The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 119

While this pet.i.tion was being circulated, favorable articles appeared from time to time in the public prints. The following, signed "Fatima," the _nom de plume_ of Clara Merrick Guthrie, appeared in the _Democrat_:

A well-known notary signed this pet.i.tion with a flourish, remarking that "few women and not over half the men were aware of the disabilities of wives and daughters."

If the convention should invest women of property with the elective franchise it would give to the respectable side of politics a large body of sensible voters which would go far toward neutralizing the evil of unlimited male suffrage. The policy in the Northern States has been to demand unrestricted suffrage, but the women of Louisiana may with propriety exhibit certain variations in the nature of their appeal. This subject in all its phases inspires my enthusiasm, but I dare not be as eloquent as I might, lest a messenger should be sent to me with an urgent request to address the convention next Monday evening. * * * *

_On dit._--Other ladies beside our brave Mrs. Saxon are desired to give their views. Now surely the convention would not ask these quiet house-mothers, who are not even remotely akin to professional agitators, to do such violence to their old-time precedents if the prospect of some reward were not encouraging and immediate. Nothing could induce me to make personal application save the solemn obligation of the whole august body to accede to my timid proposal simultaneously and by acclamation. Fortunately for us there are women in Louisiana more sacrificing of their naturally shrinking disposition, who perhaps take the cause more seriously than your correspondent, who would make a most persuasive enrolling-officer but not so gallant a general for active service.

After securing over 400 influential names[517] the pet.i.tion was sent in to the convention and was referred to the Committee on Suffrage, Mr. Felix P. Poche, chairman, now judge of the Supreme Court. On May 7, the committee invited the ladies to a conference at Parlor P, St. Charles Hotel. Mr. and Mrs. Saxon, Colonel and Mrs. John M. Sandige and Mrs. Mollie Moore Davis were present.

Mrs. Saxon spoke for an hour and replied to questions from the committee. She made a very favorable impression and was highly commended for her argument. On June 16 the friends of the pet.i.tion were notified that a hearing would be granted them at the evening session of the convention. Mrs. Harriette C. Keating and Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon had consented to speak if such a hearing were granted.

Col. John M. Sandige, who had occupied prominent positions in the political affairs of the State, gave much encouragement and a.s.sistance. He did not hesitate to urge the importance of this movement, and the necessity that the women who were most interested should cheerfully a.s.sume their responsibility in relation to it. While Mrs. Saxon was known already as a fearless and able reformer, and Dr. Harriette C. Keating as a n.o.ble representative of woman in professional life, he thought it was desirable to have a voice from the home and from society, and Mrs. Caroline E. Merrick was solicited to come forward and endorse what her colleagues would say, in a few words at the close of the proceedings. Mrs. Merrick finally agreed that she should see her duty in the light in which it was presented if Judge Merrick, who const.i.tuted her court of last resort, should leave her entirely free to act in the case. After a consultation, to her great surprise and consternation the judge said, "You have always desired to help women--here is an opportunity; go forward and do your share in this work."

The surprise could hardly have been greater if a procession of slaves twenty-five years ago had come up in force to the lordly mansion of their master with several spokesmen chosen from their ranks, for the avowed purpose of asking for their freedom. The ladies were treated with a delicate courtesy and kindness on this unusual occasion, which they can never forget. Judge Poche, with the tact of a true gentleman, endeavored to smooth a difficult way, rea.s.suring the failing courage of the ladies while a.s.sisting them to mount the platform. The _Daily Picayune_ of June 17, 1879, said:

The usually prosaic and unimpressive appearance of the convention hall a.s.sumed for the occasion an entire change last evening. When the convention closed its forenoon's labors, it took a recess until half-past 7 o'clock for the purpose of affording the female suffragists an opportunity to plead their cause before a full meeting. The scene before the convention was called to order was interesting and amusing. As the minutes rolled on the crowd of ladies commenced to pour in, and by 8 o'clock the hall contained some fifty representatives of the gentler s.e.x of the Crescent City. Every age of womanhood and every cla.s.s of beauty found a representative upon the floor. About half a dozen "society girls" occupied a retired corner of the room, while a number of the notables, including Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines, took possession of the middle of the hall.

Promptly at 8 o'clock President Wiltz climbed to his seat and called the convention to order in a tone slightly husky from nervous excitement. Secretary Harris, having summoned up his spare courage, called the roll in a determined voice.

