CONCORD, N. H., March 22.--The occasion of the annual

meeting of the Union-school district of this city, which

comprises all of the city proper, this evening, was one of

unprecedented interest. For months school matters have been

sharply agitated and the election has been looked forward to

as an opportunity by all parties. To the uncommon interest

centered in the matter the right of women to vote at school

meetings, delegated by the last session of the legislature,

greatly added. The new condition of affairs had been fully

canvassed and the women had determined on making the best of

their first opportunity and winning a decisive victory if

possible. The night of the meeting proved inauspicious, but

notwithstanding the severe storm of snow and sleet that was

falling the newly constituted citizens were out in force. At

the hour of opening the meeting the City Hall was packed to

suffocation, 500 of the audience, at least, being ladies.

The first business was the choice of a moderator, and in

this the ladies may claim a victory, as the candidate a

majority of them supported was elected in the person of

ex-mayor John Kimball. After this came the reading of the

report of the board of education, which was strenuously

objected to by the male supporters of the ladies. In this

they were beaten by a large majority. The reading completed,

the meeting commenced to ballot for three members of the

board. The scene then became one beyond the power of the

reportorial pen to describe. It was an old-fashioned New

Hampshire town-meeting, with the concomitant boisterousness

and profanity subdued by the presence of the ladies. A line

was formed to the polls and a struggling mass of humanity in

which male and female citizens were incongruously and

indecorously mixed, surged towards the ballot-box. The

crowding, squeezing and pushing were severe enough for the

taste of the masculine voter, and were harsh enough to make

it extremely unpleasant for the dear creatures who were

undergoing so much to cast their maiden vote. To add to the

delay the Hon. Nathaniel White had planted his somewhat

corpulent form directly in front of the ballot-box and

stayed the surging tide to shake hands with every woman that

voted. Having voted, the men were only too glad to leave the

crowded hall and let the anxious crowd rush in. The vote was

at last all in, and the work of counting completed shortly

before 11 o'clock. It was found that there were some ten

different tickets in the field, and forty-two candidates

voted for; but from this mass of votes there was no choice,

though the regular candidates, the outgoing members of the

board, who would have been elected had it not been for the

new element in the election, were ahead, having a plurality.

The meeting was then adjourned till next Saturday evening,

when the scenes of to-night will be intensified by a larger

attendance and still greater interest. The meeting to-night

obtains importance in New Hampshire, as this is the center

of female suffrage sentiment in this State, and the women

are determined to win here if possible.

In the opening convention of November 5, 1879, Mrs. White, the

president, made the following address:

_Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of the N. H. Woman Suffrage

Association_: We hold the seventh meeting of this association

under circumstances that mark an epoch in the progress of equal

rights, irrespective of sex, in this State. After more than a

decade of agitation, and petitioning of our legislature, women

hold in their hand the ballot on one important matter. Let us

exchange congratulations on this occasion, that so much has been

gained toward the final triumph of our cause.

You will remember when this association was last in session,

July, 1878, that the bill giving the women of New Hampshire the

right to vote on the public-school questions, was pending in our

legislature. At our first hearing before that body, we hardly

dared anticipate the passage of the bill during that session. But

agitation, vigilance and perseverance ever bring their sure

reward in the end, therefore we continued to press our claim, and

soon learned to our great satisfaction that our allies in behalf

of this bill, were the very _cream_ of our legislature. We at

once took courage, and as day after day we went up to the

state-house, with friends who plead for it before the committee,

who kindly gave us several hearings; we saw the gradual growth of

interest in behalf of this bill soon ripen into a final decision

causing it to pass; thereby enacting a law, to which our worthy

governor, B. F. Prescott, immediately gave his willing signature,

securing to the women of this State the high privilege many of

them gladly exercised last spring. Many feared this law would be

repealed; but to show with what favor it has been received, we

have only to refer to the legislature of the present year, which

passed an additional law, giving to women not only the right to

vote for and serve on school boards, but also the power to serve

as moderator or clerk in school meetings, for which the former

law did not provide. This, it would seem must remove all fears of

a repeal.

Petitions asking municipal suffrage for women, were sent to our

last legislature, and a bill to that effect, introduced in the

House, was referred to a special committee, who reported in its

favor: and after more or less discussion, although the bill did

not pass, about one hundred members voted for it, and their names

are registered, and with the committee, will be kindly remembered

by those women whose cause they did not desert. From past

experience we see the importance of continued labor and proper

measures for the accomplishment of our work. The present degree

of progress indicates the fact that we are not to obtain the full

recognition of our rights at one bound, but that they are coming

step by step. To note the growth of our principles in the various

reform movements, let us look at the temperance organizations

throughout the length and breadth of this country; we find nearly

all of them now discussing the ballot for women. Why, no sooner

had Massachusetts, following the example of New Hampshire,

obtained the school ballot for women, than the Woman's Christian

Temperance Unions all over the State were a unit for the

temperance ballot, and the past year have had their agents

canvassing the State in the interest of school suffrage and "home

protection."

All who read the reports last winter of Frances E. Willard's

labors in Illinois in behalf of her Home Protection bill (for it

originated with her), of the list of petitioners of both sexes

she secured and took to Springfield, of the delegation of women

who accompanied her there to advocate her bill, must acknowledge

the educating force of all such untiring devotion for the right

to vote. Although she was not victorious, she was successful

beyond all expectation, for it is said, "Success is not always a

victory, nor is victory always a success in the end." Let me say

here, Miss Willard believes in the entire enfranchisement of her

sex, but in her earnest and faithful labors makes a specialty of

the temperance ballot.

At the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Woman's Christian

Temperance Union, held here one year ago, a resolution was

offered by a most worthy lady, indorsing suffrage for women on

all temperance questions. It was at once vigorously opposed by

some, while others, although believing in it, feared it would

divide their ranks if it passed, and felt too timid to give it

their support. The lady offering it, seeing it would be defeated,

withdrew it, at the same time giving notice that she should

present the same, or one similar, to that body every year as long

as she lived, or until it passed. Last month the same

organization held its annual meeting in Portsmouth, and that

lady, as good as her word, was there with her resolution on

temperance suffrage, and it passed unanimously, about 100

delegates being present and voting, many of whom acknowledged the

timidity they felt last year, but now earnestly gave it their

support. Such experiences give us some idea of the different

instrumentalities by which our cause is forced upon conservative

minds for consideration, ending in honest conviction.

In closing, I know you will all unite with me in tributes to Mr.

Garrison. Now that he has gone to join that innumerable host of

philanthropists in the higher life, let us rejoice that he was

one of the leaders of that reform which brings us here to-day.

And now, friends, in view of the present status of our cause,

have we not much to encourage us in our work? May we go forward

in that spirit of good-will that shall bring us a speedy victory.

Resolutions of respect to the memory of Mrs. Abby P. Ela, William

Lloyd Garrison and Angelina Grimke Weld were adopted by a rising

vote.

In the _National Citizen_ of December 14, 1879, we find the

following:

Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire had an executive hearing

before the governor and council of that State, November 18, in

regard to the management of the State prison. Mrs. Ricker, who in

winter practices law in Washington, and is known as "the

prisoner's friend," referred to the cruel treatment of convicts

in various States, notably in New Hampshire, where prisoners are

not permitted to read the magazines or the weekly newspapers

which contain no record of crime, nor to receive words from their

friends, as in other States they are allowed at stated times to

do. When Mrs. Ricker desired to see a certain prisoner and let

him know he had friends who were yet mindful of his comfort, the

warden replied that he did not wish that man "to think he had a

friend in the world." Mrs. Ricker warmly protested against such

brutality. The attorney-general agreed with Mrs. Ricker,

remarking that the line between crimes punished and those not

punished, and the lines between those in prison and those

outside who ought to be there, were so dim and shadowy that great

care should be exercised in order to secure just and humane

treatment for prisoners. Mrs. Ricker's remarks were earnest and

dignified, and were listened to with the closest attention by the

governor and his official advisers. At the close of the hearing

the governor referred the subject to the special prison committee

of the council, directing its members to procure all possible

information as to the management of penitentiaries in other

States, and report at the next meeting. Through Mrs. Ricker's

influence the last legislature passed an act providing that any

convict may send sealed letters to the governor or council

without their being read by the warden.

In 1882 a judicial decision in New Hampshire recognized the advance

legislation of that State in regard to the position of married

women. This decision shows that they are no longer under the shadow

of the old common law, but now hold equal dignity and power as

individuals and joint heads in family life. The "divinely ordained

head," with absolute control in the home, to rule according to his

will and pleasure, is at last ruled out of the courts altogether,

as the following case illustrates:

Mrs. Harris and her husband sued Mrs. Webster and her husband for

slanders uttered by Mrs. Webster against Mrs. Harris. The suit

was brought on the old theory that the legal personality of the

wife is merged in that of her husband; that she is under his

control, his chattel, his ox, and therefore he is responsible for

her trespasses as for those of his other domestic cattle. The

Court held that the wife is no longer an "ox" or "chattel," but a

person responsible for her acts, and that her innocent husband

could not be held responsible for her wrong. In rendering the

decision in this case, Judge Foster further said: "It is no

longer possible to say that in New Hampshire a married woman is a

household slave or a chattel, or that in New Hampshire the

conjugal unity is represented solely by the husband. By custom

and by statute the wife is now joint master of the household, and

not a slave or a servant. The rule now is that her legal

existence is not suspended. So practically has the ancient unity

become dissevered and dissolved that the wife may not only have

her separate property, contracts, debts, wages, and causes of

separate action growing out of a violation of her personal

rights, but she may enter into legal contract with her husband

and enforce it by suit against him."

The writer of the following letter is a successful farmer,

remarkable for her executive ability in all the practical affairs

of life, as well as for her broad philanthropy. One year she sent,

as a contribution to our Washington convention, a tub of butter

holding about sixty pounds, which was sold on the platform and the

proceeds put into the treasury of the National Association:

_Dear Friends assembled in the Washington Convention:_

Last week our new town-house was dedicated. The women accompanied

their husbands. One man spoke in favor of woman suffrage--said it

was "surely coming." In this town, at the Corners, for several

years they tried to get a graded school, but the men voted it

down. After the women had the school-suffrage, one lady, who had

a large family and did not wish to send her children away from

home, rallied all the women of the Corners, carried the vote, and

they now have a good graded school. Our village is moving down,

that the boys and girls may have the benefit of the good school

there. I think the women who have been indifferent and not

availed themselves of their small voting privilege, by which we

might have established the same class of school in our village,

will now regret their negligence, at least every time they have

to send three miles for a doctor. Thus, stupid people, blind to

their own interest, punish themselves. I regret not being able to

send a fuller report of the good that woman's use of the ballot,

in a limited form, has done for us in this State. The voting in

the town-hall is the "infant school" for women in the use of the

ballot. Thanking the ladies all for meeting at the capital of the

nation, and regretting not to be counted among the number, I am,

Yours sincerely, MARY A. P. FILLEY.

_North Haverill, January 5, 1884._

In closing this chapter some mention should be made of the

invaluable services of Senator Blair,[193] who, in his place, has

always nobly defended the rights of women. He was a member of the

first special committee ever appointed to look after the interests

of women in the United States Senate. The leaders of the movement

in that State claim that they helped to place Senator Blair in his

present position by defeating his predecessor, Mr. Wadleigh, who

was hostile to the enfranchisement of women.

UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 5, 1884.

MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I had the honor duly to receive your

invitation to address the National Association during its

sessions in this city, for which I heartily thank you; but the

pressure of duties in the Senate, service upon committees being

just now specially exacting, makes it impossible for me to

accept.

I trust that I need not assure you of my full belief that woman

has the right and ought to have the privilege to vote. Whenever a

fundamental right exists both public and individual welfare are

promoted by its exercise and injured by its suppression. The

exercise of rights is only another name for the discharge of

duties, and the denial of the suffrage to an adult human being,

not deprived of it for mental or penal disability, is an

intolerable wrong. Such denial is not only a deprivation of right

to the individual, but it is an injury to the State, which is

only well governed when controlled by the conflicting opinions,

sentiments and interests of the whole, harmonized in the

ballot-box, and, by its fiat, elevated to the functions of law.

But you have no occasion for expression of theoretical views from

me.

If I may be pardoned a suggestion, it would be the specification

to the public mind of the practical uses and benefits which would

result from the exercise of the suffrage by women. Men are not

conscious that women lack the practical protection of the laws or

the comforts and conveniences of material and social relations

more than themselves. The possession of the ballot as a practical

means of securing happiness does not appear to the masses to be

necessary to women in our country. Men say: "We do the best we

can for our wives and children and relatives. They are as well

off as we." In a certain sense this appears to be true. The other

and higher truth is that woman suffrage is necessary in order

that society may advance. The natural conservatism of an existing

order of things will not give way to a new factor in the control

of affairs, until it has been shown in what way enlightened

selfishness may hope for good to society if the change be made.

