friendly missive. And what a dainty and gracious epistle Sam.
Bowles does know how to write! He is a good fellow, upon my word,
full of generous instincts and ideas. He ought to be at the head
of the _London Times_ and master of all the wealth it brings. Add
to this, that the Good Physician should heal him of his 'chronic
invalidism' and then--well what's the use of dreaming? Thank
_yourself_, and such as you for what there is of progress in
respect of woman's rights amongst us. I do believe our bill is a
'great leap forward' as Bowles says in his editorial. 'Alas!'
says my friend ----, 'it has destroyed the divine conception of
the unity of husband and wife.' As divine, upon my soul, as the
unity of the lamb and the devouring wolf. * * * But enough of
this. I salute you my good friend, with a thousand salutations of
respect and admiration. I do not agree with you in all things,
but I cannot tell you how much I glorify you for your courage and
devotion to womanhood. I am a pretty poor stick for anything like
good work in the world, but I am not without respect for it in
others. And so I present myself to yourself and to your good and
noble husband whom I take to be one of the best, with every
assurance of affection and esteem. Thanking you for your kind
letter, I remain, dear madam,
"Yours very truly, R. D. HUBBARD."
[165] At the various hearings Mrs. Anna Middlebrook, Mr. and Mrs.
Joseph Sheldon, Julia and Abby Smith, Rev. Olympia Brown, Mr. and
Mrs. Hooker were the speakers.
[166] See Appendix for Mr. Hooker's article, "Is the Family the
Basis of the State?"
[167] At the convention of March 17 and 18, 1884, the speakers were
Mrs. Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, the Rev. Charles Stowe, Julia Smith
Parker, Mrs. Emily Collins, Abigail Scott Duniway, Miss Leonard,
Mrs. C. G. Rogers, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Sage, Mrs. Ellis, Miss Gage,
the Rev. J. C. Kimball, the Rev. Mr. Everts of Hartford, Mary Hall
and F. E. Burr. The officers elected at this meeting were: Isabella
B. Hooker, _President_: F. Ellen Burr, _Secretary_; Mary Hall,
_Assistant-secretary_; John Hooker, _Treasurer_. _Executive
Committee_; Mrs. Ellen Burr McManus, Mrs. Emily P. Collins, Mrs.
Amy A. Ellis, Mrs. J. G. Parsons Hartford; Mrs. Susan J. Cheney,
South Manchester; Mrs. John S. Dobson, Vernon Depot; Judge Joseph
Sheldon, Charles Atwater, James Gallagher, New Haven.
[168] John Hooker, Isabella B. Hooker, the Rev. N. J. Burton,
Rachel C. Burton, Franklin Chamberlin, Francis Gillette, Eliza D.
Gillette, Frances Ellen Burr, Catharine E. Beecher, Esther E.
Jewell, Calvin E. Stowe, Harriet Beecher Stowe and others,
Hartford; Joseph Cummings, Middletown, President of Wesleyan
University; Thomas Elmes, Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Charles Atwater,
New Haven; Thomas T. Stone, Laura Stone, Brooklyn. The officers
elected for the Association were: _President_, the Rev. N. J.
Burton, Hartford; _Secretary_, Frances Ellen Burr; _Executive
Committee_, Isabella B. Hooker; Mrs. Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J.
G. Parsons, Miss Emily Manning, M. C., Hartford; Mr. Charles
Atwater, New Haven; Mr. Ward Cheney, Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South
Manchester; Mrs. Virginia Smith, Hartford. _Treasurer_, William B.
Smith, Hartford. There was a long list of vice-presidents, which I
presume you do not care for, nor for the other names that were
added as changes had to be made in the years that followed.
[169] A member of the club says: "We receive more of our life and
enthusiasm from Frances Ellen Burr than all other members combined;
indeed, the chief part of the work rests on her shoulders."
[170] See Mrs. Collins's Reminiscences, chapter V., Vol. I.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
RHODE ISLAND.
Senator Anthony in _North American Review_--Convention in
Providence--Work of State Association--Report of Elizabeth B.
Chace--Miss Ida Lewis--Letter of Frederick A. Hinckley--Last
Words from Senator Anthony.
Rhode Island, though one of the smallest, is, in proportion to the
number of its inhabitants, one of the wealthiest states in the
Union. In political organization Rhode Island, in colonial times,
contrasted favorably with the other colonies, nearly all of which
required a larger property qualification, and some a religious test
for the suffrage. The home of Roger Williams knew nothing of such
narrowness, but was an asylum for those who suffered persecution
elsewhere. Nevertheless this is now, in many respects, the most
conservative of all the States.
In the November number of the _North American Review_ for 1883,
Senator Anthony, in an article on the restricted suffrage in Rhode
Island, stoutly maintains that suffrage is not a natural right, and
that in adhering to her property qualification for foreigners his
State has wisely protected the best interests of the people. In his
whole argument on the question, he ignores the idea of women being
a part of the people, and ranks together qualifications of sex,
age, and residence. He quite unfairly attributes much of Rhode
Island's prosperity--the result of many causes--to her restricted
suffrage. His position in this article, written so late in life, is
the more remarkable as he had always spoken and voted in his place
in the United States Senate (where he had served nearly thirty
years) strongly in favor of woman's enfranchisement. And the
_Providence Journal_, which he owned and controlled, was invariably
respectful and complimentary towards the movement.
While such a man as Senator Anthony, one of the political leaders
in his State, regarded suffrage as a privilege which society may
concede or withhold at pleasure, we need not wonder that so little
has been accomplished there in the way of legislative enactments
and supreme-court decisions. Nevertheless that State has shared in
the general agitation and can boast many noble men and women who
have taken part in the discussion of this subject.
The first woman suffrage association was formed in Rhode Island in
December, 1868. In describing the initiative steps, Elizabeth B.
Chace in a letter to a friend, says:
In October 1868, while in Boston attending the convention that
formed the New England society, Paulina Wright Davis[171]
conceived the idea that the time had come to organize the friends
of suffrage in Rhode Island. After consultation with a few of the
most prominent friends of the cause, a call was issued for a
convention, to be held in Roger Williams Hall, Providence,
December 11th, signed by many leading names. No sooner did the
call appear than, as usual, some clergyman publicly declared
himself in opposition. The Rev. Mark Trafton, a Methodist
minister, gave a lecture in his vestry on "The Coming Woman," who
was to be a good housekeeper, dress simply, and not to vote. This
was published in the _Providence Journal_, and called out a
gracefull vindication of woman's modern demands from the pen of
Mrs. Sarah Helen Whitman, the poet, and Miss Norah Perry, a
popular writer of both prose and verse. The convention was all
that its most ardent friends could have desired, and resulted in
forming an association.[172] The audience numbered over a
thousand, at the different sessions, and among the speakers were
some of the ablest men in the State. Though the friends were
comparatively few in the early days, yet there was no lack of
enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Weekly meetings were held, tracts
and petitions circulated; conventions[173] and legislative
hearings were as regular as the changing seasons, now in
Providence, and now in Newport, following the migratory
government.
Mrs. Davis was president of the association for several successive
years in which her labors were indefatigable. Finally failing
health compelled her to resign her position as president of the
association.[174] Since then her able coadjutor Elizabeth B. Chace,
has been president of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association, and
with equal faithfulness and persistence, carried on the work. She
steadily keeps up the annual conventions and makes her appeals to
the legislature. Among the names[175] of those who have appeared
from year to year before the Rhode Island legislature we find many
able men and women from other States as well as many of their own
distinguished citizens.
In this State an effort was made early to get women on the board of
managers for schools, prisons and charitable institutions. In a
letter to Mrs. Davis, John Stuart Mill says:
I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by Rhode
Island in creating a board of women for some very important
administrative purpose. Your proposal that women should be
empanneled on every jury where women are to be tried seems to me
very good, and calculated to place the injustice to which women
are subjected at present by the entire legal system in a very
striking light.
In 1873 an effort was made to place women on the Providence School
Board, with what success the following extracts from the daily
papers show. The _Providence Press_ of April 25, 1873, says:
A shabby trick was perpetrated by the friends of John W. Angell,
which was certainly anything but "angelic," and which ought to
consign the parties who committed it to political infamy.
Yesterday, for the first time in the history of this city, women
were candidates for political honors--in the fifth ward, Mrs.
Sarah E. H. Doyle, and in the fourth ward, Mrs. Rhoda A. F.
Peckham, were candidates for positions on the school committee;
both, however, failed of an election. Mrs. Doyle received the
unanimous nomination of the large primary meeting of the National
Union Republican party, and Mrs. Peckham was run as an outside
candidate against the regular nominee. These ladies would
undoubtedly have made excellent members of the committee, and
unlike a great portion of that body, would have been found in
their places at the meetings, and we should have been glad to
have seen the experiment tried of women in the position for which
their names were presented. When the polls opened in the fifth
ward, instead of Mrs. Doyle's name being on the ballots for the
place to which she had been nominated there appeared the name of
John W. Angell, esq., and until about 11 o'clock A. M. he had
the field to himself. At that hour, however, Mrs. Doyle's friends
appeared with the "_regular_" nomination, and from that time to
the close of the polls she received 145 votes; Mr. Angell,
notwithstanding his several hours' start in the race, only
winning by a majority of 38. From this fact it is clear that had
Mrs. Doyle's name been in its proper place at the opening of the
polls she would have beaten her opponent handsomely. Mrs.
Peckham's opponent obtained but 23 majority in a poll of 349. It
is evident from the vote yesterday, that if they have but a fair
show, women will at the next election be successful as candidates
for the school committee. Had the intelligent ladies of the fifth
ward been allowed to vote, Mrs. Doyle would have led even the
gubernatorial vote of that ward.
The _Providence Journal_ makes the following comment:
We are sorry to observe that the two estimable and admirably
qualified ladies whose names were presented for school committee
in this city, failed of success. Their influence in official
connection with the schools could not have been other than
salutary. The treatment accorded Mrs. Doyle in the fifth ward was
wofully shabby. Without her solicitation, the Republican caucus
unanimously nominated her for a member of the school committee.
Being a novice in political proceedings, she naturally enough
supposed that the party that desired her services so much as to
place her in nomination, would make provision for electing their
candidate. There was not gallantry enough in the ward, however,
for that duty, and it was not until 11 o'clock on election day
that any tickets bearing the name of Mrs. Doyle were to be found
in the ward-room; but a ticket with the names of two men was on
hand at sunrise, and the time lost in procuring tickets for the
regular nominee proved fatal to her success. Mrs. Doyle has now
learned something of the ways of politicians, and is not likely
to put her trust again in the faithfulness of ward committees.
At a meeting of the State association, held in Providence, on
Thursday, May 18, 1871, the following preamble and resolutions
were, after a full and earnest discussion, unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, It is claimed, in opposition to the demand that the
elective franchise shall be given to women, that they are
represented in the government by men, so that they do not need
the ballot for their protection, inasmuch as all their rights are
secured to them by the interest of these men in their welfare;
and, whereas, in February last, in view of the appalling facts
frequently coming to our notice, consequent upon the
mismanagement of poor-houses and asylums for the insane, this
association did earnestly petition our State legislature to enact
a law providing for the appointment of women in all the towns in
our State to act as joint commissioners with men in the care and
control of these institutions; and, whereas, in utter disregard
of our request, the Committee on State Charities, to whom it was
referred, in reporting back our petition to the House of
Representatives, did recommend that the petitioners be given
leave to withdraw, and the House, without (so far as we could
learn) one word of protest from any member thereof, did so
dispose of our petition; therefore,
_Resolved_, That this association do most solemnly declare, that
so far from being represented in our legislature, the rights of
the women of this State were in this instance trampled under foot
therein, and the best interests of humanity, in the persons of
the poorest and most unfortunate classes, were not sufficiently
regarded, under this system of class legislation.
_Resolved_, That, despairing of obtaining for women even the
privileges which would enable them to look after the welfare of
the destitute and the suffering, with any power or authority to
improve their condition, until equal rights in the government
itself are guaranteed to all without regard to sex, we will
henceforth make use of this treatment we have received as a new
argument in favor of the emancipation of women from the legal
status of idiots and criminals, and, with this weapon in our
hands, we will endeavor to arouse the women of our State to a
keener sense of their degraded condition, and we will never abate
our demand until an amendment to the constitution is submitted to
the people granting suffrage to the women of Rhode Island.
