The History of Woman Suffrage Volume IV Part 48

For these reasons women are and must be for years, if not for generations, economically weaker than men. Does it appeal to any one's sense of fairness to give the stronger party in a struggle additional advantages and deny them to the weaker one? Would that be considered honorable--would it be considered tolerable--even among prize-fighters? What would be thought of a contest between a heavy-weight and a feather-weight in which the heavy-weight was allowed to hit below the belt and the feather-weight was confined to the Marquis of Queensberry's rules? And yet these are practically the conditions under which women do business in forty-one of our States.

While the State does not owe any able-bodied, sound-minded man or woman a living, it does owe them all a fair--yes, even a generous opportunity to earn their own living, and one that shall not be prolonged dying. I do not claim that woman suffrage would be a panacea for all our economic woes. But I do claim that it would remove one handicap which women workers have to bear in addition to all those they share in common with men. I do claim that the men of the future will be healthier, wiser and more efficient wealth-producers if their mothers are stimulated by a practical interest in public affairs. I do claim that that nation will be the strongest in which the economic conditions are the most nearly just to all, and in which co-operation and altruism are the most completely incorporated in the lives of the people.

Mrs. Hala Hammond b.u.t.t (Miss.) discussed The Changed Intellectual Qualifications of the Women of this Century, with the intense eloquence of Southern women, and closed as follows:

There are mighty forces striving within our souls--a latent strength is astir that is lifting us out of our pa.s.sive sleep.

Defenseless, still are we subject to restrictions, bonds as illogical in theory as unjust in practice. Helpless, we may formulate as we will; but demonstrate we may not. The query persists in thrusting itself upon my mind, why should I be amenable to a law that does not accord me recognition? Why, indeed, should I owe loyalty and allegiance to a Government that stamps my brow with the badge of servility and inferiority?

Our human interests are identical--yours and mine; our paths not far apart; we have the same loves, the same hates, the same hopes, the same desires; a common origin, a common need, a common destiny. Our moral responsibilities are equal, our civil liabilities not less than yours, our social and industrial exactions equally as stringent as yours, and yet--O, crowning shame of the nineteenth century!--we are denied the garb of citizens.h.i.+p. Gentlemen, is this justice?

Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch, auditor of the National Suffrage a.s.sociation and a member of the Chicago bar, demonstrated The Protective Power of the Ballot:

The spirit of struggle against oppression and dependence is in the air, and all have breathed it in--women as well as men. They, too, feel the desire for freedom, opportunity, progress; the wish for liberty, a share in the government, emanc.i.p.ation. The practical method by which these aspirations can be realized is through the ballot. It is the insignia of power. The Outlander wants it; so does the Filipino, the Slav, the Cuban; so do women.

Women need the ballot not only for the honor of being esteemed peers among freemen, but they want it for the practical value it will be in protecting them in the exercise of a citizen's prerogatives....

But, it is asked, "Have not women had some sort of protection without the ballot?" Yes, but it has been only such protection as the caprice or affection of the voting cla.s.s has given, gratuities revocable at will. The man of wealth or power defends his wife, daughter or sweetheart because she is his, just as he would defend his property. His own opinions, not her views, decide him concerning the things from which she should be protected. Should she ever need protection against "her protector," there is no one to give it....

Entrance into remunerative employments in many instances has been denied women. In many of the States the professions of law, medicine, dentistry and all the elective offices are closed by statute. Appointive positions, also, which women might legally hold are practically withheld from them because of their lack of the ballot. The appointing power--president, governor, mayor, judge or commissioner--all owe their own positions to voters who expect some minor appointment in acknowledgment of service.

Even large private corporations not supposed to be influenced by politics have occasionally desired and received governmental help and protection. In return, the employes of these enterprises have been advised to vote for the party which has protected their employers' business. At a caucus, a street parade and on election day, the 500 or 10,000 or 100,000 persons employed in a certain industry make a considerable political showing if they are all voters. On such occasions women employes are of no value. Women refused employment in various enterprises not alone are injured in their feelings, but they are not protected in their right to earn food, shelter and clothes.

There are many different kinds of employment which do not debar women, but even in these they need protection in securing a fair return for their labor. In an investigation conducted by the U.

S. Department of Labor concerning the wages received by men and women it appeared that in 75 per cent. of the 782 instances investigated, men received 50 per cent. higher wages than did women laboring with the same degree of efficiency on the same kind of work.

Women also need protection of their property. A man who knows the inside truth says, "Widows and minors are always a.s.sessed higher than men." If the a.s.sessor desires re-election, one of the easiest methods of securing it is to lower the a.s.sessments of the politicians who control most voters....

Women also want protection for the one sphere which even the most conservative loudly proclaim should be theirs--the home. That the water supply is good and abundant, that the sewage is carried away properly and speedily, that contagious cases are isolated, that food is pure in quality and reasonable in price, that inspection of food is honest and scientific, that weights and measures are true, that gas and electricity are inexpensive, that buildings are strongly constructed--these are all matters under the control of certain officials elected by voters....

