The History of Woman Suffrage Volume III Part 60

We most heartily welcome all movements for the cultivation of individual thought and character in woman, and would recommend the formation of such clubs throughout the country. The editors of the New York press have made known their dissatisfaction that no gentlemen were to be admitted into this charmed circle. After a calm and dispa.s.sionate discussion of this question, it was decided to exclude gentlemen, not because their society was not most desirable and calculated to add brilliancy to the club, but from a fear lest the natural reverence of woman for man might embarra.s.s her in beginning to reason and discuss; lest she should be awed to silence by their superior presence. It was not because they love man less, but their own improvement more. For the comfort of these ostracised ones, we would suggest a hope for the future. After these ladies become familiar with parliamentary tactics, and the grave questions that are to come before them for consideration, it is proposed to admit gentlemen to the galleries, that they may enjoy the same privileges vouchsafed to the fair s.e.x in the past, to look down upon the feast, to listen to the speeches, and to hear "the pale, thoughtful brow," "the silken moustache," "the flowing locks," "the manly gait and form"

toasted in prose and verse.

This club has met regularly ever since the day of its inauguration, and has been remarkable for the harmony maintained by its members.

Mrs. Charlotte Wilbour was president for several years, until she went to reside in Paris, in 1874. Since that time Mrs. Croly has been, from year to year, elected to that office. Beginning with 12 members,[211] this club now numbers 320.

The most respected live-stock reporter in New York is a woman. Miss Middie Morgan, p.r.o.nounced the best judge of horned cattle in this country. She can tell the weight of a beef on foot at a glance, and reports the cattle market for the New York _Times_. A correspondent says:

Her father was a cattle-dealer, and taught her to handle fearlessly the animals he delighted in. She learned to tell at a glance the finest points of live-stock, and to doctor bovine and equine ailments with the utmost skill. With all this, she became a proficient in Italian and French, and a terse and rapid writer.

A few years ago, after her father's death, she traveled in Italy with an invalid sister, having an eye to her pet pa.s.sion--the horse. While there she met Prince Poniatowsky, also an ardent admirer of that animal. He mentioned her zoological accomplishments to Victor Emanuel, and the consequence was Miss Middie was deputed by His Majesty to purchase a hundred or so of fine horses. She had charge of the blood-horses of King Victor Emanuel, who owns the finest stud in Europe, and breeds horses of a superior shape, vigor and fire. He beats Grant in his admiration for that n.o.ble animal. When she decided to come to this country, she made known the fact to Hon. George P. Marsh, our minister to Italy; and he gave her a letter of recommendation to Mr. Bigelow, of the _Times_, who employed her. She is an expert among all kinds of animals. Her judgment about the different breeds is sought after and much quoted. She can discuss the nice points about cattle as easily as Rosa Bonheur can paint them.[212]

From the Woman's Journal, Oct. 1, 1870:

Miss Barkaloo, the lady just admitted to the St. Louis bar as a lawyer, and who has received a license to practice as attorney-at-law from the Supreme Court of that State, is a native of Brooklyn, N. Y., and is a woman of more than ordinary ability.

Two years ago, after having read Blackstone and other elementary law-books, she made application for admission as a student at Columbia College, New York, and was promptly refused. Nothing daunted, she went to St. Louis, where she was admitted to the Law School. For eighteen months she a.s.siduously devoted her energies to the study of the science, and her fellow-students all agreed in declaring her by far the brightest member of the cla.s.s. That there was no question of her ability was clearly shown at her examination. Judge Knight, although overflowing with gallantry, gave the lady no quarter. The most abstruse and erudite questions were propounded to the applicant, but not once did the judge catch the fair student tripping. Miss Barkaloo was about 22 years of age, of a fine figure, intelligent face and large, expressive eyes. The St. Louis papers of last week reported her sudden death of typhoid fever. According to custom, a meeting of the members of the St. Louis bar was held to take suitable action and pay respect to her memory. It was the first meeting of the kind in the United States, and was largely attended, not only by the young members of the bar, but by the most distinguished attorneys. Miss Phoebe Couzins, herself a member of the Law School, was in attendance, attired in deep mourning for the recent death of a beloved sister. The following resolutions were adopted:

_Resolved_, That in the death of Miss Helena Barkaloo we deplore the loss of the first of her s.e.x ever admitted to the bar of Missouri.

