[231] Mrs. Lozier presided. Addresses were made by Matilda Fletcher of Iowa, Mrs. Helen Slocum and Mrs. Devereux Blake.

[232] In Poughkeepsie, Yonkers, Harlem, Williamsburgh, Brighton, and in several districts in the city of New York.

[233] Matilda Joslyn Gage, Helen M. Loder, Mrs. Clara Neyman, Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Blake.

[234] To the Women of the State of New York:

The undersigned, citizens of the State of New York, who if free to do so, would express themselves at the ballot box, but who by unjust enactments are debarred the exercise of that political freedom whereto "the God of nature" entitles them, earnestly protest against the proposed reelection of Lucius Robinson as governor. They say naught against his honor as a man, but they protest because when the legislature of the Empire State had passed a bill making women eligible to school-boards. Lucius Robinson, by his veto, kept this bill from becoming law. They therefore call on all men and women who respect themselves and dare maintain their rights, to do all in their power to defeat the reelection of one who has set himself against the advance made by Iowa, Kansas, Oregon, Illinois, Michigan, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, in many of which States woman's right to vote on school questions is also recognized.

[Signed:] Matilda Joslyn Gage, President N. Y. State Woman Suffrage Association. Jennie M. Lozier, M. D., Secretary. Lillie Devereux Blake, Vice-President National Association. Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., President N. Y. City Association. Susan A. King, Cordelia S. Knapp, Helen M. Slocum, Susan B. Anthony, Amanda Deyo, Helen M. Cooke, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Charlotte Fowler Wells, Emma S. Allen.

[235] Chester A. Arthur, chairman of the Republican campaign committee, presented the motion.

[236] She threw her spacious apartments open, and gave some of the voters a free lunch, that she might have the opportunity of adding her personal persuasions to the public protests. Miss King and Miss Helen Potter, the distinguished reader, then residing with Miss King, assisted in raising a banner for Cornell and Foster, applauded by the multitude of by-standers.

[237] Mrs. Lucy A. Brand, principal of the Genesee school of this city, a woman with abilities as good as those of any male principal, but who, because she is a woman, receives $550 less salary a year than a male principal, was the first woman in the State of New York to cast a vote under the new school law. On Saturday afternoon she was at a friend's house, when the Journal was thrown in, containing the first editorial notice of the passage of the law. Mrs. Brand saw the welcome announcement. "Let us go and register," she at once said, her heart swelling with joy and thankfulness that even this small quantity of justice had been done woman. "Where is my shawl? I feel as if I should die if I don't get there," for the hour was late, and the time for closing the registry lists was near at hand. To have lost this opportunity would have placed her in the position of a second Tantalus, the cup withdrawn just as it touched her lips. But she was in time, and the important act of registering accomplished, she had but to possess her soul in patience until the following Tuesday. Who shall say how long the two intervening days were to her; but Tuesday morning at last arrived, when, for the first time, Mrs. Brand was to exercise the freeman's right of self-government. A gentleman, the owner of the block in which she resided, offered to accompany her to the polls, although he was a Democrat and knew Mrs. Brand would vote the Republican ticket. Although not hesitating to go alone, Mrs. Brand accepted this courtesy. As she entered the polling place the men present fell back in a semi-circle. Not a sound was heard, not a whisper, not a breath. In silence and with a joyous solemnity well befitting the occasion, Mrs. Brand cast her first vote, at five minutes past eight in the morning. The post-master of the city, Mr. Chase, offered his congratulations. A few ordinary remarks were exchanged, and then Mrs. Brand left the place. And that was all; neither more nor less. No opposition, no rudeness, no jostling crowd of men, but such behavior as is seen when Christians come together at the sacrament. I have long known Mrs. Brand as a noble woman, but talking with her a few days since I could but notice the added sense of self-respecting dignity that freedom gives. "I feel a constant gratitude that even some portion of my rights have been recognized," said she, and I left her, more than ever impressed, if that is possible, with the beauty and sacredness of freedom.—[M. J. G.

[238] Rev. Robert Collyer, Elizabeth L. Saxon, Clara Neyman, Augusta Cooper Bristol, Helen M. Slocum, Hamilton Wilcox, Mrs. Devereux Blake, and Dr. Clemence Lozier who presided.

[239] Mary Seymour Howell, President; Miss Kate Stoneman, Secretary. Miss Stoneman cast the first vote at the school election in Albany.

[240] See appendix.

[241] Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Saxon, of Louisiana.

[242] Miss Helen Potter, Miss Susan A. King, Miss Helen M. Slocum, Miss Harriet K. Dolson and Mrs. Devereux Blake.

[243] Mrs. Rogers organized a society in Lansingburg, Mrs. Loder in Poughkeepsie, Miss Stoneman held meetings in Chautauqua county, Mrs. Howell in Livingston county, Mrs. Blake in ten other counties, and held several parlor meetings in New York city. The annual convention of the State society was held in Chickering Hall, February 1, 2, 1882.

[244] The press generally commented unfavorably. The Herald said: "The legislature passed a bill in the interest of decency and humanity, authorizing the appointment of matrons in the several police stations in the city of New York to look after female prisoners who might be placed in the station-houses. This bill was recommended by our best charitable and religious societies, but failed to receive the sanction of the governor, although he very promptly signed a bill to increase the number of the detective force."

[245] Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling, Mrs. Clara Neyman, Dr. Clemence Lozier and Mrs. Blake.

[246] Major Haggerty, ex-Governor Thomas G. Alvord and Hon. James D. McMellan in its favor; Hon. Erastus Brooks and General Sharpe against.

[247] Mr. Hamilton Wilcox at once prepared an able paper, refuting the attorney-general's assertion. It was widely circulated throughout the State.

[248] When the vote was announced, the ladies sent the pages with bouquets to the leading speakers in behalf of the bill, and button-hole sprigs to the fifty-four who voted aye.

[249] To the Women of the State of New York:

The undersigned urge you to exert yourselves to turn every vote possible against Leslie W. Russell's reelection as attorney-general. His official acts prove him the unscrupulous foe of your liberties. By informing the legislature that you have no right to vote at common law, he has denied your sacred rights and misrepresented the law to your hurt. By stating that you have no natural right to vote, he has denied your title to freedom and sought to keep your rights at the mercy of those in power. By informing the legislature that the bill to repeal the statutes which keep you from voting was unconstitutional he misled the legislature and kept you disfranchised. By thus continuing your disfranchisement, he has subjected you to many misfortunes and wrongs which the repeal of your disfranchisement would cure, and is personally responsible for these sufferings. He has also sought to rob the mothers of this State of their votes at school elections, and thus to deprive them of the power to control their children's education.

[Signed:] Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., New York; Mary R. Pell, Queens; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Caroline A. Bassett, Erie; Susan A. King, New York; Lucy Shawler, Chenango; Mary E. Tallman, Oneida; Hannah M. Angel, Allegany; Ida Louise Dildine, Broome; Zerivah L. Watkeys, Onondaga; Asenath C. Coolidge, Jefferson; Sarah H. Hallock, Ulster; N. W. Cooper, Jefferson, and others.

