Susan B. Anthony

Nathaniel P. Rogers—First Organized Action, 1868—Concord Convention—William Lloyd Garrison's Letter—Rev. S. L. Blake Opposed—Rev. Mr. Sanborn in Favor—Concord Monitor—Armenia S. White—A Bill to Protect the Rights of Married Men—Minority and Majority Reports—Women too Ignorant to Vote—Republican State Convention—Women on School Committees—Voting at School-District Meetings—Mrs. White's Address—Mrs. Ricker on Prison Reform—Judicial Decision in Regard to Married Women, 1882—Letter from Senator Blair.

A State that could boast four such remarkable families as the Rogers, the Hutchinsons, the Fosters, and the Pillsburys, all radical, outspoken reformers, furnishes abundant reason for its prolonged battles with the natural conservatism of ordinary communities. Every inch of its soil except its mountain tops, where no man could raise a school-house for a meeting, has been overrun by the apostles of peace, temperance, anti-slavery, and woman's rights in succession.

To the early influence of Nathaniel P. Rogers and his revolutionary journal, The Herald of Freedom, we may trace the general awakening of the true men and women of that State to new ideas of individual liberty. But while some gladly accepted his words as harbingers of a new and better civilization, others resisted all innovations of their time-honored customs and opinions. And when the clarion voices of Foster and Pillsbury arraigned that State for its compromises with slavery, howling mobs answered their arguments with brickbats and curses; mobs that nothing could quell but the sweet voices of the Hutchinson family. Their peans of liberty, so readily accepted when set to music, were obstinately resisted when uttered by others, though in most eloquent speech. Thus with music, meetings and mobs, New Hampshire was at least awake and watching, and when the distant echoes of woman's uprising reverberated through her mountains she gave a ready response.

In 1868, simultaneously with other New England States, she felt the time had come to organize for action on the question of suffrage for women. A call for a convention was issued to be held in Concord, December 22, 23, and signed by one hundred and twenty men and women,[188] some of the most honored and influential classes of all callings and professions. Nathaniel P. White, always ready to aid genuine reformatory movements, was the first to sign the call. As a member of the legislature he had helped to coin into law many of the liberal ideas sown broadcast in the early days[189] by the anti-slavery apostles. Galen Foster, a brother of Stephen, used his influence also as a member of the legislature, to vindicate the rights of women to civil and political equality. This first convention was held in Eagle Hall, Concord, with large and enthusiastic audiences. A long and interesting letter was read from William Lloyd Garrison:

Boston, December 21, 1868.

Dear Mrs. White: I must lose the gratification of being present at the Woman Suffrage Convention at Concord and substitute an epistolary testimony for a speech from the platform.

The two conventions recently held in furtherance of the movement for universal and impartial suffrage—one in Boston, the other in Providence—were eminently successful in respect to numbers, intellectual ability, moral strength and unity of action; and their proceedings such as to challenge attention and elicit wide-spread commendation. I have no doubt that the convention in Concord will exhibit the same features, be animated by the same hopeful spirit and produce as cheering results.

The only criticism seemingly of a disparaging tone, I have seen, of the speeches made at the conventions alluded to, is, that there was nothing new advanced on the occasion; as though novelty were the main thing, and the reiteration of time-honored truths, with their latest application to the duties of the hour, were simply tedious! For one, I ask no more light upon the subject; nor am I so vain as to assume to be capable of throwing any additional light upon it. One drop of water is very like another, but it is the perpetual dropping that wears away the stone. The importunate widow had nothing fresh or new to present to the unjust judge, but by her persistent coming she wearied him into compliance with her petition. The end of the constant assertion of a right withheld is restitution and victory. The whole anti-slavery controversy was expressed and included in the Golden Rule, morally, and in the Declaration of Independence, politically; nor could anything new be added to these by the wisest, the most ingenious, or the most eloquent. "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little"; that is the essential method of reform. If there is nothing new to be said in favor of suffrage for women, is there anything new to be urged against it? But though the objections are exceedingly trite and shallow, it is still necessary to examine and refute them by arguments and illustrations none the less forcible because exhausted at an earlier period.