Here it seems to me that the convention may now strike a blow

more powerful than for many years. Society has not so labored

with the great problems which concern its own salvation for

generations.

What would woman do with the ballot if she had it? What for

education? What for sobriety? What for social purity? What for

equalizing the conditions and the rewards of labor--the labor of

her own sex first--and towards a just division of production

among all members of the community? What for the removal, or for

the amelioration when removal is impossible, of hunger, cold,

disease and degradation, from the daily lives of human beings?

What could and what _would_ woman do with the ballot which is not

now as well done by man alone, to improve the conditions which

envelope individual existence as with bands of iron? What good

things--state them _seriatim_, as the lawyers say--could woman do

in New Hampshire and in New York city, and ultimately among the

savage tribes of the earth, which she cannot do as well without

as with the suffrage? Would woman by her suffrage even _help_ to

remove illiteracy from Louisiana, intemperance from New England,

and stop society from committing murder by the tenement-house

abuses of New York? Let the convention specify what practical

good woman will try to achieve with her God-given rights,

provided that men will permit her to enjoy them. Show us wherein

you will do _us_ good if we will rob you no longer. It might

influence us greatly. Why should we do right for nothing? In

fact, unless you show that the exercise of your alleged right

will be useful, can you logically conclude that you have any? We

must have proof that the experiment will not fail before we will

even try it. You must connect the ballot with progress and reform

and convince men that they, as well as women, will be better off

for its possession by the whole of the adult community rather

than only by a part. Theories may be true, but they are seldom

reduced to practice by society unless it can be clearly seen that

their adoption will heal some hurt or introduce some broad and

general good.

The increasing discussion of industrial, educational, sanitary,

and social questions generally, indicates the domain of argument

and effort where victories for the advocates of enlarged suffrage

are most likely, and I think are sure to be won. Woman should

study specially what is called, for the want of a better term,

the labor problem--a problem which includes in its scope almost

everything important to everybody. I know this is an unnecessary

suggestion, for it is just what you are doing. I only write it

because repetition of the important is better than to recite

platitudes or even to quote the declaration. I believe in your

success because I believe in justice and in the advancement of

mankind.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, HENRY W. BLAIR.

FOOTNOTES:

[188] _Concord_, Nathaniel P. White, Mrs. Sarah Pillsbury, Rev. J.

F. Lovering, P. B. Cogswell, Mrs. Eliza Morrill, Mrs. Louisa W.

Wood, Col. James E. Larkin, Mrs. J. F. Lovering, Charles S. Piper,

Mrs. Armenia S. White, Mrs. M. M. Smith, Mrs. F. E. Kittredge, Mrs.

Sarah Piper, Mrs. Ira Abbott, Mrs. L. M. Bust, Dr. A. Morrill, Mrs.

P. Ladd, Mrs. R. A. Smith, George W. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. J. V.

Aldrich, Mr. and Mrs. M. B. Smith, Mrs. T. H. Brown, Mrs. R. Hatch,

Mrs. J. L. Crawford, Mrs. Anna Dumas, Miss Harriet C. Edmunds, Miss

Salina Stevens, Miss Mary A. Denning, Miss N. E. Fessender, Miss M.

L. Noyes, Miss Clara Noyes, James H. Chase, Peter Sanborn;

_Lancaster_, Rev. J. M. L. Babcock; _Rochester_, Mrs. Abby P. Ela;

_Bradford_, Mrs. L. A. T. Lane, Miss M. J. Tappan; _Laconia_, Rev.

J. L. Gorman, William M. Blair; _Manchester_, Dr. M. O. A. Hunt;

_Plymouth_, Hon. D. R. Burnham; _Portsmouth_, Hon. A. W. Haven;

_Canterbury_, Mr. and Mrs. D. M. Clough; _Lebanon_, A. M. Shaw;

_Keene_, Col. and Mrs. Wilson; _Grafton_, Mr. and Mrs. Peter

Kimball; _Northfield_, Mrs. D. E. Hill; _Franklin_, Rev. Wm. T.

Savage; _Canaan_, William W. George; _Littleton_, R. D. Runneville.

[189] They had their influence in the church as well as the State,

as the following item in _The Revolution_, July 16, 1868, shows:

"The New Hampshire convention of Universalists, at their late

anniversary, adopted unanimously a resolution in favor of woman's

elevation to entire equality with man in every civil, political and

religious right."

[190] _President_, Mrs. Armenia S. White. _Vice-Presidents_, Rev.

J.F. Lovering, Concord; Mrs. A.L. Thomas, Laconia; Ossian Ray,

Lancaster; Mrs. S. Pillsbury, Concord; J.V. Aldrich, West Concord;

Mrs. Mary Worcester, Nashua; Mrs. Mary Barker, Alton; Peter

Kimball, Grafton; E.J. Durant, Lebanon; Mrs. Fannie V. Roberts,

Dover; Miss A.C. Payson, Peterboro; Mrs. E.A. Bartlett, Kingston;

Mr. Springfield, South Wolfboro; Galen Foster, Canterbury; Mrs.

R.M. Miller, Manchester; Mrs. Nancy Gilman, Tilton; C. Ballou,

North Weare; D. Burnham, Plymouth. _Executive Committee_, Nathaniel

White, Mrs. E.C. Lovering, Col. J.E. Larkin, Concord; Mrs. J. Abby

Ela, Rochester; Rev. Wm. T. Savage, Franklin; Mrs. Eliza Morrill,

Mrs. Daniel Holden, West Concord; Miss Caroline Foster, Canterbury;

P.B. Cogswell, Mrs. Louisa Wood, Mrs. M.M. Smith, Concord; Dr.

M.V.A. Hunt, Manchester. _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. E.C. Lovering,

Concord. _Corresponding Secretary_, Dr. J. Gallinger. _Treasurer_,

Jas. H. Chase.

[191] Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Thomas Wentworth

Higginson, Frederick Hinckley, Lucy Stone, Frances Ellen Harper,

Dr. Sarah H. Hathaway, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Rev. Mr. Connor,

Rev. Ada C. Bowles, Emma Coe Still, Rev. Lorenza Haynes, Mary Grew,

Mary A. Livermore, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret W. Campbell,

Anna Dickinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Rev.

Olympia Brown, Lillie Devereux Blake, Elizabeth A. Meriwether,

Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, Susan B. Anthony.

[192] The speakers at this hearing were Mr. Galen Foster of

Canterbury, Senators Gallinger and Shaw, Mrs. Abby Goold Woolson,

H. P. Rolfe, S. B. Page, Rev. E. L. Conger and Mrs. Armenia S.

White.

[193] Reelected to the Senate, June, 1885.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

VERMONT.

Clarina Howard Nichols--Council of Censors--Amending the

Constitution--St. Andrew's Letter--Mr. Reed's Report--Convention

Called--H. B. Blackwell on the _Vermont Watchman_--Mary A.

Livermore in the _Woman's Journal_--Sarah A. Gibbs' Reply to Rev.

Mr. Holmes--School Suffrage.

After the miseries growing out of the civil war were in a measure

mitigated, there was a general awakening in the New England States

on the question of suffrage for women, and in 1868 one after

another organized for action. What Nathaniel P. Rogers was to New

Hampshire in the anti-slavery struggle that was Clarina Howard

Nichols[194] to Vermont in early calling attention to the unjust

laws for woman. From 1843 to 1853 she edited the _Windham County

Democrat_, in which she wrote a series of editorials on the

property rights of women, and from year to year made her appeals in

person to successive legislatures. Her patient labors for many

years prepared the way for the organized action of 1868. The women

of that State can never too highly appreciate all that it cost that

noble woman to stand alone, as she did, through such bitter

persecutions, vindicating for them the great principles of

republican government.

And now, after a quarter of a century, instead of that one solitary

voice in the district school-house and the State capitol, are heard

in all Vermont's towns and cities, echoing through her valleys and

mountains, the clarion voices of a whole band of distinguished men

and women from all the Eastern States. The revival of the woman

question in Vermont began with propositions to amend the

constitution. We are indebted to a series of letters, written by a

citizen of Burlington, signed "St. Andrew," for many of the

interesting incidents and substantial facts as to the initiative

steps taken in this campaign. He said:

The only way of amending the constitution is for the people

(meaning the male voters) to elect, every seventh year, a board

called the Council of Censors, consisting of thirteen persons.

This council can, within a certain time, propose amendments to

the constitution, and call a convention of one delegate from each

town, elected by the freemen, to adopt or reject the articles of

amendment proposed by the council. The Council of Censors,

elected in March, 1869, proposed six amendments: (1) In relation

to the creation of corporations; (2) in relation to biennial

sessions and elections; (3) in relation to filling vacancies in

the office of senators and town representatives; (4) in relation

to the appointment, terms, etc., of judges of the Supreme Court;

(5) providing that women shall be entitled to vote, and with no

other restrictions than the law shall impose on men; (6) in

relation to the manner of amending the constitution.

The election of delegates occurs on Tuesday, May 10, and the

convention meets on the first Wednesday in June. There is no

general excitement in the State in relation to any of the

proposed changes; and now, upon the eve of the election, it is

impossible for the most sagacious political observer to predict

the fate of any of the amendments. The fifth is the only one in

support of which public meetings have been held, and those took

place the early part of the spring at the larger places in the

State. The friends have never expected to obtain a majority, nor

even a considerable vote in the convention, and the meetings that

have been held were not expected to settle the question, but to

awaken the public mind upon the subject. These meetings have been

a decided success, attended by hundreds of intelligent citizens,

many of whom for the first time listened to an address upon the

subject. It is true that ladies were advised to remain away, but

such advice generally resulted in a larger attendance; and to-day

the measure has a firmer support than ever before, and its

advocates are more confident of final success. We may not have

more than "_ten righteous_" men elected to the convention, but

that number was enough to save the cities of the _plain_, and we

have full faith that as small a number can save the cities of the

_mountains_.

The press of the State is divided on the subject. We have two

dailies--one, the _Rutland Herald_, the oldest paper in the

State, in favor of the movement, and the _Free Press_ of

Burlington, opposed to it. After the coming convention, no change

can be made in our constitution for seven years, at least, and if

the sixth amendment be adopted, not for ten years. But, in the

meantime, the question will assume more importance by a constant

agitation as to the equality of the sexes, the admission of women

to the State University, the professions, and other rights to

which men are entitled. Vermont can never emulate in wealth and

population the manufacturing States of the seaboard, or the

prairie States of the West; but she can win a nobler preeminence

in the quality of her institutions. She may be the first State,

as Wyoming already is the first territory, to give political

equality to woman, and to show the world the model of a true

republic.

ST. ANDREW.

_Burlington, Vt., May 1, 1870._

Mr. Reed of Washington county submitted the report in favor of the

woman suffrage amendment, from which we give the following:

One-half of the people of our State are denied the right of

suffrage. Yet woman has all the qualifications--the capacity, the

desire for the public welfare, that man has. She is among the

governed. She pays taxes. Even-handed justice, a fair application

of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of our

State constitution, give woman the ballot. There is no reason why

woman should not be allowed to do what she is so eminently fit to

do. We know no good reason why the most ignorant man should vote

and the intelligent woman be refused. Our present political

institutions were formed and shaped when men had their chief

interests and pursuits out of doors, and women remained the

humble slaves at home. The social change has been immense. Now

woman sits by the side of man, is his companion and associate in

his amusements, and in his labors, save the one of governing the

country. And it is time that she should be in this.

The position of woman in regard to the common schools of the

State is the most unjust. She must always be the chief instructor

of the young in point of time and influence. She is their best

teacher at home and in the school. And her share in this

ever-expanding work is becoming vaster every day. Woman as

mother, sister, teacher, has an intelligence, a comprehension of

the educational needs of our youth, and an interest in their

development, far in advance of the other sex. She can organize,

control and teach the most difficult school in the State; yet she

has no vote in the selection of teachers, the building,

arrangements and equipments of school-houses, nor in the method

and extent of instruction. She can pay her share of the expenses

of schools, but can have no legal voice in their management. She

can teach, but she can have no vote in determining what shall be

taught. She is the very corner-stone of institutions which she

has no power in shaping. Let us have her open, avowed and public

cooeperation--always safer than indirect influence.

