The History of Woman Suffrage Volume IV Part 118

A. Stewart and Prof. S. A. Lattimore, acting president of the Rochester University.

Addresses of welcome: Miss Mary S. Anthony for the City Political Equality Club, the Rev. W. C. Gannett for the church that welcomed the first convention, Mrs. Jean Brooks Greenleaf for the State a.s.sociation.

The committee of arrangements were Mesdames S. A. West, Amy E. T.

Searing, J. G. Maurer, S. C. Blackall, Florence D. Alexander, Mary L.

Gannett, D. L. Kittredge, Emma B. Sweet, A. B. Taylor, D. L. Johnson, F. B. Van Hoesen; Misses Jessie Post, Frances Alexander; Messrs. C. G.

Alexander and Joseph Bloss.

[379] The others who have held office since 1883 are as follows: Mary S. Anthony, Martha R. Almy, Elnora Monroe Babc.o.c.k, Henrietta M.

Banker, Ella Hawley Crossett, Hannah B. Clark, Elizabeth Burrell Curtis, Everline R. Clark, Charlotte F. Daley, Margaret H. Esselstyne, Mrs. Hannah L. Howland, Emily Howland, Isabel Howland, Cornelia K.

Hood, Maude S. Humphrey, Mary Seymour Howell, Priscilla Dudley Hackstaff, Ada M. Hall, Martha H. Henderson, Helen M. Loder, Anne F.

Miller, Jennie McAdams, Harriet May Mills, Clara Neymann, Eliza Wright Osborne, Mary J. Pearson, Helen C. Peckham, Mary Thayer Sanford, Kate Stoneman, Kate S. Thompson, Emily S. Van Biele, Emilie J. Wakeman.

[380] Aside from those elsewhere mentioned, the names which seem to occur most often in looking over the records are those of Dr. Sarah L.

Cushing, Dr. Cordelia A. Greene, Zobedia Alleman, Abigail A. Allen, Kornelia T. Andrews, Amanda Alley, Mary E. Bagg, Charlotte A.

Cleveland, Ida K. Church, Susan Dixwell, Eliza B. Gifford, Esther Herman, Ella S. Hammond, Mary Bush Hitchc.o.c.k, Belle S. Holden, Mary H.

Hallowell, Emeline Hicks, Mary N. Hubbard, Marie R. Jenney, Rhody J.

Kenyon, Lucy S. Pierce, Harriet M. Rathbun, Martha J. H. Stebbins, Julia D. Sheppard, Chloe A. Sisson, Delia C. Taylor.

[381] Much of the credit for the excellent organization is due to Miss Harriet May Mills, State organizer, daughter of C. D. B. Mills of anti-slavery record. Miss Mills is a graduate of Cornell University, and is devoting her youth and education entirely to the cause of woman suffrage.

[382] The story of this canva.s.s, the largest and most systematic which ever has been made for such a purpose, is given in full in "Record of the New York Campaign of 1894," a pamphlet of 250 pages, issued by the State a.s.sociation in 1895, and placed in many libraries throughout the country. It is given also, with many personal touches, in the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLII.

[383] From treasurer's report: Emily Howland generously contributed $1,200. That staunch friend, Sarah L. Willis of Rochester gave $720.

Abby L. Pettengill of Chautauqua County, $220. Mr. and Mrs. H. S.

Greenleaf of Rochester, $200. General C. T. Christiansen of Brooklyn began the contributions of $100, of which there were eight others from our own State--Semantha V. Lapham, Ebenezer b.u.t.terick, Mrs. H. S.

Holden, Marian Skidmore, Hannah L. Howland, Cornelia H. Cary, Mr. and Mrs. James Sargent; Mrs. Louisa Southworth of Ohio.

[384] One who was a witness gives this description:

"There were no more dramatic scenes during the convention than those afforded by the presenting of the pet.i.tions. The names were enrolled on pages of uniform size and arranged in volumes, each labeled and tied with a wide yellow ribbon and bearing the card of the member who was to present it. At the opening of the sessions, when memorials were called for, he would rise and say: 'Mr. President, I have the honor to present a memorial from Mary Smith and 17,117 others (for example), residents of ---- county, asking that the word 'male' be stricken from the Const.i.tution.' Often one after another would present a bundle of pet.i.tions until it would seem as though the entire morning would be thus consumed. They were all taken by pages and heaped up on the secretary's table, where they made an imposing appearance. Later they were stacked on shelves in a large committee room.

"Mrs. Burt, the president of the W. C. T. U., brought in the pet.i.tions of her society all at once, many great rolls of paper tied with white ribbon. A colored porter took them down the aisle on a wheelbarrow."

