MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE, CLEMENCE S. LOZIER, M. D., N. Y. State Woman Suffrage Com.



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

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

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

AN ACT to Authorize the Election of Women to School Offices.

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

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

SEC. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

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

STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, } ALBANY, May 8, 1877. }

To the Senate:

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

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

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

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

L. ROBINSON.

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

To the Voters and Legislators of New York:

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

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

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

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

By order of the New York State Woman Suffrage Society.

May, 1877. MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, Secretary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN ACT to Prohibit Disfranchisement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 3. This act shall take effect immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLEN'S FALLS, Oct. 13.—I am informed that women did vote here and in the neighborhood last evening.

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

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

SHELTER ISLAND, Oct. 13.—Women voted at our school meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATE OF NEW YORK. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,} ALBANY, May 10, 1882.}

To the Assembly:

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

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

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

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

LESLIE W. RUSSELL, Attorney-General.[247]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York, 1881.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

[200] It has recently been ascertained that the first woman's rights petition sent to the New York State legislature was by Miss Mary Ayers, in 1834, for a change in the property laws. It was ten or fifteen feet long when unrolled, and is still buried in the vaults of the capitol at Albany.

[201] Many years afterwards, lecturing in Texas, I met a party of ladies from Georgia, thoroughly awake on all questions relating to women. Finding ourselves quite in accord, I said, "how did you get those ideas in Georgia?" "Why," said one, "some of our friends attended a woman's convention at Saratoga, and told us what was said there, and gave us several tracts on all phases of the question, which were the chief topics of discussion among us long after." Southern women have suffered so many evils growing out of the system of slavery that they readily learn the lessons of freedom.—[E. C. S.

[202] The following were elected officers of the association. President, Martha C. Wright, Auburn. Vice-Presidents, Celia Burleigh, Brooklyn; Rachel S. Martin, Albany; Lydia A. Strowbridge, Cortland; Jennie White, Syracuse; Eliza W. Osborn, Auburn; Sarah G. Love, Ithaca; W. S. V. Rosa, Watertown; Mary M. R. Parks, Utica; Amy Post, Rochester; Candace S. Brockett, Brockett's Bridge; Ida Greeley, Chappaqua; Mary Hunt, Waterloo. Secretary, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville. Executive Committee, Lucy A. Brand, Emeline A. Morgan, Mrs. H. Stewart, Samuel J. May, Rhoda Price, all of Syracuse. Advisory Counsel, for First Judicial District, Susan B. Anthony, New York; Second, Sarah Schram, Newburgh; Third, Sarah H. Hallock, Milton; Fourth, Caroline Mowry Holmes, Greenwich; Fifth, Ann T. Randall, Oswego; Sixth, Mrs. Professor Sprague, Ithaca, Seventh, Harriet N. Austin, Dansville; Eighth, Helen P. Jenkins, Buffalo.

[203] The speakers were Celia Burleigh, Susan B. Anthony, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Mrs. Bedortha, of Saratoga, Mrs. Strowbridge, of Cortland, Mrs. Norton, J. N. Holmes, esq., Judge McKean, Rev. Mr. Angier, Hon. Wm. Hay. See Vol. II., page 402, for Mrs. Burleigh's letter on this Saratoga convention.

[204] The Board of Trustees of Mt. Vernon, Westchester county, called a meeting of taxpayers of that village on July 19, 1868, to vote upon the question of levying a tax of $6,000 for the purpose of making and repairing highways and sidewalks, and for sundry other public improvements. Over sixty per cent. of the real-estate owners being women, they resolved upon asserting their right to a voice in the matter, and issued a call for a meeting, signed by the following influential ladies: Mrs. M. J. Law, Mrs. H. H. Leaver, Mrs. Olive Leaver, Mrs. J. Haggerty, Mary H. Macdonald, Mrs. Dorothy Ferguson, Mrs. M. J. Farrand, Mrs. Jeanette Oron, Mrs. Thirza Clark, Mrs. S. J. Clark, Mrs. Nettie Morgan, Mrs. D. Downs, Miss L. M. Hale, Miss Susie Law, Mrs. Celia Pratt, Mrs. Sabra Talcott, Mrs. Mary Wilkie, Mrs. Elizabeth Latham, Mrs. Mary C. Brown, Mrs. J. M. Lockwood, Mrs. May Howe, Mrs. Adaline Baylis, Mrs. J. Harper, Miss Elizabeth Eaton, Miss C. Frederiska Scharft, Mrs. S. A. Hathaway, Mrs. Margaret Hick, Mrs. Rebecca Dimmic, Mrs. Catharine Alphonse, Miss Julia Cheney, Mrs. E. Watkins, Mrs. L. M. Pease, Mrs. Margaret Coles, Mrs. Ruth Smith, Mrs. Mary A. Douglas, Mrs. Sarah Valentine, Mrs. H. C. Jones, Mrs. J. Tomlinson, Mrs. Amanda Carr, Mrs. Margaret Wooley, Mrs. S. Seeber, Mrs. B. Powers, Mrs. S. A. Waterhouse, Mrs. H. M. Smith. But notwithstanding the numbers, wealth, and social influence of the women, their demand was rejected, while hundreds of men, who had never paid a dollar's tax into the village treasury, were permitted to deposit their votes, though challenged by friends, and well known to the officers as not possessors of a foot of real estate.

[205] The Working Women's Association was organized in New York, September 17, 1868, with Mrs. Anna Tobitt, President; Miss Augusta Lewis, Miss Susan Johns, Miss Mary Peers. Vice-Presidents; Miss Elizabeth C. Browne, Secretary, and Miss Julia Browne, Treasurer. The three vice-presidents were young ladies of about twenty. Miss Lewis worked upon a newly invented type-setting machine.

[206] "Sergeant Robinson, of the Twenty-sixth Precinct, made a raid on the abandoned women patroling the park last evening. At 11 p. m. six unfortunates were caged." Thus runs the record. Will some one now be kind enough to tell us whether Sergeant Robinson, or any other sergeant, made a raid upon the abandoned men who were patrolling Broadway at the same hour? Did any one on that night, or, indeed, upon any other night, within the memory of the oldest Knickerbocker, make a raid upon the gamblers, thieves, drunkards and panders that infest Houston street? By what authority do the police call women "abandoned" and arrest them because they are patrolling any public park or square? If these women belonged to the class euphemistically called "unfortunate," they were doubtless there because men were already there before them. And if it was illegal in women and deserving of punishment, why should men escape? Prima facie, if crime were committed, the latter are the greater criminals of the two. We humbly suggest to all who are endeavoring to reform this class of women, that they turn their attention to reforming the opposite sex. If you can make men so pure that they will not seek the society of prostitutes, you will soon have no prostitutes for them to seek; in other words, prostitution will cease when men become sufficiently pure to make no demand for prostitutes. In any event, the police should treat both sexes alike. Making a raid, as it is called, upon abandoned women, and shutting them up in prison, never can procure good results. The most repulsive and bestial features of "the social evil" have their origin in the treatment that women receive at the hands of the police; and society itself would be much better if the police would keep their hands off such women.—[P. P. in The Revolution.

[207] An important decision relating to the eligibility of candidates for the Cornell free scholarship has been rendered by Judge Martin of the Supreme Court. Mary E. Wright, who stood third in the recent examination here for the scholarship, contested the appointment on the ground that the candidates who were first and second in the examination were not pupils of a school in the county. The judge decided that candidates for the position must be residents of the county and pupils of a school therein, to be eligible, and he awarded the scholarship to Miss Wright. This is the first contested scholarship since the establishment of the University.—Ithaca dispatch to New York Times.

[208] Dr. Lewis H. Morgan, who died in 1882, famed in both hemispheres as an ethnologist, left a considerable estate to be devoted at the death of his wife (which has since occurred) and of his son without issue, to the establishment, in connection with the University of Rochester, of a collegiate institution for women. This makes it very probable that Rochester will ultimately offer equal opportunities to both sexes.

[209] At one time it was said that Hobart College had more professors than students, and one year had arrived at such a point of exhaustion as to graduate but one young man. When the proposition to incorporate Geneva Medical College with the Syracuse University was made, Hon. George F. Comstock, a trustee of the latter institution, vigorously opposed it unless equal advantages were pledged to women.

[210] See Volume II., page 264.

[211] The twelve were:. Mrs. H. M. Field, Mrs. Anna Lynch Botta, Miss Kate Field, Mrs. Anna B. Allen, Miss Josephine Pollard, Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Mrs. Fanny Barrow, Mrs. C. B. Wilbour, Mrs. J. C. Croly, Miss Ella Dietz, Alice and Phebe Cary.

[212] She now reports the cattle-market for four New York papers including the Tribune and Times.

[213] President, Charlotte B. Wilbour; Vice-Presidents, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Mrs. Devereux Blake; Secretary, Frances V. Hallock; Treasurer, Miss Jeannie McAdam.

[214] The petitioners were represented by Mrs. Wilbour, Mrs. Hester M. Poole, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Elizabeth Langdon, Mrs. I. D. Hull, Mrs. Charlotte L. Coleman, Mrs. M. E. Leclover, Matilda Joslyn Gage.

[215] See Vol. II., page 628.

[216] Isabella Beecher Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, Rev. Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Helen M. Slocum, Lillie Devereux Blake.

[217] Lillie Devereux Blake was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, in August, 1833. Her father, George Devereux, was a wealthy Southern gentleman of Irish descent. Her mother's maiden name was Sarah Elizabeth Johnson of Stratford, Connecticut, a descendant of William Samuel Johnson who was one of the first two senators from that State. Both her parents were descended from Jonathan Edwards. Her father died in 1837, and the widow subsequently removed to New Haven, Conn., where she was well known for her large and generous hospitality. Her daughter, the future favorite writer and lecturer, was a much admired belle, and in 1855 was married to Frank Umsted, a lawyer of Philadelphia, with whom she lived two years in St. Louis, Mo. Mr. Umsted died in 1859, and his widow, who had written sketches for Harper's Magazine and published a novel called "Southwold," from that date contributed largely to leading newspapers and magazines. She was Washington correspondent of the Evening Post in the winter of 1861, published "Rockford" in 1862, and wrote many stories for Frank Leslie's Weekly, the Philadelphia Press and other publications. In 1866 she married Greenfill Blake of New York. In 1872 Mrs. Blake published "Fettered for Life," a novel designed to show the legal disadvantages of women. Ever since she became interested in the suffrage movement Mrs. Blake has been one of the most ardent advocates. She has taken several lecturing tours in different States of the Union. Mrs. Blake is an easy speaker and writer, and of late has contributed to many of our popular magazines. Much of the recent work in the New York legislature is due to her untiring zeal.

[218] Mrs. Jennie McAdam, Mrs. Hester Poole, Charlotte Coleman, Mrs. Hull, Mrs. Morse and others. A month before, January 23, Miss Anthony was invited to address the commission, giving her constitutional argument, showing woman's right to vote under the fourteenth amendment. Hon. Henry R. Selden was in the audience, being in the city on Miss Anthony's case. At the close of her argument he said: "If I had heard that speech before, I could have made a stronger plea before Judge Hall this morning."

[219] She was escorted to the capitol by Phoebe H. Jones and the venerable Lydia Mott, who for a quarter of a century had entertained at their respective homes the various speakers that had come to Albany to plead for new liberties, and had accompanied them, one after another, to the halls of legislation.

[220] Addressed by Mrs. Wilbour, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Lozier, Mrs. Hallock, Hamilton Wilcox and Dr. Hallock.

[221] For Judge Hunt's decision, see Volume II., page 677.

[222] Miss Charlotte C. Jackson, the valedictorian of the Normal College of New York; Miss Mary Hussey of Orange, New Jersey; Miss Mosher of Ann Arbor, Michigan; Miss Emma Wendt, daughter of Mathilde Wendt. In 1867, Mrs. Stanton had made a similar application to Theodore D. Dwight, that the law school might be opened to young women. In the course of their conversation Professor Dwight said; "Do you think girls know enough to study law?" Mrs. Stanton replied: "All the liberal laws for women that have been passed in the last twenty years are the results of the protests of women; surely, if they know enough to protest against bad laws, they know enough to study our whole system of jurisprudence."

[223] It was peculiarly fitting that this application should be made by Mrs. Blake, as two of her ancestors had been presidents of the college. The first it ever had, when founded as King's College in 1700, was the Rev. Samuel Johnson, D. D., her great-great-grandfather. His son, the Hon. Samuel William Johnson, was the first president after the Revolution, when the name was changed to Columbia College.

[224] Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Mary F. Eastman, Helen Potter, Sarah Andrews Spencer, Augusta Cooper Bristol, Alice Fletcher, Maria Mitchell, professor at Vassar College, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen Burr, Abby Smith, Rossella E. Buckingham, and others.

[225] Dr. Clemence Lozier was born of a good family in New Jersey. She was married at the early age of 16, and widowed at 27, left with a young family without means of support. But being an excellent teacher, she soon found employment. For eleven years she was principal of a young ladies' seminary. By natural instinct a physician and a healer, she determined to fit herself for that profession. A physician of the old school assisted her in her medical studies, and in 1853 she received a diploma from the Eclectic College of Syracuse, and shortly after established herself in New York, where her practice steadily increased, until her professional income was one of the largest in the city. In 1860 she began a course of free medical lectures to women, which continued for three years, culminating in "The New York Medical College for Women," which was chartered in 1863. The foundation and establishment of this institution was the crowning work of her life, to which she has devoted time and money. From the first she has been dean of the faculty, and after years of struggle at last has the satisfaction of seeing it a complete success, owning a fine building up town, with hospital and dispensary attached.

