The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 63

SYRACUSE, Oct. 14, 1881.--At the Fayetteville, Onondaga county, school district election yesterday, a direct issue was made on the question of woman's rights. The candidate of the women was chosen. This is the women's second victory in that place, giving them control of the school-board.

A correspondent describing what the voters had to encounter, said:

Is the question asked, why have not more women voted? I answer, hundreds of women in this State were debarred by falsehood and intimidation. No sooner had the school suffrage law pa.s.sed than the wildest statements about it were made. It was given out that the Governor had recalled the bill from the Secretary of State after signing it (which he could not do), and vetoed it; that the law was unconst.i.tutional; that it was defective and inoperative; that it did not apply to cities and villages; that it had been repealed; and like untruths. Pains was taken to hide its existence by corrupt officials, who told the women that the law did not apply to the places where they lived, or who withheld the fact of its pa.s.sage. The State was flooded just before the elections with an incorrect statement that only the rich women could vote; that the children's mothers could not unless they held real estate. The story was also set afloat that the attorney-general had indorsed this statement; which that gentleman promptly repudiated. All this we corrected as fast and as far as we could; but it unavoidably did much harm.

Wholesale hindrance and terrorism too, were used. A few samples are these: In Albany, many women were threatened by their own husbands with expulsion from house and home, imprisonment, bodily violence or death if they dared vote; while many others were deterred by insults and threats of social persecution. Many persons ridiculed and abused those who sought to vote. In some districts the inspectors refused to register qualified women, while in others votes were refused. Statements were widely published that the law did not apply to Albany. In Knowersville, the village teacher went to every house, and threatened the women with state-prison if they dared to vote. In Mount Morris, the president of the Board of Education denounced the ladies who induced others to vote. In Fayetteville, Saratoga and elsewhere, the ladies' request for some share in making the tickets was scornfully ignored. In Port Jervis, the Board of Education declined a hall that was offered, and had the election in a low, dirty little room. Smoke was puffed in the ladies' faces, challenges were frequent, and all sorts of impudent questions were asked of the voters. In Long Island City many ladies were challenged, and stones were thrown in the street at Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling, the lady who was most active in bringing out the new voters. In New Brighton, the village paper threatened the women with jail if they voted; and when a motion was made in one district that the ladies be invited to attend, a large negative vote was given, one man shouting, "We have enough of women at home; we don't want'em here!" At West New Brighton it was openly announced that the meeting should be too turbulent for ladies, insomuch that many who intended to go staid away, and the few who went were obliged to wait till all the men had voted. In Newham a gang of low fellows took possession of the polling place early, filled it with smoke of the worst tobacco, and covered the floor with tobacco juice; and through all this the few ladies who ventured to vote had to pa.s.s. In New York a man who claims to be a gentleman said: "If my wife undertook to vote I would trample her under my feet." In New Roch.e.l.le the school trustee told the women they were not ent.i.tled to vote, and tried to prevent a meeting being held to inform them. Clergymen from the pulpit urged women not to vote, and a mob gathered at the polls and blocked the way. These are but samples of the difficulties under which the new law went into operation; and it is the truth that there was as much bulldozing of voters in New York as ever in the South, though sometimes by other means.

In 1880 Mrs. Blake was sent by the New York society to the Republican and Democratic presidential conventions at Chicago and Cincinnati, and on her return a meeting was called in Republican Hall, July 9, to hear her report as to the comparative treatment received by the delegates in the two conventions. Soon afterwards a delegation of ladies[242] waited on Winfield S. Hanc.o.c.k, the Democratic nominee, who received them with much courtesy, saying he was quite willing to interpret, in its broadest sense, that clause of his letter of acceptance wherein he said: "It is only by a full vote and a fair count that the people can rule in fact, as required by the theory of our government." "I am willing, ladies," said the general, "to have you say that I believe in a free ballot for all the people of the United States, women as well as men."

Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Sloc.u.m and Mr. Wilc.o.x made quite an extensive canva.s.s through many counties of the State, to rouse the women to use their right to vote on all school matters.

The bill to prohibit disfranchis.e.m.e.nt was again introduced in the legislature of 1881, by Joseph M. Congdon, and ordered to a third reading May 3, by a vote of 60 to 40, and on May 11 came up for final action, when the ladies, by special courtesy, were admitted to the floor of the a.s.sembly chamber to listen to the discussion.

