The History of Woman Suffrage Volume IV Part 98

On March 13 a bill to raise the "age of protection" for girls from 16 to 18 years was defeated by 108 yeas, 55 nays.

On May 17 Senator Wellman's bill for a "mock referendum" was adopted by the Legislature. It proposed to take a vote of the men and women of the State on the question "Is it expedient that Munic.i.p.al Suffrage should be extended to women?"

THE MOCK REFERENDUM: This is called by the advocates of equal rights a "mock referendum" because it was to have no legal validity and was to give the women nothing even if it should be carried in their favor.

The _Woman's Journal_ said:

Two years ago an amendment was added to the Munic.i.p.al Suffrage Bill providing that it should become law when ratified by a vote of the majority of the men and women of the State. Nearly every opponent in the House voted against the bill after that amendment had been incorporated, showing clearly that they were not willing to let women have suffrage even if a majority of the men and women of the State should vote for it. It was then believed that such action would be const.i.tutional. The Supreme Court afterwards gave its opinion that Munic.i.p.al Suffrage could not be extended by a popular vote of either the men or the women, or both, but must be extended, if at all, by the Legislature. Following that decision, the opponents have become clamorous for a popular vote.

The suffragists, who, beginning in 1869, had pet.i.tioned year after year for the submission to the voters of a legal and straightforward const.i.tutional amendment, which would give women the ballot if the majority voted for it, were disgusted with this sham subst.i.tution.

Mrs. Livermore, the State president, declared that she would neither take part in the mock vote herself nor advise others to do so. This feeling was so general that at the last meeting of the executive committee of the W. S. A. for the season, in June, it was found impossible even to pa.s.s a resolution recommending those men and women who favored equal suffrage to go to the polls and say so.

A number of individual suffragists, however, believed that advantage should be taken of the chance to make an educational campaign and, as the _Woman's Journal_ of June 8 said, "to use the opportunity for what it is worth as a means of agitation." Therefore a Suffrage Referendum State Committee was formed of more than fifty prominent men and women, including U. S. Senator h.o.a.r, ex-Governor Long, the Hon. J. Q. A.

Brackett, Mrs. Howe, Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Fannie B. Ames, Mrs.

Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward, the editors of the _Woman's Journal_ and others. Mrs. Mary Clarke Smith was employed as organizer, beginning July 10, and as good a campaign was made as the circ.u.mstances permitted. By the time the executive committee rea.s.sembled in October, every one had become convinced of the wisdom of this course, and the State Suffrage a.s.sociation and the Referendum Committee worked hand in hand during the last few weeks before election. It was a disadvantage that the bill for the "mock referendum" was pa.s.sed just before people went away for the summer, and that the vote was to be taken soon after they came back in the fall; nevertheless, a spirited campaign was made, a large number of meetings and rallies were held and a great quant.i.ty of literature was distributed.

About six weeks before election a Man Suffrage a.s.sociation was formed with Francis C. Lowell as chairman, Thomas Russell as treasurer and Charles R. Saunders as salaried secretary.[320] This society was composed wholly of men. It sent out an enormous number of circulars and other doc.u.ments, spent money like water, enlisted active political workers, utilized to a considerable extent the party "machines," and as far as possible secured a committee of men to work at each polling place on election day and roll up a large negative vote of men. It contained a number of influential politicians who displayed much skill in their tactics. They published a manifesto against equal rights signed by one hundred prominent men. The _Woman's Journal_, which printed this doc.u.ment on October 19, said:

In the main the protest represents merely money and social position. There are half-a-dozen names on it which it is a pity and a shame to see there. All the rest were to be expected. They are men whose opinion would be of weight on questions of stocks and bonds, but whose opinion on questions of moral reform has only a minus value.... Its signers have pilloried themselves for posterity. It is regarded as discourteous to-day to remind President Eliot of Harvard that his father was the only member of Congress from Ma.s.sachusetts who voted for the Fugitive Slave Law.

