The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 101

Carpenter, Mrs. A. T. Anderson and Mrs. Laura Howe Carpenter, Minneapolis.

[449] From John G. Whittier, Mrs. Julia B. Nelson (teaching school in Tennessee) and Henry B. Blackwell.

[450] Miss Carrie Holbrook, Miss Eva McIntyre, Miss Harriman.

[451] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note F.

[452] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note G.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

DAKOTA.

Influences of Climate and Scenery--Legislative Action, 1872--Mrs.

Marietta Bones--In February, 1879, School Suffrage Granted Women--Const.i.tutional Convention, 1883--Matilda Joslyn Gage Addressed a Letter to the Convention and an Appeal to the Women of the State--Mrs. Bones Addressed the Convention in Person--The Effort to Get the Word "Male" Out of the Const.i.tution Failed--Legislature of 1885--Major Pickler Presents the Bill--Carried Through Both Houses--Governor Pierce's Veto--Major Pickler's Letter.

Philosophers have had much to say of the effect of climate and scenery upon the human family--the inspiring influence of the grand and the boundless in broadening the thought of the people and stimulating them to generous action. Hence, one might naturally look for liberal ideas among a people surrounded with such vast possessions as are in the territory of Dakota. But alas! there seems to be no correspondence in this republic between areas and const.i.tutions. Although Dakota comprises 96,595,840 acres, yet one-half her citizens are defrauded of their rights precisely as they are in the little States of Delaware and Rhode Island. The inhabitants denied the right of suffrage by their territorial const.i.tution are, the Indians not taxed (a hint that those who pay taxes vote), idiots, convicts and women. But from records sent us by Mrs. Marietta Bones, to whom we are indebted for this chapter, there seem to have been some spasmodic climatic influences at work, though not sufficiently strong as yet to get that odious word "male" out of the const.i.tution. Our Dakota historian says:

The territorial legislature, in the year 1872, came within one vote of enfranchising women. That vote was cast by Hon. W. W.

Moody, who, let it be said to his credit, most earnestly espoused the cause in our const.i.tutional convention in 1883, and said in the course of his remarks: "Are not my wife and daughter as competent to vote as I am to hold office?" which question caused prolonged laughter among the most ignorant of the delegates, and cries of, "You're right, Judge!" Although it is deeply to be regretted that through one vote twelve years ago our women were deprived of freedom, yet we must forgive Judge Moody on the ground that "it is never too late to mend."

In February, 1879, the legislature revised the school law, and provided that women should vote at school meetings. That law was repealed in March, 1883, by the school township law, which requires regular polls and a private ballot, so, of course, excluding women from the small privilege given them in 1879. That act, however, excepted fifteen counties[453]--the oldest and most populous--which had districts fully established, and therein women still vote at school meetings.

In townships which are large and have many schools under one board and no districts, the people select which school they desire their children to attend. The persons who may so select are parents: first, the father; next, the mother, if there be no father living; guardians (women or men), and "persons having in charge children of school age." These persons hold a meeting annually of their "school," and such women vote there, and one of them may be chosen moderator for the school, to hold one year.

This office is a sort of responsible agency for the school, and between it and the township board.

Since the legislation upon the subject of school suffrage there has not been much work done for the promotion of the cause. The wide distances between towns and the spa.r.s.ely settled country make our people comparative strangers to each other. We lack organization; the country is too new; in fact, the most and only work for woman suffrage has been done by Matilda Joslyn Gage and myself, and, owing to disadvantages mentioned, that has been but little. Mrs. Gage reached Dakota just at the close of the Huron convention, held in June, 1883, to discuss the question of territorial division. The resolutions of the convention declared that just governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed; that Dakota possessed a population of 200,000, women included; that the people of a territory have the right, in their sovereign capacity, to adopt a const.i.tution and form a State government. Accordingly, a convention was called for the purpose of enabling those residing in that part of Dakota south of the forty-sixth parallel to organize a State. Mrs. Gage at once addressed a letter to the women of the territory and to the const.i.tutional convention a.s.sembled at Sioux Falls:

_To the Women of Dakota:_

A convention of men will a.s.semble at Sioux Falls, September 4, for the purpose of framing a const.i.tution and pressing upon congress the formation of a State of the southern half of the territory. This is the moment for women to act; it is the decisive moment. There can never again come to the women of Dakota an hour like the present. A const.i.tution is the fundamental law of the State; upon it all statute laws are based, and upon the fact whether woman is inside or outside the pale of the const.i.tution, her rights in the State depend.

The code of Dakota, under the head of "Personal Relations,"

says: "The husband is the head of the family. He may choose any reasonable place, or mode of living, and the wife must conform thereto." Under this cla.s.s legislation, which was framed by man entirely in his own interests, the husband may, and in many cases does, file a preemption claim, build a shanty, and place his wife upon the ground as "a reasonable place and mode of living," while he remains in town in pursuit of business or pleasure.