[226] Several ladies appeared last week before the New York Supervisors' Committee to protest against excessive taxation. The New York World informs us that Mrs. Harriet Ramsen complained that the appraisement of lot 5 West One Hundred and Twenty-second street, was increased from $7,000 to $9,000. Mrs. P. P. Dickinson, house 48 West Fifty-sixth street, increased from $15,000 to $20,000; Mrs. Cynthia Bunce, house 37 West Fifty-fourth street, last year's valuation $10,000; this year's, $15,000. Mrs. Daly, who owns a house in Seventy-second street, informed the committee that the assessment on the house (a small dwelling) was put at $2,000, an increase of $700 over last year's valuation. This house stands in an unopened street. Supervisor McCafferty said that the committee would do all in its power to have the assessment reduced, and also remarked that it was a positive outrage to assess such a small house at so high a figure. Mrs. Louisa St. John, who is reputed to be worth $2,000,000, complained because three lots on Fifth avenue, near Eighty-sixth street, and five lots on the last-named street, have been assessed at much higher figures than other lots in the neighborhood. Mrs. St. John addressed the committee with much eloquence and force. Said she: "I do not complain of the assessments that have been laid on my property. I complain of the inequalities practiced by the assessors, and I should like to see them set right." Supervisor McCafferty assured Mrs. St. John that everything in the power of the committee would be done to equalize assessments in future. Mrs. St. John is a heavy speculator in real estate. She attends sales and has property "knocked down" to her. She makes all her own searches in the register's office, and is known, in fact, among property-owners as a very thorough real-estate lawyer. Many years ago she was the proprietor of the Globe Hotel, now Frankfort House, corner of Frankfort and William streets.

[227] The Albany Evening Journal of January 22 said: A hearing was granted by the Judiciary Committee to-night, on the petition of the Woman's Tax-payers Association of the City of Rochester, for either representation or relief from taxation. The petitioners were heard in the assembly chamber, and in addition to members of the committee, a large audience of ladies and gentlemen were drawn together, including the president of the Senate, speaker of the House, and nearly all the leading members of both branches of the legislature. The first speaker was Mrs. Blake, the youngest of the trio, who occupied about twenty minutes and was well received. She was followed by Miss Anthony, who made a telling speech, frequently eliciting applause. She recounted her long service in the woman's rights cause, and gave a brief history of the different enactments and repeals on the question for the last thirty years. She related her experience in voting, and said she was fined $100 and costs, one cent of which she had never paid and never meant to. She claimed Judge Waite was in favor of woman suffrage, and believed the present speaker of the Assembly of New York was also in favor of the movement. Calls being made for General Husted, that gentleman replied that Miss Anthony was perfectly correct in her statement. She summed up by asking the committee to report in favor of legislation exempting women from taxation unless represented by the ballot, remarking that she would not ask for the right to vote, as that was guaranteed her by the Constitution of the United States. Miss Anthony then introduced Mrs. Joslyn Gage, who said if any member of the committee had objections to offer or questions to ask she would like the privilege of answering; but as none of the committee availed themselves, she proceeded for fifteen minutes in about the same strain as her predecessors. Calls being made for Mr. Spencer and eliciting no reply from that gentleman, Mrs. Blake said they should consider him a convert.

[228] The speakers were Dr. Clemence Lozier, Helen M. Slocum, Henrietta Westbrook, Mrs. Devereux Blake. Mrs. J. E. Frobisher recited Paul Revere's ride, and Helen M. Cooke read the resolutions.

[229] Helen M. Slocum, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Mrs. Devereux Blake.

[230] Miss King, the head of a New York tea-dealing firm composed of women, who control a capital of $1,000,000, has recently gone to China to make purchases. Her previous business experience, as narrated by a correspondent of the Chicago Tribune, explains her fitness for her mission, while it incidentally throws some light on the secrets of the tea-company business:

"Previous to the outbreak of our civil war Miss King was extensively engaged in utilizing the leaves of the great blackberry and raspberry crops running to waste in the rich lowlands of Georgia and Alabama, and kept in that fertile region a large levy of Northern women—smart, like herself—to superintend the gathering of the leaves and their preparation for shipment to headquarters in New York. These leaves were prepared for the market at their manipulating halls in one of the narrow streets on the Hudson side of New York city. Over this stage of the tea preparations Miss King had special supervision, and, by a generous use of the genuine imported teas, worked up our American productions into all the accredited varieties of the black and green teas of commerce. Here the female supervision apparently ended. In their extensive tea ware-rooms in Walker street the business was conducted by the shrewdest representatives of Gothamite trade, with all the appliances of the great Chinese tea-importing houses. Here were huge piles of tea-chests, assorted and unassorted, and the high-salaried tea-taster with his row of tiny cups of hot-drawn tea, delicately sampling and classifying the varieties and grades for market. The breaking out of the war stopped the Southern supplies and sent Miss King's female agents to their Northern homes. But the business was made to conform to the new order of things. Large cargoes of imported black teas were bought as they arrived and were skillfully manipulated into those high-cost varieties of green teas so extensively purchased by the government for its commissary and medical departments."