To the Republican and Independent Voters of the State of New York:

The undersigned earnestly ask you to cast your votes against Leslie W. Russell, the present attorney-general. When the legislature last year was about to repeal the election laws which prevent women from exercising the right of suffrage, Leslie W. Russell stated to that body that women had no right at common law to vote, and that this bill was unconstitutional. By these misstatements he misled the legislature, defeated this most righteous bill and prolonged the disfranchisement of women. Thus he inflicted on a majority of our adult citizens, who had committed no offense, the penalty of disfranchisement and the great mischiefs which flow thence, and, like Judge Taney in the Dred-Scott decision, perverted law and constitution to justify injustice and continue wrong. A vote for Leslie W. Russell is a vote to keep these women disfranchised and to prolong these mischiefs. He who thus blocks the way of freedom should be removed from the place which enables him to do this. You can vote at this election for fifteen or more officers. It is but a small thing to ask, that each of you cast one-fifteenth part of his vote to represent women's interest at the polls.

[Signed:] Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., Bronson Murray, Susan A. King, Hamilton Wilcox, Lillie Devereux Blake, Albert O. Wilcox.

[250] Abigail Scott Duniway, editor New Northwest, Oregon; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, editor "Woman's Kingdom," Chicago Inter-Ocean; Helen M. Gougar, editor Our Herald, Indiana.

[251] On the evening of March 8 the New York city society gave a reception in honor of the delegates to the National Convention, recently held at Washington, in the elegant parlors of the Hoffman House.

[252] Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Howell, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Duniway and Mrs. Gougar.

[253] Imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.

[254] The last census shows there are 72,224 more women than men in New York; that there are 360,381 women and girls over ten years of age who support themselves by work outside their own homes, not including the house-keepers who, from the raw material brought into the family, manufacture food and clothing three times its original value.



CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PENNSYLVANIA.

Carrie Burnham—The Canon and Civil Law the Source of Woman's Degradation—Women Sold with Cattle in 1768—Women Arrested in Pittsburgh—Mrs. McManus—Opposition to Women in the Colleges and Hospitals; John W. Forney Vindicates their Rights—Ann Preston—Women in Dentistry—James Truman's Letter—Swarthmore College—Suffrage Association Formed in 1866, in Philadelphia—John K. Wildman's Letter—Judge William S. Pierce—The Citizens' Suffrage Association, 333 Walnut Street, Edward M. Davis, President—Petitions to the Legislature—Constitutional Convention, 1873—Bishop Simpson, Mary Grew, Sarah C. Hallowell, Matilda Hindman, Mrs. Stanton, Address the Convention—Messrs. Broomall and Campbell Debate With the Opposition—Amendment Making Women Eligible to School Offices—Two Women Elected to Philadelphia School Board, 1874—The Wages of Married Women Protected—J. Edgar Thomson's Will—Literary Women as Editors—The Rev. Knox Little—Anne E. McDowell—Women as Physicians in Insane Asylums—The Fourteenth Amendment Resolution, 1881—Ex-Governor Hoyt's Lecture on Wyoming.

In the demand for the right of suffrage, women are constantly asked by the opposition if they cannot trust their own fathers, husbands and brothers to legislate for them. The answer to this question may be found in an able digest of the old common laws and the Revised Statutes of Pennsylvania,[255] prepared by Carrie S. Burnham[256] of Pennsylvania. A careful perusal of this paper will show the relative position of man and woman to be that of sovereign and subject.

To get at the real sentiments of a people in regard to the true status of woman we must read the canon and civil laws that form the basic principles of their religion and government. We must not trust to the feelings and actions of the best men towards the individual women whom they may chance to love and respect. The chivalry and courtesy that the few command through their beauty, wealth and position, are one thing; but justice, equality, liberty for the multitude, are quite another. And when the few, through misfortune, are made to feel the iron teeth of the law, they regret that they had not used their power to secure permanent protection under just laws, rather than to have trusted the transient favors of individuals to shield them in life's emergencies.

The law securing to married women the right to property,[257] inherited by will or bequest, passed the legislature of Pennsylvania, and was approved by the governor April 11, 1848, just five days after a similar law had been passed in New York. Judge Bovier was the mover for the Pennsylvania Married Women's Property Law. His feelings had been so often outraged with the misery caused by men marrying women for their property, that he was bound the law should be repealed. He prevailed on several young Quakers who had rich sisters, to run for the legislature. They were elected and did their duty. Judge Bovier was a descendent of the Waldenses, a society of French Quakers who fled to the mountains from persecution. Their descendants are still living in France.[258]

The disabilities and degradation that women suffer to-day grow out of the spirit of laws that date from a time when women were viewed in the light of beasts of burden. Scarce a century has passed since women were sold in this country with cattle. In the Pennsylvania Gazette for January 7, 1768, is the following advertisement:

TO BE SEEN.—At the Crooked Billet, near the Court-house, Philadelphia (Price Three Pence), A Two Year Old Hogg, 12 Hands high, and in length 16 Feet; thought to be the largest of its Kind ever seen in America.

In the same paper of the following week occurs this yet more extraordinary announcement:

TO BE SOLD.—A Healthy Young Dutch Woman, fit for town or country business; about 18 years old; can spin well; she speaks good English, and has about five years to serve. Inquire at James Der Kinderen's, Strawberry alley.

In one century of growth a woman's sewing machine was better protected than the woman herself under the old common law:

AN ACT to exempt Sewing Machines belonging to Seamstresses in this Commonwealth from levy and sale on execution or distress for rent:

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in general assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That hereafter all sewing machines belonging to seamstresses in this commonwealth shall be exempt from levy and sale on execution or distress for rent, in addition to any article or money now exempt by law. Approved, April 17, 1869.

While the following order reflects the spirit of the seventeenth century, the comments show the dawning of the right idea, and are worthy the time in which the great State of Pennsylvania could boast such women as Lucretia Mott, Anna E. Dickinson, Jane G. Swisshelm and Sarah J. Hale:

A WOMAN ORDER IN PITTSBURGH.—The mayor of Pittsburgh has ordered the arrest of every woman found on the streets alone after 9 o'clock in the evening; the consequence of which has been that some respectable ladies have recently seen the inside of the lock-up.—Exchange, June, 1869.

Now let the mothers, wives and daughters of Pittsburgh obtain the passage, by the city council, of an ordinance causing the arrest of every man found in the streets after 9 o'clock in the evening, and the law will then be equal in its operation. This legislating upon the behavior of one sex by the other exclusively, is one-sided and despotic. Give both sexes a chance at reforming each other.

Another step in progress was indicated by the assumption of some women to influence civil administration, not only for their own protection, but for that of their sires and sons:

An exchange says that women are becoming perfect nuisances, and to substantiate the assertion adds that 1,500 women in Chester county, Pennsylvania, have petitioned the court to grant no more liquor licenses.

Suppose wives should come reeling home, night after night, with curses on their lips, to destroy the food, the dishes, the furniture for which husbands toiled; to abuse trembling children, making the home, from year to year, a pandemonium on earth—would the good men properly be called "nuisances," who should rise up and say this must end; we must protect our firesides, our children, ourselves, society at large? To have women even suggest such beneficent laws for the men of their families is called "a nuisance," while the whole barbarous code for women was declared by Lord Coke to be the "perfection of reason."