Armenia S. White

The first objection is positively one of the most urgent reasons for granting suffrage to women; for it is predicated on the concession of the superiority of woman over man in purity of purpose and excellence of character. Hence the cry is, that it will not only be descending, but degrading for her to appear at the polls. But, if government is absolutely necessary, and voting not wrong in practice, it is surely desirable that the admittedly purest and best in the nation should find no obstacle to their reaching the ballot-box. Nay, the way should be opened at once, by every consideration pertaining to the public welfare, the justice of legislation, the preservation of popular liberty. It is impossible for a portion of the people, to be wiser and more trustworthy than the whole people, or better qualified to decide what shall be the laws for the government of all. The more minds consulted, the more souls included, the more interests at stake, in determining the form and administration of government, the more of justice and humanity, of security and repose, will be the result. The exclusion of half the population from the polls, is not merely a gross injustice, but an immense loss of brain and conscience, in making up the public judgment. As a nation we have discarded absolutism, monarchy, and hereditary aristocracy; but we have not fully attained even to manhood suffrage. Men are proscribed on account of their complexion, women because of their sex. The entire body politic suffers from this proscription.

The second objection refutes the first; it is based on the alleged natural inferiority of woman to man, and the transition is thus quickly made for her, from a semi-angelic state, to that of a menial, having no rights that men are bound to respect beyond what they choose to allow. In the scale of political power, therefore, one male voter, however ignorant or depraved, outweighs all the women in America! For, no matter how intelligent, cultured, refined, wealthy, intellectually vigorous, or morally great, any of their number may be,—no matter what rank in literature, art, science, or medical knowledge and skill they may reach,—they are political non-entities, unrepresented, discarded, and left to such protection under the laws, as brute force and absolute usurpation may graciously condescend to give. Yet they are as freely taxed and held amendable to penal law as strictly as though they had their full share of representation in the legislative hall, on the bench, in the jury-box, and at the polls. This cry of inferiority is not peculiar in the case of woman. It was the subterfuge and defiance of negro slavery. It has been raised in all ages by tyrants and usurpers against the toiling, over-burdened millions, seeking redress for their wrongs, and protection for their rights. It always indicates intense self-conceit, and supreme selfishness. It is at war with reason and common-sense, and is a bold denial of the oneness of the human race.

The third objection is, that women do not wish to vote. If this were true, it would not follow that they should not be enfranchised, and left free to determine the matter for themselves. It was confidently declared that the slaves at the south neither wished to be free, nor would they take their liberty if offered them by their masters. Had that assertion been true, it would have furnished no justification whatever, for making man the property of his fellow-man, or for leaving the slaves in their fetters. But it was not true. Nor is it true that women do not wish to vote. Tens of thousands are ready to go to the polls and assume their share of political responsibility, as soon as they shall be legally permitted to do so; and they are not the ignorant and degraded of their sex, but women remarkable for their intelligence and moral worth. The great mass will, ere long, be sufficiently enlightened to claim what belongs to them of right. I hope to be permitted to live to see the day when neither complexion nor sex shall be made a badge of degradation, but men and women shall enjoy the same rights and privileges, and possess the same means for their protection and defense.

Wm. Lloyd Garrison.

Very faithfully yours,

Mrs. A. S. White.

At the close of this convention a State association was formed with Mrs. Armenia S. White president.[190] This society has been unremitting in its efforts to rouse popular thought, holding annual conventions, scattering tracts, rolling up petitions, and addressing legislatures. Many of the best speakers, from time to time, from other States[191] have rendered valuable aid in keeping up the agitation.

The opposition of a clergyman produced a sensation in Concord.

On last fast-day, 1871, Rev. S.L. Blake of the Congregational church in Concord, preached a sermon in which he came out against the woman's rights convention held there last January, bringing the stale charge of "free-love" against its advocates—a charge that always leaps to the lips of men of prurient imagination—with much similar clap-trap of the Fulton type. Rev. Mr. Sanborn of the Universalist church replied to him the next Sunday evening, an immense audience being in attendance, and completely disproved the baseless allegations of the reverend maligner, to the satisfaction of all. Rev. Mr. Blake has published his discourse in pamphlet form, repeating his disproved charges, whereupon Rev. J.F. Lovering of the Unitarian church came out with a reply, in which he characterized Mr. Blake's charges as "unmitigated falsehoods" and "an insult to every member of the convention," and demanded of the author to "unsay his words."

Brainard Cogswell, in his journal, the Concord Monitor, of July 2, 1870, published the following letter:

Petitions for woman's enfranchisement have been pouring into the New Hampshire legislature, until at last they have been referred to a special committee. On Thursday week this committee gave the petitioners a hearing; and on their invitation, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill and ourself went to Concord to give "the reasons why" women should have the ballot. The members of the legislature came out in force to hear, and our good, tried friends, Nathaniel and Armenia White, learning their intention in advance, opened the spacious Eagle Hall for their convenience, and that of the towns-people who wished to see and to hear. Warm as the evening was, the thermometer up in the nineties, the hall was packed, and great numbers went away that could not gain admittance. Rev. Mr. Blake, a Congregationalist minister of Concord, has done the cause good service by vilifying and abusing it, until he roused quite an interest. It was partly owing to his efforts that we had so grand an audience.