Let us examine this condition of affairs a little closer. If the wife is not pleased with this "place and mode of living," but should leave it, she is, under this law of cla.s.s legislation, liable to be advertised as having left the husband's bed and board, wherefore he will pay no debts of her contracting. And how is it if she remains on this until her continued residence upon it has enabled her husband to prove up? Does she then share in its benefits? Is she then half owner of the land? By no means. Chapter 3, section 83, article V. of the Code, says: "No estate is allowed the husband or tenant by courtesy upon the death of his wife, nor is any estate in dower allowed to the wife upon the death of the husband."

This article carries a specious fairness on its face, but it is a bundle of wrongs to woman. By the United States law, only "the head of the family" is allowed to enter lands--either a preemption, homestead or tree claim. In unison with the United States, the law of Dakota (see chapter 3, section 76) recognizes the husband as the head of the family, and then declares that no estate in dower is allowed to the wife upon the death of her husband. Neither has she any claim upon any portion of this land the husband, as head of the family, may take, except the homestead, in which she is recognized as joint owner. The preemption claim upon which, in a comfortless claim-shanty, she may have lived for six months, or longer, if upon unsurveyed land, as "the reasonable place and mode of living" her husband has selected for her, does not belong to her at all. She has no part nor share in it. Upon proving, her husband may at once sell, or deed it away as a gift, and she has no redress. It was not hers. The law so declares; but she is her husband's, to the extent that she can be thus used to secure 160 acres of land for him, over which she has no right, t.i.tle, claim or interest. I have not s.p.a.ce to pursue this subject farther, but will a.s.sure the women of Dakota that reading the code, and the session laws of the territory will be more interesting to them than any novel. If they wish to still farther know their wrongs, let them look in the code under the heads of "Parent and Child," "Crimes Defined," "Probate Court," etc., etc.

Every woman in Dakota should be immediately at work.

Inasmuch as the const.i.tution is the fundamental law of the State, it should be the effort of the women of Dakota to prevent the introduction of the restrictive word "male." The delegates to the Sioux Falls convention have now largely been elected. Address letters of protest to them against making the const.i.tution an organ of cla.s.s legislation. In as far as possible have personal interviews with these delegates, and by speech make known your wishes on this point. These are your only methods of representation. You have in no way signified your desire for a const.i.tution. You have not been permitted to help make these laws which rob you of property, and many other things more valuable. Many women are settling in Dakota. Unmarried women and widows in large numbers are taking up claims here, and their property is taxed to help support the government and the men who make these iniquitous laws.

I have not mentioned a thousandth part of the wrongs done woman by her being deprived of the right of self-government.

Every injustice under which she suffers, as wife, mother, woman, child, in property and person, is due to the fact that she is not recognized as man's political equal--and her only power is that of protest. Lose not a moment, then, women of Dakota, in objecting to the introduction of the word "male" into the proposed new const.i.tution. Besides seeing and writing to delegates, make effort to be present at Sioux Falls during the time of the convention, to labor with delegates from distant points, and to go before committees, and the convention itself, with your protests.

Above all, remember that _now_ is the decisive hour.

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Vice-President-at-Large_, _National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation_.

Mrs. Gage also addressed the following to the const.i.tutional convention:

_Gentlemen of the Convention_: The work upon which you are now engaged is an important one in the interests of liberty, that of framing a const.i.tution for a proposed new State. As a const.i.tution is the fundamental law, its provisions should be general in their character, equally recognizing the rights of all its citizens by its protective powers. Our National principle, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is becoming more and more widely recognized.

At an early day suffrage was restricted by qualifications of property and education in many of the States, and the removal of such restrictions has been left entirely to the States, except in the one instance of color. Within the last two decades, by amendments to the national const.i.tution, all States are forbidden to exclude citizens from the ballot upon that account.

As "s.e.x" is now the only remaining disqualification, on behalf of the National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation I ask you to omit the word "male" from your proposed const.i.tution, and leave the women of Dakota free to exercise the right of suffrage. We simply ask you to make your State a true republic, in which all your citizens may stand equal before the law. While foreign men of every nation are welcomed to your magnificent prairies as equals, it is humiliating to the women of the territory, who are helping you to develop its resources, who have endured with you all the hardships of pioneer life, to be treated as inferiors, outside the pale of political consideration. It should be the pride of Dakota to take the initiative step in the legislation of the period, now steadily growing more liberal, and by one generous and graceful act accord to the women of this territory all the rights, privileges and immunities that men claim for themselves.

MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Vice-President-at-Large, N. W. S. A._

_Aberdeen, Dakota, Sept. 3, 1883._

It is to be regretted that the argument presented by Mrs. Gage could not convince that honorable body of the injustice of laws towards woman. To me was given the privilege of addressing the convention. I said:

_Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention_: The honor conferred on me, of being allowed to address you on this important occasion is fully appreciated. I am here in behalf of the women of our territory, who are opposed to being left in the State organization with no more authority in the government than paupers, lunatics and idiots. We are willing to do one-half of the manual labor in this country, and will promptly pay our portion of the taxes. As sober and peaceful citizens, we compare favorably with the other s.e.x. I have the honor to present to you a pet.i.tion signed by hundreds of Day county voters, praying your honorable body not to allow the word "male" to be incorporated within our State const.i.tution. There is no doubt that this pet.i.tion speaks the honest sentiment of the people throughout the territory.

In but a single instance was I refused a name, and in a second case a man hesitated, saying, "Well, now, if it's as many rights you're wantin' es I hev got fur meself, you'll be after signin' my name fur me--fur I niver do any writin'

at all fur meself." And yet that man whose name I had to write has more rights in this, his adopted country, than I and all other women have in this our native land. The right of franchise, which has heretofore been regarded as a privilege, should more properly be considered a right--a right to be exercised by every citizen for the public good.

If there is not another woman in Dakota who wants to vote, I do! There is no doubt that many women are indifferent upon this subject, but when once given the ballot you will see that their progress will equal, if not exceed, that of the emanc.i.p.ated slaves in the South. Look at Wyoming Territory, where woman suffrage has a fair test; no one will deny it has proved a marked success. Elections there now are quiet and more orderly than they are elsewhere. Before the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of the women of Wyoming, election days were a terror generally, being both boisterous and riotous. It is really true that Dakota men are the most energetic and enterprising anywhere to be found, and in number they largely exceed our women. Gentlemen, make this the most advantageous State for women, and they will soon be wending their way hither. Women have been granted select committees in both Houses of congress, and better still, each of those committees has given us a majority report in favor of a sixteenth amendment to the const.i.tution of the United States, prohibiting the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of citizens on account of s.e.x. Gentlemen, delegates of this State const.i.tutional convention, I now appeal to your highest sense of honor and justice to give us the right to vote--give it to us, not because we possess any particular merit, but give it to us because it is our right! Then Dakota will in fact be "a home of the free"--honored by all nations, and the Banner State of the Union [applause].

But, after all our work and pleading, they turned a deaf ear--infinitely worse, they were dishonest; at least this was true of the committee on elections. I was present at every meeting of that committee. At their last, I was with them three hours (the entire session) to answer objections. One member made the motion, "that the word 'male' be not incorporated within our State const.i.tution." The vote on the motion was a tie, when the chairman cast his vote in the affirmative. After weeks of hard work I had reached the goal! and with eyes brim full of tears, thanked that committee. They then adjourned, to report in open convention the next morning to my utter surprise, that "Women may vote at school elections and for school officers." No words of mine can express the disappointment and humiliation this defeat of justice caused me.

Among the hundreds of questions asked me by that committee were these: "Do you want a prohibitory plank in our State const.i.tution?" Answer: "No; prohibition should be settled by the people; it cannot be with one-half our citizens disfranchised, and that half its most earnest advocates." "Do you think prohibition prohibits?" "No; man's prohibitory laws are good enough, but he does not enforce them; women have not the authority to do so; but if you will give us the power, we will soon have prohibition that _will_ prohibit." A voice: "I believe it!" "Do you think the majority of women want to vote?" "I do not; but is that any reason why you should deprive the one who does? You do not force men to vote; women, as a rule, have not given this subject the attention they should; many of them are as ignorant of the advantages the ballot would secure as were the negroes when John Brown raised the insurrection at Harper's Ferry."

There is a trite saying: "The darkest hour is just before the dawn." The day cannot be far distant when Dakota's women will be free; for the most intelligent men, and those occupying the most prominent positions in our territory, are avowed friends of suffrage. Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court for Dakota, Hon. A.

J. Edgerton, said in his Fourth of July oration here: "How necessary it is for us to elect only good and honest men to office! To do this, woman likewise must act her part in the labor of arresting the advance of crime and corruption, although through timidity the politician is slow to invest her with the higher duties and obligations of American citizenship."

This same just judge has appointed a woman (Mrs. Washburn of Chamberlain) stenographer of his judicial district--the best salaried office in his gift.[454] With the a.s.sistance of this grand man (occupying the highest position in our territory), and many others equally efficient, it is not to be supposed that our most intelligent women will be obliged to wait for the education of the most ignorant men to consent to their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt.

In the last legislature (1885) Major John A. Pickler introduced a bill enfranchising the women of the territory, which, after full discussion, pa.s.sed the House by 29 to 18,[455] and the Council by 14 to 10. The hopes of the friends were soon disappointed by the governor's veto:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, BISMARK, D. T., March 13, 1885.