Women, too, want protection for the children, proper regulations in regard to the schools, the trains at crossings, seducers, tramps and child abductors. They want strict laws against obscene literature and the unhealthy cigarette; and what is equally important, honest enforcement of such laws and ordinances....

One cla.s.s can not, will not, legislate better for all cla.s.ses than they can do for themselves. So men alone can not legislate better for women and men than can the two for both. Women need the ballot to protect themselves and all that they hold dear.

The hearing was closed by Miss Shaw, who said in ending her remarks:

Dire results have been predicted at every step of radical progress. When women first enjoyed higher education the cry went out that the home would be destroyed. It was said that if all the women were educated, all would become bluestockings, and if all women became bluestockings all would write books, and if all women wrote books what would become of the homes, who would rear the children? But the schools were opened and women entered them, and it has been discovered that the intelligent woman makes a wiser mother, a better homemaker and a much more desirable companion, friend and wife than a woman who is illiterate, whose intellectual horizon is narrowed.

In many of the States where the statutes were based on the old English common law, the husband absorbed the wife's property as he absorbed her personal rights. Then came the demand for property rights for wives, but the cry went up they will desert their homes. Then it was found there were thousands of women who could have no home if they were not permitted to pursue avocations in the outside world. And then it was said that the moral life of women would be degraded by public contact. Yet the statistics show that in those occupations in which women are able to earn a livelihood in an honorable and respectable manner they have raised the standard of morality rather than lowered it.

The results have not been those which were predicted. The homes have not been broken up; for human hearts are and always will be the same, and so long as G.o.d has established in this world a greater force than all other forces combined--which we call the divine gravity of love--just so long human hearts will continue to be drawn together, homes will be founded, families will be reared; and never so good a home, never so good a family, as those founded in justice and educated upon right principles.

Consequently the industrial emanc.i.p.ation of women has been of benefit to the home, to women and to men.

The claim is made that we are building a barrier between men and women; that we are antagonistic because men are men and we are women. This is not true. We believe there never was a time when men and women were such good friends as now, when they esteemed each other as they do now. We have coeducation in our schools; boys and girls work side by side and study and recite together.

When coeducation was first tried men thought they would easily carry off the honors; but soon they learned their mistake. That experience gave to men a better opinion of woman's intellectual ability.

There is nothing in liberty which can harm either man or woman.

There is nothing in justice which can work against the highest good of humanity; and when on the ground of expediency this measure is opposed, in the words of Wendell Phillips, "Whatever is just, G.o.d will see that it is expedient." There is no greater inexpediency than injustice....

We do not ask the ballot because we do not believe in men or because we think men unjust or unfair. We do not ask to speak for ourselves because we believe men unwilling to speak for us; but because men by their very nature never can speak for women. It would be as impossible for all men to understand the needs of women and care for their interests as it would be for all women to understand the needs and care for the interests of men. So long as laws affect both men and women, both should make the laws.

Gentlemen, we leave our case with you. I wish those who oppose this measure could know the great need of the power of the ballot in the hands of those who struggle in the world's affairs. I thank you in the name of our a.s.sociation for your kindness in listening to us. There will never be laid before you a claim more just--one more in accord with the fundamental principles of our national life.

No one can read the arguments for the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women as presented before these two committees without a profound conviction of the justice of their cause and the imperative duty of those before whom they pleaded it to report in favor of submitting the desired amendment. This report would simply have placed the matter before the respective Houses of Congress. But neither committee took any action whatever and as far as practical results were concerned these eloquent pleas fell upon deaf ears and hardened hearts.

A unique feature was added to the hearings this year because, for the first time, the advocates of woman suffrage were opposed before the committees by a cla.s.s of women calling themselves "remonstrants." The _Woman's Journal_ said:

About a dozen women from New York and Ma.s.sachusetts, with one from Delaware, came to Was.h.i.+ngton and made public speeches before Congressional Committees to prove that a woman's place is at home. They said they were led to take this action by their alarm at the activity of the National-American W. S. A.

The party of "antis" who came to the Senate hearing in the Marble Room would not have been able to get in but for Miss Anthony. As this room accommodates only about sixty persons, admission was by tickets, and these had been issued to delegates only. The "antis," having no tickets, were turned away; but Miss Anthony, learning who they were, persuaded the doorkeeper to admit them, introduced them herself to the chairman of the committee, and placed them in good seats near the front, where they certainly heard more about the facts of equal suffrage than they ever did before.[129]

Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge and Miss Bissell addressed the Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage, and Mr. Thomas Russell, Mrs. A. J.

George, Miss Emily Bissell and Mrs. Rossiter Johnson addressed the House Judiciary Committee. In each case they secured the last word, to which they were not ent.i.tled either by equity or custom, by asking to speak at the conclusion of the suffrage hearing. It was trying to have to listen to egregious misstatements of fact, and to hear the _Woman's Journal_ audaciously cited as authority for them, without a chance to reply.