_Resolved_, That in her erudition, industry and enterprise we have to regret the loss of one who, in the morning of her career, bade fair to reflect credit on our profession, and a new honor upon her s.e.x.

_Resolved_, That our sympathy and condolence be extended to the relatives of the deceased.

Major Lucien Eaton, into whose office she had entered to seek opportunities of perfecting herself in the knowledge of her profession, said that--

He had been requested by an accomplished lady of St. Louis to afford her that opportunity, and at first had hesitated to do so; yet he felt that she should have a trial, and when he took her into his office his conduct met with the approbation of the legal fraternity generally. That fraternity cordially sympathized with the efforts she was making, and both old lawyers and young ones tried to put business into her hands, the taking of depositions and other such work as she could perform. He testified to finding her a true woman; modest and retiring, carefully shunning all unnecessary publicity, and avoiding all display. She was earnest in her studies, and being gifted with a fine intellect and a good judgment, gave promise of great attainments. He had never known a student more a.s.siduous in study; she wanted to become mistress of her profession. Her death is a calamity, not to her friends alone, but to all who are making an effort for the enlargement of woman's sphere.

After the closing of the doors of the Geneva Medical School to women, the Central Medical College of Syracuse was the first to admit them. Four were graduated in 1852. Since then the two medical colleges in New York city have graduated hundreds of women. Among the many in successful practice are Clemence S. Lozier, Emily Blackwell, Mary Putnam Jacobi, New York; Eliza P. Mosher, Brooklyn; Sarah R. A. Dolley, Anna H. Searing, Fannie F. Hamilton, Rochester; Amanda B. Sanford, Auburn; Eveline P. Ballintine, Le Roy; Rachel E.

Gleason, Elmira.

In May, 1870, the New York City Society was formed, with efficient officers,[213] and pleasant rooms, at 16 Union Square, where meetings were regularly held on Friday afternoon of each week.

These meetings were well attended and sustained with increasing interest from month to month. This society held its first meeting November 27, 1871, which was addressed by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe; and on January 13, 1872, another, addressed by Jennie Collins, the indefatigable Bostonian who has done so much for the benefit of the working girls. A series of meetings was held under the auspices of this a.s.sociation in many of the chief cities around New York and on the Hudson, the chief speakers being the officers of the a.s.sociation. An active German society was soon after formed, with Mrs. Augusta Lillienthal, president, and Mrs. Matilda F. Wendt, secretary. The latter published a paper, _Die Neue Zeit_, devoted to woman suffrage. She was also the correspondent of several leading journals in Germany. The society held its first public meeting March 21, 1872, in Turner Hall, Mrs. Wendt presiding. Mrs.

Lillienthal, Mrs. Clara Neyman and Dr. Adolphe Doney were the speakers. Clara Neyman became afterwards a popular speaker in many suffrage and free-religious a.s.sociations.

Pet.i.tions were rolled up by both the German and American societies to the legislature, praying for the right of suffrage, and on April 3, 1871, the pet.i.tioners[214] were granted a hearing, before the Judiciary Committee of the a.s.sembly, Hon. L. Bradford Prince presiding. Mrs. Wilbour's able address made a most favorable impression. The question was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

The majority report was adverse, the minority, signed by Robert A.

Strahan and C. P. Vedder, favorable.

A grand demonstration was made April 26, 1872, in Cooper Inst.i.tute, intended specially to emphasize the claims of wives and mothers to the ballot, and to show that the City a.s.sociation had no sympathy with any theories of free-love. Five thousand cards of invitation were distributed.

In 1871 women attempted to vote in different parts of the State, among whom were Matilda Joslyn Gage at Fayetteville, and Mrs.

