MY FIRST CASE

It was a great privilege that was accorded me last night to be

allowed to sit in the gallery and hear the speeches at the banquet.

Our senior senator’s response to the toast “My First Case,” made so

strong an impression upon me that even after I had crept into bed I

thought of it. How great must be the satisfaction of a young lawyer

who successfully pleads his first case in behalf of some poor client

against a rich corporation! How gratifying to wrest victory from more

experienced antagonists, and to be upheld by the presence of his

friends and his sweetheart.

In my half-waking condition I was wishing that my career would have

been one of a lawyer instead of a bustle-maker. Then, like a panorama,

my life was mirrored before me, and in the moving pictures as they

passed by I saw complaints, trials, verdicts; complaints, trials,

verdicts.

Without realizing it, I have been in court from the day of my birth,

constantly pleading my cases; and the prospects are good for employing

the remainder of my days in court.

My first case began at my birth, although I did not possess, as yet, a

diploma which would qualify me to practice before a court of record.

Nevertheless, I pleaded that case with all the force and eloquence my

infant lungs could muster. When my mother substituted malted milk in

order to save her breasts to decorate a décolleté gown for receptions,

balls, and parties, I felt that I was being swindled of what life

had bequeathed to me. What right had that mother of mine to use that

which nature intrusted to her keeping to be used as a distillery

and a store-house for my food as an ornament with which to decorate

herself at gala shows. To misuse that with which one is intrusted is

a violation of a trust and the offender guilty of breach of trust. To

squander a trust fund and to substitute something else of an inferior

grade is fraud. Though I survived this ordeal, my mother was putting

herself into the attitude of a potential murderess, for I might have

died of such treatment. I protested against this larceny as bailee. I

registered my complaint by kicking, crying, and screaming. Mother gave

me over to my nurse, and she tossed me about and finally put me in my

cradle, and called the doctor, who put a few drops of dope in my food,

and I went to sleep exhausted. Thus I pleaded and lost my first case.

The next picture which appeared before me was when I, a child of two

years, stood looking out of my window and seeing, other children

enjoying themselves playing on the street, while my clothes, nurse

said, were too fine and my parents too rich and respectable for me to

play with common people’s children, and when I cried nurse took me in

her arms and pointed to some kind of a chart which hung framed on the

wall and said that this was a “family tree,” and people who have them

must not cry.

What right had they to impose their respectability and the dignity of

their riches, which I did not care for, and of which I did not know

the use, upon a helpless, defenseless child? And even to this day I

do not know and cannot understand what good a “family tree” is. Life

had appointed them guardian to care for me in the best possible manner

till I should be able to care for myself. What right did they have to

impose their loveless life upon me? And when the male guardian of the

family came home from his club the worse for liquor, what right had

he to “tootsie wootsie” and kiss me and make me sick with his vile

breath? I pleaded my case by pulling my father’s whiskers, by kicking

the governess, and running away whenever the opportunity offered.

Nevertheless I lost my case.

Later, when my parents separated because of incompatibility, and I

was placed in a convent by the order of the court, my emotions sought

expression in playing. But the rules of the convent did not permit

play. Instead, they crammed me with information about things that did

not concern me and refused me answers to questions upon that which

interested me. They made me pray when I had no prayer in me, and they

read all the letters that I wrote and received. I protested against

this invasion and abridgement of my liberty by crying and scolding the

nuns, and by running away several times, but was always taken back to

endure even more vigorous restraint. And so I lost my case. I seemed

to be the victim of a conspiracy to cheat me of my inheritance. But I

thought that probably if I would endure it for a while that when I had

become grown up I should come into my estate of liberty. But in this

expectation I was doomed to disappointment as well as before, for when

I reached womanhood I found that I was expected to permit others to

shape my life for me.

The next vision on the panorama is the saddest of my life, seeing two

of my sisters die, one of consumption, being unhappy with her husband,

and not being strong enough to withstand the drain of successive

child-bearing upon her tired frame. Children kindly nature had given

her, not of a normal motherhood demand but because her husband was the

provider and my sister a woman anxious for peace submitted to his vile

passions rather than to have him nagging. Mother nature cares not for

the cause of the demand made upon her; so long there be a demand she

supplies without question. And so my sister died.