Of the 134 members 106 responded to their names. After the usual preliminaries Mr. Poche announced that a committee of ladies were in attendance, prepared to address the convention upon the question of woman suffrage. He then introduced Mrs. Dr. Keating. The fair speaker had scarcely begun before it was seen that she possessed a clear, slow enunciation and perfect confidence in her ability to enforce the doctrines of the cause she was to advocate. She read from ma.n.u.script and showed no little knowledge of the rules of oratory.

Mrs. Saxon was greeted with a burst of applause, which was gracefully acknowledged by the recipient; her address was earnest and made a deep impression.

Mr. Robertson of St. Landry then offered the following resolution, which lies over under the rules:

_Resolved_, That the committee on elective franchises be directed to embody in the article upon suffrage reported in this convention, a provision giving the right of suffrage to women upon the same terms as to men.

After some talk the resolution was laid aside to allow another speech to be made. Mrs. E. T. Merrick was introduced by Mr. Poche, as the wife of ex-Chief-Justice Merrick, and a shower of applause followed the appearance of the lady. She said:

_Mr. President and Delegates of the Convention:_--We have met with such unexpected kindness in the reception which you have accorded us to-night, that we find it hard to give expression to anything but thanks. When we remember the persistent and aggressive efforts which our energetic sisters of the North put forth before they could obtain a hearing before any legislative a.s.sembly, we find ourselves lost in a pleasing astonishment at the graciousness which beams upon us here from all quarters. Should we even now be remanded to our places and have our pet.i.tions met with an utter refusal, we should be grieved to the heart, we should be sorely disappointed, but we never could cherish the least feeling of rebellious spite toward this convention of men, who have shown themselves so respectful and considerate toward the women of Louisiana.

Perhaps some of the gentlemen thought we did not possess the moral courage to venture even thus far from the retirement in which we prefer to dwell; perhaps they thought we would not dare to appear in person before this formidable body and speak for our own cause. Be a.s.sured that a resolute and conscientious woman can put aside her individual preferences at the call of duty, and act unselfishly for the good of others. You are our witnesses that we have not wearied you by our importunities, nor have we sought in any disingenuous manner to influence you in our favor. We are simply here in response to your own courteous invitation to explain our ideas and opinions on the great question of woman's enfranchis.e.m.e.nt. The ladies who have already addressed you have given you our arguments, and in eloquent language have made their appeal, to which you could not have been insensible. It only remains for me to give you some of my own individual views in the few words which are to conclude this interview.

We a.s.sure you we are not cherishing any ambitious ideas of political honors and emoluments for women. We do not wish to become governors or legislators, nor have we any inordinate desire to obtain seats in congress. I have seen but one woman who ever expressed even a wish to be president of these United States. But we do ask with most serious earnestness that you should give us the ballot, which has been truly called the expression of allegiance and responsibility to the government. All over the world this same movement is advancing. In many countries earnest, thoughtful, large-hearted women are working day and night to elevate their s.e.x; to secure higher education; to open new avenues for their industrious hands; trying to make women helpers to man, instead of being millstones round his neck to sink him in his life struggle. Ah, if we could only infuse into your souls the courage which we, const.i.tutionally timid as we are, now feel on this subject, you would hasten to perform this act of justice, and inaugurate the beginning of the end which all but the blind can see is surely and steadily approaching. We are willing to accept anything. We have always been in the position of beggars, as now, and cannot be choosers if we wished. We will gladly accept the franchise on any terms, provided they be wholly and entirely honorable. If you should see proper to subject us to an educational test, even of a high order, we should try to attain it; if you require a considerable property qualification, we would not complain. We would be only too grateful for any amelioration of our legal disabilities. Allow me to ask, are we less prepared for the intelligent exercise of the right of suffrage than were the freedmen when it was suddenly conferred upon them? Has not this right been to them a beneficial stimulant, inducing them to use exertions to promote their improvement, and has it not raised them to a superior place, above the disfranchised cla.s.ses, such as the Chinese, Indians and women?

Perhaps you think only a few of us desire the ballot. If that were so, we think it would not be any sufficient reason for withholding it. In old times most of our slaves were happy and contented. Under the rule of good and humane masters, they gave themselves no trouble to grasp after a freedom which was beyond their reach. So it is with us to-day. We are happy and kindly treated (as witness our reception here to-night), and in the enjoyment of the numerous privileges which our chivalrous gentlemen are so ready to accord; many of us who feel a wish for freedom, do not venture even to whisper a single word about our rights.