General Francis B. Spinola and General James W. Husted made earnest speeches in favor of the bill, and Hon. Erastus Brooks and General George A. Sharpe in opposition. The roll-call gave 57 ayes to 55 noes--a majority of those present, but not the majority (65) of all the members of the a.s.sembly, which the const.i.tution of New York requires for the final pa.s.sage of a bill. The vote astonished the opponents, and placed the measure among the grave questions of the day. This substantial success inspired the friends to renewed efforts.[243]

The necessity of properly qualified women in the police stations again came up for consideration. The condition of unfortunate women nightly consigned to these places had long been set forth by the leaders of the suffrage movement. In New York there were thirty-two station-houses in which, from night to night, from five to forty women were lodged, some on criminal charges, some from extreme poverty. All there, young and old, were entirely in the hands of men, in sickness or distress. If search was to be made on charge of theft, it was always a male official who performed the duty. If the most delicate and refined lady were taken ill on the street, or injured in any way, she was liable to be taken to the nearest station, where the needful examinations to ascertain if life yet lingered must be made by men. In view of these facts, a resolution was again pa.s.sed at the State convention, and request made to the police commissioners, to permit a delegation of ladies to meet with them in conference. The commissioners deigned no reply, but gave the letter to the press, whereupon ensued a storm of comment and ridicule.

On consultation with Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell, commissioner of the State Board of Charities, a bill was drawn up and sent to Albany, providing for the appointment of one or more police-matrons at every station-house in cities of 50,000 inhabitants and upwards, the salaries to be $600 each. Hon. J. C. Boyd presented the bill in the Senate, where it pa.s.sed April 18. In the a.s.sembly its pa.s.sage was urged by Hon. Michael C. Murphy, chairman of the Committee on Cities. Meantime Mayor Grace and Comptroller Campbell entered their protest against the bill, declaring the measure ought to originate in the city departments, where there was full power to appoint police-matrons; also, that the proposed salaries would be a heavy drain upon the city treasury. The comptroller was at once informed of the previous application to the police commissioners, from whom no reply had been received, which virtually compelled appeal to the legislature. And as to salaries, it was suggested that there were now on the pay-roll of the police of New York 2,500 men whose salaries amounted to over $2,500,000, whereas the bill before the legislature asked for only sixty matrons, whose salaries would amount to but $36,000. This was certainly a most reasonable demand for the protection of one-half the people of the city, who paid fully half the indirect taxes as well as a fair proportion of the direct taxes. Finally, it was proposed to the comptroller that the bill should be withdrawn if he would recommend the appointment of police-matrons in the city departments. This was not accepted. The Committee on Cities gave a hearing to Mrs. Blake, and reported unanimously in favor of the bill. Public sentiment supported the measure, the press generally advocated it, and the a.s.sembly pa.s.sed the bill by a vote of 96 to 7; but it failed to receive the signature of the governor,--a most striking proof of the need of the ballot for women; since, friendly as he was to woman's enfranchis.e.m.e.nt, when he found the police department, with its thousands of attaches, _all with votes_ in their hands, opposed, Governor Cornell was found wanting in courage and conscience to sign this bill for women who had no votes.[244] The next year application was again made to the city authorities for the appointment of matrons, but they refused to act. The bill was rentroduced in the legislature, pa.s.sed by a large majority in the a.s.sembly, but defeated in the Senate by the adverse report of the Committee on Cities. A ma.s.s-meeting to discuss this question of police-matrons was held in Steinway Hall, March 1, at which the speakers[B] all urged such appointments.

During the winter of 1882 an effort was made in New York city to secure the enforcement of the law enacted by the previous legislature, which provided that seats should be furnished for the "shop-girls." Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling caused the arrest of certain prominent shop-keepers on the charge of not complying with the law, but on coming to trial the suits were withdrawn on the promise of the delinquents to give seats to their employes.

During the winter of 1882 agitation for the higher education of women was renewed, and a society organized by some of the most influential ladies in the city. They rolled up a pet.i.tion of 1,200, asking that Columbia College be opened to women. President Barnard had recommended this in his reports for three years. The agitation culminated in a grand meeting[245] in the new Union League Theater.

Parke G.o.dwin of the _Evening Post_ presided. The audience was chiefly composed of fashionable ladies, whose equipages filled Thirty-eighth street blocks away, yet not a woman sat on the platform; not a woman's voice was heard; even the report of the society was read by a man, and every inspiration of the occasion was filtered through the brain of some man. Among other things, Mr.

G.o.dwin, son-in-law of the poet Bryant, said:

We speak of the higher education of women. Why not also of men?