The cause of my other sister’s death was likewise a “brute of a

husband.” Sisters, dear sisters, how I mourn you! How I mourn your

sacrifice to conventionality! I should think that this monster

convention would have been satisfied with two sacrificial offerings

in one family. So when my maternal feeling got so strong, and the

desire to become a mother so great within me, I thought that I should

be permitted to become one without pledging my body for life to a man

whose attentions I would probably not care to receive after conception.

The fish of the sea have their appointed time to propagate. The fowls

of the air have their mating seasons. The beasts of the forest their

breeding periods. But you, my brother, impose your uncontrolled

passions on your mate in and out of season.

I, a full-grown woman, passed the age of thirty, I thought would be

permitted to select the man that should father my child. And not

heeding my neighbors when they tried to dictate to me by whom, when,

and how I should become a mother, I am indicted as being an unfit

person to be admitted to the homes of my fellow-citizens. Ostracism

from my fellow-beings is the verdict they ask public opinion to give.

And even now, when my child is four years of age, I have fully proven

to convention that a child that comes into the world because of the

demand of the mother, will be provided by life with all the love it

needs.

Yet I am dragged into the Court of Public Opinion, my accusers asking

for my condemnation, and put upon my defense.

In my reverie I seemed to arise slowly, perfectly conscious of my

victory, knowing the responsibility devolving on me, ready and willing

to plead not only for myself but for the freedom of my sex. So, facing

the court, and in a clear and distinct voice which seemed to ring

through the court-room, I said:

“The honorable Court of Public Opinion, and the citizens under its

control: there is a feeling abides with me, a conviction I might say,

that you will deliberate this case carefully, without any fear and

prejudice, in the most calm manner, as the happiness of womanhood is at

stake. Your own happiness, as well as your daughter’s; your sister’s as

well as my own. I beg of you to please record that I am not now setting

up any defense against the charge with which I am confronted. If my

desire and anxiety would be for my acquittal I would let the case go

before your honorable body for decision without setting up any defense,

as my accusers have not proven the charges set out in the indictment.

I admit that I am associated, in fact very intimate, with Love. But it

is admitted by all, and I have even heard this honorable court say,

that to love is no crime. But, say they in the indictment, that I use

my love with a hypnotic power, and thereby I destroy and wreck the life

of Happy Homes. And say they in the indictment, that I have freed Love

and thereby wrecked Happy Homes; that would make the charge against me

accessory before the act.

“The law of evidence is very clear that when a person is charged

with murder it devolves upon the prosecution to produce the ‘corpus

delicti.’ Unless it be shown that there had been such a person as the

one with whose destruction I am charged, I must be acquitted, however

strong the chain of circumstantial evidence connecting me with the

crime. The prosecution of this case has failed to produce any evidence

that Happy Homes was seen recently. There is no evidence whatever that

I was ever acquainted with Happy Homes. Happy Homes, as the court

knows, is a myth. For centuries Happy Homes has had no existence, and

I could not destroy what did not exist. So if I were alarmed for my

personal safety, though I would not say anything in my defense, you

could not do otherwise than to acquit me for lack of evidence.

“My object, your honors, in standing now before you is not to defend

but to accuse. Transformation has taken place. Instead of the accused

criminal begging for mercy, I stand as an accuser demanding justice!

“Here, now, I see the proper opportunity to charge my accusers with the

most heinous crime of conspiracy. From the day of my birth until the

present time there was not a day that passed that they did not harass

me and make my life miserable. Fear and Prejudice, my accusers, are

dishonorable, and should be banished from any community. I will show to

this honorable court the true character of two of the most dangerous

traitors that ever inflicted mankind. Always conspiring against the

community which honors them. Ungrateful wretches! The more you respect

them, the more you nourish them, the more you fondle them, the more

miserable they will make you. They will devour your very happiness.