Forty years hence it will be regarded as cruel to remind the children of these gentlemen [among whom was President Eliot] that their fathers put their names to a protest against equal rights for women.

At first the two anti-suffrage a.s.sociations, the men's and the women's, co-operated with the suffragists in getting up debates; but no man ever consented to take part in one against suffrage a second time, and toward the end of the campaign it became almost impossible to secure speakers in the negative. Both sides published appeals and counter-appeals and the question was discussed in the press, at public meetings and in social circles to an extent unprecedented in the history of the State. Even the advertis.e.m.e.nts in the street cars began with the query in large letters, Should Women Vote? in order to attract attention to a particular brand of soap, etc.

During the early part of the canva.s.s the opponents of suffrage circulated pledges for signature by women promising to vote "No" in November,[321] but they soon became convinced that in trying to get out a large vote of women against suffrage they had undertaken more than they could accomplish. The Ma.s.sachusetts a.s.sociation Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women supplied in plate form to a large number of State papers a series of articles one of which urged women to express themselves against suffrage, warned them that "_silence will be cited as consent_," and said: "It is our duty in any clear and forcible way that presents itself, to say 'I am not sure that our country should run this enormous new risk.'"

The "antis" have since a.s.serted that in saying "in any clear and forcible way that presents itself," they did not mean to include the most obvious way, _i. e._, by voting "No" when given an opportunity by the Legislature to do so. Later in the campaign they issued a manifesto declaring that they did not urge women to register or vote, and that _silence was not to be interpreted as consent_. And finally, just before registration closed in Boston and the other cities, when it was clear that the majority of women were not going to register to vote either way, they issued another manifesto urging women _not_ to vote against suffrage!

This was a transparent device to conceal the fewness of their numbers, and they thus stultified all their previous professions, as they had a.s.serted for years that whenever women were given the right to vote on an important question it would be their duty to do so, irrespective of their personal inclinations, and it was in order to save women from this burden that their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt was opposed. If they could have brought out an overwhelming vote of women against equal suffrage, of course they would have done so. Since they could not, it was their policy to advise women not to express themselves and thus let the few who were strongly opposed be confounded with the ma.s.s of those who were indifferent. The Man Suffrage a.s.sociation, which professed to be working in full harmony with the women's organization, declared in small and inconspicuous type that it did not urge women to take the trouble to register, merely for the sake of expressing themselves on the referendum, but that it did urge those who voted at all to vote "No." It published a circular giving reasons "why women and the friends of women should vote no," and it covered walls and fences from one end of the State to the other with huge placards bearing in enormous letters the words, "Men and Women, Vote No!"

The main object of this a.s.sociation, however, was not to get an expression of opinion from the women (which would weigh little either way) but to influence the Legislature through a large negative vote from the men. Mr. Saunders was reported in an interview in the Boston _Herald_ as saying that the women who took the trouble to vote at all would probably vote in favor ten to one (it proved to be twenty-five to one), but that if the _men_ would give a good majority against it the Legislature could be relied upon to defeat a genuine amendment for years.

The suffragists spent only $1,300 during the entire canva.s.s. The Man Suffrage a.s.sociation never made the sworn report of its receipts and expenditures which the law requires of every campaign committee, although even the papers opposed to suffrage exhorted it to do so and warned it that it was placing itself in a false position by refusing, but the treasurer published an unsworn statement, not of his receipts but of his general expenditures, by which it appeared that the a.s.sociation, during the six weeks of its existence, spent $3,576. In addition large sums were expended by the women's anti-suffrage a.s.sociation, which, not being a campaign committee but a permanent society, was under no legal obligation to file a statement.

The "mock referendum" was voted on at the State election, Nov. 5, 1895, receiving 108,974 yeas, 187,837 nays. Men cast 86,970 yeas, 186,115 nays; women cast 22,204 yeas, 861 nays. Forty-eight towns gave a majority for equal suffrage, two were a tie, and in several the adverse majority was only one or two votes, and yet in most of these towns no suffrage league existed, and in some of them no suffrage meeting ever had been held.

