The Hartford Post, in a tender mention of the life and death of Abby, with a brief sketch of the family, thus bears honorable testimony to her worthiness:

In the death of Miss Smith the cause of woman suffrage has met with a severe loss, as her firm resistance to what she believed to be the unjust treatment of women greatly encouraged her companions in the contest; her sister has lost her chief support, and the community in which she lived a faithful friend and a worthy exponent of the virtues of truthfulness, firmness, and adherence to the right as she understood it.

The Hartford Times said:

A notable woman who died last week was Miss Abigail H. Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn., one of the two sisters who resisted the collection of their taxes on the ground that they had no voice in the levy. It will be remembered that their cows were seized and some of their personal property sold two years ago. Of course there were friends who were willing and anxious to pay the taxes, but the plucky old ladies were fighting for a principle, and they would allow no one to stand in the way. The notoriety, which they neither sought nor avoided, undoubtedly did a great deal to call public attention to the anomalous condition of woman under the law. It would be very hard for any man to argue successfully that he possessed any stronger natural claim to the suffrage than was possessed by these shrewd, honest, energetic old ladies.

Many encouraging letters were written the sisters during their many trials, of which the following is a fair specimen:

Near BOSTON, January 14, 1874.

MY DEAR MADAM: The account of your hardships is interesting, and your action will be highly beneficial in bringing the subject to public notice, and in leading to the correction of a great injustice. The taxation of the property of women, without allowing them any representation, even in town affairs, is so unfair that it seems only necessary to bring it to public view to make it odious and to bring about a change. Therefore you deserve the greater honor, not only because you have suffered in a good cause, but because you have set an example that will be followed, and that will lead to happy results.

Your case has its parallel in every township of New England. In the town where this is written a widow pays into the treasury $7,830 a year, while 600 men, a number equal to half the whole number of voters, pay $1,200 in all. Another lady pays $5,042. Yet neither has a single vote, not even by proxy. That is, each one of 600 men who have no property, who pay only a poll-tax, and many of whom cannot read or write, has the power of voting away the property of the town, while the female owners have no power at all. We have lately spent a day in celebrating the heroism of those who threw overboard the tea; but how trifling was the tea-tax, and how small the injustice to individuals compared with this one of our day! The principle, however, was the same—that there should be no taxation where there is no representation. And this is what we ought to stand by. Please to accept the sympathy and respect of one of your fellow citizens. No doubt you will have the same from all in due time; or, at any rate, from all who love to see fair play.

Very truly yours, AMOS A. LAWRENCE.

Miss Abby H. Smith, Glastonbury, Conn.

A marked evidence of the advance of public sentiment was manifested by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1882, by which the women of Connecticut were held to have the right to practice law. The opinion of Chief-Justice Park concerning the legality of the admission of Miss Mary Hall of Hartford to the bar, giving her the right to practice in the courts of the State, is as follows:

This is an application by a woman for admission to the bar of Hartford county. After having completed the prescribed term of study she has passed the examination required and has been recommended by the bar of the county to the Superior Court for admission, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether, as a woman, she can legally be admitted. The Superior Court has reserved the case for our advice.

The statute with regard to the admission of attorneys by the court is the 29th section of chapter 3, title 4, of the General Statutes, and is in the following words: "The Superior Court may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established by the judges of said court; and no other person than an attorney so admitted shall plead at the bar of any court of this State, except in his own cause."

It is not contended, in opposition to the application, that the language of this statute is not comprehensive enough to include women, but the claim is that at the time it was passed its application to women was not thought of, while the fact that women have never been admitted as attorneys, either by the English courts or by any of the courts of this country, had established a common-law disability, which could be removed only by a statute intended to have that effect.

It is hardly necessary to consider how far the fact that women have never pursued a particular profession or occupied a particular official position, to the pursuit or occupancy of which some governmental license or authority was necessary, constitutes a common-law disability for receiving such license or authority, because here the statute is ample for removing that disability if we can construe it as applying to women; so that we come back to the question whether we are by construction to limit the application of the statute to men alone, by reason of the fact that in its original enactment its application to women was not intended by the legislators that enacted it. And upon this point we remark, in the first place, that an inquiry of this sort involves very serious difficulties. No one would doubt that a statute passed at this time in the same words would be sufficient to authorize the admission of women to the bar, because it is now a common fact and presumably in the minds of legislators, that women in different parts of the country are, and for some time have been, following the profession of law. But if we hold that the construction of the statute is to be determined by the admitted fact that its application to women was not in the minds of the legislators when it was passed, where shall we draw the line? All progress in social matters is gradual. We pass almost imperceptibly from a state of public opinion that utterly condemns some course of action to one that strongly approves it. At what point, in the history of this change, shall we regard a statute, the construction of which is to be affected by it, as passed in contemplation of it? When the statute we are now considering was passed, it probably never entered the mind of a single member of the legislature that black men would ever be seeking for admission under it. Shall we now hold that it cannot apply to black men? We know of no distinction in respect to this rule between the case of a statute and that of a constitutional provision. When our State constitution was adopted in 1818 it was provided in it that every elector should be "eligible to any office in the State," except where otherwise provided in the constitution. It is clear that the convention that framed, and probably all the people who voted to adopt the constitution, had no idea that black men would ever be electors, and contemplated only white men as within any possible application of the provision, for the same constitution provided that only white men should be electors. But now that black men are made electors, will it do to say that they are not entitled to the full rights of electors in respect to holding office, because an application of the provision to them was never thought of when it was adopted? Events that gave rise to enactments may always be considered in construing them. This is little more than the familiar rule that in construing a statute we always inquire what particular mischief it was designed to remedy. Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that in construing the recent amendments of the federal constitution, although they are general in their terms, it is to be considered that they were passed with reference to the exigencies growing out of the emancipation of the slaves, and for the purpose of benefiting the blacks (Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall., 67; Strauder vs. West Virginia, 100 U. S. Reps., 306). But this statute was not passed for the purpose of benefiting men as distinguished from women. It grew out of no exigency caused by the relation of the sexes. Its object was wholly to secure the orderly trial of causes and the better administration of justice. Indeed, the preamble to the first statute providing for the admission of attorneys, states its object to be "for the well-ordering of proceedings and pleas at the bar."

The statute on this subject was not originally passed in its present form. The first act with regard to the admission of attorneys was that of 1708, which was as follows: "That no person, except in his own cause, shall be admitted to make any plea at the bar without being first approved by the court before whom the plea is to be made, nor until he shall take in the said court the following oath," etc. (Col. Records, 1706 to 1716, page 48). This act seems to have contemplated an approval by the court in each particular case in which an attorney appeared before it. The first act with regard to the general admission of attorneys appears in the revision of 1750, and is as follows: "That the county courts of the respective counties in this colony shall appoint, and they are hereby empowered to approve, nominate and appoint attorneys in their respective counties, as there shall be occasion, to plead at the bar; * * and that no person, except in his own case, shall make any plea at the bar in any court but such as are allowed and qualified attorneys, as aforesaid." Thus the statute stood until the revision of 1821; when, for the first time, it took essentially its present form. Up to this time the word "person" had been used in this statute only in the clause that "no person" should be allowed to practice before the courts except where formally admitted by the court, a use of the word which, of course, could not be regarded as limited to the male sex, as women would undoubtedly have been held to be included in the term. The language of the statute as now adopted was as follows: "The county courts may make such rules and regulations as to them shall seem proper relative to the admission and practice of attorneys; and may approve of, admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys, such persons as are qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established; * * and no person not thus admitted, except in his own cause, shall be admitted or allowed to plead at the bar of any court." The statute in this form passed through the compilations of 1835 and 1838, the revision of 1849 and the compilation of 1854, and appears, with a slight modification, in the revision of 1866. The county courts had now been abolished, and the power to admit attorneys, as well as to make rules on the subject, had been given to the Superior Court; the expression, "such persons," being preserved, and the provision that "no person" not thus admitted should be allowed to plead, being omitted.

The statute finally took its present form in the revision of 1875. It retains the provision that the Superior Court may make rules for the admission of attorneys, and provides that the court "may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established," and restores the provision, dropt in the revision of 1866, that "no person other than an attorney so admitted shall plead at the bar of any court in this State, except in his own cause."

These changes, though not such as to affect the meaning of the statute at any point of importance to the present question, are yet not wholly without importance. The adoption by the legislature of the revision of the statutes becomes, both in law and in fact, a reenactment of the whole body of statutes; and though in determining the meaning of a statute, we are not to regard it as then enacted for the first time, especially if there be no change in its phraseology, yet, where there is such a change, it follows that the attention of the revisers had been particularly directed to that statute, as of course also that of the legislature, and that with the changes made it expresses the present intent of both. Thus, in this case, it is clear that the revisers gave particular thought to the phraseology of the statute we are considering, and put it in a form that seemed to them best with reference to the present state of things, and decided to leave the words "such persons" to stand with full knowledge that they were sufficient to include women, and that women were already following the profession of law in different parts of the country. The legislators must be presumed to have acted with the same consideration and knowledge. It would have been perfectly easy, if either had thought best, to insert some words of limitation or exclusion, but it was not done. Not only so, but a clause omitted in the revision of 1866 was restored, providing that no "person" not regularly admitted should act as an attorney—a term which necessarily included women, and the insertion of which made it necessary, if the word "persons" as used in the first part of the statute should be held not to include women, to give two entirely different meanings to the same word where occurring twice in the same statute and with regard to the same subject matter.

