summing up is as follows:
We, therefore, respectfully report that in our opinion it is
the legal right of these ladies to attend, and it is the
legal duty of this college to give them, as students, a
second course of lectures on the terms of the announcement
which forms the basis of the contract with them.
This report was signed by all the committee, and read by W. S.
Pierce, one of the number, and judge of the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia. It carried with it, therefore, all the force of
a judicial decision, and was so accepted by the board, and
adopted at once. This left the majority of the faculty no choice
but to accept the decision as final as far as these ladies were
concerned. This they did, and the three were invited to resume
their studies. Two, Misses Ramborger and Wilcke, accepted, Miss
Jacoby refused and went to Baltimore.
The most interesting feature of this matter, and that which
clearly demonstrated a marked advance in public opinion, was the
stir it made in the press. The daily and Sunday papers bristled
with strong leaders, the faculty being denounced in no measured
terms for their action. To such an extent was this carried, and
so overwhelming was the indignation, that it practically settled
the question for Philadelphia, although several years elapsed
after these ladies were graduated before others were accepted.
When that time did arrive, under the present dean, Dr. C. N.
Pierce, they were accorded everything, without any reservation,
and the school has continued ever since to accept them. At the
meeting of the National Association of Dentists, held at
Saratoga, 1869, Dr. Truman introduced a resolution looking to the
recognition of women in the profession. The resolution and the
remarks were kindly received, but were, of course, laid on the
table. This was expected, the object being to make the thought
familiar in every section of the country.
These efforts have borne rich fruit, and now women are being
educated at a majority of the prominent dental colleges, and no
complaints are heard of coeducation in this department of work.
The college that first accepted and then rejected--the
Pennsylvania of Philadelphia--has a yearly average of seven to
eight women, nearly equally divided between America and Germany.
Of the three dental schools in Philadelphia, two accept women,
and the third--the Dental Department of the University of
Pennsylvania--would, if the faculty were not overruled by the
governing powers.
The learned theories that were promulgated in regard to the
injury the practice of dentistry would be to women, have all
fallen to the ground. The advocates of women in dentistry were
met at the outstart with the health question, and as it had never
been tested, the most favorably inclined looked forward with some
anxiety to the result. Fifteen years have elapsed since then, and
almost every town in Germany is supplied with a woman in this
profession. Many are also established in America. These have all
the usual requisites of bodily strength, and the writer has yet
to learn of a single failure from physical deterioration.
The first lady, Miss Lucy B. Hobbs, to graduate in dentistry, was
sent out from the Cincinnati College, and she, I believe, is
still in active practice in Kansas. She graduated in 1866. Mrs.
Hirschfeld, before spoken of, returned to Germany and became at
once a subject for the fun of the comic papers, and for the more
serious work of the _Bajan_ and _Uberlana und Meer_, both of them
containing elaborate and illustrated notices of her. She had some
friends in the higher walks of life; notable amongst these was
President Lette of the _Trauen-Verein_, whose aid and powerful
influence had assisted her materially in the early stages of her
effort. The result of these combined forces soon placed her in
possession of a large practice. She was patronized by ladies in
the highest circles, including the crown princess. She
subsequently married, had two boys to rear and educate, and a
large household to supervise. She has assisted several of her
relatives into professions, two in medicine and two in dentistry,
besides aiding many worthy persons. She has established a clinic
for women in Berlin, something very badly needed there. This is
in charge of two physicians, one being her husband's sister, Dr.
Fanny Tiburtius. She has also started a hospital for women.
These are mainly supported by her individual exertions.
Notwithstanding all these multifarious and trying duties, she
practices daily, and is as well physically and mentally as when
she commenced. Fraulein Valeske Wilcke of Koenigsberg has been
over twelve years in a very large practice with no evil results;
Miss Annie D. Ramborger, an equal time, with an equally large
practice, and enjoys apparently far better health than most
ladies of thirty.
Dentistry is, probably, one of the most trying professions, very
few men being equal to the severe strain, and many are obliged to
succumb. No woman has as yet failed, though it would not be at
all remarkable if such were the case. The probabilities are that
comparatively few will choose it as a profession, but that
another door has been opened for employment is a cause for
congratulation with all right-thinking minds.
For opening this profession to women a debt of gratitude is due to
Dr. Truman from all his countrywomen, as well as to those noble
German students, who have so ably filled the positions he secured
for them. Similar struggles, both in medicine and dentistry, were
encountered in other States, but the result was as it must be in
every case, the final triumph of justice for women. Already they
are in most of the colleges and hospitals, and members of many of
the State and National associations.
In 1870, the Society of Friends founded Swarthmore College[263] for
the education of both sexes, erecting a fine building in a
beautiful locality. At the dedication of this institution, Lucretia
Mott was elected to honorary membership and invited to the
platform. With her own hands she planted the first tree, which now
adorns those spacious grounds.
The persecutions that women encountered in every onward step soon
taught them the necessity of remodeling the laws and customs for
themselves. They began to see the fallacy of the old ideas, that
men looked after the interests of women, "that they were their
natural protectors," that they could safely trust them to legislate
on their personal and property rights; for they found in almost
every case that whatever right and privilege man claimed for
himself, he proposed exactly the opposite for women. Hence the
necessity for them to have a voice as to the laws and the rulers
under which they lived. Whatever reform they attempted they soon
found their labors valueless, because they had no power to remedy
any evils protected by law. After laboring in temperance,
prison-reform, coeducation, and women's rights in the trades and
professions, their hopes all alike centered at last in the suffrage
movement.
In 1866, a suffrage association was formed in Philadelphia at a
meeting of the American Equal Rights Society,[264] held in Franklin
Institute. This convention was marked by a heated debate on the
duty of the abolitionists now that the black man was emancipated,
to make the demand for the enfranchisement of women, as well as the
freedmen.
We are indebted to John K. Wildman of Philadelphia for the
following:
The Pennsylvania association was organized December 22, 1869, in
Mercantile Library Hall, Philadelphia. The meeting was called to
order by John K. Wildman, who said: "The time has arrived when it
is necessary for us to take some action towards promoting the
cause of woman suffrage. We desire to do our part as far as
practicable, in the work of enlightening the people of our State
upon this important subject. With this end in view we propose to
organize, hoping that all friends of the movement will cordially
give us their influence." Edward M. Davis then proposed the
appointment of Judge William S. Pierce as chairman of the
meeting. This was agreed to, and Judge Pierce announced that the
meeting was ready for business, reserving for another stage of
the proceedings any remarks he might wish to make. Annie Heacock
was chosen to act as secretary. In accordance with a motion that
was adopted, the chairman appointed a committee of five
persons[265] to prepare a constitution, and present the same for
the action of the meeting. Mary Grew spoke at length in her
earnest and impressive manner, presenting forcibly those familiar
yet solid arguments in favor of woman suffrage which form the
basis of the discussion, and which should irrevocably settle the
question. Dr. Henry T. Child followed with a brief address,
showing his zealous interest in the object of the meeting, and
trusting that at no distant period the ballot would be placed in
the hands of the women of the land. Judge Pierce said:
I am in favor of giving woman a chance in the world. I feel
very much in regard to woman as Diogenes did when Alexander
the Great went to see him. When the monarch arrived at the
city in which Diogenes lived, he sent a request for him to
come to see him. Diogenes declined to go. The monarch then
went to the place of his residence, and found him lying in
his court-yard sunning himself. He did not even rise when
Alexander approached. Standing over him, the warrior asked,
"Diogenes, what can I do for you?" And the philosopher
answered, "Nothing, except to stand out of my sunshine."
Now, I am disposed to stand out of woman's sunshine. If she
wants the light of the sun upon her, and the breath of
heaven upon her, and freedom of action necessary to develop
herself, heaven forbid that I should stand in her way. I
believe that everything goes to its own place in God's
world, and woman will go to her place if you do not impede
her. We should not be afraid to trust her, or to apply the
same principles to her in regard to suffrage that we apply
to ourselves. There should be no distinction. Her claims to
the ballot rest upon a just and logical foundation.
The venerable Sojourner Truth spoke a few words of encouragement,
showing in her humble and fervid way a reverent faith in the
final triumph of justice. After the adoption of the constitution,
the organization was completed by the election of officers[266]
to serve for the ensuing year.
The first thing that claimed the attention of the officers of the
new society was the representation of the different counties on
the executive committee; and for this purpose the chairman wrote
to nearly all of the sixty-three counties, chiefly to the
postmasters of the principal towns. The replies that were
received presented a curious medley of sentiment and opinion
touching the object in view, disclosing every shade of tone and
temper between the two extremes of cold indifference and warm
enthusiasm. It was evident that, in a large number of cases, the
inquiries promptly found their resting-place in the waste-basket.
Before the close of the year twenty-two counties were
represented. Thus reinforced, the committee took immediate steps
towards distributing documents and circulating petitions
throughout the State. Many of the county members cooeperated
earnestly in this work. Some of them, not satisfied to limit
their action to this particular form of service, aided the
movement by collecting funds and holding public meetings in their
respective localities. Matilda Hindman, representing Alleghany
county, evinced both energy and enterprise in forwarding the
movement through the agency of public meetings. She did good
service from the beginning, relying almost solely upon her own
determined purpose. Her deep interest in the work and its object,
and the courage that animated her at the first impulse of duty,
have continued without abatement to the present time. Her
usefulness and activity have not confined themselves within the
limits of Pennsylvania, but have extended to other States, both
in the East and West.
Miss Matilda Hindman, of Philadelphia, pays the following tribute
to her parents:
In 1837, my father being a member of the school committee of
the Union township, Washington county, secured equal
salaries for women; and in spite of steady opposition, there
was no difference made for four years. The women who taught
the schools in the summer were paid the same as the men who
taught in the winter. At the death of my father the board
returned to the old system of half pay for women; the result
was "incompetent teachers," furnishing the opposition with
just the plea they desired--that women were not fit for
school teachers. My mother remonstrated, but in vain. They
replied, "women never received as much as men for any work";
"it did not cost as much to keep a woman as a man," and
moreover, these school matters belonged to men, and women
had no right to interfere. In 1842, my mother offered to
board the teacher in her district, gratis, if the board
would raise her salary proportionally. They received her
proposition with scorn. She then refused to pay her taxes.
Such was the respect for her in the community, and the sense
of justice in regard to the teachers, that the authorities
suffered the tax to go unpaid, and at the end of the year
accepted the proposition, and for many years after, she
boarded the teacher in her district, making the woman's net
salary equal to that of the man.
My mother lived to see her daughters employed in her
township on equal salaries with men. But in process of time,
another board, for the express purpose of humiliating mother
and daughters alike, passed a resolution to take two dollars
a month from each of their salaries, when all three
resigned. They all honored her, by carrying into their
life-work the noble principles for which she suffered so
much.
She was the grand-daughter of a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian
minister, who, with his young family, was among the earliest
settlers in the wilderness of what is now known as the
prosperous and beautiful county of Washington, Pennsylvania.
Her name was Sarah Campbell. She was born in 1798. From her
earliest girlhood she rebelled against the injustice done
women by the law. She felt acutely the wrong done her and
her sisters by being denied an education equal to their
brothers, and denied also an equal share of their
inheritance. While the father possessed a large estate, and
provided liberally for his sons, he left his daughters a
mere pittance.
In view of such facts, it is folly to say that women were ever
satisfied with the humiliating discriminations of sex they have
endured in all periods, and in all ranks in society.
The first annual report of the association was prepared by Eliza
Sproat Turner. She said:
We do not complain that man is slow to realize the injustice
of his present attitude towards woman--an attitude once,
from necessity, endurable; now, from too long continuance,
grown intolerable. It would not be natural for him to feel
it with equal keenness. It takes a great-minded fox to find
out, what every goose knows, that foxes' teeth are cruel.
And while we do not complain of this incapacity on his part,
the advocates of this cause feel the necessity for woman to
take upon herself whatever share in the management of their
mutual affairs shall be needed to right the balance;
concluding that the defects in legislation which she is, by
reason of her position, more competent to understand, she
should be more competent to remedy. Not these innovations
alone, but others involving matters beyond individual
interests, she expects to achieve by the power she shall
gain through the exercise of her right of suffrage. We
discern, in the consideration of nearly all questions of
national welfare, a disposition to press unduly the
interests of trade and commerce rather than the interests of
the fireside.
Mary Grew presided, and has been elected president of the
association every year from the beginning, performing the duties
of the position with ability, earnestness and satisfaction. In
the winter of 1870-71 the executive committee recommended the
passage of a law that should give married women the control of
their own earnings. The appeal to the legislature in behalf of
such a law was renewed the following winter, and its passage
finally secured. Among the resolutions adopted at the annual
meeting was the following:
_Resolved_, That the vote of the legislature of this State
for a convention to amend the constitution, makes it our
duty to work for the exclusion of the word "male" from the
provision defining the qualifications for the elective
franchise, and that we call upon all friends of justice to
give their best energies to the sustaining of this object.