The submission of an amendment to the constitution necessarily

aroused a general agitation on the proposed changes. The fifth

amendment decided on by the board of censors seemed to create a

more general interest than either of the others, and accordingly a

meeting was called for its full consideration, that efficient steps

might be taken for a thorough canvass of the State, preparatory to

the May election, and issued the following call:

The friends of woman suffrage in Vermont are requested to meet in

mass convention at Montpelier on Wednesday, February 2, at 10

o'clock, for the purpose of considering and advancing the best

interests of the cause in this State, in view of the

constitutional amendment proposed by the council of censors. The

convention will be addressed by several ladies and prominent

gentlemen of this State, and by William Lloyd Garrison, Julia

Ward Howe and Rev. Ada C. Bowles of Massachusetts; Lucy Stone and

Henry B. Blackwell of New Jersey, and Mary A. Livermore of

Illinois. A public meeting will also be held the evening before

the convention, which will be addressed by some of the eminent

speakers above named. The Hutchinson family will be present and

sing their woman suffrage songs. The Vermont Central, Passumpsic,

Rutland and Burlington and Bennington and Rutland lines of

railroad will extend the courtesy of free return checks, provided

they shall be applied for by twenty-five or more persons paying

full fare one way over an average distance of each of their

respective roads, which will be determined by the secretary.

C. W. WILLARD, JAMES HUTCHINSON, JR.,

GEORGE H. BIGELOW, CHARLES REED,

NEWMAN WEEKS, JONATHAN ROSS,

JAMES S. PECK.

_Ex. Com. Vermont Woman Suffrage Association_.[195]

_Montpelier_, January 10, 1870.

It is a noticeable fact that the movement for the enfranchisement

of woman in Vermont was inaugurated wholly by men. Not a woman was

on its official board, nor was there one to speak in the State. Men

called the first woman's rights convention, and chose Hon. Charles

Reed of Montpelier as its presiding officer, as well as president

of the State association.

However, these gentlemen invited ladies from other States, and a

series of meetings[196] was inaugurated through the chief towns and

cities of Vermont. The speakers[197] were heartily welcomed at some

points and rudely received at others. The usual "free-love" cry was

started by some of the opposition papers--a cry that like "infidel"

in the anti-slavery days, oft' times frightened even the faithful

from their propriety. Henry B. Blackwell came to the rescue, and

ably answered the _Vermont Watchman_:

The _Vermont Watchman_ evades the discussion of the question

whether women shall be entitled to vote, by raising false issues.

The editor asserts that "many of the advocates of suffrage have

thrown scorn upon marriage and upon the Divine Word." That

assertion we denounced as an unfounded and wicked calumny. We

also objected to it as an evasion of the main question. Thereupon

the _Watchman_, instead of correcting its mistake and discussing

the question of suffrage, repeats the charge, and seeks to

sustain it by garbled quotations and groundless assertions, which

we stigmatized accordingly. The _Watchman_ now calls upon us to

retract the stigma. We prefer to prove that our censure is

deserved, and proceed to do so.

The first quotation of the _Watchman_ is from an editorial in the

_Woman's Journal_, entitled "Political Organization." The object

of which was to show the propriety of doing what the _Watchman_

refuses to do--viz.: of discussing woman suffrage upon its own

merits. It showed the unfairness of complicating the question

with other topics upon which friends of woman suffrage honestly

differ. It regretted that "many well-meaning people insist on

dragging in their peculiar views on theology, temperance,

marriage, race, dress, finance, labor, capital--it matters not

what." It condemned "a confusion of ideas which have no logical

connection," and protested "against loading the good ship, Woman

Suffrage, with a cargo of irrelevant opinions." The _Watchman_

cites this article as an admission that some of the friends of

suffrage advocate free-love. Not at all. The editor of the

_Watchman_ is himself one of the well-meaning people alluded to.

He insists on dragging in irrelevant theological and social

questions. He refuses to confine himself to the issue of

suffrage. The _Watchman_ quotes a single sentence of the

following statement:

The advocates of woman's equality differ utterly upon every

other topic. Some are abolitionists, others hostile to the

equality of races. Some are evangelical Christians; others

Catholics, Unitarians, Spiritualists, or Quakers. Some hold

the most rigid theories with regard to marriage and divorce;

others are latitudinarian on these questions. In short,

people of the most opposite views agree in desiring to

establish woman suffrage, while they anticipate very

different results from the reform, when effected.

The above is cited as evidence against us. How so? A man may hold

"latitudinarian theories in regard to marriage and divorce"

without "throwing scorn upon the marriage relation," or having

the slightest sympathy with free-love. For instance: The present

law of Vermont is latitudinarian is these very particulars. It

grants divorce for many other causes than adultery. Measured by

the more conservative standard of Henry Ward Beecher and Mary A.

Livermore, it allows divorce upon insufficient grounds. This law

represents the public sentiment of a majority of the people of

Vermont. Will the _Watchman_ assert that the people of Vermont

"throw scorn on the marriage relation"? Or that he is in "low

company" because he is surrounded by the citizens of a State who

entertain views upon the marriage relation less rigid than his

own? Our indignant protest against the injustice of the common

law, which subjects the person, property, earnings and children

of married women to the irresponsible control of their husbands,

is not a protest against marriage. It is a vindication of

marriage, against the barbarism of the law which degrades a

noble and life-long partnership of equals into a mercenary and

servile relation between superior and dependant.

The _Watchman_ assails prominent supporters of woman suffrage,

and misquotes and misrepresents them. Because Theodore Tilton is

unwilling "that men or women shall be compelled to live together

as husband and wife against the inward protest of their own

souls," therefore he is charged with advocating free-love. Is it

possible that the editor regards such a relation of protest and

disgust as consistent with the unity of Christian marriage? Is it

right that a pure and noble man, the tender husband of a happy

wife, the loving father of affectionate children, should be thus

causelessly traduced for showing that the essential fact of

marriage is in that unity of soul which is recognized and

affirmed by the outward form? When the _Watchman_ undertakes to

brand men and women of irreproachable character for an

intellectual difference, he is engaged in a very unworthy

business. When he charges immorality upon the _New York

Independent_ and infidelity upon John Stuart Mill, he forgets

that his readers have minds of their own.

But, suppose it were true that newspapers and individuals who

believe in woman suffrage held objectionable views on other

subjects, what has this to do with the merit of the proposed

reform? There are impure and intemperate men in the Republican

party. Is the Republican party therefore "low company"? There are

brutal and ignorant and disloyal men in the Democratic party.

Does this prove that Dr. Lord and every other Democrat in the

State of Vermont is brutal and ignorant and disloyal? The Supreme

Court of the United States has just decided that a divorce

obtained under the laws of Indiana is legal and binding in every

other State. In thus affirming Mrs. McFarland's right to marry

Mr. Richardson, has the Supreme Court of the United States

sanctioned free-love? Will the _Watchman_ call Chief-Justice

Chase and the Supreme Court free-lovers? We have very little hope

that the _Watchman_ will treat this question with fairness or

candor. Our cause is too strong. The argument from reason, from

revelation, from nature, from history, is on our side. The

_Watchman_ is fighting against the Declaration of Independence,

the bill of rights of the State of Vermont, and the principles of

representative government. No wonder that it raises false issues.

No wonder that it evades the question.

H. B. B.

The following editorial in the _Woman's Journal_, from the pen of

Mary A. Livermore, does not give a very rose-colored view of the

reception of the Massachusetts missionaries on their first advent

into Vermont:

The Vermont constitutional convention has rejected a proposition

to give the ballot to woman, by a vote of 231 to 1. It flouted

all discussion of the question, and voted it down with the utmost

alacrity. No one cognizant of the bigotry, narrowness and general

ignorance that prevail there will be surprised at this result. It

is not a progressive State, but the contrary. Great stress has

been laid on the fact that "Vermont never owned a slave"--and

from this it has been argued that the Green Mountain State is

and has been especially liberty-loving. But during the two brief

visits we made last winter, we were told again and again, by

Vermont men, that the only reason for the non-introduction of

slavery was the impracticability of that form of labor among the

Green Mountains--that slavery could never have been made

profitable there, and that this, and not principle and heroic

love of freedom, prevented Vermont from ever being a slave State.

Nowhere, not even in the roughest and remotest West, have we met

with such vulgar rudeness, ill-manners and heroic lying as we

encountered in Vermont. The lecturers who were invited into the

State by the Vermont Woman Suffrage Association, composed wholly

of men, were in many instances left unsupported by them, allowed

to meet the frequently rough audiences as best they could, to pay

their own bills, and to manage the campaign as they might. At the

very first intimation of opposition on the part of the

_Montpelier Argus_, the _Watchman_ and the _Burlington Free

Press_--an unworthy trio of papers that appear to control the

majority--many members of the State association showed the "white

feather," and either apologetically backed out of the canvass, or

ignominiously kept silent in the background. There was,

therefore, nothing like a thorough discussion of the question, no

fair meeting of truth and error, not even an attempt to canvass

the State. For, not ambitious to waste their efforts on such

flinty soil, the men and women who were invited to labor there

shook off the dust (snow) of Vermont from their feet, and turned

to more hopeful fields of labor.

Let it not be supposed, however, that this vote of the delegates

of the constitutional convention is any indication of the

sentiment of the women on this question. The fact that 231 women

of lawful age, residents of Brattleborough, and 96 of Newfane,

sent a petition for woman suffrage, with their reasons for asking

it, to Charles K. Field, delegate from that town to the

constitutional convention; that petitions from other hundreds of

women have been forwarded to congress, praying for a sixteenth

amendment; that, by letters and personal statements, we know the

most intelligent and thoughtful women everywhere rebel against

the State laws whose heathenism, despotism and absurdity were so

well shown by Mrs. Nichols in 1845--all these facts are proofs

that the sentiment of Vermont women is not represented by the

constitutional convention now in session at Montpelier.--[M. A.

L.

August 12, 1871, our Burlington correspondent says:

While conventions, picnics and bazar meetings, in the cause of

woman suffrage, have been held in our sister States, an event has

very quietly occurred with us which we deem an important step in

the right direction, viz.: the admission of women to the

University. By an almost unanimous vote of the corporation, a few

conservatives opposing it, the matter was referred to the

faculty, who are understood to be heartily in favor of the "new

departure." The college that has thus thrown its doors wide open

to all, is the University of Vermont and State Agricultural

College, founded by the munificence of General Ira Allen in 1791.

It commenced operations in 1800; the Federal troops used its

buildings for barracks in the war of 1812; the buildings (and

library) were burned in 1824, and reconstructed in the following

year, when the corner-stone was laid by General Lafayette. It

sent forth nearly all its sons to the great rebellion. Indeed, at

one time its condition served to remind one of the lines of

Holmes--

"Lord, how the _Senior_ knocked about

That Freshman class of _one_."

It has graduated such men as the late Senator Collamer, John G.

Smith, president of the Northern Pacific Railroad; William G. T.

Shedd, the learned theologian; the late Henry J. Raymond of the

New York _Times_; John A. Kasson of Iowa, Frederick Billings, and

a host of others, eminent in all the walks of life. Its late

president, who was an "Angell from Providence," and has just been

elected president of Michigan University, is heartily in favor of

the movement, and the president-elect, Matthew H. Buckham, is no

less so. With its new president and its "new departure" the

future bids fair even to outshine the past.

It may be well to inquire the reason why a college located in a

State regarded by outsiders "as the most conservative of the

Union on the woman suffrage question," should take a step so far

in advance of what has been deemed the prevailing sentiment.

Editors who have been battling the new reform with a zeal equaled

only by that manifested against abolitionism a few years since,

can see no necessary connection between the new movement and the

general cause of woman's emancipation. Whether necessary or not,

there is a practical connection between them which is being felt

more and more every day. I assert, with no fear of contradiction

by any observing man, that Vermont is no more committed against

woman suffrage than any other State in the East, and the fact

that but one man in our late convention voted to extend the right

of suffrage to all, can well be explained when we consider the

manner of choosing delegates by towns; one town, for instance,

with twelve voters, having the same voice in the representation

that this city has with 1,500. With a popular vote upon that

question the State would give such a majority as would fairly

astonish all those who regarded the late convention as a complete

demolition of the "reformers."

ST. ANDREW.

The following criticism of the Rev. Mr. Holmes, from the pen of a

woman, shows the growing self-assertion of a class hitherto held in

a condition of subordination by clerical authority. Such

tergiversation in the pulpit as his has done much to emancipate

woman from the reverence she once felt for the teaching of those

supposed to be divinely ordained of heaven:

BENSON, Vt., June 20, 1871.

I have heard it stated from the pulpit within a year that the

woman suffrage question in Vermont is dead. Well, we believe in

the resurrection. Week by week this question of the hour and of

the age confronts those who claim to have given it decent burial.

The same clergyman who pronounced it dead has since spoken of it

as one of the "growing evils of the times," and in this beautiful

summer weather he has felt called upon to preach another sermon,

ostensibly on "marriage," really upon this "dead question,"

dragging it out to daylight again, that we might see how easily

he could bury it fifty fathoms deep--with mud. It reminded me of

Robert Laird Collier's sermon, "The Folly of the Woman Movement,"

in its logic and its spirit. Mr. Collier and our Mr. Holmes see

but one thing in all this struggle for truth and justice, and

that is "free-love." Here are some specimens of Mr. Holmes'

assertions:

The advocates of woman's rights want, not the ballot so much

as the dissolution of the marriage tie. They propose to form

a tie for the term of five, six or seven years. Mark the men

or women who are the most strenuous advocates of woman

suffrage. They are irreligious and immoral.