For the last twenty-five years I have occasionally expressed a desire to vote, and it was always received as a matter of surprise, but the sort of effect produced was as different as the characters of the individuals with whom I conversed.

Gentlemen of the convention, we now leave our cause in your hands, and commend it to your favorable consideration. We have pointed out to you the signs of the dawning of a better day for woman, which are so plain before our eyes, and implore you to reach out your hand and help us up, that we may catch the first glimpse of its glory before it floods the world with noon-day light.[518]

Col. John M. Sandidge read a letter from Mrs. Sarah A.

Dorsey:

JUNE 11, 1879.

_Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:_--Too weak from recent illness and suffering to appear personally before you by the side of the women of Louisiana who are asking for the privilege and responsibility of political suffrage, I am forced to use this mode of indorsing their movement.

Being left by the fiat of G.o.d entirely alone in the world, with no man to represent me, having large interests in the State and no voice either in representation or taxation while hundreds of my negro lessees vote and control my life and property, I feel that I ought to say one word that may perhaps aid many other women whom fate has left equally dest.i.tute. It is doubtful whether I shall rise from my couch of pain to profit by the gift should the men of Louisiana decide to give the women of the State the right which is the heritage of the Anglo-Saxon race--representation for taxation. But still I ask it for my sisters and for the future of the race. We women of Louisiana have always been treated before the law as civil partners of our husbands. In every respect our rights have been protected.

It needs but one more step to make us civilly free, and this we ask you to embody in your new const.i.tution. Many men are not opposed to the fact of female suffrage, but to its mode at present; that could be corrected, and women need not be exposed to the coa.r.s.eness and strife of the polls as they are now conducted. There is no man among you who does not believe his wife or his daughter intelligently capable of taking a voice in the government. If my lessees are capable of being citizens of Louisiana, it is because for thirty years of my life and for five generations of my ancestors we have interested ourselves in their civilization and in their instruction. Gentlemen, we ask nothing that would uns.e.x ourselves. We do not expect to do man's work; we can never pa.s.s the limits which nature herself has set. But we ask for justice; we ask for removal of unnatural restrictions that are contrary to the elemental spirit of the civil law; we do not ask for rights, but for permission to a.s.sume our natural responsibilities.

Praying that the hearts and minds of the men of Louisiana may be moved toward this act of justice, I am, with profound respect, your obedient servant,

SARAH A. DORSEY.

The Webster _Tribune_, Mr. Scanland, editor, of June 25, 1879, shows the sensation created in the remotest parishes of Louisiana by this hearing before the convention:

The ladies, it seems, are about walking up and demanding enlarged liberties. We were under the impression that women generally had about as much lat.i.tude as they wanted, but if they desire more, the _Tribune_ says, in the name of gallantry if not justice, let them have all they wish. There is an element throughout the Union agitating the proposition that they are ent.i.tled to vote because they are taxed. The Const.i.tution of the United States provides that no one shall be taxed without representation. Representation is based on population, and, of course, the ladies are enumerated; and the "horrid men" claim that the ladies are represented through them. This a great many repudiate, and their heads are about level. When a man a.s.sumes to represent a woman, he undertakes a larger contract than he imagines--something we would not dream of attempting in a political or any other sense.

The ladies who advocate female suffrage claim that as they are governed by the laws they have a right to a voice in making them. Many of the ablest women of this country hold that belief, and of all our n.o.ble statesmen, not one has advanced an answer to this demand--reasonable, if it does come from women. A French essayist held that as women are a part of society, they have a right to be judges of its members, a.s.sist in making its laws, and condemn and punish transgressors. They have their influence, but that is not so effective as power. * * * * Some of the brightest intellects that adorn the social circles throughout this country and State hold these views and ably advance them. Among them in this State are Mrs. E. L. Saxon, Mrs. Merrick, wife of ex-Chief-Justice Merrick, and Mrs. Dr. Harriette Keating.

When our convention was discussing the suffrage question, these ladies pet.i.tioned to be heard. Of course the request was allowed. Last Tuesday evening the above-mentioned ladies addressed the congress at length. Their speeches were able, and the ideas they advanced were sound logic; but if carried into effect may prove beneficial, and may not. Woman suffrage is an experiment. Like everything else, we will never know its effects until after it is tried. We only wish that there were a few more men in that convention who could make as able speeches as did these ladies--notwithstanding the Utopian ideas advanced.