Subsequently the executive committee prepared a petition with
reference to the formation of the constitutional convention,
asking the legislature, in making the needful regulations, to
frame them in such a way as to secure the representation of the
women of the State. This petition was unavailing. At the next
annual meeting, which was held at the time the constitutional
convention was in session, a resolution was adopted containing an
appeal to that body, earnestly requesting it to present to the
people of the State a constitution that should secure the right
of suffrage to its citizens without distinction of sex,
accompanied by a request for a hearing at such time and place as
the convention should decide. The request was willingly granted,
and an evening assigned for that purpose. An evening was also
given to the Citizens' Suffrage Society of Philadelphia for a
like object. These meetings were held in the hall of the
convention, and were largely attended by the members and by the
people generally. Addresses were delivered by various friends of
woman suffrage, as representatives of the two societies.[267]
Still another evening was granted the Pennsylvania association
for a meeting to be addressed by Bishop Matthew Simpson of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. The earnest and forcible words of the
eloquent speaker, and his solid array of arguments, made a deep
impression on the attentive audience.
In the convention the question was discussed during five
successive days. Hon. John M. Broomall introduced a provision in
favor of making the ballot free to men and women alike, proposing
that it be incorporated in the new constitution. This provision
was ably advocated by Mr. Broomall and many other members of the
convention. Their firm convictions in behalf of equal and exact
justice, however well sustained by sound reasoning and earnest
appeal, was an unequal match for the rooted conservatism which
recoiled from such a new departure. Although the measure was
defeated, its discussion had an influence. It was animated,
intelligent and exhaustive, and drew public attention more
directly to the subject than anything that had occurred since the
beginning of its agitation in the State.
The only act of the convention that gave hope to the friends of
impartial suffrage was the adoption of the third section of
Article X.: "Women twenty-one years of age and upwards shall be
eligible to any office of control or management under the school
laws of this State." It was a very faint gleam of comfort, too
small to stir more than a breath of praise. It had the merit of
being a step in the right direction, though timid and feeble, and
as it has never disturbed the equilibrium of society, it may
ultimately be followed by others of more importance.
The annual meetings of the association have been held in
Philadelphia, Westchester, Bristol, Kennett Square and Media,
respectively. An interesting feature of the Westchester meeting
was the reading of an essay, entitled "Four quite New Reasons why
you should wish your Wife to Vote." It was written for the
occasion by Eliza Sproat Turner, and was subsequently printed and
re-printed in tract form by order of the executive committee, and
freely circulated among the people. It was likewise published in
the _Woman's Journal_. Other documents relative to the question
have been printed from time to time by authority of the
committee, and large numbers of suffrage tracts have been
purchased for distribution year after year, embodying the best
thoughts, the soundest arguments, and the most forcible reasoning
that the question has elicited. Frequent petitions have been sent
to the legislature and to congress, all having in view the one
paramount object, and showing by their repeated and persistent
appearance the indefatigable nature of a living, breathing
reform. The executive committee at one time employed Matilda
Hindman as State agent. Meetings were held by her chiefly in the
western part of the State. In 1874 her services extended to the
State of Michigan, where the question of woman suffrage was
specially before the people. Lelia E. Patridge also represented
the association in Michigan at that time, where she performed
excellent service in addressing numerous meetings in different
parts of the State. In 1877 Miss Patridge was appointed to
represent the society in Colorado. There she labored with others
to secure the adoption of a constitutional amendment providing
for suffrage without regard to sex. On several occasions the
executive committee has contributed to woman suffrage purposes in
other States. Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado and Oregon have
been recipients of the limited resources of the association. The
executive committee has felt the cramping influence of an
unfriended treasury. Its provision has been the fruit of
unwearied soliciting, and should the especial object of the
association ever be accomplished, the honors of success may be
fitly contested by the fine art of begging.
The following report was sent us by Mrs. Mary Byrnes:
March 22, 1872, the Citizens' Suffrage Association of
Philadelphia was formed, William Morris Davis, president, with
fifty members. The name of the society was chosen to denote the
view of its members as to the basis of the elective franchise.
The amendments to the United States constitution had clearly
defined who were citizens, and shown citizenship to be without
sex. Woman was as indisputably a citizen as man. Whatever rights
he possessed as a citizen she possessed also. The supreme law of
the land placed her on the same plane of political rights with
him. If man held the right of suffrage as a citizen of the United
States, either by birthright within the respective States, or by
naturalization under the United States, then the right of the
female citizen to vote was as absolute as that of the male
citizen; and woman's disfranchisement became a wrong inflicted
upon her by usurped power. Men became voters by reason of their
citizenship, having first complied with certain police
regulations imposed within and by the respective States. The
Citizens' Suffrage Association demanded the same political rights
for all citizens, nothing more, nothing less. It repudiated the
idea that one class of citizens should ask of another class
rights which that other class never possessed, and which those
who were denied them never had lost. This society held that the
right to give implied the right to take away; and further, that
the right to give implied a right lodged somewhere in society,
which society had never acquired by any direct concession from
the people.
This society held also, that the theory of the right to the
franchise, as a gift, bore with it the power somewhere to
restrict the male citizen's suffrage, and to strike at the
principle of self-government. They had seen this doctrine
earnestly advanced. They knew that there was a growing class in
the country who were inimical to universal suffrage. In view of
this they chose the name of citizen suffrage, as the highest and
broadest term by which to designate their devotion to the
political rights of all citizens. They held that the political
condition of the white women of the United States was totally
unlike that of the slave population in this: that while the
slaves were not considered citizens until the adoption of the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, white women had always been
citizens, and always entitled to all the political rights of
citizenship. The colored male citizen became a voter--subject to
the police regulations of the different States--upon acquiring
citizenship. No constitutional enactment denied equal political
rights to women as citizens. No constitutional enactment was
therefore required to enable them to exercise the right to vote,
which became the right of male slaves upon their securing
citizenship under the law. The first legal argument on the
subject of woman's right to the ballot as a citizen of the United
States, was made by Jacob F. Byrnes before the Pennsylvania
Society. Had it been published as soon as written, instead of
being circulated privately, surprising person after person with
the position taken, it would have antedated the report of General
Benjamin F. Butler in the House of Representatives in the winter
of 1871.
Edward M. Davis, president for many years, was one of the most
active and untiring officers of this association, giving generously
of his time and money not only to its support but to the general
agitation of the suffrage question in every part of the country.
The meetings were held regularly at his office, 333 Walnut street,
as were also those of the Radical Club. This was composed largely
of the same members as the suffrage society, but in this
organization they had a greater latitude in discussion, covering
all questions of political, religious and social interest. As the
division in the National Society produced division everywhere,
some of the friends in Philadelphia made themselves auxiliary to
the American Association, and the sympathy of others was with the
National, thus forming two rival societies, which together kept the
suffrage question before the people and roused their attention,
particularly to the fact of a pending constitutional convention.
Hence the necessity of holding meetings throughout the State, and
rolling up petitions asking that the constitution be so amended as
to secure to women the right to vote. The following appeal was
issued by this association:
_To the Editor of the Post:_
SIR: There is no political question now before the people of this
commonwealth more important than the consideration of the changes
to be made in our constitution. The citizens of the State, by an
enormous majority of votes, have re-claimed the sovereign powers
of government, and evinced a determination to re-form the
fundamental law, the constitution of this State, in the interest
of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the
people." In this new adaptation of old rules of government to the
advanced ideas of the age, it seems to us fitting and opportune
that woman in her new status as a citizen of the United States
(under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution), should be
allowed the exercise of rights which have been withheld under old
rules of action. Therefore we respectfully ask you to give this,
with our appeal, an insertion in your paper, and to continue the
appeal until further notice. And we ask all the friends of woman
suffrage to aid our association in placing this appeal in each
paper of our city, as well as of the neighboring towns.
"There is no distinction in citizenship as has been determined by
the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United
States. The citizens of Pennsylvania have decided on a revision
of the constitution of the commonwealth. The power of revision is
to be delegated by the citizens of the commonwealth to a
convention. The foundation of free government is based on the
consent of the governed. Therefore, the Citizens' Suffrage
Association of Pennsylvania appeals to the sense of right and
justice in the hearts of the citizens of this State, to aid in
securing to every citizen, irrespective of sex, an equal voice in
the selection of delegates, and an equal right, if elected
thereto, to a seat in said constitutional convention."
WM. MORRIS DAVIS, _Controller_.
Mr. Robert Purvis, at the request of the Citizens' Suffrage
Association of Philadelphia, waited upon Mrs. President Hayes and
presented to her an address adopted by that society. Mr. Purvis
wrote:
I have just returned from a very satisfactory and delightful
interview with Mrs. Hayes. She received me most cordially. I read
to her the eloquent address from the Citizens' Suffrage
Association. She listened with marked attention, was grateful for
the high favor conferred upon her, and sent her best wishes for
the success of the cause. I made reference to the fact that the
address bore the honored name of Lucretia Mott, which she
received with a ready acknowledgment of her great worth and
usefulness, and her distinguished place as a reformer and
philanthropist.
Through the liberality of Edward M. Davis, this society was able to
publish and circulate an immense number of tracts covering all
phases of the question. He has been one of the few abolitionists
who have thrown into this movement all the old-time fervor
manifested in the slavery conflict. A worthy son of the sainted
Lucretia Mott, her mantle seems to have fallen on his shoulders.
The Hon. John M. Broomall was ever ready to champion the cause of
equality of rights for women, not only in the legislature and in
the constitutional conventions of his own State, but on the floor
of congress as well. In a letter giving us valuable information on
several points, he says:
You ask when I made my first declaration for woman suffrage. I
cannot tell. I was born in 1816, and one of the earliest settled
convictions I formed as a man was that no person should be
discriminated against on account of sect, sex, race or color, but
that all should have an equal chance in the race which the Divine
Ruler has set before all; and I never missed an opportunity to
give utterance to this conviction in conversation, on the stump,
on the platform and in legislative bodies. My views were set out
concisely in my remarks in congress, on January 30, 1869, and I
cite the commencement and conclusion, as I find them in _The
Globe_ of that date:
Every person owing allegiance to the government and not
under the legal control of another, should have an equal
voice in making and administering the laws, unless debarred
for violating those laws; and in this I make no distinction
of wealth, intelligence, race, family or sex. If just
government is founded upon the consent of the governed, and
if the established mode of consent is through the
ballot-box, then those who are denied the right of suffrage
can in no sense be held as consenting, and the government
which withholds that right is as to those from whom it is
withheld no just government. * * * * The measure now before
the House is necessary to the complete fulfillment of what
has gone before it. To hesitate now is to put in peril all
we have gained. Let this, too, pass into history as an
accomplished fact. Let it be followed, in due course of
time, by the last crowning act of the series--an amendment
to the constitution securing to all citizens of full age,
without regard to sex, an equal voice in making and amending
the laws under which they live, to be forfeited only for
crime. Then the great mission of the party in power will be
fulfilled; then will have been demonstrated the capacity of
man for self-government; then a just nation, founded upon
the full and free consent of its citizens will be no longer
a dream of the optimist.
Mrs. Virginia Barnhurst writes:
I think you should make mention of the few men who, against the
greatest opposition, stood boldly up and avowed themselves in
favor of woman's cause. When I think of some of the speeches that
I heard from the opposite side--expressions which sent the hot
blood to my face, and which showed the low estimate law-makers
put upon woman, those few men who dared to defend mothers and
sisters, stand out in my mind as worthy of having their names go
down in history--and especially in a history written by women. I
had a good talk with Lawyer Campbell. He is one of the most
ardent in the cause; he believes the ballot to be a necessity to
woman, as a means of self-protection, this necessity being seen
in the unequal operation of many laws relating to the
guardianship of children and the ownership of property. Caleb
White's words have in them the just consciousness of their own
immortality: "I want my vote to be recorded; not to be judged of
here, but to be judged of by coming generations, who, at least,
will give to woman the rights which God intended she should
have."
[Illustration: Rachel G. Foster]
The constitutional convention to which reference has been so
frequently made in this chapter, assembled November 12, 1872, and
as early as the 22d, resolutions relative to women holding
school-offices and to the property-rights of women were presented.
Numberless petitions for these and full suffrage for women were
sent in during the entire sitting of the convention. February 3,
1873, John H. Campbell presented the minority report of the
Committee on Suffrage and Elections:
The undersigned, members of the Committee on Suffrage, Election
and Representation, dissent from that part of the majority report
of said committee, which limits the right of suffrage to male
electors. We recommend that the question, "Shall woman exercise
the right of suffrage," be submitted by the convention to the
qualified electors of this commonwealth, and also upon the same
day therewith, to those women of the commonwealth who upon the
day of voting shall be of the age of twenty-one years and
upwards, and have been residents of the State one year, and in
the district where they offered to vote at least sixty days prior
thereto; and that if the majority of all the votes cast at said
election should be in the affirmative, then the word "male" as a
qualification for an elector, contained in section ----, article
---- on suffrage and election shall be stricken out, and women in
this State shall thereafter exercise the right of suffrage,
subject only to the restrictions placed upon the male voters.