Because they already have the opportunity for obtaining it. The idea upon which our government is built is the idea of equal rights for all; and that means equal opportunities. Every society needs all the best intellect that it can get. We have many evil influences acting upon our society here, and we need the all-controlling influence of woman. We cannot fix a standard for her. History shows what she has done, in a Vespasia, Vittoria Colonna, De Stael, Bremer, Evans, Somerville and Maria Mitch.e.l.l.

She does not go out of her sphere when she is so highly educated.

She can darn her stockings just as well if she does know the word in half-a-dozen languages. There is no longer novelty in this movement; it has been tried successfully here and abroad in the universities, and always with success.

Addresses were also made by Rev. Dr. Stowe, Dr. William Draper, Joseph Choate, and others eminent in one way or another. The meeting closed by circulating a pet.i.tion for presentation to the trustees of Columbia College, asking that properly qualified women be admitted to lectures and examinations.

The bill to prohibit disfranchis.e.m.e.nt on account of s.e.x was again introduced in the a.s.sembly by Hon. J. Hampden Robb, and referred to the Committee on Grievances, of which Major James Haggerty was chairman, who gave to it his hearty approval and granted two hearings to the officers of the State society, on behalf of the large number of memorialists who had sent in their pet.i.tions from all parts of the State. The women of Albany were indefatigable in their personal appeals to the different members of the a.s.sembly, urging them to vote for the bill, while Major Haggerty was untiring in his advocacy of the measure. On May 3 there was an animated discussion:[246] the bill pa.s.sed to its third reading by an overwhelming vote, which alarmed the opponents into making a thorough canva.s.s, that proved to them the necessity of some decisive action for the defeat of the bill. The Hon. Erastas Brooks presented a resolution, calling on the attorney-general for his opinion on the const.i.tutionality of the proposed law, which was pa.s.sed in a moment of confusion, and when many of our friends were absent. Following is the opinion elicited:

STATE OF NEW YORK. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,} ALBANY, May 10, 1882.}

_To the a.s.sembly:_

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution of the a.s.sembly requesting the attorney-general to report his opinion as to the const.i.tutionality of a.s.sembly bill No. 637, which provides that "every woman shall be free to vote under the qualifications required of men, or to refrain from voting, as she may choose; and no person shall be debarred by reason of s.e.x from voting at any election, or at any town meeting, school meeting, or other choice of government functionaries whatsoever," and whether, without an amendment to the const.i.tution, suffrage can be granted to any cla.s.s of persons not named in the const.i.tution.

I reply:

_First_--It has been decided so often by the judicial tribunals of the various States of the Union, and by the Supreme Court of the United States, that suffrage is not a natural inherent right, but one governed by the law-making power and regulated by questions of availability and expediency, instead of absolute, inalienable right (1, 3), that the question is no longer open for discussion, either by the judicial forum or legislative a.s.semblies (_Burnham vs. Laning, 1 Legal Gazette Rep., 411, Supreme Court Penn.; Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162; Day vs. Jones, 31 California, 261; Anderson vs. Baker, 23 Maryland, 531; Abbott vs. Bayley, 6 Pickering, 92; 2 Dallas, 471-2; In re Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatchford, 200_). At the common law women had no right to vote and no political status (2, 4) (_Maine's Ancient Law, 140; Cooley's Const. Lim., 599; Blackstone's Comm., 171_).

_Second_--Therefore the const.i.tution of the State of New York, providing that every male citizen of the age of 21 years who shall have certain other qualifications, may vote, the determination of the organic law specifying who shall have the privilege of voting, excludes all other cla.s.ses (5), such as women, persons under 21 years of age and aliens. The argument that, because women are not expressly prohibited, they may vote, fails to give the slightest force to the term "male" in the const.i.tution; and by the same force of reasoning, the expression of the term "citizen" and the statement of the age of 21 years would not necessarily exclude aliens and those under 21 years of age from voting (6). Therefore, a.s.suming that our organic law was properly adopted without the partic.i.p.ation of women either in making or adopting it (7), that organic law controls.

_Third_--It follows, therefore, as a logical consequence that the proposed reform cannot be accomplished except by an amendment of the const.i.tution ratified by two successive legislatures and the people, or by a const.i.tutional convention, whose work shall be sanctioned by a vote of the people.