The prejudice against sex has been as bitter and unreasonable as against color, and far more reprehensible, because in too many cases it has been a contest between the inferior, with law on his side, and the superior, with law and custom against her, as the following facts in the Sunday Dispatch, by Anne E. McDowell, fully show:

The decision of the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Mrs. McManus, elected principal of the Mount Vernon Boys' Grammar School, is to the effect that, no rule being in existence prohibiting the exercise of the duties of such office by a woman, the resolution of the controllers against the exercise of the duties of that office by the lady was unjustifiable and illegal. Since the decision was pronounced the controllers have come up to the boundary of the principle held by the court, and a rule has been proposed that in future women shall be ineligible to be principals of boys' grammar schools—the case of Mrs. McManus being specially excepted. That lady, therefore, will be undisturbed. But she may be, like the celebrated "Lady Freemason." an exception to her sex. The controllers have not favored the public with their reasons for opposition to the employment of females in the higher positions of teaching. Women are good enough for inferior service about a boys' grammar-school, it seems, but they are not capable of superintending it. They may be, and are, teachers in all the classes in such schools, even to the highest; but when the question arises whether a woman, perfectly competent, shall be superintendent of all the classes—for a principal is little more—the controllers say no. If this action is influenced by a belief that women cannot control a school of boys, we hope that the experience in the case of Mrs. McManus will dispel the illusion, and the public can afford to await the result of the trial. But if it is caused by a regard to tradition or precedent, or because there never has yet been an instance of a woman being a principal of a boys' grammar-school before this case of Mrs. McManus, we hope that the controllers will soon see the error of their course. The complaints from the sections are to the effect that it is very difficult to get a competent male teacher to remain principal of a boys' grammar-school for any length of time. The salary attached to that position is inadequate, according to the increased cost of living of the times. Gentlemen who are competent to act as principals of the public schools find that they can make more money by establishing private schools; and hence they are uneasy and dissatisfied while in the public service. A woman able to take charge of a boys' grammar-school will be paid a more liberal salary (such is the injustice of our social system in relation to female labor) in that position than in any other connected with education that she can command, and she will therefore be likely to be better satisfied with the duties and to perform them more properly. That such advantage ought to be held out to ladies competent to be teachers of the highest grade, we firmly believe. The field of female avocations should be extended in every legitimate direction; and it seems to us, unless some reason can be given for the exception, which has not yet been presented in the case of Mrs. McManus, that the principalships of the boys' grammar-schools ought to be accessible to ladies of the proper character and qualification, without the imputation that by reason of their sex they must necessarily be unfitted for such duties.

In preparing themselves for the medical profession, for which the most conservative people now admit that women are peculiarly adapted, students have encountered years of opposition, ridicule and persecution. After a college for women was established in Philadelphia,[259] there was another long struggle before their right to attend the clinics in the hospitals was accorded. The faculty and students alike protested against the admission of women into mixed classes; but as there was no provision to give them the clinics alone, a protest against mixed classes was a protest against such advantages to women altogether. One would have supposed the men might have left the delicacy of the question to the decision of the women themselves. But in this struggle for education men have always been more concerned about the loss of modesty than the acquirement of knowledge and wisdom. From the opinions usually expressed by these self-constituted guardians of the feminine character, we might be led to infer that the virtues of women were not a part of the essential elements of their organization, but a sort of temporary scaffolding, erected by society to shield a naturally weak structure that any wind could readily demolish.

At a meeting convened November 15 at the University of Pennsylvania, to consider the subject of clinical instruction to mixed classes the following remonstrance was unanimously adopted:

The undersigned, professors in the University of Pennsylvania, professors in Jefferson Medical College, members of the medical staff of various hospitals of Philadelphia, and members of the medical profession in Philadelphia at large, out of respect for their profession, and for the interests of the public, do feel it to be their duty, at the present time, to express their convictions upon the subject of "clinical instruction to mixed classes of male and female students of medicine." They are induced to present their views on this question, which is of so grave importance to medical education, from the fact that it is misunderstood by the public, and because an attempt is now being made to force it before the community in a shape which they conceive to be injurious to the progress of medical science, and to the efficiency of clinical teaching. They have no hesitation in declaring that their deliberate conviction is adverse to conducting clinical instruction in the presence of students of both sexes. The judgment that has been arrived at is based upon the following considerations:

I. Clinical instruction in practical medicine demands an examination of all the organs and parts of the body, as far as practicable; hence, personal exposure becomes for this purpose often a matter of absolute necessity. It cannot be assumed, by any right-minded person, that male patients should be subjected to inspection before a class of females, although this inspection may, without impropriety, be submitted to before those of their own sex. A thorough investigation, as well as demonstration, in these cases—so necessary to render instruction complete and effective—is, by a mixed audience, precluded; while the clinical lecturer is restrained and embarrassed in his inquiries, and must therefore fall short in the conclusions which he may draw, and in the instruction which he communicates.

II. In many operations upon male patients exposure of the body is inevitable, and demonstrations must be made which are unfitted for the observation of students of the opposite sex. These expositions, when made under the eye of such a conjoined assemblage, are shocking to the sense of decency, and entail the risk of unmanning the surgeon—of distracting his mind, and endangering the life of his patient. Besides this, a large class of surgical diseases of the male is of so delicate a nature as altogether to forbid inspection by female students. Yet a complete understanding of this particular class of diseases is of preeminent importance to the community. Moreover, such affections can be thoroughly studied only in the clinics of the large cities, and the opportunity for studying them, so far from being curtailed, should be extended to the utmost possible degree. To those who are familiar with such cases as are here alluded to, it is inconceivable that females should ever be called to their treatment.

III. By the joint participation, on the part of male and female students, in the instruction and in the demonstrations which properly belong to the clinical lecture-room, the barrier of respect is broken down, and that high estimation of womanly qualities, which should always be sustained and cherished, and which has its origin in domestic and social associations, is lost, by an inevitable and positive demoralization of the individuals concerned, thereby entailing most serious detriment to the morals of society. In view of the above considerations, the undersigned[260] do earnestly and solemnly protest against the admixture of the sexes at clinical instruction in medicine and surgery, and do respectfully lay these their views before the board of managers of the hospitals in Philadelphia.

November 15, 1869.

At meetings held at the University and Jefferson Medical Colleges, by the students, on Wednesday evening, the following preambles and resolutions were adopted:

WHEREAS, The managers of the Pennsylvania Hospital have seen fit to admit female students to the clinics of that establishment, thereby excluding from the lectures many cases, medical and surgical; and

WHEREAS, We consider that in our purchase of tickets of admission there was a tacit agreement that we should have the benefit of all cases which the medical and surgical staff of that hospital should deem fit for our instruction:

Resolved, That a respectful request be made to the managers of the Pennsylvania Hospital that we be informed as to whether the usual character of the clinics will be changed.

Resolved, That pending the action of the managers on this question, we as a class and individually absent ourselves from the clinical lectures. And

WHEREAS, The levity of a few thoughtless young men in the presence of the females at the hospital has caused the journals of this city to assume that the whole class of medical students are utterly devoid of all the attributes of gentlemen,

Resolved, That while we do not by any means concede that the published accounts of the affair are correct, we deplore the fact that any demonstration should have taken place; for although the female students may be considered by their presence at the hospital where male students are present, to have cast aside that delicacy and modesty which constitutes the aegis of their sex, they are women, and as such demand our forbearance, if not our respect.