_Resolved_, That this preamble and these resolutions be offered
for publication to the daily papers of this city.
ELIZABETH B. CHACE, _President_.
SUSAN B. P. MARTIN, _Secretary_.
For several years the philanthropic women of Rhode Island made many
determined efforts to secure some official positions in the
charitable institutions of the State, with what success the
following report by Elizabeth B. Chace, at the annual meeting of
the American Association, in Philadelphia, in 1876, will show:
The Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, while holding its
monthly meetings through the year, circulating petitions to the
legislature, and, in other ways, constantly endeavoring to
revolutionize the entire sentiment of the State on the question
of woman suffrage, still has less progress to report than its
friends would have desired. Our last annual meeting, as usual,
drew together a large audience. Among our speakers from abroad
was William Lloyd Garrison, who, in a speech of almost
anti-slavery force and fervor, appeared to send conviction into
many minds. Our home speakers included a clergyman of Providence
and one of our ablest lawyers, and an ex-legislator who had never
stood on our platform before.
As usual, our petitions went into the legislature. They were
referred to the Judiciary Committee, before whom we had a
hearing, at which three Providence lawyers gave us their
unqualified support and earnest advocacy. One of these men set
forth in the strongest light the injustice of our laws in regard
to the property of married women and their non-ownership of their
minor children. The committee made no report to the legislature,
and so our petitions lie over until the next session, when we
hope for some evidence of progress. In the meantime we intend to
very much increase their number. For many years we have been
begging of our law-makers to permit women to share in the
management of the penal, correctional and charitable institutions
of the State; we have, however, only succeeded in obtaining an
advisory board of women, which has been in operation for the last
six years.
Last spring a majority of these women, having become weary of the
service in which they had no power to decide that any improvement
should be made in the management of these institutions, resigned
their positions on this board, some of them giving through the
press their reasons therefor. When the time came for making the
new appointments for the year, the governor earnestly urged
these women to permit him to appoint them, voluntarily pledging
himself to recommend at the opening of the next session of the
legislature, that a bill should be passed providing for the
appointment of women on the boards of management of all these
prisons and reformatories, with the same power and authority with
which the men are invested, who now alone decide all questions
concerning them. On this condition these women consented to serve
on the advisory board a few months longer, with the understanding
that, if the legislature fails to make this important provision,
their advice will be withdrawn, and the men will be left to take
care of thieves, criminals and paupers until they are ready to
ask for our help on terms of equality and justice.
In the _Providence Journal_ appeared the following:
Mrs. Doyle seems to have learned by experience that the board, as
now constituted under the law, can have no real efficiency. The
ladies are responsible for the management of no part of any of
the institutions which they are permitted officially to visit.
Their reports are not made to the boards which are charged with
the responsibility of managing these institutions, and, in the
case of the reform school, are not made to the body which elects
and controls the board of management. The State ought not to
place ladies in such an anomalous position. The women's board
should have positive duties and direct responsibilities in its
appropriate sphere, or it should be abolished. The following is
Mrs. Doyle's letter of resignation:
_To His Excellency Henry Lippitt, Governor of the State:_
SIR: Please accept my resignation as member of the Board of
Lady Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of
the State. The recent action of a part of the board, in
regard to the annual report made to the General Assembly,
makes it impossible for me to continue longer as a member.
Before the report was submitted, it was carefully examined
by the members signing it, and was acquiesced in by them, as
their signatures testify. Still further, I am confirmed in
the opinion that so important a trust as this should be
coupled with some power for action; without this we are
necessarily confined to suggestions only to the male boards,
which suggestions receive only the attention they may
consider proper. Believing that this board, as now
empowered, can have no efficiency except where its
suggestions or criticisms meet the entire approval of the
male boards, and failing to see any good which can result
from our inspections under such conditions, or any honor to
the board thus examining, I respectfully tender my
resignation.
SARAH E. H. DOYLE,
_Providence, R. I._
Three more ladies of the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal
and Correctional Institutions of the State attest the correctness
of the repeated suggestions that the board, as organized under
the existing laws, must be comparatively powerless for good. The
question now comes, will the Rhode Island General Assembly enact
a law which shall give to women certain definite duties and
responsibilities in connection with the care and correction of
female offenders? We propose to refer to this matter further. We
are requested to publish the following communications to his
excellency, the governor:
_To Henry Lippitt, Governor of Rhode Island:_
My appointment on the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal
and Correctional Institutions of the State, which I received
from your hands for this year, I am now compelled
respectfully to resign. My experience in this board for
nearly six years has convinced me that this office, which
confers on its holders no power to decide that any
improvement shall be made in the government or workings of
these institutions, is so nearly useless that I am forced to
the conclusion that, for myself, the time spent in the
performance of its duties can be more effectively employed
elsewhere. That the influence of women is indispensable to
the proper management of these institutions I was never more
sure than I am at this moment; but to make it effectual,
that influence must be obtained by placing women on the
boards of direct control, where their judgment shall be
expressed by argument and by vote.
A board of women, whose only duties, as defined by the law,
are to visit the penal and correctional institutions, elect
its own officers and report annually to the legislature,
bears within itself the elements of weakness and
insufficiency. And if the annual reports contain any
exposure of abuses, they are sure to give offense to the
managers, to be followed by timidity and vacillation in the
board of women itself. Our late report, written with great
care and conscientious adherence to the truth, which called
the attention of the legislature to certain abuses in one of
our institutions, and to some defect in the systems
established in the others, has, thus far, elicited no
official action, has brought censure upon us from the press,
while great dissatisfaction has been created in our own body
by the failure of a portion of its members to sustain the
allegations to which the entire board, with the exception of
one absentee, had affixed their names.
When the State of Rhode Island shall call its best women to
an equal participation with men in the direction of its
penal and reformatory institutions, I have no doubt they
will gladly assume the duties and responsibilities of such
positions; and I am also sure that the beneficent results of
such cooeperation will soon be manifest, both in benefit to
individuals and in safety to the State. But under present
circumstances I most respectfully decline to serve any
longer on the advisory board of women.
_Valley Falls, R. I._ ELIZABETH B. CHACE.
GOVERNOR LIPPITT: _Dear Sir_: When I accepted an appointment
on the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and
Correctional Institutions of the State, I did so with the
hope that much good might be accomplished, especially toward
the young girls at the reform school, in whose welfare I
felt a deep interest. To that institution my attention has
been chiefly devoted during my brief experience in this
office. This experience, however, has convinced me that a
board of officers constituted and limited like this can have
very little influence toward improvement in an institution
whose methods are fixed, and which is under the exclusive
control of another set of officers, who see no necessity for
change. Those causes render this women's board so weak in
itself that I cannot consent to retain my position therein.
I therefore respectfully tender to you my resignation.
ABBY D. WEAVER.
_Providence, R. I._
GOVERNOR LIPPITT: Please accept the resignation of my
commission as a member of the Ladies' Board of Visitors to
the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State,
conferred by you in June, 1875.
Yours respectfully,
_Westerly, R. I._ ELIZA C. WEEDEN.
Early in the year 1880 the State association issued the following
address:
_To the friends of Woman Suffrage throughout the State of Rhode
Island:_
In behalf of the Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, we beg
leave to call your attention to the result of our last year's
work, and to our plans for future effort. We went before the
General Assembly with petitions for suffrage for women on all
subjects, and also with petitions asking only for school
suffrage. The former, bearing nearly 2,500 names, was presented
in the Senate and finally referred, with other unfinished
business, to the next legislature; they will thus be subject to
attention the coming year. The latter, bearing nearly 3,500
names, was presented in the House and referred to the Committee
on Education. This committee reported unanimously:
_Resolved_, That the following amendment to the constitution
of the State is hereby proposed: Article ----. Women
otherwise qualified are entitled to vote in the election of
school committees and in all legally organized
school-district meetings.
This resolution was adopted in the House by 48 to 11, but
rejected in the Senate by 20 to 13.[176] Nineteen members being
required to make a majority of a full Senate, the amendment
failed by six votes. Had the ballots in the two branches been
upon a proposition to extend general suffrage to women, they
would have been the most encouraging, and, as it is, they show
signs of progress; but a resolve to submit the question of school
suffrage to the voters of Rhode Island, ought to have been
successful this year. Why was it defeated? Simply for the lack of
political power behind it. To gain this, our cause needs a
foothold in every part of the State. We need some person or
persons in each town, to whom we can look for hearty cooeperation.
If our work is to be effective, it must not only continue as
heretofore--one of petitioning--but must include also a constant
vigilance in securing senators and representatives in the General
Assembly, favorable to woman suffrage. We propose the coming
year:
_First_--To petition congress in behalf of the following
amendment to our national constitution, viz.:
ARTICLE XVI. Section 1--The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of sex. Section
2--Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
_Second_--To secure a hearing and action upon the petitions
referred from the last Assembly, for such amendment to our State
constitution as shall extend general suffrage to women.
_Third_--To petition the General Assembly for the necessary
legislation to secure school suffrage to women.[177]
The arguments in the various hearings before the legislature with
the majority and minority reports, are the same as many already
published, in fact nothing new can be said on the question. As none
of the women in this State, by trying to vote, or resisting
taxation, have tested the justice of their laws, they have no
supreme-court decisions to record.
Honorable mention should be made of Dr. William F. Channing, who
has stood for many years in Providence the noblest representative
of liberal thought. He is a worthy son of that great leader of
reform in New England, Rev. William Ellery Channing. In him the
advocates of woman's rights have always found a steadfast friend.
He sees that this is the fundamental reform; that it is the key to
the problems of labor, temperance, social purity and the
cooeperative home. Those who have had the good fortune of a personal
acquaintance with Dr. Channing have felt the sense of dignity and
self-respect that the delicate courtesy and sincere reference of a
noble man must always give to woman.
Though Mrs. Channing has not been an active participant in the
popular reforms, having led a rather retired life, yet her
sympathies have been with her husband in all his endeavors to
benefit mankind. She has given the influence of her name to the
suffrage movement, and extended the most generous hospitalities to
the speakers at the annual conventions. Their charming daughters,
Mary and Grace, fully respond to the humanitarian sentiments of
their parents, constituting a happy family united in life's
purposes and ambitions.
The New York _Evening Post_ of September, 1875, gives the following
of one of Rhode Island's brave women, but the State has not as yet,
thought it worth while to honor her in any fitting manner:
Yesterday noon Miss Ida Lewis again distinguished herself by
rescuing a man who was in danger of drowning in the lower Newport
harbor. Miss Lewis first came into prominence in 1866, when she
saved the life of a soldier who had set out for a sail in a light
skiff. It was one of the coldest and most blustering days ever
known in this latitude, yet a girl but 25 years old, impelled by
the noblest spirit of humanity, ventured to the assistance of a
man who had brought himself into a sorry plight through sheer
fool-hardiness. One day, during the autumn of the next year,
while a terrible gale was raging, two men sat out to cross the
harbor with several sheep. One of the animals fell overboard
while the boat was rocked by the heavy sea, and its keepers, in
trying to save it, were in imminent peril of swamping their
craft. Ida Lewis saw them from the window of her father's
lighthouse on Lime Rock, and in a few minutes was rowing them in
safety toward the shore. After landing the men, she went back
again and rescued the sheep.
These brave deeds, with others of a less striking character, made
Miss Lewis' name famous throughout the world, and won for her the
title of "the Grace Darling of America"; but in 1869 the
newspapers were filled with the story of what was perhaps her
greatest exploit. On March 29 two young soldiers set sail from
Newport for Fort Adams in a small boat, under the guidance of a
boy who pretended to understand the simple rules of navigation.
Mrs. Lewis chanced to be looking out of the lighthouse window,
and saw a squall strike the boat and overturn it. She called to
her daughter, telling her of the casualty. Ida, though ill at the
time, rushed out of the house, launched her life-boat and sprang
in, with neither hat on her head nor shoes on her feet. By the
time she reached the scene of the disaster the boy had perished,
and the two soldiers were clinging desperately to the wreck,
almost ready to loose their hold from exhaustion. They were
dragged into the life-boat, and carried to Lime Rock, and, with
careful nursing, were soon sufficiently restored to proceed to
Fort Adams.
Miss Lewis' repeated acts of philanthropy have been recognized by
gifts at various times, but no national testimonial, so far as we
are aware, has yet been offered to her. True generosity, like
true virtue, is its own reward, and we of the world are not often
disposed to meddle with its quiet enjoyment by its possessor. It
seems eminently fitting, however, that among the first to receive
the new decoration to be bestowed by congress for heroic deeds in
saving life, should be the heroine of Newport harbor.