[385] Mesdames Cornelia K. Hood, Cornelia H. Cary, Mariana W. Chapman, Mary E. Craigie, Cora Sebury, Martha R. Almy, A. E. P. Searing, Elinor Ecob Morse, Marcia C. Powell, Helen G. Ecob, Susie M. Bain, Carrie E.

S. Twing, Clara Neymann, Selina S. Merchant, Henrietta M. Banker, Maude S. Humphrey, Mary Lewis Gannett; Dr. Sarah H. Morris; Misses Arria S. Huntington, Emily Howland, Elizabeth Burrill Curtis.

[386] A hearing, on June 14, was given to the "Antis," as the press dubbed the remonstrants. Their pet.i.tion against being allowed the suffrage was presented by the Hon. Elihu Root, and the speeches were made by Francis M. Scott, the Rev. Clarence A. Walworth, the Hon.

Matthew Hale and J. Newton Fiero. Letters were read from the Hon.

Abram S. Hewitt and Austin Abbott.

[387] Among the earnest advocates of the suffrage article were Judges t.i.tus and Blake of New York, Judge Towns of Brooklyn, Judge Moore of Plattsburg, Messrs. Lincoln, Church and McKinstry of Chautauqua, Maybee of Sullivan, Cornwall of Yates, Powell of Kings, Ca.s.sidy of Schuyler, Kerwin of Albany, Phipps of Queens, Fraser of Washington, Arnold of Dutchess, Bigelow and Campbell of New York, Roche of Troy.

Speeches in opposition were made by Messrs. McClure, Goeller and Platzek of New York, Fuller of Chenango, Griswold of Greene, Mereness of Lewis, Sullivan of Erie, Lester of Saratoga, Hirshberg of Newburg, Kellogg of Oneonta, Mantanye of Cortland, Cookinham of Utica.

[388] Members of committee in favor of woman suffrage clause: Edward Lauterbach, Mirabeau Lamar Towns, Vasco P. Abbott, John Bigelow, Gideon J. Tucker. Opposed: William P. Goodelle, Henry J. Cookinham, John F. Parkhurst, Henry W. Hill, D. Gerry Wellington, John W.

O'Brien, Henry W. Wiggins, Thomas G. Alvord, David McClure, De Lancy Nicoll, John A. Deady, William H. Cochran.

[389] In the work for other bills Mrs. Howell was a.s.sisted by Miss Kate Stoneman, New York's first woman lawyer, Mrs. Sarah A. Le Boeuf, Mrs. Joan Cole and Miss Winnie, all of Albany. George Rogers Howell, a.s.sistant and also State librarian, aided his wife in every way. As a State officer for many years he had strong influence and it always was used for woman's political freedom. During these years Mrs. Howell, as president of the Albany Political Equality Club, conducted many public meetings in the Senate Chamber of the historic old Capitol building until it was torn down. Legislators and State officers came each Tuesday night to hear the suffrage speeches.

[390] In 1860, after ten years of persistent effort by Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony and other pioneer workers, who had gathered up thousands of pet.i.tions and besieged the Legislature, session after session, a law was secured giving father and mother joint guardianship. In 1862, so quietly that the women were not aware of it, the Legislature repealed this law and again vested the guardianship solely in the father. Although repeated efforts were afterwards made to have the mother's right restored, this was not done for thirty years.

[391] Senator Parker is a brother of Mrs. J. V. L. Pruyn, who organized the first anti-suffrage society in the State, at Albany.

[392] In Senator Brown's own city of Watertown, over 50 per cent. of the women had just voted to bond the city for a new High School, the press giving them full credit for it, but he persistently opposed this bill.

[393] It was not supposed that this right could be questioned, but in 1901, in New York City, a woman who was supporting her children by washing while her husband was in the hospital, was thrown from a trolley car with her baby in her arms and injured so that she could not work. She brought suit against the Street Railway Company before a munic.i.p.al court, and was awarded $147.50. The company appealed to the Supreme Court and Justice David Leaventritt reversed the decision, saying in his opinion, "At Common Law the husband was absolutely ent.i.tled to the earnings of his wife, and neither the Enabling Act of 1860 nor the broader one of 1864 has affected the right, unless the service and earnings were rendered and received expressly upon her sole and separate account." Afterwards in explanation he said that the woman had not made it clear in her suit that she was working for herself and not performing service for her husband.

In 1902 a law was pa.s.sed securing absolutely to married women their own earnings and the right to sue for damages by loss of wages in case of personal injury.