Resolved, That these preambles and resolutions be published in some respectable journal of this city.[261]

On these remonstrances of the faculty and students, The Press, John W. Forney, editor, had many able editorials condemning the action of the medical fraternity. The leading journals throughout the country advocated the right of the women to enjoy the advantages of the hospital clinics. The Press, November 22, 1869, said:

The proceedings of the meeting held by the faculties of our two leading medical schools evince the disposition which lurks at the bottom of the movement against women as physicians. The hospital managers are to be browbeaten into the stand taken by the students, and now sanctioned by the professors. If the women are to be denied the privilege of clinical lectures, why do not learned professors, or students, or both, have the manliness to suggest and advocate some means of solving the difficulty so that the rights of neither sex shall be impaired? Would any professor agree to lecture to the women separately? Would any professor favor the admission of women into the female wards of the hospitals? Would any professor agree to propose anything, or do anything that would weaken the firm stand taken against the admission of women to professional privileges? If so, why not do it at once? Nothing else will make protestations of fairness appear at all genuine. Nothing else will remove the stigma of attempting to drag the hospitals into a support of this crusade against women. * * * How absurd the solemn declaration, "it cannot be assumed by any right-minded person that male patients should be subjected to inspection before a class of females, although this inspection may, without impropriety, be submitted to before those of their own sex." This cuts both ways. If it be improper for female students to be present when patients of the other sex are treated, is it proper for male students to witness the treatment of female patients?

The practical good sense shown in the following report of a committee of the Faculty of the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania, makes a very favorable contrast with the unreasonable remonstrances of the so-called superior sex:

PHILADELPHIA, NOV. 15, 1869.

As the relation of students of medicine to public clinics, and the views entertained by those entitled to speak for their medical education, are now extensively discussed in the public journals, it seems necessary for us to state our position. Considering it decided that, as practitioners of medicine, the guardianship of life and health is to be placed in the keeping of women, it becomes the interest of society and the duty of those entrusted with their professional training to endeavor to provide for them all suitable means for that practical instruction which is gained at hospital clinics.

The taunt has heretofore been frequently thrown out that ladies have not attended the great clinical schools of the country, nor listened to its celebrated teachers, and that, consequently, they cannot be as well prepared as men for medical practice. We believe, as we have always done, that in all special diseases of men and women, and in all operations necessarily involving embarrassing exposure of person, it is not fitting or expedient that students of different sexes should attend promiscuously; that all special diseases of men should be treated by men in the presence of men only, and those of women, where it is practicable, by women in the presence of women only. It was this feeling, founded on the respect due to the delicacy of women as patients, perhaps more than any other consideration, which led to the founding of the Women's Hospital in Philadelphia. There the clinical demonstration of special diseases is made by and before women alone. As we would not permit men to enter these clinics, neither would we be willing—out of regard to the feelings of men as patients, if for no other considerations—that our students should attend clinics where men are specially treated, and there has been no time in the history of our college when our students could intentionally do so, save in direct contravention of our known views. In nearly all the great public hospitals, however, by far the larger proportion of cases suited for clinical illustration—whether medical or surgical—is of those which involve no necessary exposure, and are the results of diseases and accidents to which man and woman are subject alike, and which women are constantly called upon to treat. Into these clinics, women also—often sensitive and shrinking, albeit poor—are brought as patients to illustrate the lectures, and we maintain that wherever it is proper to introduce women as patients, there also is it but just and in accordance with the instincts of the truest womanhood for women to appear as physicians and students.

We had arranged when our class was admitted to the Pennsylvania hospital to attend on alternate clinic days only, so as to allow ample opportunity for the unembarrassed exhibition of special cases to the other students by themselves. We encouraged our students to visit the hospital upon this view, sustained by our confidence in the sound judgment and high-minded courtesy of the medical gentlemen in charge of the wards. All the objections that have been made to our students' admission to these clinics seem to be based upon the mistaken assumption that they had designed to attend them indiscriminately. As we state distinctly and unequivocally that this was not the fact, that they had no idea or intention of being present except on one day of the week, and when no cases which it would not be proper to illustrate before both classes of students would necessarily be brought in—it seems to us that all these objections are destroyed, and we cannot but feel that those fair-minded professional gentlemen, who, under this false impression as to facts, have objected to our course, will, upon a candid reconsideration, acknowledge that our position is just and intrinsically right. The general testimony of those who attended the Saturday clinics last winter at the Philadelphia Hospital at Blockley, when about forty ladies made regular visits, was that the tone and bearing of the students were greatly improved, while the usual cases were brought forward and the full measure of instruction given without any violation of refined propriety.

We maintain, in common with all medical men, that science is impersonal, and that the high aim of relief to suffering humanity sanctifies all duties: and we repel, as derogatory to the science of medicine, the assertion that the physician who has risen to the level of his high calling need be embarrassed, in treating general diseases, by the presence of earnest women. The movement for woman's medical education has been sustained from the beginning by the most refined, intelligent, and religious women, and by the noblest and best men in the community. It has ever been regarded by these as the cause of humanity, calculated in its very nature to enlarge professional experience, bless women, and refine society. It has in our own city caused a college and a hospital not only to be founded, but to be sustained and endowed by those who have known intimately the character and objects of this work, and the aims and efforts of those connected with it. It has this year brought to this city some fifty educated and earnest women to study medicine, women who have come to this labor enthusiastically but reverently, as to a great life-interest and a holy calling. These ladies purchased tickets, and entered the clinic of the Pennsylvania Hospital, with no obtrusive spirit, and with no intention of interfering with the legitimate advantages of other students. If they have been forced into an unwelcome notoriety, it has not been of their own seeking.

ANN PRESTON, M. D., Dean.

EMELINE H. CLEVELAND, M. D., Secretary.

We are indebted to James Truman, D. D. S., of the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery, for the following account of the admission of women into that branch of the medical profession:

The general agitation of the question: What are women best qualified for in the struggle for existence? naturally led liberal minds to the opening of new avenues for the employment of their talents, shared equally with men. Her right to practice in medicine had been conceded after a long and severe conflict. Even the domain of the theologian had been invaded, but law and dentistry were as yet closed, and in the case of the latter, unthought of as an appropriate avocation for women. The subject, however, seemed so important, presenting a field of labor peculiarly suited to her, that one gentleman, then professor in the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery, felt it his duty to call public attention to this promising work. In a valedictory delivered by him to the class of 1866, at Musical Fund Hall of Philadelphia, he included in his theme the peculiar fitness of dentistry for women. The question was briefly stated, but it rather startled the large audience by its novelty, and the effect was no less surprising on the faculty, board of trustees and professional gentlemen on the platform.

In the fall of 1868 the dean of the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery was waited upon by a German gentleman, who desired to introduce a lady who had come to this country with the expectation that all colleges were open to women. Although informed that this was not the case, he still entertained the hope that she might be admitted as a student of dentistry. She gave her name as Henrietti Hirschfeld, of Berlin. The matter came up before the faculty, and after a free discussion of the whole subject, she was rejected by a majority vote, but two voting in her favor.

