has long had her heart and deep conviction, and many
others of fine presence and commanding beauty--matrons, with gray
hair and countenances illuminated with lives of charity; young
women, flushed with hope; and as the grand Christian song went
on, many a woman, leaning against a supporting pillar, gave way
to the tears that would come, tears of hope deferred, tears of
weary longings, tears of willing, patient devotion--e'en though
it be a cross that raiseth me--and then the benediction, and the
assembly dispersed, touched, it may be, into a moment's sympathy.
* * *
At the closing evening session the opera house was completely
filled by an audience whose attendance was a compliment. * * *
The chairman, Rev. N. J. Burton, said: "Has not this convention
been a success? I say, emphatically, it has. We have had the very
best of audiences at every session, and we have provided speakers
as good as the audience. We have not given you even one poor
speech. I thank the audience and the speakers, one and all. I
feel like thanking everybody, myself included, as chairman. In
Stewart's store in New York they told me 1,500 persons were
employed, all guided by one brain up-stairs, and that one brain
giving the store a national reputation. This convention has been
inspired and managed by one person--Mrs. Hooker of this city."
After speculating as to the possible oratorical power of Mrs. H.,
had she received the advantages and enjoyed the practice of her
brother, who spoke the previous evening, he said: "But of course
Mrs. Hooker couldn't vote, nor be a member of the legislature, or
even a justice of the peace. Insufferable nonsense! If such women
don't vote before I die--well, like Gough's obstinate deacon, I
won't die till they do."
On motion of Franklin Chamberlin, esq., the thanks of the
convention were tendered to Mrs. Hooker for her efforts. At her
request the chairman said that she was wholly surprised by this
reference to herself. She would only say, "Thank God for our
success," to which the chairman added, "Amen and Amen." He then
introduced Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, daughter of the late
Judge Cady of Albany, wife of the Hon. Henry B. Stanton of New
York, and editor of _The Revolution_. She is perhaps fifty, and
in general appearance much resembles Mrs. Davis. She is
apparently in robust health, dresses in black, with just enough
of white lace, and, with her gray hair loosely gathered, and her
strong, symmetrical and refined face and perfect self-possession,
is a noble-looking woman. Her address, or oration, was before
her, but she was not hampered by it. Her voice is clear, her
gesticulation simple, and her general manner not surpassed by
Wendell Phillips. Rough notes of an oration so finished can only
indicate the main drift of her thoughts. * * * The eloquent
peroration was heard in profound silence, followed by
enthusiastic applause. * * * The chairman read the constitution
and offered it for signatures, and the officers of the
Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association were chosen.[162]
In _The Revolution_ of November 11, 1869, Mrs. Stanton giving a
description of the convention, refers to the liberality of the
governor, Marshall Jewell, and the genial hospitalities of his
noble wife:[163]
In company with Mrs. Howe and Miss Anthony, we were entertained
at the governor's mansion, a fine brick building in the heart of
the town. It has a small pond on one side, and eight acres of
land, laid out in gardens, walks and lawns, with extensive
greenhouses and graperies. The house is spacious, elegantly and
tastefully furnished, with all the comforts and luxuries that
wealth can command. With a conservatory, library, pictures,
statuary, beautiful (strong-minded) wife and charming daughters,
the noble governor is in duty bound to remain the happy, genial,
handsome man he is to-day. Though the governor, owing to his
pressing executive duties, did not honor our convention with his
presence, we feel assured, in reading over his last able message,
that he feels a deep interest in the education and elevation of
women. In speaking of their school system, he calls attention to
the low wages of female teachers, and the injustice of excluding
girls from the scientific schools and polytechnic institutions in
the State. He says:
I would especially call the attention of the legislature to
the importance of furnishing to women such educational
facilities as will better fit them for the industrial
pursuits which the true progress of the times is opening to
them.
On the rights of married women, he says:
While our laws with regard to married women have been
amended from time to time for several years past, so as to
secure to them in a more ample manner their property, held
before or acquired after marriage, yet we are still
considerably behind many of our sister States, and even
conservative England, in our legislation on the subject. I
would recommend to your favorable consideration such an
amendment of our laws as will secure to a married woman all
her property, with the full control of it during her married
life, and free from liability for any debts, except those
contracted by herself or for which she has voluntarily made
herself responsible, with the same right on the part of the
husband to an interest in her property, on his surviving
her, that she now has, or that it may be best to give her,
in his.
On the subject of divorce the governor says:
I recommend a revision of our laws with regard to divorce.
According to the report of the State librarian there were in
the State last year 4,734 marriages and 478 divorces.
Discontented people come here from other States, to take
advantage of what is called our liberal legislation, to
obtain divorces which would be denied them at home. As the
sacredness of the marriage relation lies at the foundation
of civilized society, it should be carefully guarded. Under
our present laws the causes of divorce are too numerous, and
not sufficiently defined, and too wide a discretion is given
to the courts. I think the law of 1849 should be modified,
and so much of the statute as grants divorces for "any such
misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the
petitioner, and defeats the purposes of the marriage
relation," should be repealed. I would also suggest that the
law provide that no decree of divorce shall take effect till
one year after it is granted.
In conversation with the governor on this point in his
message he stated the singular fact that the majority of the
applications for divorce were made by women. If this be so,
we suggested that the laws of Connecticut should stand as
they are until the women have the right of suffrage, that
they may have a voice in a social arrangement in which they
have an equal interest with man himself. If Connecticut,
with its blue laws, disloyal Hartford convention, and
Democracy, has, nevertheless, been a Canada for fugitive
wives from the yoke of matrimony, pray keep that little
State, like an oasis in the desert, sacred to sad wives, at
least until the sixteenth amendment of the federal
constitution shall give the women of the republic the right
to say whether they are ready to make marriage, under all
circumstances, for better or worse, an indissoluble tie. We
have grave doubts as to the sacredness of a relation in
which the subject-class has no voice whatever in the laws
that regulate it. We shall never know what "laws lie at the
foundation of all civilized society" until woman's thought
finds expression in the State, the church and the home. It
is presumption for man longer to legislate alone on this
vital question, when woman, too, should have a word to say
in the matter.