Writing from Valley Falls September 9, 1885, Elizabeth B. Chace,
president of the Rhode Island Association, in summing up the steps
of progress, says:
On December 4, 1884, by unanimous consent of our General Assembly
the state-house was granted to us for the first time, for a woman
suffrage convention. A large number of our best men and women,
and some of our ablest speakers[178] were present. An immense
audience greeted them and listened with eager interest
throughout. The occasion was one of the most pleasant and
profitable we have enjoyed in a long time. At the following
session of our Legislature, 1885, an amendment to our State
constitution was proposed giving the franchise to women, on equal
terms with men. It passed both Houses by a large majority vote,
but by some technicality, for which no one seemed to blame, it
was not legally started on its round to the vote of the people.
Hence the proposition to submit the amendment will be again
passed upon this year, and with every promise of success. We have
strong hopes of making our little commonwealth the banner State
in this grand step of progress.
The following letter from Frederick A. Hinckley, makes a fitting
mention of some of the noble women who have represented this
movement in his State:
PROVIDENCE, R. I., Sept. 14, 1885.
DEAR FRIENDS: You ask for a few words from me concerning salient
points in the history of the woman suffrage movement in Rhode
Island. As you know, ours is a very small State--the smallest in
the Union--and has a very closely compacted population. With us
the manufacturing interest overshadows everything else,
representing large investments of capital. On the one hand we
have great accumulations of wealth by the few; on the other hand,
a large percentage of unskilled foreign labor. For good or for
ill we feel all those conservative influences which naturally
grow out of this two-fold condition. This accounts in the main,
for the Rhode Islander's extreme and exceptionally tenacious
regard for the institutions of his ancestors. This is why we have
the most limited suffrage of any State, many _men_ being debarred
from voting by reason of the property qualification still
required here of foreign-born citizens. Such a social atmosphere
is not favorable to the extension of the franchise, either to men
or women, and makes peculiarly necessary with us, the educational
process of a very large amount of moral agitation before much can
be expected in the way of political changes.
My own residence here dates back only to 1878, though before that
from my Massachusetts home I was somewhat familiar with
Rhode-Island people and laws. Our work has consisted of monthly
meetings, made up usually of an afternoon session for address and
discussion, followed by a social tea; of an annual State
convention in the city of Providence; and of petitioning the
legislature each year, with the appointment of the customary
committees and hearings. For many years the centre of the woman
movement with us has been the State association, and since my own
connection with that, the leader about whom we have all rallied,
has been your beloved friend and mine, Elizabeth B. Chace. Hers
is that clear conception of, and untiring devotion to principles,
which make invincible leadership, tide over all disaster, and
overcome all doubt. By her constant appearance before legislative
committees, her model newspaper articles which never fail to
command general attention even among those who would not think of
agreeing with her, and by her persistent fidelity to her sense of
duty in social life, she is the recognized head of our agitation
in Rhode Island. But she has not stood alone. She has been the
centre of a group of women whose names will always be associated
with our cause in this locality. Elizabeth K. Churchill lived and
died a faithful and successful worker. The Woman's Club in this
city was her child; temperance, suffrage, and the interests of
working-women were dear to her heart. She was independent in her
convictions, and true to herself, even when it compelled dissent
from the attitude of trusted leaders and friends, but her work on
the platform, in the press, and in society, made her life a tower
of strength to the woman's rights cause and her death a
lamentable loss. Another active leader in the work here, though
not a speaker, who has passed on since my residence in
Providence, was Susan B. P. Martin. I think those of us
accustomed to act with her always respected Mrs. Martin's
judgment and felt sure of her fidelity. What more can be said of
any one than that?
It is difficult to speak publicly of one's friends while living.
But no history of woman suffrage agitation in Rhode Island would
be complete which did not place among those ever to be relied on,
the names of Anna Garlin Spencer, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Anna E.
Aldrich and Fanny P. Palmer. Mrs. Spencer moved from the State
just as I came into it, but the influence of her logical mind was
left behind her and the loss of her quick womanly tact has been
keenly felt. Mrs. Doyle has long been chairman of the executive
committee of the association, Mrs. Aldrich a safe and trusted
counsellor, and Mrs. Palmer as member of the Providence school
committee, and more recently as president of the Woman's Club,
has rendered the cause eminent service.
If final victory seems farther off here than in some of the newer
States, as it certainly does, that is only the greater reason for
earnest, and ceaseless work. We know we are right, and be it
short or long I am sure we have all enlisted for the war.
Always sincerely yours, FREDERIC A. HINCKLEY.
Below is the last utterance of Senator Anthony on this question. In
writing to Susan B. Anthony, he said:
UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, March 4, 1884.
MY DEAR COUSIN: I am honored by your invitation to address the
National Woman Suffrage Association at the convention to be held
in this city. I regret that it is not in my power to comply with
your complimentary request. The enfranchisement of woman is one
of those great reforms which will come with the progress of
civilization, and when it comes those who witness it will wonder
that it has been so long delayed. The main argument against it is
that the women themselves do not desire it. Many men do not
desire it, as is evidenced by their omission to exercise it, but
they are not therefore deprived of it. I do not understand that
you propose compulsory suffrage, although I am not sure that that
would not be for the public advantage as applied to both sexes. A
woman has a right to vote in a corporation of which she is a
stockholder, and that she does not generally exercise that right
is not an argument against the right itself. The progress that is
making in the direction of your efforts is satisfactory and
encouraging.
Faithfully yours, H. B. ANTHONY.
Senator Anthony was one of the ever-to-be-remembered nine senators
who voted for woman suffrage on the floor of the United States
Senate in 1866. He also made a most logical speech on our behalf
and has ever since been true to our demands.
FOOTNOTES:
[171] To Mrs. Davis, a native of the State of New York, belongs the
honor of inaugurating this movement in New England, as she called
and managed the first convention held in Massachusetts in 1850, and
helped to arouse all these States to action in 1868. With New
England reformers slavery was always the preeminently pressing
question, even after the emancipation of the slaves, while in New
York woman's civil and political rights were considered the more
vital question.--[E. C. S.
[172] _The Revolution_ of December 17, 1868, says: The meeting last
week in Providence, was, in numbers and ability, eminently
successful. Mrs. Elizabeth B. Chace, of Valley Falls, presided, and
addresses were made by Colonel Higginson, Paulina Wright Davis,
Lucy Stone, Frederick Douglass, Mrs. O. Shepard, Rev. John Boyden,
Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, Stephen S. and Abbey Kelly Foster. The
officers of the association were: _President_, Paulina Wright
Davis. _Vice-presidents_, Elizabeth B. Chace of Valley Falls, Col.
T. W. Higginson of Newport, Mrs. George Cushing, J. W. Stillman,
Mrs. Buffum of Woonsocket and P. W. Aldrich. _Recording Secretary_,
Martha W. Chase. _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Rhoda Fairbanks.
_Treasurer_, Mrs. Susan B. Harris. _Executive Committee_, Mrs.
James Bucklin, Catharine W. Hunt, Mrs. Lewis Doyle, Anna Aldrich,
Mrs. S. B. G. Martin, Dr. Perry, Mrs. Churchill, Arnold B. Chace.
[173] Among the speakers at these annual conventions we find
Rowland G. Hazard, Rev. John Boyden, Rev. Charles Howard Malcolm,
the brilliant John Neal, Portland, Maine, Hon. James M. Stillman
Gen. F. G. Lippett, Theodore Tilton, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Phebe
A. Hanaford, Elizabeth K. Churchill. For a report of the convention
held at Newport during the fashionable season, August 25, 26, 1869,
see vol. II., page 403, also _The Revolution_, September 2, 1869.
[174] Mrs. Chace says in a letter, speaking of Mrs. Davis: "After
several years absence in Europe she returned, a helpless invalid,
unable to resume her labors. But her devotion in early years will
long remain fresh in the memory of those associated with her, who
were inspired by her self-sacrifice and enthusiasm." For farther
details of Mrs. Davis' earlier labors, see vol. I, pages 215, 283.
[175] Julia Ward Howe, Celia Burleigh, William Lloyd Garrison,
Aaron M. Powell, Caroline H. Dall, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney, Miss Mary
F. Eastman, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Rev. Augustus Woodbury Hon.
Amasa M. Eaton, Mr. Stillman, Hon. Thomas Davis, Hon George L.
Clarke, Rev. Frederick Hinckley, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Hon.
A. Payne.
[176] IN THE HOUSE. _For the Amendment._--Davis Aldrich, North
Smithfield; Thomas Arnold, Warwick; Clark Barber, Richmond; Thos.
P. Barnefield, Pawtucket; Frank M. Bates, Pawtucket; John Beattie,
Cranston; Amos M. Bowen, Providence; Issac B. Briggs, Jamestown;
Albert Buffum, Burillville; John C. Barrington, Barrington; Chas.
Capwell, West Greenwich; Geo. B. Carpenter, Hopkinton; Obadiah
Chase, Warren; Albert I. Chester, Westerly; Chas. E. Chickering,
Pawtucket; John F. Clark, Cumberland; LeBaron B. Colt, Bristol;
James Davis, Pawtucket; Benjamin T. Eames, Providence; Henry H.
Fay, Newport; Edward L. Freeman, Lincoln; Z. Herbert Gardner,
Exeter; John P. Gregory, Lincoln; Henry D. Heydon, Warwick; Edwin
Jenckes, Pawtucket; Thos. E. Kenyon, East Greenwich; Israel B.
Mason, Providence; B. B. Mitchell, jr., New Shoreham; Francis L.
O'Reilly, Woonsocket; Joseph Osborn, Tiverton; Abraham Payne,
Providence; James M. Pendleton, Westerly; Wm. A. Pirce, Johnston;
Clinton Puffer, Woonsocket; Olney W. Randall, No. Providence; John
P. Sanborn, Newport; Wm. P. Sheffield, Newport; Israel R. Sheldon,
Warwick; Martin S. Smith, Scituate; Wm. H. Spooner, Bristol; Henry
A. Stearns, Lincoln; Simon S. Steere, Smithfield; Joseph
Tillinghast, Coventry; Wm. C. Townsend, Newport; Stephen A. Watson,
Portsmouth; Stillman White, Providence; Benj. F. Wilbor, Little
Compton; Andrew Winsor, Providence--48.
IN THE SENATE. _For the Amendment._--Lieut.-Gov. Howard, E.
Providence; Ariel Ballou, Woonsocket; Cyrus F. Cooke, Foster;
Edward T. DeBlois, Portsmouth; Rodney F. Dyer, Johnston; Anson
Greene, Exeter; Daniel W. Lyman, No. Providence; Jabez W. Mowry,
Smithfield; Dexter B. Potter, Coventry; Stafford W. Razee,
Cumberland; T. Mumford Seabury, Newport; Lewis B. Smith,
Barrington; John F. Tobey, Providence--13.
[177] [Signed:] _President_, Elizabeth B. Chace; _Secretaries_,
Fanny P. Palmer, Elizabeth C. Hinckley; _Treasurer_, Susan B. P.
Martin; _Executive Committee_, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Susan Sisson,
William Barker, Francis C. Frost, Anna E. Aldrich, Frederick A.
Hinckley, Susan G. Kenyon, Rachael E. Fry, A. A. Tyng, Arnold B.
Chace.
[178] The speakers were Abraham Payne, John Wyman, Matilda Hindman,
Frederick A. Hinckley, Rev. Mr. Wendt, Elizabeth B. Chace, William
I. Bowditch, Mary F. Eastman, William Lloyd Garrison, jr., Lucy
Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Henry B. Blackwell.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
MAINE.
Women on School Committees--Elvira C. Thorndyke--Suffrage
Society, 1868--Rockland--The Snow Sisters--Portland Meeting,
1870--John Neal--Judge Goddard--Colby University Open to Girls,
August 12, 1871--Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash Admitted to the Bar,
October 26, 1872--Tax-payers Protest--Ann F. Greeley,
1872--March, 1872, Bill for Woman Suffrage Lost in the House,
Passed in the Senate by Seven Votes--Miss Frank Charles, Register
of Deeds--Judge Reddington--Mr. Randall's Motion--Moral Eminence
of Maine--Convention in Granite Hall, Augusta, January, 1873,
Hon. Joshua Nye, President--Delia A. Curtis--Opinions of the
Supreme Court in Regard to Women Holding Offices--Governor
Dingley's Message, 1875--Convention, Representatives Hall,
Portland, Judge Kingsbury, President, February 12, 1876.