In a subsequent interview with Professor Truman, he learned that she had left her native land with the full assurance that she would have no difficulty in "free America" in securing a dental education. She had also the positive sanction of her government, through the then minister of instruction, Dr. Falk, that on condition of receiving an American diploma she would be permitted to practice on her return. Her distress, therefore, at this initial failure was, naturally, very great. The excitement that this application made was intensified when it was rumored among the students that a woman desired to be matriculated. The opposition became very bitter, and manifested itself in many petty annoyances. In the course of a day or two one gentleman of the faculty, and he the dean, concluded to change his vote, and as this decided the question, she was admitted. The opposition of the professor of anatomy, who belonged to the old school of medical teachers, was so manifest that it was deemed advisable to have her take anatomy in the Woman's Medical College for that winter. The first year of this was in every way satisfactory. Although the students received her and Mrs. Truman, who accompanied her on the first visit, with a storm of hisses, they gradually learned not only to treat her with respect, but she became a favorite with all, and while not convinced as to the propriety of women in dentistry, they all agreed that Mrs. Hirschfeld might do as an exception. The last year she was permitted by the irate professor of anatomy, Dr. Forbes, to take that subject under him.

She graduated with honor, and returned to Berlin to practice her profession. This was regarded as an exceptional case, and by no means settled the status of the college in regard to women. The conservative element was exceedingly bitter, and it was very evident that a long time must elapse before another woman could be admitted. The great stir made by Mrs. Hirschfeld's graduation brought several other applications from ladies of Germany, but these were without hesitation denied. Failing to convince his colleagues of the injustice of their action, Dr. Truman tried to secure more favorable results from other colleges, and applied personally to Dr. Gorgas of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery. The answer was favorable, and he accompanied the applicant and entered her in that institution. This furnished accommodation for the few applicants. The loss in money began to tell on the pockets, if not the consciences, of the faculty of the Philadelphia school. They saw the stream had flown in another direction, swelling the coffers of another institution, when, without an effort, they could have retained the whole. They concluded to try the experiment again, and accepted three ladies in 1872 and 1873—Miss Annie D. Ramborger of Philadelphia, Fraulein Veleske Wilcke and Dr. Jacoby of Germany. Their first year was very satisfactory, but at its close it was very evident that there was a determination on the part of the minority of the class to spare no effort to effect their removal from the school. A petition was forwarded to the faculty to this effect, and although one was presented by the majority of the students in their favor, the faculty chose to accept the former as representing public sentiment, and it was decided not to allow them to take another year at this college. This outrage was not accomplished without forcible protest from the gentleman previously named, and he appealed from this decision to the governing power, the board of trustees.[262] To hear this appeal a special meeting was called for March 27, 1873, at which the communication of Professor Truman was read and ordered filed. A similar communication, in opposition, was received, signed by Professors T. L. Buckingham, E. Wildman, George T. Barker, James Tyson and J. Ewing Mears. The matter was referred to a committee consisting of Hon. Henry C. Carey, W. S. Pierce and G. R. Morehouse, M. D. At a special meeting convened for this purpose, March 31, 1873, this committee made their report. They say:

Three ladies entered as students of this college at the commencement of the session, 1872-73, paid their matriculation fees, attended the course of lectures, and were informed, by a resolution adopted by a majority of the faculty at the close of the session, that they would not be permitted to attend the second course of lectures. No other cause was assigned for the action of the faculty than that they deemed it against the interest of the college to permit them to do so, on account of the dissatisfaction which it gave to certain male students, etc. * * * The goal to which all medical and dental students look, is graduation and the diploma, which is to be the evidence of their qualification to practice their art. To qualify themselves for this they bestow their time, their money and their labor. To deprive them of this without just cause is to disappoint their hopes, and to receive from them money and bestowal of time and labor without the full equivalent which they had a right to expect.

After discussing at length the legal aspects of the case, the summing up is as follows:

We, therefore, respectfully report that in our opinion it is the legal right of these ladies to attend, and it is the legal duty of this college to give them, as students, a second course of lectures on the terms of the announcement which forms the basis of the contract with them.

This report was signed by all the committee, and read by W. S. Pierce, one of the number, and judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. It carried with it, therefore, all the force of a judicial decision, and was so accepted by the board, and adopted at once. This left the majority of the faculty no choice but to accept the decision as final as far as these ladies were concerned. This they did, and the three were invited to resume their studies. Two, Misses Ramborger and Wilcke, accepted, Miss Jacoby refused and went to Baltimore.

The most interesting feature of this matter, and that which clearly demonstrated a marked advance in public opinion, was the stir it made in the press. The daily and Sunday papers bristled with strong leaders, the faculty being denounced in no measured terms for their action. To such an extent was this carried, and so overwhelming was the indignation, that it practically settled the question for Philadelphia, although several years elapsed after these ladies were graduated before others were accepted. When that time did arrive, under the present dean, Dr. C. N. Pierce, they were accorded everything, without any reservation, and the school has continued ever since to accept them. At the meeting of the National Association of Dentists, held at Saratoga, 1869, Dr. Truman introduced a resolution looking to the recognition of women in the profession. The resolution and the remarks were kindly received, but were, of course, laid on the table. This was expected, the object being to make the thought familiar in every section of the country.

These efforts have borne rich fruit, and now women are being educated at a majority of the prominent dental colleges, and no complaints are heard of coeducation in this department of work. The college that first accepted and then rejected—the Pennsylvania of Philadelphia—has a yearly average of seven to eight women, nearly equally divided between America and Germany. Of the three dental schools in Philadelphia, two accept women, and the third—the Dental Department of the University of Pennsylvania—would, if the faculty were not overruled by the governing powers.

The learned theories that were promulgated in regard to the injury the practice of dentistry would be to women, have all fallen to the ground. The advocates of women in dentistry were met at the outstart with the health question, and as it had never been tested, the most favorably inclined looked forward with some anxiety to the result. Fifteen years have elapsed since then, and almost every town in Germany is supplied with a woman in this profession. Many are also established in America. These have all the usual requisites of bodily strength, and the writer has yet to learn of a single failure from physical deterioration.

The first lady, Miss Lucy B. Hobbs, to graduate in dentistry, was sent out from the Cincinnati College, and she, I believe, is still in active practice in Kansas. She graduated in 1866. Mrs. Hirschfeld, before spoken of, returned to Germany and became at once a subject for the fun of the comic papers, and for the more serious work of the Bajan and Uberlana und Meer, both of them containing elaborate and illustrated notices of her. She had some friends in the higher walks of life; notable amongst these was President Lette of the Trauen-Verein, whose aid and powerful influence had assisted her materially in the early stages of her effort. The result of these combined forces soon placed her in possession of a large practice. She was patronized by ladies in the highest circles, including the crown princess. She subsequently married, had two boys to rear and educate, and a large household to supervise. She has assisted several of her relatives into professions, two in medicine and two in dentistry, besides aiding many worthy persons. She has established a clinic for women in Berlin, something very badly needed there. This is in charge of two physicians, one being her husband's sister, Dr. Fanny Tiburtius. She has also started a hospital for women. These are mainly supported by her individual exertions. Notwithstanding all these multifarious and trying duties, she practices daily, and is as well physically and mentally as when she commenced. Fraulein Valeske Wilcke of Koenigsberg has been over twelve years in a very large practice with no evil results; Miss Annie D. Ramborger, an equal time, with an equally large practice, and enjoys apparently far better health than most ladies of thirty.