The morning after the convention we had a pleasant breakfast
under Mr. and Mrs. Hooker's hospitable roof, where Boston
and New York amicably broke bread and discussed the
fifteenth amendment together. All the wise and witty sayings
that passed around that social board, time fails to
chronicle.
In 1877 Governor Hubbard called the attention of the legislature
to the wrongs of married women, in the following words:
There has been for the last few years in this State much
slip-shod and fragmentary legislation in respect to the
property rights of married women. The old common law assumed
the subjugation of the wife, and stripped her of the better
part of her rights of person and nearly all her rights of
property. It is a matter of astonishment that Christian
nations should have been willing for eighteen centuries to
hold the mothers of their race in a condition of legal
servitude. It has been the scandal of jurisprudence. Some
progress has been made in reforming the law in this State,
but it has been done, as I have already said, by patch-work
and shreds, sometimes ill-considered, and often so
incongruous as to provoke vexatious litigation and defy the
wisdom of the courts. The property relations of husband and
wife do not to-day rest on any just or harmonious system.
Not only has the husband absolute disposal of all his own
property freed from all dower rights, but he is practically
the owner during coverture of all his wife's estate not
specially limited to her separate use; and after her death
has, in every case, a life use in all her personal, and in
most cases in all her real property, by a title which the
wife, no matter what may have been his ill-deserts, is
powerless to impair or defeat; whereas, on the other hand,
the wife has during the husband's life no more power of her
own right to sell, convey, or manage her own estate than if
she were a lunatic or slave, and in case of his death has a
life use in only one-third part of the real estate of which
he dies possessed, and no indefeasible title whatever in any
of his personal estate. As a consequence, a husband may
strip his wife, by mere voluntary disposition to strangers,
of all claim on his estate after his death, and thus add
beggary to widowhood.
I am sure this cannot seem right to any fair-minded man.
Neither is it strange that some of our countrywomen, stung
by the injustice of the law towards their sex, should be
demanding, as a mode of redress, a part in the making of the
laws which govern them. I am confident there is manhood
enough in our own sex to right this obvious wrong to which I
have alluded.
I therefore recommend that the law on this subject be so
recast that, in all marriages hereafter contracted, the wife
shall hold her property and all her earnings for personal
services not rendered to her husband or minor children, as a
sole and separate estate, with absolute power of disposition
in her own name, and that the surviving wife shall have, by
law, the same measure of estate in the property of the
deceased husband, as the surviving husband shall be allowed
to have in the property of his deceased wife. This will
reduce their property relations to a principle of equality,
and, in my judgment, is demanded by the most obvious
dictates of justice and equity. Those who are not satisfied
with this can make a different law for themselves by
ante-nuptial settlements.
I am not unmindful that the husband alone is liable in the
first instance for the support of the family; but this is
much more than neutralized by the fact that, in most cases,
the wife's whole life is spent in the toilsome and unpaid
service of the household, and that the whole drift of her
estate, in consequence of her more unselfish and generous
nature, is towards the husband's pockets, in spite of all
the guards of the law and every consideration of prudence.
Calling attention to this stirring appeal, the _Hartford Times_,
Democratic, used the following language:
Another notable feature of the message is its outspoken and
manly call for a reformation in our laws concerning the
property rights of married women. Here as in other points it
is a model message. The governor's experience as a lawyer
has brought him often face to face with this disgraceful
one-sidedness of our laws on this subject, and in some terse
sentences he shows up the injustice more effectively than
has ever been done in any of the so-called women's rights
conventions.[164]
The following editorial from the _Springfield Republican_, gives
a good digest of the new law passed upon Governor Hubbard's
recommendation:
Connecticut has taken a great leap forward in the reform of
the property relations of married persons. The law had been
long neglected in that State, the obvious right of a married
woman to property acquired before marriage, which is now
secured in most States by constitutional provision, having
been there denied. In Massachusetts, the modification of the
former inequalities has gone on by piecemeal, till it is
said that in some respects the woman is now the more favored
party.
The new Connecticut statute also puts the burden of the
family maintenance on the man, as under most circumstances
the real bread-winner. It simply lays down the principle of
absolute equality in the rights and privileges of the
husband and wife, with the above exception. In all marriages
hereafter contracted, neither husband nor wife shall acquire
any right to or interest in any property of the other,
whether held before the marriage or acquired after the
marriage, except as provided in this law. The separate
earnings of the wife shall be her sole property. She shall
have the same right to make contracts with third persons as
if she were not married, and to convey her real and personal
estate. Her property is liable for her debts and not for
his; his is not liable for her debts, except those
contracted for the support of the family. Purchases made by
either party shall be presumed to be on the private account
of the party, but both shall be liable where any article
purchased by either shall have in fact gone to the support
of the family, or for the joint benefit of both, or for the
reasonable apparel of the wife, or for her reasonable
support while abandoned by her husband. It shall, however,
be the duty of the husband to support his family, and his
property, when found, shall be first applied to satisfy any
such joint liability. The wife shall be entitled to
indemnity for any money of her own used to pay such claims.
We have used almost the precise language of the first and
second sections of the act.
On the death of either, the survivor shall be entitled to
the use for life of one-third the estate of the deceased,
which right cannot be defeated by will. If the deceased
leaves no children or representatives of children, the
survivor is entitled to one-half instead of one-third. When
either party gives a legacy to the other, the latter may
choose between its rights under the will, and those under
the statute. Abandonment without cause may defeat this
provision, and a marriage contract may supersede it
entirely. Parties already married may contract to surrender
their present rights for those secured by this statute, such
contracts to be recorded in the probate court.
Thus we have a new and clear statute framed in accordance
with a simple principle of reform, for which the
_Republican_ has long done battle--the equality of married
persons in their rights and responsibilities of property.
The adoption of the reform is due deeply to the general
agitation of the rights of women, the efforts of Mrs.