Who are more strenuous advocates of woman suffrage than Mrs.

Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mrs. Isabella

Beecher Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Stone, Mrs. Lucretia Mott, Mrs.

Livermore, T. W. Higginson, Henry Ward Beecher, Bishop Simpson,

Governor Claflin, Gilbert Haven, Wendell Phillips, and scores of

others whose lives are as pure and intellects as fine as his who

dares stand in the sacred desk and call these persons

"irreligious and immoral"? His argument seems to be like this:

Some advocates of woman suffrage are in favor of easy divorces.

These men and women advocate woman suffrage; therefore these men

and women are in favor of easy divorces. Or, to make the matter

still plainer, some ministers of the Gospel are immoral. Mr. H.

is a minister of the Gospel; therefore Mr. H. is immoral. The

method of reasoning is the same, but it don't sound quite fair

and honorable, does it?

"In our land woman is a queen; she is loved and cared for," says

Mr. Holmes. In sight from the window where I write is a sad

commentary upon this. One of these queens, so tenderly cared for,

is hoeing corn, while her five-months-old baby--the youngest of

nine children--lies on the grass while she works. Her husband is

away from home, but has left word for the "old woman" to "take

care of the corn and potatoes, for he has to support the family."

When they are out of meat, she must go out washing and earn some,

for "he has to support the family," and cannot have her idle. Not

long since they were planting corn together, she doing as much as

he. At noon, although she had a pail of milk and another of eggs,

he brought her the two hoes to carry home, as he could not be

troubled with them. Had he ever read:

"I will be master of what is my own;

She is my goods, my chattels--

My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything"?

"No woman reaches such dignity as the New England wife and

mother," says Mr. H. Is wifehood more honorable, or motherhood

more sacred, in New England than in other places? Is to be a wife

and mother, and nothing else, the sole end and aim of woman? Or

is there not other work in God's universe which some woman may

possibly be called upon to do? Is Florence Nightingale or Anna

Dickinson less dignified than Mrs. John Smith, who happens

physically to be the mother of half-a-dozen children, but

mentally and morally is as much of a child as any of them?

"Woman has just the sphere she wants. She has more privileges

than she could vote herself into," says Mr. H. Has she, indeed? I

know women, who would gladly vote themselves into the privilege

of having the custody of their own children, whose husbands are

notoriously drunken and licentious. They are pure, good women,

who, rather than part with their children, live on with men whose

very breath is pollution. I know others who would like to vote

themselves into the privilege of retaining their own hard

earnings instead of having them sacrificed by a drunken husband.

Widows have been literally turned out of doors after their

husbands' death, and the property they had helped to accumulate

divided among those who never earned it. Do you think such women

would not change the laws of inheritance if they had the power?

"Husband and wife are one, hence one vote is sufficient," says

Mr. H. Follow out the reasoning, if you please. "Both one," hence

one dinner is sufficient, "both one," hence if a man is a member

of a church his wife is also. In plain English, "the husband and

wife are both one," and the husband is that one. Now in case

_that one_ should die, is it fair, or just, or fitting, that the

widow--"the relict"--or, in the words of Mr. H., "the feminine

spirit that has supplemented this masculine nature," whose hands

have been tied all these years, should be called upon to pay

taxes upon the share of property the law allows her? Taxation

without representation was the immediate cause of the famous

tea-party in Boston harbor, and, in fact, of a good many other

unpleasant things that followed.

"Woman has just the sphere she wants," says Mr. H., closing the

discussion. No, sir, she has not. Had those young ladies in

Philadelphia who were studying medicine, and were insulted day

after day by the male medical students, the sphere they wanted?

Our American girls have been to Europe for the sake of pursuing

their studies in medicine, and have met with kindness and

courtesy, while in this land, where they are called "queens,"

they received only hisses. Last winter Governor Claflin of

Massachusetts--one of those "irreligious and immoral" advocates

of woman suffrage--reminded the gentlemen of that State who claim

to be woman's representatives in the legislature, "that a wife in

that State is deprived of the free control of property that was

her own before marriage, and is denied an equal right in the

property accumulated during the marriage partnership; that a

married mother has no legal right to her child; and that a widow

has not equal rights with a widower." When woman has the sphere

she wants, these things will be changed.

As a majority of the men in this community are opposed to woman

suffrage, I will relate one circumstance that will do to "point a

moral or adorn a tale." Of course, the voters in this or any

other place always elect their best men to hold office, and the

board of selectmen would naturally be the very wisest and best,

the "_creme de la creme_." Now it so happens that one selectman

being away from home, there was not enough arithmetic left with

the other two to make out the tax-bills for the town, and they

hired a woman, the mother of two children, to do it for them. It

certainly took more of her time than it would for her to have

walked across the street and voted for men who could make out

their own tax-bills. Then arithmetic is not a womanly

accomplishment, like tatting, crocheting, etc. These things sink

into our hearts, and will bear fruit in due season.

SARAH A. GIBBS.

In 1877, July 21, Miss Thyrza F. Pangborn, for the last six years

the capable and efficient recorder in the probate office of

Burlington, was appointed and sworn as a notary public. In a letter

of December 7, 1872, our correspondent says:

In the year 1870, the world was somewhat startled by the fact

that in the constitutional convention, held that year in Vermont,

but one vote was cast for the enfranchisement of woman; and no

one wonders that the friends of that movement exclaimed, "Can any

good come out of--Vermont"? Yesterday the first biennial session

of the legislature closed its session of fifty-seven days. A bill

has been pending in each House, giving female tax-payers a right

to vote at all school-district meetings. It was advocated by Mr.

Butterfield, one of the leading members of the House, in an able

and learned speech, and received 64 votes to 103 against. Is not

that doing well for such a staid old State as Vermont, and one

where the enemies of equal suffrage supposed, two years since,

that the measure was indefinitely postponed? But this is not all.

The measure was introduced in the Senate, composed of thirty

members, who are supposed to be the balance-wheel of the General

Assembly. It was warmly discussed by several Senators, and the

vote taken, when there were three members absent, resulting in,

yeas 13, nays 14. Had the Senate been full, the vote would have

been, yeas 14,[198] nays 16. A change of one of the "no" votes

would have carried the measure, as the lieutenant-governor, who

presides in the Senate, would have given the casting vote in its

favor.

The supporters of the measure included some of the ablest members

of the Senate, among them the chairmen of the very important

Committees on Finance, Claims, Education, Agriculture,

Manufactures, Railroads and Printing.

Following the defeat of the above-mentioned bill came up a

measure granting to women the same right to vote as men have in

all elections everywhere in the State. It received the support of

all who voted for the school measure, save two, Mr. Mason and Mr.

Rogers, who prefer to see the first tried as an experiment in the

school meetings. You thus perceive that twelve out of our thirty

grave and reverend Senators are real out-and-out equal suffrage

men. Verily, the world moves! Another year, 1874, we hope will

carry off the measure. Meanwhile, we say, three cheers for old

Vermont, and glory enough for one day!

ST. ANDREW.

_Burlington, Vt._

In 1880 the School Suffrage bill passed the Vermont House of

Representatives, with only four dissenting votes. When the bill

came to a third reading and only four men stood up for the

negative, there was so marked an expression of derision that the

speaker called for "order," and reminded the House that "no man was

to be scorned for voting alone any more than with a crowd." The

action and the voting came cheerily. More than one man, to the

objection of "an entering wedge," said "he was ready to grant the

whole." The bill passed the Senate triumphantly and was approved by

the governor, December 18, 1880:

Women shall have the same right to vote as men have, in all

school-district meetings and in the election of school

commissioners in towns and cities, and the same right to

hold office relating to school affairs.

An item in the _Woman's Journal_, from Vergennes, March 22, 1881,

says:

At the city election to-day General J. H. Lucia, a staunch friend

of woman suffrage, was elected mayor, and principally through his

management Miss Electa S. Smith has been chosen to the office of

city clerk, which office he has held for the past two years. The

legislature of 1880 authorized the election of women to the

offices of superintendent of schools and town clerk, and some of

the friends of the cause were disposed to try the working of the

law here. They selected a candidate whose ability, qualifications

and thorough fitness all had to concede, and against whom the

only objection that could be raised was her being a woman. It

took the conservatives some time to get over their surprise at

the first suggestion of her name, but they admitted the propriety

of the thing and gallantly lent a hand, so that when the election

came all the candidates who had been talked about were

conspicuous by their absence, and Miss Smith was elected by

acclamation. Surely the world does move.

SPRINGFIELD, February 7, 1884.

_Miss Lydia Putnam, Brattleboro', Vt.:_

Your letter is at hand. I think but few women have, as yet,

availed themselves of the privilege of voting in school meetings

in this State, and I am not able to say what the effect upon our

schools has been up to the present time.

Very respectfully, JUSTUS DARTT.

Notwithstanding the above reply from the state-superintendent of

the public schools of Vermont, the Associated Press reports of

every year[199] since 1881 make mention of women being elected to

school offices in the various towns and counties of the State.

FOOTNOTES:

[194] No woman in so many varied fields of action has more steadily

and faithfully labored than Mrs. Nichols, as editor, speaker,

teacher, farmer, in Vermont, New York, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio,

Kansas, and California where she spent the closing years of her

life; and though always in circumstances of hardship and privation,

yet no annual convention was held without a long letter from her

pen, uniformly the most cheerful and able of all that were

received. A great soul that seemed to rise above the depressing

influences of her surroundings! The last letter she ever wrote us

was in January, 1885, a few days before she passed away. See Volume

I., page 171.

[195] Officers of the Vermont Woman Suffrage Association:

_President_, Hon. Charles Reed, Montpelier. _Vice-presidents_, Hon.

John B. Hollister, Bennington; Hon. Seneca M. Dorr, Rutland; Rev.

Addison Brown, Brattleboro'; Col. Lynus E. Knapp, Middlebury; Hon.

James Hutchinson, jr., West Randolph; Hon. Russell S. Taft,

Burlington; Hon. A. J. Willard, St. Johnsbury; Hon. H. Henry

Powers, Hyde Park; Hon. Jasper Rand, St. Albans. _Recording

Secretary_, Henry Clark, Rutland. _Corresponding Secretary_, Albert

Clarke, St. Albans. _Treasurer_, Albert D. Hager, Proctorsville.

_Executive Committee_, Hon. C. W. Willard, Montpelier; Hon. Charles

Reed, Montpelier; George H Bigelow, Burlington; Newman Weeks,

Rutland; Hon. Jonathan Ross, St. Johnsbury; Rev. Eli Ballou, D. D.,

Montpelier.

[196] Following the convention at Montpelier, meetings were held at

St. Albans, Northfield, Barre, Burlington, St. Johnsbury,

Brattleboro', Rutland, Fairhaven, Castleton, Springfield and

Bellows Falls.

[197] Among the speakers were Mr. Garrison, Mrs. Howe, Mrs. Stone,

Leo Miller, Mrs. Churchill, Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Campbell, Dr.

Sarah Hathaway, Mrs. Bowles, Mr. Blackwell, Hon. A. J. Williard.

Mr. Taft, Mr. Clark, Judge Carpenter, Mr. Ivison, the Rev. Messrs.

Brigham, Eastwood, Brown and Emerson.

[198] The fourteen who favored the bill were: Mr. Bigelow of

Burlington, one of the leading editors in the State; Mr.

Butterfield of Grafton, one of the most experienced legislators in

the State; Mr. Carpenter of Northfield, who is known to be right on

all questions that concern humanity, Mr. Colton of Irasburgh, now

serving his second term in the Senate; Mr. Estey of Brattleboro',

the manufacturer of the celebrated cottage organ; Mr. Houghton of

North Bennington, a leading banker and business man who has just

been elected one of the directors of our state-prison; Mr. King of

North Montpelier, farmer; Mr. Lamb of Royalton, the oldest member

in the Senate, a lawyer; Mr. Mason of Richmond, a man who would be

described by a Yankee as "chock full of honesty and common-sense";

Mr. Rogers of Wheelock and Mr. Stiles of Montgomery, both farmers,

and as near like Mr. Mason as two peas are alike; Mr. Reynolds of

Alburgh Springs, one of the absentees, but in favor of the bill, a

prominent merchant; Mr. Powers, one of the ablest lawyers in the

State, and, finally, Mr. Sprague of Brandon, a leading banker and

manufacturer, the head and principal owner of the Brandon

Manufacturing Company.

[199] In 1885 there were thirty-three women elected to the office

of school superintendent in eleven of the fourteen counties of the

State, as follows: _Addison_, Miss A. L. Huntley; _Bennington_,

Mrs. R. R. Wiley; _Caledonia_, Miss Nellie Russell, Mrs. A. F.