General Wilson, who twenty years ago was famed throughout New Hampshire for his eloquence and oratory, was chairman of the committee, and presided at the meeting, and very handsomely introduced the speakers. Mrs. Howe spoke with more pointed and pungent power than usual, dwelling on the deterioration of American womanhood, showing the cause, and suggesting the remedy. We have never been so impressed by her as on this occasion. Mrs. Churchill read a letter from Rev. Mr. Savage, a Congregationalist clergyman of the State, who advocates woman suffrage, and who, in a late ministerial gathering, took up the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Blake, and defended the woman's cause and its advocates from the slanders of his brother minister.

The president of the New Hampshire association, in writing from Concord to the Woman's Journal, January 30, 1871, says:

Our second annual meeting was a grand success, if we count by money and numbers. The intense cold on Wednesday and Thursday made our audiences thinner than heretofore, but they were large in spite of the elements, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Emma Coe Still, who had never presented the subject here before, were well received. Rev. Dr. Savage of Franklin made an excellent address, and encouraged us by timely suggestions. Stephen S. Foster aroused us, as he always does, with his bold declarations. The resolutions adopted look toward future work, and embody the principles which move us to act.

Lucy Stone, in the Woman's Journal of June 14, 1871, says:

The Select Committee, Harry Bingham, chairman, to whom was referred a bill for the further protection of the rights of married men, reported the bill in a new draft as follows:

Marriages shall not hereafter render the husband liable for the debts contracted by his wife prior to their marriage: Second section—No marriage shall hereafter discharge the wife from liability to pay the debts contracted by her before such marriage, but she, and all property which she may hold in her own right, shall be held liable for the payment of all debts, whether contracted before or after marriage; in the same manner as if she continued sole and unmarried.

This report was signed by eight of the ten members of the committee. The minority, through Mr. Sprague of Swanzey, made a report recommending that the whole subject be postponed to the time when women in New Hampshire have the right to vote. Mr. Sprague moved that the minority report be substituted for the majority, but the motion was lost by an almost unanimous vote. The majority report was sustained in remarks by Messrs. Wadleigh of Milford and Cogswell of Gilman. The latter, hard pushed by an interrogatory concerning his social status, admitted that he was not married, but intended to be soon. The bill reported by the majority was then ordered to a second reading.

If this action should be sustained by the legislature, we can imagine some future suitor for a lady's hand telling her that he shall expect her duly to keep his house and his wardrobe in order, to prepare his meals, to entertain his visitors, to bear his children, and that she will be required by law to pay her own bills; that for this inestimable privilege she shall be called Mrs. John Snooks, and may, perhaps, have the honor of being written in the newspapers, and on her tombstone, as the relic of Mr. John Snooks. Could any woman withstand that?

The following statistics have been used by speakers in the opposition, to show that women are too ignorant to vote:

A decided sensation has been produced throughout the country by the publication in the third number of the "Transactions of the American Social Science Association" of statistics concerning the illiteracy of women in the United States. The subject has received very general discussion, and these are the conclusions reached:

1. That there is a large excess of female illiteracy. 2. That from 1850 to 1860 there was an increase of illiterate women to the extent of 53 per cent. in New Hampshire, 27 in Vermont, 24 in Massachusetts, 33 in Rhode Island, 16 in Connecticut, 37 in the District of Columbia, 33 in Wisconsin and 32 in Minnesota. 3. That this state of things is alarming, and ought to be remedied.

When the London Saturday Review raised the cry of alcoholic drunkenness among women, the conservative journals all over the world swelled the sound and confirmed the charges. Now that that story has run itself to death, a new assault is projected, and a general clamor concerning their illiteracy follows. If the charges are true, there is nothing very astonishing about them. The education of women has been considered a matter of secondary importance until very recently, and with our foreign population the education of girls has been almost wholly neglected. When the customs and usages of the world have made ignorance largely compulsory in women, it is somewhat inconsistent in men to go into spasms about the results.