JOHN H. CAMPBELL,
LEWIS C. CASSIDY,
LEVI ROOKE.
The amendment for full suffrage was lost by a vote of 75 to 25,
with 33 absent, while the amendment making women eligible for
school offices was carried by a vote of 60 to 32.[268] The debate
by those in favor of the amendment was so ably and eloquently
conducted that we would gladly reproduce it, had not all the
salient points been so often and so exhaustively presented on the
floor of congress, and by some of the members from Pennsylvania.
After the passage of the school law of 1873, it was immediately
tested all over the State, rousing opposition and conflict
everywhere, but the struggle resulted favorably to women, who now
hold many offices to which they were once ineligible. At the first
election of school directors in Philadelphia the nomination of two
women was hotly contested. The _Evening Telegraph_ of February 6,
1874, gives the following:
There is progressing in the Thirteenth ward a contest which
involves so peculiar and important an issue as to merit the
widest publicity. It illustrates how the rights guaranteed to
women under the new constitution are to be denied them, if
cunning and bold chicanery are to be tolerated, by a few ward
politicians. At the Republican primary election, held January 20,
Mrs. Harriet W. Paist and Mrs. George W. Woelpper were duly
nominated as candidates for members of the board of school
directors of the ward. Both of these ladies received their
certificates, that given to Mrs. Paist reading as follows:
This is to certify that at a meeting of the judges of the
different divisions of the Thirteenth ward, held in accordance
with the rules of the Republican party, on the evening of January
20, 1874, Mrs. Harriet W. Paist was found to be elected as
candidate upon the Republican ticket from the Thirteenth ward,
for school director.
CHARLES M. CARPENTER, _President_.
JAMES M. STEWART, } _Clerks_.
DAVID J. SMITH, }
No sooner was it ascertained that the ladies had actually become
candidates on the Republican ticket than a movement was
inaugurated to oust them, the old war tocsin of "Anything to beat
Grant" being for this purpose amended thus: "Anything to beat the
women." This antagonism to the fair candidates was based entirely
upon the supposition that their names would so materially weaken
the ticket as to place the election of the Republican common
councilman, Henry C. Dunlap, in the greatest jeopardy. To save
him, therefore, the managers of the movement must sacrifice
Mesdames Woelpper and Paist. How was this to be accomplished?
Each was fortified in her position by a genuine certificate of
election, and had, furthermore, expressed her determination to
run. What could not be done fairly must be accomplished by
strategy. Mr. Ezra Lukens called upon Mrs. Paist, stating that if
she did not withdraw the Republicans who were opposed to the lady
candidates would unite with the "other party" and defeat the
Republican ward ticket. Mrs. Paist inquired if she had not been
regularly nominated, and his reply was that she had been, but
that her opponents in the party would unite with the "other
party" and defeat her. Mrs. Paist was firm, and Mr. Lukens
retired foiled. A day or two after, the chairman of the
Thirteenth ward Republican executive committee received somehow
this letter:
PHILADELPHIA, February 2, 1874.
DEAR SIR: Please accept this as my declination as school director
on the Thirteenth ward Republican ticket. Hoping it will please
those opposed to a lady director.
Respectfully yours, HARRIET W. PAIST.
A week previous to this the husband of Mrs. Woelpper was called
upon by Mr. William B. Elliott, a member of this executive
committee, and was informed by him that Mrs. Paist had withdrawn,
and that it would be unpleasant, if not inexpedient, for Mrs.
Woelpper to run alone. Mr. Woelpper expressed his belief that if
such were the case his wife would withdraw. At a meeting of the
executive committee a short time after, it was announced that
both the ladies had withdrawn, and everything looked serene for
victory, when the next day the members were individually informed
that the letter of declination written above was a base forgery,
and that neither of the ladies intended to withdraw from the
contest. Another meeting of the executive committee was held on
the 2d inst., at which Mr. Woelpper, jr., was present. He
declared that the statement made to his father was false, and
that he was present to say for his mother that she was still a
candidate. This announcement fell like a bomb in a peaceful camp,
causing great confusion. After order was restored, William B.
Elliott, the collector, offered a resolution declaring it
inexpedient to have any ladies on the ticket at this time. This
resolution was opposed by F. Theodore Walton and a number of the
members, who denied the power of the committee to change the
ticket regularly chosen at the primary election. They favored the
fair candidates, for whose election as school directors the
constitution had made special provisions, and whose presence in
the school-boards had been very favorably commented upon by all
the papers of the city. Besides, the ladies were as legitimately
entitled to their candidacy as Mr. Dunlap, and it would be a
gross and unparalelled outrage to sacrifice them from mere
prejudice, or in the belief that their presence would injure the
chances of Mr. Dunlap. Then arose Collector Elliott, his face
fairly glowing with honest indignation, and his voice sharp and
stinging in his tirade against the newspapers. What did he care
what the newspapers said? What are the newspapers but sheets sold
out to the highest bidder? The newspapers, he cried, are all in
the market, to be bought and sold the same as coal! That was
their business, and they didn't want stability so long as there
was cash to be got. Then he came down upon them in a perfect
whirlwind of wrath for daring to favor the women candidates for
school directors of the Thirteenth ward, and sat down as though
he had accomplished a noble purpose.
The question on the resolution was pressed, and resulted in its
adoption by a vote of 20 to 12.[269] A resolution was offered by
David T. Smith that Mrs. Paist and Mrs. Woelpper be thrown off
the ticket, and this resolution was carried by the same vote as
the preceding one. The meeting then adjourned. In consequence of
this action Mrs. Paist addressed to the citizens of the
Thirteenth ward the following card, in which she declares that
she does not intend to resign:
_To the Citizens of the Thirteenth Ward.:_
Unpleasant though it may be to thus appear before the public, I
feel that I must, in justice to myself, expose the fraud and
deception that have been practiced to defeat my election on the
17th of February next. I received the nomination and certificate
of election signed by James M. Stewart, David T. Smith, clerks,
and Charles M. Carpenter, president. Certainly they would not be
guilty of deceiving, for are they not "all honorable men"? John
B. Green, George M. Taylor and A. W. Lyman then (Ezra Lukens
having been on a similar fruitless mission) called on the eve of
January 30, 1874, wishing me to withdraw; stating that Mrs.
Woelpper had done so (which was false), and they thought it would
not be pleasant for me to serve. They also placed it on the
ground of expediency, fearing that their candidate for council
(Mr. Dunlap) was so weak that a woman on the ticket might
jeopardize the election. I knew not before that woman held the
balance of power. After sending their emissaries under the false
garb of friendship to induce me to decline, without success, they
were reduced to the desperate means of producing a letter, which
was read by the secretary of the executive meeting, February 2,
purporting to come from me, and withdrawing my name. I pronounce
it publicly to be a forgery. I have not withdrawn, neither do I
intend to withdraw. Would that I had the power of Brutus or a
Patrick Henry, that I might put these designing, intriguing
politicians in their true light! They deserve to be held up to
the contumely and scorn of the community.
_February 3, 1874._ HARRIET W. PAIST.
Despite the action of the committee, these talented ladies will
be run as the regular candidates for school directors. A
committee of citizens of the Republican party will prepare the
tickets and see that they are properly distributed, and take all
precautions against fraud at the election and against any effort
that may be made to count out the fair candidates at the meeting
of the ward return judges. It is of the greatest importance that
all good citizens of the ward shall do all in their power to
secure not only the fullest possible number of votes for the lady
candidates, but a fair count when they have been received. It
remains to be seen whether the Republican citizens of the ward
will endorse the action of a committee which from mere prejudice
can throw off regularly-elected candidates from a ticket.
The ladies were elected, and Mrs. Paist served her term. Mrs.
Woelpper died immediately after the election.
Anna McDowell, in the _Sunday Republic_ of April 8, 1877, in a long
article shows the necessity of some legal knowledge for women,
enough at least to look after their own interests, and not be
compelled through their ignorance to trust absolutely to the
protection of others. They should be trained to understand that all
pecuniary affairs should be placed on a business basis as strictly
between themselves and their fathers and brothers as men require in
their contracts with each other. After giving many instances in
which women have been grossly defrauded by their relatives, she
points to the will of the great railroad king of Pennsylvania:
Let us glance for a moment at the will of the late J. Edgar
Thomson, than which no more unjust testament was ever offered for
probate. This gentleman, the sole object of affection of two most
worthy and self-sacrificing sisters, married late in life without
making any adequate settlement upon the relatives to whom, in a
great measure, he owed his success. He always promised to provide
for them amply, saying, repeatedly, in effect, in letters which
we have seen, "As my fortune advances so also shall yours; my
prosperity will be your prosperity," etc. Oblivious to the ties
of nature and affection, however, when he came to make his will
he, out of a fortune of two millions, bequeathed to these
sisters, during life, an annuity of $1,200 per annum only,
leaving the rest of the income of his estate to his wife and her
niece, the latter a young lady whom he had previously made
independent by his skilful investment of a few thousand dollars
left her by her father. Not content with the will which gave her
also a large income for life out of Mr. Thomson's estate, this
niece of his wife brought suit against the executors to recover
bonds found after the death of the testator in an envelope on
which her name was written, and through the ruling of Judge
Thayer, a relation by marriage to the husband of the lady, the
case was decided in her favor, and $100,000 was thus absolutely
and permanently taken from the fund designed for the asylum which
it was Mr. Thomson's long-cherished desire to found for the
benefit and education of orphan girls whose fathers had been or
might be killed by accident on the Pennsylvania and other
railroads. The injustice of this decision is made manifest when
we reflect that the Misses Anna and Adeline Thomson, who worked
side by side with their brother as civil engineers in their
father's office, and labored, without pay, therein, that he might
be educated and sent abroad further to perfect himself in his
profession, were cut off with a comparatively paltry stipend for
life, this being still further reduced by the
collateral-inheritance tax. As high an authority as Dr. William
A. Hammond says that, "for a man to cut off his natural heirs in
his will is _prima facie_ evidence of abberation of mind," and we
believe this to be true.
Had these sisters[270] been brothers they would have been
recognized as partners and had their legal proportion of the
accumulations of the business in which they labored in early years
with equal faithfulness, side by side. This is but another instance
of women's blind faith in the men of their families and of the
danger in allowing business matters to adjust themselves on the
basis of honor, courtesy and protection.
Among the literary women of the State are Sarah C. Hallowell, on
the editorial staff of the _Public Ledger_; the daughters of John
W. Forney, for many years in charge of the woman's department of
_Forney's Progress_; Anne McDowell, editor of the woman's
department in _The Sunday Republic_; Mrs. E. A. Wade; "Bessie
Bramble" of Pittsburg has for many years ably edited a woman's
department in the _Sunday Leader_; Matilda Hindman, an excellent
column in the _Pittsburg Commercial Gazette_. In science Grace Anna
Lewis stands foremost. Her paper read before the Woman's Congress
in Philadelphia in 1876, attracted much attention. These ladies
with others organized "The Century Club"[271] in 1876, for
preeminently practical and benevolent work. Its objects are
various: looking after working girls, sending children into the
country for fresh air during summer, and improving the houses of
the poor and needy. The Club has a large house to which is attached
a cooking-school and lodgings for unfortunates in great
emergencies.
Woman's ambition was not confined at this period to literature and
the learned professions; she found herself capable of practical
work on a large scale in the department of agriculture. The
_Philadelphia Press_ has the following:
The beautiful farm of Abel C. Thomas, at Tacony, near
Philadelphia, is remarkable chiefly because it is managed by a
woman, Mrs. Louise H. Thomas. Her husband, the intimate friend of
Horace Greeley, and well known as an author and theologian, in
time past, has long been too feeble to take any part in managing
the property. That duty has devolved upon Mrs. Thomas. The house,
two hundred yards from the Pennsylvania railroad, is hidden from
view by the trees which surround it. The grounds are tastefully
laid out, and the lawn mowed with a regularity that indicates
constant feminine attention. The plot is 20 acres in extent. Six
acres comprise the orchard and garden. In addition to apple,
apricot, pear, peach, plum and cherry, there are specimens of all
kinds of trees, from pine to poplar.
A _Press_ reporter recently walked over the premises, and Mrs.
Thomas explained her manner of doing business. "I look after
everything about the farm; take my little sample bags of wheat to
the mills, and sell the crop by it; and twice I got ten cents
more a bushel than any of my neighbors. But the things I take
most interest in are my cows, chickens and bees. My cattle are
from Jersey island, and pure Alderney. They are very gentle and
good milkers. From four of them I get about 800 pounds of butter
a year. The price of this butter varies from 50 cents to $1.00
per pound. There's my dog. When it's milking time, the hired man
says to the dog, 'Shep, go after the cows,' and away he goes, and
in a little while the herd come tinkling up. Why send a man to do
a boy's work, or a boy to do that which a shepherd dog can do
just as well? The cows understand him, and readily come when they
are sent after. Well, so much for the milk department. Now, as to
the garden; I don't sell much from that. Still, if the vegetables
were not grown, they would have to be bought, and I take all that
into consideration in closing accounts. And that's one thing most
farmers don't do; they don't put on the cash side of the ledger
the cost of their living, for which they have been to no expense.