Louise Mansfield at Nyack, but were repulsed. In 1872 others did vote under the fourteenth amendment, conspicuously Susan B.

Anthony, who, as an example for the rest, was arrested, tried, convicted and fined.[215] Mrs. Gage published a woman's rights catechism to answer objections made at that time to woman's voting, which proved a valuable campaign doc.u.ment. We find the names of Mary R. Pell of Flus.h.i.+ng, Helen M. Loder of Poughkeepsie, and Elizabeth B. Whitney of Harlem, frequently mentioned at this time for their valuable services.

The following items show the varied capacity of women for many employments:

In March, 1872, Miss Charlotte E. Ray (colored) of New York, was graduated at the Howard University Law School, and admitted to practice in the courts of the District of Columbia at Was.h.i.+ngton.--The headquarters of the Women's National Relief a.s.sociation is in New York; its object is supplying government stations along the coast with beds, blankets, warm clothing and other necessaries for s.h.i.+pwrecked persons.----Miss Leggett, for a long time proprietor of a book and paper store in New York, established a home, in 1878, for women, on Clinton Square, which is in all respects antipodal to Stewart's Hotel. It is governed by no stringent rules or regulations. No woman is liable without cause, at the mere caprice of the founder, to be suddenly required to leave, as was the case in Judge Hilton's home. On the contrary, it is the object of the founder to provide a _real_ home for women. The house is not only provided with a library, piano, etc., but its inmates are allowed to bring their sewing-machines, hang pictures upon the walls, put up private book-racks, etc. The price, too, but $4 a week, falls more nearly within the means of laboring women than the $6 to $10 of the Stewart Hotel.----The first penny lunch-room in New York was established by a woman, who made it a source of revenue.----The inventor of the submarine telescope, a woman, has received $10,000 for her invention.----Deborah Powers, now over ninety years of age, is the head of a large oil-cloth manufactory in Troy. Her sons are engaged in business with her, but she, still bright and active, remains at the head of the firm. This is the largest oil-cloth factory in the United States. She was left a widow with three sons, with a heavy mortgage on her estate. She secured an extension of time, built up the business and educated her sons to the work. She is also president of a bank.----A successful nautical school in New York is conducted by two ladies, Mrs. Thorne and her daughter, Mrs. Brownlow. These ladies have made several voyages and studied navigation, both theoretically and practically. During the late war they prepared for the navy 2,000 mates and captains bringing their knowledge of navigation up to the standard required by the strict examiners of the naval board.----Mrs. Wilson, since a New York custom-house inspector, took charge, in 1872, of her husband's s.h.i.+p, disabled in a terrific gale off Newfoundland in which his collar-bone was broken and a portion of the crew badly hurt. The main-mast having been cut down she rigged a jury-mast, and after twenty-one days brought s.h.i.+p and crew safe to port.

Miss Jennie Turner, a short-hand writer of New York, is a notary public. In a recent law-suit some of the papers were "sworn to"

before her in her official capacity, and one of the attorneys claimed that it was not verified, inasmuch as a woman "could not legally hold public office." The judge decided that the paper must be accepted as properly verified, and said that the only way to oust her was in a direct action by the attorney-general. The judge said:

Whether a female is capable of holding public office has never been decided by the courts of this State, and is a question about which legal minds may well differ. The const.i.tution regulates the right of suffrage and limits it to "male" citizens. Disabilities are not favored, and are seldom extended by implication, from which it may be argued that if it required the insertion of the term "male" to exclude female citizens of lawful age from the right of suffrage, a similar limitation would be required to disqualify them from holding office. Citizens.h.i.+p is a condition or status and has no relation to age or s.e.x. It may be contended that it was left to the good sense of the executive and to the electors to determine whether or not they would select females to office, and that the power being lodged in safe hands was beyond the danger of abuse.

