Susan B. Anthony

Women Voted in the Early Days—Deprived of the Right by Legislative Enactment in 1807—Women Demand the Restoration of Their Rights in 1868—At the Polls in Vineland and Roseville Park—Lucy Stone Agitates the Question—State Suffrage Society Organized in 1867—Conventions—A Memorial to the Legislature—Mary F. Davis—Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford—Political Science Club—Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey—Orange Club, 1870—July 4, 1874, Mrs. Devereux Blake Gives the Oration—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell's Letter—The Laws of New Jersey in Regard to Property and Divorce—Constitutional Commission, 1873—Trial of Rev. Isaac M. See—Women Preaching in His Pulpit—The Case Appealed—Mrs. Jones, Jailoress—Legislative Hearings.

New Jersey was the only State that, in adopting her first constitution, recognized woman's right to suffrage which she had exercised during the colonial days, and from time immemorial in the mother country. The fact that she was deprived of this right from 1807 to 1840 by a legislative enactment, while the constitution secured it,[274] proves that the power of the legislature, composed of representatives from the people, was considered at that early day to be above the State constitution. If, then, the legislature could abridge the suffrage, it must have the power to extend it, and all the women of this State should demand is an act of the legislature. They need not wait for the slow process of a constitutional amendment submitted to the popular vote. In 1868, in harmony with a general movement in many other States, the women of New Jersey began to demand the restoration of their ancient rights. The following is from The Revolution of November 19, 1868, written by Elizabeth A. Kingsbury:

Vineland, N. J., Nov. 5, 1868.

At a meeting of women, held the week before election, a unanimous vote was taken that we would go to the polls. John Gage, chairman of the Woman Suffrage Association of Vineland, called a meeting, and though the day was an inclement one, there was a good attendance. A number of earnest men as well as women addressed the audience. Among them were Colonel Moss of Missouri, and James M. Scovel of Camden, State senator, who strengthened us by their words of earnest eloquence. At 7:30 a. m., November 3, John and Portia Gage and myself entered Union Hall, where the judges of election had already established themselves for the day. Instead of occupying the center of the platform, they had taken one side of it, apparently for the purpose of leaving us room on the other. We seated ourselves in chairs brought for the occasion, when one gentleman placed a small table for our use. Another inquired if we were comfortable and the room sufficiently warm. "Truly," we thought, "this does not look like a very terrible opposition." As time passed, there came more men and women into the hall. Quite a number of the latter presented their votes first at the table where those of men were received, where they were rejected with politeness, and then taken to the other side of the platform and deposited in our box. Shall I describe this box, twelve inches long and six wide, and originally a grape-box? Very significant of Vineland. Soon there came to the aid of Mrs. Gage and myself a blooming and beautiful young lady, Estelle Thomson, who, with much grace and dignity, sat there throughout the day, recording the names of the voters. It would have done you good to have witnessed the scene. Margaret Pryor,[275] who is better known to you perhaps than to many of your readers, as one whose life has been active in the cause of freedom for the negro and for woman; a charming old lady of eighty-four years, yet with the spirit, elasticity and strength of one of thirty-five, sat there in her nice Quaker bonnet by the side of Miss Thomson a great part of the day. Sarah Pearson, also advanced in years and eminent for her labors of love for the suffering and oppressed everywhere; with her peculiarly delicate organization and placid countenance, remained with us till the last moment. There was no lack of friends and supporters. The platform was crowded with earnest, refined, intellectual women, who felt that it was good for them to be there. One beautiful girl said in my hearing, "I feel so much stronger for having voted." It was pleasant to see husbands and wives enter the hall together, only they had to separate, one turning to the right hand and the other to the left, when no separation should have taken place.

Some women spent the day in going after their friends and bringing them to the hall. Young ladies, after voting, went to the homes of their acquaintances, and took care of the babies while the mothers came out to vote. Will this fact lessen the alarm of some men for the safety of the babies of enfranchised women on election day? One lady of refinement and aristocratic birth brought her little girl of ten years with her, and I assure you it did the men good as well as us. They said they never had so quiet and pleasant a time at the polls before, though it is always more quiet here than in many other towns, because the sale of ardent spirits is forbidden. John Gage—bless his dear soul—identifies himself completely with this glorious cause, and labors with an earnestness and uniformity of purpose that is truly charming. His team was out all day, bringing women to vote, half-a-dozen at a time, while his personal efforts were unremitting and eminently successful. He and his noble wife, Portia, seem to be, indeed, one in thought and action. Some time ago he sent a pledge to the candidates for office in this State. By signing it, they promise to sustain the cause of woman suffrage by every means in their power. Nixon, candidate for the Senate, signed it last year. House, candidate for the Assembly, signed the pledge at the eleventh hour, and though he lost two of our votes by the delay, yet he, too, is elected. Thus we have, at least, three public men in New Jersey pledged to sustain the woman suffrage cause. We think it is time to say to candidates for office: "You tell us we have a good deal of influence, and ask us to exert it for your election. We will do so, if you will promise to advocate our cause. If you do not, we will oppose your election." The result of the ballots cast by the women of Vineland is this: For president—Grant, 164; Seymour, 4; E. Cady Stanton, 2; Fremont, 1; and Mrs. Governor Harvey of Wisconsin, 1. The president of the Historical Society of Vineland, S. C. Campbell, has petitioned for the ballot-box and list of voters, to put into its archives. He will probably get them.

A gentleman said to me last week: "What is the use of your doing this? Your votes will count nothing in the election." "It will do good in two ways," I replied. "You say there will not be five women there. We will show you that you are mistaken; that women do want to vote, and it will strengthen them for action in the future." Both these ends have been accomplished; and on November 12 we are to meet again, to consider and decide what to do about the taxation that is soon coming upon us.

While the Vineland women expressed their opinion by voting, other true friends of woman's enfranchisement were moved to do the same. The Revolution of November 12, 1868, gave the following:

The Newark Daily Advertiser says that Mrs. Hannah Blackwell, a highly esteemed elderly lady, long resident in Roseville, and Mrs. Lucy Stone, her daughter-in-law, both of them property-holders and tax-payers in the county, appeared at the polls in Roseville Park, accompanied by Messrs. Bathgate and Blackwell as witnesses, and offered their votes. The judges of election were divided as to the propriety of receiving the votes of the ladies, one of them stating that he was in favor of doing so, the two others objecting on the ground of their illegality. The ladies stated that they had taken advice of eminent lawyers, and were satisfied that in New Jersey, women were legally entitled to vote, from the fact that the old constitution of the State conferred suffrage upon "all inhabitants" worth $250. Under that constitution women did in fact vote until, in 1807, by an arbitrary act of the legislature, women were excluded from the polls. The new constitution, adopted in 1844, was framed by a convention and adopted by a constituency, from both of which women were unconstitutionally excluded, so that they have never been allowed to vote upon the question of their own disfranchisement. The article in the present constitution on the right of suffrage confers it upon white male citizens, but does not expressly limit it to such. It is claimed that from the absence of any express limitation in the present constitution, and from the compulsory exclusion of the parties interested from its adoption, the political rights of women under the old constitution still remain. Mrs. Stone stated these points to the judges of election with clearness and precision. After consultation, the votes of the ladies were refused. The crowd surrounding the polls gathered about the ballot-box and listened to the discussion with respectful attention; but every one behaved with the politeness which gentlemen always manifest in the presence of ladies.

The women of New Jersey may have been roused to assert their right to vote by an earnest appeal of that veteran of equal rights, Parker Pillsbury, in The Revolution of March 25, 1868, suggested by the following:

At the recent election in Vineland, New Jersey, a unanimous vote in favor of "no rum" was polled. The Vineland Weekly says: "Among the incidents of the late election was the appearance of a woman at the polls. Having provided herself with a ballot, she marched up to the rostrum and tendered it to the chairman of the board of registry. The veteran politician, John Kandle, covered with blushes, was obliged to inform the lady that no one could vote unless his name was registered. She acquiesced in the decision very readily, saying she only wished to test a principle, and retired very quietly from the hall."

While thus mentioning the women with uncounted votes, it may be well to embalm here a historical fact, published in April, 1868:

In the year 1824 widows were allowed to vote in New Jersey on their husbands' tax receipts. The election officers paid great deference to the widows on these occasions, and took particular care to send carriages after them, so as to get their votes early and make sure of them. The writer of this has often heard his grandmother state that she voted for John Quincy Adams for president of the United States when he was elected to that office. Her name was Sarah Sparks, and she voted at Barnsboro', her husband having died the year previous.

N. M. Wallington, Washington, D. C.

Miss Anthony held a spirited meeting in Rahway on Christmas eve, December 24, 1867. The following October, 1868, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony attended a two days' convention in Vineland, and helped to rouse the enthusiasm of the people. A friend, writing from there, gives us the following:

The Unitarian church in this town is highly favored in having for its pastor a young man of progressive and thoroughly liberal ideas. Rev. Oscar Clute is well known as an earnest advocate in the cause of woman. Last Sunday the communion or Lord's Supper was administered in his church. One of the laymen who usually assists in the distribution of the bread and wine, was absent, and Mr. Clute invited one of the women to officiate in his stead. She did so in such a sweet and hospitable manner that it gave new interest to the occasion. Even those who do not like innovations could not find fault. And why should any one be displeased? The Christ of the sacrament was the emancipator of women. In olden time they had deaconesses, and in most of our churches women constitute a majority of the communicants, so it seems particularly appropriate that they should be served by women. Women vote on all matters connected with this church, they are on all "standing committees," and sometimes are chosen and act as trustees.

Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford sends us the following reports of the progress of the movement in this State:

While Lucy Stone resided in New Jersey, she held several series of meetings in the chief towns and cities before the formation of the State Society.[276] The agitation that began in 1867 was probably due to her, more than to any other one person in that State. The State society was organized in the autumn of 1867, and from year to year its annual meetings have been held in Vineland, Newark, Trenton, and other cities. On its list of officers[277] are some of the best men and women in the State. Several distinguished names from other States are among the speakers[278] who have taken part in their conventions. County and local societies too have been extensively organized. These associations have circulated tracts and appeals, memorialized the legislature, and had various hearings before that body. At the annual meeting held in Newark February 15, 1871, the following memorial to the legislature, prepared by Mary F. Davis, was unanimously adopted:

To the Honorable the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

Section 2, Article 1, of the constitution of the State of New Jersey, expressly declares that "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it." Throughout the entire article the words "people" and "person" are used, as if to apply to all the inhabitants of the State. In direct contradiction to this broad and just affirmation, section 1, article 2, begins with the restrictive and unjust sentence: "Every white male citizen of the United States, at the age of twenty-one years * * * shall be entitled to vote," etc., and the section ends with the specification that "no pauper, idiot, insane person, or person convicted of a crime * * * shall enjoy the right of an elector."

Of the word "white" in this article your memorialists need not speak, as it is made a dead letter by the limitations of the fifteenth amendment to the United States constitution. To the second restriction, indicated by the word "male" we beg leave to call the attention of the legislature, as we deem it unjust and arbitrary, as well as contradictory to the spirit of the constitution, as expressed in the first article. It is also contrary to the precedent established by the founders of political liberty in New Jersey. On the second of July, 1776, the provincial congress of New Jersey, at Burlington, adopted a constitution which remained in force until 1844; in which section 4 specified as voters, "all the inhabitants of this Colony, of full age," etc. In 1790, a committee of the legislature reported a bill regulating elections, in which the words "he and she" are applied to voters, thus giving legislative endorsement to the alleged meaning of the constitution.

The legislature of 1807 departed from this wise and just precedent, and passed an arbitrary act, in direct violation of the constitutional provision, restricting the suffrage to white male adult citizens, and this despotic ordinance was deliberately endorsed by the framers of the State constitution which was adopted in 1844. This was plainly an act of usurpation and injustice, as thereby a large proportion of the law-abiding citizens of the State were disfranchised, without so much as the privilege of signifying their acceptance or rejection of the barbarous fiat which was to rob them of the sacred right of self-protection by means of a voice in the government, and to reduce them to the political level of the "pauper, idiot, insane person, or person convicted of crime."

If this flagrant wrong, which was inflicted by one-half the citizens of a free commonwealth on the other half, had been aimed at any other than a non-aggressive and self-sacrificing class, there would have been fierce resistance, as in the case of the United Colonies under the British yoke. It has long been borne in silence. "The right of voting for representatives," says Paine, "is the primary right, by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the electing of representatives is in this condition." Benjamin Franklin wrote: "They who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and to their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf." This is the condition of the women of New Jersey. It is evident to every reasonable mind that these unjustly disfranchised citizens should be reÏnstated in the right of suffrage. Therefore, we, your memorialists, ask the legislature at its present session to submit to the people of New Jersey an amendment to the constitution, striking out the word "male" from article 2, section 1, in order that the political liberty which our forefathers so nobly bestowed on men and women alike, may be restored to "all inhabitants" of the populous and prosperous State into which their brave young colony has grown.

Cornelia Collins Hussey

With but a slight change of officers and arguments, these conventions were similar from year to year. There were on all occasions a certain number of the clergy in opposition. At one of these meetings the Rev. Mr. McMurdy condemned the ordination of women for the ministry. But woman's fitness[279] for that profession was successfully vindicated by Lucretia Mott and Phebe A. Hanaford. Mrs. Portia Gage writes, December 12, 1873:

There was an election held by the order of the township committee of Landis, to vote on the subject of bonding the town to build shoe and other factories. The call issued was for all legal voters. I went with some ten or twelve other women, all taxpayers. We offered our votes, claiming that we were citizens of the United States, and of the State of New Jersey, also property-holders in and residents of Landis township, and wished to express our opinion on the subject of having our property bonded. Of course our votes were not accepted, whilst every tatterdemalion in town, either black or white, who owned no property, stepped up and very pompously said what he would like to have done with his property. For the first time our claim to vote seemed to most of the voters to be a just one. They gathered together in groups and got quite excited over the injustice of refusing our vote and accepting those of men who paid no taxes.

In 1879, the Woman's Political Science Club[280] was formed in Vineland, which held its meetings semi-monthly, and discussed a wide range of subjects. Among the noble women in New Jersey who have stood for many years steadfast representatives of the suffrage movement, Cornelia Collins Hussey of Orange is worthy of mention. A long line of radical and brave ancestors[281] made it comparatively easy for her to advocate an unpopular cause. Her father, Stacy B. Collins, identified with the anti-slavery movement, was also an advocate of woman's right to do whatever she could even to the exercise of the suffrage. He maintained that the tax-payer should vote regardless of sex, and as years passed on he saw clearly that not alone the tax-payer, but every citizen of the United States governed and punished by its laws, had a just and natural right to the ballot in a country claiming to be republican. The following beautiful tribute to his memory, by Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, is found in a letter to his daughter:

London, July 27, 1873.

My last letter from America brought me the sad intelligence of your dear father's departure from amongst you; and I cannot refrain from at once writing and begging you to accept the sincere sympathy and inevitable regret which I feel for your loss. The disappearance of an old friend brings up the long past times vividly to my remembrance—the time when, impelled by irresistible spiritual necessity, I strove to lead a useful but unusual life, and was able to face, with the energy of youth, both social prejudice and the hindrance of poverty. I have to recall those early days to show how precious your father's sympathy and support were to me in that difficult time; and how highly I respected his moral courage in steadily, for so many years, encouraging the singular woman doctor, at whom everybody looked askance, and in passing whom so many women held their clothes aside, lest they should touch her. I know in how many good and noble things your father took part; but, to me, this brave advocacy of woman as physician, in that early time, seems the noblest of his actions.

Speaking of the general activity of the women of Orange, Mrs. Hussey says:

The Women's Club of Orange was started in 1871. It is a social and literary club, and at present (1885) numbers about eighty members. Meetings are held in the rooms of the New England Society once in two weeks, and a reception, with refreshments, given at the house of some member once a year. Some matter of interest is discussed at each regular meeting. This is not an equal suffrage club, yet a steady growth in that direction is very evident. Very good work has been done by this club. An evening school for girls was started by it, and taught by the members for awhile, until adopted by the board of education, a boys' evening school being already in operation. Under the arrangements of the club, a course of lectures on physiology, by women, was recently given in Orange, and well attended. At the house of one of the members a discussion was held on this subject: "Does the Private Character of the Actor Concern the Public?" Although the subject was a general one, the discussion was really upon the proper course in regard to M'lle Sarah Bernhardt, who had recently arrived in the country. Reporters from the New York Sun attended the meeting, so that the views of the club of Orange gained quite a wide celebrity.

Of Mrs. Hussey's remarks, the Newark Journal said:

The sentiments of the first speaker, Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey, were generally approved, and therefore are herewith given in full: "I have so often maintained in argument that one has no right to honor those whose lives are a dishonor to virtue or principle, that I cannot see any other side to our question than the affirmative. That the stage wields a potent influence cannot be doubted. Let the plays be immoral, and its influence must be disastrous to virtue. Let the known character of the actor be what we cannot respect, the glamour which his genius or talent throws around that bad character will tend to diminish our discrimination between virtue and vice, and our distaste for the latter. Some one says: 'Let me write the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws.' The poetry that Byron wrote, together with his well-known contempt for a virtuous life, is said to have had a very pernicious influence on the young men of his time, and probably, too, blinded the eyes of the young women. I recall being quite startled by reading the essay of Whittier on Byron, which showed him as he was, and not with the halo of his great genius thrown around his vices. It seemed to me that our national government dethroned virtue when it sent a homicide, if not a murderer, to represent us at a foreign court; and again when it sent as minister to another court on the continent a man whose private character was well known to be thoroughly immoral. Even to trifle with virtue, or to be a coward in the cause of principle, is a fearful thing; but when, a person comes before the public, saying by his life that he prefers the pleasures of sin to the paths of virtue, it seems to me that the way is plain—to withhold our patronage as a matter of public policy."

On the Fourth of July, 1874, Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake was invited to make the usual address in East Orange, which she did before a large audience in the public hall. Says the Journal: "Mrs. Blake's speech was characterized by simplicity of style and appropriateness of sentiment." She made mention of Molly Pitcher, Mrs. Borden and Mrs. Hall of New Jersey, and of noted women of other States, who did good service in Revolutionary times, when the country needed the help of her daughters as well as her sons.

In the summer of 1876 a noteworthy meeting was held in Orange in the interest of women. A number of ladies and gentlemen met in my parlor to listen to statements in relation to what is called the "social evil," to be made by the Rev. J. P. Gledstone and Mr. Henry J. Wilson, delegates from the "British, Continental and General Federation for the Abolition of Government Regulation of Prostitution." It is due to the English gentlemen to say that they gave some very strong reasons for bringing the disagreeable subject before the meeting, and that they handled it with becoming delicacy, though with great plainness.

"Ann A. Horton, who died in June, 1875, at the Old Ladies' Home, Newark, bequeathed $2,000 to Princeton College, to found a scholarship to be called by her name." Would not the endowment of a "free bed" in Mrs. Horton's true alma-mater, the Old Ladies' Home, have been a far wiser bequest than the foundation of a scholarship in Princeton—a college which, while fattening on enormous dole received from women, offers them nothing in return?

In relation to the law giving the mothers of New Jersey some legal claim to their children, Mrs. Hussey writes:

I have often heard it said that Kansas is the only State where the married mother has any legal ownership in her children; but the women of New Jersey have enjoyed this privilege since 1871, when it was gained for them by the efforts of Mrs. Ann H. Connelly of Rahway. She was an American woman, the mother of one daughter, and unhappily married. She desired to be divorced from her husband, but she knew that in such case he might legally take her child from her. Such a risk could not be thought of for a moment; so she applied to the legislature for a change of the law. She was assisted by many influential citizens, both men and women; petitions largely signed were presented, and the result was the amendment of the law making the mother and father equal in the ownership of their children. When a copy of the new law appeared in our papers I wrote to Mrs. Connelly, inclosing a resolution of thanks from the Essex County Woman Suffrage Society, of which I was then secretary. In her reply she said: "This unexpected and distinguishing recognition of my imperfect, but earnest, efforts for justice is inexpressibly gratifying." Several years after, I went with my daughter to Rahway to see Mrs. Connelly. She seemed to be well known and much respected. She was teaching in one of the public schools, but seemed quite feeble in health. In 1881 I saw the notice of her death. She was a woman of much intelligence, and strongly interested in suffrage, and should certainly be held in grateful remembrance by the mothers of New Jersey, to whom she restored the right which nature gave them, but which men had taken away by mistaken legislation.

This law of February 21, 1871, composed of several acts purporting to give fathers and mothers equal rights in cases of separation and divorce, is not so liberal as it seems in considering this provision:

Upon a decree of divorce the court may make such further decree as may be deemed expedient concerning the custody and maintenance of minor children, and determine with which of the parents the children shall remain.

This act, though declaring that the mother and father are equal, soon shows by its specifications that the courts can dispose of all woman's interests and affections as they may see fit. What avails a decree of divorce or separation for woman, if the court can give the children to the father at its pleasure? Here is the strong cord by which woman is held in bondage, and the courts, all composed of men, know this, and act on it in their decisions.

A petition was addressed to the constitutional commission of 1873, requesting an amendment restoring to the women of New Jersey their original right to vote, which that body decided would be "inexpedient." A bill introduced in the legislature by Senator Cutler, of Morris county, making women eligible to the office of school-trustee, became a law March 25, 1873:

Be it enacted, That hereafter no person shall be eligible to the office of school-trustee, unless he or she can read and write; and women who are residents in the district and over twenty years of age, shall also be eligible to the office of school-trustee, and may hold such office and perform the duties of the same, when duly elected by ten votes of the district.—[Chap. 386.

February 26, 1874, a law for the better protection of the property of married women was passed:

1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, That any married woman who now is, or may hereafter become, entitled, by gift, devise or bequest, to any contingent estate, or any interest in any real or personal property or estate, may, with the concurrence of her husband, compound and receipt for, assign and convey the same, in all cases where she lawfully might, if a feme sole; and every release, receipt, assignment, discharge, agreement, covenant, or contract, thereupon entered into by her in regard to the same and to the said property, shall be as valid and binding in every respect, upon her, her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and any and all persons claiming under her, them or either of them, as if she were at the time of entering into the same, a feme sole, and when duly executed and acknowledged in the manner provided by law for conveyance of real estate, may be recorded in the surrogate's office, and whenever it relates to real estate in the clerk's or recorder's office, of the proper county or counties, in the same manner and with like effect as other receipts and discharges may now be recorded therein. 2. And be it enacted. That this act shall take effect immediately.

A most remarkable trial, lately held in Newark, New Jersey, which involved the question whether it was contrary to Scripture, and a violation of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, to admit women to the pulpit, is well reported by the New York World, January 1, 1877:

Since the time that the Rev. Theodore Cuyler was obliged by the Presbytery of Long Island to apologize for inviting Miss Sarah Smiley, the Quaker preacher, to occupy the pulpit of the Lafayette Avenue Church in Brooklyn, the question of the right of women to preach in Presbyterian churches, has come up in various parts of the country, but has never been brought judicially before any ecclesiastical body until yesterday, when it occupied the attention of the Newark Presbytery, under the following circumstances. October 29, 1876, Mrs. L. S. Robinson and Mrs. C. S. Whiting, two ladies who were much interested in the temperance movement, asked and received permission of the Rev. Isaac M. See, of the Wickliffe Presbyterian Church at Newark, to occupy his pulpit, morning and evening of that day. They accordingly addressed the congregation on the subject of temperance. To this the Rev. E. R. Craven, of the Third Presbyterian Church, of Newark, objected, and brought before the Newark Presbytery the following charge:

"The undersigned charges the Rev. Isaac M. See, pastor of the Wickliffe Church, of Newark, N. J., a member of your body, with disobedience to the divinely enacted ordinance in reference to the public speaking and teaching of women in churches, as recorded in I. Corinthians, xiv., 33 to 37, and I. Timothy, ii., 13, in that: First specification—On Sunday, October 29, 1876, in the Wickliffe Church of the city of Newark, N. J., he did, in the pulpit of the said church, and before the congregation there assembled for public worship at the usual hour of the morning service, viz., 10:30 a.m., introduce a woman, whom he permitted and encouraged then and there publicly to preach and teach." The second specification is couched in similar language, except that it charges Mr. See with introducing another woman at the evening service upon the same day. The charge was presented at the regular meeting of the Presbytery, a short time ago, and the hearing of the case was adjourned until yesterday. The meeting was held in the lecture room of the Second Presbyterian Church in Washington street. Rev. John L. Wells, pastor of the Bethany Mission Chapel, presided, and there was a fair attendance of the members of the body. Of the audience at least nine-tenths were women.[282] Dr. Craven, the prosecutor, sat on the front row of seats, near to the clerk's table, while Dr. See, who is very stout, with a double chin, and the picture of good-nature, sat in the rear of the members of the Presbytery, and among the front rows of spectators. Dr. McIllvaine introduced the following resolution:

Resolved, That this charge, by common consent of the parties, be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings, with affectionate council to the Rev. Dr. See not to go contrary to the usages of the Presbyterian Church for the future.

This brought Brother See to his feet. He could not, he said, assent to Brother McIllvaine's resolution. He had not consented that the charge should be dismissed, as in the resolution. Brother McIllvaine expressed himself as sure that Brother See had consented, but Brother See was again equally sure that he had not. Some member here suggested that Dr. Craven should first have been asked if he consented to dismiss the charge, and this brought that gentleman to his feet. A more complete antithesis to Dr. See cannot be imagined. He is tall, gaunt, with full beard and mustache, short, bristling hair, that stands upright in a row from the centre of his forehead to the crown of his head. He said that at the request of Dr. McIllvaine and another respected member of the Presbytery he had said that if the party charged would give full and free consent to the resolution, he would also assent; "and," he added, "such is now my position." Dr. McIllvaine then gave at length his reasons for desiring to arrest the case where it was. No good could come of its discussion, and the result could not but be productive of discord. The Moderator reminded Dr. See that they waited for an answer from him.

Dr. See—May we have a season of prayer, sir? The Moderator said there was no objection. Dr. See explained that the matter at issue was not a personal one; it was a question as to the meaning of the Scriptures upon a certain point, and he was there simply to know what the Presbytery would do. Rev. Drs. Brinsmayd and Fewsmith then prayed, but Dr. See's frame of mind was not in the least changed. He still insisted that his was the passive part, to sit and see what they would do with his case. Rev. Dr. Wilson thought that if Brother See did not desire to do anything contrary to the usages of the church, he might say so. Brother See said it was a question of whether God Almighty had said certain things or not, and that he could not answer. In his formal answer to the charge the accused then said: "I believe myself to be not guilty of the charge, but I admit the specifications." Dr. Craven, in his speech, said it was in no spirit of animosity that he had brought the charge. He believed that the law of God had been broken in this case; not designedly, perhaps, but really. A custom had found lodgment in a Presbyterian church that would impair its efficiency and would also injure woman in the sphere which she was called upon by God to fill. No judicial decision had been arrived at upon this question. The case of Dr. Cuyler was the first that had come before a Presbytery, and that was hardly a trial of the question. "Why should I," he continued, "bring this charge? Because I have felt it to be wrong, and feeling thus, resolved to take the duty upon myself, painful and agonizing as the task may be. I deem it my duty to God to do so." Dr. See (sotto voce)—"And the Lord will bless you for it."

Dr. Craven, continuing, read the passages of Scripture referred to in this charge. He did not, he said, affirm that woman had no work in the church. She had a great and glorious sphere; she had no right to teach and speak in public meetings, but she could teach children and ignorant men in private. He would not affirm that some women could not preach as well as, or better than some men, and he did not know but that in the future she might occupy the platform on an equality with men; but at present she could not, and it was expressly forbidden in the passages which he had read. "You may run to hear another man's wife preach, or another man's daughter," said he, "but who would have his own wife stand upon the platform, or his own daughter face the mob? Woman is the heart of man, but man is the head. Let woman go upon the platform, and she loses that shrinking modesty that gives her such power over children. What child would wish to have a public-speaking mother? I trust this evil will not creep in upon the church. I felt bound to resist it at the outset, and unless I am convinced of my error shall withstand it to the death." * * * *

January 2, 1877, Rev. Dr. See continued his defense of himself for letting a woman into his pulpit. Then the roll was called for the views of the Presbytery. Dr. McIllvaine said that the two sources of light, as he understood it, were the teachings of the Lord and his disciples. The Lord didn't select women for his twelve, and vacancies were not filled by women. It wasn't a woman who was chosen to do Paul's work. He was the chosen teacher of the church in that and all succeeding ages, and he had said, "I suffer not women to teach, or to usurp authority in the church." Dr. Brinsmade, who was the pastor of the Wickliffe Church before Dr. See was called there, admitted that women could preach well, but thought the Presbytery had better stick by the divine command. Dr. Canfield also agreed with Paul. He loved women and loved their work, but it seemed from the experience of the world that God intended that the pulpit should be the place for men. Such, at any rate, had been the principle and the practice of the Presbyterian Church; and if Brother See could not conform to its rules, he would say to him, "Go, brother; there are other churches in which you can find a place." Dr. Canfield was called to order for that addendum. Dr. Hutchings, of Orange, referred to the ancient justification of slavery from the Bible, and in view of honest differences of construction accepted by the church, thought the question should be left to the discretion of pastors and church-sessions. Rev. Jonathan F. Stearns, pastor of the First Church, demurred to this and stood by the Scripture text. Nine-tenths of the ladies of the church, he said, would vote against preaching by women.

Rev. James E. Wilson, pastor of the South Park Church, said that in churches where women had been permitted to preach, they had lost ground. "I have never heard a Quaker woman," said he, "preach a sermon worth three cents (laughter), and yet I have heard the spirit move them to get up and speak at most improper times and on most inopportune occasions, and have heard them say most improper and impertinent things." In the Methodist Church he did not believe that there were over twenty-five women preachers, so the women were losing ground, and not gaining. Even the woman suffragists, who made so much noise a few years ago, had subsided, and he did not believe there were a hundred agitators in the whole country now. "See," he said, "where Brother See's argument would carry him. Any woman that has the spirit upon her may speak, and so, by and by, two or three women may walk up into Brother See's pulpit and say,'Come down; it's our turn now, we are moved by the spirit.' (Laughter). A woman's voice was against her preaching; a man's voice came out with a 'thud,' but a woman spoke soft and pleasing; however, here were the plain words of the text, and any man that could throw it overboard could throw over the doctrine of the atonement. If a mother should teach her son from the pulpit by preaching to him, thus disobeying the plain words of the apostle, she must not be surprised if her son went contrary to some other teaching of the apostle. But the fact was, the women did not desire to preach; otherwise they would have preached long ago. He rejoiced when that convention of temperance women assembled in Newark, but he could not help pitying their husbands and families away out in Chicago and elsewhere. (Laughter).

Rev. Ferd. Smith, the pastor of the Second Church, said the president of the Woman's Temperance Union had asked him if they could have the use of the church, and he had said "yes"; "and," said Dr. Smith, "I am glad that I did it, and I am sorry that I was not there to hear the address; and now, brethren, I am going to confess that I have sinned a little in this matter of women preaching. Two or three years ago I went and heard Miss Smiley preach. I had heard in the morning—I won't mention his name—one of the most distinguished men of the country preach a very able sermon—a very long one, too. [Laughter.] I had heard in the afternoon a doctor of divinity; I don't see him here now, but I have seen him, and I won't mention his name; and I heard Miss Smiley in the evening. It may be heresy to say it, but I do think I was more fed that evening than I had been by both the others; but I do not on that account say that it is good for women to go, as a regular thing, into the pulpit. If I had heard her a dozen times, I should not have been so much moved. Woman-preaching may do for a little time, but it won't do for a permanency. I heard at Old Orchard, at a temperance convention, the most beautiful argument I ever listened to, delivered with grace and modesty and power. The words fell like dew upon the heart, enriching it, and the speaker was Miss Willard; but for all this, brethren, I do not approve of women preaching. [Great laughter.] We must not, for the sake of a little good, sacrifice a great principle." Dr. Pollock of Lyons Farms wanted to shelter women, to prevent them from being talked about as ministers are and criticised as ministers are; it was for this that he would keep them out of the pulpit. Rev. Drs. Findley and Prentiss de Neuve were in favor of sustaining the charge. Rev. Dr. Haley contended that Brother See ought not to be condemned, because he had not offended against any law of the church. Drs. Seibert, Ballantine and Hopwood spoke in favor of sustaining the charge. A vote of 16 to 12 found Rev. Dr. See guilty of violating the Scriptures by allowing women to preach, and the case was appealed to the General Assembly.

The General Assembly adopted the following report on this case:

The Rev. Isaac W. See, pastor of the Wickliffe Church, Newark, N. J., was charged by Rev. Elijah R. Craven, D. D., with disobedience to the divinely enacted ordinance in reference to the public speaking and teaching of women in the churches as recorded in I Corinthians, xiv., 33-37, and in I Timothy, ii., 11-13, in that twice on a specified Sabbath, in the pulpit of his said church, at the usual time of public service, he did introduce a woman, whom he permitted and encouraged then and there publicly to preach and teach.

The Presbytery of Newark sustained the charge, and from its decision Mr. See appealed to the synod of New Jersey, which refused by a decided vote to sustain the appeal, expressing its judgment in a minute of which the following is a part:

In sustaining the Presbytery of Newark as against the appeal of the Rev. I. M. See, the synod holds that the passages of scripture referred to in the action of the Presbytery, do prohibit the fulfilling by women of the offices of public preachers in the regular assemblies of the church.

From this decision Mr. See has further appealed to the General Assembly, which, having thereupon proceeded to issue the appeal, and having fully heard the original parties and members of the inferior judicatory, decided that the said appeal from the synod of New Jersey be not sustained by the following vote: To sustain, 85. To sustain in part, 71. Not to sustain, 201.

From the following description by Mrs. Devereux Blake, we have conclusive evidence of woman's capacity to govern under most trying circumstances:

A certain little woman living in Jersey City has, from time to time, occupied a portion of public consideration; this is Mrs. Ericka C. Jones, for four years and a half warden of the Hudson county jail, probably the only woman in the world who holds such a position. Her history is briefly this: Some seven years ago her husband obtained the appointment of jailor at this institution, and moved to it with his bride. From the time of their incoming a marked improvement in the administration of the jail became apparent, which continued, when, after two years, Mr. Jones was stricken down with softening of the brain, which reduced him to a condition of idiocy for six months before his death. When at last this occurred, by unanimous vote of the board of freeholders the woman who had really performed the duties of jailor was appointed warden of Hudson county jail. All this has been a matter of report in the papers, as well as the attempt to oust her from the position, which was made last fall, when certain male politicians wanted the place for some friend and voter, and appealed to Attorney-General Vanetta, who gave an opinion adverse to the lady's claims. Resolutions on the subject were passed by various woman suffrage societies, and anxious to see the subject of so much dispute, and hear her story from her own lips, a party of ladies was made up to call upon her.

Hudson-county jail stands in the same inclosure with the court-house, a small, neatly-kept park, well shaded by fine trees, and being on very high ground commands a view over the North River and New York Bay. The building is a substantial one of stone, with nothing of the repulsive aspect of a jail about it. Asking for Mrs. Jones, we were at once shown into the office. We had expected to see a woman of middle age and somewhat stern aspect. Instead, we beheld a pretty, young person, apparently not more than twenty-five years old, with bright, black eyes, waving brown hair, good features and plump figure. She was very neatly dressed and pleasant in manner, making us cordially welcome. We were conducted into the parlor and at once begged her to tell us all about her case, which she did very clearly and concisely. When she was left a widow with two little children she had no idea that this place would be given her, but it was tendered to her by unanimous vote of the board of freeholders. At that time there were in jail three desperate criminals, Proctor, Demsing and Foley, bank robbers, and some persons feared that a woman could not hold them, but they were safely transferred at the proper time from the jail to the state-prison. "And," she added, with a bright smile, "I never have lost a prisoner, which is more than many men-jailors can say. Some of them tried to escape last fall, but I had warning in time, sent for the police, and the attempt was prevented."

"And do you think there is any danger of your being turned out?" "I don't know. I intend to remain in the place until the end of my term, if possible, since as long as the effort to dismiss me is based solely on the ground of my sex and not of my incompetency, it ought justly to be resisted." "But Attorney-General Vanetta gave an adverse opinion as to the legality of your appointment?" "Yes, but ex-Attorney-General Robert Gilchrist, a very able lawyer, has given an opinion in my favor, while Mr. Lippincott, counsel of the board when I was appointed, also held that I was eligible for the place."

She then went on to tell us some of the petty persecutions and indirect measures Which have been resorted to in order to induce her to resign, as her term of office will not expire for two years. When her husband was given the position, the allowance consisted of 40 cents a day for each prisoner, 50 cents for each sick person, 25 cents for every committal, and 12½ cents for every discharge. The daily allowance has been cut down from 40 to 25 cents, and all the other allowances have been entirely done away with. She is, therefore, at this moment running that jail on 25 cents a day for each prisoner. Out of this sum she must pay for all food, all salaries of assistant jailors, etc., all wages of servants, and even the furniture of the place. She is supplied with fuel and gas, but no stores of any description. She has also had other annoyances. The payment of money justly due has been opposed or delayed; and whereas her husband was required to give bond for only $5,000, she has been forced to give one for $10,000. She has also been troubled by the visits of persons representing themselves to be reporters of papers, who have wished to borrow money of her, and failing in this, have printed disagreeable articles about her. She has, of course, no salary whatever. "However, I do as well as I can with the money I receive," she said, with that pleasant smile. "And now would you like to see the jail?" * * * *

Ex-Attorney Gilchrist's opinion on her case is an able indorsement of her position. He says, in the first place, that as Attorney-General Vanetta's adverse view was not given officially, it is not binding on the Board of Freeholders, and then goes on to cite precedents. "Alice Stubbs, in 1787, was appointed overseer of the poor in the county of Stafford, England, and the Court of King's Bench sustained her in the office. A woman was appointed governor of the work-house at Chelmsford, England, and the court held it to be a good appointment. Lady Brangleton was appointed keeper of the Gate-House jail in London. Lady Russell was appointed keeper of the Castle of Dunnington. All these cases are reported in Stranges R., as clearly establishing the right and duty of woman to hold office. The case of Ann, Countess of Pembroke, Dorsett and Montgomery, who was sheriff of Westmoreland, is very well known." The opinion winds up by saying: "The argument that a woman is incompetent to perform the duties of such an office is doubly answered—first, by the array of cases in which it is held that she is competent; second, by the resolution of the board when Mrs. Jones was appointed, that she had for a long time prior thereto actually kept the jail while her husband was jailor." How this whole matter would be simplified if women could vote and hold office, so that merit and not sex should be the only qualification for any place.—New York Record, 1876.

The following incident shows not only what physical training will do in giving a girl self-reliance in emergencies, but it shows the nice sense of humor that grows out of conscious power with which a girl can always take a presuming youth at disadvantage. No doubt Miss McCosh, as a student in Princeton, could as easily distance her compeers in science, philosophy and the languages, as she did the dude on the highway. Why not open the doors of that institution and let her make the experiment?

The distinguished president of Princeton College, Dr. McCosh, has two daughters who are great walkers. They are in the habit of going to Trenton and back, a distance of about twenty miles, where they do their shopping. One day a dude accosted Miss Bridget on the road, and said, in the usual manner: "Beg pardon, but may I walk with you?" She replied, "Certainly," and quickened her pace a little. After the first half-mile the masher began to gasp, and then, as she passed on with a smile, he sat down panting on a mile-stone, and mopped the perspiration from his brow.

At the sixteenth national convention, held in Washington, March, 1884, the State was well represented;[283] Mrs. Hanaford gave an address on "New Jersey as a Leader." In her letter to the convention, Mrs. Hussey wrote:

An old gentleman, Aaron Burr Harrison, a resident of East Orange, has just passed on to his long home, full of years—eighty-eight—and with a good record. He told me about his sister's voting in New jersey, when he was a child—probably about 1807. The last time I took a petition for woman suffrage to him, he signed it willingly, and his daughter also.

February 12, 1884, a special committee of the New Jersey Assembly granted a hearing[284] on the petition of Mrs. Celia B. Whitehead, and 220 other citizens of Bloomfield, asking the restoration of woman's right to vote; fully one-half of the members of the Assembly were present. Mrs. Seagrove handed the committee an ancient printed copy of the original constitution of New Jersey, dated July 2, 1776. The name of James Seagrove, her husband's grandfather, is endorsed upon it in his own hand-writing. In the suffrage clause of this document the words "all inhabitants" were substituted for those of "male freeholders" in the provincial charter. Hence the constitution of 1776 gave suffrage to women and men of color. Mrs. Seagrove made an appeal on behalf of the women of the State. Mr. Blackwell gave a rÉsumÉ of the unconstitutional action of the legislature in its depriving women of their right to vote. Mrs. Hanaford, in answer to a question of the committee, claimed the right for women not only to vote but to hold office; and instanced from her own observation the need of women as police officers, and especially as matrons in the police stations. The result of these appeals may be seen in a paragraph from the Boston Commonwealth, a paper in hearty sympathy:

In the lower House of the New Jersey legislature a Democratic member recently moved that the word "male" be stricken from the constitution of the State. After some positive discussion a non-partisan vote of 27 to 24 defeated the motion. This occurrence, it is to be observed, is chronicled of one of the most conservative States in the Union. The arguments used on both sides were not new or remarkable. But the vote was very close. If such a measure could in so conservative a State be nearly carried, we can have reasonable hope of its favorable reception, in more radical sections. In New Jersey we did not expect success for the resolution proposed. The favorable votes really surprised us. We do not mistake the omen. Gradually the point of woman's responsibility is being conceded. The arbitrary lines now drawn politically and socially are without reason. Indeed, one of the members of the New Jersey Assembly called attention to the fact that to grant suffrage now would not be the conferring of a new gift on women, but only a restoration of rights exercised in colonial times.

[274] See Vol. I., page 447.