Now, as to the bees. The first cost is about the only expense
attached to these little workers. I have twenty-five colonies,
and can, and do handle them with as much safety as if they were
so much dry wheat. I sell about $100 worth of honey yearly, and
consume half as much at home. The bees are not troublesome when
you know how to handle them, but they require to be delicately
handled at swarming time.
"Now, as to chickens. My stock consists exclusively of the light
Brahma breed. They come early, grow fast, sell readily, are
tender, and have no disposition to forage; they are not all the
time wandering round and flying over the garden fence, and
scratching up flower and vegetable seeds. In fact, if you'll
notice, there is a docility about my live-stock that is very
attractive. The cows and chickens only need articulation to carry
on conversation. You didn't see the hatching department of my
chicken-house? I modeled the building after one used by a Madame
de Linas, a French lady living near Paris, and am much pleased
with it. I sometimes raise 1,000 chickens a season. I sell them
at prices all the way up from $1 to $3 apiece. You must remember
that they are full-blooded, and I always have my stock
replenished. I keep the best and sell for the highest prices.
They are generally sold to private families, who wish to get the
stock, and I always sell them alive. They are not much trouble to
raise, provided you know how, and have the accommodations for
doing it. I feed them corn, milk, meal and water, and pay
particular attention to their being properly housed. The eggs of
this breed are very rich, and I charge one dollar and a half for
a setting--that is, thirteen eggs.
"I have some three or four acres of wheat growing and it is
heading out finely. Oh!" said Mrs. Thomas, becoming more
enthusiastic, as she reviewed the incomes from the cereals, cows,
and chickens, "I am making money, and money is a standard of
success, although there is to me a greater pleasure than the mere
financial part of the business, which comes from the passion I
have for the life. I wish, indeed, that young ladies would turn
their attention to this matter. To me, it seems to open to them
an avenue for acquiring a competency in an independent way; and
to one who would pursue it earnestly, I know of no avocation
scarcely worth being classed with it."
"And you are not lonesome out here?"
"Oh! no. I never was lonesome an hour in my life--don't have
time; I have a great deal of work to do, and am always ready to
do it. Indeed, the only people I pity are those who do not work,
or find no interest in it. No, no; I have plenty of visitors, and
last week Jennie June, Lucretia Mott, and Anna Dickinson paid me
a visit and were very much pleased while here. I have two
grown-up boys, one in New York and the other in California; and
have reared thirteen children besides my own family--colored,
French, Italian, and I know not what nationalities."
Mrs. Thomas, who is certainly a remarkable woman, is a thoroughly
educated one; has traveled extensively both in Europe and this
country. Herself and husband have been intimate acquaintances of
many eminent men, among whom were President Lincoln and Secretary
Stanton. The activity displayed in managing the estate indicates
the possession of marked executive ability, and the exercise she
thus receives has doubtless had its share in keeping her young,
well-preserved, and good-natured.
When the Rev. Knox Little visited this country in 1880, thinking
the women of America specially needed his ministrations, he
preached a sermon that called out the general ridicule of our
literary women. In the Sunday _Republic_ of December 12, Anne E.
M'Dowell said:
The reverend gentlemen of St. Clement's Church, of this city,
with their frequent English visiting clergymen, are not only
trying their best to carry Christianity back into the dark ages,
by reinvesting it with all old-time traditions and mummeries, but
they are striving anew to forge chains for the minds,
consciences, and bodies of women whom the spirit of Christian
progress has, in a measure, made free in this country. The sermon
of the Rev. Knox Little, rector of St. Alban's Church,
Manchester, England, recently delivered at St. Clement's in this
city, and reported in the daily _Times_, is just such an one as
might be looked for from the class of thinkers whom he on that
occasion represented. These ritualistic brethren are bitterly
opposed to divorce, and hold the belief that so many Britons
adhere to on their native soil, viz., that "woman is an inferior
animal, created only for man's use and pleasure, and designed by
Providence to be in absolute submission to her lord and master."
The feeling engendered by this belief breeds contempt for and
indifference to the nobler aspirations of women amongst men of
the higher ranks, while it crops out in tyranny in the middle,
and brutality in the lower classes of society. Even the gentry
and nobility of Great Britain are not all exempt from brutal
manifestations of power toward their wives. We once sheltered in
our own house for weeks the wife of an English Earl who had been
forced to leave her home and family through the brutality of her
high-born husband--brutality from which the law could not or
would not protect her. She died at our house, and when she was
robed for her last rest much care had to be taken to arrange the
dress and hair so that the scars of wounds inflicted on the
throat, neck and cheek by her cruel husband might not be too
apparent.
The reports of English police courts are full of disclosures of
ill-treatment of women by their husbands, and year by year our
own courts are more densely thronged by women asking safety from
the brutality of men who at the altar have vowed to "love, honor
and protect" them. In nearly all these cases, the men who are
brought into our courts on the charge of maltreating women are of
foreign birth who have been born and brought up under the
spiritual guidance of such clergymen as the Rev. Knox-Little, who
tell them, as he told the audience of women to whom he preached
in this city: "To her husband a wife owes the duty of unqualified
obedience. There is _no crime that a man can commit which
justifies his wife in leaving him_ or applying for that monstrous
thing, a divorce. It is her duty to submit herself to him
_always_, and no crime he can commit justifies her lack of
obedience. If he is a bad or wicked man she may gently
remonstrate with him, but disobey him, never." Again, addressing
his audience at St. Clement's, he says: "You may marry a bad man,
but what of that? You had no right to marry a bad man. If you
knew it, you deserved it. If you did not know it, you must endure
it all the same. You can pray for him, and perhaps he will
reform; but leave him--never. Never think of that accursed
thing--divorce. Divorce breaks up families--families build up the
church. The Christian woman lives to build up the church." This
is the sort of sermonizing, reiterated from year to year, that
makes brutes of Englishmen, of all classes, and sinks the average
English woman to the condition of a child-bearing slave,
valuable, mostly, for the number of children she brings her
husband. She is permitted to hold no opinion unaccepted by her
master, denied all reason and forced to frequent churches where
she is forbidden the exercise of her common-sense, and where she
is told: "Men are logical; women lack this quality, but have an
intricacy of thought. There are those who think that women can be
taught logic; this is a mistake. They can never, by any process
of education, arrive at the same mental status as that enjoyed by
man; but they have a quickness of apprehension--what is usually
called leaping at conclusions--that is astonishing."
Divorce is a question over which woman now disputes man's absolute
control. His canon and civil laws alike have made marriage for
her a condition of slavery, from which she is now seeking
emancipation; and just in proportion as women become independent and
self-supporting, they will sunder the ties that bind them in
degrading relations.
In September, 1880, Governor Hoyt was petitioned to appoint a woman
as member of the State Board of Commissioners of Public Charities.
The special business of this commission is to examine into the
condition of all charitable, reformatory and correctional
institutions within the State, to have a general oversight of the
methods of instruction, the well-being and comfort of the inmates,
with a supervision of all those in authority in such institutions.
Dr. Susan Smith of West Philadelphia, from the year of the cruel
imprisonment of the unfortunate Hester Vaughan, regularly for
twelve years poured petitions into both houses of the legislature,
numerously signed by prominent philanthropists, setting forth the
necessity of women as inspectors in the female wards of the jails
of the State, and backing them by an array of appalling facts, and
yet the legislature, from year to year, turned a deaf ear to her
appeals. Happily for the unfortunate wards of the State, the law
passed in 1881.
STATE HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE, NORRISTOWN, Pa., Sept. 28, 1885.
MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I have referred your letter to my old
friend, Dr. Hiram Corson, of Plymouth, Pa., who can, if he will,
give a much better history of the movement in this State, than
any one else, being one of the pioneers. I hope that you will
hear from him. If, however, he returns your letter to me, I will
give you the few facts that I know. I should be glad to have you
visit our hospital and see our work.
Very respectfully yours, ALICE BENNETT.
PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa., Oct. 2, 1885.
MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY: _Esteemed Friend_:--Dr. Alice Bennett has
referred your letter with questions to me. Alice Bennett, M. D.,
Ph. D., is chief physician of the female department of the
eastern hospital of Pennsylvania, for the insane. She is also
member of the Montgomery County Medical Society, and member of
the Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania. She is the only
woman in the civilized world, of whom I have ever heard, who has
entire charge of the female patients in an institution for the
care and treatment of the insane. We have in the Harrisburg
hospital, Dr. Jane Garver, as physician for the female insane,
but she is subordinate to the male physician. She has a female
physician to assist her. Dr. Bennett was appointed and took
charge in July, 1880, with Dr. Anna Kingler as her assistant. Dr.
Kingler resigned, and went to India as medical missionary; was
succeeded by Dr. Rebecca S. Hunt, who, after more than a year's
service, also resigned to go to India as medical missionary. Dr.
Bennett has now two women physicians to assist her in the care of
more than six hundred patients, nearly as many as, if not more
than, are in the female departments of the Harrisburg, Danville,
and Warren hospitals all combined.
Dr. Bennett's hospital is a model one. There is a total absence
of physical restraint, as used formerly under male
superintendents, and, I may say, as still used in other hospitals
than that of Norristown. Her skill in providing amusement,
instruction and employment of various kinds, for the comfort and
restoration of her patients to sanity and physical health, I feel
sure has never been equaled in any hospital for the treatment of
insane women. It is exceedingly interesting to see the school
which she has established, and in which a large number of the
insane are daily instructed, amused and interested. It is well
known, now, that when the mind of the insane can be drawn away
from their delusions by employment, or whatever else may interest
them and absorb their attention, they are on the road to health.
The public are not yet fully awake to the great reform effected
in having women physicians for the women insane. Insane women
have been treated as though there were no diseases peculiar to
the sex. Never, so far as I have been able to learn, have they
been treated by the means used for the relief of women in their
homes. An eminent surgeon of Philadelphia informed me a few days
since, that thirty years ago he was an assistant to Dr.
Kirkbride, and desired to treat a patient for uterine troubles,
but was rebuked by Dr. K., and told never to attempt to use the
appliances relied on in private practice. My informant added that
he believed not a single insane woman had ever received special
treatment for affections in any of the hospitals under the care
of male physicians. While we realize that great advantages would
have come to these poor unfortunates by proper treatment, we feel
that no male physician having due regard for his own reputation,
should attempt to treat an insane woman for uterine diseases by
means used in private practice, or even in hospitals with sane
women. And this shows the importance of women physicians for
women insane. One of the most intellectual and prominent women of
this State was, 30 years ago, on account of domestic application,
an inmate of our then champion hospital for the insane, for
several months, during all of which time her sufferings were, to
use her own words, indescribable, and yet she was not once asked
in relation to her physical condition. Let us turn aside from
this, and glance at the last annual report of Dr. Alice Bennett.
She reports 180 patients examined for uterine diseases; 125 were
placed under treatment; 67 treated for a length of time; 60
benefited by treatment. While Dr. Bennett does not say that their
insanity was caused by the uterine disease, or that they were
cured by curing that affection, she observes that in some cases
the relief of the mind kept pace with the progress of cure of
the uterine affections. I have, perhaps, written more than was
needed on this subject, but I am so anxious that we shall have
women doctors in every hospital for the treatment of insane
women, and know, too, what influence yourself and good Mrs.
Stanton can exert by turning your attention to it, which I am
sure you will as you become informed in relation to the facts,
that I could not stop short of what I have said. I have prepared
a full account of our struggles with the State Society during six
years to obtain for women doctors their proper recognition by the
profession, and also the obstacles and opposition we encountered
in our attempt to procure the law empowering boards of trustees
to appoint women to hospitals for the insane of their sex. It
will give me pleasure to send them to you if they would be of any
use to you.
Respectfully, HIRAM CORSON.
As I am within a week of my 82d birthday, and am writing while my
heart is beating one hundred and sixty times per minute, you must
not criticise me too sharply.
H. C.
January 24, 1882, Miss Rachel Foster made all the arrangements for
a national convention, to be held in St. George's Hall,
Philadelphia.[272] She also inaugurated a course of lectures, of
which she took the entire financial responsibility, in the popular
hall of the Young Men's Christian Association. Ex-Governor Hoyt of
Wyoming, in his lecture, gave the good results of thirteen years'
experience of woman's voting in that Territory. Miss Foster
employed a stenographer to report the address, had 20,000 copies
printed, and circulated them in the Nebraska campaign during the
following summer.
At its next session (1883) the legislature passed a resolution
recommending congress to submit a sixteenth amendment, securing to
women the right to vote:
HARRISBURG, Pa., March 21, 1883.--In the House, Mr. Morrison of
Alleghany offered a resolution urging congress to amend the
national constitution so that the right of suffrage should not be
denied to citizens of any State on account of sex. It was adopted
by 78 ayes[273] to 76 noes, the result being greeted with both
applause and hisses.
The Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_ of November 8, 1882, mentions
an attempt to open the University of Pennsylvania to women:
The trustees held several meetings to consider the applications.
Beside Miss Craddock's, there were two others which the faculty
referred to the trustees, and which appear not to have been
reached in the regular course of business. Miss Florence Kelley,
a post-graduate from Cornell University, daughter of Judge
Kelley, who applied for admission as a special student in Greek,
and Miss Frances Henrietta Mitchell, a junior student from
Cornell, who asked to be admitted in the junior class. Our
information comes from these ladies, who were notified that their
cases would be presented. The question of coeducation, which has
been seriously occupying the minds of the trustees of the
University of Pennsylvania, was settled last evening, at least
for the present, by the passage of a resolution refusing the
admission of girls to the department of arts, but proposing to
establish a separate collegiate department for them, whenever the
requisite cost, about $300,000, is provided. There has been an
intelligent and honest difference among both trustees and
professors on this interesting question, and the diversity has
been complicated by the various grounds upon which the _pros_ and
_cons_ are maintained. There are those who advocate the admission
of girls to the University as a proper thing _per se_. Others
consent to it, because the University cannot give the desired
education separately. Others hold that girls should be admitted
because of their equal rights to a university education, although
their admission is very undesirable. Others oppose coeducation in
the abstract, conceding that girls should be as well educated as
boys, but insisting that they must be differently and therefore
separately educated. These draw a clear line between "equal" and
"similar" education, and hold that no university course of
studies can be laid out that will not present much of classical
literature and much of the mental, moral and natural sciences,
that cannot be studied and recited by boys and girls together,
without serious risk of lasting injury to both.
Would it not be better, all things considered, to abjure this kind
of classical literature, and instead of subjecting our sons to its
baneful influence, give them the refining, elevating companionship
of their sisters? If we would preserve the real modesty and purity
of our daughters, it is quite as important that we should pay some
attention to the delicacy and morality of the men with whom they
are to associate.
If a girl cannot read the classics with a young man without
contamination, how can she live with him in all the intimacies of
family life without a constant shock to her refined sensibilities?
So long as society considers that any man of known wealth is a fit
husband for our daughters, all this talk of the faculties and
trustees of our colleges about protecting woman's modesty is the
sheerest nonsense and hypocrisy. It is well to remember that these
professors and students have mothers, wives and sisters, and if man
is coarse and brutal, he invariably feels free to show his worst
passions at his own fireside. To warn women against coeducation is
to warn them against association with men in any relation
whatsoever.
FOOTNOTES:
[255] See Appendix.
[256] Carrie S. Burnham after long years of preparation and
persistent effort for admission to the bar of Philadelphia, was
admitted in 1884. She was thoroughly qualified to enter that
profession and to practice in the courts of that State, and the
only reason ever offered for her rejection from time to time was,
"that she was a woman."
[257] By an oversight this law was not mentioned in Vol. I. in its
proper place.
[258] George W. Childs married Judge Bovier's grand-daughter.
[259] Transcriber's Note: Footnote text is missing in original.
[260] _University of Pennsylvania_--Joseph Carson, Robert E.
Rogers, Joseph Leidy, Henry H. Smith, Francis G. Smith, R. A. T.
Penrose, Alfred Stille, George B. Wood, Samuel Jackson, Hugh L.
Hodge, R. La Roche, George W. Norris. _Jefferson Medical
College_--Joseph Pancoast, S. D. Gross, Samuel Henry Dickson,
Ellerslie Wallace, B. Howard Rand, John B. Biddle, James Aitken
Meigs. _Pennsylvania Hospital_--J. Forsyth Meigs, James H.
Hutchinson, J. M. Da Costa, Addinell Hewson, William Hunt, D. Hayes
Agnew. _Philadelphia Hospital_--R. J. Levis, William H. Pancoast,
F. F. Maury, Alfred Stille, J. L. Ludlow, Edward Rhodes, D. D.
Richardson, E. L. Duer, E. Scholfield, R. M. Girvin, John S. Parry,
William Pepper, James Tyson. _Medical Staff of Episcopal
Hospital_--John H. Packard., John Ashhurst, jr., Samuel Ashhurst,
Alfred M. Slocum, Edward A. Smith, William Thomson, William S.
Forbes. _Wills Hospital for the Blind and Lame_--Thomas George
Morton, A. D. Hall, Harrison Allen, George C. Harlan, R. J. Levis.
_St. Joseph's Hospital_--William V. Keating, Alfred Stille, John J.
Reese, George R. Morehouse, A. C. Bournonville, Edward A. Page,
John H. Brinton, Walter F. Atlee, C. S. Boker. _St. Mary's
Hospital_--C. Percy La Roche, J. Cummiskey, A. H. Fish, J.
H. Grove, W. W. Keen, W. L. Wells, L. S. Bolles. _German
Hospital_--Albert Fricke, Emil Fischer, Joseph F. Koerper, Julius
Schrotz, Julius Kamerer, Karl Beeken, Theodore A. Demme,
_Children's Hospital_--Thomas Hewson Bache, D. Murray Cheston, H.
Lenox Hodge, F. W. Lewis, Hilborn West. _Charity Hospital_--A. H.
Fish. L. K. Baldwin, Horace Y. Evans, John M. McGrath, H. St. Clair
Ash, J. M. Boisnot, N. Hatfield, W. M. Welch, H. Lycurgus Law, H.
Leaman, J. A. McArthur. _Howard Hospital_--Thomas S. Harper,
Laurence Turnbull, T. H. Andrews, Horace Williams, Joseph Klapp,
William B. Atkinson, S. C. Brincklee. _Physicians-at-Large of the
City of Philadelphia_--E. Ward, George H. Beaumont, William W.
Lamb, Thomas B. Reed, Charles Schaffer, J. Heritage, W. Stump
Forwood, W. J. Phelps, Richard Maris, Frank Muhlenberg, George M.
Ward, James Collins, William F. Norris, Samuel Lewis, Isaac Hays,
G. Emerson, W. W. Gerhard, Caspar Morris, B. H. Coates, George
Strawbridge, S. Weir Mitchell, I. Minis Hays, Edward B. Van Dyke,
J. Sylvester Ramsey, G. W. Bowman, W. H. H. Githens, T. W. Lewis,
T. M. Finley, S. W. Butler, Robert P. Harris, C. Moehring, George
L. Bomberger, Philip Leidy, D. F. Willard, James V. Ingham, Edward
Hartshorne, W. S. W. Ruschenberger, Thomas Stewardson, James
Darrach, S. L. Hollingworth, William Mayburry, Lewis Rodman, Casper
Wister, A. Nebinger, Horace Binney Hare, Edward Shippen, S.
Littell, F. W. Lewis, Robert Bridges, William H. Gloninger, James
Markoe, Charles Hunter, D. F. Woods, Herbert Norris, Harrison
Allen, Charles B. Nancrede, W. J. Grier, Edward J. Nolan, Richard
Thomas, Lewis H. Adler, G. B. Dunmire, John Neill, Wharton Sinkler,
George Pepper, J. J. Sowerby, Henry C. Eckstein, Eugene P.
Bernardy, Charles K. Miles, J. Solis Cohen.
[261] C. L. Schlatter, J. Wm. White, Daniel Bray, C. E. Cassady,
Robert B. Burns, Albert Trenchard, John G. Scott, J. J. Bowen, P.
Collings, E. Cullen Brayton, joint committee of the University and
Jefferson Medical Colleges.
[262] As through the influence of Dr. Truman Miss Hirschfeld had
first been admitted to the college, he felt in a measure
responsible for the fair treatment of her countrywomen who came to
the United States to enjoy the same educational advantages. When
the discussion in regard to expelling the young women was pending,
Dr. Truman promptly and decidedly told the faculty that if such an
act of injustice was permitted he should leave the college also.
Much of Dr. Truman's clearsightedness and determination may be
traced to the influence of his noble wife and no less noble
mother-in-law, Mary Ann McClintock, who helped to inaugurate the
movement in 1848 in Central New York. She lamented in her declining
years that she was able to do so little. But by way of consolation
I often suggested that her influence in many directions could never
be measured; and here is one: Her influence on Dr. Truman opened
the Dental College to women, and kept it open while Miss Hirschfeld
acquired her profession. With her success in Germany, in the royal
family, every child in the palace for generations that escapes a
toothache will have reason to bless a noble friend, Mary Ann
McClintock, that she helped to plant the seeds of justice to woman
in the heart of young James Truman. We must also recognize in Dr.
Truman's case that he was born and trained in a liberal Quaker
family, his own father and mother having been disciples of Elias
Hicks.
[263] PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 10, 1870.--The formal opening of
Swarthmore College took place this afternoon, when a large number
of its friends were conveyed thither in a special train on the
Westchester railroad. The audience assembled in the lecture room,
where addresses were delivered by Samuel Willets and John D. Hyoks,
of New York, Edward Parrish, president of the college, Wm. Dorsey,
and Lucretia Mott. It was stated that the amount spent in land and
buildings amounted to $205,000 and contributions were solicited for
$100,000 additional to fully furnish the building, and supply a
library, philosophical and astronomical apparatus. The building is
a massive one of five stories, constructed of Pennsylvania
granite, and appointed throughout, from dormitory, bathroom,
recitation-hall, to parlor, kitchen and laundry, in the most
refined and substantial taste. It is 400 feet in length, by 100
deep, presenting two wings for the dormitories of the male and
female students respectively, and a central part devoted to parlor,
library, public hall, etc. Especially interesting in this division
of the college is a room devoted to Quaker antiquities, comprising
portraits and writings of the founders of the sect. Among them we
notice the treaty of William Penn, a picture of the treaty
assembly, a letter of George Fox, etc. The college opens with 180
pupils, about equally divided between the sexes, the system of
instruction being a joint education of boys and girls, though each
occupy separate wings of the building. The institution was built by
the Hicksite branch of the Society of Friends, but the pupils are
not confined to members of that persuasion.
[264] The speakers at this convention were Lucretia Mott, Frances
Dana Gage, Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B.
Anthony, Edward M. Davis, Robert Purvis, Aaron M. Powell. The
officers of the society were: _President_, Robert Purvis;
_Vice-presidents_, Lucretia Mott, William Whipper, Dinah
Mendenhall; _Recording Secretary_, Mary B. Lightfoot;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Frances B. Jackson; _Treasurer_, John K.
Wildman; _Executive Committee_, William Still, Ellen M. Child,
Harriet Purvis, Elisha Meaner, Octavius Catts, Sarah S. Hawkins,
Sarah Pugh, Clementina Johns, Alfred H. Love, Louisa J. Roberts,
Jay Chapel.
[265] J. K. Wildman, Miss A. Ramborger, Clementina L. John, Ellen
M. Child, and Passmore Williamson.
[266] _President_, Mary Grew; _Vice-Presidents_, Edward M. Davis,
Mrs. C. A. Farrington, Mary K. Williamson; _Recording Secretary_,
Annie Heacock; _Corresponding Secretary_, Eliza Sproat Turner;
_Treasurer_, Gulielma M. S. P. Jones; _Executive Committee_, John
K. Wildman, Ellen M. Child, Annie Shoemaker, Charlotte L. Pierce,
and Dr. Henry T. Child.
[267] Among those who addressed the members of the convention were
Bishop Matthew Simpson, Rev. Charles G. Ames, Fanny B. Ames, Mary
Grew, Sarah C. Hallowell, Matilda Hindman, Elizabeth S. Bladen and
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
[268] Among the men who spoke for woman's enfranchisement were John
M. Broomall, John M. Campbell, Lewis C. Cassidy, Benjamin L.
Temple, Levi Rooke, George F. Horton, H. W. Palmer, William
Darlington, Harry White, Frank Mantor, Thomas MacConnell, Henry
Carter, Thomas E. Cochran. In addition to those who spoke, those
who voted _yes_ are John E. Addicks, William H. Ainey, William D.
Baker, Charles O. Bowman, Charles Brodhead, George N. Corson, David
Craig, Matthew Edwards, J. Gillingham Tell, Thomas Howard, Edward
C. Knight, George Lear, John S. Mann, H. W. Patterson, T. H. B.
Patton, Thomas Struthers, John W. F. White.
[269] _Ayes_--William Styles, William McLain, clerks in the water
department; A. W. Lyman, clerk in the custom-house; M. C. Coppeck,
clerk in the highway department, who was defeated by one of the
ladies for school directorship; John B. Green, a member of the
board of education; John Buckley, clerk in the post-office;
Theodore Canfield, sergeant of police; John Murray, contractor of
the highway department; George W. Schrack, an ex-clerk, lately
resigned from the tax receiver's office; Daniel T. Smith,
ex-detective; Asher W. Dewees, Oliver Bowler, Mr. Agnew, Ezra
Lukens, clerk in the United States assistant treasurer's office,
president of the Republican Invincibles, candidate last year
against Mr. Jonathan Pugh for commissioner of city property, and a
candidate for the same office next year; William B. Elliott,
collector of internal revenue; Charles M. Carpenter, alderman, who
signed Mrs. Paist's certificate; Jackson Keyser, an employe in the
navy yard; Alfred Ruhl, clerk in the custom-house; Mr. Jones, and
Henry C. Dunlap, who is Republican candidate for common
council--20. _Nays_--James W. Sayre, Joseph B. Ridge, Samuel
Caldwell, Dr. Charles Hooker, John E. Lane, Lewis Bogy, John
Mansfield. Daniel Rieff, William Githens, Thomas Evans, George
Schimpf and F. Theodore Walton--12. So the resolution was carried
by 20 yeas to 12 nays.