[394] In 1901 an attempt was made to correct this evil, and a ridiculous law was pa.s.sed and duly signed by Governor Odell providing that a couple may become husband and wife by signing an agreement before witnesses, but in order to make this legal it must be recorded within six months. If at the end of this time it has not been recorded both are free to marry somebody else. If the fourteen year old wife should not know of this legal requirement she may find herself abandoned without redress.

[395] This decision covers many pages with hair-splitting definitions, tracing the laws governing School Commissioners back to 1843, and summing up with the following unintentional satire.

"The Const.i.tution, in Article 2, Section 1, prescribes the qualifications of voters 'for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elected by _the people_,' and confines the franchise specifically to 'male citizens.' The office of School Commissioner was one thereafter made 'elective by _the people_,' through the operation of the alternative given by Article 10, Section 2, which provides that 'all officers whose offices may hereafter be created by law shall be elected by _the people_ or appointed as the Legislature may direct.'

That is, in such cases, it may choose between election and appointment and in the latter event may dictate the authority and mode of appointment. The Legislature chose that the office should be elective, and, becoming such, it fell within the scope and terms of the const.i.tutional provisions applicable to elections by _the people_."

[396] By the charters of the third cla.s.s cities of Auburn, Geneva, Hornellsville, Jamestown, Norwich, Union Springs and Watertown women have School Suffrage on the same terms as men. The city of Kingston is divided into several common and union free school districts and women are authorized to vote.

[397] For legal opinion see Appendix for New York.

[398] In 1902 the hospital at Gowanda, the largest of the kind in the State, placed a woman on its staff as specialist in gynecology.

[399] In 1901, when Mr. Low was again a candidate and was elected, these clubs were a prominent factor in the campaign. They arranged meetings, addressed large audiences, raised $30,000 and circulated 1,000,000 pieces of literature. Their work was commended by the press of the whole United States and much credit was given them for the success of the Reform ticket. When the Board of Education of forty-six members was appointed by Mayor Low, various societies pet.i.tioned him to give women a representation upon it, but he declined to do so.

CHAPTER LVII.

NORTH CAROLINA.[400]

The only attempt at suffrage organization in North Carolina was made by Miss Helen Morris Lewis, Nov. 21, 1894. A meeting was called at the court house in Asheville and attended by a large audience, which was addressed by Miss Lewis and Miss Floride Cunningham. Thomas W. Patton, mayor of the city, made a stirring speech in favor of giving the ballot to women. At his residence the next day a society was formed with a membership of forty-five men and women; president, Miss Morris; vice-president, T. C. Westall; secretary, Mrs. Eleanor Johnstone Coffin; treasurer, Mayor Patton. The next mayor of Asheville, Theodore F. Davidson, also advocated woman suffrage.

In 1895 addresses were made in various cities by Miss Laura Clay of Kentucky and Miss Elizabeth Upham Yates of Maine, who had been attending the national convention in Atlanta.

Later on Miss Frances E. Willard, president of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and Miss Belle Kearney, a noted lecturer from Mississippi, aroused considerable enthusiasm in various places by pleas for woman suffrage in their temperance addresses. Miss Lewis has spoken in a number of towns and at the State Normal School. No organized work has been done, however, and but little public interest is felt.

LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND LAWS: Early in February, 1895, as a result of the suffrage meeting held in Asheville, a bill was presented in the Legislature to place women on school boards. Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake of New York, a native of North Carolina, addressed the legislators in its behalf and upon the rights of women. The bill provoked a hot discussion but was defeated. It is impossible to obtain a record of the vote.

In 1897 a bill to permit women to serve as notaries public was defeated in the House on the ground that it would be unconst.i.tutional, as this is a State office. The same year a bill providing for the appointment of women physicians in the State insane asylums was referred to a committee and never reported.

Bills also have been presented for full suffrage and suffrage for tax-paying women, but none has been acted upon. Several Acts have been pa.s.sed prohibiting employers from working women in the chain gangs on the public roads in different counties.[401]

The most unjust discriminations against women in the property laws were removed by the Const.i.tutional Convention of 1868. Since then a married woman may acquire and hold real estate and have the enjoyment of its income and profits in her own separate right, and she may dispose of it by will subject to the husband's curtesy (the life use of the whole); but she can not sell any of it without his consent. The husband can not sell his real estate so as to cut off the dower of the wife (the life use of one-third) without her consent.

The code of 1883 stipulates that if the husband receives the income of the wife's separate property and she offers no objection, he can not be made liable to account for his use of it for more than one year previous to the date of the complaint or of her death. By an act of 1889, the husband is required to list the property of the wife "in his control."