Dentistry is, probably, one of the most trying professions, very few men being equal to the severe strain, and many are obliged to succumb. No woman has as yet failed, though it would not be at all remarkable if such were the case. The probabilities are that comparatively few will choose it as a profession, but that another door has been opened for employment is a cause for congratulation with all right-thinking minds.

For opening this profession to women a debt of gratitude is due to Dr. Truman from all his countrywomen, as well as to those noble German students, who have so ably filled the positions he secured for them. Similar struggles, both in medicine and dentistry, were encountered in other States, but the result was as it must be in every case, the final triumph of justice for women. Already they are in most of the colleges and hospitals, and members of many of the State and National associations.

In 1870, the Society of Friends founded Swarthmore College[263] for the education of both sexes, erecting a fine building in a beautiful locality. At the dedication of this institution, Lucretia Mott was elected to honorary membership and invited to the platform. With her own hands she planted the first tree, which now adorns those spacious grounds.

The persecutions that women encountered in every onward step soon taught them the necessity of remodeling the laws and customs for themselves. They began to see the fallacy of the old ideas, that men looked after the interests of women, "that they were their natural protectors," that they could safely trust them to legislate on their personal and property rights; for they found in almost every case that whatever right and privilege man claimed for himself, he proposed exactly the opposite for women. Hence the necessity for them to have a voice as to the laws and the rulers under which they lived. Whatever reform they attempted they soon found their labors valueless, because they had no power to remedy any evils protected by law. After laboring in temperance, prison-reform, coeducation, and women's rights in the trades and professions, their hopes all alike centered at last in the suffrage movement.

In 1866, a suffrage association was formed in Philadelphia at a meeting of the American Equal Rights Society,[264] held in Franklin Institute. This convention was marked by a heated debate on the duty of the abolitionists now that the black man was emancipated, to make the demand for the enfranchisement of women, as well as the freedmen.

We are indebted to John K. Wildman of Philadelphia for the following:

The Pennsylvania association was organized December 22, 1869, in Mercantile Library Hall, Philadelphia. The meeting was called to order by John K. Wildman, who said: "The time has arrived when it is necessary for us to take some action towards promoting the cause of woman suffrage. We desire to do our part as far as practicable, in the work of enlightening the people of our State upon this important subject. With this end in view we propose to organize, hoping that all friends of the movement will cordially give us their influence." Edward M. Davis then proposed the appointment of Judge William S. Pierce as chairman of the meeting. This was agreed to, and Judge Pierce announced that the meeting was ready for business, reserving for another stage of the proceedings any remarks he might wish to make. Annie Heacock was chosen to act as secretary. In accordance with a motion that was adopted, the chairman appointed a committee of five persons[265] to prepare a constitution, and present the same for the action of the meeting. Mary Grew spoke at length in her earnest and impressive manner, presenting forcibly those familiar yet solid arguments in favor of woman suffrage which form the basis of the discussion, and which should irrevocably settle the question. Dr. Henry T. Child followed with a brief address, showing his zealous interest in the object of the meeting, and trusting that at no distant period the ballot would be placed in the hands of the women of the land. Judge Pierce said:

I am in favor of giving woman a chance in the world. I feel very much in regard to woman as Diogenes did when Alexander the Great went to see him. When the monarch arrived at the city in which Diogenes lived, he sent a request for him to come to see him. Diogenes declined to go. The monarch then went to the place of his residence, and found him lying in his court-yard sunning himself. He did not even rise when Alexander approached. Standing over him, the warrior asked, "Diogenes, what can I do for you?" And the philosopher answered, "Nothing, except to stand out of my sunshine." Now, I am disposed to stand out of woman's sunshine. If she wants the light of the sun upon her, and the breath of heaven upon her, and freedom of action necessary to develop herself, heaven forbid that I should stand in her way. I believe that everything goes to its own place in God's world, and woman will go to her place if you do not impede her. We should not be afraid to trust her, or to apply the same principles to her in regard to suffrage that we apply to ourselves. There should be no distinction. Her claims to the ballot rest upon a just and logical foundation.

The venerable Sojourner Truth spoke a few words of encouragement, showing in her humble and fervid way a reverent faith in the final triumph of justice. After the adoption of the constitution, the organization was completed by the election of officers[266] to serve for the ensuing year.

The first thing that claimed the attention of the officers of the new society was the representation of the different counties on the executive committee; and for this purpose the chairman wrote to nearly all of the sixty-three counties, chiefly to the postmasters of the principal towns. The replies that were received presented a curious medley of sentiment and opinion touching the object in view, disclosing every shade of tone and temper between the two extremes of cold indifference and warm enthusiasm. It was evident that, in a large number of cases, the inquiries promptly found their resting-place in the waste-basket. Before the close of the year twenty-two counties were represented. Thus reinforced, the committee took immediate steps towards distributing documents and circulating petitions throughout the State. Many of the county members cooeperated earnestly in this work. Some of them, not satisfied to limit their action to this particular form of service, aided the movement by collecting funds and holding public meetings in their respective localities. Matilda Hindman, representing Alleghany county, evinced both energy and enterprise in forwarding the movement through the agency of public meetings. She did good service from the beginning, relying almost solely upon her own determined purpose. Her deep interest in the work and its object, and the courage that animated her at the first impulse of duty, have continued without abatement to the present time. Her usefulness and activity have not confined themselves within the limits of Pennsylvania, but have extended to other States, both in the East and West.

Miss Matilda Hindman, of Philadelphia, pays the following tribute to her parents:

In 1837, my father being a member of the school committee of the Union township, Washington county, secured equal salaries for women; and in spite of steady opposition, there was no difference made for four years. The women who taught the schools in the summer were paid the same as the men who taught in the winter. At the death of my father the board returned to the old system of half pay for women; the result was "incompetent teachers," furnishing the opposition with just the plea they desired—that women were not fit for school teachers. My mother remonstrated, but in vain. They replied, "women never received as much as men for any work"; "it did not cost as much to keep a woman as a man," and moreover, these school matters belonged to men, and women had no right to interfere. In 1842, my mother offered to board the teacher in her district, gratis, if the board would raise her salary proportionally. They received her proposition with scorn. She then refused to pay her taxes. Such was the respect for her in the community, and the sense of justice in regard to the teachers, that the authorities suffered the tax to go unpaid, and at the end of the year accepted the proposition, and for many years after, she boarded the teacher in her district, making the woman's net salary equal to that of the man.

My mother lived to see her daughters employed in her township on equal salaries with men. But in process of time, another board, for the express purpose of humiliating mother and daughters alike, passed a resolution to take two dollars a month from each of their salaries, when all three resigned. They all honored her, by carrying into their life-work the noble principles for which she suffered so much.

She was the grand-daughter of a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian minister, who, with his young family, was among the earliest settlers in the wilderness of what is now known as the prosperous and beautiful county of Washington, Pennsylvania. Her name was Sarah Campbell. She was born in 1798. From her earliest girlhood she rebelled against the injustice done women by the law. She felt acutely the wrong done her and her sisters by being denied an education equal to their brothers, and denied also an equal share of their inheritance. While the father possessed a large estate, and provided liberally for his sons, he left his daughters a mere pittance.