The number of men who voted in the affirmative was a general surprise.

A leaflet by one of the leading remonstrants, circulated during the campaign, a.s.serted that "not one citizen of sound judgment in a hundred is in favor of woman suffrage;" but nearly one-third of the male voters who expressed themselves declared for it. There was the smallest affirmative vote in the most disreputable wards of Boston.

Nearly 2,000 more votes of men were cast for suffrage than had been cast for prohibition in 1889. The proportion of votes in favor was almost twice as large as in Rhode Island, the only other New England State in which the question had been submitted, although in that there was no anti-suffrage a.s.sociation in the field. Outside of Boston the largest negative vote by women was cast in Cambridge and Newton, which have the reputation of being remonstrant strongholds. In 238 of the 322 towns not one woman voted "No." In most of these the anti-suffrage a.s.sociation had no branches, and there is no reason to suppose that the women ever had heard of its eleventh-hour advice to women not to vote. In every county, and in every Congressional, Senatorial and Representative district the women's vote was in favor at least ten to one. The "mock referendum" answered the main purpose of its promoters, however, for it did seriously cut down the vote for suffrage in the Legislature for several years thereafter, but it made a host of converts among the people at large and gave a fresh impetus to the activity of the State Suffrage a.s.sociation, which ever since has steadily grown in membership.

_1896_--The usual pet.i.tions for suffrage were presented from 79 cities and towns, with 7,780 signatures. The Joint Special Committee on Woman Suffrage, which had been appointed annually for many years, was discontinued, with the good result that the suffragists ever since have had their hearings before two more influential committees, those on Const.i.tutional Amendments and on Election Laws. On February 26 the latter gave a hearing for Munic.i.p.al Suffrage. Mr. Blackwell opened the case for the pet.i.tioners and the usual number of fine addresses were made. Thomas Russell spoke for the remonstrants, and Miss Blackwell replied to him. On February 27 the Committee on Const.i.tutional Amendments gave a hearing. Addresses were made by Mrs. Howe, Mr.

Garrison, the Rev. Florence E. Kollock, Oswald Garrison Villard, Mr.

Ernst, Mrs. Isabel C. Barrows, Miss Cora A. Benneson and Clyde Duniway, formerly of Oregon. Mr. Russell again spoke for the remonstrants and was answered by Miss Blackwell, Miss Gail Laughlin and Mrs. Mary Clarke Smith.

On March 4 a hearing was given to the pet.i.tioners for License Suffrage. Just after the hearing closed Mr. Russell arrived to remonstrate, but too late.

On March 9 a hearing was given on the pet.i.tion of the State W. S. A.

that the times of registration should be the same for women (school) voters as for men.

The Committee on Const.i.tutional Amendments recommended that the question of submitting a suffrage amendment be referred to the next Legislature--three dissenting and favoring its submission this year.

On March 23 consideration of the question was voted down and the yeas and nays were refused.

On March 31 and April 1 License Suffrage was discussed and finally defeated by 93 yeas, 116 nays, including pairs.

The Committee on Election Laws reported in favor of Munic.i.p.al Suffrage but the bill was defeated.

The Supreme Court decided that women could not be made notaries public because they are not distinctly named as eligible in the State const.i.tution.

Thomas F. Keenan, an opponent of woman suffrage, introduced a bill to license houses "for commercial s.e.xual intercourse," which he alone voted for.[322]

_1897_--It was decided to ask this year for a thorough revision and equalization of the statutes bearing on domestic relations, in view of the fact that the last Legislature had appointed a committee of lawyers to revise and codify the laws. Especial attention was called to the need of a law making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children. Mr. Ernst, in behalf of the a.s.sociation, prepared a bill equalizing the property rights of husbands and wives. Mr.