When the new const.i.tution finally went forth, it contained, as the result of all our arguments and appeals, but one little concession:

ARTICLE 232. Women twenty-one years of age and upwards, shall be eligible to any office of control or management under the school laws of the State.

Judge I. F. Marshall of Catahoula parish, an accomplished gentleman and able lawyer, suggested this article, and it was presented and championed by Hon. F. L. Claiborne[519] of Pointe Coupee. The women of Louisiana have never realized any advantage from this law. All school offices are filled by appointment of the governor, and there was no serious agitation for the enforcement of this clause in the new const.i.tution until the autumn of 1885, when, in response to the demand that women should be appointed on the school-board of New Orleans, Gov. McEnery, through a correspondent of the _Times-Democrat_, gave his opinion as follows:

If a married woman occupied an office under the school laws, in which it was necessary to bring a suit to enforce some right connected with it, she would have to get the consent of her husband to bring the suit and join him with her.

There are only a few exceptional cases where the married woman can legally act independently of her husband. Our code so recognizes the paramount control of the husband that when a widow, who is the tutor of her minor children, wishes to marry, and gets the consent of a family meeting to be retained in the tutorship, the code, article 255, says: Her second husband becomes of necessity the co-tutor, and, for the administration of the property subsequently to his marriage, becomes bound _in solido_ with his wife. And so it would be in the appointment of a married woman to a public office. Her husband, of necessity, would share it with her; would, in fact, be the officer. And as to unmarried women, Article 232 does not repeal any of their disabilities. It does not repeal the laws creating the essential differences between men and women. It, as I stated, simply a.s.serts a right, and is inoperative until there is legislation to enforce it.

The _Daily Picayune_ of November 16, under the head lines of "Women as Members of School Boards," "The Law and the Facts in the Case Presented by Mrs. Merrick," gives the following:

Last Thursday evening, November 12, a special meeting or reception was held by the women's club at their rooms on Baronne street. On this occasion the club was addressed by Mrs. Caroline E. Merrick, a good and practical-minded friend of the cause of woman. The 12th was the seventieth birthday of Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a decorated picture of the famous woman hung in the rooms. Mrs. Merrick read a sketch of the life of Mrs. Stanton, but devoted the first part of the evening to reading the following paper, the matter of which is, of the keenest interest to all thinking men and women in the State:

More than eighty thousand children attend the public schools in Louisiana, and of this number one-half are girls, and of the 389 teachers employed in the public schools of New Orleans, 368 are women. It cannot be denied that these are of equal concern and importance to the State with any like number of boys and men, nor does it require any argument to prove that mothers are best qualified to superintend and look after the welfare of their own children. In view of this fact the convention of 1879 embodied the following article in the const.i.tution of the State:

ARTICLE 232. Women 21 years of age and upward shall be eligible to any office of control or management under the school laws of this State.

Notwithstanding the absolute right conferred by this article on women over twenty-one years of age, the chief executive of the State, with his present views, is apparently unwilling to make any appointment of women to such management without further legislation. The views of the Governor on all questions are always ent.i.tled to great respect. The question is one of interpretation, and many of the best lawyers in Louisiana do not hesitate to hold and declare a different view.

I am told that there are in the various const.i.tutions of the States and general government two cla.s.ses of provisions, the one self-executing and absolute, and the other requiring legislative action before they can be exercised. For example of the first cla.s.s, article 59 of the const.i.tution declares that "the supreme executive power of the State shall be vested in a chief magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of Louisiana." n.o.body would ever undertake to say that the governor was dependent on any more legislation to carry this into effect so as to enable him to fill his office. If he were, it would then become necessary to legislate about every other article, and so the const.i.tution would be worthless, everything being required to be done over by the legislature before the const.i.tution could have any effect.

Article 232 of the const.i.tution is imperative. It declares that women over twenty-one years of age shall be eligible to any office of control or management under the school laws of the State. Can the legislature repeal or modify this mandate? Of course not. Could the absoluteness of this right be expressed in plainer or more energetic terms? No, indeed.

We are told and have been made to understand that it is a right conferred by the const.i.tution of the State, which cannot be defeated or enlarged, or even abridged in any way by the legislature; neither by modification, repeal, or inaction. That this article being paramount law, itself repeals all legislation inconsistent with it. The const.i.tution, I am told, prescribes the legal and other qualifications for our judges of the courts. n.o.body ever thought legislative action was needed when their qualifications are according to that instrument, to enable them to take their places on the bench.