The object of a revision of statutes is, that there may be such changes made in them as the changes in political and social matters may demand, and where no changes are made it is to be presumed that the legislature is satisfied with it in its present form. And where some changes are made in a particular statute, and other parts of it are left unchanged, there is the more reason for the inference from this evidence that the matter of changing the statute was especially considered, that the parts unchanged express the legislative will of to-day, rather than that of perhaps a hundred years ago, when it was originally enacted.

But this statute, in the revision of 1875, is placed immediately after another with regard to the appointment of commissioners of the Superior Court, the necessary construction of which, we think, throws light upon the construction of the statute in question. That act was passed in 1855, after women had begun, with general acceptance, to occupy a greatly enlarged field of industry and some professional and even public positions; and it has been held by the Superior Court, very properly we think, as applying to women, a woman having three years ago been appointed commissioner under it. Its language is as follows: "The Superior Court in any county may appoint any number of persons in such county to be commissioners of the Superior Court, who, when sworn, may sign writs and subpoenas, take recognizances, administer oaths and take depositions and the acknowledgement of deeds, and shall hold office for two years from their appointment." Here the very language is used which is used in the statute with regard to attorneys. In one it is, "any number of persons," in the other, "such persons as are qualified." These two statutes are placed in immediate juxtaposition in the revision of 1875 and deal with kindred subjects, and it is reasonable to presume that the revisers and legislature intended both to receive the same construction. It would seem strange to any common-sense observer that an entirely different meaning should be given to the same word in the two statutes, especially when in giving the narrower meaning to the word in the statute with regard to attorneys, we are compelled to give it a different meaning from that which the same word requires in the next line of the same statute.

We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as far as possible, in favor of equality of rights. All restrictions upon human liberty, all claims for special privileges, are to be regarded as having the presumption of law against them, and as standing upon their defense, and can be sustained if at all by valid legislation, only by the clear expression or clear implication of the law.

We have some noteworthy illustrations of the recognition of women as eligible or appointable to office under statutes of which the language is merely general. Thus, women are appointed in all parts of the country as postmasters. The act of congress of 1825 was the first one conferring upon the postmaster-general the power of appointing postmasters, and it has remained essentially unchanged to the present time. The language of the act is, that "the postmaster-general shall establish post-offices and appoint postmasters." Here women are not included, except in the general term "postmasters," a term which seems to imply a male person; and no legislation from 1825 down to the present time authorizes the appointment of women, nor is there any reference in terms to women until the revision of 1874, which recognizes the fact that women had already been appointed, in providing that "the bond of any married woman who may be appointed postmaster shall be binding on her and her sureties." Some of the higher grades of postmasters are appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and such appointments and confirmations have repeatedly been made. The same may be said of pension agents. The acts of congress on the subject have simply authorized "the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all pension agents, who shall hold their offices for the term of four years, and shall give bond," etc. At the last session of congress a married woman in Chicago was appointed for a third term pension agent for the State of Illinois, and the public papers stated that there was not a single vote against her confirmation in the Senate. Public opinion is everywhere approving of such appointments. They promote the public interest, which is benefitted by every legitimate use of individual ability, while mere justice, which is of interest to all, requires that all have the fullest opportunity for the exercise of their abilities. These cases are the more noteworthy as being cases of public offices, to which the incumbent is appointed for a term of years, upon a compensation provided by law, and in which he is required to give bond. If an attorney is to be regarded as an officer, it is in a lower sense.

We have had pressed upon us by the counsel opposed to the applicant, the decisions of the courts of Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois, and the United States Court of Claims, adverse to such an application. While not prepared to accede to all the general views expressed in those decisions, we do not think it necessary to go into a discussion of them, as we regard our statute, in view of all the considerations affecting its construction, as too clear to admit of any reasonable question as to the interpretation and effect which we ought to give it.

In this opinion Carpenter and Loomis, Js., concurred; Pardee, J., dissented.

In 1884, the State society held a spirited and successful convention.[167] Julia Smith gave an extemporaneous talk to the great delight of the audience, who applauded continually; Mrs. Crane, a fine elocutionist, gave a reading from Carlyle; Mrs. Hooker closed with a brief resume of the work the society had accomplished.

We are also indebted to Frances Ellen Burr for many facts, as the following letter will show:

HARTFORD, September 17, 1885.

MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I have received your letter of inquiry. As to that petition in 1867, I was one of the signers, and, probably had something to do with getting the other signatures, though I have nothing but my memory to depend on as to that; but I was pretty much alone here in those days, on the woman suffrage question. Who the other signers were I made an attempt to find out in the secretary of state's office the other day, but found that it would take days, instead of the few hours I had at my command. I find in my journal a reference to Lucy Stone and Mr. Blackwell addressing the committee in the House of Representatives, and that was the committee that made the report afterwards published in The Revolution. Mr. Croffut made the opening address on the day of the hearing. He was always ready to aid us in whatever way he could, and I felt grateful to him, for a helping hand was doubly appreciated in those days. I find by the journal of the House for that year that the vote on the question was 93 yeas to 111 nays. The name of Miss Susie Hutchinson heads one petition, with 70 others. How many other petitions there were that year I do not know, but I believe there have been several every year since, besides a number of individual petitions. Since that time the House has voted favorably on the question twice, at least, but I believe we have never had a majority in the Senate.

You ask when I first wrote or spoke for the ballot. My first venture in that line was in 1853. I was then at the age of twenty-two, living with my sister in Cleveland, O., and had never given any attention to the subject of woman suffrage, and cared nothing about it any further than the spirit of rebellion—born with me—against everything unjust, might be said to have made me a radical by nature. In the fall of that year a woman's rights convention met in Cleveland, and I attended it alone, none of the rest of the family caring to go. In my old journal I find this entry:

October 7, 1853. Attended a woman's rights convention which has met here. Never saw anything of the kind before. A Mr. Barker spent most of the morning trying to prove that woman's rights and the Bible cannot agree. The Rev. Antoinette L. Brown replied in the afternoon in defense of the Bible. She says the Bible favors woman's rights. Miss Brown is the best-looking woman in the convention. They appear to have a number of original and pleasing characters upon their platform, among them Miss Lucy Stone—hair short and rolled under like a man's; a tight-fitting velvet waist and linen collar at the throat; bombazine skirt just reaching the knees, and trousers of the same. She is independent in manner and advocates woman's rights in the strongest terms:—scorns the idea of woman asking rights of man, but says she must boldly assert her own rights, and take them in her own strength. Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady with black eyes and curls, and rosy cheeks, manifests the independent spirit also. She is graceful and witty, and is ready with sharp replies on all occasions. Mrs. Lucretia Mott, a Philadelphia Quaker, is meek in dress but not in spirit. She gets up and hammers away at woman's rights, politics and the Bible, with much vigor, then quietly resumes her knitting, to which she industriously applies herself when not speaking to the audience. She wears the plain Quaker dress and close-fitting white cap. Mrs. Frances D. Gage, the president, is a woman of sound sense and a good writer of prose and poetry. Mrs. Caroline Severance has an easy, pleasing way of speaking. Mr. Charles Burleigh, a Quaker, appears to be an original character. He has long hair, parted in the middle like a woman's, and hanging down his back. He and Miss Stone seem to reverse the usual order of things.

My first speech in public, I find by my old journal—which serves me better than I thought it would—was given in Music Hall in this city in November, 1870. This meeting was held under the auspices of the State association, and was presided over by the Rev. Olympia Brown. I find that in the winter of 1871 I made addresses in various parts of the State. The journal also tells of a good deal of trotting about to get signatures to petitions, for I had more time to do that thing then than I have now.

The first woman suffrage meeting ever held in Hartford, and the first, probably, in Connecticut, was the one you and Mrs. Stanton held in Allyn Hall in December, 1867. Our State Suffrage Association was organized in October, 1869. The signers[168] to the call for that convention were quite influential persons.

In my hunt through the journals of the two legislative houses I found in the House journal for 1878 that Mr. Pratt of Meriden had presented the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Isaac C. Lewis. Mr. Clark of Enfield, presented the petition of Lucy A. Allen; Mr. Gallagher of New Haven presented several petitions that year, one of them being headed by Mr. Henry A. Stillman of Wethersfield, followed by 532 names, and another by Mrs. D. F. Connor, M. D. Mr. Broadhead of Glastonbury presented the petition of the Smith sisters. This unique petition Miss Mary Hall, who was with me in the secretary's office, chanced to light upon, and she copied it. It is a document well worth handing down on the page of history, and runs as follows:

The Petition of Julia E. Smith and Abby H. Smith, of Glastonbury, to the Senate of the State of Connecticut:

This is the first time we have petitioned your honorable body, having twice come before the House of Assembly, which the last time gave a majority that we should vote in town affairs; but it was negatived in the Senate.