If, on the other hand, it be seriously contended that the const.i.tution, by necessary implication, disqualifies females from holding office, it must follow as a necessary consequence that the act of the legislature permitting females to serve as school officers, and all other legislative enactments of like import removing such disqualification, are unconst.i.tutional and void. In this same connection it may be argued that if the use of the personal p.r.o.noun "he" in the const.i.tution does not exclude females from public office, its use in the statute can have no greater effect. The statute, like the const.i.tution, in prescribing the qualifications for office, omits the word "male," leaving the question whether female citizens of lawful age are included or excluded, one of construction.

Miss Anna Ballard, a reporter on the staff of the New York _Sun_, was elected a member of the Press Club, in 1877, by a vote of 24 to 10. Within the last ten years women contributors to the press have become numerous. The book-reviewer of the _Herald_ is a woman; one of the book-reviewers of the _Tribune_, one of its most valued correspondents and several of its regular contributors are women; the agricultural and market reporter of the New York _Times_ is a woman; the New York _Sun's_ fas.h.i.+on writer is a woman, and also one of its most industrious and sagacious reporters. Female correspondents flood the evening papers with news from Was.h.i.+ngton. We instance these not at all as a complete catalogue; for there are, we doubt not, more than a hundred women known and recognized in and about Printing-house Square as regular contributors to the columns of the daily and weekly press. As a rule they are modest, reputable pains-taking servants of the press; and it is generally conceded that if they are willing to put up with the inconveniences attending journalistic work, it is no part of men's duty to interfere with their attempt to earn an honest livelihood in a profession which has so many avenues as yet uncrowded. Miss Ellen A. Martin, formerly of Jamestown, N. Y., a graduate of the Law School of Ann Arbor, in 1875, was admitted to the bar by the Supreme Court of Illinois, at the January term, and is practicing in Chicago, occupying an office with Miss Perry, Room 39, No. 143 La Salle street. Mrs. Martha J. Lamb was the first woman ever admitted to members.h.i.+p in the New York State Historical Society. Her "History of New York City" is recognized as a standard authority, and has already taken rank among the great histories of the world.

During the summer of 1872 the presidential campaign agitated the country. As Horace Greeley, who was opposed to woman suffrage, was running against Grant and Wilson, who were in favor, and as the Republican platform contained a plank promising some consideration for the loyal women of the nation, a great demonstration was held in Cooper Inst.i.tute, New York, October 7. The large hall was crowded by an excited throng. Hon. Luther R. Marsh presided. The speakers[216] were all unusually happy. Mrs. Blake's[217] address was applauded to a recall, when she went forward and asked the audience to give three cheers for the woman suffrage candidates, Grant and Wilson, which they did with hearty good will.

During the winter of 1873 a commission was sitting at Albany to revise the const.i.tution of New York. As it seemed fitting that women should press their claims to the ballot, memorials were presented and hearings requested by both the State and City societies. Accordingly Mr. Silliman, the chairman, appointed February 18, to hear the memorialists. A large delegation of ladies went from New York.[218] The commission was holding its sessions in the common-council chamber, and when the time arrived for the hearing the room was crowded with an attentive audience. The members of the Committee on Suffrage were all present, Mr. Silliman presided. Matilda Joslyn Gage represented the State a.s.sociation, speaking upon the origin of government and the rights pertaining thereto. Mrs. Wilbour and Mrs. Blake represented the New York City Society, and each alike made a favorable impression. The Albany _Evening Journal_ gave a large s.p.a.ce to a description of the occasion. The respectful hearing, however, was the beginning and the end, as far as could be seen, of all impression made on the committee, which coolly recommended that suffrage be secured to colored men by ratifying the fifteenth amendment, while making no recognition whatever of the women of the State. A memorial was at once sent to the legislature and another hearing was granted on February 27. Mrs. Blake[219] was the only speaker on that occasion.

The Hon. Bradford Prince, of Queens, presided. At the close of Mrs.