Russell, in behalf of the M. A. O. F. E. S. W. (which had for years been circulating leaflets declaring that the laws of Ma.s.sachusetts were already more than just to women) prepared a bill tending in a similar direction; and a Judge of Probate prepared a more limited bill. All three appeared before the revising committee and, after repeated conferences, a bill making some improvements was recommended by the committee and enacted by the Legislature, but with a proviso that it should not go into effect until the following year, in order that the next Legislature might have a chance to amend it.

On February 10 the committee gave a hearing to the pet.i.tioners for the submission of an amendment to enfranchise women. It was addressed by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Cheney, Mrs. Boland, the Rev. Thomas Scully, the Rev. Mr. Ames, the Rev. Augusta Chapin, Miss Blackwell and others. No remonstrants appeared. The committee reported favorably, but on February 18 the bill was defeated by 74 yeas, 107 nays.

On February 24 the Committee on Election Laws heard arguments for Munic.i.p.al and Presidential Suffrage, and also on the pet.i.tion of the W. C. T. U. for License Suffrage. The committee had before it 144 largely signed pet.i.tions for suffrage and none against it. Mrs. Howe and Mr. Blackwell spoke in behalf of the measures asked for by the suffrage a.s.sociation, and a large number of prominent women for the W.

C. T. U. Mr. Russell, Mrs. J. Elliott Cabot, Frank Foxcroft, Miss Dewey, Dr. Walter Channing, Mrs. A. J. George, A. Lawrence Lowell and Miss Mary A. J. McIntyre spoke against all three bills. Miss Blackwell, at the close, replied in behalf of both a.s.sociations.

Members of the committee asked the president of the anti-suffrage a.s.sociation, Mrs. Cabot, and almost all the women who spoke on that side whether they would vote for or against license if they had the ballot. Everyone answered that she would vote for license. Mr. Russell had declared that if women were allowed to vote, "no license would be carried in every town and city of the commonwealth, contrary to the will of the people." The committee gave a majority report against all the bills.

On March 10 the question of accepting the adverse report on License Suffrage came up in the Legislature. The vote stood, 100 yeas, 100 nays, and Speaker John L. Bates gave his casting vote in favor of subst.i.tuting the bill for the adverse report. On March 18 the question was debated and the vote resulted in 108 yeas, 125 nays. There was much public interest and a lively discussion in the papers. Munic.i.p.al and Presidential Suffrage were lost without a roll-call. A bill to make the Boston School Board appointive instead of elective, which would have deprived women of their School Suffrage, was defeated.

_1898_--The hearing on February 2 was conducted by Mr. Blackwell for the pet.i.tioners; Mr. Russell for the remonstrants. A letter from ex-Gov. William Claflin in favor of suffrage was read. Mrs. Anna Christy Fall, Mr. Garrison, ex-U. S. Attorney Frank B. Allen, Mrs.

Helen Adelaide Shaw, Dr. A. E. Winship, editor of the _Journal of Education_, and others spoke for suffrage; Mrs. Arthur D. Gilman, Mrs.

Egbert C. Smythe, Mrs. Rothery of Wellesley, Mrs. Lincoln R. Stone and Mrs. George against it. Miss Blackwell replied for the pet.i.tioners. The committee reported "leave to withdraw." On February 14, after debate in the House of Representatives, the vote stood 44 yeas, 97 nays.

On February 23 the committee gave a hearing on Munic.i.p.al Suffrage and on License Suffrage, both of which were eloquently urged. Mrs. Cabot, Mrs. Charles E. Guild, the Rev. Thomas Van Ness, the Rev. Reuen Thomas, Mrs. Henry F. Durant, Mrs. William T. Sedgwick, Mr. Foxcroft and Mr. Russell spoke in opposition. Munic.i.p.al Suffrage was not debated, but after discussion on March 10 and 11, in the House of Representatives, the vote on License Suffrage, including pairs, stood 60 yeas, 116 nays.