Stevens, Mrs. E. Bradley, Miss S. E. Rogers; _Chittenden_, Mrs. S.

M. Benedict, Mrs. L. M. Bates, Mrs. J. C. Draper; _Essex_, Mrs.

Henry Fuller, Hettie W. Matthews, Jennie K. Stanley, Mrs. S. M.

Day; _Franklin_, none; _Grand Isle_, Miss I. Montgomery; _La

Moille_, Carrie P. Carroll, Miss C. A. Parker; _Orange_, Miss F. H.

Graves, Miss A. A. Clement, Miss V. L. Farnham, Miss F. Martin;

_Orleans_, none; _Rutland_, Mrs. I. C. Adams, Miss H. M.

Bromley, Miss M. A. Mills, Lillian Tarbell, Mrs. H. M. Crowley;

_Washington_, none; _Windham_, Mrs. J. M. Powers, Mrs. J. E.

Phelps; _Windsor_, Mrs. E. G. White, Miss C. A. Lamb, Mrs. H. F.

VanCor, Clara E. Perkins, Mrs. E. M. Lovejoy, Mrs. L. M. Hall.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

NEW YORK--1860-1885.

Saratoga Convention, July 13, 14, 1869--State Society Formed,

Martha C. Wright, President--_The Revolution_ Established,

1868--Educational Movement--New York City Society, 1870,

Charlotte B. Wilbour, President--Presidential Campaign,

1872--Hearings at Albany, 1873--Constitutional Commission--An

Effort to Open Columbia College, President Barnard in

Favor--Centennial Celebration, 1876--School Officers--Senator

Emerson of Monroe, 1877--Gov. Robinson's Veto--School Suffrage,

1880--Gov. Cornell Recommended it in his Message--Stewart's Home

for Working Women--Women as Police--An Act to Prohibit

Disfranchisement--Attorney-General Russell's Adverse Opinion--The

Power of the Legislature to Extend Suffrage--Great Demonstration

in Chickering Hall, March 7, 1884--Hearing at Albany, 1885--Mrs.

Blake, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Howell, Gov. Hoyt of

Wyoming.

The New York chapter in Volume I. closes with an account of some

retrogressive legislation on the rights of married women,[200]

showing that until woman herself has a voice in legislation her

rights may be conceded or withheld at the option of the ruling

powers, and that her only safety is in direct representation. The

chapter on "Trials and Decisions" in Volume II., shows the

injustice women have suffered in the courts, where they have never

yet enjoyed the sacred right of trial by a jury of their own peers.

After many years of persistent effort for the adjustment of special

grievances, many of the leaders, seeing by what an uncertain tenure

their civil rights were maintained by the legislative and judicial

authorities, ceased to look to the State for redress, and turned to

the general government for protection in the right of suffrage, the

fundamental right by which all minor privileges and immunities are

protected. Hence the annual meeting of the National Association,

which had been regularly held in New York as one of the May

anniversaries, was, from 1869, supplemented by a semi-annual

convention in Washington for special influence upon congress.

Until the war the work in New York was conducted by a central

committee; but in the summer of 1869, the following call was issued

for a convention at Saratoga Springs, to organize a State Society:

The advocates of woman suffrage will hold a State convention at

Saratoga Springs on the thirteenth and fourteenth of July, 1869.

The specific business of this convention will be to effect a

permanent organization for the State of New York. Our friends in

the several congressional districts should at once elect their

delegates, in order that the whole State may be represented in

the convention. In districts where delegates cannot be elected,

any person can constitute himself or herself a representative.

The convention will be attended by the ablest advocates of

suffrage for woman, and addresses may be expected from Elizabeth

Cady Stanton, president of the National Association, Celia

Burleigh, president of the Brooklyn Equal Rights Association,

Matilda Joslyn Gage, advisory counsel for the State, Susan B.

Anthony, of _The Revolution_, Charlotte B. Wilbour of New York

city, and others. Every woman interested for her personal freedom

should attend this convention, and by her presence, influence and

money, aid the movement for the restoration of the rights of her

sex.

Mrs. ELIZABETH B. PHELPS,

_Vice-President for the State of New York_.

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Advisory Counsel_.

The opening session of the convention was held in the spacious

parlors of Congress Hall the audience composed chiefly of

fashionable ladies[201] from all parts of the country, who listened

with evident interest and purchased the tracts intended for

distribution. The remaining sessions were held in Hawthorn Hall,

Matilda Joslyn Gage presiding. A series of spirited resolutions was

adopted, also a plan of organization presented by Charlotte B.

Wilbour, for a State association.[202] Many able speakers[203] were

present. The formation of this society was the result of a very

general agitation in different localities on several vital

questions in the preceding year:

_First_--On taxation. Women being large property holders, had felt

the pressure during the war, especially of the tax on incomes, and

had resolved on resistance: Accordingly, large meetings[204] were

called at various points, in 1868. While women of wealth were

organizing to resist taxation, the working women[205] were uniting

to defend their earnings, and secure better wages. It seemed for a

few months as if they were in a chronic condition of rebellion. But

after many vain struggles for redress in the iron teeth of the law,

and equally vain appeals to have unjust laws amended, the women

learned the hopelessness of all efforts made by disfranchised

classes.

_Second_--On prostitution. For the first time in the history of the

government, a bill was presented in the New York legislature, in

1868, proposing to license prostitution. This showed the

degradation of woman's position as no other act of legislation

could have done, and although the editors of _The Revolution_ were

the only women who publicly opposed the bill (which they did both

before the committee of the legislature, and in their journal), yet

there was in the minds of many, a deep undercurrent of resistance

to the odious provisions of that bill. Horace Greeley, too, in his

editorials in the New York _Tribune_, denounced the proposition in

such unmeasured terms that, although pressed at three different

legislative sessions, no member of the committee could be found

with sufficient moral hardihood to present the bill.

In connection with this question, the necessity of "women as

police," was for some time a topic of discussion. They had proved

so efficient in many cases, that it was seriously proposed to have

a standing force in New York and Brooklyn, to look after young

girls,[206] new to the temptations and dangers of city life. In

_The Revolution_ of March 26, 1868, we find the following:

It is often asked, would you make women police officers? It has

already been done. At least a society of women exists in this

country, for the discovery of crimes, conspiracies and such

things. The chief of this band was Mrs. Kate Warn, a native of

this State, who lately died in Chicago. She was engaged in this

business, fifteen years ago, by Mr. Pinkerton, of the National

Police Agency. She did good service for many years in watching,

waylaying, exploring and detecting; especially on the critical

occasion of President Lincoln's journey to Washington in 1861. In

1865 she was sent to New Orleans, as head of the Female Police

Department there.

There was a general movement in these years for the more liberal

education of women in various departments of art and industry, as

well as in letters. First on the list stands Vassar College,

founded in 1861, richly endowed with fine grounds and spacious

buildings. We cannot estimate the civilizing influence of the

thousands of young women graduating at that institution, now, as

cultivated wives and mothers, presiding in households all over this

land. Cornell University[207] was opened to girls in 1872, more

richly endowed than Vassar, and in every way superior in its

environments; beautifully situated on the banks of Cayuga Lake,

with the added advantage and stimulus of the system of coeducation.

To Andrew D. White, its president, all women owe a debt of

gratitude for his able and persevering advocacy of the benefits to

both sexes, of coeducation. The university at Syracuse, in which

Lima College was incorporated, is also open alike to boys and

girls. Rochester University,[208] Brown, Columbia, Union, Hamilton,

and Hobart College at Geneva, still keep their doors barred against

the daughters of the State, and the three last, in the small number

of their students, and their gradual decline, show the need of the

very influence they exclude. Could all the girls desiring an

education in and around Rochester, Geneva,[209] Clinton and

Schenectady, enter these institutions, the added funds and

enthusiasm they would thus receive would soon bring them renewed

life and vigor.

Peter Cooper and Catharine Beecher's efforts for the working

classes of women were equally praiseworthy. Miss Beecher formed

"The American Woman's Educational Association," for the purpose of

establishing schools all over the country for training girls in the

rudiments of learning and practical work. The Cooper Institute,

founded in 1854, by Peter Cooper, has been invaluable in its

benefits to the poorer classes of girls, in giving them advantages

in the arts and sciences, in evening as well as day classes. Here

both boys and girls have free admission into all departments,

including its valuable reading-room and library. It had long been a

cherished desire of Mr. Cooper to found an institution to be

devoted forever to the union of art and science in their

application to the useful purposes of life. The School of Design is

specially for women.

The Ladies Art Association of New York was founded in 1867, now

numbering over one hundred members. One of the most important

things accomplished by this society has been the preparation of

thoroughly educated teachers, many of whom are now filling

positions in Southern and Western colleges.

NEW YORK, June 3, 1869.

EDITORS OF THE REVOLUTION: Inclosed please find the report of a

meeting of New York ladies to consider the important subject of

woman's education. The within slip will show that this is a

movement quite as earnest and pronounced as the woman suffrage

agitation of the day, and more in consonance with prevailing

public opinion. We trust that you will aid the effort by

inserting the report and resolutions into your columns, and add

at least a brief editorial notice.

Very respectfully, MRS. MARSHALL O. ROBERTS.

IMPORTANT MEETING OF NEW YORK LADIES.--WOMAN'S EDUCATION.--On

Monday, the 31st of May, a large number of influential ladies

gathered at Dr. Taylor's, corner Sixth avenue and Thirty-eighth

street, in response to the call of the secretary of The American

Woman's Educational Association. A meeting was organized, Mrs.

Marshall O. Roberts presiding, and after a long and interesting

discussion the following resolutions were unanimously passed. It

is proper to state that the society has been an organized and

efficient power in woman's education for over twenty years. The

object of its present action is to forward a movement to secure

endowed institutions for the training of women to their special

duties and professions as men are trained for theirs,

particularly the science and duties of home-life:

_Resolved_, That one cause of the depressed condition of

woman is the fact that the distinctive profession of her

sex, as the nurse of infancy and of the sick, as educator of

childhood, and as the chief minister of the family state,

has not been duly honored, nor such provision been made for

its scientific and practical training as is accorded to the

other sex for their professions; and that it is owing to

this neglect that women are driven to seek honor and

independence in the institutions and the professions of men.

_Resolved_, That the science of domestic economy, in its

various branches, involves more important interests than any

other human science; and that the evils suffered by women

would be extensively remedied by establishing institutions

for training woman for her profession, which shall be as

generously endowed as are the institutions of men, many of

which have been largely endowed by women.

_Resolved_, That the science of domestic economy should be

made a study in all institutions for girls; and that certain

practical employments of the family state should be made a

part of common school education, especially the art of

sewing, which is so needful for the poor; and that we will

use our influence to secure these important measures.

_Resolved_, That every young woman should be trained to some

business by which she can earn an independent livelihood in

case of poverty.

_Resolved_, That in addition to the various in-door

employments suitable for woman, there are other out-door

employments especially favorable to health and equally

suitable, such as raising fruits and flowers, the culture of

silk and cotton, the raising of bees and the superintendence

of dairy farms and manufactures. All of these offer avenues

to wealth and independence for women as properly as men, and

schools for imparting to women the science and practice of

these employments should be provided and as liberally

endowed as are the agricultural schools for men.

_Resolved_, That the American Woman's Educational

Association is an organization which aims to secure to women

these advantages, that its managers have our confidence, and

that we will cooeperate in its plans as far as we have

opportunity.

_Resolved_, That the Protestant clergy would greatly aid in

these efforts by preaching on the honor and duties of the

family state. In order to this, we request their attention

to a work just published by Miss Beecher and Mrs. Stowe,

entitled "The American Woman's Home," which largely

discusses many important topics of this general subject,

while the authors have devoted most of their profits from

this work to promote the plans of the American Woman's

Educational Association.

_Resolved_, That editors of the religious and secular press

will contribute important aid to an effort they must all

approve by inserting these resolutions in their columns.

Among the influences that brought new thought to the question of

woman suffrage was the establishment of _The Revolution_ in 1868.

Radical and defiant in tone, it awoke friends and foes alike to

action. Some denounced it, some ridiculed it, but all read it. It

needed just such clarion notes sounded forth long and loud each

week to rouse the friends of the movement from the apathy into

which they had fallen after the war. One cannot read its glowing

pages to-day without appreciating the power it was just at that

crisis.[210]

Miss Lucy B. Hobbs of New York was the first woman that ever

graduated in the profession of dentistry. She matriculated in the

Cincinnati Dental College in the fall of 1864--passing through a

full course of study, missing but two lectures, and those at the

request of the professor of anatomy. She graduated from that

institution in February, 1866. A letter from the dean of the

college testifies to her worth as follows:

She was a woman of great energy and perseverance. Studious in her

habits, modest and unassuming, she had the respect and kind

regard of every member of the class and faculty. As an operator

she was not surpassed by her associates. Her opinion was asked

and her assistance sought in difficult cases almost daily by her

fellow-students. And though the class of which she was a member

was one of the largest ever in attendance, it excelled all

previous ones in good order and decorum--a condition largely due

to the presence of a lady. In the final examination she was

second to none.