Blake's remarks James W. Husted of Westchester, in a few earnest words, avowed himself henceforth a champion of the cause. Shortly afterwards the Hon. George West presented a const.i.tutional amendment giving to every woman possessed of $250 the right to vote, thus placing the women of the State in the same position with the colored men before the pa.s.sage of the fifteenth amendment; but even this was denied. The amendment was referred to the Judiciary Committee and there entombed. Large meetings[220] were held at Robinson Hall during the winter, and at Apollo Hall in May, and in different localities about New York.

July 2, 1873, an indignation meeting was held by the City Society to protest against the sentence p.r.o.nounced by Judge Hunt in the case of Susan B. Anthony. De Garmo Hall was crowded. The platform was decorated with the United States flag draped with black bunting, while on each side were banners, one bearing the inscription, "Respectful Consideration for a Loyal Woman's Vote!

$100 Fine!" the other, "Shall One Federal Judge Abolish Trial by Jury?" Dr. Clemence Lozier presided, and Mrs. Devereux Blake made a stirring speech reviewing Miss Anthony's trial and Judge Hunt's decision.[221] Mr. Hamilton Wilc.o.x made a manly protest against Judge Hunt's high-handed act of oppression, and Mrs. Marie Rachel made another, in behalf of the German a.s.sociation.

In October, 1873, Mrs. Devereux Blake made an effort to open the doors of Columbia College to women. A cla.s.s of four young ladies[222] united in asking admission. Taking them with her, Mrs.

Blake went before the president and faculty, who gave her a respectful hearing. She argued that the charter of the college itself declared that it was founded for "the education of the youth of the city", and that the word _youth_ was defined in all dictionaries as "young persons of both s.e.xes," so that by its very foundation it was intended that girls as well as boys should enjoy the benefits of the university, and it was no more than just that they should, seeing that the original endowment was by the "rectors and inhabitants of the city of New York," one-half of these inhabitants being women. Mrs. Blake's[223] application was referred to "the Committee on the Course of Instruction," and after some weeks of consideration was refused, on the ground that "it was inexpedient," the Rev. Morgan Dix being especially active in his opposition. However, soon after this, the lectures of the college were open to ladies, and a few years later President Barnard warmly recommended that young women should be admitted as students to all the privileges of the university.

A Woman's Congress was organized at New York, October 15, 16, 17, 1873, in the Union League Theater. Representative women[224] were there from all parts of the country. Its object was similar to the social science organizations--the discussion of a wider range of subjects than could be tolerated on the platforms of any specific reform. Mary A. Livermore presided, and the meeting was considered a great success. The speeches and proceedings were published in pamphlet form, and still are from year to year. This had been an idea long brewing in many minds, and was at last realized through the organizing talent of Mrs. Charlotte B. Wilbour, the originator of Sorosis. From year to year they have held regular meetings in the chief cities of the different States.

Dr. Clemence Lozier,[225] president of the city society, early opened her s.p.a.cious parlors to the monthly meetings, where they have been held for many years. This a.s.sociation has been active and vigilant, taking note of and furthering every step of progress in Church and State. Mrs. Lozier and Mrs. Blake have worked most effectively together, the former furnis.h.i.+ng the sinews of war, and the latter making the attack all along the line, to the terror of the faint-hearted.

The era of centennial celebrations was now approaching, and it was proposed to hold a suitable commemoration on the one-hundredth anniversary of the Boston tea-party, December 16, 1873. Union League Theater was, on the appointed evening, filled to its utmost capacity. The platform was decorated with flowers and filled with ladies, Dr. Lozier presiding. Miss Anthony was the speaker of the evening, and made a most effective address; Helen Potter gave a recitation; Hannah M'L. Shepherd read letters of sympathy; Mrs.

Blake made a short closing address, and presented a series of resolutions, couched in precisely the same language as that adopted by our ancestors in protesting against taxation without representation:

_Resolved_, That as an expression of the sentiments of the tax-paying women of New York, we reterate, as applied to ourselves, the declaration contained in the bill of rights put forth by our ancestors 100 years ago: _First_--That the women of the country are ent.i.tled to equal rights and privileges with the men; _Second_--That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of all men and women, that no taxes be imposed on them but by their own consent, given in person or by their representatives; _Third_--That the only representatives of these women are persons chosen by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been or can be const.i.tutionally imposed upon them but by legislatures composed of persons so chosen.