We now pray the highest court in our native State that we may be relieved from the stigma of birth. For forty years since the death of our father have we suffered intensely for being born women. We cannot even stand up for the principles of our forefathers (who fought and bled for them) without having our property seized and sold at the sign-post, which we have suffered four times; and have also seen eleven acres of our meadow-land sold to an ugly neighbor for a tax of fifty dollars—land worth more than $2,000. And a threat is given out that our house shall be ransacked and despoiled of articles most dear to us, the work of lamented members of our family who have gone before us, and all this is done without the least excuse of right or justice. We are told that it is the law of the land made by the legislature and done to us, two defenceless women, who have never broken these laws, made by not half the citizens of this State. And it was said in our Declaration of Independence that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

For being born women we are obliged to help support those who have earned nothing, and who, by gambling, drinking, and the like, have come to poverty, and these same can vote away what we have earned with our own hands. And when men meet to take off the dollar poll-tax, the bill for the dinner comes in for the women to pay. Neither have we husband, or brother, or son, or even nephew, or cousin, to help us. All men will acknowledge that it is as wrong to take a woman's property without her consent as to take a man's without his consent; and such wrong we suffer wholly for being born women, which we are in no wise to blame for. To be sure, for our consolation, we are upheld by the learned, the wise and the good, from all parts of the country, having received communications from thirty-two of our States, as well as from over the seas, that we are in the right, and from many of the best men in our own State. But they have no power to help us. We therefore now pray your honorable body, who have power, with the House of Assembly, to relieve us of this stigma of birth, and grant that we may have the same privileges before the law as though we were born men. And this, as in duty bound, we will ever pray.

JULIA and ABBY SMITH.

Glastonbury, Conn., January 29, 1878.

The story of the Smith sisters, from 1873 and on, will be handed down as one of the most original and unique chapters in the history of woman suffrage. Abby Smith, with my friend Mrs. Buckingham, attended with me the first meeting of the Woman's Congress, in New York, in October, 1873. While there, she said she should, on her return, address her town's people on woman suffrage and taxation, as they had not been treated fairly in the matter of their taxes. She did so on the fifth of November, addressing the Glastonbury town meeting in the little red-brick town-house of that place—a building that will always hereafter be connected with the names of Abby and Julia Smith. Several years after, wishing to address them again, she was refused entrance there, so she and Julia addressed the people from an ox-cart that stood in front. This was after their continued warfare against "taxation without representation" had aroused the opposition of their townsmen, but that first speech in 1873 was the beginning of their fame. Abby sent it to me for publication in the Times of this city, but the editor not having room for it sent it to the Courant, which gave it a place in its columns, thus (unwittingly) setting a ball in motion that ran all round the country, and even over the ocean. The simplicity and uniqueness of the story of "Abby Smith and her cows," gave a boom to the cause of woman suffrage as welcome as it was unexpected. The Glastonbury mails were more heavily laden than ever before in the history of this hitherto unknown town, for letters came pouring in from all quarters to the sisters. The fame did not rest entirely on Abby and her cows; Julia and her Bible came in for an important share, and the newspaper articles in regard to them were a remarkable blending of cows and Biblical lore, dairy products and Greek and Hebrew. Many of the articles were wide of the facts, being written with a view to make a bright and readable column. For instance, a Chicago paper got up a highly colored article in which it said that Abby Smith's mother—Hannah Hickok—was such an intense student that her father had a glass cage made for her to study in. The only vestage of truth in this story was that, lacking our modern facilities for heating, Mr. Hickok had an extra amount of glass put into the south side of his daughter's room that the sun might give it a little more heat in cold weather. Hannah Hickok seems to have had a mental equipment much above that of the average woman of that day; she had a taste for literature, and was something of a linguist, and wrote, moreover, at different times, quite an amount of readable verse. She had a taste for mathematics, and also for astronomy, and made for her own use an almanac, for these were not so plenty then as now; she could, on awakening, tell any hour of the night by the position of the stars. Evidently Hannah Hickok Smith was not an ordinary woman; and it is quite as evident that her daughters were equally original, though in a different direction. Women who have translated the Bible are not to be met with every day—nor men either, for that matter, but Julia Smith not only did this, but translated it five times,—twice from the Hebrew, twice from the Greek, and once from the Latin; and thirty years later, or after the age of eighty, published the translation; and then, to crown the list of marvels, married at the age of eighty-five.



One point more, and the one nearest my heart. You ask me about my "dear friend Mrs. Buckingham." I can give no details of her suffrage work, but her heart was in it, and her name should be handed down in your History. She was at one time chairman of the executive committee of our State association, and she would, if she had thought it necessary, have spent of her little income to the last cent to help along the cause. She made public addresses and wrote many suffrage articles and letters that were published in different papers, but she made no noise about it; her work was all done with her own characteristic gentleness. Generous to a fault, winning and beautiful as the flowers she scattered on the pathway of her friends, she passed on her way; and one memorable Easter morning she left us so gently that none knew when the sleep of life passed into the sleep of death; we only knew that the glorious light of her eyes—a light like that which "never shone on sea or land"—had gone out forever.

"She died in beauty like the dew Of flowers dissolved away; She died in beauty like a star Lost on the brow of day."

The Hartford Equal Rights Club[169] was organized in March, 1885, and holds semi-monthly meetings. Its membership is not large, but what it lacks in numbers it makes up in earnestness. Its proceedings are reported pretty fully and published in the Hartford Times, which has a large circulation, thus gaining an audience of many thousands and making its proceedings much more important than they would otherwise be. It is managed as simply as possible, and is not encumbered with a long list of officers. There are simply a president, Mrs. Emily P. Collins;[170] a vice-president, Miss Mary Hall; and a secretary, Frances Ellen Burr, who is also the treasurer. Debate is free to all, the platform being perfectly independent, as far as a platform can be independent within the limits of reason. Essays are read and debated, and many interesting off-hand speeches are made. It is an entirely separate organization from the Connecticut State Suffrage Association, founded in 1869. But its membership is not confined to the city; it invites people throughout the State, or in other States, to become members—people of all classes and of all beliefs. Opponents of woman suffrage are always welcome, for these furnish the spice of debate. Among the topics discussed has been that of woman and the church, and upon this subject Mrs. Stanton has written the club several letters.

Last spring (1885) a number of the members of the club were given hearings before the Committee on Woman Suffrage in the legislature in reference to a bill then under consideration, which was exceedingly limited in its provisions. The House of Representatives improved it and then passed it, but it was afterwards defeated in the Senate. Some of the meetings of the club have been held in Hartford's handsome capitol, a room having been allowed for its use, and a number of members of the House of Representatives have taken part in the discussions. Mrs. Collins, president of the club, is always to be depended upon for good work, and Miss Hall, its vice-president, is active and efficient. She is in herself an illustration of what women can become if they only have sufficient confidence and force of will. She is a practicing lawyer, and a successful one.

FOOTNOTES:

[158] The life of William Lloyd Garrison, Vol. 1.: The Century Company, New York.

[159] She was soon followed by Mrs. Middlebrook and Mrs. Lucy R. Elms, with warm benedictions. The latter called some meetings in her neighborhood in the autumn of 1868, and entertained us most hospitably at her beautiful home.

[160] Those who leave the tangled problem of life to God for solution find, sooner or later, that God leaves it to them to settle in their own way.—[E. C. S.

[161] Among them were Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Mary A. Livermore, Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Celia Burleigh, Caroline M. Severance, Rev. Olympia Brown, Frances Ellen Burr, Charlotte B. Wilbour, William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, Nathaniel I. Burton, John Hooker, the Hutchinsons, with Sister Abby and her husband, Ludlow Patton.

[162] President, Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford. Vice-presidents, Brigadier-general B. S. Roberts, U. S. A., New Haven; Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, Hartford; Rev. Dr. Joseph Cummings, Middletown; Rev. William L. Gage, Hartford; Rev. Olympia Brown, Bridgeport. Secretary, Miss Frances Ellen Burr. Executive Committee, Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J. G. Parsons and Miss Emily Manning, M. D., Hartford. Treasurer, John Hooker.

[163] On her departure for St. Petersburg, where her husband was minister plenipotentiary, Mrs. Jewell left a check of $200 for the State society. She was an honored officer of the National Suffrage Association until the time of her death, in 1883.

[164] Mrs. Hooker writes us that the act passed upon Governor Hubbard's recommendation was prepared at his request by Mr. Hooker, and was essentially the same that had been unsuccessfully urged by him upon the legislature eight years before. She then goes on to say: "What part our society had in our bringing about so beneficent a change in legislation, cannot be better set forth than in two private letters from Samuel Bowles of the Springfield Republican, and Governor Hubbard. While these gentlemen were friends of Mr. Hooker and myself, yet, as politically opposed to each other, their united testimony is exceedingly valuable, and since they have both passed on to a world of more perfect adjustments, I feel that nothing would give them greater satisfaction than to be put upon record here as among the earliest defenders of the rights of women.

"SPRINGFIELD, Mass., March 28, 1877.