Isabella Beecher Hooker, the Smith girls' cows, and perhaps
some flagrant instance of injustice to rich wives by tyrant
husbands near the capital. But the great occasion and
immediate cause, without which this generation might have
pleaded for it in vain, was the perception of the justice of
it by Governor Hubbard, and his open advocacy of it in his
message. Lawyers have one answer for all reforms regarding
property or civil contracts--they are impossible. But here
was undeniably the best lawyer in the State who said, and
threw the weight of his first State paper on the
proposition, that this thing was possible, and, if he said
it was possible, there was no man who could gainsay it. The
legislature took the reform on its own sense of justice and
on the assurance of Richard D. Hubbard, that it would work.
On June 6, 1870, at a second hearing[165] before the Joint
Committee on Woman Suffrage, in the capitol at New Haven, Rev.
Phebe A. Hanaford of the Universalist church, Mrs. Benchley and
Mrs. Russell were the speakers. During that session of the
legislature Mrs. Hanaford acted as chaplain both in the Senate and
House of Representatives, and received a check for her services
which she valued chiefly as a recognition of woman's equality in
the clerical profession.
Mrs. Hooker was ably sustained in her new position by her husband,
a prominent lawyer of the State. Being equally familiar with civil
and canon law, with Blackstone and the Bible, he was well equipped
to meet the opponents of the reform at every point. While Mrs.
Hooker held meetings in churches and school-houses through the
State, her husband in his leisure hours sent the daily press
articles on the subject. And thus their united efforts stirred the
people to thought and at last roused a Democratic governor of the
State to his duty on this question. From the many able tracts
issued and articles published in the journals we give a few
extracts. In answer to the common objections of "free love" and
"easy divorce," in the _Evening Post_ of January 17, 1871, Mr.
Hooker said:
The persons who advocate easy divorce would advocate it just as
strongly if there was no woman suffrage movement. The two have no
necessary connection. Indeed one of the strongest arguments in
favor of woman suffrage is, that the marriage relation will be
safer with women to vote and legislate upon it than where the
voting and legislation are left wholly to the men. Women will
always be wives and mothers, above all things else. This law of
nature cannot be changed, and I know of nobody who desires to
change it. The marriage relation will therefore always be more to
woman than to man, and we, who would give her the right to vote,
have no fear to trust to her the sanctity and purity of that
relation. It is the opponents of woman suffrage who distrust the
fidelity of woman to her divine instincts and dare not let her
vote. Our little State has been two hundred years under male
legislation, and yet a long memorial from hundreds of clergymen
and other Christian men went up to our legislature two years ago,
representing our legislation on divorce as demoralizing and as
fatal to the best interests of the marriage relation. It really
seems as if the incompetency for the management of public affairs
which by mere assumption is charged in advance upon women, has
been proved with regard to men by an actual experience of many
years. The true idea is for man and woman to share together the
responsibilities and duties of legislation, and until this is
done I have no hope for any real progress towards purity in the
administration of our public affairs. We who favor woman suffrage
speak confidently on this subject because the reform works so
well wherever it has been tried, in England, Sweden, Austria and
Wyoming Territory.
No rational man can suppose for a moment that with woman suffrage
established in England and on the continent of Europe, we in this
country, which so specially stands on equal representation, are
going to refuse it. It must be set down as one of the certain
things of the future. And when it has come, and women vote, it
will excite no more attention or comment than the voting of our
colored people.
Now if woman suffrage is to come, is it worth while to be making
the impression that the women of our country are not to be
trusted with it, and that the marriage relation is to be
imperiled by it? Above all, is it manly or just to be charging
corrupt motives on nine-tenths of those who advocate the reform?
The notoriety which to some extent its advocates must get is
almost universally painful to the women who are the subjects of
it. One noble woman, whose whole soul is in this cause, and the
purity of whose motives in this, as in everything else, I have
had good opportunity to learn, said to me, on reading Dr.
Bushnell's remark in his book on woman suffrage, that these women
were only trying to make themselves men: "Cruel, cruel words! If
so noble a man as Dr. Bushnell so utterly fails to comprehend a
woman's nature, shall not she be allowed to speak for herself,
and no testimony be taken but hers?"[166]
Much might be said in regard to the most famous women of
Connecticut, the historic "Maids of Glastonbury," celebrated for
their resistance to taxation. After the death of Abby, July 23,
1878, Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith, in a beautiful tribute to the
sisters, said:
Many years ago they took a stand akin to that of the illustrious
Hampden, which has made his name a synonym for patriotism as well
as just and manly opposition to unconstitutional revenue
exaction. "The tax may be a small matter for an English gentleman
to pay, but it is too much for a British freeman to pay," was
the ground of his noble resistance, and this view precipitated
that great Revolution which more than all other modern movements
consolidated and strengthened the rights of the British subject.
These two women deserve to stand upon a platform side by side
with the great Hampden. Other women have paid their taxes under
protest, but Abby and Julia Smith have done more than protest;
they have suffered loss as well as inconvenience, their property
having been seized and sold again and again because of their
honest conviction that taxation without representation was as
unjust to women as to men. Their steadfastness has been the more
remarkable because, by their social position, their learning and
their wealth, they might be supposed to be indifferent to the
ballot-box, as so many thus situated claim to be. Abby and her
sister were no ordinary women. The family originally consisted of
five sisters, all more or less accomplished. The father was a man
of learning, a graduate of Yale and a clergyman. The mother was
familiar with French and Italian, and no mean astronomer. Thus
parented, it is not surprising that the Glastonbury sisters were
of marked individualism as well as superior scholarship. They
were more or less acquainted with Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and
have made a translation of the Bible from these sources, giving
its original meaning.
The maids of Glastonbury planted themselves upon the right of the
sex to suffrage, from purely philosophic and statesman-like
grounds. They had no other disabilities of which to complain--no
other grievance--no social ostracism, as is so often charged, and
most unjustly, against other advocates of the doctrine. They were
unmarried, studious, upright, simple-minded gentlewomen, and were
much esteemed and honored in the community in which they lived.
They occupied the old homestead, doing their own work, their
interests well cared for in the person of Mr. Kellogg, an
intelligent tenant of theirs, as well as friend and neighbor.