LESLIE W. RUSSELL, _Attorney-General_.[247]

Weak as was this doc.u.ment, and untenable as were its a.s.sertions, it had great weight with many of the members of the legislature coming as the opinion did from the attorney-general of the State. The friends of the bill resolved to call for the vote when the bill should be reached, and on May 16, the women were present in large numbers, listening with intense interest to the brief speeches of the members for and against, and watching and counting the vote as the roll-call proceeded, which resulted in 54 ayes and 59 noes, lacking three votes of a majority of those present and only eleven of the requisite number, sixty-five. In view of the official opinion against its const.i.tutionality amounting to a legal decision, this was a most gratifying vote.[248]

The presence of Leslie W. Russell in Albany, as attorney-general, rendered it useless to rentroduce the bill to prohibit disfranchis.e.m.e.nt on account of s.e.x in the legislature of 1883, but in its stead, Dr. John G. Boyd of New York introduced a proposition to strike "male" from the suffrage clause of the const.i.tution, which, however, received only fifteen votes.

To pa.s.s from the State to the Church, the winter of 1883 was notable for the delivery of a series of Lenten lectures on woman by the Rev. Morgan Dix, D. D., rector of Trinity Church, New York, afterwards published in book form under the t.i.tle, "The Calling of a Christian Woman and her Training to Fulfill it." The lectures were delivered each Friday evening during Lent, in Trinity Chapel, and at once attracted attention from their conservative, reactionary, almost monastic views of woman's position and duties.

After reading a report of one of these remarkable essays in which women were gravely told their highest happiness should be found in singing hymns, Mrs. Blake decided to reply to them. She secured a hall on Fourteenth street, and on successive Sunday evenings gave addresses in reply. Both courses of lectures were well attended.

The moderate audiences of Trinity Chapel soon became a throng that more than filled the large building, while the hall in which Mrs.

Blake spoke was packed to suffocation, hundreds going away unable to gain admittance. The press everywhere favored the broad and liberal views presented by Mrs. Blake, and denounced the old-time narrow theories of Dr. Dix. Mrs. Blake's lectures were also published in book form with the t.i.tle of "Woman's Place To-day" and had a large circulation.

The Republicans again nominating Mr. Russell for attorney-general, an active campaign was organized against him and in favor of the Democratic nominee, Mr. Dennis...o...b..ien. Protests[249] against Russell were circulated throughout the State; Republican tickets were printed with the name of Denis...o...b..ien for attorney-general, and on election day women distributed these tickets, and made every possible effort to ensure the defeat of Russell; and he was defeated by 13,000 votes.

The legislature of 1884 showed a marked gain; Hon. Erastus Brooks, General George A. Sharpe, and other prominent opponents had been retired, and their seats filled by active friends. Our bill was introduced by Mr. William Howland of Cayuga, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Howland also secured the pa.s.sage of a special act, granting women the right to vote at the charter elections of Union Springs, Cayuga county. Under similar enactments women have the right to vote for munic.i.p.al officers in Dansville, Newport and other villages and towns in the State.

On March 11, 12, the annual meeting of the State society was held in the City Hall, Albany, with a good representation[250] from the National Convention at Washington, added to our own State speakers.[251] On the last evening there was an overflow meeting held in Geological Hall, presided over by Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage.

Governor Cleveland accorded the delegates a most courteous reception in his room in the capitol. A hearing was had before the Judiciary Committee March 13. The a.s.sembly-chamber was crowded.

General Husted, chairman of the committee, presided, and Mrs.

Blake, the president of the society, introduced the speakers.[252]

A few days later the same committee gave a special hearing to Mrs.

Gougar, who made the journey from Indiana to present the case. The committee reported adversely, but by the able tactics of General Husted, after an animated debate the bill was placed on the calendar by a vote of 66 to 62, and shortly after ordered to a third reading by a vote of 74 to 39. On May 8 the bill was reached for final action. Frederick B. Howe of New York was the princ.i.p.al opponent, trying to obstruct legislation by one and another pretext. General Husted took the floor in an able speech on the const.i.tutionality of the bill, and the vote stood 57 ayes to 61 noes, lacking eight votes of the requisite 65.

While the right of suffrage is still denied, gains in personal and property rights have been granted:

In 1880, the law requiring the private acknowledgment by a married woman of her execution of deeds, or other written instruments, without the "fear or compulsion" of her husband, was abolished, leaving the wife to make, take and certify in the same manner as if she were a _feme sole_.

March 21, 1884, the penal code of the State was amended, raising the age of consent from ten to sixteen years, and also providing penalties[253] for inveigling or enticing any unmarried woman, under the age of twenty-five years, into a house of ill-fame or a.s.signation.

Under the act of May 28, 1884, a married woman may contract to the same extent, with like effect and in the same form as if unmarried, and she and her separate estate shall be liable thereon, whether such contract relates to her separate business or estate, or otherwise, and in no case shall a charge upon her separate estate be necessary.