The first movement in Maine, in 1868, turned on the question of
women being eligible on school committees. Here, as in Vermont, the
men inaugurated the movement. The following letter, from the
_Portland Press_, gives the initiative steps:
HIRAM, March 15, 1868.
MR. EDITOR: A statement is going the rounds of the press that the
Democrats of Hiram supported a lady for a member of the school
committee. I am unwilling that any person or party shall be
ridiculed or censured for an act of which I was the instigator,
and for which I am chiefly responsible. I am in favor of electing
ladies to that office, and accordingly voted for one, without her
knowledge or consent; several Democrats as well as Republicans
voted with me. I have reason to believe that scores of Democrats
voted for the able and popular candidate of the Republicans (Dr.
William H. Smith), and but for my peculiar notion I should have
voted for him myself, as I always vote with the Republican party.
I am in favor, however, of laying aside politics in voting for
school committees, and the question of capability should outweigh
the question of sex. A few years ago we had a large number of boy
schoolmasters, but agents are learning to appreciate teachers of
tact, experience and natural qualifications, as well as
book-knowledge. Of eleven schools under the care of the writer
the past year, but one had a male teacher, and by turning to the
reports I find that of forty-nine schools in Hiram during the
past two years, forty-two were taught by ladies. Four of these
teachers of the past year have taught respectively twenty,
twenty-one, twenty-three and thirty schools. I put the question,
why should a lady who has taught thirty schools be considered
less suitable for the office of school committee than the
undersigned, who has taught but two, or scores of men who never
taught school at all? Slowly and with hesitation over the ice of
prejudice comes that unreasonable reason--"_O, 'cause._" But
regardless of pants or crinoline, the question remains unanswered
and unanswerable. It is not deemed improper for the ladies of
Hiram to go with their husbands to the town-house to a cattle
show and fair, and serve as committees on butter and cheese, but
it is considered unreasonable for ladies to serve as
superintendents of school committees.
General Washington gave a lieutenant's commission to a woman for
her skill and bravery in manning a battery at the battle of
Monmouth. He also granted her half-pay during life. It is stated
in "Lincoln's Lives of the Presidents" that "she wore an
epaulette, and everybody called her Captain Molly." And yet I do
not read in history that General Washington was ever impeached.
Females have more and better influence than males, and under
their instruction our schools have been improving for some years.
There is less kicking and cudgeling, and more attention is given
to that best of all rules, "The Golden Rule." If they are more
efficient as teachers is it not fair to presume that they would
excel as committees?
Very respectfully yours,
LLEWELLYN A. WADSWORTH.
The editor of the _Press_ adds to the above his own endorsement, in
these words:
We are pleased to have Mr. Wadsworth's explanation of the reform
movement in Hiram, which we had been misled into crediting to the
Democrats. * * * Go on, Mr. Wadsworth, you have our best wishes.
There is nothing in the way of the general adoption of your ideas
but a lot of antiquated and obsolete notions, sustained by the
laughter of fools.
The same year we have the report of the first suffrage society in
that State, which seems to place Maine in the van of her New
England sisters, notwithstanding the great darkness our
correspondent deplores:
DEAR REVOLUTION: A society has just been organized here called
the Equal Rights Association of Rockland. It bids fair to live,
although it requires all the courage of heroic souls to contend
against the darkness that envelopes the people. But the
foundation is laid, and many noble women are catching the
inspiration of the hour. When we are fully under way, we shall
send you a copy of our preamble and resolutions.
ELVIRA C. THORNDYKE, _Cor. Sec'y_.
The Hon. John Neal, who was foremost in all good work in Maine, in
a letter to _The Revolution_, describes the first meeting called in
Portland, in May, 1870, to consider the subject of suffrage for
woman. He says:
DEAR REVOLUTION: According to my promise, I sent an advertisement
to all three of our daily papers last Saturday, in substance like
the following, though somewhat varied in language:
ELEVATION OF WOMAN.--All who favor Woman Suffrage, the
Sixteenth Amendment, and the restoration of woman to her
"natural and inalienable rights," are wanted for
consultation at the audience room of the Portland Institute
and Public Library, on Wednesday evening next, at half-past
seven o'clock. Per order
JOHN NEAL.
The weather was unfavorable; nevertheless, the small room,
holding from sixty to seventy-five, to which the well-disposed
were invited for consultation and organization, was crowded so
that near the close not a seat could be had; and crowded, too,
with educated and intelligent women, and brave, thoughtful men,
so far as one might judge by appearances, and about in equal
proportions. Among the latter were Mr. Talbot, United States
district-attorney, a good lawyer and a self-convinced fellow
laborer, so far as suffrage is concerned; but rather unwilling to
go further at present, lest if a woman should be sent to the
legislature (against her will, of course!) she might neglect her
family, or be obliged to take her husband with her, to keep her
out of mischief; just as if Portland, with 35,000 inhabitants and
four representatives, would not be likely to find _two_ unmarried
women or widows, or married women not disqualified by matrimonial
incumbrances or liabilities, to represent the sex; or lest, if
she should get into the post-office, being by nature so curious
and inquisitive, she might be found peeping--as if the chief
distinction between superior and inferior minds was not this very
disposition to inquire and investigate; as if, indeed, that which
distinguishes the barbarous from the civilized, were not this
very inquisitiveness and curiosity; the savage being satisfied
with himself and averse to inquiry; the civilized ever on the
alert, in proportion to his intelligence, and, like the
Athenians, always on the look-out for some "new thing."
And then, too, we had Judge Goddard, of the Superior Court, one
of our boldest and clearest thinkers, who could not be persuaded
to take a part in the discussion, though declaring himself
entirely opposed to the movement. And yet, he is the very man
who, at a Republican convention several years ago, offered a
resolution in favor of impartial suffrage, only to find himself
in a minority of two; but persevered nevertheless, year after
year, until the very same resolution, word for word, was
unanimously adopted by another Republican convention! Of course,
Judge Goddard will not be likely to shrink from giving his
reasons hereafter, if the movement should propagate itself, as it
certainly will.
We had also for consideration a synopsis of what deserves to be
called most emphatically "The Maine Law," in relation to married
women, prepared by Mr. Drummond, our late speaker and formerly
attorney-general, and one of our best lawyers, where it was
demonstrated, both by enactments and adjudications, running from
March, 1844, to February, 1866, that a married woman--to say
nothing of widows and spinsters--has little to complain of in our
State, her legal rights being far ahead of the age, and not only
acknowledged, but enforced; she being mistress of herself and of
her earnings, and allowed to trade for herself, while "her
contracts for any lawful purpose are made valid and binding, and
to be enforced, as if she were sole agent of her property, but
she cannot be arrested."
Then followed Mr. S. B. Beckett, just returned from a trip to the
Holy Land, who testified, among other things, that he had seen
women both in London and Ireland who knew "how to keep a hotel,"
which is reckoned among men as the highest earthly
qualification--and proved it by managing some of the largest and
best in the world.
And then Mr. Charles Jose, late one of our aldermen, who, half in
earnest and half in jest, took t'other side of the question,
urging, first, that this was a political movement--as if that
were any objection, supposing it true; our whole system of
government being a political movement, and that, by which we
trampled out the last great rebellion, another, both parties and
all parties cooeperating in the work; next, that women did not ask
for suffrage--it was the men who asked for it, in their names;
that there were no complaints and no petitions from women! As if
petitions had not gone up and complaints, too, by thousands, from
all parts of the country, from school-teachers and office clerks
and others, as well as from the women at large, both over sea and
here.
But enough. The meeting stands adjourned for a week. Probably no
organization will be attempted, lest it might serve to check free
discussion.
J. N.
_May 5, 1870._
Mr. W. W. McCann wrote to the _Woman's Journal_ of this suffrage
meeting in Portland, in 1870:
Judge Howe's voice, when he addressed the jury of Wyoming as
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury," fell upon the ears of
that crowded court-room as a strange and unusual sound. Equally
strange and impracticable seemed the call for a "woman suffrage
meeting," at the city building, to the conservative citizens of
Portland. However, notwithstanding the suspicion and prejudice
with which this movement is regarded, quite a large and highly
respectable audience assembled at an early hour to witness the
new and wonderful phenomenon of a meeting to aid in giving the
ballot to woman.
Hon. John Neal, who issued the call for the meeting, was the
first to speak. He reviewed the history of this movement, both in
this country and in England. He gave some entertaining
reminiscences of his acquaintance with John Stuart Mill forty
years ago. Mr. Mill was not then in favor of universal suffrage;
he advocated the enfranchisement of the male sex only. Mr. Neal
claimed the right for women also. He was happy to learn that
since then Mr. Mill has thrown all the weight of his influence
and his masterly intellect in favor of universal suffrage. He
then entered into an elaborate discussion of some of the
objections brought against woman suffrage, and, much to the
surprise of many present, showed that the rights which women
demand are just and reasonable, and ought to be granted. John M.
Todd remarked that he was not so much impressed by the logical
arguments in favor of suffrage as by the shallow and baseless
arguments of the opposition. The friends of woman suffrage are
becoming active and earnest in their efforts, and discussion is
freely going on through the daily papers.
To-day, the _Eastern Argus_, a leading Democratic organ of this
city, denounces this movement as the most "damnable heresy of
this generation." We venture the prediction that its friends, if
true to the progressive tendencies of the day, will realize the
consummation of their cherished heresy in the proposed sixteenth
amendment, which will abolish all distinction of class and sex.
On August 12, 1871, the announcement that Colby University would be
opened to girls gave general satisfaction to the women of Maine. A
correspondent says:
Hereafter young women will be admitted to this institution on
"precisely the same terms as young men." They may take the
regular course, or such a course as they may select, taking at
least two studies each term. They will room and board in families
in the village, and simply attend the required exercises at the
college. The next examination for entrance will be on Wednesday,
August 30. One young lady has already signified her purpose to
enter the regular course. Four New England colleges are now open
to women--Bates, at Lewiston; Colby, at Waterville, Me.; Vermont
University, at Burlington, Vt., and Wesleyan, at Middletown,
Conn. Let's have no more women's colleges established, for the
next decade will make them unnecessary, as by that time all the
colleges of the country will be opened to them.
October 26, 1872, another advance step was heralded abroad:
On motion of the Hon. James S. Milliken, Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash,
of Columbia Falls, was formally admitted to the bar as an
attorney-at-law. During the session of the court in the forenoon,
Mrs. Nash had presented herself before the examining committee,
Messrs. Granger, Milliken and Walker, and had passed a more than
commonly creditable examination. After the opening of the court
in the afternoon, Mr. Milliken arose and said: "May it please the
court, I hold in my hand papers showing that Mrs. Hapgood Nash,
of Columbia Falls, has passed the committee appointed by the
court to examine candidates for admission to the bar as
attorneys-at-law and has paid to the county treasurer the duty
required by the statute; and I now move the court that she be
admitted to this bar as an attorney-at-law. In making the motion
I am not unaware that this is a novel and unusual proceeding. It
is the first instance in this county and this State, and, so far
as I am aware, the first instance in New England, of the
application of a woman to be formally admitted to the bar as a
practitioner. But knowing Mrs. Nash to be a modest and refined
lady, of literary and legal attainments, I feel safe in assuring
Your Honor that by a course of honorable practice, and by her
courteous intercourse with the members of the profession, she
will do her full part to conquer any prejudice that may now exist
against the idea of women being admitted as attorneys at law."
Judge Barrows, after examining the papers handed to him, said: "I
am not aware of anything in the constitution or laws of this
State prohibiting the admission of a woman, possessing the proper
qualifications, to the practice of the law. I have no sympathy
with that feeling or prejudice which would exclude women from
any of the occupations of life for which they may be qualified.
The papers put into my hands show that Mrs. Nash has received the
unanimous approval of the examining committee, as possessing the
qualifications requisite for an acceptable attorney, and that she
has paid the legal duty to the county treasurer, and I direct
that she be admitted."