_The Hartford Post_, in a tender mention of the life and death of
Abby, with a brief sketch of the family, thus bears honorable
testimony to her worthiness:
In the death of Miss Smith the cause of woman suffrage has
met with a severe loss, as her firm resistance to what she
believed to be the unjust treatment of women greatly
encouraged her companions in the contest; her sister has
lost her chief support, and the community in which she lived
a faithful friend and a worthy exponent of the virtues of
truthfulness, firmness, and adherence to the right as she
understood it.
_The Hartford Times_ said:
A notable woman who died last week was Miss Abigail H.
Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn., one of the two sisters who
resisted the collection of their taxes on the ground that
they had no voice in the levy. It will be remembered that
their cows were seized and some of their personal property
sold two years ago. Of course there were friends who were
willing and anxious to pay the taxes, but the plucky old
ladies were fighting for a principle, and they would allow
no one to stand in the way. The notoriety, which they
neither sought nor avoided, undoubtedly did a great deal to
call public attention to the anomalous condition of woman
under the law. It would be very hard for any man to argue
successfully that he possessed any stronger natural claim to
the suffrage than was possessed by these shrewd, honest,
energetic old ladies.
Many encouraging letters were written the sisters during their many
trials, of which the following is a fair specimen:
Near BOSTON, January 14, 1874.
MY DEAR MADAM: The account of your hardships is interesting, and
your action will be highly beneficial in bringing the subject to
public notice, and in leading to the correction of a great
injustice. The taxation of the property of women, without
allowing them any representation, even in town affairs, is so
unfair that it seems only necessary to bring it to public view to
make it odious and to bring about a change. Therefore you deserve
the greater honor, not only because you have suffered in a good
cause, but because you have set an example that will be followed,
and that will lead to happy results.
Your case has its parallel in every township of New England. In
the town where this is written a widow pays into the treasury
$7,830 a year, while 600 men, a number equal to half the whole
number of voters, pay $1,200 in all. Another lady pays $5,042.
Yet neither has a single vote, not even by proxy. That is, each
one of 600 men who have no property, who pay only a poll-tax, and
many of whom cannot read or write, has the power of voting away
the property of the town, while the female _owners_ have no power
at all. We have lately spent a day in celebrating the heroism of
those who threw overboard the tea; but how trifling was the
tea-tax, and how small the injustice to individuals compared with
this one of our day! The principle, however, was the same--that
there should be no taxation where there is no representation. And
this is what we ought to stand by. Please to accept the sympathy
and respect of one of your fellow citizens. No doubt you will
have the same from all in due time; or, at any rate, from all who
love to see fair play.
Very truly yours, AMOS A. LAWRENCE.
_Miss Abby H. Smith, Glastonbury, Conn._
A marked evidence of the advance of public sentiment was manifested
by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1882, by which the women of
Connecticut were held to have the right to practice law. The
opinion of Chief-Justice Park concerning the legality of the
admission of Miss Mary Hall of Hartford to the bar, giving her the
right to practice in the courts of the State, is as follows:
This is an application by a woman for admission to the bar of
Hartford county. After having completed the prescribed term of
study she has passed the examination required and has been
recommended by the bar of the county to the Superior Court for
admission, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question
whether, as a woman, she can legally be admitted. The Superior
Court has reserved the case for our advice.
The statute with regard to the admission of attorneys by the
court is the 29th section of chapter 3, title 4, of the General
Statutes, and is in the following words: "The Superior Court may
admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are
qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established by the
judges of said court; and no other person than an attorney so
admitted shall plead at the bar of any court of this State,
except in his own cause."
It is not contended, in opposition to the application, that the
language of this statute is not comprehensive enough to include
women, but the claim is that at the time it was passed its
application to women was not thought of, while the fact that
women have never been admitted as attorneys, either by the
English courts or by any of the courts of this country, had
established a common-law disability, which could be removed only
by a statute intended to have that effect.
It is hardly necessary to consider how far the fact that women
have never pursued a particular profession or occupied a
particular official position, to the pursuit or occupancy of
which some governmental license or authority was necessary,
constitutes a common-law disability for receiving such license or
authority, because here the statute is ample for removing that
disability if we can construe it as applying to women; so that we
come back to the question whether we are by construction to limit
the application of the statute to men alone, by reason of the
fact that in its original enactment its application to women was
not intended by the legislators that enacted it. And upon this
point we remark, in the first place, that an inquiry of this sort
involves very serious difficulties. No one would doubt that a
statute passed at this time in the same words would be sufficient
to authorize the admission of women to the bar, because it is now
a common fact and presumably in the minds of legislators, that
women in different parts of the country are, and for some time
have been, following the profession of law. But if we hold that
the construction of the statute is to be determined by the
admitted fact that its application to women was not in the minds
of the legislators when it was passed, where shall we draw the
line? All progress in social matters is gradual. We pass almost
imperceptibly from a state of public opinion that utterly
condemns some course of action to one that strongly approves it.
At what point, in the history of this change, shall we regard a
statute, the construction of which is to be affected by it, as
passed in contemplation of it? When the statute we are now
considering was passed, it probably never entered the mind of a
single member of the legislature that black men would ever be
seeking for admission under it. Shall we now hold that it cannot
apply to black men? We know of no distinction in respect to this
rule between the case of a statute and that of a constitutional
provision. When our State constitution was adopted in 1818 it was
provided in it that every elector should be "eligible to any
office in the State," except where otherwise provided in the
constitution. It is clear that the convention that framed, and
probably all the people who voted to adopt the constitution, had
no idea that black men would ever be electors, and contemplated
only white men as within any possible application of the
provision, for the same constitution provided that only white men
should be electors. But now that black men are made electors,
will it do to say that they are not entitled to the full rights
of electors in respect to holding office, because an application
of the provision to them was never thought of when it was
adopted? Events that gave rise to enactments may always be
considered in construing them. This is little more than the
familiar rule that in construing a statute we always inquire what
particular mischief it was designed to remedy. Thus, the Supreme
Court of the United States has held that in construing the recent
amendments of the federal constitution, although they are general
in their terms, it is to be considered that they were passed with
reference to the exigencies growing out of the emancipation of
the slaves, and for the purpose of benefiting the blacks
(_Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall., 67_; _Strauder vs. West
Virginia, 100 U. S. Reps., 306_). But this statute was not passed
for the purpose of benefiting men as distinguished from women. It
grew out of no exigency caused by the relation of the sexes. Its
object was wholly to secure the orderly trial of causes and the
better administration of justice. Indeed, the preamble to the
first statute providing for the admission of attorneys, states
its object to be "for the well-ordering of proceedings and pleas
at the bar."