"MY DEAR MRS. HOOKER:—I return your letters and paper as you desired. It is an interesting story, and a most gratifying movement forward. I am more happy over the bill passed, than I am sorry over the bill that failed. We shall move fast enough. The first great step is this successful measure in Connecticut—the establishment in practice of the principle of equal, mutual, legal rights, and equal, mutual, legal responsibilities, for which I have been preaching and praying these twenty years. We owe the success this year, first to the right of the matter; second, to the agitation of the whole question which has disseminated the perception of that right; third, to you and your husband in particular; and fourth, to the fact that you had in Connecticut this year a governor who was recognized as the leading lawyer of the State, a genuine natural conservative who yet said the measure was right and ought to go. It is this last element that has given Connecticut its chief leadership. It is a bigger thing than it seems at first to have an eminent conservative lawyer on the side of such legislative reform. I hate very much to take your husband's side against you, and yet now that I am over fifty years old, I find I more and more sympathize with his patience and philosophy with the slow-going march of reform. But with such things going forward in national politics, and such a sign in the heavens as this in Connecticut, we ought all to be very happy—and I believe I am, in spite of debts, hard work, fatigue and more or less chronic invalidism. At any rate I salute you both with honor and with affection."

"Very faithfully yours, SAMUEL BOWLES.

"This letter I enclosed to Governor Hubbard and received the following reply:

"EASTER, April 1, 1877.

"MY GOOD FRIEND:—It was a 'Good Friday' indeed that brought your friendly missive. And what a dainty and gracious epistle Sam. Bowles does know how to write! He is a good fellow, upon my word, full of generous instincts and ideas. He ought to be at the head of the London Times and master of all the wealth it brings. Add to this, that the Good Physician should heal him of his 'chronic invalidism' and then—well what's the use of dreaming? Thank yourself, and such as you for what there is of progress in respect of woman's rights amongst us. I do believe our bill is a 'great leap forward' as Bowles says in his editorial. 'Alas!' says my friend ——, 'it has destroyed the divine conception of the unity of husband and wife.' As divine, upon my soul, as the unity of the lamb and the devouring wolf. * * * But enough of this. I salute you my good friend, with a thousand salutations of respect and admiration. I do not agree with you in all things, but I cannot tell you how much I glorify you for your courage and devotion to womanhood. I am a pretty poor stick for anything like good work in the world, but I am not without respect for it in others. And so I present myself to yourself and to your good and noble husband whom I take to be one of the best, with every assurance of affection and esteem. Thanking you for your kind letter, I remain, dear madam,

"Yours very truly, R. D. HUBBARD."

[165] At the various hearings Mrs. Anna Middlebrook, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sheldon, Julia and Abby Smith, Rev. Olympia Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Hooker were the speakers.

[166] See Appendix for Mr. Hooker's article, "Is the Family the Basis of the State?"

[167] At the convention of March 17 and 18, 1884, the speakers were Mrs. Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, the Rev. Charles Stowe, Julia Smith Parker, Mrs. Emily Collins, Abigail Scott Duniway, Miss Leonard, Mrs. C. G. Rogers, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Sage, Mrs. Ellis, Miss Gage, the Rev. J. C. Kimball, the Rev. Mr. Everts of Hartford, Mary Hall and F. E. Burr. The officers elected at this meeting were: Isabella B. Hooker, President: F. Ellen Burr, Secretary; Mary Hall, Assistant-secretary; John Hooker, Treasurer. Executive Committee; Mrs. Ellen Burr McManus, Mrs. Emily P. Collins, Mrs. Amy A. Ellis, Mrs. J. G. Parsons Hartford; Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South Manchester; Mrs. John S. Dobson, Vernon Depot; Judge Joseph Sheldon, Charles Atwater, James Gallagher, New Haven.

[168] John Hooker, Isabella B. Hooker, the Rev. N. J. Burton, Rachel C. Burton, Franklin Chamberlin, Francis Gillette, Eliza D. Gillette, Frances Ellen Burr, Catharine E. Beecher, Esther E. Jewell, Calvin E. Stowe, Harriet Beecher Stowe and others, Hartford; Joseph Cummings, Middletown, President of Wesleyan University; Thomas Elmes, Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Charles Atwater, New Haven; Thomas T. Stone, Laura Stone, Brooklyn. The officers elected for the Association were: President, the Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford; Secretary, Frances Ellen Burr; Executive Committee, Isabella B. Hooker; Mrs. Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J. G. Parsons, Miss Emily Manning, M. C., Hartford; Mr. Charles Atwater, New Haven; Mr. Ward Cheney, Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South Manchester; Mrs. Virginia Smith, Hartford. Treasurer, William B. Smith, Hartford. There was a long list of vice-presidents, which I presume you do not care for, nor for the other names that were added as changes had to be made in the years that followed.

[169] A member of the club says: "We receive more of our life and enthusiasm from Frances Ellen Burr than all other members combined; indeed, the chief part of the work rests on her shoulders."

[170] See Mrs. Collins's Reminiscences, chapter V., Vol. I.



CHAPTER XXXIII.

RHODE ISLAND.

Senator Anthony in North American Review—Convention in Providence—Work of State Association—Report of Elizabeth B. Chace—Miss Ida Lewis—Letter of Frederick A. Hinckley—Last Words from Senator Anthony.

Rhode Island, though one of the smallest, is, in proportion to the number of its inhabitants, one of the wealthiest states in the Union. In political organization Rhode Island, in colonial times, contrasted favorably with the other colonies, nearly all of which required a larger property qualification, and some a religious test for the suffrage. The home of Roger Williams knew nothing of such narrowness, but was an asylum for those who suffered persecution elsewhere. Nevertheless this is now, in many respects, the most conservative of all the States.

In the November number of the North American Review for 1883, Senator Anthony, in an article on the restricted suffrage in Rhode Island, stoutly maintains that suffrage is not a natural right, and that in adhering to her property qualification for foreigners his State has wisely protected the best interests of the people. In his whole argument on the question, he ignores the idea of women being a part of the people, and ranks together qualifications of sex, age, and residence. He quite unfairly attributes much of Rhode Island's prosperity—the result of many causes—to her restricted suffrage. His position in this article, written so late in life, is the more remarkable as he had always spoken and voted in his place in the United States Senate (where he had served nearly thirty years) strongly in favor of woman's enfranchisement. And the Providence Journal, which he owned and controlled, was invariably respectful and complimentary towards the movement.

While such a man as Senator Anthony, one of the political leaders in his State, regarded suffrage as a privilege which society may concede or withhold at pleasure, we need not wonder that so little has been accomplished there in the way of legislative enactments and supreme-court decisions. Nevertheless that State has shared in the general agitation and can boast many noble men and women who have taken part in the discussion of this subject.

The first woman suffrage association was formed in Rhode Island in December, 1868. In describing the initiative steps, Elizabeth B. Chace in a letter to a friend, says:

In October 1868, while in Boston attending the convention that formed the New England society, Paulina Wright Davis[171] conceived the idea that the time had come to organize the friends of suffrage in Rhode Island. After consultation with a few of the most prominent friends of the cause, a call was issued for a convention, to be held in Roger Williams Hall, Providence, December 11th, signed by many leading names. No sooner did the call appear than, as usual, some clergyman publicly declared himself in opposition. The Rev. Mark Trafton, a Methodist minister, gave a lecture in his vestry on "The Coming Woman," who was to be a good housekeeper, dress simply, and not to vote. This was published in the Providence Journal, and called out a gracefull vindication of woman's modern demands from the pen of Mrs. Sarah Helen Whitman, the poet, and Miss Norah Perry, a popular writer of both prose and verse. The convention was all that its most ardent friends could have desired, and resulted in forming an association.[172] The audience numbered over a thousand, at the different sessions, and among the speakers were some of the ablest men in the State. Though the friends were comparatively few in the early days, yet there was no lack of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Weekly meetings were held, tracts and petitions circulated; conventions[173] and legislative hearings were as regular as the changing seasons, now in Providence, and now in Newport, following the migratory government.

Mrs. Davis was president of the association for several successive years in which her labors were indefatigable. Finally failing health compelled her to resign her position as president of the association.[174] Since then her able coadjutor Elizabeth B. Chace, has been president of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association, and with equal faithfulness and persistence, carried on the work. She steadily keeps up the annual conventions and makes her appeals to the legislature. Among the names[175] of those who have appeared from year to year before the Rhode Island legislature we find many able men and women from other States as well as many of their own distinguished citizens.

In this State an effort was made early to get women on the board of managers for schools, prisons and charitable institutions. In a letter to Mrs. Davis, John Stuart Mill says:

I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by Rhode Island in creating a board of women for some very important administrative purpose. Your proposal that women should be empanneled on every jury where women are to be tried seems to me very good, and calculated to place the injustice to which women are subjected at present by the entire legal system in a very striking light.

In 1873 an effort was made to place women on the Providence School Board, with what success the following extracts from the daily papers show. The Providence Press of April 25, 1873, says:

A shabby trick was perpetrated by the friends of John W. Angell, which was certainly anything but "angelic," and which ought to consign the parties who committed it to political infamy.