[270] Their modest home at 114 North Eleventh street has long been
a hospitable retreat for reformers, where many of us identified
with the suffrage movement have been most courteously entertained.
Anna and Adeline Thomson after long lives of industry have been,
too, the steadfast representatives of great principles in religious
and political freedom, always giving freely of their means to the
unpopular reforms of their day and generation.--[E. C. S.
[271] The Executive Board of the New Century Club for 1879-1880,
was: _President_, Mrs. Eliza S. Turner; _Vice-Presidents_, Mrs.
Emily W. Taylor, Mrs. S. C. F. Hallowell; Mrs. Henry C. Townsend,
Mrs. Aubrey H. Smith; _Corresponding Secretary_, Miss Louise
Stockton; _Recording Secretary_, Miss Anna C. Bliss; _Treasurer_,
Mrs. Charlotte L. Pierce; _Directors_, Mrs. Susan I. Lesley, Mrs.
Henry Cohen, Mrs. Huldah Justice, Miss Emily Sartain, Miss Mary
Grew, Mrs. S. B. F. Greble, Mrs. M. W. Coggins, Miss Mary A.
Burnham, Mrs. Ellison L. Perot, Mrs. Thomas Roberts. Others names
found in its annual report as contributing to the efficiency of the
club are: Mrs. Fannie B. Ames, Miss Grace Anna Lewis, Mrs. Emma J.
Bartol, Mrs. E. L. Head, Miss Mary C. Coxe, Mrs. Charlotte L.
Pierce, Madam Emma Seiler, Miss Amanda L. Dods, Miss Lelia
Patridge, Miss Lily Ray, Miss Ella Cole, Mrs. Susan I. Lesley, Mrs.
E. C. Mayer, Miss Bennett, Mlle. Frasson. The work of the club has
its divisions of science, literature, art, music, entertainment,
cooking, hospitalities, charities, employment for women, legal
protection for working women, prisons and reformatory institutions.
[272] See Chapter 30 for an account of this Philadelphia
convention.
[273] The _yeas_ were as follows: Messrs. Ayers, Barnes, Blackford,
Boyer, Boyle, Brooks, W. C. Brown, I. B. Brown, J. L. Brown,
Brosius, Burnite, Burchfield, Chadwick, Coburn, E. L. Davis,
Deveney, Duggan, Eckels, Ellsworth, Emery, Fetters, Gahan, Gardner,
Gavitt, Gentner, Glenn, Grier, G. W. Hall, F. Hall, A. W. Hayes,
Hines, Higgins, Hoofnagle, Hulings, Hughes, Jenkins, Klein,
Kavanaugh, Landis, Lafferty, Merry, B. B. Mitchell, S. N. Mitchell,
Millor, Molineaux, A. H. Morgan, W. D. Morgan, J. W. Morrison, E.
Morrison, Myton, McCabe, McClaran, Neill, Neeley, Nelson, Nesbit,
Nicholson, Parkinson, Powell, Romig, Schwartz, Short, Sinex,
Slocum, J. Smith, Sneeringer, Snodgrass, Stees, Sterett, Stewart,
Stubbs, Sweeney, Trant, Vanderslice, Vaughn, Vogdes, Wayne and
Ziegler--78.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
NEW JERSEY.
Women Voted in the Early Days--Deprived of the Right by
Legislative Enactment in 1807--Women Demand the Restoration of
Their Rights in 1868--At the Polls in Vineland and Roseville
Park--Lucy Stone Agitates the Question--State Suffrage Society
Organized in 1867--Conventions--A Memorial to the
Legislature--Mary F. Davis--Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford--Political
Science Club--Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey--Orange Club, 1870--July 4,
1874, Mrs. Devereux Blake Gives the Oration--Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell's Letter--The Laws of New Jersey in Regard to Property
and Divorce--Constitutional Commission, 1873--Trial of Rev. Isaac
M. See--Women Preaching in His Pulpit--The Case Appealed--Mrs.
Jones, Jailoress--Legislative Hearings.
New Jersey was the only State that, in adopting her first
constitution, recognized woman's right to suffrage which she had
exercised during the colonial days, and from time immemorial in the
mother country. The fact that she was deprived of this right from
1807 to 1840 by a legislative enactment, while the constitution
secured it,[274] proves that the power of the legislature, composed
of representatives from the people, was considered at that early
day to be above the State constitution. If, then, the legislature
could abridge the suffrage, it must have the power to extend it,
and all the women of this State should demand is an act of the
legislature. They need not wait for the slow process of a
constitutional amendment submitted to the popular vote. In 1868, in
harmony with a general movement in many other States, the women of
New Jersey began to demand the restoration of their ancient rights.
The following is from _The Revolution_ of November 19, 1868,
written by Elizabeth A. Kingsbury:
VINELAND, N. J., Nov. 5, 1868.
At a meeting of women, held the week before election, a unanimous
vote was taken that we would go to the polls. John Gage, chairman
of the Woman Suffrage Association of Vineland, called a meeting,
and though the day was an inclement one, there was a good
attendance. A number of earnest men as well as women addressed
the audience. Among them were Colonel Moss of Missouri, and James
M. Scovel of Camden, State senator, who strengthened us by their
words of earnest eloquence. At 7:30 A. M., November 3, John and
Portia Gage and myself entered Union Hall, where the judges of
election had already established themselves for the day. Instead
of occupying the center of the platform, they had taken one side
of it, apparently for the purpose of leaving us room on the
other. We seated ourselves in chairs brought for the occasion,
when one gentleman placed a small table for our use. Another
inquired if we were comfortable and the room sufficiently warm.
"Truly," we thought, "this does not look like a very terrible
opposition." As time passed, there came more men and women into
the hall. Quite a number of the latter presented their votes
first at the table where those of men were received, where they
were rejected with politeness, and then taken to the other side
of the platform and deposited in our box. Shall I describe this
box, twelve inches long and six wide, and originally a grape-box?
Very significant of Vineland. Soon there came to the aid of Mrs.
Gage and myself a blooming and beautiful young lady, Estelle
Thomson, who, with much grace and dignity, sat there throughout
the day, recording the names of the voters. It would have done
you good to have witnessed the scene. Margaret Pryor,[275] who is
better known to you perhaps than to many of your readers, as one
whose life has been active in the cause of freedom for the negro
and for woman; a charming old lady of eighty-four years, yet with
the spirit, elasticity and strength of one of thirty-five, sat
there in her nice Quaker bonnet by the side of Miss Thomson a
great part of the day. Sarah Pearson, also advanced in years and
eminent for her labors of love for the suffering and oppressed
everywhere; with her peculiarly delicate organization and placid
countenance, remained with us till the last moment. There was no
lack of friends and supporters. The platform was crowded with
earnest, refined, intellectual women, who felt that it was good
for them to be there. One beautiful girl said in my hearing, "I
feel so much stronger for having voted." It was pleasant to see
husbands and wives enter the hall together, only they had to
separate, one turning to the right hand and the other to the
left, when no separation should have taken place.
Some women spent the day in going after their friends and
bringing them to the hall. Young ladies, after voting, went to
the homes of their acquaintances, and took care of the babies
while the mothers came out to vote. Will this fact lessen the
alarm of some men for the safety of the babies of enfranchised
women on election day? One lady of refinement and aristocratic
birth brought her little girl of ten years with her, and I assure
you it did the men good as well as us. They said they never had
so quiet and pleasant a time at the polls before, though it is
always more quiet here than in many other towns, because the sale
of ardent spirits is forbidden. John Gage--bless his dear
soul--identifies himself completely with this glorious cause, and
labors with an earnestness and uniformity of purpose that is
truly charming. His team was out all day, bringing women to vote,
half-a-dozen at a time, while his personal efforts were
unremitting and eminently successful. He and his noble wife,
Portia, seem to be, indeed, one in thought and action. Some time
ago he sent a pledge to the candidates for office in this State.
By signing it, they promise to sustain the cause of woman
suffrage by every means in their power. Nixon, candidate for the
Senate, signed it last year. House, candidate for the Assembly,
signed the pledge at the eleventh hour, and though he lost two of
our votes by the delay, yet he, too, is elected. Thus we have, at
least, three public men in New Jersey pledged to sustain the
woman suffrage cause. We think it is time to say to candidates
for office: "You tell us we have a good deal of influence, and
ask us to exert it for your election. We will do so, if you will
promise to advocate our cause. If you do not, we will oppose your
election." The result of the ballots cast by the women of
Vineland is this: For president--Grant, 164; Seymour, 4; E. Cady
Stanton, 2; Fremont, 1; and Mrs. Governor Harvey of Wisconsin, 1.
The president of the Historical Society of Vineland, S. C.
Campbell, has petitioned for the ballot-box and list of voters,
to put into its archives. He will probably get them.
A gentleman said to me last week: "What is the use of your doing
this? Your votes will count nothing in the election." "It will do
good in two ways," I replied. "You say there will not be five
women there. We will show you that you are mistaken; that women
do want to vote, and it will strengthen them for action in the
future." Both these ends have been accomplished; and on November
12 we are to meet again, to consider and decide what to do about
the taxation that is soon coming upon us.
While the Vineland women expressed their opinion by voting, other
true friends of woman's enfranchisement were moved to do the same.
_The Revolution_ of November 12, 1868, gave the following:
The Newark _Daily Advertiser_ says that Mrs. Hannah Blackwell, a
highly esteemed elderly lady, long resident in Roseville, and
Mrs. Lucy Stone, her daughter-in-law, both of them
property-holders and tax-payers in the county, appeared at the
polls in Roseville Park, accompanied by Messrs. Bathgate and
Blackwell as witnesses, and offered their votes. The judges of
election were divided as to the propriety of receiving the votes
of the ladies, one of them stating that he was in favor of doing
so, the two others objecting on the ground of their illegality.
The ladies stated that they had taken advice of eminent lawyers,
and were satisfied that in New Jersey, women were legally
entitled to vote, from the fact that the old constitution of the
State conferred suffrage upon "all inhabitants" worth $250. Under
that constitution women did in fact vote until, in 1807, by an
arbitrary act of the legislature, women were excluded from the
polls. The new constitution, adopted in 1844, was framed by a
convention and adopted by a constituency, from both of which
women were unconstitutionally excluded, so that they have never
been allowed to vote upon the question of their own
disfranchisement. The article in the present constitution on the
right of suffrage confers it upon white male citizens, but does
not expressly limit it to such. It is claimed that from the
absence of any express limitation in the present constitution,
and from the compulsory exclusion of the parties interested from
its adoption, the political rights of women under the old
constitution still remain. Mrs. Stone stated these points to the
judges of election with clearness and precision. After
consultation, the votes of the ladies were refused. The crowd
surrounding the polls gathered about the ballot-box and listened
to the discussion with respectful attention; but every one
behaved with the politeness which gentlemen always manifest in
the presence of ladies.
The women of New Jersey may have been roused to assert their right
to vote by an earnest appeal of that veteran of equal rights,
Parker Pillsbury, in _The Revolution_ of March 25, 1868, suggested
by the following:
At the recent election in Vineland, New Jersey, a unanimous vote
in favor of "no rum" was polled. The Vineland _Weekly_ says:
"Among the incidents of the late election was the appearance of a
woman at the polls. Having provided herself with a ballot, she
marched up to the rostrum and tendered it to the chairman of the
board of registry. The veteran politician, John Kandle, covered
with blushes, was obliged to inform the lady that no one could
vote unless his name was registered. She acquiesced in the
decision very readily, saying she only wished to test a
principle, and retired very quietly from the hall."
While thus mentioning the women with uncounted votes, it may be
well to embalm here a historical fact, published in April, 1868:
In the year 1824 widows were allowed to vote in New Jersey on
their husbands' tax receipts. The election officers paid great
deference to the widows on these occasions, and took particular
care to send carriages after them, so as to get their votes early
and make sure of them. The writer of this has often heard his
grandmother state that she voted for John Quincy Adams for
president of the United States when he was elected to that
office. Her name was Sarah Sparks, and she voted at Barnsboro',
her husband having died the year previous.
N. M. WALLINGTON, Washington, D. C.
Miss Anthony held a spirited meeting in Rahway on Christmas eve,
December 24, 1867. The following October, 1868, Mrs. Stanton and
Miss Anthony attended a two days' convention in Vineland, and
helped to rouse the enthusiasm of the people. A friend, writing
from there, gives us the following:
The Unitarian church in this town is highly favored in having for
its pastor a young man of progressive and thoroughly liberal
ideas. Rev. Oscar Clute is well known as an earnest advocate in
the cause of woman. Last Sunday the communion or Lord's Supper
was administered in his church. One of the laymen who usually
assists in the distribution of the bread and wine, was absent,
and Mr. Clute invited one of the women to officiate in his stead.