The statute on this subject was not originally passed in its
present form. The first act with regard to the admission of
attorneys was that of 1708, which was as follows: "That no
person, except in his own cause, shall be admitted to make any
plea at the bar without being first approved by the court before
whom the plea is to be made, nor until he shall take in the said
court the following oath," etc. (Col. Records, 1706 to 1716, page
48). This act seems to have contemplated an approval by the court
in each particular case in which an attorney appeared before it.
The first act with regard to the general admission of attorneys
appears in the revision of 1750, and is as follows: "That the
county courts of the respective counties in this colony shall
appoint, and they are hereby empowered to approve, nominate and
appoint attorneys in their respective counties, as there shall be
occasion, to plead at the bar; * * and that no person, except in
his own case, shall make any plea at the bar in any court but
such as are allowed and qualified attorneys, as aforesaid." Thus
the statute stood until the revision of 1821; when, for the first
time, it took essentially its present form. Up to this time the
word "person" had been used in this statute only in the clause
that "no person" should be allowed to practice before the courts
except where formally admitted by the court, a use of the word
which, of course, could not be regarded as limited to the male
sex, as women would undoubtedly have been held to be included in
the term. The language of the statute as now adopted was as
follows: "The county courts may make such rules and regulations
as to them shall seem proper relative to the admission and
practice of attorneys; and may approve of, admit and cause to be
sworn as attorneys, such persons as are qualified therefor
agreeably to the rules established; * * and no person not thus
admitted, except in his own cause, shall be admitted or allowed
to plead at the bar of any court." The statute in this form
passed through the compilations of 1835 and 1838, the revision of
1849 and the compilation of 1854, and appears, with a slight
modification, in the revision of 1866. The county courts had now
been abolished, and the power to admit attorneys, as well as to
make rules on the subject, had been given to the Superior Court;
the expression, "such persons," being preserved, and the
provision that "no person" not thus admitted should be allowed to
plead, being omitted.
The statute finally took its present form in the revision of
1875. It retains the provision that the Superior Court may make
rules for the admission of attorneys, and provides that the court
"may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are
qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established," and
restores the provision, dropt in the revision of 1866, that "no
person other than an attorney so admitted shall plead at the bar
of any court in this State, except in his own cause."
These changes, though not such as to affect the meaning of the
statute at any point of importance to the present question, are
yet not wholly without importance. The adoption by the
legislature of the revision of the statutes becomes, both in law
and in fact, a reenactment of the whole body of statutes; and
though in determining the meaning of a statute, we are not to
regard it as then enacted for the first time, especially if there
be no change in its phraseology, yet, where there is such a
change, it follows that the attention of the revisers had been
particularly directed to that statute, as of course also that of
the legislature, and that with the changes made it expresses the
present intent of both. Thus, in this case, it is clear that the
revisers gave particular thought to the phraseology of the
statute we are considering, and put it in a form that seemed to
them best with reference to the present state of things, and
decided to leave the words "such persons" to stand with full
knowledge that they were sufficient to include women, and that
women were already following the profession of law in different
parts of the country. The legislators must be presumed to have
acted with the same consideration and knowledge. It would have
been perfectly easy, if either had thought best, to insert some
words of limitation or exclusion, but it was not done. Not only
so, but a clause omitted in the revision of 1866 was restored,
providing that no "person" not regularly admitted should act as
an attorney--a term which necessarily included women, and the
insertion of which made it necessary, if the word "persons" as
used in the first part of the statute should be held not to
include women, to give two entirely different meanings to the
same word where occurring twice in the same statute and with
regard to the same subject matter.
The object of a revision of statutes is, that there may be such
changes made in them as the changes in political and social
matters may demand, and where no changes are made it is to be
presumed that the legislature is satisfied with it in its present
form. And where some changes are made in a particular statute,
and other parts of it are left unchanged, there is the more
reason for the inference from this evidence that the matter of
changing the statute was especially considered, that the parts
unchanged express the legislative will of to-day, rather than
that of perhaps a hundred years ago, when it was originally
enacted.
But this statute, in the revision of 1875, is placed immediately
after another with regard to the appointment of commissioners of
the Superior Court, the necessary construction of which, we
think, throws light upon the construction of the statute in
question. That act was passed in 1855, after women had begun,
with general acceptance, to occupy a greatly enlarged field of
industry and some professional and even public positions; and it
has been held by the Superior Court, very properly we think, as
applying to women, a woman having three years ago been appointed
commissioner under it. Its language is as follows: "The Superior
Court in any county may appoint any number of persons in such
county to be commissioners of the Superior Court, who, when
sworn, may sign writs and subpoenas, take recognizances,
administer oaths and take depositions and the acknowledgement of
deeds, and shall hold office for two years from their
appointment." Here the very language is used which is used in the
statute with regard to attorneys. In one it is, "any number of
persons," in the other, "such persons as are qualified." These
two statutes are placed in immediate juxtaposition in the
revision of 1875 and deal with kindred subjects, and it is
reasonable to presume that the revisers and legislature intended
both to receive the same construction. It would seem strange to
any common-sense observer that an entirely different meaning
should be given to the same word in the two statutes, especially
when in giving the narrower meaning to the word in the statute
with regard to attorneys, we are compelled to give it a different
meaning from that which the same word requires in the next line
of the same statute.
We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as
far as possible, in favor of equality of rights. All restrictions
upon human liberty, all claims for special privileges, are to be
regarded as having the presumption of law against them, and as
standing upon their defense, and can be sustained if at all by
valid legislation, only by the clear expression or clear
implication of the law.