The report of the State a.s.sessors[226] of 1883 brought forcibly to view the injustice done in taxing non-voters. At their meeting with the supervisors of Onondaga county, Mr. Pope of Fabius said: "Mrs.

Andrews is a.s.sessed too much." Mr. Hadley replied: "Well, Mr.

Briggs says that is the way all the women are a.s.sessed." Mr. Briggs responded: "Yes, that is the way we find the a.s.sessors treat the women; they can't vote, you know! I am in favor of letting the women vote now."

Two women in the village of Batavia were a.s.sessed for more personal property than the entire a.s.sessment of like property, exclusive of corporations, in the city of Rochester with a population of 70,000!

While declaring they had found very little personal property a.s.sessed, Mr. Fowler said: "We found some cases where town a.s.sessors had taxed the personal property of women, and one case of a ward who was a.s.sessed to full value, while upon the guardian's property there was no a.s.sessment at all." This report not only proved a good woman suffrage doc.u.ment, but the work done by the State a.s.sessors, Messrs. Hadley, Briggs and Fowler, convinced them personally of woman's need of the ballot for the protection of her property.

Early in the year 1874, memorials from societies in different parts of the State were sent to the legislature, asking "that all taxes due from women be remitted until they are allowed to vote." The most active of these anti-tax societies was the one formed in Rochester through the efforts of Mrs. Lewia C. Smith, whose earnestness and fidelity in this, as in many another good word and work, have been such as to command the admiration even of opponents--a soul of that sweet charity that makes no account of self. A hearing was appointed for the memorialists on January 24, and the journals[227] made honorable mention of the occasion.

The centennial was approaching and the notes of preparation were heard on all sides. The women who understood their status as disfranchised citizens in a republic, regarded the coming event as one for them of humiliation rather than rejoicing, inasmuch as the close of the first century of the nation's existence found one half the people still political slaves. At the February meeting of the a.s.sociation, Mrs. Blake presented the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the members of this society do hereby pledge themselves not to aid either by their labor, time or money, the proposed celebration of the independence of the men of the nation, unless before July 4, 1876, the women of the land shall be guaranteed their political freedom.

In their own way, however, the members of the society intended to observe such centennials as were fitting, and so preparation was made for a suitable commemoration of the battle of Lexington. They held a meeting[228] in the Union League Theatre, the evening of April 19, to protest against their disfranchis.e.m.e.nt. The journals contained fair reports, with the exception of _The Tribune_, which sent no reporter, and closed its account next day of many observances elsewhere by saying, "there was no celebration in New York city." Several of the papers published Mrs. Blake's speech:

Just as the first rays of dawn stole across our city this morning, the century was complete since the founders of this nation made their first great stand for liberty. The early April suns.h.i.+ne a hundred years ago saw a group of men and boys gathered together, "a few rods north of the meeting-house," in the Ma.s.sachusetts village of Lexington. Un-uniformed and undisciplined, standing in the chilly morning, that handful of patriots represented the great Republic which on that day was to spring from their martyrdom. The rebellious colonists had collected in the hamlets near Boston some military stores; these the British officers in command at Boston resolved should be seized and destroyed. Warned of their design Paul Revere made his famous ride to arouse the country to resistance, and in the dead of night Adams and Hanc.o.c.k went out to summon their comrades to arms. As the last stars vanished before the dawn, the drum beat to summon the patriots to action, and in response a little band of about eighty men and boys a.s.sembled on the village green. Few as they were in numbers, they presented a brave front as the British regulars came up the quiet street, 200 strong. What followed was not a battle, but a butchery. The minute-men refused to surrender to Major Pitcairn's haughty demand, and a volley of musketry, close and deadly, was poured on this devoted band. In response only a few random shots were fired, which did absolutely no harm, and then, seeing the hopelessness of resistance, the commander of the minute-men ordered them to disperse. The British, elated with their easy victory, pushed on toward Concord, thinking that there another speedy success awaited them.