On May 10, 1873, the trustees of the Industrial School for Girls
issued the following appeal to the people of the State:
The undersigned, trustees of the Maine Industrial School for
Girls, hereby earnestly appeal to the generosity of the State, to
the rich and poor alike, for aid to this important movement. Our
call is to mothers and fathers blessed with virtuous and obedient
children; to those who have suffered by the waywardness of some
beloved daughter; and to all who would gladly see the neglected,
exposed and erring girls in our midst reclaimed. For six years
has this subject been agitated in the State and presented to the
consideration of several legislatures; and during that time the
objects, plans and practical workings of such an institution,
have become familiar to the public mind. The project is now so
near consummation that by prompt and liberal response to this
appeal, the school can be in active operation by the first of
July next.
By the terms of the resolution of the legislature granting State
aid of five thousand dollars, the sum of twenty thousand dollars
must first be secured from other sources. Of this, five thousand
at least has been contributed by two generous ladies in
Hallowell. For the balance the trustees confidentially look to
the citizens of the whole State as equally to be benefited. Let
them send their contributions, whether large or small, freely and
at once, to either of the undersigned and the receipt of the same
shall be duly acknowledged.[179]
Some of the women tax-payers[180] in Ellsworth, Maine, sent the
following protest to the assessors of that city:
We the undersigned residents of the city of Ellsworth, believing
in the declaration of our forefathers, that "governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that
"taxation without representation is tyranny," beg leave to
protest against being taxed for support of laws that we have no
voice in making. By taxing us you class us with aliens and
minors, the only males who are taxed and not allowed to vote, you
make us the political inferiors of the most ignorant foreigners,
negroes, and men who have not intellect enough to learn to write
their names, or to read the vote given them. Our property is at
the disposal of men who have not the ability to accumulate a
dollar's worth and who pay only a poll-tax. We therefore protest
against being taxed until we are allowed the rights of citizens.
AUGUSTA, March 1, 1872.
EDITORS WOMAN'S JOURNAL: I have never seen a letter in the
_Woman's Journal_ written from Augusta, the capital of Maine, and
as some things have transpired lately which might interest your
readers, I take the liberty of writing a few lines. The bill for
woman suffrage was defeated in the House, fifty-two to forty-one.
In the Senate the vote was fifteen in favor to eight against. I
think the smallness of the vote was owing to the indifference of
some of the members and the determination of a few to kill the
bill. Some politicians are afraid of this innovation just now,
lest the Republican party be more disrupted than it already is.
Day after day, when the session was drawing to a close, women
went to the state-house expecting to hear the question debated.
Wednesday every available place was filled with educated women.
The day was spent--if I should say how, my criticism might be too
severe. Gentlemen from Thomaston, Biddeford, Burlington and
Waldoborough had the floor most of the time during the afternoon.
In the evening, while those same women and some of the members of
the legislature were attending a concert, the bill was taken up
and voted upon, _without any discussion whatever_. Now, I submit
to any fair-minded person if this was right. I have listened to
discussions upon that floor this winter for which I should have
hung my head in shame had they been conducted by women. The whole
country, from Maine to California, calls loudly for better
legislation--for morality in politics.
A member of the House said to me yesterday, that he thought that
some of the members from the rural districts were not
sufficiently enlightened upon the question of woman suffrage, and
the bill ought to have been thoroughly discussed. Yes, and
perhaps treated with respect by its friends. I saw the member
from Calais while a vote was being taken. Standing in his seat,
with his hand stretched toward the rear of the House, where it is
generally supposed that members sit who are a little slow in
voting at the beck of politicians, he said: "_Yes_ is the way to
vote, gentlemen! Yes! Yes!" When women have such politicians for
champions equal suffrage is secured. But do we want such men? The
member from Calais voted against woman's right of suffrage. He is
said to be an ambitious aspirant in the fifth congressional
district. See to it, women of the fifth district, that you do not
have him as an opponent of equal rights in congress. There is a
throne behind a throne. Let woman be _regal_ in the background,
where she must stand for the present, in Maine.
But I am happy and proud to state that some very high-minded men,
and some of the best legislators in the House, did vote for the
bill, viz.: Brown of Bangor, Judge Titcomb of Augusta, General
Perry of Oxford, Porter of Burlington, Labroke of Foxcroft, and
many others; in the Senate, the president and fourteen others,
the real bone and marrow of the Senate, voted for the bill. The
signs of the times are good. The watchman of the night discerns
the morning light in the broad eastern horizon.
[Signed:] PATIENCE COMMONSENSE.
The _Portland Press_, in a summary of progress in Maine for 1873,
says:
Women certainly have no reason to complain of the year's dealings
with them, for they have been recognized in many ways which
indicate the gradual breaking down of the prejudices that have
hitherto given them a position of _quasi_ subjection. Mrs. Mary
D. Welcome has been licensed to preach by the Methodists; Mrs.
Fannie U. Roberts of Kittery has been commissioned by the
governor to solemnize marriages; Clara H. Nash, of the famous law
firm of F. C. & C. H. Nash, of Columbia Falls, has argued a case
before a jury in the Supreme Court; Miss Mary C. Lowe of Colby
University has taken a college prize for declamation. They are
the first Maine women who have ever enjoyed honors of the kind.
Miss Cameron spoke, too, at the last Congregational conference,
and Miss Frank Charles was appointed register of deeds in Oxford
county.
It is further to be noted that the legislature voted as follows
on the question of giving the ballot to women: Senate--14 yeas,
14 nays; House--62 yeas, 69 nays. Women are rapidly obtaining a
recognized position in our colleges. There are now five young
women at Colby, three at Bates, and three at the Agricultural
College--eleven in all. Bates has already graduated two. In the
latter college a scholarship for the benefit of women has been
endowed by Judge Reddington. Finally, the first Woman Suffrage
Association ever formed in Maine held its first meeting at
Augusta last January, and was a great success. Carmel, Monroe,
Etna and some other towns have elected women superintendents of
schools, but this has been done in other years. For a little
movement in the right direction we must credit Messrs. Amos,
Abbott & Co., woolen manufacturers of Dexter, who divide ten per
cent. of their profits with their operatives.
Clara H. Nash, the lady who, in partnership with her husband, has
recently entered upon the practice of law in Maine, says:
Scarcely a day passes but something occurs in our office to rouse
my indignation afresh by reminding me of the utter insignificance
with which the law, in its every department, regards woman, and
its utter disregard of her rights as an individual. Would that
women might feel this truth; then, indeed, would their
enfranchisement be speedy.
In the _Woman's Journal_ of January 1, 1873, we find the following
call:
The people of Maine who believe in the extension of the elective
franchise to women as a beneficent power for the promotion of the
virtues and the correction of the evils of society, and all who
believe in the principles of equal justice, equal liberty and
equal opportunity, upon which republican institutions are
founded, and have faith in the triumph of intelligence and reason
over custom and prejudice, are invited to meet at Granite Hall,
in the city of Augusta, on Wednesday, January 29, 1873, for the
purpose of organizing a State Woman Suffrage Association, and
inaugurating such measures for the advancement of the cause as
the wisdom of the convention may suggest.[181]
The _Portland Press_, in a leading editorial on the "Moral Eminence
of Maine," says:
Maine has been first in many things. She has taught the world how
to struggle with intemperance, and pilgrims come hither from all
quarters of the earth to learn the theory and practice of
prohibition. She was among the first to practically abolish
capital punishment and to give married women their rights in
respect to property. She is, perhaps, nearer giving them
political rights, also, than any of her sister commonwealths. If
Maine should be first among the States to give suffrage to women,
she would do more for temperance than a hundred prohibitory laws,
and more for civilization and progress than Massachusetts did
when she threw the tea into Boston harbor in 1773, or when she
sent the first regiment to the relief of Washington in 1861.
The leaders of the temperance reform in Maine are fully alive to
the necessity of woman suffrage as a means to that end. At the
meeting of the State Temperance Association of Maine, in Augusta,
recently, Mr. Randall said that "as the woman suffrage convention
has adjourned over this afternoon in order to attend the
temperance meeting, he would move that when we adjourn it be to
Thursday morning, as the work at both conventions is intimately
connected. If the women of Maine went to the ballot-box, we
should have officers to enforce the law." Mr. Randall's motion
was carried, and the temperance convention adjourned.
The Woman Suffrage Association assembled Wednesday, January 29, in
Granite Hall, Augusta. There was a very large attendance, a
considerable number of those present being members of the
legislature. Hon. Joshua Nye presided. He made a few remarks
relating to the removal of political disabilities from women, and
introduced Mrs. Agnes A. Houghton of Bath, who spoke on the
"Turning of the Tide," contending that woman should be elevated
socially, politically and morally, enjoying the same rights as man.
She was followed by Judge Benjamin Kingsbury, jr., of Portland, who
declared himself unequivocally in favor of giving woman the right
to vote, and who trusted that she would be accorded this right by
the present legislature. More than 1,000 persons were in the
audience, and great enthusiasm prevailed. The morning session was
devoted to business and the election of officers.[182] In order not
to conflict with a meeting of the State Temperance Association, no
afternoon session was held, and, in return, the State Temperance
Society gave up its evening meeting to enable its members to attend
the suffrage convention.
Speeches were made by Henry B. Blackwell of Boston, Rev. Ellen
Gustin of Mansfield, Mary Eastman of Lowell, and others.
Resolutions were passed pledging the association not to cease its
efforts until the unjust discrimination with regard to voting is
swept away; that in the election of president, and of all officers
where the qualifications of voters are not prescribed by the State
constitution, the experiment should be tried of allowing women to
vote; that in view of the large amount of money which has been
expended in Maine for the exclusive benefit of the Boys' Industrial
School during the past twenty years, it is the prayer of the ladies
of Maine that the present legislature vote the sum asked for the
establishment of an Industrial School for girls.
In 1874 we find notices of other onward steps:
EDITORS JOURNAL: Woman's cause works slowly here, though in one
respect we have been successful. Our county school-superintendent
is a lady. She had a large majority over our other candidate, and
over two gentlemen, and she is decidedly "the right person in the
right place." She is a graduate from the normal school, the
mother of four children, a widow for some six years past, and a
lady. What more can we ask, unless, indeed, it be for a very
conscientious idea of duty? That, too, she has, and also energy,
with which she carries it out. The sterner sex admit that women
are competent to hold office. But some say we are not intelligent
enough to vote. What an appalling amount of wisdom they show in
this idea! It would be "unwomanly" in us to suggest such a word
as inconsistency.
Fraternally, M. J. M.
_Cairo, Me., April, 1874._
In Searsport a woman was elected one of the two
school-superintendents of the town. The following advertisement
appears in the local newspaper:
SEARSPORT SCHOOL NOTICE.--The superintending school-committee of
Searsport will meet to examine teachers at the town library,
April 17 and May 1, 1874, at 1 o'clock P. M.
DELIA A. CURTIS,
JOHN NICHOLS,
_S. S. Com. of Searsport._
Teachers will be expected to discountenance the use of tobacco
and intoxicating liquors, and to use their best endeavors to
impress on the minds of the children and youth committed to their
care and instruction a proper understanding of the evil tendency
of such habits; and no teacher need apply for a certificate to
teach in this town, the ensuing year, who uses either.
DELIA A. CURTIS.
DEAR JOURNAL: Aroostook, though occupying the extreme
northeastern portion of our good State of Maine, and still in the
blush of youth, is not behind her sister counties in recognition
of woman's fitness for office. The returns of town elections, so
far as I have yet seen, give three towns in the county which have
elected ladies[183] to serve as members of the school committee.
L. J. Y. W.
_Houlton, Maine._
In the autumn of 1874 the governor and council requested the
opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court on the following questions:
_First_--Under the constitution and laws of this State, can a
woman, if duly appointed and qualified as a justice of the peace,
legally perform all acts pertaining to that office?
_Second_--Would it be competent for the legislature to authorize
the appointment of a married woman to the office of justice of
the peace; or to administer oaths, take acknowledgment of deeds
or solemnize marriages, so that the same may be legal and valid?
The following responses to these inquiries were received by the
governor: the opinion of the court, drawn by Chief-justice
Appleton, and concurred in by Justices Cutting, Peters, Danforth
and Virgin; a dissenting opinion from Justices Walton and Barrows
and one from Justice Dickerson. The opinion of the court is given
below:
To the questions proposed we have the honor to answer as follows:
Whether it is expedient that women should hold the office of
justice of the peace is not an inquiry proposed for our
consideration. It is whether, under the existing constitution,
they can be appointed to such office, and can legally discharge
its duties.