Having received her diploma, she opened an office in Iowa; from

thence she removed to Chicago, and practiced successfully. The

following letter from Mrs. Taylor (formerly Miss Hobbs) gives

further interesting details. Writing to Matilda Joslyn Gage, she

says:

I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to place in

history the fact of my study of dentistry. I was born in Franklin

county, New York, in 1833. You ask my reason for entering the

profession. It was to be independent. I first studied medicine,

but did not like the practice. My preceptor, Professor Cleveland,

advised me to try dentistry, and I commenced with Dr. Samuel

Warde of Cincinnati, finishing my studies in March, 1861. At that

time the faculty of the Ohio Dental College would not permit me

to attend, and there was not a college in the United States that

would admit me, and no amount of persuasion could change their

minds. So far as I know, I was the first woman who had ever taken

instruction of a private tutor.

I went to Iowa to commence practice, and was so successful that

the dentists of the State insisted I should be allowed to attend

the college. Their efforts prevailed, and I graduated from the

Ohio Dental College at Cincinnati in the spring of 1866--the

first woman in the world to take a diploma from a dental college.

I am a New-Yorker by birth, but I love my adopted country--the

West. To it belongs the credit of making it possible for women to

be recognized in the dental profession on equal terms with men.

Should you wish any further proof, write to Dr. Watt, who was

professor of chemistry at the time I graduated, and I know he

will take pleasure in giving you any additional information.

As early as 1866 a system of safe-deposit companies was inaugurated

in New York, which has proved a boon to women, enabling them to

keep any private papers they may wish to preserve. In 1880, we find

the following in the _National Citizen_:

A ladies' exchange for railroad and mining stocks has been

started at 71 Broadway, New York. The rooms are provided with an

indicator, desks and such other conveniences as are required for

business. Messenger boys drop in and out, and a telephone

connects with the office of a prominent Wall-street brokerage

firm. Miss Mary E. Gage, daughter of Frances Dana Gage, is the

manager and proprietor of the business. In reply to the inquiries

of a _Graphic_ reporter, Miss Gage said she had found so much

inconvenience and annoyance in transacting her own operations in

stocks that she concluded to establish an office. After Miss Gage

was fairly settled, other women who labored under the same

disadvantages, began to drop in, their number increasing daily. A

ladies' stock exchange also exists at No. 40 Fourth street, under

charge of Mrs. Favor. The banking houses of Henry Clews and the

wealthy Russell Sage are said to be working in union with this

exchange. In January we chronicled the formation of a woman's

mining company and this month of a woman's stock exchange, each

of them an evidence of the wide range of business women are

entering.

In _The Revolution_ of May 14, 1868, we find the following:

SOROSIS.--This is the name of a new club of literary women, who

meet once a month and lunch at Delmonico's, to discuss questions

of art, science, literature and government. Alice Carey, who is

president, in her opening speech states the object of the club,

which is summed up in this brief extract:

We have proposed the inculcation of deeper and broader ideas

among women, proposed to teach them to think for themselves

and get their opinions at first hand, not so much because it

is their right as because it is their duty. We have also

proposed to open new avenues of employment to women--to make

them less dependent and less burdensome--to lift them out of

unwomanly self-distrust and disqualifying diffidence into

womanly self-respect and self-knowledge. To teach them to

make all work honorable, by each doing the share that falls

to her, or that she may work out to herself agreeably to her

own special aptitude, cheerfully and faithfully--not going

down to it, but bringing it up to her. We have proposed to

enter our protest against all idle gossip, against all

demoralizing and wicked waste of time, also, against the

follies and the tyrannies of fashion, against all external

impositions and disabilities; in short, against each and

every thing that opposes the full development and use of the

faculties conferred upon us by our Creator.

We most heartily welcome all movements for the cultivation of

individual thought and character in woman, and would recommend

the formation of such clubs throughout the country. The editors

of the New York press have made known their dissatisfaction that

no gentlemen were to be admitted into this charmed circle. After

a calm and dispassionate discussion of this question, it was

decided to exclude gentlemen, not because their society was not

most desirable and calculated to add brilliancy to the club, but

from a fear lest the natural reverence of woman for man might

embarrass her in beginning to reason and discuss; lest she should

be awed to silence by their superior presence. It was not because

they love man less, but their own improvement more. For the

comfort of these ostracised ones, we would suggest a hope for the

future. After these ladies become familiar with parliamentary

tactics, and the grave questions that are to come before them for

consideration, it is proposed to admit gentlemen to the

galleries, that they may enjoy the same privileges vouchsafed to

the fair sex in the past, to look down upon the feast, to listen

to the speeches, and to hear "the pale, thoughtful brow," "the

silken moustache," "the flowing locks," "the manly gait and form"

toasted in prose and verse.

This club has met regularly ever since the day of its inauguration,

and has been remarkable for the harmony maintained by its members.

Mrs. Charlotte Wilbour was president for several years, until she

went to reside in Paris, in 1874. Since that time Mrs. Croly has

been, from year to year, elected to that office. Beginning with 12

members,[211] this club now numbers 320.

The most respected live-stock reporter in New York is a woman. Miss

Middie Morgan, pronounced the best judge of horned cattle in this

country. She can tell the weight of a beef on foot at a glance, and

reports the cattle market for the New York _Times_. A correspondent

says:

Her father was a cattle-dealer, and taught her to handle

fearlessly the animals he delighted in. She learned to tell at a

glance the finest points of live-stock, and to doctor bovine and

equine ailments with the utmost skill. With all this, she became

a proficient in Italian and French, and a terse and rapid writer.

A few years ago, after her father's death, she traveled in Italy

with an invalid sister, having an eye to her pet passion--the

horse. While there she met Prince Poniatowsky, also an ardent

admirer of that animal. He mentioned her zooelogical

accomplishments to Victor Emanuel, and the consequence was Miss

Middie was deputed by His Majesty to purchase a hundred or so of

fine horses. She had charge of the blood-horses of King Victor

Emanuel, who owns the finest stud in Europe, and breeds horses of

a superior shape, vigor and fire. He beats Grant in his

admiration for that noble animal. When she decided to come to

this country, she made known the fact to Hon. George P. Marsh,

our minister to Italy; and he gave her a letter of recommendation

to Mr. Bigelow, of the _Times_, who employed her. She is an

expert among all kinds of animals. Her judgment about the

different breeds is sought after and much quoted. She can discuss

the nice points about cattle as easily as Rosa Bonheur can paint

them.[212]

From the Woman's Journal, Oct. 1, 1870:

Miss Barkaloo, the lady just admitted to the St. Louis bar as a

lawyer, and who has received a license to practice as

attorney-at-law from the Supreme Court of that State, is a native

of Brooklyn, N. Y., and is a woman of more than ordinary ability.

Two years ago, after having read Blackstone and other elementary

law-books, she made application for admission as a student at

Columbia College, New York, and was promptly refused. Nothing

daunted, she went to St. Louis, where she was admitted to the Law

School. For eighteen months she assiduously devoted her energies

to the study of the science, and her fellow-students all agreed

in declaring her by far the brightest member of the class. That

there was no question of her ability was clearly shown at her

examination. Judge Knight, although overflowing with gallantry,

gave the lady no quarter. The most abstruse and erudite questions

were propounded to the applicant, but not once did the judge

catch the fair student tripping. Miss Barkaloo was about 22 years

of age, of a fine figure, intelligent face and large, expressive

eyes. The St. Louis papers of last week reported her sudden death

of typhoid fever. According to custom, a meeting of the members

of the St. Louis bar was held to take suitable action and pay

respect to her memory. It was the first meeting of the kind in

the United States, and was largely attended, not only by the

young members of the bar, but by the most distinguished

attorneys. Miss Phoebe Couzins, herself a member of the Law

School, was in attendance, attired in deep mourning for the

recent death of a beloved sister. The following resolutions were

adopted:

_Resolved_, That in the death of Miss Helena Barkaloo we

deplore the loss of the first of her sex ever admitted to

the bar of Missouri.

_Resolved_, That in her erudition, industry and enterprise

we have to regret the loss of one who, in the morning of her

career, bade fair to reflect credit on our profession, and a

new honor upon her sex.

_Resolved_, That our sympathy and condolence be extended to

the relatives of the deceased.

Major Lucien Eaton, into whose office she had entered to seek

opportunities of perfecting herself in the knowledge of her

profession, said that--

He had been requested by an accomplished lady of St. Louis

to afford her that opportunity, and at first had hesitated

to do so; yet he felt that she should have a trial, and

when he took her into his office his conduct met with the

approbation of the legal fraternity generally. That

fraternity cordially sympathized with the efforts she was

making, and both old lawyers and young ones tried to put

business into her hands, the taking of depositions and other

such work as she could perform. He testified to finding her

a true woman; modest and retiring, carefully shunning all

unnecessary publicity, and avoiding all display. She was

earnest in her studies, and being gifted with a fine

intellect and a good judgment, gave promise of great

attainments. He had never known a student more assiduous in

study; she wanted to become mistress of her profession. Her

death is a calamity, not to her friends alone, but to all

who are making an effort for the enlargement of woman's

sphere.

After the closing of the doors of the Geneva Medical School to

women, the Central Medical College of Syracuse was the first to

admit them. Four were graduated in 1852. Since then the two medical

colleges in New York city have graduated hundreds of women. Among

the many in successful practice are Clemence S. Lozier, Emily

Blackwell, Mary Putnam Jacobi, New York; Eliza P. Mosher, Brooklyn;

Sarah R. A. Dolley, Anna H. Searing, Fannie F. Hamilton, Rochester;

Amanda B. Sanford, Auburn; Eveline P. Ballintine, Le Roy; Rachel E.

Gleason, Elmira.

In May, 1870, the New York City Society was formed, with efficient

officers,[213] and pleasant rooms, at 16 Union Square, where

meetings were regularly held on Friday afternoon of each week.

These meetings were well attended and sustained with increasing

interest from month to month. This society held its first meeting

November 27, 1871, which was addressed by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe; and

on January 13, 1872, another, addressed by Jennie Collins, the

indefatigable Bostonian who has done so much for the benefit of the

working girls. A series of meetings was held under the auspices of

this association in many of the chief cities around New York and on

the Hudson, the chief speakers being the officers of the

association. An active German society was soon after formed, with

Mrs. Augusta Lillienthal, president, and Mrs. Matilda F. Wendt,

secretary. The latter published a paper, _Die Neue Zeit_, devoted

to woman suffrage. She was also the correspondent of several

leading journals in Germany. The society held its first public

meeting March 21, 1872, in Turner Hall, Mrs. Wendt presiding. Mrs.

Lillienthal, Mrs. Clara Neyman and Dr. Adolphe Doney were the

speakers. Clara Neyman became afterwards a popular speaker in many

suffrage and free-religious associations.

Petitions were rolled up by both the German and American societies

to the legislature, praying for the right of suffrage, and on

April 3, 1871, the petitioners[214] were granted a hearing, before

the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, Hon. L. Bradford Prince

presiding. Mrs. Wilbour's able address made a most favorable

impression. The question was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The majority report was adverse, the minority, signed by Robert A.

Strahan and C. P. Vedder, favorable.

A grand demonstration was made April 26, 1872, in Cooper Institute,

intended specially to emphasize the claims of wives and mothers to

the ballot, and to show that the City Association had no sympathy

with any theories of free-love. Five thousand cards of invitation

were distributed.

In 1871 women attempted to vote in different parts of the State,

among whom were Matilda Joslyn Gage at Fayetteville, and Mrs.

Louise Mansfield at Nyack, but were repulsed. In 1872 others did

vote under the fourteenth amendment, conspicuously Susan B.

Anthony, who, as an example for the rest, was arrested, tried,

convicted and fined.[215] Mrs. Gage published a woman's rights

catechism to answer objections made at that time to woman's voting,

which proved a valuable campaign document. We find the names of

Mary R. Pell of Flushing, Helen M. Loder of Poughkeepsie, and

Elizabeth B. Whitney of Harlem, frequently mentioned at this time

for their valuable services.