In this they soon bitterly learned their error. Although they were reinforced on the way, when they reached that village they were met by such a resistance as drove them back, broken and disorganized, on the road they had so proudly followed in the morning. Concord n.o.bly avenged the slaughter at Lexington.

So much for what men did on that day, and let us see what share the women had in its dangers and its sorrows. Jonathan Harris was shot in front of his own house, while his wife was watching him from a window, seeing him fall with such anguish as no poor words of mine can describe. He struggled to his feet, the blood gus.h.i.+ng from a wound in his breast, staggered forward a few paces and fell again, and then crawled on his hands and knees to his threshold only to expire just as his wife reached him. Did not this woman bear her portion of the martyrdom? Isaac Davis, a man in the prime of life, went forth from his home in the morning, and before the afternoon sunlight had grown yellow, was brought back to it dead, and was laid, pale and cold, in his wife's bed, only three hours after he had left her with a solemn benediction of farewell. Did not this woman also suffer? She was left a widow in the very flower of her youth, and for seventy years she faithfully mourned his taking off! Nor were these the only ones; for every man who fell that day, some woman's heart was wrung.

There were others who endured actual physical hards.h.i.+p and suffering. Hannah Adams lay in bed with an infant only a week old when the British reached her house in their disorderly retreat to Boston; they forced her to leave her sick room and to crawl into an adjoining corn shed, while they burned her house to ashes in her sight. Three companies of British troops went to the house of Major Barrett and demanded food. Mrs. Barrett served them as well as she was able, and when she was offered compensation, refused it, saying gently, "We are commanded if our enemy hunger to feed him." So, in toil or suffering or anguish the women endured their share of the sorrows of that day. Do they not deserve a share of its glories also? The battles of Lexington and Concord form an era in our country's history. When, driven to desperation by a long course of oppression, the people first resolved to revolt against the mother country. Discontent, resentment and indignation had grown stronger month by month among the hardy settlers of the land, until they culminated in the most splendid act of audacity that the world has ever seen. A few colonies, scattered at long intervals along the Atlantic seaboard, dared to defy the proudest nation in Europe, and a few rustics, undisciplined, and almost unarmed, actually ventured to encounter in battle that army which had boasted its conquests over the flower of European chivalry. What unheard of oppressions drove these people to the mad attempt? What unheard of atrocities had the rulers of these people practiced, what unjust confiscations of property, what cruel imprisonments and wicked murders? None of all these; the people of this land were not starving or dying under the iron heel of an Alva or a Robespierre, but their civil liberties had been denied, their political freedom refused, and rather than endure the loss of these precious things, they were willing to encounter danger and to brave death. The men and women who suffered at Concord and at Lexington 100 years ago to-day, were martyrs to the sacred cause of personal liberty! Looking over the records of the past we find, again and again repeated, the burden of their complaints.

Not that they were starving or dying, but that they were taxed without their consent, and that they were denied personal representation.

The congress which a.s.sembled at Philadelphia in 1774, declared that "the foundation of liberty and of all free governments is the right of the people to partic.i.p.ate in their legislative council"; and the House of Burgesses, a.s.sembled in Virginia in the same year, a.s.serted "That a determined system is formed and pressed for reducing us to slavery, by subjecting us to the payment of taxes imposed without our consent." Strong language this, as strong as any we women have ever employed in addressing the men of this nation. Our ancestors called the imposition of taxes without their consent, slavery, and the denial of personal representation, tyranny. Slavery and tyranny! words which they tell us to-day are too strong for our use. We must find some mild and lady-like phrases in which to describe these oppressions. We must employ some safe and gentle terms to indicate the crimes which our forefathers denounced! My friends, what was truth a century ago is truth to-day! Other things may have changed, but justice has not changed in a hundred years!