Yesterday, for the first time in the history of this city, women were candidates for political honors—in the fifth ward, Mrs. Sarah E. H. Doyle, and in the fourth ward, Mrs. Rhoda A. F. Peckham, were candidates for positions on the school committee; both, however, failed of an election. Mrs. Doyle received the unanimous nomination of the large primary meeting of the National Union Republican party, and Mrs. Peckham was run as an outside candidate against the regular nominee. These ladies would undoubtedly have made excellent members of the committee, and unlike a great portion of that body, would have been found in their places at the meetings, and we should have been glad to have seen the experiment tried of women in the position for which their names were presented. When the polls opened in the fifth ward, instead of Mrs. Doyle's name being on the ballots for the place to which she had been nominated there appeared the name of John W. Angell, esq., and until about 11 o'clock A. M. he had the field to himself. At that hour, however, Mrs. Doyle's friends appeared with the "regular" nomination, and from that time to the close of the polls she received 145 votes; Mr. Angell, notwithstanding his several hours' start in the race, only winning by a majority of 38. From this fact it is clear that had Mrs. Doyle's name been in its proper place at the opening of the polls she would have beaten her opponent handsomely. Mrs. Peckham's opponent obtained but 23 majority in a poll of 349. It is evident from the vote yesterday, that if they have but a fair show, women will at the next election be successful as candidates for the school committee. Had the intelligent ladies of the fifth ward been allowed to vote, Mrs. Doyle would have led even the gubernatorial vote of that ward.

The Providence Journal makes the following comment:

We are sorry to observe that the two estimable and admirably qualified ladies whose names were presented for school committee in this city, failed of success. Their influence in official connection with the schools could not have been other than salutary. The treatment accorded Mrs. Doyle in the fifth ward was wofully shabby. Without her solicitation, the Republican caucus unanimously nominated her for a member of the school committee. Being a novice in political proceedings, she naturally enough supposed that the party that desired her services so much as to place her in nomination, would make provision for electing their candidate. There was not gallantry enough in the ward, however, for that duty, and it was not until 11 o'clock on election day that any tickets bearing the name of Mrs. Doyle were to be found in the ward-room; but a ticket with the names of two men was on hand at sunrise, and the time lost in procuring tickets for the regular nominee proved fatal to her success. Mrs. Doyle has now learned something of the ways of politicians, and is not likely to put her trust again in the faithfulness of ward committees.

At a meeting of the State association, held in Providence, on Thursday, May 18, 1871, the following preamble and resolutions were, after a full and earnest discussion, unanimously adopted:

WHEREAS, It is claimed, in opposition to the demand that the elective franchise shall be given to women, that they are represented in the government by men, so that they do not need the ballot for their protection, inasmuch as all their rights are secured to them by the interest of these men in their welfare; and, whereas, in February last, in view of the appalling facts frequently coming to our notice, consequent upon the mismanagement of poor-houses and asylums for the insane, this association did earnestly petition our State legislature to enact a law providing for the appointment of women in all the towns in our State to act as joint commissioners with men in the care and control of these institutions; and, whereas, in utter disregard of our request, the Committee on State Charities, to whom it was referred, in reporting back our petition to the House of Representatives, did recommend that the petitioners be given leave to withdraw, and the House, without (so far as we could learn) one word of protest from any member thereof, did so dispose of our petition; therefore,

Resolved, That this association do most solemnly declare, that so far from being represented in our legislature, the rights of the women of this State were in this instance trampled under foot therein, and the best interests of humanity, in the persons of the poorest and most unfortunate classes, were not sufficiently regarded, under this system of class legislation.

Resolved, That, despairing of obtaining for women even the privileges which would enable them to look after the welfare of the destitute and the suffering, with any power or authority to improve their condition, until equal rights in the government itself are guaranteed to all without regard to sex, we will henceforth make use of this treatment we have received as a new argument in favor of the emancipation of women from the legal status of idiots and criminals, and, with this weapon in our hands, we will endeavor to arouse the women of our State to a keener sense of their degraded condition, and we will never abate our demand until an amendment to the constitution is submitted to the people granting suffrage to the women of Rhode Island.

Resolved, That this preamble and these resolutions be offered for publication to the daily papers of this city.

ELIZABETH B. CHACE, President.

SUSAN B. P. MARTIN, Secretary.

For several years the philanthropic women of Rhode Island made many determined efforts to secure some official positions in the charitable institutions of the State, with what success the following report by Elizabeth B. Chace, at the annual meeting of the American Association, in Philadelphia, in 1876, will show:

The Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, while holding its monthly meetings through the year, circulating petitions to the legislature, and, in other ways, constantly endeavoring to revolutionize the entire sentiment of the State on the question of woman suffrage, still has less progress to report than its friends would have desired. Our last annual meeting, as usual, drew together a large audience. Among our speakers from abroad was William Lloyd Garrison, who, in a speech of almost anti-slavery force and fervor, appeared to send conviction into many minds. Our home speakers included a clergyman of Providence and one of our ablest lawyers, and an ex-legislator who had never stood on our platform before.

As usual, our petitions went into the legislature. They were referred to the Judiciary Committee, before whom we had a hearing, at which three Providence lawyers gave us their unqualified support and earnest advocacy. One of these men set forth in the strongest light the injustice of our laws in regard to the property of married women and their non-ownership of their minor children. The committee made no report to the legislature, and so our petitions lie over until the next session, when we hope for some evidence of progress. In the meantime we intend to very much increase their number. For many years we have been begging of our law-makers to permit women to share in the management of the penal, correctional and charitable institutions of the State; we have, however, only succeeded in obtaining an advisory board of women, which has been in operation for the last six years.

Last spring a majority of these women, having become weary of the service in which they had no power to decide that any improvement should be made in the management of these institutions, resigned their positions on this board, some of them giving through the press their reasons therefor. When the time came for making the new appointments for the year, the governor earnestly urged these women to permit him to appoint them, voluntarily pledging himself to recommend at the opening of the next session of the legislature, that a bill should be passed providing for the appointment of women on the boards of management of all these prisons and reformatories, with the same power and authority with which the men are invested, who now alone decide all questions concerning them. On this condition these women consented to serve on the advisory board a few months longer, with the understanding that, if the legislature fails to make this important provision, their advice will be withdrawn, and the men will be left to take care of thieves, criminals and paupers until they are ready to ask for our help on terms of equality and justice.

In the Providence Journal appeared the following:

Mrs. Doyle seems to have learned by experience that the board, as now constituted under the law, can have no real efficiency. The ladies are responsible for the management of no part of any of the institutions which they are permitted officially to visit. Their reports are not made to the boards which are charged with the responsibility of managing these institutions, and, in the case of the reform school, are not made to the body which elects and controls the board of management. The State ought not to place ladies in such an anomalous position. The women's board should have positive duties and direct responsibilities in its appropriate sphere, or it should be abolished. The following is Mrs. Doyle's letter of resignation:

To His Excellency Henry Lippitt, Governor of the State:

SIR: Please accept my resignation as member of the Board of Lady Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State. The recent action of a part of the board, in regard to the annual report made to the General Assembly, makes it impossible for me to continue longer as a member. Before the report was submitted, it was carefully examined by the members signing it, and was acquiesced in by them, as their signatures testify. Still further, I am confirmed in the opinion that so important a trust as this should be coupled with some power for action; without this we are necessarily confined to suggestions only to the male boards, which suggestions receive only the attention they may consider proper. Believing that this board, as now empowered, can have no efficiency except where its suggestions or criticisms meet the entire approval of the male boards, and failing to see any good which can result from our inspections under such conditions, or any honor to the board thus examining, I respectfully tender my resignation.

SARAH E. H. DOYLE,

Providence, R. I.

Three more ladies of the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State attest the correctness of the repeated suggestions that the board, as organized under the existing laws, must be comparatively powerless for good. The question now comes, will the Rhode Island General Assembly enact a law which shall give to women certain definite duties and responsibilities in connection with the care and correction of female offenders? We propose to refer to this matter further. We are requested to publish the following communications to his excellency, the governor:

To Henry Lippitt, Governor of Rhode Island:

My appointment on the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State, which I received from your hands for this year, I am now compelled respectfully to resign. My experience in this board for nearly six years has convinced me that this office, which confers on its holders no power to decide that any improvement shall be made in the government or workings of these institutions, is so nearly useless that I am forced to the conclusion that, for myself, the time spent in the performance of its duties can be more effectively employed elsewhere. That the influence of women is indispensable to the proper management of these institutions I was never more sure than I am at this moment; but to make it effectual, that influence must be obtained by placing women on the boards of direct control, where their judgment shall be expressed by argument and by vote.

A board of women, whose only duties, as defined by the law, are to visit the penal and correctional institutions, elect its own officers and report annually to the legislature, bears within itself the elements of weakness and insufficiency. And if the annual reports contain any exposure of abuses, they are sure to give offense to the managers, to be followed by timidity and vacillation in the board of women itself. Our late report, written with great care and conscientious adherence to the truth, which called the attention of the legislature to certain abuses in one of our institutions, and to some defect in the systems established in the others, has, thus far, elicited no official action, has brought censure upon us from the press, while great dissatisfaction has been created in our own body by the failure of a portion of its members to sustain the allegations to which the entire board, with the exception of one absentee, had affixed their names.