January 17, 1874, at the Republican State convention, Mayor Briggs of Manchester, on taking the chair, made a speech, rehearsing the history of the party and laying out its programme for the future, closing as follows:

The Republican party has future duties. Its mission cannot end and its work should not, so long as any radical reform shall yet urge its demands in behalf of humanity. The civil service reform is eminent and important. In this regard the movement of the present administration is in the right direction, and yet it is only a first step of many which must ultimately be taken. To the people, not to a part of the people, belongs the sovereignty of this nation. Let them keep it. To this end great care should be taken to guard against the caucus system. Nothing should be more scrupulously avoided in the management of political parties. Anti-republican in spirit, it is sometimes exclusive in practice. The people have the same right to nominate that they have to elect their own officers. Why not? Ultimately, too, they will take that right, and for its own sake no party can afford to make itself the nursery of caucus power. The political machinery should be simplified, that nothing which mere politicians can desire shall stand between the people and their government. In a genuine republic, every act of the government should be but a practical expression of its subjects. All the subjects, too, should share equally the power of such expression. There should be no exclusion among intelligent, qualified classes. Involved in this principle is the idea of woman suffrage, the next great moral issue, in my judgment, which this country must meet, and a reform which no party can afford to despise. Indubitably right, as I believe it to be, I regard its success as inevitable, and that whatever party opposes it is as surely destined to defeat, as was the party which arrayed itself in opposition to the anti-slavery cause.

The following letter in the Woman's Journal shows that something of the spirit of the Connecticut Smith-sisters has been found in New Hampshire:

I have long felt a deep interest in the subject of woman's rights, and some fifteen years ago I resisted taxation two successive years. The second year I worked out my highway tax, for which crime I brought down upon my guilty head a severe persecution from both men and women, from clergymen and lawyers, as well as other classes of my fellow townsmen. The tax-collectors came into my house and attached furniture and sold it at auction in order to collect my tax, one of whom made me all the cost the laws would allow. The most incensed town officers threatened that if I resisted taxation the next year, they would take my house from me and sell it at auction. One of the tax-gatherers asked me what I thought I could do alone in resisting taxation. He said he did not believe there was another woman in the State of New Hampshire who possessed the hardihood to take such a stand against the laws. The editor of one of our weekly journals, who professed to be an advocate of woman's rights, and who was a candidate for representative in the State legislature, condemned me through the columns of his paper, in order to secure the votes of his fellow townsmen who were opposed to woman's rights. He had nothing to fear from me, knowing that I was only a disfranchised slave. Such unjust treatment seemed so cruel that I sometimes felt I could willingly lay down my life, if it would deliver my sex from such degrading oppression. I have, every year since, submissively paid my taxes, humbly hoping and praying that I may live to see the day that women will not be compelled to pay taxes without representation.

Mary L. Harrington.

Claremont, N. H., January 17, 1874.

In 1870 a law was passed allowing women to be members of school committees; and eight years later a law was enacted permitting women to vote at school meetings. On the evening of August 7, 1878, the House Special Committee granted a hearing to the friends[192] of the School-suffrage bill, which had already passed the Senate by a unanimous vote; and the next day, when the bill came up for final action in the House, the following debate occurred:

Mr. Batchelder of Littleton said: This bill is one of the greatest importance, and before we vote upon it let us have the views of the committee.

Mr. Galen Foster of Canterbury called upon Mr. Blodgett to give his opinion as to the power of the legislature upon the question.

Mr. Blodgett of Franklin said he had no doubt of the constitutionality of the bill. School districts were created by statute and not by the constitution; hence the legislature had a perfect right to say who should vote in controlling their affairs.

Mr. Foster said: The mothers of our children should have a voice in their education. We have allowed women to hold certain offices in connection with schools, but we have never given them a voice in the control of the money expended upon them. The mothers take ten times more interest in the education of the young than the fathers do, and should have an equal voice in the affairs of the school districts. This is a matter of right and justice.

Mr. Sinclair of Bethlehem said: There ought not to be any objection to this bill. If there is any class that ought to have a voice in the education of children, it is the mothers. [Applause.] Some of the best school committees in the State are women. If they can be elected to that office, is it proper to say they shall have no voice in the elections?

Mr. Whicher of Strafford thought they would get a little mixed in carrying out the provisions of this bill, in the face of the statutes relating to school-district meetings. He would move to indefinitely postpone the bill.

Mr. Mosher of Dover said: There ought to be a new motion gotten up; to "indefinitely postpone" is getting to be stereotyped. This bill needs no further championing. Its justice is apparent.

Mr. Hobbs of Ossippee said: If women are capable of holding office they are also capable of saying who shall hold it. [Applause.]

Mr. Patten of Manchester favored the bill and hoped the motion of Mr. Whicher would be voted down.

The Speaker [Mr. Woolson of Lisbon] said: The bill had passed the Senate unanimously, been reported unanimously by the committee, and he hoped it would be passed promptly by the House. [Applause.]

Mr. Patterson of Hanover said he would congratulate the gentleman from Bethlehem on being orthodox on this question.

Mr. Sinclair congratulated his friend from Hanover on his display of courage in waiting until the ice was broken all round before making a forward step.

Mr. Whicher withdrew his motion to postpone and then moved to lay the bill upon the table. This being lost, the bill was passed, August 8, 1878. Mrs. White, the president of the State association, in a letter to a friend, wrote as follows:

To our surprise and delight the bill allowing women to vote at school-district meetings passed the House yesterday amid much cheering and clapping of hands, the ladies in the gallery joining in the demonstration. Thus conservative New Hampshire leads New England in this branch of reform for women.

The governor, B. F. Prescott, signed the bill without delay and words of cheer poured into the capital city from all quarters; especially were Mr. and Mrs. White congratulated upon this good result of their earnest and persistent labors. The following is from the Woman's Journal:

At the first election at the State capital of New Hampshire under the new law allowing women to vote on school questions, the result was a wonderfully full vote, not less than 2,160 ballots being cast, of which over half were deposited by women. The Boston Investigator, from which we gather these facts, says:

The balloting extended over three meetings and the number of women who participated was almost exactly doubled on the second and third evenings—150, 299, 662. Another interesting feature of this election was the fact that the sexes did not rally to the support of opposing tickets, but men and women divided their votes very evenly. A ticket bearing the names of two men was elected by a narrow majority over another which bore the names of a man and woman.

Of the first evening's election the telegraphic dispatch to the Boston Globe was headed, "Crowds of Women Voting in New Hampshire":

Concord, N. H., March 22.—The occasion of the annual meeting of the Union-school district of this city, which comprises all of the city proper, this evening, was one of unprecedented interest. For months school matters have been sharply agitated and the election has been looked forward to as an opportunity by all parties. To the uncommon interest centered in the matter the right of women to vote at school meetings, delegated by the last session of the legislature, greatly added. The new condition of affairs had been fully canvassed and the women had determined on making the best of their first opportunity and winning a decisive victory if possible. The night of the meeting proved inauspicious, but notwithstanding the severe storm of snow and sleet that was falling the newly constituted citizens were out in force. At the hour of opening the meeting the City Hall was packed to suffocation, 500 of the audience, at least, being ladies. The first business was the choice of a moderator, and in this the ladies may claim a victory, as the candidate a majority of them supported was elected in the person of ex-mayor John Kimball. After this came the reading of the report of the board of education, which was strenuously objected to by the male supporters of the ladies. In this they were beaten by a large majority. The reading completed, the meeting commenced to ballot for three members of the board. The scene then became one beyond the power of the reportorial pen to describe. It was an old-fashioned New Hampshire town-meeting, with the concomitant boisterousness and profanity subdued by the presence of the ladies. A line was formed to the polls and a struggling mass of humanity in which male and female citizens were incongruously and indecorously mixed, surged towards the ballot-box. The crowding, squeezing and pushing were severe enough for the taste of the masculine voter, and were harsh enough to make it extremely unpleasant for the dear creatures who were undergoing so much to cast their maiden vote. To add to the delay the Hon. Nathaniel White had planted his somewhat corpulent form directly in front of the ballot-box and stayed the surging tide to shake hands with every woman that voted. Having voted, the men were only too glad to leave the crowded hall and let the anxious crowd rush in. The vote was at last all in, and the work of counting completed shortly before 11 o'clock. It was found that there were some ten different tickets in the field, and forty-two candidates voted for; but from this mass of votes there was no choice, though the regular candidates, the outgoing members of the board, who would have been elected had it not been for the new element in the election, were ahead, having a plurality. The meeting was then adjourned till next Saturday evening, when the scenes of to-night will be intensified by a larger attendance and still greater interest. The meeting to-night obtains importance in New Hampshire, as this is the center of female suffrage sentiment in this State, and the women are determined to win here if possible.

In the opening convention of November 5, 1879, Mrs. White, the president, made the following address:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of the N. H. Woman Suffrage Association: We hold the seventh meeting of this association under circumstances that mark an epoch in the progress of equal rights, irrespective of sex, in this State. After more than a decade of agitation, and petitioning of our legislature, women hold in their hand the ballot on one important matter. Let us exchange congratulations on this occasion, that so much has been gained toward the final triumph of our cause.

You will remember when this association was last in session, July, 1878, that the bill giving the women of New Hampshire the right to vote on the public-school questions, was pending in our legislature. At our first hearing before that body, we hardly dared anticipate the passage of the bill during that session. But agitation, vigilance and perseverance ever bring their sure reward in the end, therefore we continued to press our claim, and soon learned to our great satisfaction that our allies in behalf of this bill, were the very cream of our legislature. We at once took courage, and as day after day we went up to the state-house, with friends who plead for it before the committee, who kindly gave us several hearings; we saw the gradual growth of interest in behalf of this bill soon ripen into a final decision causing it to pass; thereby enacting a law, to which our worthy governor, B. F. Prescott, immediately gave his willing signature, securing to the women of this State the high privilege many of them gladly exercised last spring. Many feared this law would be repealed; but to show with what favor it has been received, we have only to refer to the legislature of the present year, which passed an additional law, giving to women not only the right to vote for and serve on school boards, but also the power to serve as moderator or clerk in school meetings, for which the former law did not provide. This, it would seem must remove all fears of a repeal.

Petitions asking municipal suffrage for women, were sent to our last legislature, and a bill to that effect, introduced in the House, was referred to a special committee, who reported in its favor: and after more or less discussion, although the bill did not pass, about one hundred members voted for it, and their names are registered, and with the committee, will be kindly remembered by those women whose cause they did not desert. From past experience we see the importance of continued labor and proper measures for the accomplishment of our work. The present degree of progress indicates the fact that we are not to obtain the full recognition of our rights at one bound, but that they are coming step by step. To note the growth of our principles in the various reform movements, let us look at the temperance organizations throughout the length and breadth of this country; we find nearly all of them now discussing the ballot for women. Why, no sooner had Massachusetts, following the example of New Hampshire, obtained the school ballot for women, than the Woman's Christian Temperance Unions all over the State were a unit for the temperance ballot, and the past year have had their agents canvassing the State in the interest of school suffrage and "home protection."

All who read the reports last winter of Frances E. Willard's labors in Illinois in behalf of her Home Protection bill (for it originated with her), of the list of petitioners of both sexes she secured and took to Springfield, of the delegation of women who accompanied her there to advocate her bill, must acknowledge the educating force of all such untiring devotion for the right to vote. Although she was not victorious, she was successful beyond all expectation, for it is said, "Success is not always a victory, nor is victory always a success in the end." Let me say here, Miss Willard believes in the entire enfranchisement of her sex, but in her earnest and faithful labors makes a specialty of the temperance ballot.

At the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Woman's Christian Temperance Union, held here one year ago, a resolution was offered by a most worthy lady, indorsing suffrage for women on all temperance questions. It was at once vigorously opposed by some, while others, although believing in it, feared it would divide their ranks if it passed, and felt too timid to give it their support. The lady offering it, seeing it would be defeated, withdrew it, at the same time giving notice that she should present the same, or one similar, to that body every year as long as she lived, or until it passed. Last month the same organization held its annual meeting in Portsmouth, and that lady, as good as her word, was there with her resolution on temperance suffrage, and it passed unanimously, about 100 delegates being present and voting, many of whom acknowledged the timidity they felt last year, but now earnestly gave it their support. Such experiences give us some idea of the different instrumentalities by which our cause is forced upon conservative minds for consideration, ending in honest conviction.

In closing, I know you will all unite with me in tributes to Mr. Garrison. Now that he has gone to join that innumerable host of philanthropists in the higher life, let us rejoice that he was one of the leaders of that reform which brings us here to-day. And now, friends, in view of the present status of our cause, have we not much to encourage us in our work? May we go forward in that spirit of good-will that shall bring us a speedy victory.

Resolutions of respect to the memory of Mrs. Abby P. Ela, William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina GrimkÉ Weld were adopted by a rising vote.

In the National Citizen of December 14, 1879, we find the following:

Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire had an executive hearing before the governor and council of that State, November 18, in regard to the management of the State prison. Mrs. Ricker, who in winter practices law in Washington, and is known as "the prisoner's friend," referred to the cruel treatment of convicts in various States, notably in New Hampshire, where prisoners are not permitted to read the magazines or the weekly newspapers which contain no record of crime, nor to receive words from their friends, as in other States they are allowed at stated times to do. When Mrs. Ricker desired to see a certain prisoner and let him know he had friends who were yet mindful of his comfort, the warden replied that he did not wish that man "to think he had a friend in the world." Mrs. Ricker warmly protested against such brutality. The attorney-general agreed with Mrs. Ricker, remarking that the line between crimes punished and those not punished, and the lines between those in prison and those outside who ought to be there, were so dim and shadowy that great care should be exercised in order to secure just and humane treatment for prisoners. Mrs. Ricker's remarks were earnest and dignified, and were listened to with the closest attention by the governor and his official advisers. At the close of the hearing the governor referred the subject to the special prison committee of the council, directing its members to procure all possible information as to the management of penitentiaries in other States, and report at the next meeting. Through Mrs. Ricker's influence the last legislature passed an act providing that any convict may send sealed letters to the governor or council without their being read by the warden.

In 1882 a judicial decision in New Hampshire recognized the advance legislation of that State in regard to the position of married women. This decision shows that they are no longer under the shadow of the old common law, but now hold equal dignity and power as individuals and joint heads in family life. The "divinely ordained head," with absolute control in the home, to rule according to his will and pleasure, is at last ruled out of the courts altogether, as the following case illustrates:

Mrs. Harris and her husband sued Mrs. Webster and her husband for slanders uttered by Mrs. Webster against Mrs. Harris. The suit was brought on the old theory that the legal personality of the wife is merged in that of her husband; that she is under his control, his chattel, his ox, and therefore he is responsible for her trespasses as for those of his other domestic cattle. The Court held that the wife is no longer an "ox" or "chattel," but a person responsible for her acts, and that her innocent husband could not be held responsible for her wrong. In rendering the decision in this case, Judge Foster further said: "It is no longer possible to say that in New Hampshire a married woman is a household slave or a chattel, or that in New Hampshire the conjugal unity is represented solely by the husband. By custom and by statute the wife is now joint master of the household, and not a slave or a servant. The rule now is that her legal existence is not suspended. So practically has the ancient unity become dissevered and dissolved that the wife may not only have her separate property, contracts, debts, wages, and causes of separate action growing out of a violation of her personal rights, but she may enter into legal contract with her husband and enforce it by suit against him."

The writer of the following letter is a successful farmer, remarkable for her executive ability in all the practical affairs of life, as well as for her broad philanthropy. One year she sent, as a contribution to our Washington convention, a tub of butter holding about sixty pounds, which was sold on the platform and the proceeds put into the treasury of the National Association:

Dear Friends assembled in the Washington Convention:

Last week our new town-house was dedicated. The women accompanied their husbands. One man spoke in favor of woman suffrage—said it was "surely coming." In this town, at the Corners, for several years they tried to get a graded school, but the men voted it down. After the women had the school-suffrage, one lady, who had a large family and did not wish to send her children away from home, rallied all the women of the Corners, carried the vote, and they now have a good graded school. Our village is moving down, that the boys and girls may have the benefit of the good school there. I think the women who have been indifferent and not availed themselves of their small voting privilege, by which we might have established the same class of school in our village, will now regret their negligence, at least every time they have to send three miles for a doctor. Thus, stupid people, blind to their own interest, punish themselves. I regret not being able to send a fuller report of the good that woman's use of the ballot, in a limited form, has done for us in this State. The voting in the town-hall is the "infant school" for women in the use of the ballot. Thanking the ladies all for meeting at the capital of the nation, and regretting not to be counted among the number, I am,

Mary A. P. Filley.

Yours sincerely,

North Haverill, January 5, 1884.

In closing this chapter some mention should be made of the invaluable services of Senator Blair,[193] who, in his place, has always nobly defended the rights of women. He was a member of the first special committee ever appointed to look after the interests of women in the United States Senate. The leaders of the movement in that State claim that they helped to place Senator Blair in his present position by defeating his predecessor, Mr. Wadleigh, who was hostile to the enfranchisement of women.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C., March 5, 1884.

My Dear Miss Anthony: I had the honor duly to receive your invitation to address the National Association during its sessions in this city, for which I heartily thank you; but the pressure of duties in the Senate, service upon committees being just now specially exacting, makes it impossible for me to accept.

I trust that I need not assure you of my full belief that woman has the right and ought to have the privilege to vote. Whenever a fundamental right exists both public and individual welfare are promoted by its exercise and injured by its suppression. The exercise of rights is only another name for the discharge of duties, and the denial of the suffrage to an adult human being, not deprived of it for mental or penal disability, is an intolerable wrong. Such denial is not only a deprivation of right to the individual, but it is an injury to the State, which is only well governed when controlled by the conflicting opinions, sentiments and interests of the whole, harmonized in the ballot-box, and, by its fiat, elevated to the functions of law. But you have no occasion for expression of theoretical views from me.

If I may be pardoned a suggestion, it would be the specification to the public mind of the practical uses and benefits which would result from the exercise of the suffrage by women. Men are not conscious that women lack the practical protection of the laws or the comforts and conveniences of material and social relations more than themselves. The possession of the ballot as a practical means of securing happiness does not appear to the masses to be necessary to women in our country. Men say: "We do the best we can for our wives and children and relatives. They are as well off as we." In a certain sense this appears to be true. The other and higher truth is that woman suffrage is necessary in order that society may advance. The natural conservatism of an existing order of things will not give way to a new factor in the control of affairs, until it has been shown in what way enlightened selfishness may hope for good to society if the change be made. Here it seems to me that the convention may now strike a blow more powerful than for many years. Society has not so labored with the great problems which concern its own salvation for generations.

What would woman do with the ballot if she had it? What for education? What for sobriety? What for social purity? What for equalizing the conditions and the rewards of labor—the labor of her own sex first—and towards a just division of production among all members of the community? What for the removal, or for the amelioration when removal is impossible, of hunger, cold, disease and degradation, from the daily lives of human beings? What could and what would woman do with the ballot which is not now as well done by man alone, to improve the conditions which envelope individual existence as with bands of iron? What good things—state them seriatim, as the lawyers say—could woman do in New Hampshire and in New York city, and ultimately among the savage tribes of the earth, which she cannot do as well without as with the suffrage? Would woman by her suffrage even help to remove illiteracy from Louisiana, intemperance from New England, and stop society from committing murder by the tenement-house abuses of New York? Let the convention specify what practical good woman will try to achieve with her God-given rights, provided that men will permit her to enjoy them. Show us wherein you will do us good if we will rob you no longer. It might influence us greatly. Why should we do right for nothing? In fact, unless you show that the exercise of your alleged right will be useful, can you logically conclude that you have any? We must have proof that the experiment will not fail before we will even try it. You must connect the ballot with progress and reform and convince men that they, as well as women, will be better off for its possession by the whole of the adult community rather than only by a part. Theories may be true, but they are seldom reduced to practice by society unless it can be clearly seen that their adoption will heal some hurt or introduce some broad and general good.

The increasing discussion of industrial, educational, sanitary, and social questions generally, indicates the domain of argument and effort where victories for the advocates of enlarged suffrage are most likely, and I think are sure to be won. Woman should study specially what is called, for the want of a better term, the labor problem—a problem which includes in its scope almost everything important to everybody. I know this is an unnecessary suggestion, for it is just what you are doing. I only write it because repetition of the important is better than to recite platitudes or even to quote the declaration. I believe in your success because I believe in justice and in the advancement of mankind.

Henry W. Blair.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

[188] Concord, Nathaniel P. White, Mrs. Sarah Pillsbury, Rev. J. F. Lovering, P. B. Cogswell, Mrs. Eliza Morrill, Mrs. Louisa W. Wood, Col. James E. Larkin, Mrs. J. F. Lovering, Charles S. Piper, Mrs. Armenia S. White, Mrs. M. M. Smith, Mrs. F. E. Kittredge, Mrs. Sarah Piper, Mrs. Ira Abbott, Mrs. L. M. Bust, Dr. A. Morrill, Mrs. P. Ladd, Mrs. R. A. Smith, George W. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. J. V. Aldrich, Mr. and Mrs. M. B. Smith, Mrs. T. H. Brown, Mrs. R. Hatch, Mrs. J. L. Crawford, Mrs. Anna Dumas, Miss Harriet C. Edmunds, Miss Salina Stevens, Miss Mary A. Denning, Miss N. E. Fessender, Miss M. L. Noyes, Miss Clara Noyes, James H. Chase, Peter Sanborn; Lancaster, Rev. J. M. L. Babcock; Rochester, Mrs. Abby P. Ela; Bradford, Mrs. L. A. T. Lane, Miss M. J. Tappan; Laconia, Rev. J. L. Gorman, William M. Blair; Manchester, Dr. M. O. A. Hunt; Plymouth, Hon. D. R. Burnham; Portsmouth, Hon. A. W. Haven; Canterbury, Mr. and Mrs. D. M. Clough; Lebanon, A. M. Shaw; Keene, Col. and Mrs. Wilson; Grafton, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kimball; Northfield, Mrs. D. E. Hill; Franklin, Rev. Wm. T. Savage; Canaan, William W. George; Littleton, R. D. Runneville.