_To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:_

I herewith return House file No. 71, with my objections to its becoming a law. A measure of this kind demands careful and candid consideration, both because of its importance and because of the acknowledged sincerity and high character of those who favor it. There are certain reasons, however, why I cannot approve such a measure at this time, and other reasons why I cannot approve this particular bill. It is desirable, in my judgment, that we act, so far as possible, as if we were governed, restrained and guided by a const.i.tution adopted by ourselves. If we had a const.i.tution modeled after those of the States, an extraordinary proposition like this would be submitted to the people. If congress thinks woman suffrage wise, it has the power to establish it. It is unfair to shift the responsibility on the territory and then hold it responsible for alleged imprudent legislation. I am a.s.sured the enactment of this law will delay our claims to statehood, and in so critical a period it is better that no pretext whatever be given for such postponement. It is doubted by many if a majority of the women of Dakota want the franchise. The point is made, and a very good one, that the fact that one woman does not want a right is not a justifiable reason for refusing it to another who does, yet it must not be forgotten that the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women confers not only a privilege but a grave burden and responsibility. We condemn the man who neglects to vote as recreant to his duty. If women are enfranchised, the right conferred becomes an obligation as imperious to them as to men; on those opposed as on those who favor the act. I think the women of Dakota should have a voice in determining whether they should a.s.sume this burden or not. So much for the general proposition. There are two other features of this bill which I can scarcely think satisfactory to the advocates of woman suffrage themselves.

I am satisfied that they should appear in a measure claiming to advance the rights of women. If the vote of a woman is needed anywhere, it is in our cities. In many existing city charters a distinct clause appears, providing that males alone shall possess the qualifications of electors. In this bill the word "male" is only stricken out of one chapter of the code, leaving the disability still standing against hundreds of women equally ent.i.tled to recognition. The women of Sioux Falls, the women of Mitch.e.l.l, the women of Brookings, the women of Chamberlain, of Watertown and a great many of the more important cities in southern Dakota, would be disqualified from voting under these special enactments, even though this bill became a law at this very session. Charters have been created with that provision retained, and they would make this bill abortive and largely inoperative. A still more objectionable feature, and one deliberately inserted, is the clause debarring women from the right to hold office. If the word "male" had been stricken out of the code, and no other action taken, they would have been eligible, and I believe there is a wide feeling that many offices, particularly those connected with penal and benevolent inst.i.tutions, could be most appropriately filled with women, but this clause practically forbids their appointment. If women are good enough to vote they are good enough to be voted for. If they are qualified to choose officials, they are qualified to be chosen. I don't say that I would approve this measure were it otherwise worded, but I certainly would not indorse a bill which thus keeps the word of promise to the ear and breaks it to the hope, which deliberately and avowedly debars and disqualifies women while a.s.suming to exalt and honor them.

These objections are apart from the abstract right of women to the ballot, but they show how necessary it is to approach such a subject with deliberation. If women are to be enfranchised, let it be done, not as a thirty days' wonder, but as a merited reform resulting from mature reflection, approved by the public conscience and sanctioned by the enlightened judgment of the people.

[Signed:] GILBERT A. PIERCE, _Governor_.

An effort was promptly made to carry the measure over the governor's veto, which failed by a vote of 18 to 26.

During the last session of the legislature a large public meeting was held in Bismarck, at which many of the members spoke strongly in favor of the woman suffrage amendment, the chief-justice and a majority of his a.s.sociates advocating the measure. Mrs. Gage, in a letter from Dakota, said:

An acquaintance of mine, the owner of a green-house, sent each of the members voting "aye" a b.u.t.tonhole bouquet, a badge of honor which marked our friends for a few hours at least. It is a pertinent fact that, while the opposition insist that women do not want to vote, in a single county of this spa.r.s.ely settled territory 222 women did vote in the midst of a severe storm. In a series of articles signed "Justice," published in the Bismarck _Tribune_, we find the following:

The women of Dakota do desire the power to vote. One year ago a majority of the commissioners of Kingsbury county signed a request that at an election to be held March 4, 1884, the women should, with the men, express their wishes by vote upon a specified question of local policy. The women immediately responded, prepared their separate ballot-boxes, placed them in charge of the election officers by the side of the men's boxes upon the same table at De Smet and other towns, and voted all day side by side with the men, casting throughout the county 222 votes. A more orderly election was never known. No self-respect was lost and no woman was lowered in public esteem. Clergymen, lawyers, merchants, farmers, all voted with their wives, the ballots going into different boxes. One thousand men voted in the county. The day was stormy and snow deep on the ground. If 222 women in one county would without previous experience spring forward to vote on a week's notice, is it to be supposed they do not appreciate the right?