By the constitution of Massachusetts, of which we formerly
constituted a portion, the entire political power of that
commonwealth was vested under certain conditions, in its male
inhabitants of a prescribed age. They alone, and in the exclusion
of the other sex, as determined by its highest court of law,
could exercise the judicial function as existing and established
by that instrument.
By the act relating to the separation of the district of Maine
from Massachusetts, the authority to determine upon the question
of separation, and to elect delegates to meet and form a
constitution was conferred upon the "inhabitants of the several
towns, districts and plantations in the district of Maine
qualified to vote for governor or senators," thus excluding the
female sex from all participation in the formation of the
constitution, and in the organization of the government under it.
Whether the constitution should or should not be adopted, was
especially, by the organic law of its existence, submitted to the
vote of the male inhabitants of the State.
It thus appears that the constitution of the State was the work
of its male citizens. It was ordained, established, and ratified
by them, and by them alone; but by the power of government was
divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive
and judicial. By article VI., section 4, justices of the peace
are recognized as judicial officers.
By the constitution, the whole political power of the State is
vested in its male citizens. Whenever in any of its provisions,
reference is made to sex, it is to duties to be done and
performed by male members of the community. Nothing in the
language of the constitution or in the debates of the convention
by which it was formed, indicates any purpose whatever of any
surrender of political power by those who had previously enjoyed
it or a transfer of the same to those who had never possessed it.
Had any such design then existed, we cannot doubt that it would
have been made manifest in appropriate language. But such
intention is nowhere disclosed. Having regard then, to the rules
of the common law as to the rights of women, married and
unmarried, as then existing--to the history of the past--to the
universal and unbroken practical construction given to the
constitution of this State and to that of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts upon which that of this State was modeled, we are
led to the inevitable conclusion that it was never in the
contemplation or intention of those framing our constitution that
the offices thereby created should be filled by those who could
take no part in its original formation, and to whom no political
power was intrusted for the organization of the government then
about to be established under its provisions, or for its
continued existence and preservation when established.
The same process of reasoning which would sanction the conferring
judicial power on women under the constitution would authorize
the giving them executive power by making them sheriffs and
major-generals. But while the offices enacted by the constitution
are to be filled exclusively by the male members of the State, we
have no doubt that the legislature may create new ministerial
offices not enumerated therein, and if it deem expedient, may
authorize the performance of the duties of the offices so created
by persons of either sex.
To the _first_ question proposed, we answer in the negative.
To the _second_, we answer that it is competent for the
legislature to authorize the appointment of married or unmarried
women to administer oaths, take acknowledgment of deeds or
solemnize marriages, so that the same shall be legal and valid.
JOHN APPLETON, JOHN A. PETERS,
JONAS CUTTING, WM. WIRT VIRGIN,
CHARLES DANFORTH.
The dissenting opinion was as follows:
We, the undersigned, Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court,
concur in so much of the foregoing opinion as holds that it is
competent for the legislature to authorize the appointment of
women to administer oaths, take the acknowledgment of deeds and
solemnize marriages. But we do not concur in the conclusion that
it is not equally competent for the legislature to authorize the
appointment of women to act as justices of the peace.
The legislature is authorized to enact any law which it deems
reasonable and proper, provided it is not repugnant to the
constitution of this State, nor to that of the United States. A
law authorizing the appointment of women to act as justices of
the peace would not, in our judgment, be repugnant to either. We
fail to find a single word, or sentence, or clause of a sentence,
which, fairly construed, either expressly or impliedly forbids
the passage of such a law. So far as the office of justice of the
peace is concerned, there is not so much as a masculine pronoun
to hang an objection upon.
It is true that the right to vote is limited to males. But the
right to vote and the right to hold office are distinct matters.
Either may exist without the other. And it may be true that the
framers of the constitution did not contemplate--did not
affirmatively intend--that women should hold office. But it by no
means follows that they intended the contrary. The truth probably
is that they had no intention one way or the other; that the
matter was not even thought of. And it will be noticed that the
unconstitutionality of such a law is made to rest, not on any
expressed intention of the framers of the constitution that women
should not hold office, but upon a presumed absence of intention
that they should.
This seems to us a dangerous doctrine. It is nothing less than
holding that the legislature cannot enact a law unless it appears
affirmatively that the framers of the constitution intended that
such a law should be enacted. We cannot concur in such a
doctrine. It would put a stop to all progress. We understand the
correct rule to be the reverse of that; namely, that the
legislature may enact any law they may think proper, unless it
appears affirmatively that the framers of the constitution
intended that such a law should not be passed. And the best and
only safe rule for ascertaining the intention of the makers of
any written law, is to abide by the language which they have
used. And this is especially true of written constitutions; for
in preparing such instruments it is but reasonable to presume
that every word has been carefully weighed, and that none is
inserted and none omitted without a design for so doing. Taking
this rule for our guide we can find nothing in the constitution
of the United States, or of this State, forbidding the passage of
a law authorizing the appointment of women to act as justices of
the peace. We think such a law would be valid.
C. W. WALTON,
WM. G. BARROWS.
The right of women to hold office was affirmed in the message of
Governor Dingley, January, 1875:
In response to the questions propounded by the governor and
council, a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court have
given an opinion that, under the constitution of Maine, women
cannot act as justices of the peace, nor hold any other office
mentioned in that instrument; but that it is competent for the
legislature to authorize persons of either sex to hold any
ministerial office created by statute. As there can be no valid
objection to, but on the contrary great convenience in, having
women who may be acting as clerks in public or private offices
authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgment of deeds,
I recommend the passage of an act providing for the appointment
of persons of either sex, to perform such official duties.
Indeed, if further legislation be necessary to establish that
principle, I suggest the justice and expediency of an enabling
act recognizing the eligibility of women to office in the same
manner as men; for I know of no sufficient reason why a woman,
otherwise qualified, should be excluded from any position adapted
to her tastes and acquirements, which the people may desire she
should fill.
The legislature passed the bill recommended by the governor.
In 1875 the Constitutional Committee, by a vote of six to two,
defeated the proposition to so amend the constitution as to make
women electors under the same regulations and restrictions as men.
The Maine Woman Suffrage Association held its third annual
meeting at Augusta on January 12, 1876, in the hall of the House
of Representatives, the use of which had been courteously
extended to the association. The hall and galleries were crowded
in every part with an intelligent audience, whose close attention
through all the sessions showed an earnest interest in the cause.
The meeting was called to order by Judge Kingsbury of Portland,
president of the association.[184] Prayer was offered by Miss
Angell of Canton, N. Y. Judge Kingsbury made the introductory
address. Addresses were also made by H. B. Blackwell, Miss
Eastman and Lucy Stone, showing the right and need of women in
politics, and the duty of law-makers to establish justice for
them. It was especially urged that the centennial celebration
would be only a mockery if the Fourth of July, 1876, finds this
government still doing to women what the British government did
to the colonists a hundred years ago. Rev. Mr. Gage of Lewiston
urged the right of women to vote in the interest of civilization
itself. In the perilous times upon which we have fallen in the
great experiment of self-government, some new force is needed to
check growing evils. The influence in the home is that which is
needed in legislation, and it can only be had by the ballot in
the hand of woman. Mrs. Quinby, from the Business Committee,
reported a series of resolutions. After their adoption Mrs. Abba
G. Woolson, in an earnest and forcible speech, claimed the right
of women to vote, as the final application of the theory of the
consent of the governed. She had personally noticed the good
effects of the ballot conferred upon the women in Wyoming, and
should be glad to have her native State of Maine lead in this
matter, and give an illustration of the true republic. Miss
Lorenza Haynes, who had been the day before ordained over the
Universalist Church in Hallowell, followed with a speech of
remarkable wit and brilliancy, to which no report can do justice.
A writer in the _Woman's Journal_ about this time said:
During the early part of the session of our late legislature
woman suffrage petitions were numerously signed by the leading
men and women throughout the State receiving an earnest and
respectful consideration from the people generally, even from
those who were not quite ready to sign petitions. Consequently,
it seemed an easy matter to get a bill before the legislature,
and we were almost certain of a majority in one branch of the
House, at least, especially as it was generally understood that
our new governor favored the cause; and it is believed yet that
Governor Dingley does sympathize with it, even though he failed
to mention it in his otherwise admirable message. The petitions
were duly presented and referred to a joint committee, where the
matter was allowed to quietly drop.
It is neither riches, knowledge, nor culture that constitutes the
electoral qualifications, but gender and a certain implied brute
force. By this standard legislative bodies have been wont to
judge the exigency of this mighty question. More influential than
woman, though unacknowledged as such by the average legislator of
States and nations, even the insignificant lobster finds earnest
champions where woman's claims fail of recognition; which
assertion the following incident will substantiate: Being present
in the Representatives Hall in Augusta when the "lobster
question" came up for discussion (the suffrage question was then
struggling before the committee), I was struck by the air of
earnestness that pervaded the entire House on that memorable
occasion. And why not? It was a question that appealed directly
to man's appetite, and there he is always interested. After the
morning hour a dozen ready debators sprang to their feet,
eloquent in advocating the rights of this important member of the
crustacean family. The discussion waxed into something like
enthusiasm, when finally an old tar exclaimed with terrific
violence: "Mr. Speaker, I insist upon it, this question must be
considered. It is a great question; one before which all others
will sink into insignificance; one of vastly more importance than
any other that will come before this honorable body during this
session!"
DIRIGO.
In closing this chapter it is fitting to mention some of our
faithful friends in Maine, whose names have not appeared in
societies and conventions as leaders or speakers, but whose
services in other ways have been highly appreciated.
Rockland is the home of Lucy and Lavinia Snow, who, from the
organization of the first society in 1868, have never failed to
send good words of cheer and liberal contributions to all our
National conventions. Another branch of the worthy Snow family,
from the town of Hamlin, has given us equally generous coaedjutors
in Mrs. Spofford and her noble sisters in Washington.
As early as 1857, Mrs. Anna Greeley and Miss Charlotte Hill of
Ellsworth constituted themselves a committee to inaugurate a course
of lyceum lectures in that town, taking the entire financial
responsibility. Miss Hill was an excellent violinist and taught a
large class of boys and girls, and also played at balls and
parties, thus gaining a livelihood. Some of her patrons threatened
that if she persisted in bringing such people[185] to that town and
affiliated with them, they would no longer patronize her. "Very
well" she replied, "I shall maintain my principles, and if you
break up my classes I can go back to the sea-shore and dig clams
for a living as I have done before." Tradition says the lecture
course was a success. She continued her classes and the neighbors
danced as ever to her music.
Gail Hamilton, who resides in Maine at least half her time, is one
of the most brilliant and pungent American writers. In denouncing
the follies and failures of her sex, her critical pen has
indirectly aided the suffrage movement by arousing thought upon all
phases of the question as to what are the rights and duties of
woman, though she stoutly maintains that she is opposed to woman's
enfranchisement.
In Portland there has always been a circle of noble men and women,
steadfast friends alike of the anti-slavery, temperance and woman
suffrage movements. The names of Mr. and Mrs. Oliver Dennett, Miss.
Charlotte A. Thomas and Mrs. Ellen French Foster are worthy of
mention. That untiring reformer, the Hon. Neal Dow, has clearly
seen and declared in the later years of his labors, that suffrage
for women is the short path to the advancement of prohibition.
The Hon. Thomas B. Reed has done us great service in congress as
leader of the Republican party in the House, and member of the
Judiciary Committee. His report,[186] in 1884, on the submission of
the sixteenth amendment has had an extended influence. It is an
able argument, and as a keen piece of irony it is worthy the pen of
a Dean Swift. In the Senate we have a fast friend in William P.
Frye, who has always voted favorably in both houses on all
questions regarding the interests of woman. In 1878, in presenting
Miss Willard's petition of 30,000 for woman's right to vote on the
temperance question, he made an able speech recommending the
measure.[187]
And in closing, the name of Maine's venerable statesman, Hannibal
Hamlin, so long honored by his State in a succession of official
positions from year to year, must not be forgotten. As chairman of
the Committee on the District of Columbia in 1870 he presided at
the first hearing of the National Woman Suffrage Association,
listened with respect and courtesy, and at the close introduced the
ladies to each member of the committee, and said "he had been
deeply impressed by the arguments, and was almost persuaded to
accept the new gospel of woman's equality." Mr. Hamlin's vote has
always been favorable and we have no words of his recorded in the
opposition.