She did so in such a sweet and hospitable manner that it gave new
interest to the occasion. Even those who do not like innovations
could not find fault. And why should any one be displeased? The
Christ of the sacrament was the emancipator of women. In olden
time they had deaconesses, and in most of our churches women
constitute a majority of the communicants, so it seems
particularly appropriate that they should be served by women.
Women vote on all matters connected with this church, they are on
all "standing committees," and sometimes are chosen and act as
trustees.
Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford sends us the following reports of the
progress of the movement in this State:
While Lucy Stone resided in New Jersey, she held several series
of meetings in the chief towns and cities before the formation of
the State Society.[276] The agitation that began in 1867 was
probably due to her, more than to any other one person in that
State. The State society was organized in the autumn of 1867, and
from year to year its annual meetings have been held in Vineland,
Newark, Trenton, and other cities. On its list of officers[277]
are some of the best men and women in the State. Several
distinguished names from other States are among the speakers[278]
who have taken part in their conventions. County and local
societies too have been extensively organized. These associations
have circulated tracts and appeals, memorialized the legislature,
and had various hearings before that body. At the annual meeting
held in Newark February 15, 1871, the following memorial to the
legislature, prepared by Mary F. Davis, was unanimously adopted:
_To the Honorable the Senate and General Assembly of the
State of New Jersey:_
Section 2, Article 1, of the constitution of the State of
New Jersey, expressly declares that "All political power is
inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the
protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they
have the right at all times to alter or reform the same,
whenever the public good may require it." Throughout the
entire article the words "people" and "person" are used, as
if to apply to all the inhabitants of the State. In direct
contradiction to this broad and just affirmation, section 1,
article 2, begins with the restrictive and unjust sentence:
"Every white male citizen of the United States, at the age
of twenty-one years * * * shall be entitled to vote," etc.,
and the section ends with the specification that "no pauper,
idiot, insane person, or person convicted of a crime * * *
shall enjoy the right of an elector."
Of the word "white" in this article your memorialists need
not speak, as it is made a dead letter by the limitations of
the fifteenth amendment to the United States constitution.
To the second restriction, indicated by the word "male" we
beg leave to call the attention of the legislature, as we
deem it unjust and arbitrary, as well as contradictory to
the spirit of the constitution, as expressed in the first
article. It is also contrary to the precedent established by
the founders of political liberty in New Jersey. On the
second of July, 1776, the provincial congress of New Jersey,
at Burlington, adopted a constitution which remained in
force until 1844; in which section 4 specified as voters,
"all the inhabitants of this Colony, of full age," etc. In
1790, a committee of the legislature reported a bill
regulating elections, in which the words "he and she" are
applied to voters, thus giving legislative endorsement to
the alleged meaning of the constitution.
The legislature of 1807 departed from this wise and just
precedent, and passed an arbitrary act, in direct violation
of the constitutional provision, restricting the suffrage to
white male adult citizens, and this despotic ordinance was
deliberately endorsed by the framers of the State
constitution which was adopted in 1844. This was plainly an
act of usurpation and injustice, as thereby a large
proportion of the law-abiding citizens of the State were
disfranchised, without so much as the privilege of
signifying their acceptance or rejection of the barbarous
fiat which was to rob them of the sacred right of
self-protection by means of a voice in the government, and
to reduce them to the political level of the "pauper, idiot,
insane person, or person convicted of crime."
If this flagrant wrong, which was inflicted by one-half the
citizens of a free commonwealth on the other half, had been
aimed at any other than a non-aggressive and
self-sacrificing class, there would have been fierce
resistance, as in the case of the United Colonies under the
British yoke. It has long been borne in silence. "The right
of voting for representatives," says Paine, "is the primary
right, by which other rights are protected. To take away
this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery, for
slavery consists in being subject to the will of another,
and he that has not a vote in the electing of
representatives is in this condition." Benjamin Franklin
wrote: "They who have no voice nor vote in the electing of
representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely
enslaved to those who have votes and to their
representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors
whom other men have set over us, and be subject to laws made
by the representatives of others, without having had
representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf."
This is the condition of the women of New Jersey. It is
evident to every reasonable mind that these unjustly
disfranchised citizens should be reinstated in the right of
suffrage. Therefore, we, your memorialists, ask the
legislature at its present session to submit to the people
of New Jersey an amendment to the constitution, striking out
the word "male" from article 2, section 1, in order that the
political liberty which our forefathers so nobly bestowed on
men and women alike, may be restored to "all inhabitants" of
the populous and prosperous State into which their brave
young colony has grown.
[Illustration: Cornelia Collins Hussey]
With but a slight change of officers and arguments, these
conventions were similar from year to year. There were on all
occasions a certain number of the clergy in opposition. At one of
these meetings the Rev. Mr. McMurdy condemned the ordination of
women for the ministry. But woman's fitness[279] for that
profession was successfully vindicated by Lucretia Mott and Phebe
A. Hanaford. Mrs. Portia Gage writes, December 12, 1873:
There was an election held by the order of the township
committee of Landis, to vote on the subject of bonding the
town to build shoe and other factories. The call issued was
for all legal voters. I went with some ten or twelve other
women, all taxpayers. We offered our votes, claiming that we
were citizens of the United States, and of the State of New
Jersey, also property-holders in and residents of Landis
township, and wished to express our opinion on the subject
of having our property bonded. Of course our votes were not
accepted, whilst every _tatterdemalion_ in town, either
black or white, who owned no property, stepped up and very
pompously said what he would like to have done with his
property. For the first time our claim to vote seemed to
most of the voters to be a just one. They gathered together
in groups and got quite excited over the injustice of
refusing our vote and accepting those of men who paid no
taxes.
In 1879, the Woman's Political Science Club[280] was formed in
Vineland, which held its meetings semi-monthly, and discussed a
wide range of subjects. Among the noble women in New Jersey who
have stood for many years steadfast representatives of the
suffrage movement, Cornelia Collins Hussey of Orange is worthy of
mention. A long line of radical and brave ancestors[281] made it
comparatively easy for her to advocate an unpopular cause. Her
father, Stacy B. Collins, identified with the anti-slavery
movement, was also an advocate of woman's right to do whatever
she could even to the exercise of the suffrage. He maintained
that the tax-payer should vote regardless of sex, and as years
passed on he saw clearly that not alone the tax-payer, but every
citizen of the United States governed and punished by its laws,
had a just and natural right to the ballot in a country claiming
to be republican. The following beautiful tribute to his memory,
by Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, is found in a letter to his daughter:
LONDON, July 27, 1873.
My last letter from America brought me the sad intelligence
of your dear father's departure from amongst you; and I
cannot refrain from at once writing and begging you to
accept the sincere sympathy and inevitable regret which I
feel for your loss. The disappearance of an old friend
brings up the long past times vividly to my remembrance--the
time when, impelled by irresistible spiritual necessity, I
strove to lead a useful but unusual life, and was able to
face, with the energy of youth, both social prejudice and
the hindrance of poverty. I have to recall those early days
to show how precious your father's sympathy and support were
to me in that difficult time; and how highly I respected his
moral courage in steadily, for so many years, encouraging
the singular woman doctor, at whom everybody looked askance,
and in passing whom so many women held their clothes aside,
lest they should touch her. I know in how many good and
noble things your father took part; but, to me, this brave
advocacy of woman as physician, in that early time, seems
the noblest of his actions.
Speaking of the general activity of the women of Orange, Mrs.
Hussey says:
The Women's Club of Orange was started in 1871. It is a
social and literary club, and at present (1885) numbers
about eighty members. Meetings are held in the rooms of the
New England Society once in two weeks, and a reception, with
refreshments, given at the house of some member once a year.
Some matter of interest is discussed at each regular
meeting. This is not an equal suffrage club, yet a steady
growth in that direction is very evident. Very good work has
been done by this club. An evening school for girls was
started by it, and taught by the members for awhile, until
adopted by the board of education, a boys' evening school
being already in operation. Under the arrangements of the
club, a course of lectures on physiology, by women, was
recently given in Orange, and well attended. At the house of
one of the members a discussion was held on this subject:
"Does the Private Character of the Actor Concern the
Public?" Although the subject was a general one, the
discussion was really upon the proper course in regard to
M'lle Sarah Bernhardt, who had recently arrived in the
country. Reporters from the New York _Sun_ attended the
meeting, so that the views of the club of Orange gained
quite a wide celebrity.
Of Mrs. Hussey's remarks, the Newark _Journal_ said:
The sentiments of the first speaker, Mrs. Cornelia C.
Hussey, were generally approved, and therefore are herewith
given in full: "I have so often maintained in argument that
one has no right to honor those whose lives are a dishonor
to virtue or principle, that I cannot see any other side to
our question than the affirmative. That the stage wields a
potent influence cannot be doubted. Let the plays be
immoral, and its influence must be disastrous to virtue. Let
the known character of the actor be what we cannot respect,
the glamour which his genius or talent throws around that
bad character will tend to diminish our discrimination
between virtue and vice, and our distaste for the latter.
Some one says: 'Let me write the songs of a nation, and I
care not who makes the laws.' The poetry that Byron wrote,
together with his well-known contempt for a virtuous life,
is said to have had a very pernicious influence on the young
men of his time, and probably, too, blinded the eyes of the
young women. I recall being quite startled by reading the
essay of Whittier on Byron, which showed him as he was, and
not with the halo of his great genius thrown around his
vices. It seemed to me that our national government
dethroned virtue when it sent a homicide, if not a murderer,
to represent us at a foreign court; and again when it sent
as minister to another court on the continent a man whose
private character was well known to be thoroughly immoral.
Even to trifle with virtue, or to be a coward in the cause
of principle, is a fearful thing; but when, a person comes
before the public, saying by his life that he prefers the
pleasures of sin to the paths of virtue, it seems to me that
the way is plain--to withhold our patronage as a matter of
public policy."
On the Fourth of July, 1874, Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake was
invited to make the usual address in East Orange, which she
did before a large audience in the public hall. Says the
_Journal_: "Mrs. Blake's speech was characterized by
simplicity of style and appropriateness of sentiment." She
made mention of Molly Pitcher, Mrs. Borden and Mrs. Hall of
New Jersey, and of noted women of other States, who did good
service in Revolutionary times, when the country needed the
help of her daughters as well as her sons.
In the summer of 1876 a noteworthy meeting was held in
Orange in the interest of women. A number of ladies and
gentlemen met in my parlor to listen to statements in
relation to what is called the "social evil," to be made by
the Rev. J. P. Gledstone and Mr. Henry J. Wilson, delegates
from the "British, Continental and General Federation for
the Abolition of Government Regulation of Prostitution." It
is due to the English gentlemen to say that they gave some
very strong reasons for bringing the disagreeable subject
before the meeting, and that they handled it with becoming
delicacy, though with great plainness.
"Ann A. Horton, who died in June, 1875, at the Old Ladies'
Home, Newark, bequeathed $2,000 to Princeton College, to
found a scholarship to be called by her name." Would not the
endowment of a "free bed" in Mrs. Horton's true alma-mater,
the Old Ladies' Home, have been a far wiser bequest than the
foundation of a scholarship in Princeton--a college which,
while fattening on enormous dole received from women, offers
them nothing in return?
In relation to the law giving the mothers of New Jersey some
legal claim to their children, Mrs. Hussey writes:
I have often heard it said that Kansas is the only State
where the married mother has any legal ownership in her
children; but the women of New Jersey have enjoyed this
_privilege_ since 1871, when it was gained for them by the
efforts of Mrs. Ann H. Connelly of Rahway. She was an
American woman, the mother of one daughter, and unhappily
married. She desired to be divorced from her husband, but
she knew that in such case he might legally take her child
from her. Such a risk could not be thought of for a moment;
so she applied to the legislature for a change of the law.
She was assisted by many influential citizens, both men and
women; petitions largely signed were presented, and the
result was the amendment of the law making the mother and
father equal in the ownership of their children. When a copy
of the new law appeared in our papers I wrote to Mrs.
Connelly, inclosing a resolution of thanks from the Essex
County Woman Suffrage Society, of which I was then
secretary. In her reply she said: "This unexpected and
distinguishing recognition of my imperfect, but earnest,
efforts for justice is inexpressibly gratifying." Several
years after, I went with my daughter to Rahway to see Mrs.
Connelly. She seemed to be well known and much respected.
She was teaching in one of the public schools, but seemed
quite feeble in health. In 1881 I saw the notice of her
death. She was a woman of much intelligence, and strongly
interested in suffrage, and should certainly be held in
grateful remembrance by the mothers of New Jersey, to whom
she restored the right which nature gave them, but which
men had taken away by mistaken legislation.