When the State of Rhode Island shall call its best women to an equal participation with men in the direction of its penal and reformatory institutions, I have no doubt they will gladly assume the duties and responsibilities of such positions; and I am also sure that the beneficent results of such cooeperation will soon be manifest, both in benefit to individuals and in safety to the State. But under present circumstances I most respectfully decline to serve any longer on the advisory board of women.

Valley Falls, R. I. ELIZABETH B. CHACE.

GOVERNOR LIPPITT: Dear Sir: When I accepted an appointment on the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State, I did so with the hope that much good might be accomplished, especially toward the young girls at the reform school, in whose welfare I felt a deep interest. To that institution my attention has been chiefly devoted during my brief experience in this office. This experience, however, has convinced me that a board of officers constituted and limited like this can have very little influence toward improvement in an institution whose methods are fixed, and which is under the exclusive control of another set of officers, who see no necessity for change. Those causes render this women's board so weak in itself that I cannot consent to retain my position therein. I therefore respectfully tender to you my resignation.

ABBY D. WEAVER.

Providence, R. I.

GOVERNOR LIPPITT: Please accept the resignation of my commission as a member of the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State, conferred by you in June, 1875.

Yours respectfully,

Westerly, R. I. ELIZA C. WEEDEN.

Early in the year 1880 the State association issued the following address:

To the friends of Woman Suffrage throughout the State of Rhode Island:

In behalf of the Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, we beg leave to call your attention to the result of our last year's work, and to our plans for future effort. We went before the General Assembly with petitions for suffrage for women on all subjects, and also with petitions asking only for school suffrage. The former, bearing nearly 2,500 names, was presented in the Senate and finally referred, with other unfinished business, to the next legislature; they will thus be subject to attention the coming year. The latter, bearing nearly 3,500 names, was presented in the House and referred to the Committee on Education. This committee reported unanimously:

Resolved, That the following amendment to the constitution of the State is hereby proposed: Article ——. Women otherwise qualified are entitled to vote in the election of school committees and in all legally organized school-district meetings.

This resolution was adopted in the House by 48 to 11, but rejected in the Senate by 20 to 13.[176] Nineteen members being required to make a majority of a full Senate, the amendment failed by six votes. Had the ballots in the two branches been upon a proposition to extend general suffrage to women, they would have been the most encouraging, and, as it is, they show signs of progress; but a resolve to submit the question of school suffrage to the voters of Rhode Island, ought to have been successful this year. Why was it defeated? Simply for the lack of political power behind it. To gain this, our cause needs a foothold in every part of the State. We need some person or persons in each town, to whom we can look for hearty cooeperation. If our work is to be effective, it must not only continue as heretofore—one of petitioning—but must include also a constant vigilance in securing senators and representatives in the General Assembly, favorable to woman suffrage. We propose the coming year:

First—To petition congress in behalf of the following amendment to our national constitution, viz.:

ARTICLE XVI. Section 1—The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2—Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Second—To secure a hearing and action upon the petitions referred from the last Assembly, for such amendment to our State constitution as shall extend general suffrage to women.

Third—To petition the General Assembly for the necessary legislation to secure school suffrage to women.[177]

The arguments in the various hearings before the legislature with the majority and minority reports, are the same as many already published, in fact nothing new can be said on the question. As none of the women in this State, by trying to vote, or resisting taxation, have tested the justice of their laws, they have no supreme-court decisions to record.

Honorable mention should be made of Dr. William F. Channing, who has stood for many years in Providence the noblest representative of liberal thought. He is a worthy son of that great leader of reform in New England, Rev. William Ellery Channing. In him the advocates of woman's rights have always found a steadfast friend. He sees that this is the fundamental reform; that it is the key to the problems of labor, temperance, social purity and the cooeperative home. Those who have had the good fortune of a personal acquaintance with Dr. Channing have felt the sense of dignity and self-respect that the delicate courtesy and sincere reference of a noble man must always give to woman.

Though Mrs. Channing has not been an active participant in the popular reforms, having led a rather retired life, yet her sympathies have been with her husband in all his endeavors to benefit mankind. She has given the influence of her name to the suffrage movement, and extended the most generous hospitalities to the speakers at the annual conventions. Their charming daughters, Mary and Grace, fully respond to the humanitarian sentiments of their parents, constituting a happy family united in life's purposes and ambitions.

The New York Evening Post of September, 1875, gives the following of one of Rhode Island's brave women, but the State has not as yet, thought it worth while to honor her in any fitting manner:

Yesterday noon Miss Ida Lewis again distinguished herself by rescuing a man who was in danger of drowning in the lower Newport harbor. Miss Lewis first came into prominence in 1866, when she saved the life of a soldier who had set out for a sail in a light skiff. It was one of the coldest and most blustering days ever known in this latitude, yet a girl but 25 years old, impelled by the noblest spirit of humanity, ventured to the assistance of a man who had brought himself into a sorry plight through sheer fool-hardiness. One day, during the autumn of the next year, while a terrible gale was raging, two men sat out to cross the harbor with several sheep. One of the animals fell overboard while the boat was rocked by the heavy sea, and its keepers, in trying to save it, were in imminent peril of swamping their craft. Ida Lewis saw them from the window of her father's lighthouse on Lime Rock, and in a few minutes was rowing them in safety toward the shore. After landing the men, she went back again and rescued the sheep.

These brave deeds, with others of a less striking character, made Miss Lewis' name famous throughout the world, and won for her the title of "the Grace Darling of America"; but in 1869 the newspapers were filled with the story of what was perhaps her greatest exploit. On March 29 two young soldiers set sail from Newport for Fort Adams in a small boat, under the guidance of a boy who pretended to understand the simple rules of navigation. Mrs. Lewis chanced to be looking out of the lighthouse window, and saw a squall strike the boat and overturn it. She called to her daughter, telling her of the casualty. Ida, though ill at the time, rushed out of the house, launched her life-boat and sprang in, with neither hat on her head nor shoes on her feet. By the time she reached the scene of the disaster the boy had perished, and the two soldiers were clinging desperately to the wreck, almost ready to loose their hold from exhaustion. They were dragged into the life-boat, and carried to Lime Rock, and, with careful nursing, were soon sufficiently restored to proceed to Fort Adams.

Miss Lewis' repeated acts of philanthropy have been recognized by gifts at various times, but no national testimonial, so far as we are aware, has yet been offered to her. True generosity, like true virtue, is its own reward, and we of the world are not often disposed to meddle with its quiet enjoyment by its possessor. It seems eminently fitting, however, that among the first to receive the new decoration to be bestowed by congress for heroic deeds in saving life, should be the heroine of Newport harbor.

Writing from Valley Falls September 9, 1885, Elizabeth B. Chace, president of the Rhode Island Association, in summing up the steps of progress, says:

On December 4, 1884, by unanimous consent of our General Assembly the state-house was granted to us for the first time, for a woman suffrage convention. A large number of our best men and women, and some of our ablest speakers[178] were present. An immense audience greeted them and listened with eager interest throughout. The occasion was one of the most pleasant and profitable we have enjoyed in a long time. At the following session of our Legislature, 1885, an amendment to our State constitution was proposed giving the franchise to women, on equal terms with men. It passed both Houses by a large majority vote, but by some technicality, for which no one seemed to blame, it was not legally started on its round to the vote of the people. Hence the proposition to submit the amendment will be again passed upon this year, and with every promise of success. We have strong hopes of making our little commonwealth the banner State in this grand step of progress.

The following letter from Frederick A. Hinckley, makes a fitting mention of some of the noble women who have represented this movement in his State:

PROVIDENCE, R. I., Sept. 14, 1885.

DEAR FRIENDS: You ask for a few words from me concerning salient points in the history of the woman suffrage movement in Rhode Island. As you know, ours is a very small State—the smallest in the Union—and has a very closely compacted population. With us the manufacturing interest overshadows everything else, representing large investments of capital. On the one hand we have great accumulations of wealth by the few; on the other hand, a large percentage of unskilled foreign labor. For good or for ill we feel all those conservative influences which naturally grow out of this two-fold condition. This accounts in the main, for the Rhode Islander's extreme and exceptionally tenacious regard for the institutions of his ancestors. This is why we have the most limited suffrage of any State, many men being debarred from voting by reason of the property qualification still required here of foreign-born citizens. Such a social atmosphere is not favorable to the extension of the franchise, either to men or women, and makes peculiarly necessary with us, the educational process of a very large amount of moral agitation before much can be expected in the way of political changes.