In view of such facts, it is folly to say that women were ever satisfied with the humiliating discriminations of sex they have endured in all periods, and in all ranks in society.

The first annual report of the association was prepared by Eliza Sproat Turner. She said:

We do not complain that man is slow to realize the injustice of his present attitude towards woman—an attitude once, from necessity, endurable; now, from too long continuance, grown intolerable. It would not be natural for him to feel it with equal keenness. It takes a great-minded fox to find out, what every goose knows, that foxes' teeth are cruel. And while we do not complain of this incapacity on his part, the advocates of this cause feel the necessity for woman to take upon herself whatever share in the management of their mutual affairs shall be needed to right the balance; concluding that the defects in legislation which she is, by reason of her position, more competent to understand, she should be more competent to remedy. Not these innovations alone, but others involving matters beyond individual interests, she expects to achieve by the power she shall gain through the exercise of her right of suffrage. We discern, in the consideration of nearly all questions of national welfare, a disposition to press unduly the interests of trade and commerce rather than the interests of the fireside.

Mary Grew presided, and has been elected president of the association every year from the beginning, performing the duties of the position with ability, earnestness and satisfaction. In the winter of 1870-71 the executive committee recommended the passage of a law that should give married women the control of their own earnings. The appeal to the legislature in behalf of such a law was renewed the following winter, and its passage finally secured. Among the resolutions adopted at the annual meeting was the following:

Resolved, That the vote of the legislature of this State for a convention to amend the constitution, makes it our duty to work for the exclusion of the word "male" from the provision defining the qualifications for the elective franchise, and that we call upon all friends of justice to give their best energies to the sustaining of this object.

Subsequently the executive committee prepared a petition with reference to the formation of the constitutional convention, asking the legislature, in making the needful regulations, to frame them in such a way as to secure the representation of the women of the State. This petition was unavailing. At the next annual meeting, which was held at the time the constitutional convention was in session, a resolution was adopted containing an appeal to that body, earnestly requesting it to present to the people of the State a constitution that should secure the right of suffrage to its citizens without distinction of sex, accompanied by a request for a hearing at such time and place as the convention should decide. The request was willingly granted, and an evening assigned for that purpose. An evening was also given to the Citizens' Suffrage Society of Philadelphia for a like object. These meetings were held in the hall of the convention, and were largely attended by the members and by the people generally. Addresses were delivered by various friends of woman suffrage, as representatives of the two societies.[267] Still another evening was granted the Pennsylvania association for a meeting to be addressed by Bishop Matthew Simpson of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The earnest and forcible words of the eloquent speaker, and his solid array of arguments, made a deep impression on the attentive audience.

In the convention the question was discussed during five successive days. Hon. John M. Broomall introduced a provision in favor of making the ballot free to men and women alike, proposing that it be incorporated in the new constitution. This provision was ably advocated by Mr. Broomall and many other members of the convention. Their firm convictions in behalf of equal and exact justice, however well sustained by sound reasoning and earnest appeal, was an unequal match for the rooted conservatism which recoiled from such a new departure. Although the measure was defeated, its discussion had an influence. It was animated, intelligent and exhaustive, and drew public attention more directly to the subject than anything that had occurred since the beginning of its agitation in the State.

The only act of the convention that gave hope to the friends of impartial suffrage was the adoption of the third section of Article X.: "Women twenty-one years of age and upwards shall be eligible to any office of control or management under the school laws of this State." It was a very faint gleam of comfort, too small to stir more than a breath of praise. It had the merit of being a step in the right direction, though timid and feeble, and as it has never disturbed the equilibrium of society, it may ultimately be followed by others of more importance.

The annual meetings of the association have been held in Philadelphia, Westchester, Bristol, Kennett Square and Media, respectively. An interesting feature of the Westchester meeting was the reading of an essay, entitled "Four quite New Reasons why you should wish your Wife to Vote." It was written for the occasion by Eliza Sproat Turner, and was subsequently printed and re-printed in tract form by order of the executive committee, and freely circulated among the people. It was likewise published in the Woman's Journal. Other documents relative to the question have been printed from time to time by authority of the committee, and large numbers of suffrage tracts have been purchased for distribution year after year, embodying the best thoughts, the soundest arguments, and the most forcible reasoning that the question has elicited. Frequent petitions have been sent to the legislature and to congress, all having in view the one paramount object, and showing by their repeated and persistent appearance the indefatigable nature of a living, breathing reform. The executive committee at one time employed Matilda Hindman as State agent. Meetings were held by her chiefly in the western part of the State. In 1874 her services extended to the State of Michigan, where the question of woman suffrage was specially before the people. Lelia E. Patridge also represented the association in Michigan at that time, where she performed excellent service in addressing numerous meetings in different parts of the State. In 1877 Miss Patridge was appointed to represent the society in Colorado. There she labored with others to secure the adoption of a constitutional amendment providing for suffrage without regard to sex. On several occasions the executive committee has contributed to woman suffrage purposes in other States. Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado and Oregon have been recipients of the limited resources of the association. The executive committee has felt the cramping influence of an unfriended treasury. Its provision has been the fruit of unwearied soliciting, and should the especial object of the association ever be accomplished, the honors of success may be fitly contested by the fine art of begging.

The following report was sent us by Mrs. Mary Byrnes:

March 22, 1872, the Citizens' Suffrage Association of Philadelphia was formed, William Morris Davis, president, with fifty members. The name of the society was chosen to denote the view of its members as to the basis of the elective franchise. The amendments to the United States constitution had clearly defined who were citizens, and shown citizenship to be without sex. Woman was as indisputably a citizen as man. Whatever rights he possessed as a citizen she possessed also. The supreme law of the land placed her on the same plane of political rights with him. If man held the right of suffrage as a citizen of the United States, either by birthright within the respective States, or by naturalization under the United States, then the right of the female citizen to vote was as absolute as that of the male citizen; and woman's disfranchisement became a wrong inflicted upon her by usurped power. Men became voters by reason of their citizenship, having first complied with certain police regulations imposed within and by the respective States. The Citizens' Suffrage Association demanded the same political rights for all citizens, nothing more, nothing less. It repudiated the idea that one class of citizens should ask of another class rights which that other class never possessed, and which those who were denied them never had lost. This society held that the right to give implied the right to take away; and further, that the right to give implied a right lodged somewhere in society, which society had never acquired by any direct concession from the people.

This society held also, that the theory of the right to the franchise, as a gift, bore with it the power somewhere to restrict the male citizen's suffrage, and to strike at the principle of self-government. They had seen this doctrine earnestly advanced. They knew that there was a growing class in the country who were inimical to universal suffrage. In view of this they chose the name of citizen suffrage, as the highest and broadest term by which to designate their devotion to the political rights of all citizens. They held that the political condition of the white women of the United States was totally unlike that of the slave population in this: that while the slaves were not considered citizens until the adoption of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, white women had always been citizens, and always entitled to all the political rights of citizenship. The colored male citizen became a voter—subject to the police regulations of the different States—upon acquiring citizenship. No constitutional enactment denied equal political rights to women as citizens. No constitutional enactment was therefore required to enable them to exercise the right to vote, which became the right of male slaves upon their securing citizenship under the law. The first legal argument on the subject of woman's right to the ballot as a citizen of the United States, was made by Jacob F. Byrnes before the Pennsylvania Society. Had it been published as soon as written, instead of being circulated privately, surprising person after person with the position taken, it would have antedated the report of General Benjamin F. Butler in the House of Representatives in the winter of 1871.