This law of February 21, 1871, composed of several acts
purporting to give fathers and mothers equal rights in cases of
separation and divorce, is not so liberal as it seems in
considering this provision:
Upon a decree of divorce the court may make such further
decree as may be deemed expedient concerning the custody and
maintenance of minor children, and determine with which of
the parents the children shall remain.
This act, though declaring that the mother and father are equal,
soon shows by its specifications that the courts can dispose of
all woman's interests and affections as they may see fit. What
avails a decree of divorce or separation for woman, if the court
can give the children to the father at its pleasure? Here is the
strong cord by which woman is held in bondage, and the courts,
all composed of men, know this, and act on it in their decisions.
A petition was addressed to the constitutional commission of
1873, requesting an amendment restoring to the women of New
Jersey their original right to vote, which that body decided
would be "inexpedient." A bill introduced in the legislature by
Senator Cutler, of Morris county, making women eligible to the
office of school-trustee, became a law March 25, 1873:
Be it enacted, That hereafter no person shall be eligible to
the office of school-trustee, unless he or she can read and
write; and women who are residents in the district and over
twenty years of age, shall also be eligible to the office of
school-trustee, and may hold such office and perform the
duties of the same, when duly elected by ten votes of the
district.--[Chap. 386.
February 26, 1874, a law for the better protection of the
property of married women was passed:
1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the
State of New Jersey, That any married woman who now is, or
may hereafter become, entitled, by gift, devise or bequest,
to any contingent estate, or any interest in any real or
personal property or estate, may, with the concurrence of
her husband, compound and receipt for, assign and convey the
same, in all cases where she lawfully might, if a _feme
sole_; and every release, receipt, assignment, discharge,
agreement, covenant, or contract, thereupon entered into by
her in regard to the same and to the said property, shall be
as valid and binding in every respect, upon her, her heirs,
executors, administrators, and assigns, and any and all
persons claiming under her, them or either of them, as if
she were at the time of entering into the same, a _feme
sole_, and when duly executed and acknowledged in the manner
provided by law for conveyance of real estate, may be
recorded in the surrogate's office, and whenever it relates
to real estate in the clerk's or recorder's office, of the
proper county or counties, in the same manner and with like
effect as other receipts and discharges may now be recorded
therein. 2. And be it enacted. That this act shall take
effect immediately.
A most remarkable trial, lately held in Newark, New Jersey, which
involved the question whether it was contrary to Scripture, and a
violation of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, to admit women
to the pulpit, is well reported by the New York _World_, January
1, 1877:
Since the time that the Rev. Theodore Cuyler was obliged by
the Presbytery of Long Island to apologize for inviting Miss
Sarah Smiley, the Quaker preacher, to occupy the pulpit of
the Lafayette Avenue Church in Brooklyn, the question of the
right of women to preach in Presbyterian churches, has come
up in various parts of the country, but has never been
brought judicially before any ecclesiastical body until
yesterday, when it occupied the attention of the Newark
Presbytery, under the following circumstances. October 29,
1876, Mrs. L. S. Robinson and Mrs. C. S. Whiting, two ladies
who were much interested in the temperance movement, asked
and received permission of the Rev. Isaac M. See, of the
Wickliffe Presbyterian Church at Newark, to occupy his
pulpit, morning and evening of that day. They accordingly
addressed the congregation on the subject of temperance. To
this the Rev. E. R. Craven, of the Third Presbyterian
Church, of Newark, objected, and brought before the Newark
Presbytery the following charge:
"The undersigned charges the Rev. Isaac M. See, pastor of
the Wickliffe Church, of Newark, N. J., a member of your
body, with disobedience to the divinely enacted ordinance in
reference to the public speaking and teaching of women in
churches, as recorded in I. Corinthians, xiv., 33 to 37, and
I. Timothy, ii., 13, in that: First specification--On
Sunday, October 29, 1876, in the Wickliffe Church of the
city of Newark, N. J., he did, in the pulpit of the said
church, and before the congregation there assembled for
public worship at the usual hour of the morning service,
viz., 10:30 A.M., introduce a woman, whom he permitted and
encouraged then and there publicly to preach and teach." The
second specification is couched in similar language, except
that it charges Mr. See with introducing another woman at
the evening service upon the same day. The charge was
presented at the regular meeting of the Presbytery, a short
time ago, and the hearing of the case was adjourned until
yesterday. The meeting was held in the lecture room of the
Second Presbyterian Church in Washington street. Rev. John
L. Wells, pastor of the Bethany Mission Chapel, presided,
and there was a fair attendance of the members of the body.
Of the audience at least nine-tenths were women.[282] Dr.
Craven, the prosecutor, sat on the front row of seats, near
to the clerk's table, while Dr. See, who is very stout, with
a double chin, and the picture of good-nature, sat in the
rear of the members of the Presbytery, and among the front
rows of spectators. Dr. McIllvaine introduced the following
resolution:
_Resolved_, That this charge, by common consent of the
parties, be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings, with
affectionate council to the Rev. Dr. See not to go contrary
to the usages of the Presbyterian Church for the future.
This brought Brother See to his feet. He could not, he said,
assent to Brother McIllvaine's resolution. He had not
consented that the charge should be dismissed, as in the
resolution. Brother McIllvaine expressed himself as sure
that Brother See had consented, but Brother See was again
equally sure that he had not. Some member here suggested
that Dr. Craven should first have been asked if he consented
to dismiss the charge, and this brought that gentleman to
his feet. A more complete antithesis to Dr. See cannot be
imagined. He is tall, gaunt, with full beard and mustache,
short, bristling hair, that stands upright in a row from the
centre of his forehead to the crown of his head. He said
that at the request of Dr. McIllvaine and another respected
member of the Presbytery he had said that if the party
charged would give full and free consent to the resolution,
he would also assent; "and," he added, "such is now my
position." Dr. McIllvaine then gave at length his reasons
for desiring to arrest the case where it was. No good could
come of its discussion, and the result could not but be
productive of discord. The Moderator reminded Dr. See that
they waited for an answer from him.
Dr. See--May we have a season of prayer, sir? The Moderator
said there was no objection. Dr. See explained that the
matter at issue was not a personal one; it was a question as
to the meaning of the Scriptures upon a certain point, and
he was there simply to know what the Presbytery would do.
Rev. Drs. Brinsmayd and Fewsmith then prayed, but Dr. See's
frame of mind was not in the least changed. He still
insisted that his was the passive part, to sit and see what
they would do with his case. Rev. Dr. Wilson thought that if
Brother See did not desire to do anything contrary to the
usages of the church, he might say so. Brother See said it
was a question of whether God Almighty had said certain
things or not, and that he could not answer. In his formal
answer to the charge the accused then said: "I believe
myself to be not guilty of the charge, but I admit the
specifications." Dr. Craven, in his speech, said it was in
no spirit of animosity that he had brought the charge. He
believed that the law of God had been broken in this case;
not designedly, perhaps, but really. A custom had found
lodgment in a Presbyterian church that would impair its
efficiency and would also injure woman in the sphere which
she was called upon by God to fill. No judicial decision had
been arrived at upon this question. The case of Dr. Cuyler
was the first that had come before a Presbytery, and that
was hardly a trial of the question. "Why should I," he
continued, "bring this charge? Because I have felt it to be
wrong, and feeling thus, resolved to take the duty upon
myself, painful and agonizing as the task may be. I deem it
my duty to God to do so." Dr. See (_sotto voce_)--"And the
Lord will bless you for it."
Dr. Craven, continuing, read the passages of Scripture
referred to in this charge. He did not, he said, affirm that
woman had no work in the church. She had a great and
glorious sphere; she had no right to teach and speak in
public meetings, but she could teach children and ignorant
men in private. He would not affirm that some women could
not preach as well as, or better than some men, and he did
not know but that in the future she might occupy the
platform on an equality with men; but at present she could
not, and it was expressly forbidden in the passages which he
had read. "You may run to hear another man's wife preach, or
another man's daughter," said he, "but who would have his
own wife stand upon the platform, or his own daughter face
the mob? Woman is the heart of man, but man is the head. Let
woman go upon the platform, and she loses that shrinking
modesty that gives her such power over children. What child
would wish to have a public-speaking mother? I trust this
evil will not creep in upon the church. I felt bound to
resist it at the outset, and unless I am convinced of my
error shall withstand it to the death." * * * *
January 2, 1877, Rev. Dr. See continued his defense of
himself for letting a woman into his pulpit. Then the roll
was called for the views of the Presbytery. Dr. McIllvaine
said that the two sources of light, as he understood it,
were the teachings of the Lord and his disciples. The Lord
didn't select women for his twelve, and vacancies were not
filled by women. It wasn't a woman who was chosen to do
Paul's work. He was the chosen teacher of the church in that
and all succeeding ages, and he had said, "I suffer not
women to teach, or to usurp authority in the church." Dr.
Brinsmade, who was the pastor of the Wickliffe Church before
Dr. See was called there, admitted that women could preach
well, but thought the Presbytery had better stick by the
divine command. Dr. Canfield also agreed with Paul. He loved
women and loved their work, but it seemed from the
experience of the world that God intended that the pulpit
should be the place for men. Such, at any rate, had been the
principle and the practice of the Presbyterian Church; and
if Brother See could not conform to its rules, he would say
to him, "Go, brother; there are other churches in which you
can find a place." Dr. Canfield was called to order for that
addendum. Dr. Hutchings, of Orange, referred to the ancient
justification of slavery from the Bible, and in view of
honest differences of construction accepted by the church,
thought the question should be left to the discretion of
pastors and church-sessions. Rev. Jonathan F. Stearns,
pastor of the First Church, demurred to this and stood by
the Scripture text. Nine-tenths of the ladies of the church,
he said, would vote against preaching by women.
Rev. James E. Wilson, pastor of the South Park Church, said
that in churches where women had been permitted to preach,
they had lost ground. "I have never heard a Quaker woman,"
said he, "preach a sermon worth three cents (laughter), and
yet I have heard the spirit move them to get up and speak at
most improper times and on most inopportune occasions, and
have heard them say most improper and impertinent things."
In the Methodist Church he did not believe that there were
over twenty-five women preachers, so the women were losing
ground, and not gaining. Even the woman suffragists, who
made so much noise a few years ago, had subsided, and he did
not believe there were a hundred agitators in the whole
country now. "See," he said, "where Brother See's argument
would carry him. Any woman that has the spirit upon her may
speak, and so, by and by, two or three women may walk up
into Brother See's pulpit and say,'Come down; it's our turn
now, we are moved by the spirit.' (Laughter). A woman's
voice was against her preaching; a man's voice came out with
a 'thud,' but a woman spoke soft and pleasing; however, here
were the plain words of the text, and any man that could
throw it overboard could throw over the doctrine of the
atonement. If a mother should teach her son from the pulpit
by preaching to him, thus disobeying the plain words of the
apostle, she must not be surprised if her son went contrary
to some other teaching of the apostle. But the fact was, the
women did not desire to preach; otherwise they would have
preached long ago. He rejoiced when that convention of
temperance women assembled in Newark, but he could not help
pitying their husbands and families away out in Chicago and
elsewhere. (Laughter).
Rev. Ferd. Smith, the pastor of the Second Church, said the
president of the Woman's Temperance Union had asked him if
they could have the use of the church, and he had said
"yes"; "and," said Dr. Smith, "I am glad that I did it, and
I am sorry that I was not there to hear the address; and
now, brethren, I am going to confess that I have sinned a
little in this matter of women preaching. Two or three years
ago I went and heard Miss Smiley preach. I had heard in the
morning--I won't mention his name--one of the most
distinguished men of the country preach a very able
sermon--a very long one, too. [Laughter.] I had heard in the
afternoon a doctor of divinity; I don't see him here now,
but I have seen him, and I won't mention his name; and I
heard Miss Smiley in the evening. It may be heresy to say
it, but I do think I was more fed that evening than I had
been by both the others; but I do not on that account say
that it is good for women to go, as a regular thing, into
the pulpit. If I had heard her a dozen times, I should not
have been so much moved. Woman-preaching may do for a little
time, but it won't do for a permanency. I heard at Old
Orchard, at a temperance convention, the most beautiful
argument I ever listened to, delivered with grace and
modesty and power. The words fell like dew upon the heart,
enriching it, and the speaker was Miss Willard; but for all
this, brethren, I do not approve of women preaching. [Great
laughter.] We must not, for the sake of a little good,
sacrifice a great principle." Dr. Pollock of Lyons Farms
wanted to shelter women, to prevent them from being talked
about as ministers are and criticised as ministers are; it
was for this that he would keep them out of the pulpit. Rev.
Drs. Findley and Prentiss de Neuve were in favor of
sustaining the charge. Rev. Dr. Haley contended that Brother
See ought not to be condemned, because he had not offended
against any law of the church. Drs. Seibert, Ballantine and
Hopwood spoke in favor of sustaining the charge. A vote of
16 to 12 found Rev. Dr. See guilty of violating the
Scriptures by allowing women to preach, and the case was
appealed to the General Assembly.
The General Assembly adopted the following report on this case: