Susan B. Anthony

The First Soldiers' Aid Society—Mrs. Mendenhall—Cincinnati Equal Rights Association, 1868—Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital—Hon. J. M. Ashley—State Society, 1869—Murat Halstead's Letter—Dayton Convention, 1870—Women Protest against Enfranchisement—Sarah Knowles Bolton—Statistics on CoËducation—Thomas Wentworth Higginson—Woman's Crusade, 1874—Miriam M. Cole—Ladies' Health Association—Professor Curtis—Hospital for Women and Children, 1879—Letter from J. D. Buck, M. D.—March, 1881, Degrees Conferred on Women—Toledo Association, 1869—Sarah Langdon Williams—The Sunday Journal—The Ballot-Box—Constitutional Convention—Judge Waite—Amendment Making Women Eligible to Office—Mr. Voris, Chairman Special Committee on Woman Suffrage—State Convention, 1873—Rev. Robert McCune—Centennial Celebration—Women Decline to Take Part—Correspondence—Newbury Association—Women Voting, 1871—Sophia Ober Allen—Annual Meeting, Painesville, 1885—State Society, Mrs. Frances M. Casement, President—Adelbert College.

Early in the year 1862, Cincinnati became a hospital for the army operations under General Grant and was soon filled with wounded heroes from Fort Donelson and Pittsburg Landing, and the women here, as in all other cities, were absorbed in hospital and sanitary work. To the women of Cleveland is justly due the honor of organizing the first soldiers' aid society, a meeting being called for this purpose five days after the fall of Fort Sumter. Through the influence of Mrs. Mendenhall were inaugurated the great sanitary fairs[285] there, and by her untiring energy and that of the ladies who labored with her, many of our brave soldiers were restored to health. Mrs. Annie L. Quinby writes:

In the autumn of 1867 Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony made a lecturing tour through Ohio and roused popular thought on the question of suffrage. March 28, 1868, the Cincinnati Equal Rights Association[286] was formed, auxiliary to the National Society, of which Lucretia Mott was president. April 7, 1869, Mrs. Ryder called the attention of the meeting to a resolution offered by Mr. Gordon in the State legislature, to amend the constitution so as to strike out the word male, proposing that at the October election, "in all precincts in the State, there shall be a separate poll, at which all white women over 21 years of age shall be permitted to vote, and if the votes cast be a majority of all the white women, the constitution shall be amended." Mrs. Ryder seemed to think the proposition a very fair one, or intended by the mover to give the women, if they wanted to vote, the opportunity of saying so on this amendment to the constitution. Mrs. Blangy also concurred in this view of the subject. Mrs. Quinby expressed her indignation at the proposition, saying she believed its passage by the legislature would be detrimental to the cause, both on account of its provisions and the mode of accomplishing the object of the resolution. As it stood, it could but fail, as women were not prepared for it at the present time, and the proposition was not that the majority of votes cast should settle the question, but that the number cast in favor of it should be a majority of all the women in the State 21 years of age. She therefore thought we should express our decided disapproval of this amendment. Mrs. Leavitt also declared her opposition to this resolution, believing it to have been offered for the sole purpose of stalling the woman suffrage movement for years to come. She thought this association should express its decided opposition to this resolution. Mrs. Butterwood and others followed in the same strain, and it was finally agreed unanimously that the corresponding secretary be instructed to write to the mover of the resolution, expressing disapprobation of some of the terms of the amendment, with the hope that it will not pass in the form offered, and politely requesting Mr. Gordon to define his position as the resolution is susceptible of being construed both for and against equal rights.

At a meeting held April 21, 1869, delegates[287] were elected to attend the May anniversary of the American Equal Rights Association in New York. Mrs. Margaret V. Longley was placed on the executive committee of the National Association to represent Ohio. On her return from New York she joined with the Cincinnati Equal Rights Society in a call for a convention in Pike's Hall, September 15, 16, 1869, for the organization of an Ohio State Society.[288] Mrs. Longley presided; the audiences were large and enthusiastic;[289] the press of the city gave extended reports. Murat Halstead, editor of the Cincinnati Commercial, sent the following reply to his invitation:

Cincinnati, July 28, 1869.

Mrs. M. V. Longley: Dear Madam—I cannot sign your call for a woman suffrage convention, for I do not feel a serious interest in the subject. That there are woman's wrongs that the law-makers should right, I believe. For instance, I think married women should hold property independently; that they should be able to save and enjoy the fruits of their own industry; and that they should not be absolutely in the power of lazy, dissipated or worthless husbands. But I cannot see clearly how the possession of the ballot would help women in the reform indicated. If, however, a majority of the women of Ohio should signify by means proving their active interest in the subject that they wanted to acquire the right of suffrage, I don't think I would offer opposition.

M. Halstead.

Mrs. Livermore and Miss Anthony made some amusing strictures on Mr. Halstead's letter, which called out laughter and cheers from the audience. April 27 and 28, 1870, a mass-meeting was held in Dayton. Describing the occasion, Miss Sallie Joy, in a letter to a Boston paper, says:

The west is evidently wide awake on the suffrage question. The people are working with zeal almost unknown in the East, except to the more immediately interested, who are making a life-labor of the cause. The two days' convention at Dayton was freighted with interest. Earnest women were there from all parts of the State. They of the west do not think much of distances, and consequently nearly every town of note was represented. Cleveland sent her women from the borders of the lake; Cincinnati sent hers from the banks of the Ohio; Columbus, Springfield, Toledo and Sydney were represented. Not merely the leaders were there, but those who were comparatively new to the cause; all in earnest,—young girls in the first flush of youth, a new light dawning on their lives and shining through their eyes, waiting, reaching longing hands for this new gift to womanhood,—mothers on the down-hill side of life, quietly but gladly expectant of the good that was coming so surely to crown all these human lives. Most of the speakers were western women—Mrs. Cutler, Mrs. Cole, Mrs. Stewart, of Ohio, and Miss Boynton, of Indiana. The East sent our own Susan B. Anthony, and Mrs. Livermore of Boston. Like every other convention, it grew more interesting the longer it continued, and just when the speakers were so tired that they were glad the work for the time was done, the listeners, like a whole army of Oliver Twists, were crying for more. They are likely to have more—a great deal more—before the work is done completely, for it is evident the leaders don't intend to let the thing rest where it is, but to push it forward to final success. From the list of resolutions considered and adopted, I send the following:

Resolved, That as the Democratic party has long since abolished the political aristocracy of wealth; and the Republican party has now abolished the aristocracy of race; so the true spirit of Republican Democracy of the present, demands the abolition of the political aristocracy of sex.

Resolved, That as the government of the United States has, by the adoption of the fifteenth amendment, admitted the theory that one man cannot define the rights and duties of another man, so we demand the adoption of a sixteenth amendment on the same principle, that one sex cannot define the rights and duties of another sex.

Resolved, That we rejoice in the noble action of the men of Wyoming, by which the right of suffrage has been granted to the women of that territory.

Resolved, That we feel justly proud of the action of those representatives of the General Assembly of Ohio, who have endeavored to secure an amendment to the State constitution, striking out the word "male" from that instrument.

It is rather remarkable that in a State which so early established two colleges admitting women—Oberlin in 1834, and Antioch in 1853—any intelligent women should have been found at so late a date as April 15, 1870, to protest against the right of self-government for themselves, yet such is the case, as the following protest shows:

We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less ability to perform the duties which God has imposed upon us than they have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and as sacred as any that exist on earth. We feel that our present duties fill up the whole measure of our time and abilities; and that they are such as none but ourselves can perform. Their importance requires us to protest against all efforts to compel us to assume those obligations which cannot be separated from suffrage; but which cannot be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest interests of our families and of society. It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, who represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and brothers love us. Our husbands are our choice, and one with us. Our sons are what we make them. We are content that they represent us in the corn-field, the battle-field, at the ballot-box and the jury-box, and we them, in the church, the school-room, at the fireside and at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial than it could possibly be, were all women allowed to vote. We do, therefore respectively protest against legislation to establish woman suffrage in Ohio.

The above paper, signed by more than one hundred ladies of Lorain county, was presented, March 14, 1870, to the legislature assembled at Columbus. Mrs. Sarah Knowles Bolton, criticising the Oberlin protestants, said:

That so many signed is not strange, because the non-suffrage side is the popular one at present. Years hence, when it shall be customary for women to vote, it is questionable whether the lady who drew up that document would have many supporters.

If "we are not inferior to men," we must have as clear opinions and as good judgment as they. To say, then, that we are not capable of judging of political questions, is untrue. To say that we are not interested in such things is absurd, for who can be more anxious for good laws and good law-makers than women, who, for the most part, have sons and daughters in this whirlpool of temptation, called social and business life. If we are too ignorant to have an opinion, the fault lies at our own door.

These ladies reason upon the premises that the duties imposed upon us as we find them in this nineteenth century, are the duties, conditions, and relations established of God. Two things we do certainly find in the Bible with regard to this matter; that women are to bear children, and men to earn bread. The first duty we believe has been confined entirely to the female sex, but the male sex have not kept the other in all cases. If anybody has belonged for any considerable time to a benevolent institution, he has ascertained that women sometimes are obliged to earn bread and bear children also. A century or two ago, when women seldom thought of writing books, or being physicians or lawyers, professors or teachers, or doing anything but housework, probably they thought, as the ladies of Lorain county do to-day, they were in the blessed noonday of woman's enlightenment and happiness. Their husbands, very likely, needed something of the same companionship as the men of the present, but it was unpopular for girls to attend school. If these ladies, after careful study and thought, believe that woman suffrage will work evil in the land, they ought to say that, rather than base it upon lack of time. The enfranchisement of 15,000,000 women will be a balance of power for good or evil that will need looking after. As for our representing men at the fireside, I think it a great deal pleasanter that they be there in person. Nothing is more blessed than the home circle, and here I think if husbands were not so often represented by their wives, while they are absent evening after evening on "important business," the condition of things would be improved. If the ladies aforesaid cannot vote without the highest interests of their families being sacrificed, they ought to be allowed to remain in peace. I am glad they made this protest, not only because this is a country where honest views ought to be expressed, but because agitation pushes forward reform. I am glad that nearly half of our representatives were in favor of submitting this question to the women of the State, and that our interests were so ably defended by a talented representative from our own district. I do not think, however, by submitting it to the women, they would get a correct expression upon the subject. A good many would vote for suffrage, a few against it, and thousands would be afraid to vote. If it is granted, I do not suppose all women will vote immediately. Many prejudices will first have to give way. If women vote what they wish to vote, and there is no disorderly conduct at the polls in consequence, and no general disorder in the body politic, I do not see any objection to the voting being continued from year to year.

When women like Miss Jones of our city, now in California, take a few more professorships in a university over half-a-hundred competitors, write a few more libraries, show themselves capable of solving great questions, become ornaments to their professions, it will seem more absurd for them not to be enfranchised than it does now for them to be so.

Hon. J. M. Ashley, of Toledo, in a speech on the floor of congress, June 1, 1868, said:

I want citizenship and suffrage to be synonymous. To put the question beyond the power of States to withhold it, I propose the amendment to article fourteen, now submitted. A large number of Republicans who concede that the qualifications of an elector ought to be the same in every State, and that it is more properly a national than a State question, do not believe congress has the power under our present constitution to enact a law conferring suffrage in the States, nevertheless they are ready and willing to vote for such an amendment to the constitution as shall make citizenship and suffrage uniform throughout the nation. For this purpose I have added to the proposed amendment for the election of president a section on suffrage, to which I invite special attention.

This is the third or fourth time I have brought forward a proposition on suffrage substantially like the one just presented to the House. I do so again because I believe the question of citizenship suffrage one which ought to be met and settled now. Important and all-absorbing as many questions are which now press themselves upon our consideration, to me no one is so vitally important as this. Tariffs, taxation, and finance ought not to be permitted to supersede a question affecting the peace and personal security of every citizen, and, I may add, the peace and security of the nation. No party can be justified in withholding the ballot from any citizen of mature years, native or foreign born, except such as are non compos or are guilty of infamous crimes; nor can they justly confer this great privilege upon one class of citizens to the exclusion of another class.

The Revolution of March 19, 1868, said:

Notwithstanding the most determined hostility to the demands of the age for female physicians, institutions for their educational preparation for professional responsibilities are rapidly increasing. The ball first began to move in the United States,[290] and now a female medical college is in successful operation in London, where the favored monopolizers of physic and surgery were resolved to keep out all new ideas in their line by acts of parliament. But the ice-walls of opposition have melted away, and even in Russia a woman has graduated with high medical honors.

The following statistics from Thomas Wentworth Higginson settle many popular objections to a collegiate education for women:

Graduates of Antioch College.—In a paper read before the Social Science Association in the spring of 1874 I pointed out the presumption to be, that if a desire for knowledge was implanted in the minds of women, they had also as a class the physical capacity to gratify it; and that therefore the burden of proof lay on those who opposed such education, on physiological grounds, to collect facts in support of their position. In criticising Dr. Clarke's book, "Sex in Education," I called attention to the fact that he has made no attempt to do this, but has merely given a few detached cases, whose scientific value is impaired by the absence of all proof whether they stand for few or many. We need many facts and a cautious induction; not merely a few facts and a sweeping induction. I am now glad to put on record a tabular view[291] of the graduates of Antioch, with special reference to their physical health and condition; the facts being collected and mainly arranged by Professor J. B. Weston of Antioch—who has been connected with that institution from its foundation—with the aid of Mrs. Weston and Rev. Olympia Brown, both graduates of the college. For the present form of the table, however, I alone am responsible.

It appears that of the 41 graduates, ranging from the year 1857 to 1873, no fewer than 36 are now living. Of these the health of 11 is reported as "very good"; 19 "good"; making 30 in all; 1 is reported as "fair"; 1 "uncertain"; 1 "not good," and 3 "unknown." Of the 41 graduates, 30 are reported as married and 11 are single, five of these last having graduated within three years. Of the 30 married, 24 have children, numbering 48 or 49 in all. Of the 6 childless, 3 are reported as very recently married; one died a few months after marriage, and the facts in the other cases are not given. Thirty-four of the forty-one have taught since graduated, and I agree with Professor Weston that teaching is as severe a draft on the constitution as study. Taking these facts as a whole, I do not see how the most earnest advocate of higher education could ask for a more encouraging exhibit; and I submit the case without argument, so far as this pioneer experiment at coËducation is concerned. If any man seriously believes that his non-collegiate relatives are in better physical condition than this table shows, I advise him to question forty-one of them and tabulate the statistics obtained.

In the following editorial in the Woman's Journal Mr. Higginson pursues the opposition still more closely, and answers their frivolous objections:

I am surprised to find that Professor W.S. Tyler of Amherst College, in his paper on "The Higher Education of Woman," in Scribner's Monthly for February, repeats the unfair statements of President Eliot of Harvard, in regard to Oberlin College. The fallacy and incorrectness of those statements were pointed out on the spot by several, and were afterwards thoroughly shown by President Fairchild of Oberlin; yet Professor Tyler repeats them all. He asserts that there has been a great falling off in the number of students in that college; he entirely ignores the important fact of the great multiplication of colleges which admit women; and he implies, if he does not assert, that the separate ladies' course at Oberlin has risen as a substitute for the regular college course. His words are these, the italics being my own:

In Oberlin, where the experiment has been tried under the most favorable circumstances, it has proved a failure so far as the regular college course is concerned. The number of young women in that course, instead of increasing with the prosperity of the institution, has diminished, so that it now averages only two or three to a class. The rest pursue a different curriculum, live in a separate dormitory, and study by themselves in a course of their own, reciting, indeed, with the young men, and by way of reciprocity and in true womanly compassion, allowing some of them to sit at their table in the dining-hall, but yet constituting substantially a female seminary, or, if you please, a woman's college in the university.—Scribner, February, page 457.

Now, it was distinctly stated by President Fairchild last summer, that this "different curriculum" was the course originally marked out for women, and that the regular college course was an after-thought. This disposes of the latter part of Professor Tyler's statement. I revert, therefore, to his main statement, that "the number of young women in the collegiate course has diminished, so that it now averages only two or three to a class." Any reader would suppose his meaning to be that taking one year with another, and comparing later years with the early years of Oberlin, there has been a diminution of women. What is the fact? The Oberlin College triennial catalogue of 1872 lies before me, and I have taken the pains to count and tabulate the women graduated in different years, during the thirty-two years after 1841, when they began to be graduated there. Dividing them into decennial periods, I find the numbers to be as follows: 1841-1850, thirty-two women were graduated; 1851-1860, seventeen women were graduated; 1861-1870, forty women were graduated. From this it appears that during the third decennial period there was not only no diminution, but actually a higher average than before. During the first period the classes averaged 3.2 women; during the second period 1.7 women, and during the third period 4 women. Or if, to complete the exhibit, we take in the two odd classes at the end, and make the third period consist of twelve classes, the average will still be 3.8, and will be larger than either of the previous periods. Or if, disregarding the even distribution of periods, we take simply the last ten years, the average will be 3.1. Moreover, during the first period there was one class (1842) which contained no women at all; and during the second period there were three such classes (1852-3, 7); while during the third period every class has had at least one woman.

It certainly would not have been at all strange if there had been a great falling off in the number of graduates of Oberlin. At the outset it had the field to itself. Now the census gives fifty-five "colleges" for women, besides seventy-seven which admit both sexes. Many of these are inferior to Oberlin, no doubt, but some rose rapidly to a prestige far beyond this pioneer institution. With Cornell University on the one side, and the University of Michigan on the other—to say nothing of minor institutions—the wonder is that Oberlin could have held its own at all. Yet the largest class of women it ever graduated (thirteen) was so late as 1865, and if the classes since then "average but two or three," so did the classes for several years before that date. Professor Tyler knows very well that classes fluctuate in every college, and that a decennial period is the least by which the working of any system can be tested. Tried by this test, the alleged diminution assumes a very different aspect. If, however, there were a great decline at Oberlin, it would simply show a transfer of students to other colleges, since neither Professor Tyler nor President Eliot will deny that the total statistics of colleges show a rapid increase in the number of women.

Moreover, I confess that my confidence in Professor Tyler's sense of accuracy is greatly impaired by these assertions about Oberlin, and also by his statement, which I must call reckless, at least, in regard to the inferiority in truth, purity and virtue of those women who seek the suffrage. He asserts (page 456) that "women—women generally—the truest, purest and best of the sex—do not wish for the right of suffrage." Now, if the women who oppose suffrage are truest, purest and best, the women who advocate it must plainly be inferior at all these points; and that is an assertion which not only these women themselves, but their brothers, husbands and sons are certainly entitled to resent. Mr. Tyler has a perfect right to argue for his own views, for or against suffrage, but he has no right to copy the Oriental imprecation, and say to his opponents, "May the grave of your mother be defiled!." He claims that he holds official relations to one "woman's college," one "female seminary" and one "young ladies' institute." Will it conduce to the moral training of those who enter those institutions that their officers set them the example of impugning the purity and virtue of those who differ in opinion from themselves?

But supposing Professor Tyler not to be bound by the usual bonds of courtesy or of justice, he is at least bound by the consistency of his own position. Thus, he goes out of his way to compliment Mrs. Somerville and Miss Mitchell. Both these ladies are identified with the claim for suffrage. He lauds "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but Mrs. Stowe has written almost as ably for the enfranchisement of woman as for the freedom of the blacks. He praises the "sacramental host of authoresses," who, he says, "will move on with ever-growing power, overthrowing oppression, restraining vice and crime, reforming morals and manners, purifying public sentiment, revolutionizing business, society and government, till every yoke is broken and all nations are won to the truth." But it has been again and again shown that the authoresses of America are, with but two or three exceptions, in favor of woman suffrage, and, therefore, instead of being "sacramental," do not even belong to Professor Tyler's class of "wisest, truest and best." He thus selects for compliment on one page the very women whom he has traduced on another. His own witnesses testify against him. It is a pity that such phrases of discourtesy and unfairness should disfigure an essay which in many respects says good words for women, recommends that they should study Greek, and says, in closing, that their elevation "is at once the measure and the means of the elevation of mankind."

In the autumn of 1884 an effort was made to exclude women from Adelbert College. We give an account thereof from the pen of Mrs. Sarah Knowles Bolton, published in the English Woman's Review of January, 1885:

Dear Editor: The city of Cleveland has been stirred for weeks on this question of woman's higher education. Western Reserve College, founded in 1826, at Hudson, was moved to Cleveland in 1874, because of a gift of $100,000 from Mr. Amasa Stone, with the change of name to Adelbert College, in memory of an only son. A few young women had been students since 1873. In Cleveland, about twenty young ladies availed themselves of such admirable home privileges. Their scholarship was excellent—higher than that of the young men. They were absent from exercises only half as much as the men. Their conduct was above reproach. A short time since the faculty, except the president, Dr. Carroll Cutler, petitioned the board of trustees to discontinue coËducation at the college, for the assumed reasons that girls require different training from boys, never "identical" education; that it is trying to their health to recite before young men; "the strain upon the nervous system from mortifying mistakes and serious corrections is to many young ladies a cruel additional burden laid upon them in the course of study"; "that the provision we offer to girls is not the best, and is even dangerous"; that "where women are admitted, the college becomes second or third-rate, and that, worst of all, young men will be deterred from coming to this college by the presence of ladies." An "annex" was recommended, not with college degrees, but a subordinate arrangement with "diploma examinations, so far and so fast as the resources of the college shall allow."

As soon as the subject became known, the newspapers of the city took up the question. As the public furnishes the means and the students for every college, the public were vitally interested. Ministers preached about it, and they, with doctors and lawyers, wrote strong articles, showing that no "annex" was desired; that parents wished thorough, high, self-reliant education for their daughters as for their sons; that health was not injured by the embarrassment (?) of reciting before young men; that young men had not been deterred from going to Ann Arbor, Oberlin, Cornell, and other institutions where there are young women; that it was unjust to make girls go hundreds of miles away to Vassar or Smith or Wellesley, when boys were provided with the best education at their very doors; that, with over half the colleges of this country admitting women, with the colleges of Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and France throwing open their doors to women, for Adelbert College to shut them out, would be a step backward in civilization.

The women of the city took up the matter, and several thousands of our best names were obtained to a petition, asking that girls be retained members of the college; judges and leading persons gladly signed. The trustees met November 7, 1884. The whole city eagerly waited the result. The chairman of the committee, Hon. I. W. Chamberlain of Columbus, who had been opposed to coËducation at first, from the favorable reports received by him from colleges all over the country, had become a thorough convert, and the report was able and convincing.

President Angell of Michigan University, where there are 1,500 students, wrote: "Women were admitted here under the pressure of public sentiment against the wishes of most of the professors. But I think no professor now regrets it, or would favor the exclusion of women. We made no solitary modification of our rules or requirements. The women did not become hoydenish; they did not fail in their studies; they did not break down in health; they have been graduated in all departments; they have not been inferior in scholarship to the men. We count the experiment here successful."

Galusha Anderson, president of Chicago University, wrote: "Our only law here is that the students shall act as gentlemen and ladies. They mingle freely together, just as they do in society, as I think God intended that they should, and the effect in all respects is good. I have never had the slightest trouble from the association of the sexes."

Chancellor Manatt of Nebraska University, for four years engaged in university work at Yale, in answer to the questions as to whether boys would be driven away from the institution, replied: "This question sounds like a joke in this longitude. As well say a girl's being born into a family turns the boys out of doors. It rather strengthens the home attraction. So in the university. I believe there is not a professor or student here who would not, for good and solid reasons, fight for the system."

President Warren of Boston University, lately the recipient of, £200,000, wrote: "The only opponents of coËducation I have ever known are persons who know nothing about it practically, and whose difficulties are all speculative and imaginary. Men are more manly and women more womanly when concerted in a wholly human society than when educated in a half-human one."

President White of Cornell wrote: "I regard the 'annex' for women in our colleges as a mere make-shift and step in the progress toward the full admission of women to all college classes, and I think that this is a very general view among men who have given unprejudiced thought to the subject. Having now gone through one more year, making twelve in all since women were admitted, I do not hesitate to say that I believe their presence here is good for us in every respect."

Professor Moses Coit Tyler of Cornell said: "My observation has been that under the joint system the tone of college life has grown more earnest, more courteous and refined, less flippant and cynical. The women are usually among the very best scholars, and lead instead of drag, and their lapses from good health are rather, yes, decidedly, less numerous than those alleged by the men. There is a sort of young man who thinks it not quite the thing, you know, to be in a college where women are; and he goes away, if he can, and I am glad to have him do so. The vacuum he causes is not a large one, and his departure is more than made up by the arrival in his stead of a more robust and manlier sort."

The only objectors to coËducation were from those colleges which had never tried it; President Porter of Yale thought it a suitable method for post-graduate classes, and President Seeley for a course of "lower grade" than Amherst.

President Cutler of Adelbert College made an able report, showing that the progress of the age is towards coËducation. Only fifty-three Protestant colleges, founded since 1830, exclude women; while 156 coËducational institutions have been established since that date.

Some of the trustees thought it desirable to imitate Yale,[292] and others felt that they knew what studies are desirable for woman better than she knew herself! When the vote was taken, to their honor be it said, it was twelve to six, or two to one, in favor of coËducation. The girls celebrated this just and manly decision by a banquet.

The inauguration of the women's crusade at this time (1874) in Ohio created immense excitement, not only throughout that State, but it was the topic for the pulpit and the press all over the nation. Those identified with the woman suffrage movement, while deeply interested in the question of temperance, had no sympathy with what they felt to be a desecration of womanhood and of the religious element in woman. They felt that the fitting place for petitions and appeals was in the halls of legislation, to senators and congressmen, rather than rumsellers and drunkards in the dens of vice and the public thoroughfares. It was pitiful to see the faith of women in God's power to effect impossibilities. Like produces like in the universe of matter and mind, and so long as women consent to make licentious, drunken men the fathers of their children, no power in earth or heaven can save the race from these twin vices. The following letter from Miriam M. Cole makes some good points on this question:

If the "woman's war against whisky" had been inaugurated by the woman suffrage party, its aspect, in the eyes of newspapers, would be different from what it now is. If Lucy Stone had set the movement on foot, it would have been so characteristic of her! What more could one expect from such a disturber of public peace? She, who has no instinctive scruples against miscellaneous crowds at the polls, might be expected to visit saloons and piously serenade their owners, until patience ceases to be a virtue. But for women who are so pressed with domestic cares that they have no time to vote; for women who shun notoriety so much that they are unwilling to ask permission to vote; for women who believe that men are quite capable of managing State and municipal affairs without their interference; for them to have set on foot the present crusade, how queer! Their singing, though charged with a moral purpose, and their prayers, though directed to a specific end, do not make their warfare a whit more feminine, nor their situation more attractive. A woman knocking out the head of a whisky barrel with an ax, to the tune of Old Hundred, is not the ideal woman sitting on a sofa, dining on strawberries and cream, and sweetly warbling, "The Rose that All are Praising." She is as far from it as Susan B. Anthony was when pushing her ballot into the box. And all the difference between the musical saint spilling the precious liquid and the unmusical saint offering her vote is, that the latter tried to kill several birds with one stone, and the former aims at only one.

Intemperance, great a curse as it is, is not the only evil whose effects bear most heavily on women. Wrong is hydra-headed, and to work so hard to cut off one head, when there is a way by which all may be dissevered, is not a far-sighted movement; and when you add to this the fact that the head is not really cut off, but only dazed by unexpected melodies and supplications, there is little satisfaction in the effort. We learn that, outside of town corporations that have been lately "rectified," the liquor traffic still goes on, and the war is to be carried into the suburbs. What then? Where next? Which party can play this game the longer? Tears, prayers and songs will soon lose their novelty—this spasmodic effort will be likely soon to spend itself; is there any permanent good being wrought? Liquor traffic opposes woman suffrage, and with good reasons. It knows that votes change laws, and it also knows that the votes of women would change the present temperance laws and make them worth the paper on which they are printed. While this uprising of women is a hopeful sign, yet it cannot make one law black or white. It may, for a time, mold public opinion, but depraved passions and appetites need wholesome laws to restrain them. If women would only see this and demand the exercise of their right of suffrage with half the zeal and unanimity with which they storm a man's castle, it would be granted. This is the only ax to lay at the root of the tree.

Springfield, Ohio, has just had a case in a Justice Court which attracted much attention and awakened much interest. A woman whose husband had reduced his family to utter want by drunkenness, entered a suit against the rumseller. An appeal from the drunkard's wife to the ladies of Springfield had been circulated in the daily papers, which so aroused them that a large delegation of the most respectable and pious women of the city came into the court. But the case was adjourned for a week. During this time the excitement had become so great that when the trial came on the court-room was full of spectators, and the number of ladies within the rail was increased three-fold. Mrs. E. D. Stewart made the plea to the jury. A verdict was rendered against the rumseller. An appeal will be taken; but the citizens of Springfield will never forget the influence which the presence of women, in sympathy with another wronged woman, had upon the court. And what added power those women would have had as judges, jurors and advocates; citizens crowned with all the rights, privileges and immunities justly theirs by law and constitution.

Of the work in Geauga county, Mrs. Sophia Ober Allen, of South Newbury writes:

In the winter of 1851-2, Anson Read circulated a petition praying the legislature to protect married women in their property rights; and from that time the subject of women's rights was frequently discussed in social and literary gatherings. In 1871, Mrs. Lima Ober proposed to be one of six women to go to the township election and offer her vote. Nine[293] joined her, but all their votes were rejected, the judges saying they feared trouble would be the result if they received them. From that year to 1876 these heroic women of South Newbury persisted in offering their votes at the town, state and presidential elections; and though always refused, they would repair to another room with the few noble men who sustained them, and there duly cast their ballots for justice and equality. On one occasion they polled fifty votes—thirty-one women and nineteen men. In 1876 they adopted a series of stirring resolutions with a patriotic declaration of principles.

In 1873, large meetings were held, and a memorial sent to the constitutional convention, asking for an amendment, that "the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any adult citizen except for crime, idiocy or lunacy." On January 12, 1874, a political club was organized,[294] which has been active in holding meetings and picnics, circulating petitions and tracts. On July 4, 1874, a basket picnic was held in Ober and Allen's grove, at which Gen. A. C. Voris was among the speakers.[295] Hon. A. G. Riddle, whose early life was spent mostly in Newbury, encouraged and assisted the work, both by voice and pen. During the winter of 1878, Susan B. Anthony, in company with my husband and myself, lectured in several towns under the auspices of the club. Miss Eva L. Pinney, a native of Newbury, was employed by the club to canvass the county. Her success was marked. In 1879 the treasury received a bequest of $50, from Reuben H. Ober, who, though spending much of his time in the East, ever sustained a live interest in the home society.[296]

Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams sends us the following report from the Toledo society:

In the winter of 1869, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony returning from an extended trip through the West, spent a few days in Toledo. In addition to public meetings, their coming was the occasion for many pleasant and hospitable gatherings. A large circle of intelligent and earnest women were longing and waiting to do something to speed the movement for woman suffrage, when the coming of these pioneers of reform roused them to action. It was like the match to the fire all ready for kindling, and an organization was speedily effected.[297] From that time forward, the air seemed magnetized with reform ideas, and to the loyal band who stood true to their flag, new members were added from time to time, and from this little band went forth an influence, a steady force which has operated silently though continuously through both visible and invisible channels, moulding the thought and action of the community. The meetings of this association were regularly reported by the daily press, with more or less justice, according as the reporter present, or the newspaper which reported the proceedings, was more or less friendly.

A letter published in The Revolution of June 10, 1869, indicates the practical work of our association:

The first skirmish along the line of the suffrage army in Ohio has been fought, and the friends of reformation may well rejoice at the result. In this city there has existed for a long time a library association to which women were admitted as members, but in the control or management of which they had no voice. Under the pressure of influences set in motion by your visit, it was resolved that this relic of the past should be swept away, that women should be represented in the management as well as in the membership of the association. At the late election six directors were to be chosen among other officers, and Miss Anna C. Mott,[298] Mrs. M. W. Bond and Mrs. M. J. Barker were candidates upon a ticket called the Equal Rights Ticket, headed by Mr. A. W. Gleason, for president. The dangerous proposition, not only of allowing women to vote, but of giving them offices, was a bombshell in the camp of conservatism, and every influence that could be, was brought to bear against this ticket. After an exciting contest, the result showed that notwithstanding a powerful and influential opposition, the ticket was elected by a vote of from 186 to 220 out of 327 votes. This result has been all the more grateful, because in the opposition were to be found many of the most wealthy and respected citizens of Toledo.

As an index of the interest the women manifested in that election, three-fourths of them voted. It was interesting to notice the firmness with which the women walked up to the ballot-box. No trembling was perceptible. They carried the ballot with ease, deposited it with coolness, watched to see that no fraud was perpetrated, and then departed as noiselessly as they came. The deed was done. Woman's honor, woman's purity, woman's domestic felicity, woman's conjugal love, woman's fidelity to her home duties, all these and a thousand other of the finer qualities were destroyed. No more peace in families; no more quiet home evenings; no more refined domestic women; but wrangling and discords instead. Soldiers and sailors, policemen and gravel-shovelers had taken the place of wives and mothers. Sick at heart I went to my home and wept for American womanhood. But the sun rose as usual, and the world still revolved. I went to the police-court—all was quiet. I passed to the county-court, and looked over the docket—no new divorce cases met my gaze. With unsteady hand I have opened the morning papers for the past few days, but nothing there betrayed the terrible results of that false step. Oh, women! women! In the days of Indian warfare, the skilled hunter would tell you that after an attack, when all was quiet, and you thought the enemy had departed, the greatest danger awaited, and the most careful vigilance was required. So I still keep watching, for I know the vengeance of the gods must fall upon this worse than Sodom, for since women have voted, surely there be not five righteous within the city. Real estate is not falling, however, but then!—

The evening after the election, the friends of the association and of the successful tickets, gathered to witness the incoming of the new administration. Hearty words of cheer for the future were spoken. The president, Mr. Gleason, delivered a beautiful inaugural address, of which I send you a few sentences, and the meeting adjourned.

The president said: While thanking you most heartily, ladies and gentlemen, for the distinguished honor conferred upon me in the election, I do not forget that it is due to the great principles of equal rights and universal suffrage—not to any merits of my own. We live in an age of progress. In my humble opinion we have taken a great step forward in admitting ladies to the management of this association—not only from the fact that in this particular institution they hold an equal footing with ourselves, and of right are entitled to all its privileges, but from the more important fact that it is a recognition here of those principles which are now claiming recognition in the political institutions of our country. It is in the natural order of events that this "equal rights" movement should meet with opposition. All movements of a novel and radical character at their commencement meet with opposition. This is the ordeal through which they must pass, but their success or failure depends upon their intrinsic merit. Nothing is to be feared from opposition to any movement that possesses these elements. Whatsoever idea has its origin in the recesses of human nature, will, sooner or later, become embodied in living action, and so we have this assurance—that as here, so also in the political institutions of our country—this principle of equal rights, both to man and woman, will at last prevail.

In 1871 the Sunday Journal offered the association half a column, which was gratefully accepted, and Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams appointed editor. The department increased to a full page, and the circulation of the paper became as large as that of either of the city dailies. When there was danger of its being sold to opponents of the cause, Mrs. Williams purchased one-half interest, and by so doing kept the other half in the hands of the friendly proprietor. In the Sunday Journal the association had a medium through which it could promptly answer all unjust attacks, and thus kept up a constant agitation. In November, 1875, the sale of the paper closed for a while direct communication between the association and the public. But soon becoming restive without any medium through which to express itself, the society started The Ballot-Box in April, 1876, raising money among the citizens in aid of the enterprise. With this first assistance the paper became at once self-supporting, and continued thus until April, 1878,[299] when it was transferred to Matilda Joslyn Gage, and published at Syracuse, N. Y.

The convention for the remodeling of the constitution of the State, in 1873-74, afforded an opportunity for unflagging efforts of the members of the association in the circulation of petitions; and so successful were they that when their delegates presented themselves with 1,500 signatures, asking for an amendment securing the right of suffrage to women, a member of the convention, on scanning the roll, exclaimed: "Why, you have here all the solid men of Lucas county." Mr. M. R. Waite, since chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was president of the convention, and in presenting the petition said the names on that paper represented fifteen millions of dollars. Mr. Waite's courtesy indicated stronger convictions regarding the rights of women than he really possessed. In an interview with our committee, appointed to secure a hearing from the members-elect—Mr. Waite and Mr. Scribner—Mr. Waite declared himself in favor of according equal wages to women, and believed them entitled to all other rights, except the right to vote. He thought women were entitled to a hearing in the convention, and would aid them all he could to secure the privilege. Mr. Waite, with great kindness of nature, possesses an inborn conservatism which curbs his more generous impulses. He adhered to this position in his decision in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, declaring that "the constitution of the United States has no voters." Many of the most sanguine friends were greatly disappointed. They had fully believed his love of justice would lead him to the broad interpretation of the constitution, so clearly the true one, set forth in the first article of the fourteenth amendment. It did prevail, however, when, after saying the constitution does not confer the right of suffrage with citizenship, he said: "If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power is not with the Supreme Court."

When, in February, 1873, an irascible judge of the Court of Common Pleas refused to ratify the appointment of a woman—Miss Mary Sibley—to the office of deputy clerk, which she had filled for eight years with unusual acceptance, on the ground that not being an elector she was legally disqualified, the association determined to dispute the decision in her behalf, and on applying through their president to Mr. Waite to act as counsel, he gave his unhesitating acceptance, and declared that if the appointment was illegal, the law ought to be changed at once. True to his promise, he defended her most ably, and engaged other counsel to act with him. His services were given gratuitously.

Subsequently, in the constitutional convention, an amendment was adopted making women eligible to appointive offices, and also to any office under the school control, with the exception of State commissioner. But when voted upon, the new constitution was lost, and with it these amendments. The cause had able advocates in the convention, leading whom was General A. C. Voris of Akron, who was made chairman of the Special Committee on Woman Suffrage. The Standing Committee on Elective Franchise was extremely unfriendly, conspicuously so the chairman, Mr. Sample. A Special Committee on Woman Suffrage was appointed, which performed its duty faithfully, and reported unanimously in favor. Mr. Voris worked for the measure with an enthusiasm equaled only by his ability. When the report came up for discussion he made a masterly speech of two hours, during which the attention was so close that a pin could be heard to drop. Other able speeches were also made in favor of the measure by some of the most talented members of the convention. It came within two votes of being carried. The defeat was largely due to the liquor influence in the convention. The cause, however, received a new impetus through the exertions of General Voris, to whom, second to no other person in Ohio, should the thanks of the women be rendered. During the contest the Toledo society was constantly on the alert. On three occasions it sent its delegates to the convention; but it has not limited its work to Ohio alone; it has given freely of its means whenever it could to aid the struggle in other States, and has rolled up large petitions to congress asking for a sixteenth amendment.

When the State convention met in Toledo, February, 1873, the members of the city society exerted themselves to the utmost to have all arrangements for their reception and entertainment of the most satisfactory character, and the delegates unanimously agreed they had never before had so delightful and successful a meeting. Many lasting friendships were formed. The opera-house was well filled at every session of the three days' convention. At the opening session a cordial address of welcome was given by Rev. Robert McCune, one of Toledo's most eloquent Republicans. The mayor of the city, Dr. W. W. Jones, a staunch Democrat, also made a courteous speech.

The Toledo Society has always held itself an independent organization, though its members, individually, have identified themselves as they chose with other associations. Its attitude has been of the most uncompromising character. It has never been cajoled into accepting a crumb in any way in the place of the whole loaf. Sometimes this has brought upon it the condemnation of friends, but in the long run it has won respect, even from bitter opponents. An illustration of this was given in its action with regard to the centennial celebration. The Fourth of July, 1876, was to be observed in Toledo as a great gala day. Long before its arrival preparations were in progress through which patriotic citizens were to express their gratitude over the nation's prosperity on the one-hundredth anniversary of freedom. All trades, professions and organizations were to join in one vast triumphal procession. A call was issued for a meeting, to which all organizations were requested to send representatives. The Woman Suffrage Association was not neglected, and a circular of invitation was mailed to its president. This raised a delicate question, for how could women take part in celebrating the triumphs of their country whose laws disfranchised them? But, having received a courteous recognition, they must respond with equal courtesy. The letter was laid before the society, and the president instructed to politely decline the honor. The Ballot-Box of May, 1876, contains the correspondence:

Toledo, Ohio, April 8, 1876.

At a meeting of citizens, held at White's Hall, on the evening of the 6th inst., the undersigned were instructed to invite your organization, with others, to send a representative to a meeting to be held at White's Hall, on the evening of Monday, April 17, which will elect an executive committee, and make other arrangements for a celebration by Toledo of the one-hundredth anniversary of American independence in a manner befitting the occasion and the character of our city. It is earnestly desired that every organization, of whatever nature, in Toledo, be represented at this meeting. We would, therefore, ask of you that you lay the matter before your organization at its next regular meeting, or in case it shall hold no meeting before the 17th, that you appear as a representative yourself.

Guido Marx, Chairman.

D. R. Locke, James H. Emory, Secretaries.

This was laid before the association at a meeting which occurred the same afternoon, and by the order of the society the invitation therein conveyed was replied to in season to be read at the meeting at White's Hall, April 17:

Toledo, Ohio, April 15, 1876.

Hon. Guido Marx, Messrs. D. R. Locke and James H. Emory:

Gentlemen: The printed circular, with your names attached, inclosed to my address as president of the Toledo Woman Suffrage Association, inviting that body to send a representative to a meeting to be held at White's Hall, Monday evening, April 17, to elect an executive committee and make other arrangements for a celebration by Toledo of the one-hundredth anniversary of American independence, was received just in time to lay before the meeting held April 10. It was there decided that while the members of the association fully appreciate the generosity of the men of Toledo, and feel grateful for the implied recognition of their citizenship, yet they manifestly have no centennial to celebrate, as the government still holds them in a condition of political serfdom, denying them the greatest right of citizenship—representation.

Conscious, however, of the great results which the nation's hundred years have achieved in building up a great people, we are aware that you, as American men, have cause for rejoicing, and we bid you God-speed in all efforts which you may make in the approaching celebration. In an equal degree we feel it inconsistent, as a disfranchised class, to unite with you in the celebration of that liberty which is the heritage of but one-half the people. It is the will, therefore, of the association that I respond to the above effect, thanking you for your courteous invitation, and recognizing with pleasure among your names those who have heretofore extended to us their sympathy and aid. I remain, with sincere respect, yours,

Sarah R. L. Williams, President T. W. S. A.

The letter was intended to be in all respects courteous, as the writer and the society which she represented had naught but the kindest of feelings toward those who, in so friendly a manner, recognized their citizenship by inviting them to take part in the meeting, and also toward the Toledo public, who, as a general thing, had treated their organization with friendly consideration. It appears, however, that their attitude was misconstrued, according to articles subsequently published in the Blade and Commercial, which we reproduce below:

The women say they "manifestly have no centennial to celebrate." If we are not mistaken, the women of this country have enjoyed greater progress than the men under our free government, and it illy becomes them now to steadily and persistently pout because they have not yet attained the full measure of their earthly desires—the ballot-box. Better by far give a hearty show of appreciation of benefits received, and thereby materially aid in further progress. Nothing can be gained by their refusing to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of civil and religious liberty. The rights of all are necessarily restricted wherever there is a government, and time and experience can alone demonstrate just what extension or contraction of rights and liberties may be essential to the general good. In our judgment the women, by refusing to participate in the coming Fourth of July celebration, have committed an error, the influence of which cannot but prove prejudicial to the interests of their association. The opposite course would undoubtedly have won friends.—Blade.

A singularly uncourteous letter was the one sent by the Woman Suffrage Association to the meeting at White's Hall. Ninety-nine-hundredths of the women of the country will be surprised to learn that they "have no centennial to celebrate," and will be still more surprised when they discover that it is "inconsistent" for them to unite with their brothers, fathers, sons and husbands "in the celebration of the liberty which is the heritage" of all the people. We cannot but feel that the claims set forth by the association would command more respectful consideration with the display of a different spirit. The maids and matrons of 1776 were of a different mold.—Commercial.

The Blade has been a good friend to woman suffrage for many years, but we feel that the present article was written in a spirit of needless irritability, such as we should think might ensue from a fit of indigestion. The Commercial, since its change of management, has certainly not been unfriendly, and we have thought fair. Its present comments are unjust. The following editorial appeared in The Ballot-Box of the same date:

Why We Cannot Celebrate the Centennial.—The city dailies criticise the suffrage association somewhat severely for declining to unite in the centennial celebration. Perhaps from the outlook of masculine satisfaction it may seem astonishing that patriotism should not inspire us with gratitude for the crumbs from the national table; that we should not rejoice at the great banquet being prepared. But it is as impossible for us to look from their standpoint, as for them to see from ours. While appreciating the kindnesses measured out to us in this city by our friends and the press, yet laboring without visible results for the recognition of our rights as citizens of the United States, we cannot, even through the potent incentive of sympathizing with our "husbands, fathers, brothers and sons," lay aside our grievances and rejoice in a triumph which more clearly marks our own humiliation.

Can our friends inform us what is our crime, that we are denied the right of representation? Can they point to any mental or moral deficiency, to render justifiable our being denied political rights? If not—if there is no just cause for our disfranchisement, it surely should not excite surprise that we cannot rejoice with those who systematically persist in perpetrating this great wrong. With no discredit to any of the sovereign voters of this nation, we cannot forget that the most ignorant negro, the most degraded foreigner, even refugees from justice, are accorded the rights which we have been demanding in vain; and we are conscious every day and hour these privileges are denied us, that we are not only wronged by the American government, but insulted. Every year that our appeals for political rights to congress and the legislature are denied, insult is heaped upon injury. Women are told by those who are in the full enjoyment of all the privileges which this government can confer, to rejoice in what little they have, and wait patiently until more is bestowed. Wait we must, because they have the reins of power, but to wait patiently, with the light we have to perceive our relative condition, would be doing that for which we should despise ourselves.

We are not laboring for to-day alone, but for the fruÏtion which must come from the establishment of justice. If we fail in this memorial year, a brighter day must surely come. Our failure now will be the failure of the country to improve its opportunities. All the successes which may be rejoiced over, all the triumphs of trade, commerce and invention are secondary to the rights of citizens, to those principles which lie at the foundation of national liberty. When women are recognized as citizens of this republic, there will be some occasion for their thankfulness and rejoicing; then they can join in the jubilee which celebrates the birthday of a mighty nation.

At the June meeting of the association, a declaration of rights, and a series of radical resolutions were adopted. The president urged the society to stand firm in the determination to take no part in the centennial celebration, and the members of the suffrage association passed the Fourth of July quietly at their own homes, but they caused a banner, bearing the inscription, "Woman Suffrage and Equal Rights," to be hung across one of the principal streets, under which the whole procession passed. Of the original members of the society,[300] some who during its earlier years took an active part have removed elsewhere, and a few have passed to the beyond. But the majority still remain, and are earnest in their labors with the hope for a better day, undampened by the delays and disappointments which attend every step in progress.

There is a flourishing association at Cleveland called the Western Reserve Club;[301] Mrs. Sarah M. Perkins and her highly educated daughters, graduates of Vassar College, are among the leading members. They hold regular meetings, have a course of lectures every winter and are exerting a wide influence. The club consists of thirty members, paying five dollars annually into the treasury.

The Painesville Equal Rights Society,[302] formed November 20, 1883, is one of the most flourishing county associations in the State. It numbers 150 members, and it has organized many local societies in the vicinity. The annual meeting of the State society,[303] held at Painesville, May 11, 12, 13, 1885, with a large representation of the most active friends present, by a unanimous vote declared itself no longer auxiliary to the American, and thereby secured the coÖperation of the Toledo, South Newbury, and other independent local organizations of the State.

We are indebted to Annie Laurie Quinby for the following account of the founding of a hospital for women and children, and of some of the difficulties women encountered in gaining admittance into the medical colleges:

Mrs. Quinby says: In 1867, some Cincinnati ladies met at the residence of Mrs. J. L. Roberts and organized a health association, the object of which was to obtain and disseminate knowledge in regard to the science of life and health. Mrs. Leavett addressed the ladies on the importance of instituting a medical school for women, stating a recent conversation she had with Prof. Curtis, and suggesting that he be invited to lay his views before them. A vote to that effect was passed, and in his address Professor Curtis touched the following points:

Women have greater need than men of the knowledge of the science of life, and can make more profitable use of it. First: They need this knowledge. In a practice of thirty-six years, full seven-tenths of my services have been devoted to women who, had they been properly instructed in the science of life, and careful to obey those instructions, would not have needed one-seventh of those services, while they would have prevented six-sevenths of their sickness, suffering and loss of time, and a like proportion of the expenses of doctoring, nursing, medicines, etc., etc. Second: They can make a far better and more profitable use of this knowledge than men can, because they can better appreciate the liabilities, sufferings and wants of their sex, which are far more numerous and imperative than ours; and they are always with us, from infancy to boyhood and womanhood, to watch us and protect us from injury, and to relieve us promptly from the sufferings that may afflict us, as well as to teach us how to avoid them. Third: Their intellectual power to learn principles is as great as ours, their perceptions are quicker than ours, their sympathies are more tender and persistent, and their watchfulness and patient perseverance with the sick are untiring. I regard the teaching and practice of the science of life as woman's peculiarly appropriate sphere. Its value to the family of the wife and the mother, is beyond estimation in dollars and cents, by the husband and father. No money that he can properly spend to secure it to his daughters, should be otherwise appropriated; for, should they never enter the family relation, it will be a means of escape from sickness mortification and expense to themselves, and of useful and honorable subsistence, not only priceless in its possession, but totally inalienable by any reverses of fortune. The possession of this knowledge from their infancy up, would do more to prevent their becoming poor and "friendless," than do all the alms houses for the former, and "homes" for the latter that society can build, while it would cost less to each individual than does an elegant modern piano. Forty years ago your speaker obtained from the legislature of Ohio a liberal university charter under the title of "The Literary and Botanical Medical College of Ohio," which was afterwards changed to "The Cincinnati Literary and Scientific Institute and Physio-Medical College." By the aid of able assistants he conducted this institution for the benefit of men only, till, in 1851, the students of the class were between eighty and ninety. From that time to the present, he has received women into the classes and demonstrated that they are not only as competent as men to learn all parts of the science of life, but, in very many particulars, far better qualified for the practice of the art of curing disease. The last session of the college was suspended that he might travel in the country and learn the disposition of the friends of progress to establish the institution on a permanent foundation, and is happy to say that all that seems necessary to that glorious consummation is the prompt and concentrated effort of a few judicious and influential ladies and their friends to secure pecuniary aid.

June 11, 1879, a dispensary for women and children was opened in Cincinnati, by Drs. Ellen M. Kirk, and M. May Howells, graduates of the New York College and Hospital for Women. Their undertaking proving successful, with other ladies of wealth and ability they soon after established a hospital. November 1, 1881, the certificate of incorporation[304] was filed in the office of the secretary of state. The ladies labored unweariedly for the support of these institutions. At two public entertainments they realized nearly a thousand dollars. For the establishment of a homeopathic college they manifested equal earnestness and enthusiasm. Many of them interested in this mode of practice, seeing the trials of Dr. Pulte in introducing this new theory of medicine, determined to help him in building up a college and hospital for that practice. By one fair they raised $13,500, net profits, and the Pulte Medical College was established. But the remarkable fact about these institutions is that after being started through the labors of women, women appealed in vain for admission for scholarships for a long time. For a clear understanding of the matter, and a knowledge of the defense made in behalf of the right of women to enter the college, I send you the following from Dr. J. D. Buck:

Pulte Medical College, of Cincinnati, was organized under the common law, and opened in 1872, for the admission of students, with no provision, either for or against the admission of women. From time to time, during the first seven years, the subject of the admission of women was broached, but generally bullied out of court amid sneers and ridicule. The faculty stood five against and four for. The opposition was the most pronounced and bitter imaginable, the staple argument being that the mingling of the sexes in medical colleges led always and necessarily to licentiousness.

Finally, in the fall of 1877, seven of the nine members of the faculty voted to admit women. One professor voted no, and the leader of the opposition, Prof. S. R. Beckwith—a life-long opponent of the broader culture of women—left the meeting with the purpose of arresting all action. In this, however, he failed; the vote was confirmed.

On the following day another meeting was held, when the vote was re-considered and again confirmed, each of the seven members agreeing to stand by it. Still again, another meeting was called, at the instance of the leader of the opposition, and in the absence of two of the staunch friends, a bare majority of the whole faculty voted to exclude women, as heretofore, and notified the applicants for admission, who had been officially informed of the previous resolution to admit them, that they would not be admitted.

Forbearance on the part of the friends of justice was no more to be thought of, and notice was given that the wrong should be righted, at all hazards. For the next two years war raged persistent and unflinching on the part of the friends of the rights of women, bitter and slanderous on the part of the opposition. All the tricks of the politician were resorted to to defeat the cause of right, and more than once by misrepresentation they obtained the announcement in the public press that the case was decided, and women forever excluded. Still the cause moved on to complete triumph, and to the disgrace and final exclusion from the college of two of the most bitter leaders of the opposition.

In the fall of 1879 it was announced in the annual catalogue, "that students will be admitted to the lectures of Pulte college without distinction of sex," a very simple result indeed, as the outcome of two years' warfare. At the opening of lectures the first of October, four female students presented themselves, and were admitted to matriculation. Every prophecy of disaster had failed. The class was an increase in numbers over that of any preceding year, and showed a marked improvement in deportment and moral tone from the presence of ladies, who from their high character and bearing exerted a restraining influence, as they always do, on those disposed to be gentlemen. At the commencement exercises in March, 1881, three women, viz: Miss S. C. O'Keefe, Mrs. Mary N. Street, and Mrs. M. J. Taylor, received the degree of the college, after having attended the same lectures and been submitted to the same examination as the male graduates. The prize for the best examination (in writing) in physiology, was awarded to Miss Stella Hunt, of Cincinnati. The right of women to admittance to this college cannot again be raised except by a two-thirds vote of both faculty and trustees—a majority which will be difficult to obtain after the record which the women have already made as students in the institution.

J. D. Buck.

Yours truly,

After all this educational work and this seeming triumph for the recognition of an equal status in the colleges for women, we find this item going the rounds of the daily journals, under date of Cleveland, March 29, 1885:

Considerable excitement prevails among the homeopathists of Cleveland. Commencement exercises of the college are to be held next Tuesday evening, and Miss Madge Dickson, of Chambers, Pa., was to have delivered the salutatory address. Dr. H. H. Baxter, a prominent professor of the college, objected, saying a woman salutatorian would disgrace the college. Miss Dickson resigned the honor, and no address will be delivered.

In April, 1873, Miss Nettie Cronise of Tiffin, was admitted to the bar. In the following September, her sister Florence was admitted, and they practiced as N. & F. Cronise, until Miss Nettie's marriage with N. B. Lutes, with whom she has since been associated under the firm name of Lutes & Lutes. Miss Florence Cronise has her office in Tiffin. Soon after commencing practice Mrs. Lutes was appointed to examine applicants for admission to the bar, the first instance of a woman serving in this capacity in the United States, although Florence Cronise and one or two other women have since done like duty. These ladies and Miss Hulett were the first women to open law offices and begin an active, energetic practice of the profession.

In 1885, Miss Mary P. Spargo of Cleveland, was admitted to the bar.