“If this honorable court please, let Fear stand up so you can have a

good look at him. Look how miserable and cowardly he acts! See how he

cringes!

“Come out, Fear, from behind that child! Come out, Fear, from behind

that woman’s apron there! Let the court see you! You are always hiding

behind children and women! Always afraid of what will become of the

poor defenseless orphans and widows. What has Fear ever done for them?

It is Love, my comrades, that cares, provides, and suffers for the

children and the women. It is Love that makes the bread, it is Love

that fashions the clothes, it is Love that builds the houses for the

use of the women and children. And here, Prejudice, stand up and let

the court see you. You looked like a mountain when you were my accuser,

and like a tiger you were fierce when you made the charges against me.

But here as I assert myself--

“Here, your honorable court, I can’t find Prejudice anywhere. He has

vanished though all the doors are locked. I demand that an attachment

be issued by this honorable court, and let Prejudice be brought before

this honorable body, that the court may see. There is really nothing

to Prejudice; there was nothing in him in the first place. It was only

the noise they have been making. I have no dealing with either Fear or

Prejudice. When you know what they are you can go about your business

unmolested by Fear or Prejudice.

“The danger, my fellow-citizens, is when you do not know them. The

danger is when you are not acquainted with them. It is then that they

destroy the possibilities of Freedom living in your community. Happy

Homes could not have lived in the community where either Fear or

Prejudice existed. Fear and Prejudice have stolen the outer garments of

Happy Homes and make of them a flimsy disguise for Miserable Homes and

Wretchedness.

“And here in the audience, your honorable court, I see Economics. Come,

Economics, and testify in my behalf before this honorable body. You

have traveled all over this land; tell us if you have seen Happy Homes

anywhere. Tell the honorable court of Public Opinion, please, what you

have told me, that ‘fear of poverty has driven away any possibility of

Happy Homes anywhere.’ Tell the honorable court, too, dear Economics,

whether or not you have not found Miserable Homes masquerading in the

garb of Happy Homes wherever you went. And there is Miserable Homes;

you all know him. He will testify that he holds the life lease on all

the homes, even on the home of this honorable court. And the lease

which I have seen is signed by Fear and Prejudice. So I implore this

honorable court, if you desire to have happiness in this community,

banish these ever-devouring monsters and conspirators, Fear and

Prejudice, along with their retinue, out of the land; then we can all

enjoy love in freedom, and we will hail with joy the return of Happy

Homes.”

A hush fell upon the assemblage as Respectability, the court crier,

announced that the honorable court of Public Opinion was ready to

render a decision.

In tremulous voice, and without lifting his eyes from the paper on

which his verdict had been transcribed, Public Opinion read as follows:

“It is customary for those who are under the jurisdiction of this court

to subscribe to appearances. While we are aware that Miserable Homes is

a guest at the fireside of each of us, we are justified in acquiescing

in the assumption that Happy Homes dwells with our neighbors. The law

upholds many ‘legal fictions’--some of them having been cherished so

long as to have all the sanctions we accord to truth. We must, in so

far as we have the power, protect our established legal fictions.

Properly, therefore, society punishes with ostracism all who strip bare

such professions as we regard valuable. However, as this court has

jurisdiction only over those who are willing to be wretched in order to

hold certificates of respectability (on the well-known principle that

every just court derives its powers from the consent of the judged),

this court can mete out justice only to those who consent to its

dominion, yet disregard its mandates. This defendant, preferring to be

ruled by her own conscience rather than to keep up appearances, seems

to be outside the jurisdiction of this court. This tribunal is, and of

right ought to be, a terror to those under its control, but it must

recognize an inclination to accord some measure of admiration to such

as have the courage to defy it. The defendant stands acquitted.”

(To a newspaper reporter the learned judge later made the private

admission that there was more of policy than kindliness in his

decision, inasmuch as the class of insurgents which the defendant

represented might some day be the leaders of public opinion themselves.)

Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch, who had been an attentive listener to the

proceedings, added éclat to the ovation that was given me as I left

the court-room by shouting, “I propose three cheers for the woman who

dared.”