Hon. James G. Blaine has generally maintained a dignified silence
on the question. Thus far in his History, a reviewer says, "he has
ignored the existence of woman"; but perhaps in his researches he
has not yet reached the garden of Eden, nor taken cognizance of the
part the daughters of Eve have played in the rise and fall of
mighty nations.
Nevertheless in our prolonged struggle of half a century for equal
rights for woman, we have found in every State the traditional ten
righteous men necessary to save its people from destruction.
FOOTNOTES:
[179] Signed: _President_, Benj. Kingsbury, Portland; _Secretary_,
E. R. French, S. Chesterville; _Treasurer_, William Deering
Portland; _ex officio_, Gov. Sidney Perham, Secretary of State Geo.
G. Stacy, Superintendent of Schools Warren Johnson; John B.
Nealley, S. Berwick; Nelson Dingley, jr., Lewiston; J. S.
Wheelright, Bangor; H. K. Baker, Hallowell; Mrs. C. A. L. Sampson,
Bath; Mrs. James Fernald, Portland.
[180] Ann F. Greely, Sarah Jarvis, C. B. Grant, E. E. Tinker, A. D.
Hight, M. J. Brooks, C. W. Jarvis, E. B. Jarvis, Rebecca M. Avery.
[181] Signed by John Neal, S. T. Pickard, Mrs. Oliver Dennet, Mrs.
Eleanor Neal, Portland; J. J. Eveleth, mayor, Joshua Nye, Chandler
Beal, William H. Libbey, George W. Quinby, William P. Whitehouse,
General Selden Conner. H. H. Hamlen, H. S. Osgood, Mrs. C. A.
Quinby, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Mrs. D. M. Waitt, Mrs. William B.
Lapham, Mrs. S. M. Barton, Augusta; Mary A. Ross and fifty others;
Rev. W. L. Brown, Mrs. E. A. Dickerson, Mrs. W. H. Burrill, Mrs. N.
Abbott, Mrs. Thomas N. Marshall, Miss A. A. Hicks, Belfast; John D.
Hopkins, Rev. William H. Savary, C. J. Peck, mayor, A. E.
Drinkwater, Mrs. Ann F. Greely, Ellsworth; Mrs. A. H. Savary and
twenty others; Mrs. M. C. Crossman, Mrs. S. D. Morison, Mrs. J.
Tillson, Mrs. Sarah J. Prentiss, Mrs. Amos Pickard, Bangor; Miss M.
Phillips and twelve others; Rev. John W. Hinds, Lewiston; Rev. T.
P. Adams, Bowdoinham; A. H. Sweetser and twenty others, Rockland;
Rev. W. H. Bolster, Wiscasset; W. T. C. Runnels, Searsport; Rev. M.
V. B. Stinson, Kittery; John U. Hubbard, Alfred Winslow, West
Waterville; Mrs. M. S. Philbrick, Skowhegan; Mrs. Simeon Conner,
Fairfield; George Gifford, Mrs. Mary W. Southwick, H. M. N. Bush,
M. A. Bush, A. E. Prescott, Vassalboro; A. R. Dunham and fourteen
others; R. C. Caldwell and eight others, Gardiner; Albert Crosby,
Mrs. S. G. Crosby, Albion; Noah F. Norton, Mercy G. Norton,
Penobscot.
[182] _President_, Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; _Secretary_,
Miss Addie Quimby of Augusta; _Treasurer_, Mrs. W. K. Lancey of
Augusta. Among the vice-presidents are the Hon. S. F. Hersey of
Bangor, and John Neal of Portland. An Executive Committee was
elected, which included John P. Whitehouse, Hon. Joshua Nye, Neal
Dow, jr., and other leading citizens.
[183] Miss Louisa Coffin, Dalton; Miss Annie Lincoln, Mapleton;
Miss Ada DeLaite, Littleton.
[184] The following officers were elected: _President_, Hon.
Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; _Chairman Executive Committee_,
Hon. Joshua Nye; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mr. C. A. Quinby,
Augusta; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. W. D. Eaton, Dexter;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Pittsfield.
[185] Those invited were Wendell Philips, Harriet K. Hunt, Caroline
H. Dall and Susan B. Anthony.
[186] Mr. Reed's report is published in full in our annual report,
of 1884, which can be obtained of Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N.
Y.
[187] See page 104.
CHAPTER XXXV.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Nathaniel P. Rogers--First Organized Action, 1868--Concord
Convention--William Lloyd Garrison's Letter--Rev. S. L. Blake
Opposed--Rev. Mr. Sanborn in Favor--_Concord Monitor_--Armenia S.
White--A Bill to Protect the Rights of Married Men--Minority and
Majority Reports--Women too Ignorant to Vote--Republican State
Convention--Women on School Committees--Voting at School-District
Meetings--Mrs. White's Address--Mrs. Ricker on Prison
Reform--Judicial Decision in Regard to Married Women,
1882--Letter from Senator Blair.
A State that could boast four such remarkable families as the
Rogers, the Hutchinsons, the Fosters, and the Pillsburys, all
radical, outspoken reformers, furnishes abundant reason for its
prolonged battles with the natural conservatism of ordinary
communities. Every inch of its soil except its mountain tops, where
no man could raise a school-house for a meeting, has been overrun
by the apostles of peace, temperance, anti-slavery, and woman's
rights in succession.
To the early influence of Nathaniel P. Rogers and his revolutionary
journal, _The Herald of Freedom_, we may trace the general
awakening of the true men and women of that State to new ideas of
individual liberty. But while some gladly accepted his words as
harbingers of a new and better civilization, others resisted all
innovations of their time-honored customs and opinions. And when
the clarion voices of Foster and Pillsbury arraigned that State for
its compromises with slavery, howling mobs answered their arguments
with brickbats and curses; mobs that nothing could quell but the
sweet voices of the Hutchinson family. Their peans of liberty, so
readily accepted when set to music, were obstinately resisted when
uttered by others, though in most eloquent speech. Thus with music,
meetings and mobs, New Hampshire was at least awake and watching,
and when the distant echoes of woman's uprising reverberated
through her mountains she gave a ready response.
In 1868, simultaneously with other New England States, she felt the
time had come to organize for action on the question of suffrage
for women. A call for a convention was issued to be held in
Concord, December 22, 23, and signed by one hundred and twenty men
and women,[188] some of the most honored and influential classes of
all callings and professions. Nathaniel P. White, always ready to
aid genuine reformatory movements, was the first to sign the call.
As a member of the legislature he had helped to coin into law many
of the liberal ideas sown broadcast in the early days[189] by the
anti-slavery apostles. Galen Foster, a brother of Stephen, used his
influence also as a member of the legislature, to vindicate the
rights of women to civil and political equality. This first
convention was held in Eagle Hall, Concord, with large and
enthusiastic audiences. A long and interesting letter was read from
William Lloyd Garrison:
BOSTON, December 21, 1868.
DEAR MRS. WHITE: I must lose the gratification of being present
at the Woman Suffrage Convention at Concord and substitute an
epistolary testimony for a speech from the platform.
The two conventions recently held in furtherance of the movement
for universal and impartial suffrage--one in Boston, the other in
Providence--were eminently successful in respect to numbers,
intellectual ability, moral strength and unity of action; and
their proceedings such as to challenge attention and elicit
wide-spread commendation. I have no doubt that the convention in
Concord will exhibit the same features, be animated by the same
hopeful spirit and produce as cheering results.
The only criticism seemingly of a disparaging tone, I have seen,
of the speeches made at the conventions alluded to, is, that
there was nothing new advanced on the occasion; as though novelty
were the main thing, and the reiteration of time-honored truths,
with their latest application to the duties of the hour, were
simply tedious! For one, I ask no more light upon the subject;
nor am I so vain as to assume to be capable of throwing any
additional light upon it. One drop of water is very like another,
but it is the perpetual dropping that wears away the stone. The
importunate widow had nothing fresh or new to present to the
unjust judge, but by her persistent coming she wearied him into
compliance with her petition. The end of the constant assertion
of a right withheld is restitution and victory. The whole
anti-slavery controversy was expressed and included in the Golden
Rule, morally, and in the Declaration of Independence,
politically; nor could anything new be added to these by the
wisest, the most ingenious, or the most eloquent. "Line upon
line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little";
that is the essential method of reform. If there is nothing new
to be said in favor of suffrage for women, is there anything new
to be urged against it? But though the objections are exceedingly
trite and shallow, it is still necessary to examine and refute
them by arguments and illustrations none the less forcible
because exhausted at an earlier period.
[Illustration: Armenia S. White]
The first objection is positively one of the most urgent reasons
for granting suffrage to women; for it is predicated on the
concession of the superiority of woman over man in purity of
purpose and excellence of character. Hence the cry is, that it
will not only be descending, but degrading for her to appear at
the polls. But, if government is absolutely necessary, and voting
not wrong in practice, it is surely desirable that the admittedly
purest and best in the nation should find no obstacle to their
reaching the ballot-box. Nay, the way should be opened at once,
by every consideration pertaining to the public welfare, the
justice of legislation, the preservation of popular liberty. It
is impossible for a portion of the people, to be wiser and more
trustworthy than the whole people, or better qualified to decide
what shall be the laws for the government of all. The more minds
consulted, the more souls included, the more interests at stake,
in determining the form and administration of government, the
more of justice and humanity, of security and repose, will be the
result. The exclusion of half the population from the polls, is
not merely a gross injustice, but an immense loss of brain and
conscience, in making up the public judgment. As a nation we have
discarded absolutism, monarchy, and hereditary aristocracy; but
we have not fully attained even to manhood suffrage. Men are
proscribed on account of their complexion, women because of their
sex. The entire body politic suffers from this proscription.
The second objection refutes the first; it is based on the
alleged natural inferiority of woman to man, and the transition
is thus quickly made for her, from a semi-angelic state, to that
of a menial, having no rights that men are bound to respect
beyond what they choose to allow. In the scale of political
power, therefore, one male voter, however ignorant or depraved,
outweighs all the women in America! For, no matter how
intelligent, cultured, refined, wealthy, intellectually vigorous,
or morally great, any of their number may be,--no matter what
rank in literature, art, science, or medical knowledge and skill
they may reach,--they are political non-entities, unrepresented,
discarded, and left to such protection under the laws, as brute
force and absolute usurpation may graciously condescend to give.
Yet they are as freely taxed and held amendable to penal law as
strictly as though they had their full share of representation in
the legislative hall, on the bench, in the jury-box, and at the
polls. This cry of inferiority is not peculiar in the case of
woman. It was the subterfuge and defiance of negro slavery. It
has been raised in all ages by tyrants and usurpers against the
toiling, over-burdened millions, seeking redress for their
wrongs, and protection for their rights. It always indicates
intense self-conceit, and supreme selfishness. It is at war with
reason and common-sense, and is a bold denial of the oneness of
the human race.
The third objection is, that women do not wish to vote. If this
were true, it would not follow that they should not be
enfranchised, and left free to determine the matter for
themselves. It was confidently declared that the slaves at the
south neither wished to be free, nor would they take their
liberty if offered them by their masters. Had that assertion been
true, it would have furnished no justification whatever, for
making man the property of his fellow-man, or for leaving the
slaves in their fetters. But it was not true. Nor is it true that
women do not wish to vote. Tens of thousands are ready to go to
the polls and assume their share of political responsibility, as
soon as they shall be legally permitted to do so; and they are
not the ignorant and degraded of their sex, but women remarkable
for their intelligence and moral worth. The great mass will, ere
long, be sufficiently enlightened to claim what belongs to them
of right. I hope to be permitted to live to see the day when
neither complexion nor sex shall be made a badge of degradation,
but men and women shall enjoy the same rights and privileges, and
possess the same means for their protection and defense.
Very faithfully yours, WM. LLOYD GARRISON.
Mrs. A. S. WHITE.
At the close of this convention a State association was formed with
Mrs. Armenia S. White president.[190] This society has been
unremitting in its efforts to rouse popular thought, holding annual
conventions, scattering tracts, rolling up petitions, and
addressing legislatures. Many of the best speakers, from time to
time, from other States[191] have rendered valuable aid in keeping
up the agitation.
The opposition of a clergyman produced a sensation in Concord.
On last fast-day, 1871, Rev. S.L. Blake of the Congregational
church in Concord, preached a sermon in which he came out against
the woman's rights convention held there last January, bringing
the stale charge of "free-love" against its advocates--a charge
that always leaps to the lips of men of prurient
imagination--with much similar clap-trap of the Fulton type. Rev.