My own residence here dates back only to 1878, though before that from my Massachusetts home I was somewhat familiar with Rhode-Island people and laws. Our work has consisted of monthly meetings, made up usually of an afternoon session for address and discussion, followed by a social tea; of an annual State convention in the city of Providence; and of petitioning the legislature each year, with the appointment of the customary committees and hearings. For many years the centre of the woman movement with us has been the State association, and since my own connection with that, the leader about whom we have all rallied, has been your beloved friend and mine, Elizabeth B. Chace. Hers is that clear conception of, and untiring devotion to principles, which make invincible leadership, tide over all disaster, and overcome all doubt. By her constant appearance before legislative committees, her model newspaper articles which never fail to command general attention even among those who would not think of agreeing with her, and by her persistent fidelity to her sense of duty in social life, she is the recognized head of our agitation in Rhode Island. But she has not stood alone. She has been the centre of a group of women whose names will always be associated with our cause in this locality. Elizabeth K. Churchill lived and died a faithful and successful worker. The Woman's Club in this city was her child; temperance, suffrage, and the interests of working-women were dear to her heart. She was independent in her convictions, and true to herself, even when it compelled dissent from the attitude of trusted leaders and friends, but her work on the platform, in the press, and in society, made her life a tower of strength to the woman's rights cause and her death a lamentable loss. Another active leader in the work here, though not a speaker, who has passed on since my residence in Providence, was Susan B. P. Martin. I think those of us accustomed to act with her always respected Mrs. Martin's judgment and felt sure of her fidelity. What more can be said of any one than that?

It is difficult to speak publicly of one's friends while living. But no history of woman suffrage agitation in Rhode Island would be complete which did not place among those ever to be relied on, the names of Anna Garlin Spencer, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Anna E. Aldrich and Fanny P. Palmer. Mrs. Spencer moved from the State just as I came into it, but the influence of her logical mind was left behind her and the loss of her quick womanly tact has been keenly felt. Mrs. Doyle has long been chairman of the executive committee of the association, Mrs. Aldrich a safe and trusted counsellor, and Mrs. Palmer as member of the Providence school committee, and more recently as president of the Woman's Club, has rendered the cause eminent service.

If final victory seems farther off here than in some of the newer States, as it certainly does, that is only the greater reason for earnest, and ceaseless work. We know we are right, and be it short or long I am sure we have all enlisted for the war.

Always sincerely yours, FREDERIC A. HINCKLEY.

Below is the last utterance of Senator Anthony on this question. In writing to Susan B. Anthony, he said:

UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, March 4, 1884.

MY DEAR COUSIN: I am honored by your invitation to address the National Woman Suffrage Association at the convention to be held in this city. I regret that it is not in my power to comply with your complimentary request. The enfranchisement of woman is one of those great reforms which will come with the progress of civilization, and when it comes those who witness it will wonder that it has been so long delayed. The main argument against it is that the women themselves do not desire it. Many men do not desire it, as is evidenced by their omission to exercise it, but they are not therefore deprived of it. I do not understand that you propose compulsory suffrage, although I am not sure that that would not be for the public advantage as applied to both sexes. A woman has a right to vote in a corporation of which she is a stockholder, and that she does not generally exercise that right is not an argument against the right itself. The progress that is making in the direction of your efforts is satisfactory and encouraging.

Faithfully yours, H. B. ANTHONY.

Senator Anthony was one of the ever-to-be-remembered nine senators who voted for woman suffrage on the floor of the United States Senate in 1866. He also made a most logical speech on our behalf and has ever since been true to our demands.

FOOTNOTES:

[171] To Mrs. Davis, a native of the State of New York, belongs the honor of inaugurating this movement in New England, as she called and managed the first convention held in Massachusetts in 1850, and helped to arouse all these States to action in 1868. With New England reformers slavery was always the preeminently pressing question, even after the emancipation of the slaves, while in New York woman's civil and political rights were considered the more vital question.—[E. C. S.

[172] The Revolution of December 17, 1868, says: The meeting last week in Providence, was, in numbers and ability, eminently successful. Mrs. Elizabeth B. Chace, of Valley Falls, presided, and addresses were made by Colonel Higginson, Paulina Wright Davis, Lucy Stone, Frederick Douglass, Mrs. O. Shepard, Rev. John Boyden, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, Stephen S. and Abbey Kelly Foster. The officers of the association were: President, Paulina Wright Davis. Vice-presidents, Elizabeth B. Chace of Valley Falls, Col. T. W. Higginson of Newport, Mrs. George Cushing, J. W. Stillman, Mrs. Buffum of Woonsocket and P. W. Aldrich. Recording Secretary, Martha W. Chase. Corresponding Secretary, Mrs. Rhoda Fairbanks. Treasurer, Mrs. Susan B. Harris. Executive Committee, Mrs. James Bucklin, Catharine W. Hunt, Mrs. Lewis Doyle, Anna Aldrich, Mrs. S. B. G. Martin, Dr. Perry, Mrs. Churchill, Arnold B. Chace.

[173] Among the speakers at these annual conventions we find Rowland G. Hazard, Rev. John Boyden, Rev. Charles Howard Malcolm, the brilliant John Neal, Portland, Maine, Hon. James M. Stillman Gen. F. G. Lippett, Theodore Tilton, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Elizabeth K. Churchill. For a report of the convention held at Newport during the fashionable season, August 25, 26, 1869, see vol. II., page 403, also The Revolution, September 2, 1869.

[174] Mrs. Chace says in a letter, speaking of Mrs. Davis: "After several years absence in Europe she returned, a helpless invalid, unable to resume her labors. But her devotion in early years will long remain fresh in the memory of those associated with her, who were inspired by her self-sacrifice and enthusiasm." For farther details of Mrs. Davis' earlier labors, see vol. I, pages 215, 283.

[175] Julia Ward Howe, Celia Burleigh, William Lloyd Garrison, Aaron M. Powell, Caroline H. Dall, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney, Miss Mary F. Eastman, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Rev. Augustus Woodbury Hon. Amasa M. Eaton, Mr. Stillman, Hon. Thomas Davis, Hon George L. Clarke, Rev. Frederick Hinckley, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Hon. A. Payne.

[176] IN THE HOUSE. For the Amendment.—Davis Aldrich, North Smithfield; Thomas Arnold, Warwick; Clark Barber, Richmond; Thos. P. Barnefield, Pawtucket; Frank M. Bates, Pawtucket; John Beattie, Cranston; Amos M. Bowen, Providence; Issac B. Briggs, Jamestown; Albert Buffum, Burillville; John C. Barrington, Barrington; Chas. Capwell, West Greenwich; Geo. B. Carpenter, Hopkinton; Obadiah Chase, Warren; Albert I. Chester, Westerly; Chas. E. Chickering, Pawtucket; John F. Clark, Cumberland; LeBaron B. Colt, Bristol; James Davis, Pawtucket; Benjamin T. Eames, Providence; Henry H. Fay, Newport; Edward L. Freeman, Lincoln; Z. Herbert Gardner, Exeter; John P. Gregory, Lincoln; Henry D. Heydon, Warwick; Edwin Jenckes, Pawtucket; Thos. E. Kenyon, East Greenwich; Israel B. Mason, Providence; B. B. Mitchell, jr., New Shoreham; Francis L. O'Reilly, Woonsocket; Joseph Osborn, Tiverton; Abraham Payne, Providence; James M. Pendleton, Westerly; Wm. A. Pirce, Johnston; Clinton Puffer, Woonsocket; Olney W. Randall, No. Providence; John P. Sanborn, Newport; Wm. P. Sheffield, Newport; Israel R. Sheldon, Warwick; Martin S. Smith, Scituate; Wm. H. Spooner, Bristol; Henry A. Stearns, Lincoln; Simon S. Steere, Smithfield; Joseph Tillinghast, Coventry; Wm. C. Townsend, Newport; Stephen A. Watson, Portsmouth; Stillman White, Providence; Benj. F. Wilbor, Little Compton; Andrew Winsor, Providence—48.

IN THE SENATE. For the Amendment.—Lieut.-Gov. Howard, E. Providence; Ariel Ballou, Woonsocket; Cyrus F. Cooke, Foster; Edward T. DeBlois, Portsmouth; Rodney F. Dyer, Johnston; Anson Greene, Exeter; Daniel W. Lyman, No. Providence; Jabez W. Mowry, Smithfield; Dexter B. Potter, Coventry; Stafford W. Razee, Cumberland; T. Mumford Seabury, Newport; Lewis B. Smith, Barrington; John F. Tobey, Providence—13.

[177] [Signed:] President, Elizabeth B. Chace; Secretaries, Fanny P. Palmer, Elizabeth C. Hinckley; Treasurer, Susan B. P. Martin; Executive Committee, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Susan Sisson, William Barker, Francis C. Frost, Anna E. Aldrich, Frederick A. Hinckley, Susan G. Kenyon, Rachael E. Fry, A. A. Tyng, Arnold B. Chace.

[178] The speakers were Abraham Payne, John Wyman, Matilda Hindman, Frederick A. Hinckley, Rev. Mr. Wendt, Elizabeth B. Chace, William I. Bowditch, Mary F. Eastman, William Lloyd Garrison, jr., Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Henry B. Blackwell.



CHAPTER XXXIV.

MAINE.