The record for 1899 and 1900 presented no variations except that a number of local a.s.sociations pet.i.tioned for Munic.i.p.al Suffrage for Taxpaying Women. The State a.s.sociation did not officially ask for this, though the majority of its officers favored the measure. The annual hearings were given, the usual large crowds were in attendance, the ablest men and women in the State advocated the granting of suffrage, those heretofore mentioned spoke in opposition,[323] and the negative vote was in about the same proportion as before the "remonstrants" made their appearance.[324]

LAWS: Until 1845 the women of Ma.s.sachusetts suffered to the fullest extent the barbarities of the English Common Law. After that date the changes were gradual but very slow. From 1884 there was but little improvement in the property laws until 1899, when a radical revision was effected by a legislative committee and approved by the Legislature. As there was to be a general revision of the statutes and the new book would not be issued until Jan. 1, 1902, it was decided that all should go into effect at that date. The new property law for women provides as follows: No distinction is made between real and personal property in distributing the estate. The surviving husband or wife takes and holds one-third if the deceased leaves children or their descendants; $5,000 and one-half of the remaining estate if the deceased leaves no issue; and the whole if the deceased leaves no kindred. This is taken absolutely and not for life. Curtesy and dower have not been abolished but the old-time curtesy, which is a life interest in the whole of a deceased wife's real estate, is cut down to a life interest in one-third, the same as dower; and in order to be ent.i.tled to dower or curtesy the surviving husband or wife must elect to take it in preference to abiding by the above provisions.

Either husband or wife can make a will under the new law without the consent of the other, but the survivor, if not satisfied with the will of the deceased, can waive it within a year and take the same share of the estate that he (or she) would have taken if there had been no will, except that, if he would thus become ent.i.tled to more than $10,000 in value, he shall receive, in addition to that amount, only the income during his life of the excess of his share of such estate above that amount; and except that, if the deceased leaves no kindred, he, upon such waiver, shall take the interest he would have taken if the deceased had died leaving kindred but no issue.

A discretionary amount may be a.s.signed by the Probate Court to the widow for the support of herself and minor children and takes precedence of the debts of the deceased. The old law took this allowance out of the personal estate only, and often the widow was not able to receive the immediate a.s.sistance she needed, because the property was all in the form of real estate. The new law permits the real estate to be used if necessary. It also gives $100 to a minor child for his immediate necessities, if there is no widow; the old law gave $50. The new law permits the widow to remain in her husband's house for six months after his death. The old law gave her only forty days.

A married woman has full control of her separate property, and can dispose of her real estate subject only to the husband's interests. If she has been deserted or if the court has decreed that she is living apart from him for justifiable cause, she can by will or deed dispose of all her real and personal estate as if unmarried. The husband can do the same.

A married woman can be executor, administrator, guardian or trustee.

She may make contracts with any one except her husband; may sue and be sued, carry on business in her own name, by complying with the legal requirements; control and invest her earnings and enter into partnerships. She is responsible for her contracts and debts and her property may be held for them. The husband is not liable on any judgments recovered against the wife alone, and her separate property is not liable on any judgment or execution against the husband. Suits between husband and wife are not allowed except for divorce.

The father is the legal guardian of the persons and estates of minor children; he has power to dispose of them during the lifetime of the mother and may appoint a guardian at his death.[325]

For non-support of wife and minor children the husband may be fined not exceeding $20 or imprisoned in the house of correction not exceeding six months. At the discretion of the court the fine is paid in whole or part to the town, city, society or person actually supporting such wife and children. (1893.)

The "age of protection" for girls was raised from 10 to 13 years in 1886; to 14 in 1888; to 16 in 1893. The penalty is imprisonment in the State prison for life or for any term of years, or for any term in any other penal inst.i.tution in the commonwealth. This may be one day in the city jail.

Among various laws pa.s.sed in the interests of women was one in 1895 making army nurses eligible to receive State aid. One of 1896 requires the State to inter the wife or widow of an honorably discharged soldier, sailor or marine who served during the Civil War, if she did not leave sufficient means for funeral expenses, provided she was married prior to 1870. In 1900 it was enacted that the State should perform a similar service for the mothers of said soldiers, sailors or marines, and that this should not be with the pauper dead, in either case.