We have some noteworthy illustrations of the recognition of women
as eligible or appointable to office under statutes of which the
language is merely general. Thus, women are appointed in all
parts of the country as postmasters. The act of congress of 1825
was the first one conferring upon the postmaster-general the
power of appointing postmasters, and it has remained essentially
unchanged to the present time. The language of the act is, that
"the postmaster-general shall establish post-offices and appoint
postmasters." Here women are not included, except in the general
term "postmasters," a term which seems to imply a male person;
and no legislation from 1825 down to the present time authorizes
the appointment of women, nor is there any reference in terms to
women until the revision of 1874, which recognizes the fact that
women had already been appointed, in providing that "the bond of
any married woman who may be appointed postmaster shall be
binding on her and her sureties." Some of the higher grades of
postmasters are appointed by the president, subject to
confirmation by the Senate, and such appointments and
confirmations have repeatedly been made. The same may be said of
pension agents. The acts of congress on the subject have simply
authorized "the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to appoint all pension agents, who shall hold their
offices for the term of four years, and shall give bond," etc. At
the last session of congress a married woman in Chicago was
appointed for a third term pension agent for the State of
Illinois, and the public papers stated that there was not a
single vote against her confirmation in the Senate. Public
opinion is everywhere approving of such appointments. They
promote the public interest, which is benefitted by every
legitimate use of individual ability, while mere justice, which
is of interest to all, requires that all have the fullest
opportunity for the exercise of their abilities. These cases are
the more noteworthy as being cases of public offices, to which
the incumbent is appointed for a term of years, upon a
compensation provided by law, and in which he is required to give
bond. If an attorney is to be regarded as an officer, it is in a
lower sense.
We have had pressed upon us by the counsel opposed to the
applicant, the decisions of the courts of Massachusetts,
Wisconsin and Illinois, and the United States Court of Claims,
adverse to such an application. While not prepared to accede to
all the general views expressed in those decisions, we do not
think it necessary to go into a discussion of them, as we regard
our statute, in view of all the considerations affecting its
construction, as too clear to admit of any reasonable question as
to the interpretation and effect which we ought to give it.
In this opinion Carpenter and Loomis, Js., concurred; Pardee, J.,
dissented.
In 1884, the State society held a spirited and successful
convention.[167] Julia Smith gave an extemporaneous talk to the
great delight of the audience, who applauded continually; Mrs.
Crane, a fine elocutionist, gave a reading from Carlyle; Mrs.
Hooker closed with a brief resume of the work the society had
accomplished.
We are also indebted to Frances Ellen Burr for many facts, as the
following letter will show:
HARTFORD, September 17, 1885.
MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I have received your letter of inquiry. As
to that petition in 1867, I was one of the signers, and, probably
had something to do with getting the other signatures, though I
have nothing but my memory to depend on as to that; but I was
pretty much alone here in those days, on the woman suffrage
question. Who the other signers were I made an attempt to find
out in the secretary of state's office the other day, but found
that it would take days, instead of the few hours I had at my
command. I find in my journal a reference to Lucy Stone and Mr.
Blackwell addressing the committee in the House of
Representatives, and that was the committee that made the report
afterwards published in _The Revolution_. Mr. Croffut made the
opening address on the day of the hearing. He was always ready to
aid us in whatever way he could, and I felt grateful to him, for
a helping hand was doubly appreciated in those days. I find by
the journal of the House for that year that the vote on the
question was 93 yeas to 111 nays. The name of Miss Susie
Hutchinson heads one petition, with 70 others. How many other
petitions there were that year I do not know, but I believe there
have been several every year since, besides a number of
individual petitions. Since that time the House has voted
favorably on the question twice, at least, but I believe we have
never had a majority in the Senate.
You ask when I first wrote or spoke for the ballot. My first
venture in that line was in 1853. I was then at the age of
twenty-two, living with my sister in Cleveland, O., and had never
given any attention to the subject of woman suffrage, and cared
nothing about it any further than the spirit of rebellion--born
with me--against everything unjust, might be said to have made me
a radical by nature. In the fall of that year a woman's rights
convention met in Cleveland, and I attended it alone, none of the
rest of the family caring to go. In my old journal I find this
entry:
October 7, 1853. Attended a woman's rights convention which
has met here. Never saw anything of the kind before. A Mr.
Barker spent most of the morning trying to prove that
woman's rights and the Bible cannot agree. The Rev.
Antoinette L. Brown replied in the afternoon in defense of
the Bible. She says the Bible favors woman's rights. Miss
Brown is the best-looking woman in the convention. They
appear to have a number of original and pleasing characters
upon their platform, among them Miss Lucy Stone--hair short
and rolled under like a man's; a tight-fitting velvet waist
and linen collar at the throat; bombazine skirt just
reaching the knees, and trousers of the same. She is
independent in manner and advocates woman's rights in the
strongest terms:--scorns the idea of woman _asking_ rights
of man, but says she must boldly assert her own rights, and
_take_ them in her own strength. Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, a
Polish lady with black eyes and curls, and rosy cheeks,
manifests the independent spirit also. She is graceful and
witty, and is ready with sharp replies on all occasions.
Mrs. Lucretia Mott, a Philadelphia Quaker, is meek in dress
but not in spirit. She gets up and hammers away at woman's
rights, politics and the Bible, with much vigor, then
quietly resumes her knitting, to which she industriously
applies herself when not speaking to the audience. She wears
the plain Quaker dress and close-fitting white cap. Mrs.
Frances D. Gage, the president, is a woman of sound sense
and a good writer of prose and poetry. Mrs. Caroline
Severance has an easy, pleasing way of speaking. Mr. Charles
Burleigh, a Quaker, appears to be an original character. He
has long hair, parted in the middle like a woman's, and
hanging down his back. He and Miss Stone seem to reverse the
usual order of things.
My first speech in public, I find by my old journal--which serves
me better than I thought it would--was given in Music Hall in
this city in November, 1870. This meeting was held under the
auspices of the State association, and was presided over by the
Rev. Olympia Brown. I find that in the winter of 1871 I made
addresses in various parts of the State. The journal also tells
of a good deal of trotting about to get signatures to petitions,
for I had more time to do that thing then than I have now.
The first woman suffrage meeting ever held in Hartford, and the
first, probably, in Connecticut, was the one you and Mrs. Stanton
held in Allyn Hall in December, 1867. Our State Suffrage
Association was organized in October, 1869. The signers[168] to
the call for that convention were quite influential persons.
