Susan B. Anthony

Saratoga Convention, July 13, 14, 1869—State Society Formed, Martha C. Wright, President—The Revolution Established, 1868—Educational Movement—New York City Society, 1870, Charlotte B. Wilbour, President—Presidential Campaign, 1872—Hearings at Albany, 1873—Constitutional Commission—An Effort to Open Columbia College, President Barnard in Favor—Centennial Celebration, 1876—School Officers—Senator Emerson of Monroe, 1877—Gov. Robinson's Veto—School Suffrage, 1880—Gov. Cornell Recommended it in his Message—Stewart's Home for Working Women—Women as Police—An Act to Prohibit Disfranchisement—Attorney-General Russell's Adverse Opinion—The Power of the Legislature to Extend Suffrage—Great Demonstration in Chickering Hall, March 7, 1884—Hearing at Albany, 1885—Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Howell, Gov. Hoyt of Wyoming.

The in New York chapter in Volume I. closes with an account of some retrogressive legislation on the rights of married women,[200] showing that until woman herself has a voice in legislation her rights may be conceded or withheld at the option of the ruling powers, and that her only safety is in direct representation. The chapter on "Trials and Decisions" in Volume II., shows the injustice women have suffered in the courts, where they have never yet enjoyed the sacred right of trial by a jury of their own peers.

After many years of persistent effort for the adjustment of special grievances, many of the leaders, seeing by what an uncertain tenure their civil rights were maintained by the legislative and judicial authorities, ceased to look to the State for redress, and turned to the general government for protection in the right of suffrage, the fundamental right by which all minor privileges and immunities are protected. Hence the annual meeting of the National Association, which had been regularly held in New York as one of the May anniversaries, was, from 1869, supplemented by a semi-annual convention in Washington for special influence upon congress.

Until the war the work in New York was conducted by a central committee; but in the summer of 1869, the following call was issued for a convention at Saratoga Springs, to organize a State Society:

The advocates of woman suffrage will hold a State convention at Saratoga Springs on the thirteenth and fourteenth of July, 1869. The specific business of this convention will be to effect a permanent organization for the State of New York. Our friends in the several congressional districts should at once elect their delegates, in order that the whole State may be represented in the convention. In districts where delegates cannot be elected, any person can constitute himself or herself a representative. The convention will be attended by the ablest advocates of suffrage for woman, and addresses may be expected from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, president of the National Association, Celia Burleigh, president of the Brooklyn Equal Rights Association, Matilda Joslyn Gage, advisory counsel for the State, Susan B. Anthony, of The Revolution, Charlotte B. Wilbour of New York city, and others. Every woman interested for her personal freedom should attend this convention, and by her presence, influence and money, aid the movement for the restoration of the rights of her sex.

Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps, Vice-President for the State of New York.
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Advisory Counsel.

The opening session of the convention was held in the spacious parlors of Congress Hall the audience composed chiefly of fashionable ladies[201] from all parts of the country, who listened with evident interest and purchased the tracts intended for distribution. The remaining sessions were held in Hawthorn Hall, Matilda Joslyn Gage presiding. A series of spirited resolutions was adopted, also a plan of organization presented by Charlotte B. Wilbour, for a State association.[202] Many able speakers[203] were present. The formation of this society was the result of a very general agitation in different localities on several vital questions in the preceding year:

First—On taxation. Women being large property holders, had felt the pressure during the war, especially of the tax on incomes, and had resolved on resistance: Accordingly, large meetings[204] were called at various points, in 1868. While women of wealth were organizing to resist taxation, the working women[205] were uniting to defend their earnings, and secure better wages. It seemed for a few months as if they were in a chronic condition of rebellion. But after many vain struggles for redress in the iron teeth of the law, and equally vain appeals to have unjust laws amended, the women learned the hopelessness of all efforts made by disfranchised classes.

Second—On prostitution. For the first time in the history of the government, a bill was presented in the New York legislature, in 1868, proposing to license prostitution. This showed the degradation of woman's position as no other act of legislation could have done, and although the editors of The Revolution were the only women who publicly opposed the bill (which they did both before the committee of the legislature, and in their journal), yet there was in the minds of many, a deep undercurrent of resistance to the odious provisions of that bill. Horace Greeley, too, in his editorials in the New York Tribune, denounced the proposition in such unmeasured terms that, although pressed at three different legislative sessions, no member of the committee could be found with sufficient moral hardihood to present the bill.

In connection with this question, the necessity of "women as police," was for some time a topic of discussion. They had proved so efficient in many cases, that it was seriously proposed to have a standing force in New York and Brooklyn, to look after young girls,[206] new to the temptations and dangers of city life. In The Revolution of March 26, 1868, we find the following:

It is often asked, would you make women police officers? It has already been done. At least a society of women exists in this country, for the discovery of crimes, conspiracies and such things. The chief of this band was Mrs. Kate Warn, a native of this State, who lately died in Chicago. She was engaged in this business, fifteen years ago, by Mr. Pinkerton, of the National Police Agency. She did good service for many years in watching, waylaying, exploring and detecting; especially on the critical occasion of President Lincoln's journey to Washington in 1861. In 1865 she was sent to New Orleans, as head of the Female Police Department there.

There was a general movement in these years for the more liberal education of women in various departments of art and industry, as well as in letters. First on the list stands Vassar College, founded in 1861, richly endowed with fine grounds and spacious buildings. We cannot estimate the civilizing influence of the thousands of young women graduating at that institution, now, as cultivated wives and mothers, presiding in households all over this land. Cornell University[207] was opened to girls in 1872, more richly endowed than Vassar, and in every way superior in its environments; beautifully situated on the banks of Cayuga Lake, with the added advantage and stimulus of the system of coËducation. To Andrew D. White, its president, all women owe a debt of gratitude for his able and persevering advocacy of the benefits to both sexes, of coËducation. The university at Syracuse, in which Lima College was incorporated, is also open alike to boys and girls. Rochester University,[208] Brown, Columbia, Union, Hamilton, and Hobart College at Geneva, still keep their doors barred against the daughters of the State, and the three last, in the small number of their students, and their gradual decline, show the need of the very influence they exclude. Could all the girls desiring an education in and around Rochester, Geneva,[209] Clinton and Schenectady, enter these institutions, the added funds and enthusiasm they would thus receive would soon bring them renewed life and vigor.

Peter Cooper and Catharine Beecher's efforts for the working classes of women were equally praiseworthy. Miss Beecher formed "The American Woman's Educational Association," for the purpose of establishing schools all over the country for training girls in the rudiments of learning and practical work. The Cooper Institute, founded in 1854, by Peter Cooper, has been invaluable in its benefits to the poorer classes of girls, in giving them advantages in the arts and sciences, in evening as well as day classes. Here both boys and girls have free admission into all departments, including its valuable reading-room and library. It had long been a cherished desire of Mr. Cooper to found an institution to be devoted forever to the union of art and science in their application to the useful purposes of life. The School of Design is specially for women.

The Ladies Art Association of New York was founded in 1867, now numbering over one hundred members. One of the most important things accomplished by this society has been the preparation of thoroughly educated teachers, many of whom are now filling positions in Southern and Western colleges.

New York, June 3, 1869.

Editors of the Revolution: Inclosed please find the report of a meeting of New York ladies to consider the important subject of woman's education. The within slip will show that this is a movement quite as earnest and pronounced as the woman suffrage agitation of the day, and more in consonance with prevailing public opinion. We trust that you will aid the effort by inserting the report and resolutions into your columns, and add at least a brief editorial notice.

Mrs. Marshall O. Roberts.

Very respectfully,

Important Meeting of New York Ladies.—Woman's Education.—On Monday, the 31st of May, a large number of influential ladies gathered at Dr. Taylor's, corner Sixth avenue and Thirty-eighth street, in response to the call of the secretary of The American Woman's Educational Association. A meeting was organized, Mrs. Marshall O. Roberts presiding, and after a long and interesting discussion the following resolutions were unanimously passed. It is proper to state that the society has been an organized and efficient power in woman's education for over twenty years. The object of its present action is to forward a movement to secure endowed institutions for the training of women to their special duties and professions as men are trained for theirs, particularly the science and duties of home-life:

Resolved, That one cause of the depressed condition of woman is the fact that the distinctive profession of her sex, as the nurse of infancy and of the sick, as educator of childhood, and as the chief minister of the family state, has not been duly honored, nor such provision been made for its scientific and practical training as is accorded to the other sex for their professions; and that it is owing to this neglect that women are driven to seek honor and independence in the institutions and the professions of men.

Resolved, That the science of domestic economy, in its various branches, involves more important interests than any other human science; and that the evils suffered by women would be extensively remedied by establishing institutions for training woman for her profession, which shall be as generously endowed as are the institutions of men, many of which have been largely endowed by women.

Resolved, That the science of domestic economy should be made a study in all institutions for girls; and that certain practical employments of the family state should be made a part of common school education, especially the art of sewing, which is so needful for the poor; and that we will use our influence to secure these important measures.

Resolved, That every young woman should be trained to some business by which she can earn an independent livelihood in case of poverty.

Resolved, That in addition to the various in-door employments suitable for woman, there are other out-door employments especially favorable to health and equally suitable, such as raising fruits and flowers, the culture of silk and cotton, the raising of bees and the superintendence of dairy farms and manufactures. All of these offer avenues to wealth and independence for women as properly as men, and schools for imparting to women the science and practice of these employments should be provided and as liberally endowed as are the agricultural schools for men.

Resolved, That the American Woman's Educational Association is an organization which aims to secure to women these advantages, that its managers have our confidence, and that we will coÖperate in its plans as far as we have opportunity.

Resolved, That the Protestant clergy would greatly aid in these efforts by preaching on the honor and duties of the family state. In order to this, we request their attention to a work just published by Miss Beecher and Mrs. Stowe, entitled "The American Woman's Home," which largely discusses many important topics of this general subject, while the authors have devoted most of their profits from this work to promote the plans of the American Woman's Educational Association.

Resolved, That editors of the religious and secular press will contribute important aid to an effort they must all approve by inserting these resolutions in their columns.

Among the influences that brought new thought to the question of woman suffrage was the establishment of The Revolution in 1868. Radical and defiant in tone, it awoke friends and foes alike to action. Some denounced it, some ridiculed it, but all read it. It needed just such clarion notes sounded forth long and loud each week to rouse the friends of the movement from the apathy into which they had fallen after the war. One cannot read its glowing pages to-day without appreciating the power it was just at that crisis.[210]

Miss Lucy B. Hobbs of New York was the first woman that ever graduated in the profession of dentistry. She matriculated in the Cincinnati Dental College in the fall of 1864—passing through a full course of study, missing but two lectures, and those at the request of the professor of anatomy. She graduated from that institution in February, 1866. A letter from the dean of the college testifies to her worth as follows:

She was a woman of great energy and perseverance. Studious in her habits, modest and unassuming, she had the respect and kind regard of every member of the class and faculty. As an operator she was not surpassed by her associates. Her opinion was asked and her assistance sought in difficult cases almost daily by her fellow-students. And though the class of which she was a member was one of the largest ever in attendance, it excelled all previous ones in good order and decorum—a condition largely due to the presence of a lady. In the final examination she was second to none.

Having received her diploma, she opened an office in Iowa; from thence she removed to Chicago, and practiced successfully. The following letter from Mrs. Taylor (formerly Miss Hobbs) gives further interesting details. Writing to Matilda Joslyn Gage, she says:

I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to place in history the fact of my study of dentistry. I was born in Franklin county, New York, in 1833. You ask my reason for entering the profession. It was to be independent. I first studied medicine, but did not like the practice. My preceptor, Professor Cleveland, advised me to try dentistry, and I commenced with Dr. Samuel Warde of Cincinnati, finishing my studies in March, 1861. At that time the faculty of the Ohio Dental College would not permit me to attend, and there was not a college in the United States that would admit me, and no amount of persuasion could change their minds. So far as I know, I was the first woman who had ever taken instruction of a private tutor.

I went to Iowa to commence practice, and was so successful that the dentists of the State insisted I should be allowed to attend the college. Their efforts prevailed, and I graduated from the Ohio Dental College at Cincinnati in the spring of 1866—the first woman in the world to take a diploma from a dental college. I am a New-Yorker by birth, but I love my adopted country—the West. To it belongs the credit of making it possible for women to be recognized in the dental profession on equal terms with men. Should you wish any further proof, write to Dr. Watt, who was professor of chemistry at the time I graduated, and I know he will take pleasure in giving you any additional information.

As early as 1866 a system of safe-deposit companies was inaugurated in New York, which has proved a boon to women, enabling them to keep any private papers they may wish to preserve. In 1880, we find the following in the National Citizen:

A ladies' exchange for railroad and mining stocks has been started at 71 Broadway, New York. The rooms are provided with an indicator, desks and such other conveniences as are required for business. Messenger boys drop in and out, and a telephone connects with the office of a prominent Wall-street brokerage firm. Miss Mary E. Gage, daughter of Frances Dana Gage, is the manager and proprietor of the business. In reply to the inquiries of a Graphic reporter, Miss Gage said she had found so much inconvenience and annoyance in transacting her own operations in stocks that she concluded to establish an office. After Miss Gage was fairly settled, other women who labored under the same disadvantages, began to drop in, their number increasing daily. A ladies' stock exchange also exists at No. 40 Fourth street, under charge of Mrs. Favor. The banking houses of Henry Clews and the wealthy Russell Sage are said to be working in union with this exchange. In January we chronicled the formation of a woman's mining company and this month of a woman's stock exchange, each of them an evidence of the wide range of business women are entering.

In The Revolution of May 14, 1868, we find the following:

Sorosis.—This is the name of a new club of literary women, who meet once a month and lunch at Delmonico's, to discuss questions of art, science, literature and government. Alice Carey, who is president, in her opening speech states the object of the club, which is summed up in this brief extract:

We have proposed the inculcation of deeper and broader ideas among women, proposed to teach them to think for themselves and get their opinions at first hand, not so much because it is their right as because it is their duty. We have also proposed to open new avenues of employment to women—to make them less dependent and less burdensome—to lift them out of unwomanly self-distrust and disqualifying diffidence into womanly self-respect and self-knowledge. To teach them to make all work honorable, by each doing the share that falls to her, or that she may work out to herself agreeably to her own special aptitude, cheerfully and faithfully—not going down to it, but bringing it up to her. We have proposed to enter our protest against all idle gossip, against all demoralizing and wicked waste of time, also, against the follies and the tyrannies of fashion, against all external impositions and disabilities; in short, against each and every thing that opposes the full development and use of the faculties conferred upon us by our Creator.

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

This club has met regularly ever since the day of its inauguration, and has been remarkable for the harmony maintained by its members. Mrs. Charlotte Wilbour was president for several years, until she went to reside in Paris, in 1874. Since that time Mrs. Croly has been, from year to year, elected to that office. Beginning with 12 members,[211] this club now numbers 320.

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

Her father was a cattle-dealer, and taught her to handle fearlessly the animals he delighted in. She learned to tell at a glance the finest points of live-stock, and to doctor bovine and equine ailments with the utmost skill. With all this, she became a proficient in Italian and French, and a terse and rapid writer. A few years ago, after her father's death, she traveled in Italy with an invalid sister, having an eye to her pet passion—the horse. While there she met Prince Poniatowsky, also an ardent admirer of that animal. He mentioned her zoÖlogical accomplishments to Victor Emanuel, and the consequence was Miss Middie was deputed by His Majesty to purchase a hundred or so of fine horses. She had charge of the blood-horses of King Victor Emanuel, who owns the finest stud in Europe, and breeds horses of a superior shape, vigor and fire. He beats Grant in his admiration for that noble animal. When she decided to come to this country, she made known the fact to Hon. George P. Marsh, our minister to Italy; and he gave her a letter of recommendation to Mr. Bigelow, of the Times, who employed her. She is an expert among all kinds of animals. Her judgment about the different breeds is sought after and much quoted. She can discuss the nice points about cattle as easily as Rosa Bonheur can paint them.[212]

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

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

Resolved, That in the death of Miss Helena Barkaloo we deplore the loss of the first of her sex ever admitted to the bar of Missouri.

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

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

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

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

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

In May, 1870, the New York City Society was formed, with efficient officers,[213] and pleasant rooms, at 16 Union Square, where meetings were regularly held on Friday afternoon of each week. These meetings were well attended and sustained with increasing interest from month to month. This society held its first meeting November 27, 1871, which was addressed by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe; and on January 13, 1872, another, addressed by Jennie Collins, the indefatigable Bostonian who has done so much for the benefit of the working girls. A series of meetings was held under the auspices of this association in many of the chief cities around New York and on the Hudson, the chief speakers being the officers of the association. An active German society was soon after formed, with Mrs. Augusta Lillienthal, president, and Mrs. Matilda F. Wendt, secretary. The latter published a paper, Die Neue Zeit, devoted to woman suffrage. She was also the correspondent of several leading journals in Germany. The society held its first public meeting March 21, 1872, in Turner Hall, Mrs. Wendt presiding. Mrs. Lillienthal, Mrs. Clara Neyman and Dr. Adolphe Doney were the speakers. Clara Neyman became afterwards a popular speaker in many suffrage and free-religious associations.

Petitions were rolled up by both the German and American societies to the legislature, praying for the right of suffrage, and on April 3, 1871, the petitioners[214] were granted a hearing, before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, Hon. L. Bradford Prince presiding. Mrs. Wilbour's able address made a most favorable impression. The question was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The majority report was adverse, the minority, signed by Robert A. Strahan and C. P. Vedder, favorable.

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

In 1871 women attempted to vote in different parts of the State, among whom were Matilda Joslyn Gage at Fayetteville, and Mrs. Louise Mansfield at Nyack, but were repulsed. In 1872 others did vote under the fourteenth amendment, conspicuously Susan B. Anthony, who, as an example for the rest, was arrested, tried, convicted and fined.[215] Mrs. Gage published a woman's rights catechism to answer objections made at that time to woman's voting, which proved a valuable campaign document. We find the names of Mary R. Pell of Flushing, Helen M. Loder of Poughkeepsie, and Elizabeth B. Whitney of Harlem, frequently mentioned at this time for their valuable services.

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

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

Miss Jennie Turner, a short-hand writer of New York, is a notary public. In a recent law-suit some of the papers were "sworn to" before her in her official capacity, and one of the attorneys claimed that it was not verified, inasmuch as a woman "could not legally hold public office." The judge decided that the paper must be accepted as properly verified, and said that the only way to oust her was in a direct action by the attorney-general. The judge said:

Whether a female is capable of holding public office has never been decided by the courts of this State, and is a question about which legal minds may well differ. The constitution regulates the right of suffrage and limits it to "male" citizens. Disabilities are not favored, and are seldom extended by implication, from which it may be argued that if it required the insertion of the term "male" to exclude female citizens of lawful age from the right of suffrage, a similar limitation would be required to disqualify them from holding office. Citizenship is a condition or status and has no relation to age or sex. It may be contended that it was left to the good sense of the executive and to the electors to determine whether or not they would select females to office, and that the power being lodged in safe hands was beyond the danger of abuse. If, on the other hand, it be seriously contended that the constitution, by necessary implication, disqualifies females from holding office, it must follow as a necessary consequence that the act of the legislature permitting females to serve as school officers, and all other legislative enactments of like import removing such disqualification, are unconstitutional and void. In this same connection it may be argued that if the use of the personal pronoun "he" in the constitution does not exclude females from public office, its use in the statute can have no greater effect. The statute, like the constitution, in prescribing the qualifications for office, omits the word "male," leaving the question whether female citizens of lawful age are included or excluded, one of construction.

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

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

During the winter of 1873 a commission was sitting at Albany to revise the constitution of New York. As it seemed fitting that women should press their claims to the ballot, memorials were presented and hearings requested by both the State and City societies. Accordingly Mr. Silliman, the chairman, appointed February 18, to hear the memorialists. A large delegation of ladies went from New York.[218] The commission was holding its sessions in the common-council chamber, and when the time arrived for the hearing the room was crowded with an attentive audience. The members of the Committee on Suffrage were all present, Mr. Silliman presided. Matilda Joslyn Gage represented the State association, speaking upon the origin of government and the rights pertaining thereto. Mrs. Wilbour and Mrs. Blake represented the New York City Society, and each alike made a favorable impression. The Albany Evening Journal gave a large space to a description of the occasion. The respectful hearing, however, was the beginning and the end, as far as could be seen, of all impression made on the committee, which coolly recommended that suffrage be secured to colored men by ratifying the fifteenth amendment, while making no recognition whatever of the women of the State. A memorial was at once sent to the legislature and another hearing was granted on February 27. Mrs. Blake[219] was the only speaker on that occasion. The Hon. Bradford Prince, of Queens, presided. At the close of Mrs. Blake's remarks James W. Husted of Westchester, in a few earnest words, avowed himself henceforth a champion of the cause. Shortly afterwards the Hon. George West presented a constitutional amendment giving to every woman possessed of $250 the right to vote, thus placing the women of the State in the same position with the colored men before the passage of the fifteenth amendment; but even this was denied. The amendment was referred to the Judiciary Committee and there entombed. Large meetings[220] were held at Robinson Hall during the winter, and at Apollo Hall in May, and in different localities about New York.

July 2, 1873, an indignation meeting was held by the City Society to protest against the sentence pronounced by Judge Hunt in the case of Susan B. Anthony. De Garmo Hall was crowded. The platform was decorated with the United States flag draped with black bunting, while on each side were banners, one bearing the inscription, "Respectful Consideration for a Loyal Woman's Vote! $100 Fine!" the other, "Shall One Federal Judge Abolish Trial by Jury?" Dr. Clemence Lozier presided, and Mrs. Devereux Blake made a stirring speech reviewing Miss Anthony's trial and Judge Hunt's decision.[221] Mr. Hamilton Wilcox made a manly protest against Judge Hunt's high-handed act of oppression, and Mrs. Marie Rachel made another, in behalf of the German association.

In October, 1873, Mrs. Devereux Blake made an effort to open the doors of Columbia College to women. A class of four young ladies[222] united in asking admission. Taking them with her, Mrs. Blake went before the president and faculty, who gave her a respectful hearing. She argued that the charter of the college itself declared that it was founded for "the education of the youth of the city", and that the word youth was defined in all dictionaries as "young persons of both sexes," so that by its very foundation it was intended that girls as well as boys should enjoy the benefits of the university, and it was no more than just that they should, seeing that the original endowment was by the "rectors and inhabitants of the city of New York," one-half of these inhabitants being women. Mrs. Blake's[223] application was referred to "the Committee on the Course of Instruction," and after some weeks of consideration was refused, on the ground that "it was inexpedient," the Rev. Morgan Dix being especially active in his opposition. However, soon after this, the lectures of the college were open to ladies, and a few years later President Barnard warmly recommended that young women should be admitted as students to all the privileges of the university.

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

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

The era of centennial celebrations was now approaching, and it was proposed to hold a suitable commemoration on the one-hundredth anniversary of the Boston tea-party, December 16, 1873. Union League Theater was, on the appointed evening, filled to its utmost capacity. The platform was decorated with flowers and filled with ladies, Dr. Lozier presiding. Miss Anthony was the speaker of the evening, and made a most effective address; Helen Potter gave a recitation; Hannah M'L. Shepherd read letters of sympathy; Mrs. Blake made a short closing address, and presented a series of resolutions, couched in precisely the same language as that adopted by our ancestors in protesting against taxation without representation:

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

The report of the State assessors[226] of 1883 brought forcibly to view the injustice done in taxing non-voters. At their meeting with the supervisors of Onondaga county, Mr. Pope of Fabius said: "Mrs. Andrews is assessed too much." Mr. Hadley replied: "Well, Mr. Briggs says that is the way all the women are assessed." Mr. Briggs responded: "Yes, that is the way we find the assessors treat the women; they can't vote, you know! I am in favor of letting the women vote now."

Two women in the village of Batavia were assessed for more personal property than the entire assessment of like property, exclusive of corporations, in the city of Rochester with a population of 70,000! While declaring they had found very little personal property assessed, Mr. Fowler said: "We found some cases where town assessors had taxed the personal property of women, and one case of a ward who was assessed to full value, while upon the guardian's property there was no assessment at all." This report not only proved a good woman suffrage document, but the work done by the State assessors, Messrs. Hadley, Briggs and Fowler, convinced them personally of woman's need of the ballot for the protection of her property.

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

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

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

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

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

So much for what men did on that day, and let us see what share the women had in its dangers and its sorrows. Jonathan Harris was shot in front of his own house, while his wife was watching him from a window, seeing him fall with such anguish as no poor words of mine can describe. He struggled to his feet, the blood gushing from a wound in his breast, staggered forward a few paces and fell again, and then crawled on his hands and knees to his threshold only to expire just as his wife reached him. Did not this woman bear her portion of the martyrdom? Isaac Davis, a man in the prime of life, went forth from his home in the morning, and before the afternoon sunlight had grown yellow, was brought back to it dead, and was laid, pale and cold, in his wife's bed, only three hours after he had left her with a solemn benediction of farewell. Did not this woman also suffer? She was left a widow in the very flower of her youth, and for seventy years she faithfully mourned his taking off! Nor were these the only ones; for every man who fell that day, some woman's heart was wrung. There were others who endured actual physical hardship and suffering. Hannah Adams lay in bed with an infant only a week old when the British reached her house in their disorderly retreat to Boston; they forced her to leave her sick room and to crawl into an adjoining corn shed, while they burned her house to ashes in her sight. Three companies of British troops went to the house of Major Barrett and demanded food. Mrs. Barrett served them as well as she was able, and when she was offered compensation, refused it, saying gently, "We are commanded if our enemy hunger to feed him." So, in toil or suffering or anguish the women endured their share of the sorrows of that day. Do they not deserve a share of its glories also? The battles of Lexington and Concord form an era in our country's history. When, driven to desperation by a long course of oppression, the people first resolved to revolt against the mother country. Discontent, resentment and indignation had grown stronger month by month among the hardy settlers of the land, until they culminated in the most splendid act of audacity that the world has ever seen. A few colonies, scattered at long intervals along the Atlantic seaboard, dared to defy the proudest nation in Europe, and a few rustics, undisciplined, and almost unarmed, actually ventured to encounter in battle that army which had boasted its conquests over the flower of European chivalry. What unheard of oppressions drove these people to the mad attempt? What unheard of atrocities had the rulers of these people practiced, what unjust confiscations of property, what cruel imprisonments and wicked murders? None of all these; the people of this land were not starving or dying under the iron heel of an Alva or a Robespierre, but their civil liberties had been denied, their political freedom refused, and rather than endure the loss of these precious things, they were willing to encounter danger and to brave death. The men and women who suffered at Concord and at Lexington 100 years ago to-day, were martyrs to the sacred cause of personal liberty! Looking over the records of the past we find, again and again repeated, the burden of their complaints. Not that they were starving or dying, but that they were taxed without their consent, and that they were denied personal representation.

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

In 1876 a presidential election was again approaching, and to meet the exigencies of the campaign a woman suffrage committee was formed to ask the legislature to grant presidential suffrage to women, as it was strictly within their power to do without a constitutional amendment. To this end Mrs. Gage prepared an appeal which was widely circulated throughout the State:

Within a year the election of President and Vice-President of the United States, will again take place. The right to vote for these functionaries is a National and not a State right; the United States has unquestioned control of this branch of suffrage, and in its constitution has declared to whom it has delegated this power. Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States, is devoted to the president; the manner of choosing him, his power, his duties, etc. In regard to the method of choosing the president, Par. 2, Sec. 1, Art. 2, reads thus: "Each State shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the congress." There is no other authority for the appointment of presidential electors, either in the Constitution of the United States, or in the constitution of any State. The constitution of the State of New York is entirely silent upon the appointment of presidential electors, for the reason that the constitution of the United States declares that they shall be appointed in such manner as the legislature may direct. With the exception of South Carolina, every State in the Union has adopted the plan of choosing presidential electors by ballot, and it is in the power of the legislature of each State to prescribe the qualifications of those who shall be permitted to vote for such electors.

The authority to prescribe the qualifications of those persons in the State of New York who shall be permitted to vote for electors of President and Vice-President of the United States, therefore lies alone in the legislature of this State. That body has power in this respect superior to the State constitution; it rises above the constitution; it is invested with its powers by the Constitution of the United States; it is under national authority, and need in no way be governed by any representative clause which may exist in the State constitution. In prescribing the qualifications of those persons who shall vote for electors, the legislature has power to exclude all persons who cannot read and write. It has power to say that no person unless possessing a freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars, shall vote for such electors. It has power to declare that only tax-payers shall vote for such electors, it is even vested with authority to say that no one but church members shall be entitled to vote for electors of President and Vice-President of the United States. The legislature of this State at its next session has even power to cut off the right of all white men to vote for electors at the presidential election next fall. It matters not what qualifications the State itself may have prescribed for electors of State officers, the question who shall vote for president and vice-president is on an entirely different basis, and prescribing the qualifications for such electors lies in entirely different hands. It is a question of national import with which the State (in its constitution) has nothing to do, and over which even congress has no power. The legislature which is to assemble in Albany, the first Tuesday in January next, will have power, by the passage of a simple bill, to secure to the women of this State the right to vote for electors at the presidential election in the fall of 1876, and thus to inaugurate the centennial year by an act of equity and justice that will be in accordance with that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Shall it not be done?

Matilda Joslyn Gage,
Lillie Devereux Blake,
Clemence S. Lozier, M. D.,
N. Y. State Woman Suffrage Com.

A memorial embodying this claim was presented to the legislature, and on, January 18, the committee went to Albany and were heard by the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, to whom their paper had been referred. Hon. Robert H. Strahan of New York presided. On February 8, the memorialists[229] had another meeting before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, in the Senate chamber, Hon. Bradford L. Prince presiding. The audience was overflowing, and the corridors so crowded that the meeting adjourned to the Assembly chamber by order of the chairman. Soon after, Hon. George H. West of Saratoga presented a bill giving the women of the State the right to vote for president. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee and reported adversely, notwithstanding it was twice called up and debated by its friends, Messrs. Strahan, Husted, Ogden, Hogeboom and West. No vote was reached on the measure, but this much of consideration was a gain over previous years, when nothing had been done beyond the presentation of a bill and its reference to a committee.

In 1876 Governor Samuel J. Tilden appointed Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell as commissioner of the State Board of Charities, the first official position a woman ever held in this State.

During the winter of 1877 a memorial was sent to the legislature, asking that women be allowed to serve as school officers. The Hon. William N. Emerson, senator from Monroe, presented the following bill:

An Act to Authorize the Election of Women to School Offices.

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. Any woman of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, and possessing the qualifications prescribed for men, shall be eligible to any office under the general or special school laws of this State, subject to the same conditions and requirements as prescribed to men.

Sec. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Petitions and memorials from all parts of the State were poured into the legislature, praying for the passage of the bill. Mr. Emerson made an eloquent speech in its favor, and labored earnestly for the measure. It passed the Senate by a vote of 19 to 9; the Assembly by a vote of 84 to 19. This success was hailed with great rejoicing by the women of the State who understood the progress of events. But their delight was turned into indignation and disappointment when the governor, Lucius Robinson, returned the bill to the Senate with the following veto:

State of New York, Executive Chamber, }
Albany, May 8, 1877. }

To the Senate:

I return without approval Senate bill No. 61, entitled "An act to authorize the election of women to school offices."

This bill goes too far or not far enough. It provides that women may hold any or all of the offices connected with the department of education, that is to say, a woman may be elected superintendent of public instruction, women may be appointed school commissioners, members of boards of education and trustees of school districts. In some of these positions it will become their duty to make contracts, purchase materials, build and repair school-houses, and to supervise and effect all the transactions of school business, involving an annual expenditure of over twelve million dollars in this State. There can be no greater reason that women should occupy these positions than the less responsible ones of supervisors, town clerks, justices of the peace, commissioners of highways, overseers of the poor, and numerous others. If women are physically and mentally fitted for one class of these stations, they are equally so for the others.

But at this period in the history of the world such enactments as the present hardly comport with the wisdom and dignity of legislation. The God of nature has appointed different fields of labor, duty and usefulness for the sexes. His decrees cannot be changed by human legislation. In the education of our children the mother stands far above all superintendents, commissioners, trustees and school teachers. Her influence in the family, in social intercourse and enterprises, outweighs all the mere machinery of benevolence and education. To lower her from the high and holy place given her by nature, is to degrade her power and to injure rather than benefit the cause of education itself. In all enlightened and Christian nations the experience and observations of ages have illustrated and defined the relative duties of the sexes in promoting the best interests of society. Few, if any, of the intelligent and right-minded among women desire or would be willing to accept the change which such a law would inaugurate.

The bill is moreover a clear infraction of the spirit if not the letter of the constitution. Under that instrument women have no right to vote, and it cannot be supposed that it is the intention of the constitution that persons not entitled to the right of suffrage should be eligible to some of the most important offices in the State.

L. Robinson.

On May 24, 25, 1877, the National and State conventions were again held in New York, at Steinway Hall. Both conventions passed resolutions denouncing Governor Robinson's action in his veto. The following address was issued by the State association:

To the Voters and Legislators of New York:

The women of the State of New York, in convention assembled, do most earnestly protest against the injustice with which they are treated by the State, where in point of numbers they are in excess of the men:

First—They are denied the right of choosing their own rulers, but are compelled to submit to the choice of a minority consisting of its male residents, fully one-third of whom are of foreign birth. Second—They are held amenable to laws they have had no share in making and in which they are forbidden a voice—laws which touch all their most vital interests of education, industry, children, property, life and liberty. Third—While compelled to bear the burdens and suffer the penalties of government, they are debarred the honors and emoluments of civil service, and the control of offices in the righteous discharge of whose duties their interest is equal to that of men. Fourth—They are taxed without their consent to sustain men in office who enact laws directly opposing their interests, and inasmuch as the State of New York pays one-sixth the taxes of the United States, its women feel the arm of oppression—like Briareus with his hundred hands—touching and crushing them with its burdens. Fifth—They are under the power of an autocrat whose salary they must pay, but who, in opposition to the will of the people—as recently shown in the passage of the School bill by the legislature—has by his veto denied them all official authority in the control of the public schools, and this despite the fact of there being 3,670 more girls of school age than boys, and 14,819 more women than men teaching in the State. Sixth—Under pretence of regulating public morals, women of the femme de pave class, many of whom have been driven to this mode of life as a livelihood, are subjected to more oppressive laws than their partners in vice. Seventh—The laws treat married women as criminals by taking from them all legal control of their children, while those born outside of marriage belong absolutely to the mothers. Eighth—They forbid the mother's inheritance of property from her children in case the father is living, thus making her of no consideration in the eyes of those to whom she has given birth. Ninth—They give the husband control of the common property—allow him to spend the whole personal estate in riotous living, or even to sell the home over his wife's head, subject only to her third life-interest in case she survives him. Tenth—They allow the husband to imprison her at his pleasure within his own house, the court sustaining him in this coËrcion until the wife "submits herself to her husband's will." Eleventh—They allow the husband while the common property is in his possession, "without even the formality of a legal complaint, the taking of an oath or the filing of a bond for the good faith of his action," to advertise his wife through the public press as a deserter and to forbid her credit. Twelfth—They deny the widow the right of inheritance in the common property that they give the widower, allow her but forty days' residence in the family mansion before paying rent to her husband's heirs, thus treating her as if she were an alien to her own children—set off to her a few paltry articles of household use, close the estate through a process of law, and make the days of her bereavement doubly days of sorrow.

The above laws of marriage, placing irresponsible authority in the hands of the husband, have given him a power of moral coËrcion over the wife, making her virtually his slave. Without entering into fuller details of the injustice and oppression of the laws upon all women, married and single, we will sum the whole subject up in the language of the French Woman's Rights League, which characterizes woman's position thus:

(1) Woman is held politically to have no existence; (2) civilly, she is a minor; (3) in marriage she is a serf; (4) in labor she is made inferior and robbed of her earnings; (5) in public instruction she is sacrificed to man; (6) out of marriage, answers to the faults committed by both; (7) as a mother is deprived of her right to her children; (8) she is only deemed equally responsible, intelligent and answerable in taxes and crimes.

By order of the New York State Woman Suffrage Society.

Matilda Joslyn Gage, Secretary.

May, 1877.

In the summer of 1877 another effort was made by women of wealth to be relieved from taxation. Several memorials to that effect were sent to the legislature, one headed by Susan A. King[230] of New York, a self-made woman who had accumulated a large fortune and owned much real estate. Her memorial, signed by a few others, represented $9,000,000. The committee bearing these waited on many members of the legislature to secure their influence when such a bill should be presented, which was done March 11, by Col. Alfred Wagstaff, with warm recommendations. He was followed by Senator McCarthy of Onondaga, who also introduced a bill for an amendment to the constitution to secure to women the right of suffrage. Both these bills called out the determined opposition of Thomas C. Ecclesine, senator from the eleventh district, and the ridicule of others. The delegation of ladies, sitting there as representatives of half the people of the State, felt insulted to have their demands thus sneered at; it was for them a moment of bitter humiliation. In the evening, however, their time for retaliation came, as they had a hearing in the Senate chamber, before the Judiciary Committee, where an immense crowd assembled at an early hour. The chairman of the committee Hon. William H. Robertson, presided. Each of the ladies, in the course of her speech, referred to the insulting remarks of Mr. Hughes of Washington county. That gentleman, being present, looked as if he regretted his unfortunate jokes, and winced under the sarcasm of the ladies.

Soon after this, great excitement was created by the close of Stewart's Home for Working Women. This fine building, on the corner of Thirty-second street and Fourth avenue, had been erected by the merchant prince for the use of working women, who could there find a home at a moderate expense. The millionaire dead, his large fortune passed into other hands. The building was completed and furnished in a style of elegance far beyond what was appropriated to that purpose. On April 2, with a great flourish, the immense building was thrown open for public inspection. A large number of women applied at once for admission, but encountered a set of rules that drove most of them away. This gave Judge Hilton an excuse for violating his obligation to carry out the plan of his dead benefactor, and in a few weeks he closed the house to working women and opened it as the Park Hotel, for which it was so admirably furnished and fitted that it was the general opinion that it was intended for this from the beginning. Great indignation was felt in the community, the women calling a meeting to express their disappointment and dissatisfaction. This was held in Cooper Institute, under the auspices of the Woman Suffrage Association.[231] Had Mr. Stewart provided a permanent home for working women it would have been but a meager return for the underpaid toil of the thousands who had labored for half a century to build up his princely fortune. But even the idea of such an act of justice died with him.

In 1879 that eminent philanthropist Dr. Hervey Backus Wilbur, superintendent of the State Idiot Asylum at Syracuse, urged the passage of a law requiring the employment of competent women as physicians in the female wards of the State insane asylums. Petitions prepared by him were circulated by the officers of the Women's Medical College, of the New York Infirmary, by Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell of the State Board of Charities, and by Drs. Willard Parker, Mary Putnam Jacobi, and other eminent physicians of New York. The bill prepared by Dr. Wilbur was introduced in the Assembly by Hon. Erastus Brooks, and required the trustees of each of the four State asylums for the insane, "to employ one or more competent, well-educated female physicians to have the charge of the female patients of said asylum, under the direction of the medical superintendents of the several asylums, as in the case of the other or male assistant physicians, and to take the place of such male assistant physician or physicians in the wards of the female patients." Although Dr. Wilbur stood at the head of his profession, his authority upon everything connected with the feeble-minded being not only recognized in this country but in Europe also as absolute, yet this bill, which did not contemplate placing a woman in charge of such an institution, and which was so purely moral in its character, met with ridicule and opposition from the press of the State, to which Dr. Wilbur made an exhaustive reply, showing the need of women as physicians in all institutions in which unfortunate women are incarcerated.

When the fall elections of 1879 approached, a circular letter was sent to every candidate for office in the city, asking his views on the question of woman suffrage, and delegations waited on the nominees for mayor. Mr. Edward Cooper, the Republican candidate, declared he had no sympathy with the movement, while Hon. Augustus Schell, the Democratic candidate, received the ladies with great courtesy, and avowed himself friendly at least to the demand for equal wages and better opportunities for education, and in the trades and professions. From the answers received, a list of candidates was prepared. On the evening of October 30, a crowded mass-meeting was held in Steinway Hall to advocate the election of those men who were favorable to the enfranchisement of woman. Mr. Schell was chosen Mayor. The re-nomination in 1879, of Lucius Robinson for governor by the Democratic convention, aroused the opposition of the women who understood the politics of the State. He had declared that "the God of Nature did not intend women for public life"; they resolved that the same power should retire Mr. Robinson from public life, and held mass-meetings to that end.[232] These meetings were all alike crowded and enthusiastic, and the speakers[233] felt richly paid for their efforts. A thorough canvass of the State was also made, and a protest[234] extensively circulated, condemning the governor for his veto of the school-bill.

Mr. F. B. Thurber, and Miss Susan A. King contributed liberally to this campaign. Handbills containing the protest and a call for a series of mass-meetings, were distributed by the thousands all over the State. The last meeting was held at the seventh ward Republican wigwam, an immense structure, in Brooklyn: its use was given by the unanimous vote of the club.[235] At every one of these meetings resolutions were passed condemning Mr. Robinson, and electors were urged to cast their votes against him. No doubt the enthusiasm the women aroused for his opponent helped in a measure to defeat him.

In the meantime, women in the eleventh senatorial district were concentrating their efforts for the defeat of Thomas H. Eccelsine. His Republican opponent, Hon. Chas. E. Foster, was a pronounced advocate of woman suffrage. Miss King,[236] who resided in this district, exerted all her influence for his election, giving time, money and thought to the canvass. On the morning of November 5, the day after election, the papers announced that Mr. Cornell was chosen governor, and that Mr. Ecclesine, who two years before had been elected by 7,000 majority, was defeated by 600, and Mr. Foster chosen senator in his stead.

This campaign attracted much attention. The journals throughout the country commented upon the action of the women. It was conceded that their efforts had counted for something in influencing the election, and from this moment the leaders of the woman suffrage movement in New York regarded themselves as possessing some political influence.

In January, 1880, Governor Alonzo B. Cornell, in his first message to the legislature, among other recommendations, embodied the following:

The policy of making women eligible as school officers has been adopted in several States with beneficial results, and the question is exciting much discussion in this State. Women are equally competent with men for this duty, and it cannot be doubted that their admission to representation would largely increase the efficacy of our school management. The favorable attention of the legislature is earnestly directed to this subject.

With such words from the chief executive it was an easy matter to find friends for a measure making women eligible as school officers. Early in the session the following bill was introduced by Hon. Lorraine B. Sessions of Cattaraugus:

No person shall be deemed ineligible to serve as any school officer, or to vote at any school meeting, by reason of sex, who has the voter's qualifications required by law.

Senator Edwin G. Halbert of Broome rendered efficient aid and the bill passed at once in the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote. Hon. G. W. Husted of Westchester introduced it at once in the assembly and earnestly championed the measure. It passed by a vote of 87 to 3. The bill was laid before the governor, who promptly affixed his signature to it, and thus, at last, secured to the women of the Empire State the right to vote on all school matters, and to hold any school offices to which they might be chosen. The bill was signed on February 12, and the next day being Friday, was the last day of registration in the city of Syracuse, the election there taking place on the following Tuesday. The news did not reach there until late in the day, the evening papers being the first to contain it. But, although so little was known of the measure, thirteen women registered their names as voters, and cast their ballots at the election. This was the first time the women of New York ever voted, and Tuesday, February 18, 1880, is a day to be remembered.[237] The voting for officers, like all other-school matters, was provided for, not under the general laws, but by the school statutes. There are two general elections in chartered cities and universal suffrage for school as well as all other officers; no preparation being required of voters but registration. In the rural districts school meetings are held for elections, and there are, by the statutes, three classes of voters described by law.

1. Every person (male or female) who is a resident of the district, of the age of twenty-one years, entitled to hold lands in this State, who either owns or hires real estate in the district liable to taxation for school purposes.

2. Every citizen of the United States (male or female) above the age of twenty-one years, who is a resident of the district, and who owns any personal property assessed on the last preceding assessment roll of the town exceeding $50 in value, exclusive of such as is exempt from execution.

3. Every citizen of the United States (male or female) above the age of twenty-one years, who is a resident of the district and who has permanently residing with him, or her, a child or children of school age, some one or more of whom shall have attended the school of the district for a period of at least eight weeks within the year preceding the time at which the vote is offered.

Several of the large cities hold their elections on the first Tuesday in March, while the majority of the rural districts hold their school meetings on the second Tuesday in October. Preparations were at once made to call out a large vote of women in the cities holding spring elections, but all such efforts were checked by official action. The mayor of Rochester wrote to the governor, asking him if the new law applied to cities. Mr. Cornell laid the question before Attorney-General Ward, who promptly gave an opinion that inasmuch as the words "school meeting" were used in the law, women could only vote where such meetings were held, but were not entitled to vote at the elections in large cities. Meantime the New York City Association called a meeting of congratulation on the passage of the bill on February 25, when Robinson Hall was crowded to overflowing with the friends of woman suffrage, some of whom addressed the vast audience.[238]

A mass-meeting of women was held at Albany, in Geological Hall, Mrs. Blake presiding. It was especially announced that the meeting was only for ladies, but several men who strayed in were permitted to remain, to take that part in the proceedings usually allowed to women in masculine assemblies, that is, to be silent spectators. Resolutions were passed, urging the women to vote at the coming election, and the names of several ladies were suggested as trustees. March 19, 1880, the Albany County Woman Suffrage Association[239] was formed, whose first active duty was to rouse the women to vote in the coming school election, which they did, in spite of the attorney-general's opinion.

Mr. Edwin G. Halbert of Broome also introduced a bill in the Senate, for a constitutional amendment, to secure to women the right of suffrage, which was passed by that conservative body just before its adjournment. Meantime Mr. Wilcox urged the passage of the bill to prohibit disfranchisement, which was brought to a third reading in the Assembly. He prepared and circulated among the members of the legislature a brief,[240] showing their power to extend the suffrage. The argument is unanswerable, establishing the fact that women had voted through the early days of the Colonies, and proving, by unanswerable authorities, their right to do so; thus establishing the right of women to vote in 1885. Mr. Wilcox' researches on this point will prove invaluable in the enfranchisement of woman, as his facts are irresistible. Following is the proposed bill:

An Act to Prohibit Disfranchisement.

Introduced in the Assembly by Hon. Alex. F. Andrews, March 31, 1880. Reported by the Judiciary Committee for consideration, May 24. Ordered to third reading, May 27. Again so reported, unanimously, March 16, 1881. Again ordered to third reading, May 3, 1881; ayes 60, noes 40. Vote on passage, May 11, 1881; ayes 59, noes 55, majority 4. (65 necessary to pass).

Whereas, the common law entitles women to vote under the same qualifications as men; and

Whereas, said common law has never been abrogated in this State; and

Whereas, a practice nevertheless obtains of treating as disfranchised all persons to whom suffrage is not secured by express words of the constitution; and

Whereas, the constitution makes no provision for this practice, but on the contrary declares that its own object is to secure the blessings of freedom to the people, and provides that no member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the privileges secured to any citizen unless by constitutional provision and judicial decision thereunder; and

Whereas, this practice, despite the want of authority therefor, has by continuance acquired the force of law; and

Whereas, many citizens object to this practice as a violation of the spirit and purpose of the constitution, as well as against justice and public policy; and

Whereas, the legislature has corrected this practice in repeated instances, its power to do so being in such instances fully recognized and exercised; therefore

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Section 1. Every woman shall be free to vote, under the qualifications required of men, or to refrain from voting, as she may choose; and no person shall be debarred, by reason of sex, from voting at any election, or at any town meeting, school meeting, or other choice of government functionaries whatsoever.

Sec. 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act, are hereby repealed.

Sec. 3. This act shall take effect immediately.

Various memorials were sent to the legislature in behalf of this bill, and a hearing was granted to its advocates.[241] The Assembly chamber in the beautiful new capitol was crowded as it had never been before. A large proportion of the senators and assemblymen were present, many of the judges from the various courts, while the governor and lieutenant-governor occupied prominent places, and large crowds of fashionable ladies and leading gentlemen filled the seats and galleries. The chairman of the committee, Hon. George L. Ferry, presided. The ladies were graciously received by the governor, who, at their request, gave them the pen with which he signed the bill providing "school suffrage for women," and in return they presented him a handsome gold-mounted pen, a gift from the City Society.

The first voting by women after the passage of the new law, was at Syracuse, February 17, only five days after the bill received the governor's signature, but the great body of women had not the opportunity until October. At that time in Fayetteville, the home of Matilda Joslyn Gage, women voted in large numbers; the three who had been placed upon the ticket, trustee, clerk and librarian were all elected. It was an hour of triumph for Mrs. Gage who was heartily congratulated upon the result. It was remarked that so quiet an election had seldom been known. At Middletown, Orange county, Dr. Lydia Sayre Hasbrook urged the women to take advantage of their new privilege, and when the day of election came, although it was cold and stormy, over 200 voted, and elected the entire ticket of women for trustees, Mrs. Hasbrook herself being chosen as one.

There were many places, however, where no women voted, for the reform had all the antagonisms and prejudices of custom to overcome. Many obstacles were thrown in the way to prevent them from exercising this right. The men of their families objecting, and misconstruing the law, kept them in doubt both as to their rights and duties. The clergy from their pulpits warned the women of their congregations not to vote, fathers forbade their daughters, husbands their wives. The wonder is that against such a pressure so many women did vote after all.

October 12, 1880, the elections took place in a large proportion of the eleven thousand school districts of the State, and the daily journals were full of items as to the result. We copy a few of these:

Lowville, Lewis County, Oct. 16, 1880.—The business meeting was held on the evening of the 12th, and was attended by twenty ladies. On the following day at 1 p.m., the election was held. The ladies had an independent ticket opposing the incumbent clerk and trustee. Seven voted. Four were challenged. They swore their votes in. Boys just turned twenty-one years of age voted unchallenged. The clerk, who is a young sprig of a lawyer, made himself conspicuous by challenging our votes. He first read the opinion of the State superintendent of public instruction, and said that the penalty for illegal voting was not less than six months' imprisonment. My vote was challenged, and although my husband is an owner of much real estate and cannot sell one foot of it without my consent, I could not vote.

From Penn Yan a woman writes:—About seventy ladies voted here, but none who did not either own or lease real estate. The argument so often used against woman suffrage—viz: that the first to avail themselves of the privilege would be those least qualified to do so, is directly refuted, in this town at least, since the ladies who voted are without doubt those who by natural ability and by culture are abundantly competent to vote intelligently as well as conscientiously.

A woman in Nunda writes:—Only six women attended the school meeting in the first district on the 12th, but over forty went to the polls on the 13th. Two women were on one of the tickets; the opposition ticket was made up entirely of males. We were supported by the best men in the village. The ticket bearing the names of Mrs. Fidelia J. M. Whitcomb, M. D., and Mrs. S. Augusta Herrick, was elected.

From Poland a woman writes:—Our school meeting was attended by about thirty men and two women. The population of the village is between three and four hundred. My neighbor and I were proud of the privilege of casting our first vote. There was nothing of special interest to call out voters, as our trustees are satisfactory to all. If circumstances required, there would be many women voters here.

David Hopkins and Gustave Dettloff were candidates for school trustee in district No. 1 of New Lots, Long Island, at the last election. Mr. Hopkins is a farmer and was seeking reËlection. Mr. Dettloff is connected with an insurance company in this city, and is a well-known resident of the town. The friends of Mr. Hopkins about an hour before the closing of the polls, perceived that there was danger of their candidate's defeat. A consultation was held, and it was decided to utilize the new law giving women the privilege of voting. Accordingly, several farm wagons were procured and sent through the district to gather in the farmers' wives and daughters. The wagons returned to the polls with 107 women, all of whom voted for Mr. Hopkins, thus saving him from defeat. It was too late to use a counter poison. The total number of votes cast was 329, Mr. Hopkins receiving eighty majority.

Port Jervis. Oct. 13.—The annual election of school trustees occurred to-day and was attended with unusual excitement. Eight hundred and thirty votes were polled, 150, for the women's ticket, the remainder being divided. Only fifty ladies voted, a great many being kept from the polls by the crowd of loafers standing around. The Protestant ticket, composed of three men, was elected. The election was held in a small room, and this was crowded with men who amused themselves by passing remarks about the ladies until the police were called in. Every lady who offered her vote was challenged and a great many left the polls in disgust. In Carpenter's Point and Sparrowbush, two suburbs of the village, the ladies voted and were not molested.

Only a few women voted on Tuesday evening at the election for school trustees in the first district of Southfield, Staten Island. When the poll was opened Judge John G. Vaughan, the retiring trustee, presided. A motion was made to reËlect him by acclamation. Amid great confusion Judge Vaughan put the motion and declared it carried. Then Officers Fitzgerald and Leary had to take charge of the meeting to preserve order, and Judge Vaughan's opponents withdrew, threatening proceedings to have the election declared invalid. Abram C. Wood was elected school trustee in the West New Brighton (S. I.) district by 69 majority, which included the votes of eight of eleven women present. Other women promised to vote if Mr. Wood needed their support. Mr. Robert B. Minturn presided.

Sing Sing, Oct. 13.—Five women voted at the school meeting last night.

Mount Morris, Oct. 13.—One hundred and twenty women voted at the school election here last evening.

Glen's Falls, Oct. 13.—I am informed that women did vote here and in the neighborhood last evening.

Perry, Oct. 13.—A large woman vote was cast here. Two women were elected members of the school-board.

Peekskill, Oct. 13.—Five women voted in one district.

Shelter Island, Oct. 13.—Women voted at our school meeting.

Coffin Summit, Oct. 15.—Six women voted at the school meeting here. A lady was nominated for trustee and received many votes, but was defeated.

Stamford, Oct. 15.—Four ladies voted at the school meeting.

Port Richmond, Oct. 15.—Six ladies attended the school meeting. The chairman, Mr. Sidney P. Ronason, made a speech, welcoming them, stating that an unsuccessful effort had been made by citizens to induce a leading lady to become a candidate for trustee; also, that Lester A. Scofield, the retiring trustee, would cheerfully give way if any competent lady would take his place. This Mr. Scofield confirmed, but, no lady being nominated, he was reËlected without opposition.

Baldwinville, Oct. 15.—Thirty-three ladies voted at the school election.

Lockport, Oct. 15.—Two Quaker ladies voted at the school meeting of the first district of this township. One of them, Dr. Sarah Lamb Cushing, was chosen tax-collector by 23 votes out of 26. On the entrance of the ladies, smoking and all disorder ceased, and the meeting was uncommonly well-conducted.

Lawton Station, Oct. 15.—Of the 16 votes cast at the school meeting here, 15 were given by women. A woman received the highest vote for school trustee, but withdrew in favor of one of the male candidates. The proceedings were enlivened with singing by the pupils under the direction of the teacher. Several improvements in the building were ordered at the instance of the ladies.

Knowlesville, Oct. 15.—Many women meant to vote at the school meeting, but a person went from house to house and threatened them with legal penalties if they did. Mrs. James Kernholtz was nominated for tax-collector at the meeting, but declined, saying the pay was too small. Miss Adelina Lockwood, being nominated for librarian, declined, but was elected by acclamation, amid great applause. The meeting was very large, but unusually orderly.

Flushing, Oct. 15.—Forty women voted at the school meeting here, and in the adjoining district.

Syracuse, Oct. 14, 1881.—At the Fayetteville, Onondaga county, school district election yesterday, a direct issue was made on the question of woman's rights. The candidate of the women was chosen. This is the women's second victory in that place, giving them control of the school-board.

A correspondent describing what the voters had to encounter, said:

Is the question asked, why have not more women voted? I answer, hundreds of women in this State were debarred by falsehood and intimidation. No sooner had the school suffrage law passed than the wildest statements about it were made. It was given out that the Governor had recalled the bill from the Secretary of State after signing it (which he could not do), and vetoed it; that the law was unconstitutional; that it was defective and inoperative; that it did not apply to cities and villages; that it had been repealed; and like untruths. Pains was taken to hide its existence by corrupt officials, who told the women that the law did not apply to the places where they lived, or who withheld the fact of its passage. The State was flooded just before the elections with an incorrect statement that only the rich women could vote; that the children's mothers could not unless they held real estate. The story was also set afloat that the attorney-general had indorsed this statement; which that gentleman promptly repudiated. All this we corrected as fast and as far as we could; but it unavoidably did much harm.

Wholesale hindrance and terrorism too, were used. A few samples are these: In Albany, many women were threatened by their own husbands with expulsion from house and home, imprisonment, bodily violence or death if they dared vote; while many others were deterred by insults and threats of social persecution. Many persons ridiculed and abused those who sought to vote. In some districts the inspectors refused to register qualified women, while in others votes were refused. Statements were widely published that the law did not apply to Albany. In Knowersville, the village teacher went to every house, and threatened the women with state-prison if they dared to vote. In Mount Morris, the president of the Board of Education denounced the ladies who induced others to vote. In Fayetteville, Saratoga and elsewhere, the ladies' request for some share in making the tickets was scornfully ignored. In Port Jervis, the Board of Education declined a hall that was offered, and had the election in a low, dirty little room. Smoke was puffed in the ladies' faces, challenges were frequent, and all sorts of impudent questions were asked of the voters. In Long Island City many ladies were challenged, and stones were thrown in the street at Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling, the lady who was most active in bringing out the new voters. In New Brighton, the village paper threatened the women with jail if they voted; and when a motion was made in one district that the ladies be invited to attend, a large negative vote was given, one man shouting, "We have enough of women at home; we don't want'em here!" At West New Brighton it was openly announced that the meeting should be too turbulent for ladies, insomuch that many who intended to go staid away, and the few who went were obliged to wait till all the men had voted. In Newham a gang of low fellows took possession of the polling place early, filled it with smoke of the worst tobacco, and covered the floor with tobacco juice; and through all this the few ladies who ventured to vote had to pass. In New York a man who claims to be a gentleman said: "If my wife undertook to vote I would trample her under my feet." In New Rochelle the school trustee told the women they were not entitled to vote, and tried to prevent a meeting being held to inform them. Clergymen from the pulpit urged women not to vote, and a mob gathered at the polls and blocked the way. These are but samples of the difficulties under which the new law went into operation; and it is the truth that there was as much bulldozing of voters in New York as ever in the South, though sometimes by other means.

In 1880 Mrs. Blake was sent by the New York society to the Republican and Democratic presidential conventions at Chicago and Cincinnati, and on her return a meeting was called in Republican Hall, July 9, to hear her report as to the comparative treatment received by the delegates in the two conventions. Soon afterwards a delegation of ladies[242] waited on Winfield S. Hancock, the Democratic nominee, who received them with much courtesy, saying he was quite willing to interpret, in its broadest sense, that clause of his letter of acceptance wherein he said: "It is only by a full vote and a fair count that the people can rule in fact, as required by the theory of our government." "I am willing, ladies," said the general, "to have you say that I believe in a free ballot for all the people of the United States, women as well as men."

Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Slocum and Mr. Wilcox made quite an extensive canvass through many counties of the State, to rouse the women to use their right to vote on all school matters.

The bill to prohibit disfranchisement was again introduced in the legislature of 1881, by Joseph M. Congdon, and ordered to a third reading May 3, by a vote of 60 to 40, and on May 11 came up for final action, when the ladies, by special courtesy, were admitted to the floor of the Assembly chamber to listen to the discussion. General Francis B. Spinola and General James W. Husted made earnest speeches in favor of the bill, and Hon. Erastus Brooks and General George A. Sharpe in opposition. The roll-call gave 57 ayes to 55 noes—a majority of those present, but not the majority (65) of all the members of the Assembly, which the constitution of New York requires for the final passage of a bill. The vote astonished the opponents, and placed the measure among the grave questions of the day. This substantial success inspired the friends to renewed efforts.[243]

The necessity of properly qualified women in the police stations again came up for consideration. The condition of unfortunate women nightly consigned to these places had long been set forth by the leaders of the suffrage movement. In New York there were thirty-two station-houses in which, from night to night, from five to forty women were lodged, some on criminal charges, some from extreme poverty. All there, young and old, were entirely in the hands of men, in sickness or distress. If search was to be made on charge of theft, it was always a male official who performed the duty. If the most delicate and refined lady were taken ill on the street, or injured in any way, she was liable to be taken to the nearest station, where the needful examinations to ascertain if life yet lingered must be made by men. In view of these facts, a resolution was again passed at the State convention, and request made to the police commissioners, to permit a delegation of ladies to meet with them in conference. The commissioners deigned no reply, but gave the letter to the press, whereupon ensued a storm of comment and ridicule.

On consultation with Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell, commissioner of the State Board of Charities, a bill was drawn up and sent to Albany, providing for the appointment of one or more police-matrons at every station-house in cities of 50,000 inhabitants and upwards, the salaries to be $600 each. Hon. J. C. Boyd presented the bill in the Senate, where it passed April 18. In the Assembly its passage was urged by Hon. Michael C. Murphy, chairman of the Committee on Cities. Meantime Mayor Grace and Comptroller Campbell entered their protest against the bill, declaring the measure ought to originate in the city departments, where there was full power to appoint police-matrons; also, that the proposed salaries would be a heavy drain upon the city treasury. The comptroller was at once informed of the previous application to the police commissioners, from whom no reply had been received, which virtually compelled appeal to the legislature. And as to salaries, it was suggested that there were now on the pay-roll of the police of New York 2,500 men whose salaries amounted to over $2,500,000, whereas the bill before the legislature asked for only sixty matrons, whose salaries would amount to but $36,000. This was certainly a most reasonable demand for the protection of one-half the people of the city, who paid fully half the indirect taxes as well as a fair proportion of the direct taxes. Finally, it was proposed to the comptroller that the bill should be withdrawn if he would recommend the appointment of police-matrons in the city departments. This was not accepted. The Committee on Cities gave a hearing to Mrs. Blake, and reported unanimously in favor of the bill. Public sentiment supported the measure, the press generally advocated it, and the Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 96 to 7; but it failed to receive the signature of the governor,—a most striking proof of the need of the ballot for women; since, friendly as he was to woman's enfranchisement, when he found the police department, with its thousands of attachÉs, all with votes in their hands, opposed, Governor Cornell was found wanting in courage and conscience to sign this bill for women who had no votes.[244] The next year application was again made to the city authorities for the appointment of matrons, but they refused to act. The bill was reÏntroduced in the legislature, passed by a large majority in the Assembly, but defeated in the Senate by the adverse report of the Committee on Cities. A mass-meeting to discuss this question of police-matrons was held in Steinway Hall, March 1, at which the speakers[B] all urged such appointments.

During the winter of 1882 an effort was made in New York city to secure the enforcement of the law enacted by the previous legislature, which provided that seats should be furnished for the "shop-girls." Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling caused the arrest of certain prominent shop-keepers on the charge of not complying with the law, but on coming to trial the suits were withdrawn on the promise of the delinquents to give seats to their employÉs.

During the winter of 1882 agitation for the higher education of women was renewed, and a society organized by some of the most influential ladies in the city. They rolled up a petition of 1,200, asking that Columbia College be opened to women. President Barnard had recommended this in his reports for three years. The agitation culminated in a grand meeting[245] in the new Union League Theater. Parke Godwin of the Evening Post presided. The audience was chiefly composed of fashionable ladies, whose equipages filled Thirty-eighth street blocks away, yet not a woman sat on the platform; not a woman's voice was heard; even the report of the society was read by a man, and every inspiration of the occasion was filtered through the brain of some man. Among other things, Mr. Godwin, son-in-law of the poet Bryant, said:

We speak of the higher education of women. Why not also of men? Because they already have the opportunity for obtaining it. The idea upon which our government is built is the idea of equal rights for all; and that means equal opportunities. Every society needs all the best intellect that it can get. We have many evil influences acting upon our society here, and we need the all-controlling influence of woman. We cannot fix a standard for her. History shows what she has done, in a Vespasia, Vittoria Colonna, De StaËl, Bremer, Evans, Somerville and Maria Mitchell. She does not go out of her sphere when she is so highly educated. She can darn her stockings just as well if she does know the word in half-a-dozen languages. There is no longer novelty in this movement; it has been tried successfully here and abroad in the universities, and always with success.

Addresses were also made by Rev. Dr. Stowe, Dr. William Draper, Joseph Choate, and others eminent in one way or another. The meeting closed by circulating a petition for presentation to the trustees of Columbia College, asking that properly qualified women be admitted to lectures and examinations.

The bill to prohibit disfranchisement on account of sex was again introduced in the Assembly by Hon. J. Hampden Robb, and referred to the Committee on Grievances, of which Major James Haggerty was chairman, who gave to it his hearty approval and granted two hearings to the officers of the State society, on behalf of the large number of memorialists who had sent in their petitions from all parts of the State. The women of Albany were indefatigable in their personal appeals to the different members of the Assembly, urging them to vote for the bill, while Major Haggerty was untiring in his advocacy of the measure. On May 3 there was an animated discussion:[246] the bill passed to its third reading by an overwhelming vote, which alarmed the opponents into making a thorough canvass, that proved to them the necessity of some decisive action for the defeat of the bill. The Hon. Erastas Brooks presented a resolution, calling on the attorney-general for his opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed law, which was passed in a moment of confusion, and when many of our friends were absent. Following is the opinion elicited:

State of New York. Office of the Attorney-General, }
Albany, May 10, 1882. }

To the Assembly:

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution of the Assembly requesting the attorney-general to report his opinion as to the constitutionality of Assembly bill No. 637, which provides that "every woman shall be free to vote under the qualifications required of men, or to refrain from voting, as she may choose; and no person shall be debarred by reason of sex from voting at any election, or at any town meeting, school meeting, or other choice of government functionaries whatsoever," and whether, without an amendment to the constitution, suffrage can be granted to any class of persons not named in the constitution. I reply:

First—It has been decided so often by the judicial tribunals of the various States of the Union, and by the Supreme Court of the United States, that suffrage is not a natural inherent right, but one governed by the law-making power and regulated by questions of availability and expediency, instead of absolute, inalienable right (1, 3), that the question is no longer open for discussion, either by the judicial forum or legislative assemblies (Burnham vs. Laning, 1 Legal Gazette Rep., 411, Supreme Court Penn.; Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162; Day vs. Jones, 31 California, 261; Anderson vs. Baker, 23 Maryland, 531; Abbott vs. Bayley, 6 Pickering, 92; 2 Dallas, 471-2; In re Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatchford, 200). At the common law women had no right to vote and no political status (2, 4) (Maine's Ancient Law, 140; Cooley's Const. Lim., 599; Blackstone's Comm., 171).

Second—Therefore the constitution of the State of New York, providing that every male citizen of the age of 21 years who shall have certain other qualifications, may vote, the determination of the organic law specifying who shall have the privilege of voting, excludes all other classes (5), such as women, persons under 21 years of age and aliens. The argument that, because women are not expressly prohibited, they may vote, fails to give the slightest force to the term "male" in the constitution; and by the same force of reasoning, the expression of the term "citizen" and the statement of the age of 21 years would not necessarily exclude aliens and those under 21 years of age from voting (6). Therefore, assuming that our organic law was properly adopted without the participation of women either in making or adopting it (7), that organic law controls.

Third—It follows, therefore, as a logical consequence that the proposed reform cannot be accomplished except by an amendment of the constitution ratified by two successive legislatures and the people, or by a constitutional convention, whose work shall be sanctioned by a vote of the people.

Leslie W. Russell, Attorney-General.[247]

Weak as was this document, and untenable as were its assertions, it had great weight with many of the members of the legislature coming as the opinion did from the attorney-general of the State. The friends of the bill resolved to call for the vote when the bill should be reached, and on May 16, the women were present in large numbers, listening with intense interest to the brief speeches of the members for and against, and watching and counting the vote as the roll-call proceeded, which resulted in 54 ayes and 59 noes, lacking three votes of a majority of those present and only eleven of the requisite number, sixty-five. In view of the official opinion against its constitutionality amounting to a legal decision, this was a most gratifying vote.[248][Pg 436]

The presence of Leslie W. Russell in Albany, as attorney-general, rendered it useless to reÏntroduce the bill to prohibit disfranchisement on account of sex in the legislature of 1883, but in its stead, Dr. John G. Boyd of New York introduced a proposition to strike "male" from the suffrage clause of the constitution, which, however, received only fifteen votes.

To pass from the State to the Church, the winter of 1883 was notable for the delivery of a series of Lenten lectures on woman by the Rev. Morgan Dix, D. D., rector of Trinity Church, New York, afterwards published in book form under the title, "The Calling of a Christian Woman and her Training to Fulfill it." The lectures were delivered each Friday evening during Lent, in Trinity Chapel, and at once attracted attention from their conservative, reÄctionary, almost monastic views of woman's position and duties.

After reading a report of one of these remarkable essays in which women were gravely told their highest happiness should be found in singing hymns, Mrs. Blake decided to reply to them. She secured a hall on Fourteenth street, and on successive Sunday evenings gave addresses in reply. Both courses of lectures were well attended. The moderate audiences of Trinity Chapel soon became a throng that more than filled the large building, while the hall in which Mrs. Blake spoke was packed to suffocation, hundreds going away unable to gain admittance. The press everywhere favored the broad and liberal views presented by Mrs. Blake, and denounced the old-time narrow theories of Dr. Dix. Mrs. Blake's lectures were also published in book form with the title of "Woman's Place To-day" and had a large circulation.

The Republicans again nominating Mr. Russell for attorney-general, an active campaign was organized against him and in favor of the Democratic nominee, Mr. Dennis O'Brien. Protests[249][Pg 437] against Russell were circulated throughout the State; Republican tickets were printed with the name of Denis O'Brien for attorney-general, and on election day women distributed these tickets, and made every possible effort to ensure the defeat of Russell; and he was defeated by 13,000 votes.

The legislature of 1884 showed a marked gain; Hon. Erastus Brooks, General George A. Sharpe, and other prominent opponents had been retired, and their seats filled by active friends. Our bill was introduced by Mr. William Howland of Cayuga, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Howland also secured the passage of a special act, granting women the right to vote at the charter elections of Union Springs, Cayuga county. Under similar enactments women have the right to vote for municipal officers in Dansville, Newport and other villages and towns in the State.

On March 11, 12, the annual meeting of the State society was held in the City Hall, Albany, with a good representation[250] from the National Convention at Washington, added to our own State speakers.[251] On the last evening there was an overflow meeting held in Geological Hall, presided over by Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage.

Governor Cleveland accorded the delegates a most courteous reception in his room in the capitol. A hearing was had before the Judiciary Committee March 13. The assembly-chamber was crowded. General Husted, chairman of the committee, presided, and Mrs. Blake, the president of the society, introduced the speakers.[252] A few days later the same committee gave a special hearing to Mrs. Gougar, who made the journey from Indiana to present the case. The committee reported adversely, but by the able tactics of General Husted, after an animated debate the bill was placed on the calendar by a vote of 66 to 62, and shortly after ordered to a third reading by a vote of 74 to 39. On May 8 the bill was reached for final action. Frederick B. Howe of New York was the principal opponent, trying to obstruct legislation by one and another pretext. General Husted took the floor in an able speech on the constitutionality of the bill, and the vote stood 57 ayes to 61 noes, lacking eight votes of the requisite 65.

While the right of suffrage is still denied, gains in personal and property rights have been granted:

In 1880, the law requiring the private acknowledgment by a married woman of her execution of deeds, or other written instruments, without the "fear or compulsion" of her husband, was abolished, leaving the wife to make, take and certify in the same manner as if she were a feme sole.

March 21, 1884, the penal code of the State was amended, raising the age of consent from ten to sixteen years, and also providing penalties[253] for inveigling or enticing any unmarried woman, under the age of twenty-five years, into a house of ill-fame or assignation.

Under the act of May 28, 1884, a married woman may contract to the same extent, with like effect and in the same form as if unmarried, and she and her separate estate shall be liable thereon, whether such contract relates to her separate business or estate, or otherwise, and in no case shall a charge upon her separate estate be necessary.

It is by court decisions that we most readily learn the legal status of married women, under the favorable legislation of the period covered by this History. While referring the reader to Abbott's Digest of New York Laws for full knowledge upon this point, we give a few of the more recent decisions as illustrating general legal opinion:

Troy, March 23, 1882.—The Court of Appeals decided that married women are the rightful owners of articles of personal adornment or convenience coming from husbands, and can bequeath them to their heirs. The court held that separate and personal possession by a wife of articles specially fitted for and adapted to her personal use, and differing in that respect from household goods kept for the common use of husband and wife, would draw after it a presumption of the executed gift if the property came from the husband, and of the wife's ownership, but for disabilities of the marital relations. Now that these disabilities are removed the separate existence and separate property of the wife are recognized, and her capacity to take and hold as her own the gift in good faith and fairly made to her by her husband established, it seemed to the court time to clothe her right with natural and proper attributes, and apply to the gift to her, although made by her husband, the general rules of law unmodified and unimpaired by the old disabilities of the marriage relations.

This decision was important as further destroying the old common-law theory of the husband's absolute ownership of his wife's person, property, services and earnings. The same year (1882) the Supreme Court, at its general term, rendered a decision that a married woman could sue her husband for damages for assault and battery; that by the act of 1860 the legislature intended to, and did, change the common-law rule, that a wife could not sue her husband. Judge Brady rendered the opinion, Judge Daniels concurring; Presiding Judge Noah Davis dissenting. Judge Brady said:

To allow the right (to sue) in an action of this character, in accordance with the language of the statute, would be to promote greater harmony by enlarging the rights of married women and increasing the obligations of husbands, by affording greater protection to the former, and by enforcing greater restraint upon the latter in the indulgence of their evil passions. The declaration of such a rule is not against the policy of the law. It is in harmony with it, and calculated to preserve peace and, in a great measure, prevent barbarous acts, acts of cruelty, regarded by mankind as inexcusable, contemptible, detestable. It is neither too early nor too late to promulgate the doctrine that if a husband commits an assault and battery upon his wife he may be held responsible civilly and criminally for the act, which is not only committed in violation of the laws of God and man, but in direct antagonism to the contract of marriage, its obligations, duties, responsibilities, and the very basis on which it rests. The rules of the common law on this subject have been dispelled, routed, and justly so, by the acts of 1860 and 1862. They are things of the past which have succumbed to more liberal and just views, like many other doctrines of the common law which could not stand the scrutiny and analysis of modern civilization.

The utter insecurity of woman without the ballot is shown in the reversal of this decision within a few months, by the Court of Appeals, on the ground that it would be "contrary to the policy of the law, and destructive to the conjugal union and tranquility which it had always been the object of the law to guard and protect." Could satire go farther? We record with satisfaction the fact that Judge Danforth uttered a strong dissenting opinion.

The friends of woman suffrage in the legislature of 1884 secured the passage of a bill empowering women to vote on all questions of taxation submitted to a popular vote in the village of Union Springs. Governor Cleveland was urged to veto it; but after hearing all the objections he signed the bill and it became a law.

At Clinton, Oneida county, twenty-two women voted on June 21, 1884, at an election on the question of establishing water-works. Eight voted for the tax, fourteen against it. Fifteen other women appeared at the polls, but were excluded from voting because, though they were real-estate tax-payers, the assessor had left their names off the tax-roll. Judge Theodore W. Dwight, president of the Columbia Law School, pronounced women tax-payers entitled to vote under the general water-works act, and therefore that the election-officials violated the law in refusing to accept the votes of the women whose names were omitted from the assessors' tax-list.

In 1879, there was a report of the committee to allow widows an active voice in the settlement of the family estate and to have the sole guardianship of minor children. A petition in favor of the bill had upon it the names of such well-known men as Peter Cooper, George William Curtis, Henry Bergh and J. W. Simonton.

September 13, 1879, Mrs. MacDonald of Boston argued her own case before the United States Circuit Court in New York city, in a patent suit. It was a marked event in court circles, she being the first lady pleader that ever appeared in that court, and the second woman who ever argued a case in this State. Anne Bradstreet was for years a marked character in Albany courts, but her claims for justice were regarded as an amusing lunacy.

In 1880, Governor Cornell appointed Miss Carpenter on the State Board of Charities.

In the suit of Mr. Edward Jones to recover $860 which he alleged he had loaned to the Rev. Anna Oliver for the Willoughby Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, Brooklyn, of which she was pastor, a verdict for the defendant was rendered. Miss Oliver addressed the following letter to the court:

To his Honor, the Judge, the Intelligent Jury, the Lawyers and all who are engaged in the case of Jones vs. Oliver:

Gentlemen:—Thanking you for the politeness, the courtesy, the chivalry even, that has been shown me to-day, allow me to make of you the following request: Please sit down at your earliest leisure, and endeavor to realize in imagination how you would feel if you were sued by a woman, and the case was brought before a court composed entirely of women; the judge a woman; every member of the jury a woman; women to read the oath to you, and hold the Bible, and every lawyer a woman. Further, your case to be tried under laws framed entirely by women, in which neither you nor any man had ever been allowed a voice. Somewhat as you would feel under such circumstances, you may be assured, on reading this, I have felt during the trial to-day. Perhaps the women would be lenient to you (the sexes do favor each other), but would you be satisfied? Would you feel that such an arrangement was exactly the just and fair thing? If you would not, I ask you on the principle of the Golden Rule, to use your influence for the enfranchisement of women.

New York, 1881.

Mrs. Roebling, wife of the engineer in charge of the construction of the marvelous Brooklyn bridge, made the patterns for various necessary shapes of iron and steel such as no mills were making, after her husband and other engineers had for weeks puzzled their brains over the difficulties.

When Frank Leslie died, his printing-house was involved, and Mrs. Leslie undertook to redeem it, which she did, and in a very short time. Speaking of it she says:

"I had the property in reach, and the assignees were ready to turn it over to me, but to get it, it was necessary for me to raise $50,000, I borrowed it from a woman. How happy I was when she signed the check, and how beautiful it seemed to me to see one woman helping another. I borrowed the money in June, and was to make the first payment of $5,000, on the 1st of November. On the 29th of October I paid the $50,000 with interest. From June to the 29th of October, I made $50,000 clear. I had also to pay $30,000 to the creditors who did not come under the contract. While I was paying this $80,000 of my husband's debts, I spent but $30 for myself, except for my board. I lived in a little attic room, without a carpet, and the window was so high that I could not get a glimpse of the sky unless I stood on a chair and looked out. When I had paid the debts and raised a monument to my husband, then I said to myself, 'now for a great big pair of diamond earrings,' and away I went to Europe, and here are the diamonds." The diamonds are perfect matches, twenty-seven carats in weight, and are nearly as large as nickles.

In Lansingburgh the women tax-payers offered their ballots and were repulsed, as follows:

September 2, 1885, the special election of the taxable inhabitants of the village of Lansingburgh took place, to vote upon a proposition to raise by tax the sum of $15,000 for water-works purposes. The measure was voted by 102 for it to 46 against. But a small amount of interest was manifested in the election. Several women tax-payers offered their votes, but the inspectors would not receive them, and the matter will be contested in the courts. The call for the election asked for an expression from "the taxable inhabitants," and women tax-payers in the 'burgh claim under the law their rights must be recognized. Lansingburgh inspectors have on numerous occasions refused to receive the ballots thus tendered, and the women have lost patience. They are to employ the best of counsel and settle the question at as early a day as possible. Women pay tax upon $367,394 of the property within the village boundaries, and they believe that they, to the number of 317 at least, are entitled to votes on all questions involving a monetary expenditure. In Saratoga, Clinton, and a number of other places in this State, where elections in relation to water-works have taken place, it has been held by legal authority that women property owners have a right to vote, and they have voted accordingly the same as other tax-payers.

In regard to recent efforts to secure legislation favorable to women, Mr. Wilcox writes:

The impression that the School Act, passed in 1880, did not apply to cities, led to the introduction by the Hon. Charles S. Baker of Rochester, of a bill covering cities. A test vote showed the Assembly practically unanimous for it, but it was referred to the Judiciary Committee to examine its constitutionality. The chairman, Hon. Geo. L. Ferry, and other members, asked me to look up the point and inform the committee, supposing a constitutional amendment needful. When the point was made on this bill, I for the first time closely examined the constitution, and finding there was nought to prevent the legislature enfranchising anyone, promptly apprised the committee of the discovery. The acting-chairman, Major Wm. D. Brennan, requested me to furnish the committee a legal brief on the matter. This (Feb. 19, 1880) I did, and arranged a public hearing before them in the assembly-chamber, which was attended by Governor Cornell, Lieutenant-Governor Hoskins, many senators, assemblymen, and State officers; at which Mrs. Blake, the sainted Helen M. Slocum and Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon were the speakers. From that year to the present there has been a "Bill to Prohibit Disfranchisement" before each legislature. In 1881, it was carried to a majority vote in the Assembly. In 1883, two-thirds of the Assembly were ready to pass the bill when the attorney-general declared it unconstitutional. In 1884, Governor Cleveland had approved two suffrage acts, and promised to sign all the friends could carry. In 1885, growing tired of the senseless clamor of "unconstitutionality," I resolved to show how little law the clamorers knew. To the knowledge gained by five years' discussion, I added that obtained by several months' research in the State Library at Albany, that of the New York Bar Association, those of the New York Law Institute and Columbia College, and elsewhere. The result was the publication of "Cases of the Legislature's Power over Suffrage," wherein it was shown, condensed from a great number of authorities, that all classes have received suffrage, not from the constitution but from the legislature, and that the latter has exercised the power of extending suffrage in hundreds of cases. This document received high praise from General James W. Husted and Major James Haggerty, who have manfully championed our bills in the Assembly, General Husted reading from it in his speech and it was signally sanctioned by the Assembly which, after being supplied with copies, voted down by more than three to one a motion to substitute a constitutional amendment.

But while working at this document, I was fortunate enough to make a still greater discovery—that portions of statute law which formerly prevented women's voting were repealed long since; that the constitution and statutes in their present shape secure women the legal right to vote.

February 19, 1885, a hearing was granted to Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Rogers and Mrs. Blake in the assembly-chamber before the Committee on Grievances, on the "Bill to Prohibit Disfranchisement." The splendid auditorium was crowded for two hours, and members of the committee lingered a long time after the audience had dispersed to discuss the whole question still further with the speakers. On the next day Mrs. Mary Seymour Howell and Governor John W. Hoyt of Wyoming Territory had a second hearing. The committee reported for consideration. When the bill came up for a third reading, General Martin L. Curtis of St. Lawrence moved that it be sent to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to substitute a constitutional amendment; lost, ayes 25, noes 75; carried to a third reading by viva voce vote. The vote on the final passage was, ayes 57, noes 56; the constitutional majority in this State being 65 of the 128 members, it was lost by eight votes. Of the 73 Republicans, 29 voted for the bill; of the 55 Democrats, 28 voted for the bill, showing that more than half the Democratic vote was in favor, and only two-fifths of the Republican; thus our defeat was due to the Republican party.

Thus stands the question of woman suffrage in the Empire State to-day, where women are in the majority.[254] After long years of unremitting efforts who can read this chapter of woman's faith and patience, under such oft-repeated disappointments, but with pity for her humiliations and admiration for her courage and persistence. For nearly half a century the petitions, the appeals, the arguments of the women of New York have been before the legislature for consideration, and the trivial concessions of justice thus far wrung from our rulers bear no proportion to the prolonged labors we have gone through to achieve them.