Article 185 of the const.i.tution prescribes the qualifications of voters or electors, and we are instructed that all conflicting laws on that point are annulled by the sovereign will of the people in convention a.s.sembled. In fact, good lawyers have given us innumerable examples, ill.u.s.trations and decisions to this effect; and even women, who are for the most part ignorant of the laws of their State, begin to understand that they have a right to a place on the school-board for some one of their own s.e.x here in Louisiana. True, it has been said that there are other articles which are in conflict with article 232, but we are told the other provisions of the const.i.tution relate to other and more general subjects, and on this very subject the framers of the const.i.tution have in very positive and unmistakable terms declared its precise will, and it is wasting time to try to explain it away. These wise jurists do not fear to tell us further, that special laws or provisions in a const.i.tution or statute abrogate or limit the general provisions in the same instrument.

We are sorry that our governor apprehends any difficulty would arise in regard to married women being school directors. He says the husband might change his domicile and the wife would be obliged to follow him, and if bond were required she could not sign it without his consent, and finally the fact was she could not do _anything_ without the husband's consent. Then "the husband would share the office with her." I have heard that it was difficult to prevent outside influences from operating upon the minds of men in office. We have certainly heard some complaints of this sort, but it seems that there would be no great danger encountered from this source. The duties which this article of the const.i.tution permits women to perform are not generally remunerative, and would be probably more a labor of love than of reward. As to the other objections, perhaps the husband _would_ sign his wife's bond, and perhaps he would _not_ move away while she held the office. I have heard that sheriffs sometimes run away after giving bond, and people are sometimes elected to office and unable to qualify, and others disappoint the public by resigning.

Moreover we have ascertained the fact that a tutrix may subsequently marry, and that act does not prevent her from filling the office of tutrix, neither does the fact of being already married prevent her from discharging the duties of tutrix. But I see no harm done if the husband should become the a.s.sistant of his wife in this office. Is it not manifest that the two together would have a superior official knowledge of the needs and exigencies of the girls sent to the public schools and the women who teach them daily, than the husband could possibly attain by himself? But the whole difficulty, it seems to us, might be obviated. Let the governor appoint unmarried women. A woman who has been so unfortunate as to be a widow would not be objectionable.

The article says: "Women over twenty-one years shall be eligible" to these offices. It does not say the legislature may make them "eligible." By its own inherent force it declares them eligible. If they are really eligible, then why not have them selected and appointed? They have every requisite for the office, and as the dictionary says, are "proper to be chosen." They are "qualified to be elected."

They are "legally qualified." They are eligible. It is not at all likely that the legislature will ever do the vain thing of affirming a const.i.tutional right so explicitly given.

The opposition of the executive, therefore, seems to be a bar not only to this provision being carried out, but also to the raising of any question under it for the consideration of the judiciary. It is confidently hoped and expected that he will consent to reconsider the whole question. We feel sure the governor will not intentionally be guilty of any injustice to the women of Louisiana, and will not desire to withhold any benefit from them which has already been conferred by the State const.i.tution. Women all over the Union rejoiced when this generous concession was granted here in Louisiana. In many other States they enjoy the same, and greater privileges, and letters and inquiries have come from distant States, asking why this law has not gone into effect. We are aware that any reform changing existing conditions must move slowly, and is apt to be unpopular with men in authority; then it also antagonizes the inertia of women, who are too modest to thrust themselves forward, saying, "I am ready to serve the State"; yet they know all the time they can do good service in relation to the schools. Only give them a kindly helping hand, and we feel sure that a valuable cooperating influence will be felt, of which no one has ever dreamed in the past.

We leave this matter to the governor, to the citizens of Louisiana, and to the fathers who take a deep interest in the welfare of their daughters as well as of their sons.

Our legislature pa.s.sed a law requiring physiology to be taught in the public schools, while the vast majority of the teachers of the State are women, and no college in which that science is taught is open to them. In 1885, Dr. Chaille gave a course of free lectures on physiology and anatomy for the benefit of the New Orleans teachers, who, while they are doing the most important-public work in training the rising generation in the rudiments of learning, are denied the advantages of the higher education that would fit them for the duties of their profession.

A fitting precedent for the action of our rulers may be found in Shakespeare's, "t.i.tus Andronicus," in which rude men seize the king's daughter, cut out her tongue and cut off her hands, and then bid her go call for water and wash her hands.