In my hunt through the journals of the two legislative houses I
found in the House journal for 1878 that Mr. Pratt of Meriden had
presented the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Isaac C. Lewis. Mr. Clark
of Enfield, presented the petition of Lucy A. Allen; Mr.
Gallagher of New Haven presented several petitions that year, one
of them being headed by Mr. Henry A. Stillman of Wethersfield,
followed by 532 names, and another by Mrs. D. F. Connor, M. D.
Mr. Broadhead of Glastonbury presented the petition of the Smith
sisters. This unique petition Miss Mary Hall, who was with me in
the secretary's office, chanced to light upon, and she copied it.
It is a document well worth handing down on the page of history,
and runs as follows:
_The Petition of Julia E. Smith and Abby H. Smith, of
Glastonbury, to the Senate of the State of Connecticut:_
This is the first time we have petitioned your honorable
body, having twice come before the House of Assembly, which
the last time gave a majority that we should vote in town
affairs; but it was negatived in the Senate.
We now pray the highest court in our native State that we
may be relieved from the stigma of birth. For forty years
since the death of our father have we suffered intensely for
being born women. We cannot even stand up for the principles
of our forefathers (who fought and bled for them) without
having our property seized and sold at the sign-post, which
we have suffered four times; and have also seen eleven acres
of our meadow-land sold to an ugly neighbor for a tax of
fifty dollars--land worth more than $2,000. And a threat is
given out that our house shall be ransacked and despoiled of
articles most dear to us, the work of lamented members of
our family who have gone before us, and all this is done
without the least excuse of right or justice. We are told
that it is the law of the land made by the legislature and
done to us, two defenceless women, who have never broken
these laws, made by not half the citizens of this State. And
it was said in our Declaration of Independence that
"Governments derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed."
For being born women we are obliged to help support those
who have earned nothing, and who, by gambling, drinking, and
the like, have come to poverty, and these same can vote away
what we have earned with our own hands. And when men meet to
take off the dollar poll-tax, the bill for the dinner comes
in for the women to pay. Neither have we husband, or
brother, or son, or even nephew, or cousin, to help us. All
men will acknowledge that it is as wrong to take a woman's
property without her consent as to take a man's without his
consent; and such wrong we suffer wholly for being born
women, which we are in no wise to blame for. To be sure, for
our consolation, we are upheld by the learned, the wise and
the good, from all parts of the country, having received
communications from thirty-two of our States, as well as
from over the seas, that we are in the right, and from many
of the best men in our own State. But they have no power to
help us. We therefore now pray your honorable body, who have
power, with the House of Assembly, to relieve us of this
stigma of birth, and grant that we may have the same
privileges before the law as though we were born men. And
this, as in duty bound, we will ever pray.
JULIA and ABBY SMITH.
_Glastonbury, Conn., January 29, 1878._
The story of the Smith sisters, from 1873 and on, will be handed
down as one of the most original and unique chapters in the
history of woman suffrage. Abby Smith, with my friend Mrs.
Buckingham, attended with me the first meeting of the Woman's
Congress, in New York, in October, 1873. While there, she said
she should, on her return, address her town's people on woman
suffrage and taxation, as they had not been treated fairly in the
matter of their taxes. She did so on the fifth of November,
addressing the Glastonbury town meeting in the little red-brick
town-house of that place--a building that will always hereafter
be connected with the names of Abby and Julia Smith. Several
years after, wishing to address them again, she was refused
entrance there, so she and Julia addressed the people from an
ox-cart that stood in front. This was after their continued
warfare against "taxation without representation" had aroused the
opposition of their townsmen, but that first speech in 1873 was
the beginning of their fame. Abby sent it to me for publication
in the _Times_ of this city, but the editor not having room for
it sent it to the _Courant_, which gave it a place in its
columns, thus (unwittingly) setting a ball in motion that ran all
round the country, and even over the ocean. The simplicity and
uniqueness of the story of "Abby Smith and her cows," gave a boom
to the cause of woman suffrage as welcome as it was unexpected.
The Glastonbury mails were more heavily laden than ever before in
the history of this hitherto unknown town, for letters came
pouring in from all quarters to the sisters. The fame did not
rest entirely on Abby and her cows; Julia and her Bible came in
for an important share, and the newspaper articles in regard to
them were a remarkable blending of cows and Biblical lore, dairy
products and Greek and Hebrew. Many of the articles were wide of
the facts, being written with a view to make a bright and
readable column. For instance, a Chicago paper got up a highly
colored article in which it said that Abby Smith's mother--Hannah
Hickok--was such an intense student that her father had a glass
cage made for her to study in. The only vestage of truth in this
story was that, lacking our modern facilities for heating, Mr.
Hickok had an extra amount of glass put into the south side of
his daughter's room that the sun might give it a little more heat
in cold weather. Hannah Hickok seems to have had a mental
equipment much above that of the average woman of that day; she
had a taste for literature, and was something of a linguist, and
wrote, moreover, at different times, quite an amount of readable
verse. She had a taste for mathematics, and also for astronomy,
and made for her own use an almanac, for these were not so plenty
then as now; she could, on awakening, tell any hour of the night
by the position of the stars. Evidently Hannah Hickok Smith was
not an ordinary woman; and it is quite as evident that her
daughters were equally original, though in a different direction.
Women who have translated the Bible are not to be met with every
day--nor men either, for that matter, but Julia Smith not only
did this, but translated it five times,--twice from the Hebrew,
twice from the Greek, and once from the Latin; and thirty years
later, or after the age of eighty, published the translation; and
then, to crown the list of marvels, married at the age of
eighty-five.
[Illustration: Phebe A. Hanaford]
One point more, and the one nearest my heart. You ask me about my
"dear friend Mrs. Buckingham." I can give no details of her
suffrage work, but her heart was in it, and her name should be
handed down in your History. She was at one time chairman of the
executive committee of our State association, and she would, if
she had thought it necessary, have spent of her little income to
the last cent to help along the cause. She made public addresses
and wrote many suffrage articles and letters that were published
in different papers, but she made no noise about it; her work was
all done with her own characteristic gentleness. Generous to a
fault, winning and beautiful as the flowers she scattered on the
pathway of her friends, she passed on her way; and one memorable
Easter morning she left us so gently that none knew when the
sleep of life passed into the sleep of death; we only knew that
the glorious light of her eyes--a light like that which "never
shone on sea or land"--had gone out forever.