It is by court decisions that we most readily learn the legal status of married women, under the favorable legislation of the period covered by this History. While referring the reader to Abbott's Digest of New York Laws for full knowledge upon this point, we give a few of the more recent decisions as ill.u.s.trating general legal opinion:

TROY, March 23, 1882.--The Court of Appeals decided that married women are the rightful owners of articles of personal adornment or convenience coming from husbands, and can bequeath them to their heirs. The court held that separate and personal possession by a wife of articles specially fitted for and adapted to her personal use, and differing in that respect from household goods kept for the common use of husband and wife, would draw after it a presumption of the executed gift if the property came from the husband, and of the wife's ownership, but for disabilities of the marital relations. Now that these disabilities are removed the separate existence and separate property of the wife are recognized, and her capacity to take and hold as her own the gift in good faith and fairly made to her by her husband established, it seemed to the court time to clothe her right with natural and proper attributes, and apply to the gift to her, although made by her husband, the general rules of law unmodified and unimpaired by the old disabilities of the marriage relations.

This decision was important as further destroying the old common-law theory of the husband's absolute ownership of his wife's person, property, services and earnings. The same year (1882) the Supreme Court, at its general term, rendered a decision that a married woman could sue her husband for damages for a.s.sault and battery; that by the act of 1860 the legislature intended to, and did, change the common-law rule, that a wife could not sue her husband. Judge Brady rendered the opinion, Judge Daniels concurring; Presiding Judge Noah Davis dissenting. Judge Brady said:

To allow the right (to sue) in an action of this character, in accordance with the language of the statute, would be to promote greater harmony by enlarging the rights of married women and increasing the obligations of husbands, by affording greater protection to the former, and by enforcing greater restraint upon the latter in the indulgence of their evil pa.s.sions. The declaration of such a rule is not against the policy of the law.

It is in harmony with it, and calculated to preserve peace and, in a great measure, prevent barbarous acts, acts of cruelty, regarded by mankind as inexcusable, contemptible, detestable. It is neither too early nor too late to promulgate the doctrine that if a husband commits an a.s.sault and battery upon his wife he may be held responsible civilly and criminally for the act, which is not only committed in violation of the laws of G.o.d and man, but in direct antagonism to the contract of marriage, its obligations, duties, responsibilities, and the very basis on which it rests. The rules of the common law on this subject have been dispelled, routed, and justly so, by the acts of 1860 and 1862. They are things of the past which have succ.u.mbed to more liberal and just views, like many other doctrines of the common law which could not stand the scrutiny and a.n.a.lysis of modern civilization.

The utter insecurity of woman without the ballot is shown in the reversal of this decision within a few months, by the Court of Appeals, on the ground that it would be "contrary to the policy of the law, and destructive to the conjugal union and tranquility which it had always been the object of the law to guard and protect." Could satire go farther? We record with satisfaction the fact that Judge Danforth uttered a strong dissenting opinion.

The friends of woman suffrage in the legislature of 1884 secured the pa.s.sage of a bill empowering women to vote on all questions of taxation submitted to a popular vote in the village of Union Springs. Governor Cleveland was urged to veto it; but after hearing all the objections he signed the bill and it became a law.

At Clinton, Oneida county, twenty-two women voted on June 21, 1884, at an election on the question of establishing water-works. Eight voted for the tax, fourteen against it. Fifteen other women appeared at the polls, but were excluded from voting because, though they were real-estate tax-payers, the a.s.sessor had left their names off the tax-roll. Judge Theodore W. Dwight, president of the Columbia Law School, p.r.o.nounced women tax-payers ent.i.tled to vote under the general water-works act, and therefore that the election-officials violated the law in refusing to accept the votes of the women whose names were omitted from the a.s.sessors' tax-list.

In 1879, there was a report of the committee to allow widows an active voice in the settlement of the family estate and to have the sole guardianship of minor children. A pet.i.tion in favor of the bill had upon it the names of such well-known men as Peter Cooper, George William Curtis, Henry Bergh and J. W. Simonton.

September 13, 1879, Mrs. MacDonald of Boston argued her own case before the United States Circuit Court in New York city, in a patent suit. It was a marked event in court circles, she being the first lady pleader that ever appeared in that court, and the second woman who ever argued a case in this State. Anne Bradstreet was for years a marked character in Albany courts, but her claims for justice were regarded as an amusing lunacy.

In 1880, Governor Cornell appointed Miss Carpenter on the State Board of Charities.