Mr. Sanborn of the Universalist church replied to him the next
Sunday evening, an immense audience being in attendance, and
completely disproved the baseless allegations of the reverend
maligner, to the satisfaction of all. Rev. Mr. Blake has
published his discourse in pamphlet form, repeating his disproved
charges, whereupon Rev. J.F. Lovering of the Unitarian church
came out with a reply, in which he characterized Mr. Blake's
charges as "unmitigated falsehoods" and "an insult to every
member of the convention," and demanded of the author to "unsay
his words."
Brainard Cogswell, in his journal, the _Concord Monitor_, of July
2, 1870, published the following letter:
Petitions for woman's enfranchisement have been pouring into the
New Hampshire legislature, until at last they have been referred
to a special committee. On Thursday week this committee gave the
petitioners a hearing; and on their invitation, Mrs. Julia Ward
Howe, Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill and ourself went to Concord to
give "the reasons why" women should have the ballot. The members
of the legislature came out in force to hear, and our good, tried
friends, Nathaniel and Armenia White, learning their intention in
advance, opened the spacious Eagle Hall for their convenience,
and that of the towns-people who wished to see and to hear. Warm
as the evening was, the thermometer up in the nineties, the hall
was packed, and great numbers went away that could not gain
admittance. Rev. Mr. Blake, a Congregationalist minister of
Concord, has done the cause good service by vilifying and abusing
it, until he roused quite an interest. It was partly owing to his
efforts that we had so grand an audience.
General Wilson, who twenty years ago was famed throughout New
Hampshire for his eloquence and oratory, was chairman of the
committee, and presided at the meeting, and very handsomely
introduced the speakers. Mrs. Howe spoke with more pointed and
pungent power than usual, dwelling on the deterioration of
American womanhood, showing the cause, and suggesting the remedy.
We have never been so impressed by her as on this occasion. Mrs.
Churchill read a letter from Rev. Mr. Savage, a Congregationalist
clergyman of the State, who advocates woman suffrage, and who, in
a late ministerial gathering, took up the gauntlet thrown down by
Mr. Blake, and defended the woman's cause and its advocates from
the slanders of his brother minister.
The president of the New Hampshire association, in writing from
Concord to the _Woman's Journal_, January 30, 1871, says:
Our second annual meeting was a grand success, if we count by
money and numbers. The intense cold on Wednesday and Thursday
made our audiences thinner than heretofore, but they were large
in spite of the elements, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Emma Coe Still,
who had never presented the subject here before, were well
received. Rev. Dr. Savage of Franklin made an excellent address,
and encouraged us by timely suggestions. Stephen S. Foster
aroused us, as he always does, with his bold declarations. The
resolutions adopted look toward future work, and embody the
principles which move us to act.
Lucy Stone, in the _Woman's Journal_ of June 14, 1871, says:
The Select Committee, Harry Bingham, chairman, to whom was
referred a bill for the further protection of the rights of
married men, reported the bill in a new draft as follows:
Marriages shall not hereafter render the husband liable for
the debts contracted by his wife prior to their marriage:
_Second section_--No marriage shall hereafter discharge the
wife from liability to pay the debts contracted by her
before such marriage, but she, and all property which she
may hold in her own right, shall be held liable for the
payment of all debts, whether contracted before or after
marriage; in the same manner as if she continued sole and
unmarried.
This report was signed by eight of the ten members of the
committee. The minority, through Mr. Sprague of Swanzey, made a
report recommending that the whole subject be postponed to the
time when women in New Hampshire have the right to vote. Mr.
Sprague moved that the minority report be substituted for the
majority, but the motion was lost by an almost unanimous vote.
The majority report was sustained in remarks by Messrs. Wadleigh
of Milford and Cogswell of Gilman. The latter, hard pushed by an
interrogatory concerning his social status, admitted that he was
not married, but intended to be soon. The bill reported by the
majority was then ordered to a second reading.
If this action should be sustained by the legislature, we can
imagine some future suitor for a lady's hand telling her that he
shall expect her duly to keep his house and his wardrobe in
order, to prepare his meals, to entertain his visitors, to bear
his children, and that she will be required by law to pay her own
bills; that for this inestimable privilege she shall be called
Mrs. John Snooks, and may, perhaps, have the honor of being
written in the newspapers, and on her tombstone, as the relic of
Mr. John Snooks. Could any woman withstand that?
The following statistics have been used by speakers in the
opposition, to show that women are too ignorant to vote:
A decided sensation has been produced throughout the country by
the publication in the third number of the "Transactions of the
American Social Science Association" of statistics concerning the
illiteracy of women in the United States. The subject has
received very general discussion, and these are the conclusions
reached:
1. That there is a large excess of female illiteracy. 2.
That from 1850 to 1860 there was an increase of illiterate
women to the extent of 53 per cent. in New Hampshire, 27 in
Vermont, 24 in Massachusetts, 33 in Rhode Island, 16 in
Connecticut, 37 in the District of Columbia, 33 in
Wisconsin and 32 in Minnesota. 3. That this state of things
is alarming, and ought to be remedied.
When the London _Saturday Review_ raised the cry of alcoholic
drunkenness among women, the conservative journals all over the
world swelled the sound and confirmed the charges. Now that that
story has run itself to death, a new assault is projected, and a
general clamor concerning their illiteracy follows. If the
charges are true, there is nothing very astonishing about them.
The education of women has been considered a matter of secondary
importance until very recently, and with our foreign population
the education of girls has been almost wholly neglected. When the
customs and usages of the world have made ignorance largely
compulsory in women, it is somewhat inconsistent in men to go
into spasms about the results.
January 17, 1874, at the Republican State convention, Mayor Briggs
of Manchester, on taking the chair, made a speech, rehearsing the
history of the party and laying out its programme for the future,
closing as follows:
The Republican party has future duties. Its mission cannot end
and its work should not, so long as any radical reform shall yet
urge its demands in behalf of humanity. The civil service reform
is eminent and important. In this regard the movement of the
present administration is in the right direction, and yet it is
only a first step of many which must ultimately be taken. To the
people, not to a part of the people, belongs the sovereignty of
this nation. Let them keep it. To this end great care should be
taken to guard against the caucus system. Nothing should be more
scrupulously avoided in the management of political parties.
Anti-republican in spirit, it is sometimes exclusive in practice.
The people have the same right to nominate that they have to
elect their own officers. Why not? Ultimately, too, they will
take that right, and for its own sake no party can afford to make
itself the nursery of caucus power. The political machinery
should be simplified, that nothing which mere politicians can
desire shall stand between the people and their government. In a
genuine republic, every act of the government should be but a
practical expression of its subjects. All the subjects, too,
should share equally the power of such expression. There should
be no exclusion among intelligent, qualified classes. Involved in
this principle is the idea of woman suffrage, the next great
moral issue, in my judgment, which this country must meet, and a
reform which no party can afford to despise. Indubitably right,
as I believe it to be, I regard its success as inevitable, and
that whatever party opposes it is as surely destined to defeat,
as was the party which arrayed itself in opposition to the
anti-slavery cause.
The following letter in the _Woman's Journal_ shows that something
of the spirit of the Connecticut Smith-sisters has been found in
New Hampshire:
I have long felt a deep interest in the subject of woman's
rights, and some fifteen years ago I resisted taxation two
successive years. The second year I worked out my highway tax,
for which crime I brought down upon my guilty head a severe
persecution from both men and women, from clergymen and lawyers,
as well as other classes of my fellow townsmen. The
tax-collectors came into my house and attached furniture and sold
it at auction in order to collect my tax, one of whom made me all
the cost the laws would allow. The most incensed town officers
threatened that if I resisted taxation the next year, they would
take my house from me and sell it at auction. One of the
tax-gatherers asked me what I thought I could do alone in
resisting taxation. He said he did not believe there was another
woman in the State of New Hampshire who possessed the hardihood
to take such a stand against the laws. The editor of one of our
weekly journals, who professed to be an advocate of woman's
rights, and who was a candidate for representative in the State
legislature, condemned me through the columns of his paper, in
order to secure the votes of his fellow townsmen who were opposed
to woman's rights. He had nothing to fear from me, knowing that I
was only a disfranchised slave. Such unjust treatment seemed so
cruel that I sometimes felt I could willingly lay down my life,
if it would deliver my sex from such degrading oppression. I
have, every year since, submissively paid my taxes, humbly hoping
and praying that I may live to see the day that women will not be
compelled to pay taxes without representation.
MARY L. HARRINGTON.
_Claremont, N. H., January 17, 1874._
In 1870 a law was passed allowing women to be members of school
committees; and eight years later a law was enacted permitting
women to vote at school meetings. On the evening of August 7, 1878,
the House Special Committee granted a hearing to the friends[192]
of the School-suffrage bill, which had already passed the Senate by
a unanimous vote; and the next day, when the bill came up for final
action in the House, the following debate occurred:
Mr. BATCHELDER of Littleton said: This bill is one of the
greatest importance, and before we vote upon it let us have the
views of the committee.
Mr. GALEN FOSTER of Canterbury called upon Mr. Blodgett to give
his opinion as to the power of the legislature upon the question.
Mr. BLODGETT of Franklin said he had no doubt of the
constitutionality of the bill. School districts were created by
statute and not by the constitution; hence the legislature had a
perfect right to say who should vote in controlling their
affairs.
Mr. FOSTER said: The mothers of our children should have a voice
in their education. We have allowed women to hold certain offices
in connection with schools, but we have never given them a voice
in the control of the money expended upon them. The mothers take
ten times more interest in the education of the young than the
fathers do, and should have an equal voice in the affairs of the
school districts. This is a matter of right and justice.
Mr. SINCLAIR of Bethlehem said: There ought not to be any
objection to this bill. If there is any class that ought to have
a voice in the education of children, it is the mothers.
[Applause.] Some of the best school committees in the State are
women. If they can be elected to that office, is it proper to say
they shall have no voice in the elections?
Mr. WHICHER of Strafford thought they would get a little mixed in
carrying out the provisions of this bill, in the face of the
statutes relating to school-district meetings. He would move to
indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. MOSHER of Dover said: There ought to be a new motion gotten
up; to "indefinitely postpone" is getting to be stereotyped. This
bill needs no further championing. Its justice is apparent.
Mr. HOBBS of Ossippee said: If women are capable of holding
office they are also capable of saying who shall hold it.
[Applause.]
Mr. PATTEN of Manchester favored the bill and hoped the motion of
Mr. Whicher would be voted down.
The SPEAKER [Mr. WOOLSON of Lisbon] said: The bill had passed the
Senate unanimously, been reported unanimously by the committee,
and he hoped it would be passed promptly by the House.
[Applause.]
Mr. PATTERSON of Hanover said he would congratulate the gentleman
from Bethlehem on being orthodox on this question.
Mr. SINCLAIR congratulated his friend from Hanover on his display
of courage in waiting until the ice was broken all round before
making a forward step.
Mr. Whicher withdrew his motion to postpone and then moved to lay
the bill upon the table. This being lost, the bill was passed,
August 8, 1878. Mrs. White, the president of the State association,
in a letter to a friend, wrote as follows:
To our surprise and delight the bill allowing women to vote at
school-district meetings passed the House yesterday amid much
cheering and clapping of hands, the ladies in the gallery joining
in the demonstration. Thus conservative New Hampshire leads New
England in this branch of reform for women.
The governor, B. F. Prescott, signed the bill without delay and
words of cheer poured into the capital city from all quarters;
especially were Mr. and Mrs. White congratulated upon this good
result of their earnest and persistent labors. The following is
from the _Woman's Journal_:
At the first election at the State capital of New Hampshire under
the new law allowing women to vote on school questions, the
result was a wonderfully full vote, not less than 2,160 ballots
being cast, of which over half were deposited by women. The
Boston _Investigator_, from which we gather these facts, says:
The balloting extended over three meetings and the number of
women who participated was almost exactly doubled on the
second and third evenings--150, 299, 662. Another
interesting feature of this election was the fact that the
sexes did not rally to the support of opposing tickets, but
men and women divided their votes very evenly. A ticket
bearing the names of two men was elected by a narrow
majority over another which bore the names of a man and
woman.
Of the first evening's election the telegraphic dispatch to the
_Boston Globe_ was headed, "Crowds of Women Voting in New
Hampshire":