The following items show the varied capacity of women for many

employments:

In March, 1872, Miss Charlotte E. Ray (colored) of New York, was

graduated at the Howard University Law School, and admitted to

practice in the courts of the District of Columbia at

Washington.--The headquarters of the Women's National Relief

Association is in New York; its object is supplying government

stations along the coast with beds, blankets, warm clothing and

other necessaries for shipwrecked persons.----Miss Leggett, for a

long time proprietor of a book and paper store in New York,

established a home, in 1878, for women, on Clinton Square, which

is in all respects antipodal to Stewart's Hotel. It is governed

by no stringent rules or regulations. No woman is liable without

cause, at the mere caprice of the founder, to be suddenly

required to leave, as was the case in Judge Hilton's home. On the

contrary, it is the object of the founder to provide a _real_

home for women. The house is not only provided with a library,

piano, etc., but its inmates are allowed to bring their

sewing-machines, hang pictures upon the walls, put up private

book-racks, etc. The price, too, but $4 a week, falls more nearly

within the means of laboring women than the $6 to $10 of the

Stewart Hotel.----The first penny lunch-room in New York was

established by a woman, who made it a source of revenue.----The

inventor of the submarine telescope, a woman, has received

$10,000 for her invention.----Deborah Powers, now over ninety

years of age, is the head of a large oil-cloth manufactory in

Troy. Her sons are engaged in business with her, but she, still

bright and active, remains at the head of the firm. This is the

largest oil-cloth factory in the United States. She was left a

widow with three sons, with a heavy mortgage on her estate. She

secured an extension of time, built up the business and educated

her sons to the work. She is also president of a bank.----A

successful nautical school in New York is conducted by two

ladies, Mrs. Thorne and her daughter, Mrs. Brownlow. These ladies

have made several voyages and studied navigation, both

theoretically and practically. During the late war they prepared

for the navy 2,000 mates and captains bringing their knowledge of

navigation up to the standard required by the strict examiners of

the naval board.----Mrs. Wilson, since a New York custom-house

inspector, took charge, in 1872, of her husband's ship, disabled

in a terrific gale off Newfoundland in which his collar-bone was

broken and a portion of the crew badly hurt. The main-mast having

been cut down she rigged a jury-mast, and after twenty-one days

brought ship and crew safe to port.

Miss Jennie Turner, a short-hand writer of New York, is a notary

public. In a recent law-suit some of the papers were "sworn to"

before her in her official capacity, and one of the attorneys

claimed that it was not verified, inasmuch as a woman "could not

legally hold public office." The judge decided that the paper

must be accepted as properly verified, and said that the only way

to oust her was in a direct action by the attorney-general. The

judge said:

Whether a female is capable of holding public office has

never been decided by the courts of this State, and is a

question about which legal minds may well differ. The

constitution regulates the right of suffrage and limits it

to "male" citizens. Disabilities are not favored, and are

seldom extended by implication, from which it may be argued

that if it required the insertion of the term "male" to

exclude female citizens of lawful age from the right of

suffrage, a similar limitation would be required to

disqualify them from holding office. Citizenship is a

condition or status and has no relation to age or sex. It

may be contended that it was left to the good sense of the

executive and to the electors to determine whether or not

they would select females to office, and that the power

being lodged in safe hands was beyond the danger of abuse.

If, on the other hand, it be seriously contended that the

constitution, by necessary implication, disqualifies females

from holding office, it must follow as a necessary

consequence that the act of the legislature permitting

females to serve as school officers, and all other

legislative enactments of like import removing such

disqualification, are unconstitutional and void. In this

same connection it may be argued that if the use of the

personal pronoun "he" in the constitution does not exclude

females from public office, its use in the statute can have

no greater effect. The statute, like the constitution, in

prescribing the qualifications for office, omits the word

"male," leaving the question whether female citizens of

lawful age are included or excluded, one of construction.

Miss Anna Ballard, a reporter on the staff of the New York _Sun_,

was elected a member of the Press Club, in 1877, by a vote of 24

to 10. Within the last ten years women contributors to the press

have become numerous. The book-reviewer of the _Herald_ is a

woman; one of the book-reviewers of the _Tribune_, one of its

most valued correspondents and several of its regular

contributors are women; the agricultural and market reporter of

the New York _Times_ is a woman; the New York _Sun's_ fashion

writer is a woman, and also one of its most industrious and

sagacious reporters. Female correspondents flood the evening

papers with news from Washington. We instance these not at all as

a complete catalogue; for there are, we doubt not, more than a

hundred women known and recognized in and about Printing-house

Square as regular contributors to the columns of the daily and

weekly press. As a rule they are modest, reputable pains-taking

servants of the press; and it is generally conceded that if they

are willing to put up with the inconveniences attending

journalistic work, it is no part of men's duty to interfere with

their attempt to earn an honest livelihood in a profession which

has so many avenues as yet uncrowded. Miss Ellen A. Martin,

formerly of Jamestown, N. Y., a graduate of the Law School of Ann

Arbor, in 1875, was admitted to the bar by the Supreme Court of

Illinois, at the January term, and is practicing in Chicago,

occupying an office with Miss Perry, Room 39, No. 143 La Salle

street. Mrs. Martha J. Lamb was the first woman ever admitted to

membership in the New York State Historical Society. Her "History

of New York City" is recognized as a standard authority, and has

already taken rank among the great histories of the world.

During the summer of 1872 the presidential campaign agitated the

country. As Horace Greeley, who was opposed to woman suffrage, was

running against Grant and Wilson, who were in favor, and as the

Republican platform contained a plank promising some consideration

for the loyal women of the nation, a great demonstration was held

in Cooper Institute, New York, October 7. The large hall was

crowded by an excited throng. Hon. Luther R. Marsh presided. The

speakers[216] were all unusually happy. Mrs. Blake's[217] address

was applauded to a recall, when she went forward and asked the

audience to give three cheers for the woman suffrage candidates,

Grant and Wilson, which they did with hearty good will.

During the winter of 1873 a commission was sitting at Albany to

revise the constitution of New York. As it seemed fitting that

women should press their claims to the ballot, memorials were

presented and hearings requested by both the State and City

societies. Accordingly Mr. Silliman, the chairman, appointed

February 18, to hear the memorialists. A large delegation of ladies

went from New York.[218] The commission was holding its sessions in

the common-council chamber, and when the time arrived for the

hearing the room was crowded with an attentive audience. The

members of the Committee on Suffrage were all present, Mr. Silliman

presided. Matilda Joslyn Gage represented the State association,

speaking upon the origin of government and the rights pertaining

thereto. Mrs. Wilbour and Mrs. Blake represented the New York City

Society, and each alike made a favorable impression. The Albany

_Evening Journal_ gave a large space to a description of the

occasion. The respectful hearing, however, was the beginning and

the end, as far as could be seen, of all impression made on the

committee, which coolly recommended that suffrage be secured to

colored men by ratifying the fifteenth amendment, while making no

recognition whatever of the women of the State. A memorial was at

once sent to the legislature and another hearing was granted on

February 27. Mrs. Blake[219] was the only speaker on that occasion.

The Hon. Bradford Prince, of Queens, presided. At the close of Mrs.

Blake's remarks James W. Husted of Westchester, in a few earnest

words, avowed himself henceforth a champion of the cause. Shortly

afterwards the Hon. George West presented a constitutional

amendment giving to every woman possessed of $250 the right to

vote, thus placing the women of the State in the same position with

the colored men before the passage of the fifteenth amendment; but

even this was denied. The amendment was referred to the Judiciary

Committee and there entombed. Large meetings[220] were held at

Robinson Hall during the winter, and at Apollo Hall in May, and in

different localities about New York.

July 2, 1873, an indignation meeting was held by the City Society

to protest against the sentence pronounced by Judge Hunt in the

case of Susan B. Anthony. De Garmo Hall was crowded. The platform

was decorated with the United States flag draped with black

bunting, while on each side were banners, one bearing the

inscription, "Respectful Consideration for a Loyal Woman's Vote!

$100 Fine!" the other, "Shall One Federal Judge Abolish Trial by

Jury?" Dr. Clemence Lozier presided, and Mrs. Devereux Blake made a

stirring speech reviewing Miss Anthony's trial and Judge Hunt's

decision.[221] Mr. Hamilton Wilcox made a manly protest against

Judge Hunt's high-handed act of oppression, and Mrs. Marie Rachel

made another, in behalf of the German association.

In October, 1873, Mrs. Devereux Blake made an effort to open the

doors of Columbia College to women. A class of four young

ladies[222] united in asking admission. Taking them with her, Mrs.

Blake went before the president and faculty, who gave her a

respectful hearing. She argued that the charter of the college

itself declared that it was founded for "the education of the youth

of the city", and that the word _youth_ was defined in all

dictionaries as "young persons of both sexes," so that by its very

foundation it was intended that girls as well as boys should enjoy

the benefits of the university, and it was no more than just that

they should, seeing that the original endowment was by the "rectors

and inhabitants of the city of New York," one-half of these

inhabitants being women. Mrs. Blake's[223] application was referred

to "the Committee on the Course of Instruction," and after some

weeks of consideration was refused, on the ground that "it was

inexpedient," the Rev. Morgan Dix being especially active in his

opposition. However, soon after this, the lectures of the college

were open to ladies, and a few years later President Barnard warmly

recommended that young women should be admitted as students to all

the privileges of the university.

A Woman's Congress was organized at New York, October 15, 16, 17,

1873, in the Union League Theater. Representative women[224] were

there from all parts of the country. Its object was similar to the

social science organizations--the discussion of a wider range of

subjects than could be tolerated on the platforms of any specific

reform. Mary A. Livermore presided, and the meeting was considered

a great success. The speeches and proceedings were published in

pamphlet form, and still are from year to year. This had been an

idea long brewing in many minds, and was at last realized through

the organizing talent of Mrs. Charlotte B. Wilbour, the originator

of Sorosis. From year to year they have held regular meetings in

the chief cities of the different States.

Dr. Clemence Lozier,[225] president of the city society, early

opened her spacious parlors to the monthly meetings, where they

have been held for many years. This association has been active and

vigilant, taking note of and furthering every step of progress in

Church and State. Mrs. Lozier and Mrs. Blake have worked most

effectively together, the former furnishing the sinews of war, and

the latter making the attack all along the line, to the terror of

the faint-hearted.

The era of centennial celebrations was now approaching, and it was

proposed to hold a suitable commemoration on the one-hundredth

anniversary of the Boston tea-party, December 16, 1873. Union

League Theater was, on the appointed evening, filled to its utmost

capacity. The platform was decorated with flowers and filled with

ladies, Dr. Lozier presiding. Miss Anthony was the speaker of the

evening, and made a most effective address; Helen Potter gave a

recitation; Hannah M'L. Shepherd read letters of sympathy; Mrs.

Blake made a short closing address, and presented a series of

resolutions, couched in precisely the same language as that adopted

by our ancestors in protesting against taxation without

representation:

_Resolved_, That as an expression of the sentiments of the

tax-paying women of New York, we reiterate, as applied to

ourselves, the declaration contained in the bill of rights put

forth by our ancestors 100 years ago: _First_--That the women of

the country are entitled to equal rights and privileges with the

men; _Second_--That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of

a people, and the undoubted right of all men and women, that no

taxes be imposed on them but by their own consent, given in

person or by their representatives; _Third_--That the only

representatives of these women are persons chosen by themselves,

and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally

imposed upon them but by legislatures composed of persons so

chosen.

The report of the State assessors[226] of 1883 brought forcibly to

view the injustice done in taxing non-voters. At their meeting with

the supervisors of Onondaga county, Mr. Pope of Fabius said: "Mrs.

Andrews is assessed too much." Mr. Hadley replied: "Well, Mr.

Briggs says that is the way all the women are assessed." Mr. Briggs

responded: "Yes, that is the way we find the assessors treat the

women; they can't vote, you know! I am in favor of letting the

women vote now."

Two women in the village of Batavia were assessed for more personal

property than the entire assessment of like property, exclusive of

corporations, in the city of Rochester with a population of 70,000!

While declaring they had found very little personal property

assessed, Mr. Fowler said: "We found some cases where town

assessors had taxed the personal property of women, and one case

of a ward who was assessed to full value, while upon the guardian's

property there was no assessment at all." This report not only

proved a good woman suffrage document, but the work done by the

State assessors, Messrs. Hadley, Briggs and Fowler, convinced them

personally of woman's need of the ballot for the protection of her

property.

Early in the year 1874, memorials from societies in different parts

of the State were sent to the legislature, asking "that all taxes

due from women be remitted until they are allowed to vote." The

most active of these anti-tax societies was the one formed in

Rochester through the efforts of Mrs. Lewia C. Smith, whose

earnestness and fidelity in this, as in many another good word and

work, have been such as to command the admiration even of

opponents--a soul of that sweet charity that makes no account of

self. A hearing was appointed for the memorialists on January 24,

and the journals[227] made honorable mention of the occasion.

The centennial was approaching and the notes of preparation were

heard on all sides. The women who understood their status as

disfranchised citizens in a republic, regarded the coming event as

one for them of humiliation rather than rejoicing, inasmuch as the

close of the first century of the nation's existence found one half

the people still political slaves. At the February meeting of the

association, Mrs. Blake presented the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the members of this society do hereby pledge

themselves not to aid either by their labor, time or money, the

proposed celebration of the independence of the men of the

nation, unless before July 4, 1876, the women of the land shall

be guaranteed their political freedom.