"She died in beauty like the dew
Of flowers dissolved away;
She died in beauty like a star
Lost on the brow of day."
The Hartford Equal Rights Club[169] was organized in March, 1885,
and holds semi-monthly meetings. Its membership is not large, but
what it lacks in numbers it makes up in earnestness. Its
proceedings are reported pretty fully and published in the
_Hartford Times_, which has a large circulation, thus gaining an
audience of many thousands and making its proceedings much more
important than they would otherwise be. It is managed as simply
as possible, and is not encumbered with a long list of officers.
There are simply a president, Mrs. Emily P. Collins;[170] a
vice-president, Miss Mary Hall; and a secretary, Frances Ellen
Burr, who is also the treasurer. Debate is free to all, the
platform being perfectly independent, as far as a platform can be
independent within the limits of reason. Essays are read and
debated, and many interesting off-hand speeches are made. It is
an entirely separate organization from the Connecticut State
Suffrage Association, founded in 1869. But its membership is not
confined to the city; it invites people throughout the State, or
in other States, to become members--people of all classes and of
all beliefs. Opponents of woman suffrage are always welcome, for
these furnish the spice of debate. Among the topics discussed has
been that of woman and the church, and upon this subject Mrs.
Stanton has written the club several letters.
Last spring (1885) a number of the members of the club were given
hearings before the Committee on Woman Suffrage in the
legislature in reference to a bill then under consideration,
which was exceedingly limited in its provisions. The House of
Representatives improved it and then passed it, but it was
afterwards defeated in the Senate. Some of the meetings of the
club have been held in Hartford's handsome capitol, a room having
been allowed for its use, and a number of members of the House of
Representatives have taken part in the discussions. Mrs. Collins,
president of the club, is always to be depended upon for good
work, and Miss Hall, its vice-president, is active and efficient.
She is in herself an illustration of what women can become if
they only have sufficient confidence and force of will. She is a
practicing lawyer, and a successful one.
FOOTNOTES:
[158] The life of William Lloyd Garrison, Vol. 1.: The Century
Company, New York.
[159] She was soon followed by Mrs. Middlebrook and Mrs. Lucy R.
Elms, with warm benedictions. The latter called some meetings in
her neighborhood in the autumn of 1868, and entertained us most
hospitably at her beautiful home.
[160] Those who leave the tangled problem of life to God for
solution find, sooner or later, that God leaves it to them to
settle in their own way.--[E. C. S.
[161] Among them were Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Clemence Lozier,
Mary A. Livermore, Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan
B. Anthony, Celia Burleigh, Caroline M. Severance, Rev. Olympia
Brown, Frances Ellen Burr, Charlotte B. Wilbour, William Lloyd
Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, Nathaniel I. Burton, John Hooker, the
Hutchinsons, with Sister Abby and her husband, Ludlow Patton.
[162] _President_, Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford. _Vice-presidents_,
Brigadier-general B. S. Roberts, U. S. A., New Haven; Mrs. Harriet
Beecher Stowe, Hartford; Rev. Dr. Joseph Cummings, Middletown; Rev.
William L. Gage, Hartford; Rev. Olympia Brown, Bridgeport.
_Secretary_, Miss Frances Ellen Burr. _Executive Committee_, Mrs.
Isabella B. Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J. G. Parsons and
Miss Emily Manning, M. D., Hartford. _Treasurer_, John Hooker.
[163] On her departure for St. Petersburg, where her husband was
minister plenipotentiary, Mrs. Jewell left a check of $200 for the
State society. She was an honored officer of the National Suffrage
Association until the time of her death, in 1883.
[164] Mrs. Hooker writes us that the act passed upon Governor
Hubbard's recommendation was prepared at his request by Mr. Hooker,
and was essentially the same that had been unsuccessfully urged by
him upon the legislature eight years before. She then goes on to
say: "What part our society had in our bringing about so beneficent
a change in legislation, cannot be better set forth than in two
private letters from Samuel Bowles of the _Springfield Republican_,
and Governor Hubbard. While these gentlemen were friends of Mr.
Hooker and myself, yet, as politically opposed to each other, their
united testimony is exceedingly valuable, and since they have both
passed on to a world of more perfect adjustments, I feel that
nothing would give them greater satisfaction than to be put upon
record here as among the earliest defenders of the rights of women.
"SPRINGFIELD, Mass., March 28, 1877.
"MY DEAR MRS. HOOKER:--I return your letters and paper as you
desired. It is an interesting story, and a most gratifying
movement forward. I am more happy over the bill passed, than I am
sorry over the bill that failed. We shall move fast enough. The
first great step is this successful measure in Connecticut--the
establishment in practice of the principle of equal, mutual,
legal rights, and equal, mutual, legal responsibilities, for
which I have been preaching and praying these twenty years. We
owe the success this year, _first_ to the right of the matter;
_second_, to the agitation of the whole question which has
disseminated the perception of that right; _third_, to you and
your husband in particular; and _fourth_, to the fact that you
had in Connecticut this year a governor who was recognized as the
leading lawyer of the State, a genuine natural conservative who
yet said the measure was right and ought to go. It is this last
element that has given Connecticut its chief leadership. It is a
bigger thing than it seems at first to have an eminent
conservative lawyer on the side of such legislative reform. I
hate very much to take your husband's side against you, and yet
now that I am over fifty years old, I find I more and more
sympathize with his patience and philosophy with the slow-going
march of reform. But with such things going forward in national
politics, and such a sign in the heavens as this in Connecticut,
we ought all to be very happy--and I believe I am, in spite of
debts, hard work, fatigue and more or less chronic invalidism. At
any rate I salute you both with honor and with affection."
"Very faithfully yours, SAMUEL BOWLES.
"This letter I enclosed to Governor Hubbard and received the
following reply:
"EASTER, April 1, 1877.