The time for these hearings belonged exclusively to the suffrage delegates, the chairmen of the two congressional committees stating that they would appoint some other day for the "remonstrants." The delegates, however, declaring that they had no objections, the "antis"

were permitted to read their papers at the close of the suffrage hearing, thus having the benefit of the large audiences, but furnis.h.i.+ng a vast amount of amus.e.m.e.nt to the suffragists.[130]

The _Woman's Journal_ said in its perfectly fair description:

The chairman of the House Committee asked Mrs. A. J. George of Ma.s.sachusetts, who conducted the hearing for the "antis," a number of questions that she could not answer, and Thomas Russell of that State had to prompt her repeatedly. The chairman would ask a question; Mrs. George would look nonplussed; Mr. Russell would lean over and whisper, "Say yes," and she would answer aloud "Yes." The chairman would ask another question; Mr. Russell would whisper, "Say no," and Mrs. George would answer "No." This happened so often that both the audience and the committee were visibly amused, and several persons said it was Mr. Russell who was really conducting the hearing. He is a Boston lawyer who has conducted the legislative hearings for the "antis" in Ma.s.sachusetts for some years.

Mrs. Dodge, in her speech, begged the committee not to allow the "purely sentimental reasons of the pet.i.tioners" to have any weight, and said: "The mere fact that this amendment is asked as a compliment to the leading advocate of woman suffrage on the attainment of her eightieth birthday, is evidence of the emotional frame of mind which influences the advocates of the measure, and which is scarcely favorable to the calm consideration that should be given to fundamental political principles." Miss Anthony's birthday had not been mentioned by any speaker before either committee, and the suffragists under her leaders.h.i.+p had been making their pleas and arguments for a Sixteenth Amendment for over thirty years.

As the suffrage speakers were not permitted to answer the misstatements and prevarications of the "remonstrants" at the time of the hearings and these were widely circulated through the press, the convention pa.s.sed the following resolutions on motion of Miss Alice Stone Blackwell:

WHEREAS, At this morning's Congressional hearing letters were read by the anti-suffragists from two men and one woman in Colorado, a.s.serting equal suffrage in that State to be a failure; therefore,

_Resolved_, That we call attention to a published statement declaring that the results are wholesome and that none of the predicted evils have followed. This statement is signed by the Governor and three ex-Governors of Colorado, the Chief Justice, all the Judges of the State Supreme Court, the Denver District Court and the Court of Appeals; all the Colorado Senators and Representatives in Congress; President Sloc.u.m of Colorado College, the president of the State University, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Attorney-General, the mayor of Denver, prominent clergymen of different denominations, and the presidents of thirteen of the princ.i.p.al women's a.s.sociations of Denver. The social science department of the Denver Woman's Club has just voted unanimously to the same effect, and the Colorado Legislature lately pa.s.sed a similar resolution by a vote of 45 to 3 in the House and 30 to 1 in the Senate. On the other hand, during the six years that equal suffrage has prevailed in Colorado the opponents have not yet found six respectable men who a.s.sert over their own names and addresses that it has had any bad results.

WHEREAS, At the Congressional hearing it was a.s.serted that equal suffrage had led to no improvements in the laws of Colorado; therefore,

_Resolved_, That we call attention to the fact that Colorado owes to equal suffrage the laws raising the age of protection for girls to eighteen years; establis.h.i.+ng a State Home for Dependent Children and a State Industrial School for Girls; making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children; removing the emblems from the Australian ballot; prohibiting child labor; also city ordinances in Denver providing drinking fountains in the streets; forbidding expectoration in public places, and requiring the use of smoke-consuming chimneys on all public and business buildings.

This anecdote was related the next day: "Miss Anthony's love of the beautiful leads her always to clothe herself in good style and fine materials, and she has an eye for the fitness of things as well as for the funny side. 'Girls,' she said yesterday, after returning from the Capitol, 'those statesmen eyed us very closely, but I will wager that it was impossible after we got mixed together to tell an anti from a suffragist by her clothes. There might have been a difference, though, in the expression of the faces and the shape of the heads,' she added drily."

On Tuesday afternoon about two hundred members of the convention were received by President McKinley in the East Room of the White House.

Miss Anthony stood at his right hand and, after the President had greeted the last guest, he invited her to accompany him upstairs to meet Mrs. McKinley, who was not well enough to receive all of the ladies. Giving her his arm he led her up the old historic staircase, "as tenderly as if he had been my own son," she said afterward. When she was leaving, after a pleasant call, Mrs. McKinley expressed a wish to send some message to the convention and she and the President together filled Miss Anthony's arms with white lilies, which graced the platform during the remainder of the meetings.

FOOTNOTES:

[120] The statistics used in this paper were taken from the report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education for 1899.

[121] See chapter on Louisiana.

[122] The address of Miss Laughlin created a sensation. A member of the United States Labor Commission was in the audience, and was so much impressed with the power of this young woman that shortly afterwards she was made a member of this commission to investigate the condition of the working women of the United States. Her valuable report was published in pamphlet form.

[123] See chapter on Kansas.

[124] Immediately after the convention, the New York _Times_ published an alleged interview with Mrs. Paul, in which she was made to say that she was not a believer in suffrage for women. She at once denied this emphatically over her own signature, saying that the interview was a fabrication and that she was an advocate of the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of women especially because of the need of their ballot in city government.