In their own way, however, the members of the society intended to

observe such centennials as were fitting, and so preparation was

made for a suitable commemoration of the battle of Lexington. They

held a meeting[228] in the Union League Theatre, the evening of

April 19, to protest against their disfranchisement. The journals

contained fair reports, with the exception of _The Tribune_, which

sent no reporter, and closed its account next day of many

observances elsewhere by saying, "there was no celebration in New

York city." Several of the papers published Mrs. Blake's speech:

Just as the first rays of dawn stole across our city this

morning, the century was complete since the founders of this

nation made their first great stand for liberty. The early April

sunshine a hundred years ago saw a group of men and boys gathered

together, "a few rods north of the meeting-house," in the

Massachusetts village of Lexington. Un-uniformed and

undisciplined, standing in the chilly morning, that handful of

patriots represented the great Republic which on that day was to

spring from their martyrdom. The rebellious colonists had

collected in the hamlets near Boston some military stores; these

the British officers in command at Boston resolved should be

seized and destroyed. Warned of their design Paul Revere made his

famous ride to arouse the country to resistance, and in the dead

of night Adams and Hancock went out to summon their comrades to

arms. As the last stars vanished before the dawn, the drum beat

to summon the patriots to action, and in response a little band

of about eighty men and boys assembled on the village green. Few

as they were in numbers, they presented a brave front as the

British regulars came up the quiet street, 200 strong. What

followed was not a battle, but a butchery. The minute-men refused

to surrender to Major Pitcairn's haughty demand, and a volley of

musketry, close and deadly, was poured on this devoted band. In

response only a few random shots were fired, which did absolutely

no harm, and then, seeing the hopelessness of resistance, the

commander of the minute-men ordered them to disperse. The

British, elated with their easy victory, pushed on toward

Concord, thinking that there another speedy success awaited them.

In this they soon bitterly learned their error. Although they

were reinforced on the way, when they reached that village they

were met by such a resistance as drove them back, broken and

disorganized, on the road they had so proudly followed in the

morning. Concord nobly avenged the slaughter at Lexington.

So much for what men did on that day, and let us see what share

the women had in its dangers and its sorrows. Jonathan Harris was

shot in front of his own house, while his wife was watching him

from a window, seeing him fall with such anguish as no poor words

of mine can describe. He struggled to his feet, the blood gushing

from a wound in his breast, staggered forward a few paces and

fell again, and then crawled on his hands and knees to his

threshold only to expire just as his wife reached him. Did not

this woman bear her portion of the martyrdom? Isaac Davis, a man

in the prime of life, went forth from his home in the morning,

and before the afternoon sunlight had grown yellow, was brought

back to it dead, and was laid, pale and cold, in his wife's bed,

only three hours after he had left her with a solemn benediction

of farewell. Did not this woman also suffer? She was left a widow

in the very flower of her youth, and for seventy years she

faithfully mourned his taking off! Nor were these the only ones;

for every man who fell that day, some woman's heart was wrung.

There were others who endured actual physical hardship and

suffering. Hannah Adams lay in bed with an infant only a week old

when the British reached her house in their disorderly retreat

to Boston; they forced her to leave her sick room and to crawl

into an adjoining corn shed, while they burned her house to ashes

in her sight. Three companies of British troops went to the house

of Major Barrett and demanded food. Mrs. Barrett served them as

well as she was able, and when she was offered compensation,

refused it, saying gently, "We are commanded if our enemy hunger

to feed him." So, in toil or suffering or anguish the women

endured their share of the sorrows of that day. Do they not

deserve a share of its glories also? The battles of Lexington and

Concord form an era in our country's history. When, driven to

desperation by a long course of oppression, the people first

resolved to revolt against the mother country. Discontent,

resentment and indignation had grown stronger month by month

among the hardy settlers of the land, until they culminated in

the most splendid act of audacity that the world has ever seen. A

few colonies, scattered at long intervals along the Atlantic

seaboard, dared to defy the proudest nation in Europe, and a few

rustics, undisciplined, and almost unarmed, actually ventured to

encounter in battle that army which had boasted its conquests

over the flower of European chivalry. What unheard of oppressions

drove these people to the mad attempt? What unheard of atrocities

had the rulers of these people practiced, what unjust

confiscations of property, what cruel imprisonments and wicked

murders? None of all these; the people of this land were not

starving or dying under the iron heel of an Alva or a

Robespierre, but their civil liberties had been denied, their

political freedom refused, and rather than endure the loss of

these precious things, they were willing to encounter danger and

to brave death. The men and women who suffered at Concord and at

Lexington 100 years ago to-day, were martyrs to the sacred cause

of personal liberty! Looking over the records of the past we

find, again and again repeated, the burden of their complaints.

Not that they were starving or dying, but that they were taxed

without their consent, and that they were denied personal

representation.

The congress which assembled at Philadelphia in 1774, declared

that "the foundation of liberty and of all free governments is

the right of the people to participate in their legislative

council"; and the House of Burgesses, assembled in Virginia in

the same year, asserted "That a determined system is formed and

pressed for reducing us to slavery, by subjecting us to the

payment of taxes imposed without our consent." Strong language

this, as strong as any we women have ever employed in addressing

the men of this nation. Our ancestors called the imposition of

taxes without their consent, slavery, and the denial of personal

representation, tyranny. Slavery and tyranny! words which they

tell us to-day are too strong for our use. We must find some mild

and lady-like phrases in which to describe these oppressions. We

must employ some safe and gentle terms to indicate the crimes

which our forefathers denounced! My friends, what was truth a

century ago is truth to-day! Other things may have changed, but

justice has not changed in a hundred years!

In 1876 a presidential election was again approaching, and to meet

the exigencies of the campaign a woman suffrage committee was

formed to ask the legislature to grant presidential suffrage to

women, as it was strictly within their power to do without a

constitutional amendment. To this end Mrs. Gage prepared an appeal

which was widely circulated throughout the State:

Within a year the election of President and Vice-President of the

United States, will again take place. The right to vote for these

functionaries is a National and not a State right; the United

States has unquestioned control of this branch of suffrage, and

in its constitution has declared to whom it has delegated this

power. Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States, is

devoted to the president; the manner of choosing him, his power,

his duties, etc. In regard to the method of choosing the

president, Par. 2, Sec. 1, Art. 2, reads thus: "Each State shall

appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a

number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and

representatives to which the State may be entitled in the

congress." There is no other authority for the appointment of

presidential electors, either in the Constitution of the United

States, or in the constitution of any State. The constitution of

the State of New York is entirely silent upon the appointment of

presidential electors, for the reason that the constitution of

the United States declares that they _shall_ be appointed in such

manner as the legislature may direct. With the exception of South

Carolina, every State in the Union has adopted the plan of

choosing presidential electors by ballot, and it is in the power

of the legislature of each State to prescribe the qualifications

of those who shall be permitted to vote for such electors.

The authority to prescribe the qualifications of those persons in

the State of New York who shall be permitted to vote for electors

of President and Vice-President of the United States, therefore

lies alone in the legislature of this State. That body has power

in this respect superior to the State constitution; it rises

above the constitution; it is invested with its powers by the

Constitution of the United States; it is under national

authority, and need in no way be governed by any representative

clause which may exist in the State constitution. In prescribing

the qualifications of those persons who shall vote for electors,

the legislature has power to exclude all persons who cannot read

and write. It has power to say that no person unless possessing a

freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars,

shall vote for such electors. It has power to declare that only

tax-payers shall vote for such electors, it is even vested with

authority to say that no one but church members shall be entitled

to vote for electors of President and Vice-President of the

United States. The legislature of this State at its next session

has even power to cut off the right of all white men to vote for

electors at the presidential election next fall. It matters not

what qualifications the State itself may have prescribed for

electors of State officers, the question who shall vote for

president and vice-president is on an entirely different basis,

and prescribing the qualifications for such electors lies in

entirely different hands. It is a question of national import

with which the State (in its constitution) has nothing to do, and

over which even congress has no power. The legislature which is

to assemble in Albany, the first Tuesday in January next, will

have power, by the passage of a simple bill, to secure to the

women of this State the right to vote for electors at the

presidential election in the fall of 1876, and thus to inaugurate

the centennial year by an act of equity and justice that will be

in accordance with that part of the Declaration of Independence

which declares that "governments derive their _just_ powers from

the consent of the governed." Shall it not be done?

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE,

LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE,

CLEMENCE S. LOZIER, M. D.,

_N. Y. State Woman Suffrage Com._

[Illustration: Lillie Devereux Blake]

A memorial embodying this claim was presented to the legislature,

and on, January 18, the committee went to Albany and were heard by

the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, to whom their paper had

been referred. Hon. Robert H. Strahan of New York presided. On

February 8, the memorialists[229] had another meeting before the

Judiciary Committee of the Senate, in the Senate chamber, Hon.

Bradford L. Prince presiding. The audience was overflowing, and the

corridors so crowded that the meeting adjourned to the Assembly

chamber by order of the chairman. Soon after, Hon. George H. West

of Saratoga presented a bill giving the women of the State the

right to vote for president. It was referred to the Judiciary

Committee and reported adversely, notwithstanding it was twice

called up and debated by its friends, Messrs. Strahan, Husted,

Ogden, Hogeboom and West. No vote was reached on the measure, but

this much of consideration was a gain over previous years, when

nothing had been done beyond the presentation of a bill and its

reference to a committee.

In 1876 Governor Samuel J. Tilden appointed Mrs. Josephine Shaw

Lowell as commissioner of the State Board of Charities, the first

official position a woman ever held in this State.

During the winter of 1877 a memorial was sent to the legislature,

asking that women be allowed to serve as school officers. The Hon.

William N. Emerson, senator from Monroe, presented the following

bill:

AN ACT _to Authorize the Election of Women to School Offices._

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and

Assembly, do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Any woman of the age of twenty-one years and upwards,

and possessing the qualifications prescribed for men, shall be

eligible to any office under the general or special school laws

of this State, subject to the same conditions and requirements as

prescribed to men.

SEC. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Petitions and memorials from all parts of the State were poured

into the legislature, praying for the passage of the bill. Mr.

Emerson made an eloquent speech in its favor, and labored earnestly

for the measure. It passed the Senate by a vote of 19 to 9; the

Assembly by a vote of 84 to 19. This success was hailed with great

rejoicing by the women of the State who understood the progress of

events. But their delight was turned into indignation and

disappointment when the governor, Lucius Robinson, returned the

bill to the Senate with the following veto:

STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, }

ALBANY, May 8, 1877. }

_To the Senate:_

I return without approval Senate bill No. 61, entitled "An act to

authorize the election of women to school offices."

This bill goes too far or not far enough. It provides that women

may hold any or all of the offices connected with the department

of education, that is to say, a woman may be elected

superintendent of public instruction, women may be appointed

school commissioners, members of boards of education and trustees

of school districts. In some of these positions it will become

their duty to make contracts, purchase materials, build and

repair school-houses, and to supervise and effect all the

transactions of school business, involving an annual expenditure

of over twelve million dollars in this State. There can be no

greater reason that women should occupy these positions than the

less responsible ones of supervisors, town clerks, justices of

the peace, commissioners of highways, overseers of the poor, and

numerous others. If women are physically and mentally fitted for

one class of these stations, they are equally so for the others.

But at this period in the history of the world such enactments as

the present hardly comport with the wisdom and dignity of

legislation. The God of nature has appointed different fields of

labor, duty and usefulness for the sexes. His decrees cannot be

changed by human legislation. In the education of our children

the mother stands far above all superintendents, commissioners,

trustees and school teachers. Her influence in the family, in

social intercourse and enterprises, outweighs all the mere

machinery of benevolence and education. To lower her from the

high and holy place given her by nature, is to degrade her power

and to injure rather than benefit the cause of education itself.

In all enlightened and Christian nations the experience and

observations of ages have illustrated and defined the relative

duties of the sexes in promoting the best interests of society.

Few, if any, of the intelligent and right-minded among women

desire or would be willing to accept the change which such a law

would inaugurate.

The bill is moreover a clear infraction of the spirit if not the

letter of the constitution. Under that instrument women have no

right to vote, and it cannot be supposed that it is the intention

of the constitution that persons not entitled to the right of

suffrage should be eligible to some of the most important offices

in the State.

L. ROBINSON.

On May 24, 25, 1877, the National and State conventions were again

held in New York, at Steinway Hall. Both conventions passed

resolutions denouncing Governor Robinson's action in his veto. The

following address was issued by the State association:

_To the Voters and Legislators of New York:_

The women of the State of New York, in convention assembled, do

most earnestly protest against the injustice with which they are

treated by the State, where in point of numbers they are in

excess of the men: