The decision has not been officially reported, but upon the record of the Court, of which we have an authentic copy, it is thus stated: "Upon the presentation of this application, the chief-justice said that notice of this application having been previously brought to his attention, he had been instructed by the Court to announce the following decision upon it: By the uniform practice of the Court from its organization to the present time, and by the fair construction of its rules, none but men are permitted to practice before it as attorneys and counsellors. This is in accordance with immemorial usages in England, and the law and the practice in all the States until within a recent period, and the Court does not feel called upon to make a change until such change is required by statute or a more extended practice in the highest Courts of the States." The subsequent act of congress of February 15, 1879, enables only those women to be admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States who have been for three years members of the bar of the highest Court of a State or territory, or of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

The conclusion that women cannot be admitted to the bar under the existing statutes of the commonwealth is in accordance with judgments of the highest Courts of the States of Illinois and Wisconsin. Bradwell's Case, 55 Ill., 525. Goodell's Case, 39 Wis., 232. The suggestion in the brief of the petitioner that women have been admitted in other States can have no weight here, in the absence of all evidence that (except under clear affirmative words in a statute) they have ever been so admitted upon deliberate consideration of the question involved, or by a Court whose decisions are authoritative.

It is hardly necessary to add that our duty is limited to declaring the law as it is, and that whether any change in that law would be wise or expedient is a question for the legislative and not for the judicial department of the government.

Petition dismissed. MARCUS MORTON, Chief-Justice,

[Signed:] CHARLES DEVENS, WILLIAM E. ENDICOTT, WILLIAM ALLEN, OTIS P. LORD, CHARLES ALLEN, WALBRIDGE A. FIELD.

The three preceding decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts against the rights of the women of the commonwealth were as follows:

The first decision was in the case of Sarah E. Wall of Worcester, who had refused to pay her taxes under the following protest:

Believing with the immortal Declaration of Independence that taxation and representation are inseparable; believing that the constitution of the State furnishes no authority for the taxation of woman; believing also that the constitution of the higher law of God, written on the human soul, requires us, if we would be worthy the rich inheritance of the past and true to ourselves and the future, to yield obedience to no statute that shall tend to fetter its aspirations, I shall henceforth pay no taxes until the word male is stricken from the voting clauses of the constitution of Massachusetts.

Worcester Daily Spy, October 5, 1858. SARAH E. WALL.

Miss Wall was prosecuted by the city collector, and she carried her case before the Supreme Court, where she appeared for herself, W. A. Williams appearing for the collector. In an account of this matter in 1881, Miss Wall says: "Although it was in 1858 that my resistance to taxation commenced, it was not until 1863 that the contest terminated and the decision was rendered. I think the Supreme Court would always find some way to evade a decision on this question."

Wheeler vs. Wall, 6 Allen, 558: By the constitution of Massachusetts, c. 1, Sec. 1, article 4, the legislature has power to impose taxes upon all the inhabitants of and persons resident, and estates lying within the said commonwealth. By the laws passed by the legislature in pursuance of this power and authority, the defendant is liable to taxation, although she is not qualified to vote for the officers by whom the taxes were assessed. The Court, acting under the constitution, and bound to support it and maintain its provisions faithfully, cannot declare null and void a statute which has been passed by the legislature, in pursuance of an express authority conferred by the constitution.—[Opinion by the chief-justice, George Tyler Bigelow.

The second decision on the will of Francis Jackson is copied verbatim from Allen's Reports:

Jackson vs. Phillips and others, 14 Allen, 539: A bequest to trustees, to be expended at their discretion, * * * * "to secure the passage of laws granting whether women, married or unmarried, the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men," is not a charity.

Bill in equity by the executor of the will of Francis Jackson of Boston, for instructions as to the validity and effect of the following bequests and devises:

Art. 6th. "I give and bequeath to Wendell Phillips of said Boston, Lucy Stone, formerly of Brookfield, Mass., now the wife of Henry Blackwell of New York, and Susan B. Anthony of Rochester, N. Y., their successors and assigns, $5,000, not for their own use, but in trust, nevertheless, to be expended by them without any responsibility to any one, at their discretion, in such sums, at such times and in such places as they may deem fit, to secure the passage of laws granting women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men; and for the preparation and circulation of books, the delivery of lectures, and such other means as they may judge best; and I hereby constitute them a board of trustees for that intent and purpose, with power to add two other persons to said board if they deem it expedient. And I hereby appoint Wendell Phillips president and treasurer, and Susan B. Anthony secretary of said board. I direct the treasurer of said board not to loan any part of said bequest, but to invest, and, if need be, sell and reinvest the same in bank or railroad shares, at his discretion. I further authorize and request said board of trustees, the survivor and survivors of them, to fill any and all vacancies that may occur from time to time by death or resignation of any member or any officer of said board. One other bequest, hereinafter made, will, sooner or later, revert to this board of trustees. My desire is that they may become a permanent organization, until the rights of women shall be established equal with those of men; and I hope and trust that said board will receive the services and sympathy, the donations and bequests, of the friends of human rights. And being desirous that said board should have the immediate benefit of said bequest, without waiting for my exit, I have already paid it in advance and in full to said Phillips, the treasurer of said board, whose receipt therefor is on my files."

OPINION.—Gray, J. IV. It is quite clear that the bequest in trust to be expended "to secure the passage of laws granting women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men," cannot be sustained as a charity. No precedent has been cited in its support. This bequest differs from the others, in aiming directly and exclusively to change the laws; and its object cannot be accomplished without changing the constitution also. Whether such an alteration of the existing laws and frame of government would be wise and desirable, is a question upon which we cannot, sitting in a judicial capacity, properly express any opinion. Our duty is limited to expounding the laws as they stand. And those laws do not recognize the purpose of overthrowing or changing them, in whole or in part, as a charitable use. This bequest, therefore, not being for a charitable purpose, nor for the benefit of any particular persons, and being unrestricted in point of time, is inoperative and void. For the same reason, the gift to the same object, of one-third of the residue of the testator's estate after the death of his daughter, Mrs. Eddy, and her daughter, Mrs. Bacon, is also invalid, and will go to his heirs-at-law as a resulting trust.

Decision third was on the right of women to hold judicial offices. To quote again from Allen's Reports:

On June 8, 1871, the following order was passed by the governor and council, and on June 10 transmitted to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, who, on June 29, returned the reply which is annexed. Ordered, That the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court be requested as to the following questions: First—Under the constitution of this commonwealth, can a woman, if duly appointed and qualified as a justice of the peace, legally perform all acts appertaining to that office? Second—Under the laws of this commonwealth, would oaths and acknowledgments of deeds, taken before a married or unmarried woman duly appointed and qualified as a justice of the peace, be legal and valid?

OPINION.—By the constitution of the commonwealth, the office of justice of the peace is a judicial office, and must be exercised by the officer in person, and a woman, whether married or unmarried, cannot be appointed to such an office. The law of Massachusetts at the time of the adoption of the constitution, the whole frame and purport of the instrument itself, and the universal understanding and unbroken practical construction for the greater part of a century afterwards, all support this conclusion, and are inconsistent with any other. It follows that, if a woman should be formally appointed and commissioned as a justice of the peace, she would have no constitutional or legal authority to exercise any of the functions appertaining to that office. Each of the questions proposed must, therefore, be respectfully answered in the negative.

[Signed:] REUBEN A. CHAPMAN, HORACE GRAY, JR., JOHN WELLS, JAMES D. COLT, SETH AMES, MARCUS MORTON.

Boston, June 29, 1871.

It is to be remarked that the clause on which the court determined its judgment was of no practical consequence, since the money devised had already been paid to Wendell Phillips, who had disposed of it as the bequest required, and he had given his receipt to the testator for the amount.

Even the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has begun to understand the trend of the woman's rights movement, and has rendered its first favorable decision, in the famous Eddy-will case. Wendell Phillips told me that he drew up this will, and that its provisions were so carefully worded, that even the Supreme Court could find no flaw in it. It is in his own hand-writing, and Chandler R. Ransom was the executor. Eliza F. Eddy was the daughter of Francis Jackson, and just before her death in 1882, desiring to help the suffrage cause and thus carry out her father's intentions, she made her will in which she bequeathed $40,000 for this purpose. The clause relating to this bequest is as follows:

Whatever is left, after paying the above legacies, I direct shall be divided into equal portions. One of said portions I leave to Susan B. Anthony of Rochester, N. Y.; and the other portion I leave to Lucy Stone, wife of Henry B. Blackwell, as her own absolute separate property, free from any control by him. I request said Susan and Lucy to use said fund thus given to further what is called the "Woman's Rights' Cause"; but neither of them is under any legal responsibility to any one or any court to do so.

Her will was filed and the Probate Court declared its validity. This decision was appealed from for several unimportant reasons by relatives of Mrs. Eddy, Francis W. and Jerome A. Bacon, minors; and the case was carried to the Supreme Judicial Court. After many delays it was finally decided in favor of the validity of the will, March, 1885, R. M. Morse, jr., and S. J. Elder for the plaintiff, and B. F. Butler and F. L. Washburn for the defendants. The court's final decision, rendered by Hon. Charles Devens, is as follows:

ALBERT F. BACON and others, executors and others vs. CHANDLER R. RANSOM, executor, and others.

Suffolk. March 18, 19, 1885. W. ALLEN, COLBURN AND HOLMES, Js., absent.

After a bequest in trust to A. and B., to be by them expended in securing the passage of laws granting women the right to vote, had been decreed void as not being a charity, a daughter of the testator bequeathed the residue of her estate (being about the amount she had received from her father's estate) to A. and B. "as their absolute property"; and added: "I request said A. and B. to use said fund thus given to further what is called the Woman's Rights Cause. But neither of them is under any legal responsibility to any one or any court to do so." Held, that the bequest was valid, and did not create a trust.

Bill in equity by the executors of the will of Lizzie F. Bacon, and certain legatees thereunder, against the executor of the will of Eliza F. Eddy, Lucy Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, and other legatees thereunder, and the attorney-general, to compel the executor of said Eddy's will to pay over to the plaintiffs the residue of her estate. The bill alleged the following facts:

Francis Jackson, the father of said Eliza F. Eddy, died in 1861, leaving a will, by the sixth article of which he gave $5,000 to Wendell Phillips, Lucy Stone Blackwell and Susan B. Anthony, in trust, "to be expended by them without any responsibility to any one, at their discretion, in such sums, at such times, and in such places as they may deem fit, to secure the passage of laws granting women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men; and for the preparation and circulation of books, the delivery of lectures, and such other means as they may judge best." By the eighth article he gave one-third of the residue to a trustee, to pay the income to his daughter, Eliza F. Eddy, during her life, and upon her death one-half of the income to the trustees and on the trusts named in the sixth article, and the other half to Mrs. Eddy's daughter, Mrs. Lizzie F. Bacon, during her life, and, on the death of Mrs. Bacon, the principal to the trustees and on the trusts named in the sixth article.

It was held by this court that these bequests were not a charity (see Jackson vs. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539).

In consequence of this decision, certain agreements, releases, and a partition were made, by which one-third of the residue of Mr. Jackson's estate became the property of Mrs. Eddy, subject to being held in trust for herself for life, and thereafter, as to one-half, for her daughter, Mrs. Bacon, during her life. Mrs. Eddy died December 29, 1881, leaving a will by which she gave absolute legacies to the amount of $24,500 to various persons therein named. This disposed of all her estate except what came to her from her father's estate. Her will then provided as follows:

"What is left, after paying the above legacies, I direct shall be divided into two equal portions; one of said portions I leave to Miss Susan B. Anthony of Rochester, in the State of New York, as her absolute property, and the other portion I leave to Lucy Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell, as her own absolute and separate property, free from any control of him. I request said Susan and Lucy to use said fund thus given to further what is called the woman's rights cause; but neither of them is under any legal responsibility to any one or any court to do so."

The will further alleged that this residue was substantially the estate received from Francis Jackson; that the will was intended by the testatrix to defeat the decision of this court, before mentioned; that the testatrix had no personal acquaintance with Lucy Stone or Susan B. Anthony; that said gift was intended as a gift in perpetuam to the said cause, and was, without limit of time, upon trust in favor of said cause; and that said cause was not a charity within the meaning of the law, and was null and void.

The defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity. The case was heard by C. Allen, J., on the bill and demurrer, and a decree was entered sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill. The plaintiffs appealed to the full court.

R. M. MORSE, Jr., and S. J. ELDER, for the plaintiffs.

B. F. BUTLER and F. L. WASHBURN, for the defendants.

Judge CHARLES DEVENS. The fact that the respective portions of the estate bequeathed by Mrs. Eddy to Mrs. Stone and Miss Anthony were in amount equal to-or precisely the same as those which came to her by descent from her father, Francis Jackson, is not of importance in the case at bar. It had been held in Jackson vs. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, that a certain bequest made by Mr. Jackson in trust was not, legally speaking, a public charity, and that it could not therefore pass to the beneficiaries named in his will. The property which he thus attempted to bequeath descended therefore to his legal representatives, of whom Mrs. Eddy was one. She received it with the same right to deal with it or dispose of it in her lifetime, or by will at her decease, that she had in any other estate which was her lawful property.

The bill alleges "that said will was intended by the testatrix to defeat the decision of the court, before mentioned; that the testatrix had no personal acquaintance with Lucy Stone or Susan B. Anthony; that said gift was intended as a gift in perpetuam to the said cause." But if Mrs. Eddy has complied with the rules of law in the disposition of her property, even if she has hoped thereby to attain the same object as that desired by her father, the decision referred to is not defeated, but is recognized and conformed to; and, whatever her intention may have been, her bequest is to be upheld.

Her gift to her beneficiaries is absolute in terms. They may do what they will with the property bequeathed to them, as they may with any other property which is lawfully their own. It is true that the gift is accompanied by a request that they will use the fund bequeathed "to further what is called the woman's rights cause." A request made by one who has the right to direct is often, perhaps generally, interpreted as a command. For this reason, recommendatory or precatory words used in a bequest are frequently treated as an express direction. Thus, if a legacy were given to A., with a request that out of the sum bequeathed he would pay to another a certain sum, or a portion thereof, it might well be construed as a legacy, to the amount named, to such person. The expression of the desire of the testator would be the expression of his will, and the words in form recommendatory would be held to be mandatory and imperative. Where such words are used, it is therefore a question of the fair construction to be attributed to them (Whipple vs. Adams, 1 Met., 444; Warner vs. Bates, 98 Mass., 274; Spooner vs. Lovejoy, 108 Mass., 529).

But the testatrix in the case at bar has left nothing to construction. Apparently aware that a request, where she had a right to direct, might be treated as a command, and desirous to make it entirely clear that no restraint or duty in any legal sense was imposed upon her legatees, and that the request of the will was such in the limited sense of the word only, and in no respect mandatory, she adds thereto, referring to the legatees, "But neither of them is under any legal responsibility to any one or to any court to do so." Each of the legatees is therefore the sole judge of whether she will follow, or how far or in what way she will follow, the suggestion of the testatrix in the disposition of the estate absolutely bequeathed to her. It is a matter in which she is to be guided only by her judgment and conscience, and no trust is imposed upon the property she receives.

As no trust is created, it would be superfluous to consider whether, if the request of the testatrix were treated as a command, one would then be indicated capable of enforcement according to the rules of law.

Bill dismissed. [Signed:] MARCUS MORTON, Chief-Justice,

WALBRIDGE ABNER FIELD, CHARLES DEVENS, WILLIAM ALLEN, CHARLES ALLEN, WALDO COBURN, OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, Jr.

* * * * *

From these decisions our daughters should learn the importance of having some knowledge of law. Had not Mrs. Eddy learned from experience in her father's case that property could not be left in trust to any societies except those called religious and charitable, and made her bequest absolutely to persons, the gift of $56,000 would have been lost to the woman suffrage movement. As it was, nearly $10,000 was swallowed up in litigation to secure what the donees did finally obtain. Considering that Mrs. Eddy[157] is the only woman who has ever had both the desire and the power to make a large bequest to this cause, its friends have great reason to rejoice in her wisdom as well as her generosity.

Civilization would have been immeasurably farther advanced than it now is, had the many rich women, who have left large bequests to churches, and colleges for boys, concentrated their wealth and influence on the education, elevation and enfranchisement of their own sex. We trust that Mrs. Eddy's example may not be lost on the coming generation of women.—[EDITORS.

FOOTNOTES:

[104] For details of early history see vol. I., chap. viii. See also "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement," Roberts Bros., Boston.

[105] As an original question, no friend of woman suffrage can deny that it was a mean thing to put the word "male" into the fourteenth amendment. It was, doubtless, wise to adopt that amendment. It was an extension of the right of suffrage, and so far in the line of American progress, yet it was also an implied denial of the suffrage to women.—[Warrington in the Springfield Republican.

[106] See Vol. II., page 178.

[107] John Neal came from Maine; Nathaniel and Armenia White from New Hampshire; Isabella Hooker from Connecticut; Thomas W. Higginson from Rhode Island; and John G. Whittier, Samuel May, jr., Gilbert Haven, John T. Sargent, Frank W. Bird, Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, William S. Robinson, Stephen and Abby Kelley Foster, with a host of others, from Massachusetts. Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell, who then lived in New Jersey, were also among the speakers.

[108] In giving an account of her efforts in this direction she says: "After my return from Kansas in 1867, I felt that we ought to do something for the cause in Massachusetts. There was at that time no organization in the State, and there had been no revival of the subject in the minds of the people since the war, which had swallowed up every other interest. In the spring of 1868, I wrote to Abby Kelley Foster, telling her my wish to have something done in our own State, and she advised me to call together a few persons known to be in favor of suffrage, some day during anniversary week, in some parlor in Boston. I corresponded with Adin Ballou, E. D. Draper, and others, on the subject, and talked the matter over with Prof. T. T. Leonard, teacher of elocution, who offered his hall for a place of meeting. I wrote a notice inviting all persons interested in woman suffrage to come to Mr. Leonard's hall, on a certain day and hour. At the time appointed the hall was full of people. I opened the meeting, and stated why I had called it; others took up the theme, and we had a lively meeting. All agreed that something should be done, and a committee of seven was appointed to call a convention for the purpose of organizing a woman suffrage association. Caroline M. Severance, Stephen S. Foster, Sarah Southwick and myself, were of this committee. We held a number of meetings and finally decided to call a convention early in the autumn of 1868. This convention was held in Horticultural Hall, and the result was the organization of the New England Woman Suffrage Association."

[109] President, Julia Ward Howe; Vice-presidents, William Lloyd Garrison, Boston; Paulina W. Davis, Providence, R. I.; James Freeman Clarke, Boston; Sarah Shaw Russell, Boston; Neil Dow, Me.; Lucy Goddard, Boston; Samuel E. Sewall, Melrose; Lidian Emerson, Concord; John Hooker, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Hartford, Ct.; Harriot K. Hunt, Boston; James Hutchinson, jr., West Randolph, Vt.; Armenia S. White, Concord, N. H.; Louisa M. Alcott, Concord; L. Maria Child, Wayland; John Weiss, Watertown. Corresponding Secretary, Sara Clark, Boston. Recording Secretary, Charles K. Whipple, Boston. Treasurer, E. D. Draper, Boston. Executive Committee: Lucy Stone, Newark, N. J.; T. W. Higginson, Newport, R. I.; Caroline M. Severance, West Newton; Francis W. Bird, East Walpole; Mary E. Sargent, Boston; Nathaniel White, Concord, N. H.; Richard P. Hallowell, Boston; Stephen S. Foster, Worcester; Sarah H. Southwick, Grantville; Rowland Connor, Boston; B. F. Bowles, Cambridge; George H. Vibbert, Rockport; Olympia Brown, Weymouth; Samuel May, jr., Leicester; Nina Moore, Hyde Park.

[110] Ednah D. Cheney, Rev. C. A. Bartol, Rev. F. E. Abbot, Rev. Phoebe Hanaford and Hon. George F. Hoar.

[111] For report of American Association see Vol. II., page 756.

[112] Lucy Stone, Mary A. Livermore, Stephen S. and Abby Kelley Foster, H. B. Blackwell, Rev. W. H. Channing, Rev. J. F. Clarke, Rev. Gilbert Haven, Julia Ward Howe and Elizabeth K. Churchill made eloquent speeches.

The first board of officers of the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association was: President, Julia Ward Howe. Vice-presidents: William Lloyd Garrison, Roxbury; Anne B. Earle, Worcester; John G. Whittier, Amesbury; Lidian Emerson. Concord; Hon. Robert C. Pitman, New Bedford; Mrs. Richmond Kingman, Cummington; Rev. R. B. Stratton, Worcester; Edna D. Cheney, Jamaica Plain; Hon. Isaac Ames, Haverhill; Sarah Shaw Ames, Boston; J. Ingersoll Bowditch, West Roxbury; Lydia Maria Child, Wayland; Mary Dewey, Sheffield; Hon. George F. Hoar, Worcester; Sarah Grimke, Hyde Park; Sarah R. Hathaway, Boston; William I. Bowditch, Boston; Harriot K. Hunt, M. D., Boston; Hon. Samuel E. Sewall, Melrose; A. Bronson Alcott, Concord; Angelina G. Weld, Hyde Park; Hon. Henry Wilson, Natick; Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Boston; Charlotte A. Joy, Mendon; Jacob M. Manning, D. D., Lucy Sewall, M. D., Boston; Rev. Joseph May, Newburyport; Maria Zakrzewska, M. D., Roxbury; Rev. William B. Wright, Boston; Rev. Jesse H. Jones, Natick; Phoebe A. Hanaford, Reading; Seth Hunt, Northampton: Maria S. Porter, Melrose. Executive Committee: Rev. Rowland Connor, Boston; Caroline M. Severance, West Newton; Rev. W. H. H. Murray, Boston; Gordon M. Fiske, Palmer; Sarah A. Vibbert, Rockport; Rev. Gilbert Haven, Maiden; Caroline Remond Putman, Salem; Frank B. Sanborn, Springfield; Mercy B. Jackson, M. D., Boston; Samuel May, jr., Leicester; Margaret W. Campbell, Springfield; Rev. C. M. Wines, Brookline; Mary A. Livermore, Melrose; William S. Robinson, Maiden; Henry B. Blackwell, Boston; Lucy Stone, Boston; S. S. Foster, Worcester; Mrs. Wilcox, Worcester; Ada R. Bowles, Cambridge. Corresponding Secretary, Nina Moore, Hyde Park. Recording Secretary, Charles C. Whipple, Boston. Treasurer, E. D. Draper, Hopedale.

[113] Mary F. Eastman, Ada C. Bowles, Lorenza Haynes, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Hulda B. Loud, Matilda Hindman and other agents in the lecture field have also done a great deal of missionary work.

[114] The committee of arrangements were Mrs. Isaac Ames, Harriet H. Robinson, Sarah B. Otis, Philip Wheeler, Jane Tenney, Mrs. A. A. Fellows, Mrs. Jackson, Miss Talbot and Miss Halsey.

The speakers were: Wendell Phillips, Mary A. Livermore, Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret W. Campbell, Mary F. Eastman, Henry B. Blackwell, Lucy Stone and others. Julia Ward Howe and Mr. C. P. Cranch, read original poems. Two old-time tea-party songs, curiosities in their line, were read. One, dated Boston, 1773, entitled "Lines on Bohea Tea," was written by Susannah Clarke, great-aunt of W. S. Robinson; the other, copied from Thomas' Boston Journal, of December 2, 1773, was written by Mrs. Ames, a tailoress.

[115] Committee of Arrangements—Lucy Stone, Abby Kelley Foster, Thomas J. Lothrop, Timothy K. Earle, Sarah E. Wall, Harriet H. Robinson and E. H. Church. At this public gathering, Athol, Boston, Haverhill, Leicester, Leominster, Lowell, Malden, Melrose, Milford, North Brookfield, Taunton, and many other Massachusetts towns were well represented.

[116] The speakers were Lucy Stone, Rev. W. H. Channing, Mary A. Livermore, Mary F. Eastman, Kate N. Doggett, Rev. F. A. Hinckley, Ednah D. Cheney, T. Wentworth Higginson, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Anna Garlin Spencer and Julia E. Parker. Harriet H. Robinson read a condensed history of Massachusetts in the woman suffrage movement. Interesting letters were received from Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, F. W. Bird, H. B. Blackwell, Margaret W. Campbell, Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols and Frances D. Gage. Two original woman suffrage songs, written by Anna Q. T. Parsons and Caroline A. Mason, were sung on the occasion.

[117] Board of officers for 1885: President, Miss Abby W. May; Vice-president, Mrs. Edna Dean Cheney; Secretary, Miss Brigham; Treasurer, Miss S. F. King; Assistant-secretary, Miss Von Arnim; Directors, Miss H, Lemist, Mrs. J. W. Smith, Mrs. M. P. Lowe, Mrs. H. G. Jackson, Mrs. L. H. Merrick, Mrs. G. L. Ruffin, Mrs. Walton, Mrs. Whitman, Miss Rogers, Miss E. Foster, Miss Shaw, Miss Lougee, Miss L. M. Peabody, Dr. A. E. Fisher, Mrs. Buchanan, Mrs. O. A. Cheney, Mrs. E. Hilt, Mrs. M. W. Nash, Mrs. M. H. Bray, Mrs. Fifield, Mrs. J. F. Clarke, Miss L. P. Hale, Mrs. A. H. Spalding; Lecture Committee, Miss Lucia M. Peabody, Mrs. Fifield and Mrs. L. H. King.

[118] It is the only organization in the State whose business is managed by its members. Its officers are a president, one or more vice-presidents for each county, a secretary, treasurer, auditor, and a standing committee of seven with power to add to its number. These officers are elected annually. Executive meetings, in which all members participate, are held monthly. President, Harriette R. Shattuck; Vice-presidents, Dr. Salome Merritt, Joan D. Foster, Emma F. Clarry, Louisa E. Brooks, Esther P. Hutchinson, Sarah S. Eddy, Harriet M. Spaulding, Martha E. S. Curtis, Dr. Sarah E. Sherman, Sarah G. Todd, Abbie M. Meserve, Sophia A. Forbes, Esther B. Smith, Emma A. Todd. Treasurer, Sara A. Underwood; Auditor, Lavina A. Hatch; Secretaries, Hannah M. Todd, Elizabeth B. Atwell, Harriet H. Robinson; Standing Committee, H. R. Shattuck, Dr. S. Merritt, H. H. Robinson, Lydia E. Hutchings, Mary R. Brown, E. B. Attwill, Lucretia H. Jones.

[119] South Framingham, South Boston, Winchester, Rockland, Wakefield, Uxbridge, Millbury, Bedford, Westboro', Salem, Lynn, Lowell, Rowley, Concord, Woburn, Malden, Cambridge, Beverly Farms.

[120] Two of these, Harriet H. Robinson and Harriette R. Shattuck, spoke at the first hearing before the Senate committee. It chanced that Mrs. Robinson was the first woman to speak before this Special Committee. The other delegates were: Mary R. Brown, Emma F. Clarry, Louisa E. Brooks, Mrs. G. W. Simonds, Sarah S. Eddy, Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Forbes, Mary H. Semple, Louisa A. Morrison and Cora B. Smart.

[121] The authors and compilers of these leaflets are Harriette R. Shattuck, Sara A. Underwood, Hannah M. Todd and Mary R. Brown.

[122] The speakers at these hearings were Harriette R. Shattuck, Mary R. Brown, Sidney D. Shattuck, Nancy W. Covell, Dr. Julia C. Smith, Mr. S. C. Fay, Louisa A. Morrison, Sara A. Underwood and Harriet H. Robinson.

[123] The speakers were Rev. J. T. Sargent, A. Bronson Alcott, H. B. Blackwell, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, S. S. Foster, Mary A. Livermore, Rev. B. F. Bowles, F. B. Sanborn, W. S. Robinson, Gilbert Haven and many others.

[124] In the records of the executive meetings of this Association I find the following votes. In October, 1872, it was voted, That any invitation to speak at Republican meetings, extended to our agents by Republican committees in this State, be accepted by them until the coming election, their usual salaries being paid by this Association; that Miss Loud be notified by Lucy Stone of our arrangement in regard to Republican meetings, and be requested, after the 15th instant, to hold her meetings in that manner as far as practicable; that the balance of expenses of the woman's meeting held at Tremont Temple be paid by this Association. [This was a political meeting held by the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association to endorse General Grant as the presidential candidate of the Republican party.]

[125] The National Association of Massachusetts at its executive session, August 23, passed the following:

Resolved, That while we respect the advice of our leaders, as their private political opinion, we deem it worse than useless to "stand by the Republican" or any other party while we are deprived of the only means of enforcing a political opinion; and that we advise all associations, to concentrate their efforts upon securing the ballot to women, withholding all attempt at political influence until they possess the right which alone can make their influence effective.

[126] At the executive meeting of the New England Association, May, 1874, it was voted that a circular be sent to the friends of woman suffrage, requesting them to meet in Boston, May 25, to consider the expediency of calling a convention to form a political party for woman suffrage.

[127] The call for this convention was signed by Harriet H. Robinson, Rev. A. D. Sargent, Rev. G. H. Vibbert, William Johnson, Mrs. T. R. Woodman, Helen Gale and Mrs. M. Slocum. Judge Robert C. Pitman was the candidate for governor.

[128] This "Woman Suffrage ticket," the first ever offered to a Massachusetts voter, received 41 votes out of the 1,340 cast in all by the voters of the town, a larger proportion than that first cast by the old Liberty party in Massachusetts, which began with only 307 votes in the whole State, and ended in the Free Soil and Republican parties.

[129] Election day dawned and it rained hard, but the women braved the storm. There they stood from 9 o'clock A.M. till a quarter of 5 P.M. and distributed votes, only leaving their positions long enough to get a cup of coffee and a luncheon, which was provided at the headquarters. They distributed 1,700 woman suffrage ballots and 1,000 circulars containing arguments on the rights of women. They were treated with unexceptionable politeness and kindness by the voters.

[130] The first time women went to the polls in Massachusetts was in 1870, when forty-two women of Hyde Park, led by Angelina Grimke Weld and Sarah Grimke, deposited their ballots, in solemn protest "against the political ostracism of women, against leaving every vital interest of a majority of the citizens to the monopoly of a male minority." It is hardly needful to record that these ballots were not counted.

[131] For summary of voting laws relating to women from 1691 to 1822, see "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement," by Harriet H. Robinson: Roberts Brothers, Boston.

[132] Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Lucy Stone, Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and other speakers of ability, presented able arguments in favor of giving women the right to vote.

[133] This memorial was printed by order of the legislature (Leg. Doc. Ho. 57) and is called "Memorial of the Female Signers of the Several Petitions of Henry A. Hardy and Others," presented March 1, 1849. The document is not signed and Mrs. Ferrin's name is not found with it upon the records, neither does her name appear in the journal of the House in connection with any of the petitions and addresses she caused to be presented to the legislature of the State. But for the loyal friendship of the few who knew of her work and were willing to give her due credit, the name of Mary Upton Ferrin [see Vol. I., page 208] and the memory of her labors as well as those of many another silent worker, would have gone into the "great darkness."

[134] The committee was addressed by Wendell Phillips, Julia Ward Howe, Lucy Stone, Rev. James Freeman Clarke and Hon. George F. Hoar.

[135] Two years before (1869), while sitting as visitor in the gallery of the House of Representatives, I heard the whole subject of woman's rights referred to the (bogus) committee on graveyards!

[136] It was perhaps intended to serve as a means of reinstating Abby W. May and other women who had been defeated as candidates for reelection on the Boston school-board. The names of Isa E. Gray, Mrs. C. B. Richmond, Elizabeth P. Peabody and John M. Forbes led the lists of petitioners.

[137] At the first annual election for school committees in cities and towns in 1879-80, about 5,000 women became registered voters.

[138] Lucretia P. Hale, Abby W. May, Lucia M. Peabody, Mary J. S. Blake, Kate G. Wells, Lucretia Crocker.

[139] This act, so brief and so expressive, is worthy to be remembered. It simply reads: "Be it enacted, etc., as follows:

SEC. 1. No person shall be deemed ineligible to serve upon a school committee by reason of sex.

SEC. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. (Approved June 30, 1874.)

By force of habit, the legislature said not a word in the law about women. There are now (1885) 102 women members of school-boards in Massachusetts.

[140] See "Women under the law of Massachusetts," Henry H. Sprague. Boston: W. B. Clarke & Carruth.

[141] The authority for this old "thumb" tradition, that "a man had the right to whip his wife with a stick no bigger than his thumb," is found in an early edition of Phillip's Evidence. That book was authority in English common law and in it Phillips is quoted as saying, that according to the law of his day a husband "might lawfully chastise his wife with a reasonable weapon, as a broomstick," adding, however, "but if he use an unreasonable weapon, such as an iron bar, and death ensue, it would be murder."—[Chamberlin, p. 818.

[142] In an old will, made a hundred and fifty years ago, a husband of large means bequeathed to his "dearly beloved wife" $50 and a new suit of clothes, with the injunction that she should return to her original, or family home. And with this small sum, as her share of his property, he returned her to her parents.

[143] The little actual gain in votes since 1874, in favor of municipal or general suffrage for women, might cause the careless observer to draw the inference that no great progress had been made in legislative sentiment during all these years. In 1870 the vote in the House of Representatives on the General Woman Suffrage Bill was 133 to 68. In 1885 the bill giving municipal suffrage was defeated in the House by a vote of 130 to 61. But this is not a true index of the progress of public opinion.

[144] Mrs. Ellen M. Richards was the first woman who entered.

[145] The Harvard Annex, so called, began its seventh year with sixty-five young ladies enrolled for study. The enrollment for the preceding six years was as follows: First year, 29: second, 47; third 40; fourth, 39; fifth, 49, sixth, 55. Some of the students come from distant places, but a majority are from the Cambridge and neighboring high-schools. The institution occupies this year for the first time a building which has been conveniently arranged for its purposes. The endowment of the association which manages the work now amounts to $85,000.

[146] This lady was Lucy Downing, a sister of the first governor of Massachusetts. She was the wife of Emanuel Downing, a lawyer of the Inner Temple, a friend of Governor Winthrop and afterward a man of mark in the infant colony. In a letter to her brother, Lucy Downing expresses the desire of herself and husband to come to New England with their children, but laments that if they do come her son George cannot complete his studies. She says: "You have yet noe societies nor means of that kind for the education of youths in learning. It would make me goe far nimbler to New England, if God should call me to it, than otherwise I should, and I believe a colledge would put noe small life into the plantation." This letter was written early in 1636, and in October of the same year the General Court of the Massachusetts colony agreed to give L400 towards establishing a school or college in Newtowne (two years later called Cambridge). Soon afterwards Rev. John Harvard died and left one-half of his estate to this "infant seminary," and in 1638 it was ordered by the General Court that the "Colledge to be built at Cambridge shall be called Harvard Colledge."

Early in 1638 Lucy Downing and her husband arrived in New England, and the name of George Downing stands second on the list of the first class of Harvard graduates in 1642. The Downings had other sons who do not seem to have been educated at Harvard, and daughters who were put out to service. The son for whom so much was done by his mother, was afterwards known as Sir George Downing, and he became rich and powerful in England. Downing street in London is named for him. In after life he forgot his duty to his mother, who so naturally looked to him for support; and her last letter written from England after her husband died, when she was old and feeble, tells a sad story of her son's avarice and meanness, and leaves the painful impression that she suffered in her old age for the necessaries of life.

It is hard to estimate how much influence the earnest longing of this one woman for the better education of her son, had in the founding of this earliest college in Massachusetts. But for her thinking and speaking at the right time the enterprise might have been delayed for half a century. It is to be deplored that Lucy Downing established the unwise precedent of educating one member of the family at the expense of the rest; an example followed by too many women since her time. Harvard College itself has followed it as well, in that it has so long excluded from its privileges that portion of the human family to which Lucy Downing belonged.

Although women have never been permitted to become students of this college, or of any of the schools connected with it, yet they have always taken a great interest in its pecuniary welfare, and the University is largely indebted to the generosity of women for its endowment and support. From the records of Harvard College, it appears that funds have been contributed by 167 women, which amount, in the aggregate, to $325,000. Out of these funds a proportion of the university scholarships were founded, and at least one of its professors' chairs. In its Divinity school alone five of the ten scholarships bear the names of women. Caroline A. Plummer of Salem gave $15,000 to found the Plummer Professorship of Christian Morals. Sarah Derby bequeathed $1,000 towards founding the Hersey Professorship of Anatomy and Physic. The Holden Chapel was built with money given for that purpose by Mrs. Samuel Holden and her daughters. Anna E. P. Sever, in 1879, left a legacy to this college of $140,000. [See Harvard Roll of Honor for women in Harvard Register in 1880-81.] Other known benefactors of Harvard University are: Lady Moulson, Hannah Sewall, Mary Saltonstall, Dorothy Saltonstall, Joanna Alford, Mary P. Townsend, Ann Toppan, Eliza Farrar, Ann F. Schaeffer, Levina Hoar, Rebecca A. Perkins, Caroline Merriam, Sarah Jackson, Hannah C. Andrews, Nancy Kendall, Charlotte Harris, Mary Osgood, Lucy Osgood, Sarah Winslow, Julia Bullock, Marian Hovey, Anna Richmond, Caroline Richmond, Clara J. Moore and Susan Cabot.—[H. H. R.

The question is often asked, why are women so much more desirous than men to see their children educated? Because it is a right that has been denied to themselves. To them education means liberty, wealth, position, power. When the black race at the South were emancipated, they were far more eager for education than the poor whites, and for the same reason.—[EDS.

[147] Ruth Barnaby, aged 101 in 1875, Elizabeth Phillips and Hannah Greenway were also members of this branch of the profession. The last was midwife to Mrs. Judge Sewall, who was the mother of nineteen children. Judge Samuel E. Sewall mentions this fact in his diary, recently published.

[148] Dr. Jackson had a large practice in Boston, and filled for five years the chair of professor of diseases of children in the Boston University School of Medicine.

[149] In 1840, a Massachusetts woman could not legally be treasurer of even a sewing society without having some man responsible for her. In 1809, it was necessary that the subscriptions of a married woman for a newspaper or for charities should be in the name of her husband.

[150] Olympia Brown's own account of this transaction is as follows: In 1864, soon after my settlement in Weymouth, I solemnized a marriage. It was the first time a woman had officiated in this capacity, and there was so much talk about the legality of the act, that I petitioned the legislature to take such action as was necessary in order to make marriages solemnized by me legal. The committee to whom it was referred reported that no legislation was necessary.

[151] This little book is worthy of mention, from the fact that it is probably the first publication of its kind in Massachusetts, if not in America. The whole title of the book is, "Observations on the Rights of Women, with their appropriate duties agreeable to Scripture, reason and common sense." Mrs. Crocker, in her introduction, says: "The wise author of Nature has endowed the female mind with equal powers and faculties, and given them the same right of judging and acting for themselves as he gave the male sex." She further argues that, "According to Scripture, woman was the first to transgress and thus forfeited her original right of equality, and for a time was under the yoke of bondage, till the birth of our blessed Savior, when she was restored to her equality with man."

This is a very fine beginning, and would seem to savor strongly of the modern woman's rights doctrine; but, unfortunately, the author, with charming inconsistency, goes on to say,—"We shall strictly adhere to the principle of the impropriety of females ever trespassing on masculine grounds, as it is morally incorrect, and physically impossible."

[152] In 1836 there was a small woman's club of Lowell factory operatives, officered and managed entirely by women. This may be a remote first cause of the origin of the New England Women's Club, since it bears the same relation to that flourishing institution, that the native crab does to the grafted tree. This was the first woman's club in the State, if not in the whole country.

[153] A few ladies met at the house of Dr. Harriot K. Hunt to consider a plan for organization. Its avowed object was "to supply the daily increasing need of a great central resting place, for the comfort and convenience of those who may wish to unite with us, and ultimately become a center for united and organized social thought and action." Its first president was Caroline M. Severance. On the executive board were the names of Julia Ward Howe, Ednah D. Cheney, Lucy Goddard, Harriet M. Pitnam, Jane Alexander, Abby W. May, and many others who have since become well known. This club held its first meetings in private houses, but it has for several years occupied spacious club rooms on Park street in Boston. Julia Ward Howe is its president. The club has its own historian, and when this official gives the result of her researches to the public, there will be seen how many projects for the elevation of women and the improvement of social life have had their inception in the brains of those who assemble in the parlors of the New England Woman's Club. In 1874, it projected the movement by which women were first elected on the school committee of Boston, and also prepared the petition to be sent to the Massachusetts legislature of 1879, the result of which was the passage of the law allowing women to vote for school committees. In the Woman's Journal for 1883 will be found a sketch of this club.

[154] "Taxation of Women in Massachusetts"; "Woman Suffrage a Right, not a Privilege," and "The Forgotten Woman in Massachusetts."

[155] Its projectors were A. Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Professor W. T. Harris, Frank B. Sanborn, Professor Benjamin Pierce, Dr. H. K. Jones, Elizabeth P. Peabody and Ednah D. Cheney.

[156] This act is almost as brief as a certain clause in one of the election laws of the State of Texas, which says: "The masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter."

[157] We deeply regret that we have been unable to procure a good photograph of our generous benefactor, as it was our intention to make her engraving the frontispiece of this volume, and thus give the honored place to her through whose liberality we have been enabled at last to complete this work. We are happy to state that Mrs. Eddy's will was not contested by any of the descendents of the noble Francis Jackson, but by Jerome Bacon, a millionaire, the widower of her eldest daughter who survived the mother but one week. When the suit was entered the daughters of Mrs. Eddy, Sarah and Amy, her only surviving children, in a letter to the executor of the estate, Hon. C. R. Ransom, said: "We hereby consent and agree that, in case this suit now pending in the court shall be decided against the claims of Lucy Stone and Susan B. Anthony, we will give to them the net amount of any sum that as heirs may be awarded to us, in accordance with our mother's will."



CHAPTER XXXII.

CONNECTICUT.

Prudence Crandall—Eloquent Reformers—Petitions for Suffrage—The Committee's Report—Frances Ellen Burr—Isabella Beecher Hooker's Reminiscences—Anna Dickinson in the Republican Campaign—State Society Formed, October 28, 29, 1869—Enthusiastic Convention in Hartford—Governor Marshall Jewell—He Recommends More Liberal Laws for Women—Society Formed in New Haven, 1871—Governor Hubbard's Inaugural, 1877—Samuel Bowles of the Springfield Republican—Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Chaplain, 1870—John Hooker, esq., Champions the Suffrage Movement.

While Connecticut has always been celebrated for its puritanical theology, political conservatism and rigid social customs, it was nevertheless the scene of some of the most hotly contested of the anti-slavery battles. While its leading clergymen and statesmen stoutly maintained the letter of the old creeds and constitutions, the Burleighs, the Mays, and the Crandalls strove to illustrate the true spirit of religion and republicanism in their daily lives by "remembering those that were in bonds as bound with them."

The example of one glorious woman like Prudence Crandall,[158] who suffered shameful persecutions in establishing a school for colored girls at Canterbury, in 1833, should have been sufficient to rouse every woman in Connecticut to some thought on the basic principles of the government and religion of the country. Yet we have no record of any woman in that State publicly sustaining her in that grand enterprise, though no doubt her heroism gave fresh inspiration to the sermons of Samuel J. May, then preaching in the village of Brooklyn, and the speeches and poems of the two eloquent reformers, Charles C. and William H. Burleigh. The words and deeds of these and other great souls, though seeming to slumber for many years, gave birth at last to new demands for another class of outraged citizens. Thus liberty is ever born of the hateful spirit of persecution. One question of reform settled forever by the civil war, the initiative for the next was soon taken. In The Revolution of January 16, 1868, we find the following well-considered report on woman's enfranchisement, presented by a minority of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments to the legislature of Connecticut at its session of 1867:

The undersigned members of the committee believe that the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted. It would be much easier for us to reject the petition and silently to acquiesce in the opinions of the majority upon the subject to which it relates, but our attention was challenged and an investigation invited by the bold axioms upon which the cause of suffrage for woman was claimed to rest, and the more we have examined the subject the more convinced we have become that the logic of our institutions requires a concession of that right. It is claimed by some that the right to vote is not a natural right, but that it is a privilege which some have acquired, and which may be granted to others at the option of the fortunate holders. But they fail to inform us how the possessors first acquired the privilege, and especially how they acquired the rightful power to withhold that privilege from others, according to caprice or notions of expediency. We hold this doctrine to be pernicious in tendency, and hostile to the spirit of a republican government; and we believe that it can only be justified by the same arguments that are used to justify slavery or monarchy—for it is an obvious deduction of logic that if one thousand persons have a right to govern another thousand without their consent, one man has a right to govern all.

Mr. Lincoln tersely said, "If slavery is not wrong nothing is wrong." So it seems to us that if the right to vote is not a natural right, there is no such thing as a natural right in human relations. The right to freedom and the right to a ballot both spring from the same source. The right to vote is only the right to a legitimate use of freedom. It is plain that if a man is not free to govern himself, and to have a voice in the taxation of his own property, he is not really free in any enlightened sense. Even Edward I. of England said, "It is a most equitable rule that what concerns all should be approved by all." This must rightfully apply to women the same as to men. And Locke, in his essay on civil government, said, "Nothing is more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal, one with another, without subordination or subjection." Talleyrand said, as an argument for monarchy, "The moment we reject an absolutely universal suffrage, we admit the principle of aristocracy." The founders of this nation asserted with great emphasis and every variety of repetition, the essential equality of human rights as a self-evident truth. The war of the Revolution was justified by the maxim, "Taxation without representation is tyranny"; and all republics vindicate their existence by the claim that "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Yet woman, in Connecticut, is governed without her consent, and taxed without representation.

Lord Camden, one of England's ablest jurists, long ago declared, "My position is this—taxation and representation are inseparable. The position is founded in a law of nature—nay more, it is itself an eternal law of nature." Our forefathers held to this principle, and fought seven years to establish it. They maintained their favorite theory of government against immense odds, and transmitted to their posterity the great work of putting it logically into practice. It is acknowledged by this legislature that "taxation without representation is tyranny," and that "governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." If these phrases are anything more than the meaningless utterances of demagogues, anything more than the hypocritical apologies of rebellious colonies in a strait—then we submit that a prima facie case for woman's right to vote has already been made out. To declare that a voice in the government is the right of all, and then give it to less than half, and that to the fraction to which the theorist himself happens to belong, is to renounce even the appearance of principle.

It is plain to your committee that neither the State nor the nation can have peace on this suffrage question until some fair standard shall be adopted which is not based on religion, or color, or sex, or any accident of birth—a test which shall be applicable to every adult human being. In a republic the ballot belongs to every intelligent adult person who is innocent of crime. There is an obvious and sufficient reason for excluding minors, state-prison convicts, imbeciles and insane persons, but does the public safety require that we shall place the women of Connecticut with infants, criminals, idiots and lunatics? Do they deserve the classification? It seems to your committee that to enfranchise woman—or rather to cease to deprive her of the ballot, which is of right hers, would be reciprocally beneficial. We believe that it would elevate the character of our office-holders; that it would purify our politics; that it would render our laws more equitable; that it would give to woman a protection against half the perils which now beset her; that it would put into her hands a key that would unlock the door of every respectable occupation and profession; that it would insure a reconstruction of our statute laws on a basis of justice, so that a woman should have a right to her own children, and a right to receive and enjoy the proceeds of her own labor. John Neal estimates that the ballot is worth fifty cents a day to every American laborer, enabling each man to command that much higher wages. Does not gentlemanly courtesy, as well as equal justice, require that that weapon of defense shall be given to those thousands of working women among us who are going down to prostitution through three or four half-paid, over-crowded occupations?

It is said that woman is now represented by her husband, when she has one; but what is this representation worth when in Connecticut, two years ago, all of the married woman's personal property became absolutely her husband's, including even her bridal presents, to sell or give away, as he saw fit—a statute which still prevails in most of the States? What is that representation worth when even now, in this State, no married woman has the right to the use of her own property, and no woman, even a widow, is the natural guardian of her own children? Even in Connecticut, under man's representation, a widow whose husband dies without a will is regarded by law as an encumbrance on the estate which she, through years of drudgery, has helped to acquire. She can inherit none of the houses or land, but has merely the use of one-third, while the balance goes to his relatives—rich, perhaps, and persons whom she never saw. Does not this suggest reasons why woman should wish to represent herself?

It is said that women do not desire the ballot. This is by no means certain. It can be ascertained only by taking a vote. It is not proved by the fact that they have not yet generally clamored for the right, nor by the fact that some protest against it. In Persia, it is a law of society that virtuous women shall appear in public with their faces covered, and instead of murmuring at the restraint, they are universal in upholding it, and wonder at the immodesty and effrontery of English women who appear upon the streets unveiled. Custom hardens us to any kind of degradation. When woman was not admitted to the dinner-table as an equal with man, she undoubtedly thought the exclusion was perfectly proper, and quite in the nature of things, and the dinner-table became vile and obscene. When she was forbidden to enter the church, she approved the arrangement, and the church became a scene of hilarity and bacchanalian revel. When she was forbidden to take part in literature, she thought it was not her sphere, and disdained the alphabet, and the consequence was that literature became unspeakably impure, so that no man can now read in public some of the books that were written before woman brought chastity and refinement into letters. The Asiatics are probably not in favor of political liberty, or the American Indians in favor of civilization; but that does not prove that these would be bad for them, especially if thousands of the most enlightened did desire and demand the change. It is assumed that women are not in favor of this right; how can this be better ascertained than by submitting to them the question to vote upon—"yes" or "no."

If this legislature shall be averse to trusting woman to give her opinion even on the question of her own enfranchisement, we recommend that an amendment, striking the word "male" from the State constitution, be submitted to the qualified electors of the State. Can there be any possible danger in trusting those who have trusted us? They, not we, are the law-makers. An assembly is elected only because it would be inconvenient for all the citizens to vote upon every statute. But when any change in the fundamental law is seriously asked, it should be remitted to the people without hesitation, especially when that proposed change will render our logic consistent, and our institutions harmonious; when it will enforce the democratic doctrine that, in society, every human being has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights of others, and when it will establish equality in place of partiality, and vindicate the principle of All Rights for All. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: [Here follows a resolution submitting to the people an amendment of the constitution giving women the right to vote equally with men.]

The members of the committee who signed this early declaration in favor of the rights of women should be remembered with honor. They are Henry Ashley, William Steele and J. D. Gallup, jr. The resolution recommended received 93 votes in the House of Representatives, against 111 in opposition. So strong an expression in favor of it at that time is a noteworthy fact in the history of the cause.

The petitions that called out this able report were secured through the influence of Frances Ellen Burr, who may be said to have been the pioneer of woman suffrage in Connecticut. She had made several attempts, through conversations with influential friends, to organize a State society many years before. From the inauguration of the State association until the present time Miss Burr has been one of its most efficient members, and has done more to popularize the question of woman suffrage throughout the State than any other person. Her accomplishments as a writer and speaker, as a reporter and stenographer, as well as her connection with the Hartford Times (a journal that has a very large circulation in the State), edited by her brother, have qualified her for wide and efficient influence. Her niece, Mrs. Ella Burr McManus, edits a column in that paper, under the head of "Social Notes." She is also an advocate of suffrage for women, and makes telling points, from week to week, on this question. In issuing the first numbers of The Revolution, the earliest words of good cheer came from Frances Ellen Burr.[159]

The general rebellion among women against the old conditions of society and the popular opinions as to their nature and destiny, has been organized in each State in this Union by the sudden awakening of some self-reliant woman, in whose soul had long slumbered new ideas as to her rights and duties, growing out of personal experiences or the distant echoes of onward steps in other localities. In Connecticut this woman was Isabella Beecher Hooker, who had scarcely dared to think, and much less to give shape in words, to the thoughts that, like unwelcome ghosts, had haunted her hours of solitude from year to year. Elizabeth Barrett Browning describes a hero as one who does what others do but say; who says what others do but think; and thinks what others do but dream. The successive steps by which Mrs. Hooker's dreams at last took shape in thoughts, words and actions, and brought her to the woman suffrage platform, are well told by herself:

My mind had long been disturbed with the tangled problem of social life, but it involved so many momentous questions that I could not see where to begin nor what to do. I could only protest in my heart, and leave the whole matter for God[160] to deal with in his wisdom. Thus matters stood until the year 1861, when Anna Dickinson, then a girl of nineteen, came to Hartford to speak in behalf of the Republican party, particularly on its hostility to the extension of slavery. I shall never forget the dismay—I know not what else to call it—which I felt at the announcement of her first speech in one of our public halls, lest harm should come to the political cause that enlisted my sympathies, and anxiety about the speaker, who would have to encounter so much adverse criticism in our conservative and prejudiced city. It was certainly a most startling occurrence, that here in my very home, where there had been hardly a lisp in favor of the rights of women, this girl should speak on political subjects, and that, too, upon the invitation of the leaders of a great political party. Here was a stride, not a mere step; and a stride almost to final victory for the suppressed rights of women.

My husband and I, full of anxiety and apprehension, but full, too, of determination to stand by one who so bravely shook off her trammels, went to hear this new Joan of Arc, and in a few minutes after she began we found ourselves, with the rest of the large audience, entranced by her eloquence. At the close of the meeting we went with many others to be introduced and give her the right hand of fellowship. She came home with us for the night, and after the family retired she and I communed together, heart to heart, as mother and daughter, and from this sweet, grand soul, born to the freedom denied to all women except those known as Quakers, I learned to trust as never before the teachings of the inner light, and to know whence came to them the recognition of equal rights with their brethren in the public assembly.

It was she who brought me to the knowledge of Mrs. John Stuart Mill, and her remarkable paper on "The Enfranchisement of Women," in The Westminster Review. She told me, too, of Susan B. Anthony, a fearless defender of true liberty and woman's right of public speech; but I allowed an old and ignorant prejudice against her and Mrs. Stanton to remain until the year 1864, when, going South to nurse a young soldier who was wounded in the war, I met Mrs. Caroline Severance from Boston, who was residing in South Carolina, where her husband was in the service of the government, who confirmed what Miss Dickinson had told me of Miss Anthony, and unfolded to me the whole philosophy of the woman suffrage movement.

She afterwards invited me to her home near Boston, where I joined Mr. Garrison and others in issuing a call for a convention, which I attended, and aided in the formation of the New England Woman Suffrage Association. At this meeting, which I will not attempt to describe, I met Paulina Wright Davis, whose mere presence upon the platform, with her beautiful white hair and her remarkable dignity and elegance, was a most potent argument in favor of woman's participation in public affairs. I sought an introduction to her, and confessing my prejudice against Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, whom I had never yet seen, she urged me to meet them as guests at her home in Providence; and a few weeks later, under the grand old trees of her husband's almost ducal estate, we went over the whole subject of man's supremacy and woman's subjection that had lain so many years a burden upon my heart, and, sitting at their feet, I said: "While I have been mourning in secret over the degradation of woman, you have been working, through opposition and obloquy, to raise her to self-respect and self-protection through enfranchisement, knowing that with equal political rights come equal social and industrial opportunities. Henceforth, I will at least share your work and your obloquy."

In September, 1869, just one year from that time, after spending several weeks in correspondence with friends all over the State, and making careful preliminary arrangements, I issued a call for the first woman suffrage convention that was ever held in Connecticut, at which a State society was formed. To my surprise and satisfaction, the city press each day devoted several columns to reports of our proceedings, and the enthusiasm manifested by the large audiences was as unexpected as it was gratifying. The speakers were worthy of the reception given them, and few occasions have gathered upon one platform so notable an assemblage of men and women.[161] The resolutions which formed the basis of the discussions were prepared and presented by Mr. Hooker:

Resolved, That there is no consideration whatever that makes the right of suffrage valuable to men, or that makes it the duty or the interest of the nation to concede it to men, that does not make it valuable to women, and the duty and interest of the nation to concede it to women.

Resolved, That the ballot will bring to woman a higher education, larger industrial opportunities, a wider field for thought and action, a sense of responsibility in her relations to the public welfare, and, in place of mere complaisance and flattery, the higher and truer respect of men.

Resolved, That political affairs, involving nearly all those questions that relate to the welfare of the nation and the progress of society towards a perfect Christian civilization, ought to interest deeply every intelligent mind and every patriotic heart; and, while women love their country and the cause of Christian progress no less than men, they ought to have the same opportunity with men to exert a political power in their behalf.

Resolved, That in the alarming prevalence of public dishonesty and private immorality, which the present forces on the side of public and private virtue are proving wholly unable to control, it is our firm conviction that women, educated to the responsibilities of a participation with men in political rights, would bring to the aid of virtuous men a new and powerful element of good, which cannot be spared, and for which there can be no substitute.

Resolved, That in advocating the opening to woman of this larger sphere, we do not undervalue her relations as a wife and mother, than which none can be more worthy of a true woman's love and pride; but it is only by a full development of her faculties and a wide range for her thought that she can become the true companion of an intelligent husband, and the wise and inspiring educator of her children; while mere domestic life furnishes no occupation to the great number of women who never marry, and a very inadequate one to those who, at middle age, with large experience and ripe wisdom, find their children grown up around them and no longer needing their care.

Resolved, That all laws which recognize a superior right in the husband to the children whom the wife has borne, or a right on the part of the husband to the property of the wife, beyond the right given to her in his property, and all laws which hold that husband and wife do not stand in all respects in the relation of equals, ought to be abrogated, and the perfect equality of husband and wife established.

Resolved, That this equality of position and rights we believe to have been intended by the Creator as the ultimate perfection of the social state, when he said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let THEM have dominion"; and to have been a part of our Savior's plan for a perfect Christian society, in which an Apostle says, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female."

The Hartford Courant, in its description of the convention, said:

After a speech by Mr. Garrison, the Hutchinsons sang some of the religious songs of the Southern negroes with excellent taste, and then, led by them, the whole audience united in the chorus; and as the melody rose strong and clear a pathos fell upon the assembly that brought tears to many eyes. The tableau upon the stage was striking and memorable. There stood the family of singers, with the same cheerful, hopeful courage in their uplifted faces with which for twenty years they have sung of the good time almost here, of every reform; there stood William Lloyd Garrison, stern Puritan, inflexible apostle, his work gloriously done in one reform, lending the weight of his unwearied, solid intellect to that which he believes is the last needed; there was Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, a Roman matron in figure, her noble head covered with clustering ringlets of white, courageous after a quarter of a century of unsullied devotion, though she had just confessed that sometimes she was almost weary; there was Miss Anthony, unselfish, patient, wise and practical; the graceful Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, the poet of the movement; the tall and elegant Mrs. Celia Burleigh; the benevolent Dr. Clemence Lozier; Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, with spiritual face and firm purpose, just taking her place in the reform that has long had her heart and deep conviction, and many others of fine presence and commanding beauty—matrons, with gray hair and countenances illuminated with lives of charity; young women, flushed with hope; and as the grand Christian song went on, many a woman, leaning against a supporting pillar, gave way to the tears that would come, tears of hope deferred, tears of weary longings, tears of willing, patient devotion—e'en though it be a cross that raiseth me—and then the benediction, and the assembly dispersed, touched, it may be, into a moment's sympathy. * * *

At the closing evening session the opera house was completely filled by an audience whose attendance was a compliment. * * * The chairman, Rev. N. J. Burton, said: "Has not this convention been a success? I say, emphatically, it has. We have had the very best of audiences at every session, and we have provided speakers as good as the audience. We have not given you even one poor speech. I thank the audience and the speakers, one and all. I feel like thanking everybody, myself included, as chairman. In Stewart's store in New York they told me 1,500 persons were employed, all guided by one brain up-stairs, and that one brain giving the store a national reputation. This convention has been inspired and managed by one person—Mrs. Hooker of this city." After speculating as to the possible oratorical power of Mrs. H., had she received the advantages and enjoyed the practice of her brother, who spoke the previous evening, he said: "But of course Mrs. Hooker couldn't vote, nor be a member of the legislature, or even a justice of the peace. Insufferable nonsense! If such women don't vote before I die—well, like Gough's obstinate deacon, I won't die till they do."

On motion of Franklin Chamberlin, esq., the thanks of the convention were tendered to Mrs. Hooker for her efforts. At her request the chairman said that she was wholly surprised by this reference to herself. She would only say, "Thank God for our success," to which the chairman added, "Amen and Amen." He then introduced Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, daughter of the late Judge Cady of Albany, wife of the Hon. Henry B. Stanton of New York, and editor of The Revolution. She is perhaps fifty, and in general appearance much resembles Mrs. Davis. She is apparently in robust health, dresses in black, with just enough of white lace, and, with her gray hair loosely gathered, and her strong, symmetrical and refined face and perfect self-possession, is a noble-looking woman. Her address, or oration, was before her, but she was not hampered by it. Her voice is clear, her gesticulation simple, and her general manner not surpassed by Wendell Phillips. Rough notes of an oration so finished can only indicate the main drift of her thoughts. * * * The eloquent peroration was heard in profound silence, followed by enthusiastic applause. * * * The chairman read the constitution and offered it for signatures, and the officers of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association were chosen.[162]

In The Revolution of November 11, 1869, Mrs. Stanton giving a description of the convention, refers to the liberality of the governor, Marshall Jewell, and the genial hospitalities of his noble wife:[163]

In company with Mrs. Howe and Miss Anthony, we were entertained at the governor's mansion, a fine brick building in the heart of the town. It has a small pond on one side, and eight acres of land, laid out in gardens, walks and lawns, with extensive greenhouses and graperies. The house is spacious, elegantly and tastefully furnished, with all the comforts and luxuries that wealth can command. With a conservatory, library, pictures, statuary, beautiful (strong-minded) wife and charming daughters, the noble governor is in duty bound to remain the happy, genial, handsome man he is to-day. Though the governor, owing to his pressing executive duties, did not honor our convention with his presence, we feel assured, in reading over his last able message, that he feels a deep interest in the education and elevation of women. In speaking of their school system, he calls attention to the low wages of female teachers, and the injustice of excluding girls from the scientific schools and polytechnic institutions in the State. He says:

I would especially call the attention of the legislature to the importance of furnishing to women such educational facilities as will better fit them for the industrial pursuits which the true progress of the times is opening to them.

On the rights of married women, he says:

While our laws with regard to married women have been amended from time to time for several years past, so as to secure to them in a more ample manner their property, held before or acquired after marriage, yet we are still considerably behind many of our sister States, and even conservative England, in our legislation on the subject. I would recommend to your favorable consideration such an amendment of our laws as will secure to a married woman all her property, with the full control of it during her married life, and free from liability for any debts, except those contracted by herself or for which she has voluntarily made herself responsible, with the same right on the part of the husband to an interest in her property, on his surviving her, that she now has, or that it may be best to give her, in his.

On the subject of divorce the governor says:

I recommend a revision of our laws with regard to divorce. According to the report of the State librarian there were in the State last year 4,734 marriages and 478 divorces. Discontented people come here from other States, to take advantage of what is called our liberal legislation, to obtain divorces which would be denied them at home. As the sacredness of the marriage relation lies at the foundation of civilized society, it should be carefully guarded. Under our present laws the causes of divorce are too numerous, and not sufficiently defined, and too wide a discretion is given to the courts. I think the law of 1849 should be modified, and so much of the statute as grants divorces for "any such misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner, and defeats the purposes of the marriage relation," should be repealed. I would also suggest that the law provide that no decree of divorce shall take effect till one year after it is granted.

In conversation with the governor on this point in his message he stated the singular fact that the majority of the applications for divorce were made by women. If this be so, we suggested that the laws of Connecticut should stand as they are until the women have the right of suffrage, that they may have a voice in a social arrangement in which they have an equal interest with man himself. If Connecticut, with its blue laws, disloyal Hartford convention, and Democracy, has, nevertheless, been a Canada for fugitive wives from the yoke of matrimony, pray keep that little State, like an oasis in the desert, sacred to sad wives, at least until the sixteenth amendment of the federal constitution shall give the women of the republic the right to say whether they are ready to make marriage, under all circumstances, for better or worse, an indissoluble tie. We have grave doubts as to the sacredness of a relation in which the subject-class has no voice whatever in the laws that regulate it. We shall never know what "laws lie at the foundation of all civilized society" until woman's thought finds expression in the State, the church and the home. It is presumption for man longer to legislate alone on this vital question, when woman, too, should have a word to say in the matter.

The morning after the convention we had a pleasant breakfast under Mr. and Mrs. Hooker's hospitable roof, where Boston and New York amicably broke bread and discussed the fifteenth amendment together. All the wise and witty sayings that passed around that social board, time fails to chronicle.

In 1877 Governor Hubbard called the attention of the legislature to the wrongs of married women, in the following words:

There has been for the last few years in this State much slip-shod and fragmentary legislation in respect to the property rights of married women. The old common law assumed the subjugation of the wife, and stripped her of the better part of her rights of person and nearly all her rights of property. It is a matter of astonishment that Christian nations should have been willing for eighteen centuries to hold the mothers of their race in a condition of legal servitude. It has been the scandal of jurisprudence. Some progress has been made in reforming the law in this State, but it has been done, as I have already said, by patch-work and shreds, sometimes ill-considered, and often so incongruous as to provoke vexatious litigation and defy the wisdom of the courts. The property relations of husband and wife do not to-day rest on any just or harmonious system. Not only has the husband absolute disposal of all his own property freed from all dower rights, but he is practically the owner during coverture of all his wife's estate not specially limited to her separate use; and after her death has, in every case, a life use in all her personal, and in most cases in all her real property, by a title which the wife, no matter what may have been his ill-deserts, is powerless to impair or defeat; whereas, on the other hand, the wife has during the husband's life no more power of her own right to sell, convey, or manage her own estate than if she were a lunatic or slave, and in case of his death has a life use in only one-third part of the real estate of which he dies possessed, and no indefeasible title whatever in any of his personal estate. As a consequence, a husband may strip his wife, by mere voluntary disposition to strangers, of all claim on his estate after his death, and thus add beggary to widowhood.

I am sure this cannot seem right to any fair-minded man. Neither is it strange that some of our countrywomen, stung by the injustice of the law towards their sex, should be demanding, as a mode of redress, a part in the making of the laws which govern them. I am confident there is manhood enough in our own sex to right this obvious wrong to which I have alluded.

I therefore recommend that the law on this subject be so recast that, in all marriages hereafter contracted, the wife shall hold her property and all her earnings for personal services not rendered to her husband or minor children, as a sole and separate estate, with absolute power of disposition in her own name, and that the surviving wife shall have, by law, the same measure of estate in the property of the deceased husband, as the surviving husband shall be allowed to have in the property of his deceased wife. This will reduce their property relations to a principle of equality, and, in my judgment, is demanded by the most obvious dictates of justice and equity. Those who are not satisfied with this can make a different law for themselves by ante-nuptial settlements.

I am not unmindful that the husband alone is liable in the first instance for the support of the family; but this is much more than neutralized by the fact that, in most cases, the wife's whole life is spent in the toilsome and unpaid service of the household, and that the whole drift of her estate, in consequence of her more unselfish and generous nature, is towards the husband's pockets, in spite of all the guards of the law and every consideration of prudence.

Calling attention to this stirring appeal, the Hartford Times, Democratic, used the following language:

Another notable feature of the message is its outspoken and manly call for a reformation in our laws concerning the property rights of married women. Here as in other points it is a model message. The governor's experience as a lawyer has brought him often face to face with this disgraceful one-sidedness of our laws on this subject, and in some terse sentences he shows up the injustice more effectively than has ever been done in any of the so-called women's rights conventions.[164]

The following editorial from the Springfield Republican, gives a good digest of the new law passed upon Governor Hubbard's recommendation:

Connecticut has taken a great leap forward in the reform of the property relations of married persons. The law had been long neglected in that State, the obvious right of a married woman to property acquired before marriage, which is now secured in most States by constitutional provision, having been there denied. In Massachusetts, the modification of the former inequalities has gone on by piecemeal, till it is said that in some respects the woman is now the more favored party.

The new Connecticut statute also puts the burden of the family maintenance on the man, as under most circumstances the real bread-winner. It simply lays down the principle of absolute equality in the rights and privileges of the husband and wife, with the above exception. In all marriages hereafter contracted, neither husband nor wife shall acquire any right to or interest in any property of the other, whether held before the marriage or acquired after the marriage, except as provided in this law. The separate earnings of the wife shall be her sole property. She shall have the same right to make contracts with third persons as if she were not married, and to convey her real and personal estate. Her property is liable for her debts and not for his; his is not liable for her debts, except those contracted for the support of the family. Purchases made by either party shall be presumed to be on the private account of the party, but both shall be liable where any article purchased by either shall have in fact gone to the support of the family, or for the joint benefit of both, or for the reasonable apparel of the wife, or for her reasonable support while abandoned by her husband. It shall, however, be the duty of the husband to support his family, and his property, when found, shall be first applied to satisfy any such joint liability. The wife shall be entitled to indemnity for any money of her own used to pay such claims. We have used almost the precise language of the first and second sections of the act.

On the death of either, the survivor shall be entitled to the use for life of one-third the estate of the deceased, which right cannot be defeated by will. If the deceased leaves no children or representatives of children, the survivor is entitled to one-half instead of one-third. When either party gives a legacy to the other, the latter may choose between its rights under the will, and those under the statute. Abandonment without cause may defeat this provision, and a marriage contract may supersede it entirely. Parties already married may contract to surrender their present rights for those secured by this statute, such contracts to be recorded in the probate court.

Thus we have a new and clear statute framed in accordance with a simple principle of reform, for which the Republican has long done battle—the equality of married persons in their rights and responsibilities of property. The adoption of the reform is due deeply to the general agitation of the rights of women, the efforts of Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, the Smith girls' cows, and perhaps some flagrant instance of injustice to rich wives by tyrant husbands near the capital. But the great occasion and immediate cause, without which this generation might have pleaded for it in vain, was the perception of the justice of it by Governor Hubbard, and his open advocacy of it in his message. Lawyers have one answer for all reforms regarding property or civil contracts—they are impossible. But here was undeniably the best lawyer in the State who said, and threw the weight of his first State paper on the proposition, that this thing was possible, and, if he said it was possible, there was no man who could gainsay it. The legislature took the reform on its own sense of justice and on the assurance of Richard D. Hubbard, that it would work.

On June 6, 1870, at a second hearing[165] before the Joint Committee on Woman Suffrage, in the capitol at New Haven, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford of the Universalist church, Mrs. Benchley and Mrs. Russell were the speakers. During that session of the legislature Mrs. Hanaford acted as chaplain both in the Senate and House of Representatives, and received a check for her services which she valued chiefly as a recognition of woman's equality in the clerical profession.

Mrs. Hooker was ably sustained in her new position by her husband, a prominent lawyer of the State. Being equally familiar with civil and canon law, with Blackstone and the Bible, he was well equipped to meet the opponents of the reform at every point. While Mrs. Hooker held meetings in churches and school-houses through the State, her husband in his leisure hours sent the daily press articles on the subject. And thus their united efforts stirred the people to thought and at last roused a Democratic governor of the State to his duty on this question. From the many able tracts issued and articles published in the journals we give a few extracts. In answer to the common objections of "free love" and "easy divorce," in the Evening Post of January 17, 1871, Mr. Hooker said:

The persons who advocate easy divorce would advocate it just as strongly if there was no woman suffrage movement. The two have no necessary connection. Indeed one of the strongest arguments in favor of woman suffrage is, that the marriage relation will be safer with women to vote and legislate upon it than where the voting and legislation are left wholly to the men. Women will always be wives and mothers, above all things else. This law of nature cannot be changed, and I know of nobody who desires to change it. The marriage relation will therefore always be more to woman than to man, and we, who would give her the right to vote, have no fear to trust to her the sanctity and purity of that relation. It is the opponents of woman suffrage who distrust the fidelity of woman to her divine instincts and dare not let her vote. Our little State has been two hundred years under male legislation, and yet a long memorial from hundreds of clergymen and other Christian men went up to our legislature two years ago, representing our legislation on divorce as demoralizing and as fatal to the best interests of the marriage relation. It really seems as if the incompetency for the management of public affairs which by mere assumption is charged in advance upon women, has been proved with regard to men by an actual experience of many years. The true idea is for man and woman to share together the responsibilities and duties of legislation, and until this is done I have no hope for any real progress towards purity in the administration of our public affairs. We who favor woman suffrage speak confidently on this subject because the reform works so well wherever it has been tried, in England, Sweden, Austria and Wyoming Territory.

No rational man can suppose for a moment that with woman suffrage established in England and on the continent of Europe, we in this country, which so specially stands on equal representation, are going to refuse it. It must be set down as one of the certain things of the future. And when it has come, and women vote, it will excite no more attention or comment than the voting of our colored people.

Now if woman suffrage is to come, is it worth while to be making the impression that the women of our country are not to be trusted with it, and that the marriage relation is to be imperiled by it? Above all, is it manly or just to be charging corrupt motives on nine-tenths of those who advocate the reform? The notoriety which to some extent its advocates must get is almost universally painful to the women who are the subjects of it. One noble woman, whose whole soul is in this cause, and the purity of whose motives in this, as in everything else, I have had good opportunity to learn, said to me, on reading Dr. Bushnell's remark in his book on woman suffrage, that these women were only trying to make themselves men: "Cruel, cruel words! If so noble a man as Dr. Bushnell so utterly fails to comprehend a woman's nature, shall not she be allowed to speak for herself, and no testimony be taken but hers?"[166]

Much might be said in regard to the most famous women of Connecticut, the historic "Maids of Glastonbury," celebrated for their resistance to taxation. After the death of Abby, July 23, 1878, Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith, in a beautiful tribute to the sisters, said:

Many years ago they took a stand akin to that of the illustrious Hampden, which has made his name a synonym for patriotism as well as just and manly opposition to unconstitutional revenue exaction. "The tax may be a small matter for an English gentleman to pay, but it is too much for a British freeman to pay," was the ground of his noble resistance, and this view precipitated that great Revolution which more than all other modern movements consolidated and strengthened the rights of the British subject. These two women deserve to stand upon a platform side by side with the great Hampden. Other women have paid their taxes under protest, but Abby and Julia Smith have done more than protest; they have suffered loss as well as inconvenience, their property having been seized and sold again and again because of their honest conviction that taxation without representation was as unjust to women as to men. Their steadfastness has been the more remarkable because, by their social position, their learning and their wealth, they might be supposed to be indifferent to the ballot-box, as so many thus situated claim to be. Abby and her sister were no ordinary women. The family originally consisted of five sisters, all more or less accomplished. The father was a man of learning, a graduate of Yale and a clergyman. The mother was familiar with French and Italian, and no mean astronomer. Thus parented, it is not surprising that the Glastonbury sisters were of marked individualism as well as superior scholarship. They were more or less acquainted with Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and have made a translation of the Bible from these sources, giving its original meaning.

The maids of Glastonbury planted themselves upon the right of the sex to suffrage, from purely philosophic and statesman-like grounds. They had no other disabilities of which to complain—no other grievance—no social ostracism, as is so often charged, and most unjustly, against other advocates of the doctrine. They were unmarried, studious, upright, simple-minded gentlewomen, and were much esteemed and honored in the community in which they lived. They occupied the old homestead, doing their own work, their interests well cared for in the person of Mr. Kellogg, an intelligent tenant of theirs, as well as friend and neighbor.