Women on School Committees—Elvira C. Thorndyke—Suffrage Society, 1868—Rockland—The Snow Sisters—Portland Meeting, 1870—John Neal—Judge Goddard—Colby University Open to Girls, August 12, 1871—Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash Admitted to the Bar, October 26, 1872—Tax-payers Protest—Ann F. Greeley, 1872—March, 1872, Bill for Woman Suffrage Lost in the House, Passed in the Senate by Seven Votes—Miss Frank Charles, Register of Deeds—Judge Reddington—Mr. Randall's Motion—Moral Eminence of Maine—Convention in Granite Hall, Augusta, January, 1873, Hon. Joshua Nye, President—Delia A. Curtis—Opinions of the Supreme Court in Regard to Women Holding Offices—Governor Dingley's Message, 1875—Convention, Representatives Hall, Portland, Judge Kingsbury, President, February 12, 1876.

The first movement in Maine, in 1868, turned on the question of women being eligible on school committees. Here, as in Vermont, the men inaugurated the movement. The following letter, from the Portland Press, gives the initiative steps:

HIRAM, March 15, 1868.

MR. EDITOR: A statement is going the rounds of the press that the Democrats of Hiram supported a lady for a member of the school committee. I am unwilling that any person or party shall be ridiculed or censured for an act of which I was the instigator, and for which I am chiefly responsible. I am in favor of electing ladies to that office, and accordingly voted for one, without her knowledge or consent; several Democrats as well as Republicans voted with me. I have reason to believe that scores of Democrats voted for the able and popular candidate of the Republicans (Dr. William H. Smith), and but for my peculiar notion I should have voted for him myself, as I always vote with the Republican party. I am in favor, however, of laying aside politics in voting for school committees, and the question of capability should outweigh the question of sex. A few years ago we had a large number of boy schoolmasters, but agents are learning to appreciate teachers of tact, experience and natural qualifications, as well as book-knowledge. Of eleven schools under the care of the writer the past year, but one had a male teacher, and by turning to the reports I find that of forty-nine schools in Hiram during the past two years, forty-two were taught by ladies. Four of these teachers of the past year have taught respectively twenty, twenty-one, twenty-three and thirty schools. I put the question, why should a lady who has taught thirty schools be considered less suitable for the office of school committee than the undersigned, who has taught but two, or scores of men who never taught school at all? Slowly and with hesitation over the ice of prejudice comes that unreasonable reason—"O, 'cause." But regardless of pants or crinoline, the question remains unanswered and unanswerable. It is not deemed improper for the ladies of Hiram to go with their husbands to the town-house to a cattle show and fair, and serve as committees on butter and cheese, but it is considered unreasonable for ladies to serve as superintendents of school committees.

General Washington gave a lieutenant's commission to a woman for her skill and bravery in manning a battery at the battle of Monmouth. He also granted her half-pay during life. It is stated in "Lincoln's Lives of the Presidents" that "she wore an epaulette, and everybody called her Captain Molly." And yet I do not read in history that General Washington was ever impeached. Females have more and better influence than males, and under their instruction our schools have been improving for some years. There is less kicking and cudgeling, and more attention is given to that best of all rules, "The Golden Rule." If they are more efficient as teachers is it not fair to presume that they would excel as committees?

Very respectfully yours,

LLEWELLYN A. WADSWORTH.

The editor of the Press adds to the above his own endorsement, in these words:

We are pleased to have Mr. Wadsworth's explanation of the reform movement in Hiram, which we had been misled into crediting to the Democrats. * * * Go on, Mr. Wadsworth, you have our best wishes. There is nothing in the way of the general adoption of your ideas but a lot of antiquated and obsolete notions, sustained by the laughter of fools.

The same year we have the report of the first suffrage society in that State, which seems to place Maine in the van of her New England sisters, notwithstanding the great darkness our correspondent deplores:

DEAR REVOLUTION: A society has just been organized here called the Equal Rights Association of Rockland. It bids fair to live, although it requires all the courage of heroic souls to contend against the darkness that envelopes the people. But the foundation is laid, and many noble women are catching the inspiration of the hour. When we are fully under way, we shall send you a copy of our preamble and resolutions.

ELVIRA C. THORNDYKE, Cor. Sec'y.

The Hon. John Neal, who was foremost in all good work in Maine, in a letter to The Revolution, describes the first meeting called in Portland, in May, 1870, to consider the subject of suffrage for woman. He says:

DEAR REVOLUTION: According to my promise, I sent an advertisement to all three of our daily papers last Saturday, in substance like the following, though somewhat varied in language:

ELEVATION OF WOMAN.—All who favor Woman Suffrage, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the restoration of woman to her "natural and inalienable rights," are wanted for consultation at the audience room of the Portland Institute and Public Library, on Wednesday evening next, at half-past seven o'clock. Per order

JOHN NEAL.

The weather was unfavorable; nevertheless, the small room, holding from sixty to seventy-five, to which the well-disposed were invited for consultation and organization, was crowded so that near the close not a seat could be had; and crowded, too, with educated and intelligent women, and brave, thoughtful men, so far as one might judge by appearances, and about in equal proportions. Among the latter were Mr. Talbot, United States district-attorney, a good lawyer and a self-convinced fellow laborer, so far as suffrage is concerned; but rather unwilling to go further at present, lest if a woman should be sent to the legislature (against her will, of course!) she might neglect her family, or be obliged to take her husband with her, to keep her out of mischief; just as if Portland, with 35,000 inhabitants and four representatives, would not be likely to find two unmarried women or widows, or married women not disqualified by matrimonial incumbrances or liabilities, to represent the sex; or lest, if she should get into the post-office, being by nature so curious and inquisitive, she might be found peeping—as if the chief distinction between superior and inferior minds was not this very disposition to inquire and investigate; as if, indeed, that which distinguishes the barbarous from the civilized, were not this very inquisitiveness and curiosity; the savage being satisfied with himself and averse to inquiry; the civilized ever on the alert, in proportion to his intelligence, and, like the Athenians, always on the look-out for some "new thing."

And then, too, we had Judge Goddard, of the Superior Court, one of our boldest and clearest thinkers, who could not be persuaded to take a part in the discussion, though declaring himself entirely opposed to the movement. And yet, he is the very man who, at a Republican convention several years ago, offered a resolution in favor of impartial suffrage, only to find himself in a minority of two; but persevered nevertheless, year after year, until the very same resolution, word for word, was unanimously adopted by another Republican convention! Of course, Judge Goddard will not be likely to shrink from giving his reasons hereafter, if the movement should propagate itself, as it certainly will.

We had also for consideration a synopsis of what deserves to be called most emphatically "The Maine Law," in relation to married women, prepared by Mr. Drummond, our late speaker and formerly attorney-general, and one of our best lawyers, where it was demonstrated, both by enactments and adjudications, running from March, 1844, to February, 1866, that a married woman—to say nothing of widows and spinsters—has little to complain of in our State, her legal rights being far ahead of the age, and not only acknowledged, but enforced; she being mistress of herself and of her earnings, and allowed to trade for herself, while "her contracts for any lawful purpose are made valid and binding, and to be enforced, as if she were sole agent of her property, but she cannot be arrested."

Then followed Mr. S. B. Beckett, just returned from a trip to the Holy Land, who testified, among other things, that he had seen women both in London and Ireland who knew "how to keep a hotel," which is reckoned among men as the highest earthly qualification—and proved it by managing some of the largest and best in the world.

And then Mr. Charles Jose, late one of our aldermen, who, half in earnest and half in jest, took t'other side of the question, urging, first, that this was a political movement—as if that were any objection, supposing it true; our whole system of government being a political movement, and that, by which we trampled out the last great rebellion, another, both parties and all parties cooeperating in the work; next, that women did not ask for suffrage—it was the men who asked for it, in their names; that there were no complaints and no petitions from women! As if petitions had not gone up and complaints, too, by thousands, from all parts of the country, from school-teachers and office clerks and others, as well as from the women at large, both over sea and here.

But enough. The meeting stands adjourned for a week. Probably no organization will be attempted, lest it might serve to check free discussion.

J. N.

May 5, 1870.

Mr. W. W. McCann wrote to the Woman's Journal of this suffrage meeting in Portland, in 1870:

Judge Howe's voice, when he addressed the jury of Wyoming as "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury," fell upon the ears of that crowded court-room as a strange and unusual sound. Equally strange and impracticable seemed the call for a "woman suffrage meeting," at the city building, to the conservative citizens of Portland. However, notwithstanding the suspicion and prejudice with which this movement is regarded, quite a large and highly respectable audience assembled at an early hour to witness the new and wonderful phenomenon of a meeting to aid in giving the ballot to woman.

Hon. John Neal, who issued the call for the meeting, was the first to speak. He reviewed the history of this movement, both in this country and in England. He gave some entertaining reminiscences of his acquaintance with John Stuart Mill forty years ago. Mr. Mill was not then in favor of universal suffrage; he advocated the enfranchisement of the male sex only. Mr. Neal claimed the right for women also. He was happy to learn that since then Mr. Mill has thrown all the weight of his influence and his masterly intellect in favor of universal suffrage. He then entered into an elaborate discussion of some of the objections brought against woman suffrage, and, much to the surprise of many present, showed that the rights which women demand are just and reasonable, and ought to be granted. John M. Todd remarked that he was not so much impressed by the logical arguments in favor of suffrage as by the shallow and baseless arguments of the opposition. The friends of woman suffrage are becoming active and earnest in their efforts, and discussion is freely going on through the daily papers.