Edward M. Davis, president for many years, was one of the most active and untiring officers of this association, giving generously of his time and money not only to its support but to the general agitation of the suffrage question in every part of the country. The meetings were held regularly at his office, 333 Walnut street, as were also those of the Radical Club. This was composed largely of the same members as the suffrage society, but in this organization they had a greater latitude in discussion, covering all questions of political, religious and social interest. As the division in the National Society produced division everywhere, some of the friends in Philadelphia made themselves auxiliary to the American Association, and the sympathy of others was with the National, thus forming two rival societies, which together kept the suffrage question before the people and roused their attention, particularly to the fact of a pending constitutional convention. Hence the necessity of holding meetings throughout the State, and rolling up petitions asking that the constitution be so amended as to secure to women the right to vote. The following appeal was issued by this association:

To the Editor of the Post:

SIR: There is no political question now before the people of this commonwealth more important than the consideration of the changes to be made in our constitution. The citizens of the State, by an enormous majority of votes, have re-claimed the sovereign powers of government, and evinced a determination to re-form the fundamental law, the constitution of this State, in the interest of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." In this new adaptation of old rules of government to the advanced ideas of the age, it seems to us fitting and opportune that woman in her new status as a citizen of the United States (under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution), should be allowed the exercise of rights which have been withheld under old rules of action. Therefore we respectfully ask you to give this, with our appeal, an insertion in your paper, and to continue the appeal until further notice. And we ask all the friends of woman suffrage to aid our association in placing this appeal in each paper of our city, as well as of the neighboring towns.

"There is no distinction in citizenship as has been determined by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The citizens of Pennsylvania have decided on a revision of the constitution of the commonwealth. The power of revision is to be delegated by the citizens of the commonwealth to a convention. The foundation of free government is based on the consent of the governed. Therefore, the Citizens' Suffrage Association of Pennsylvania appeals to the sense of right and justice in the hearts of the citizens of this State, to aid in securing to every citizen, irrespective of sex, an equal voice in the selection of delegates, and an equal right, if elected thereto, to a seat in said constitutional convention."

WM. MORRIS DAVIS, Controller.

Mr. Robert Purvis, at the request of the Citizens' Suffrage Association of Philadelphia, waited upon Mrs. President Hayes and presented to her an address adopted by that society. Mr. Purvis wrote:

I have just returned from a very satisfactory and delightful interview with Mrs. Hayes. She received me most cordially. I read to her the eloquent address from the Citizens' Suffrage Association. She listened with marked attention, was grateful for the high favor conferred upon her, and sent her best wishes for the success of the cause. I made reference to the fact that the address bore the honored name of Lucretia Mott, which she received with a ready acknowledgment of her great worth and usefulness, and her distinguished place as a reformer and philanthropist.

Through the liberality of Edward M. Davis, this society was able to publish and circulate an immense number of tracts covering all phases of the question. He has been one of the few abolitionists who have thrown into this movement all the old-time fervor manifested in the slavery conflict. A worthy son of the sainted Lucretia Mott, her mantle seems to have fallen on his shoulders.

The Hon. John M. Broomall was ever ready to champion the cause of equality of rights for women, not only in the legislature and in the constitutional conventions of his own State, but on the floor of congress as well. In a letter giving us valuable information on several points, he says:

You ask when I made my first declaration for woman suffrage. I cannot tell. I was born in 1816, and one of the earliest settled convictions I formed as a man was that no person should be discriminated against on account of sect, sex, race or color, but that all should have an equal chance in the race which the Divine Ruler has set before all; and I never missed an opportunity to give utterance to this conviction in conversation, on the stump, on the platform and in legislative bodies. My views were set out concisely in my remarks in congress, on January 30, 1869, and I cite the commencement and conclusion, as I find them in The Globe of that date:

Every person owing allegiance to the government and not under the legal control of another, should have an equal voice in making and administering the laws, unless debarred for violating those laws; and in this I make no distinction of wealth, intelligence, race, family or sex. If just government is founded upon the consent of the governed, and if the established mode of consent is through the ballot-box, then those who are denied the right of suffrage can in no sense be held as consenting, and the government which withholds that right is as to those from whom it is withheld no just government. * * * * The measure now before the House is necessary to the complete fulfillment of what has gone before it. To hesitate now is to put in peril all we have gained. Let this, too, pass into history as an accomplished fact. Let it be followed, in due course of time, by the last crowning act of the series—an amendment to the constitution securing to all citizens of full age, without regard to sex, an equal voice in making and amending the laws under which they live, to be forfeited only for crime. Then the great mission of the party in power will be fulfilled; then will have been demonstrated the capacity of man for self-government; then a just nation, founded upon the full and free consent of its citizens will be no longer a dream of the optimist.

Mrs. Virginia Barnhurst writes:

I think you should make mention of the few men who, against the greatest opposition, stood boldly up and avowed themselves in favor of woman's cause. When I think of some of the speeches that I heard from the opposite side—expressions which sent the hot blood to my face, and which showed the low estimate law-makers put upon woman, those few men who dared to defend mothers and sisters, stand out in my mind as worthy of having their names go down in history—and especially in a history written by women. I had a good talk with Lawyer Campbell. He is one of the most ardent in the cause; he believes the ballot to be a necessity to woman, as a means of self-protection, this necessity being seen in the unequal operation of many laws relating to the guardianship of children and the ownership of property. Caleb White's words have in them the just consciousness of their own immortality: "I want my vote to be recorded; not to be judged of here, but to be judged of by coming generations, who, at least, will give to woman the rights which God intended she should have."



The constitutional convention to which reference has been so frequently made in this chapter, assembled November 12, 1872, and as early as the 22d, resolutions relative to women holding school-offices and to the property-rights of women were presented. Numberless petitions for these and full suffrage for women were sent in during the entire sitting of the convention. February 3, 1873, John H. Campbell presented the minority report of the Committee on Suffrage and Elections:

The undersigned, members of the Committee on Suffrage, Election and Representation, dissent from that part of the majority report of said committee, which limits the right of suffrage to male electors. We recommend that the question, "Shall woman exercise the right of suffrage," be submitted by the convention to the qualified electors of this commonwealth, and also upon the same day therewith, to those women of the commonwealth who upon the day of voting shall be of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, and have been residents of the State one year, and in the district where they offered to vote at least sixty days prior thereto; and that if the majority of all the votes cast at said election should be in the affirmative, then the word "male" as a qualification for an elector, contained in section ——, article —— on suffrage and election shall be stricken out, and women in this State shall thereafter exercise the right of suffrage, subject only to the restrictions placed upon the male voters.

JOHN H. CAMPBELL, LEWIS C. CASSIDY, LEVI ROOKE.

The amendment for full suffrage was lost by a vote of 75 to 25, with 33 absent, while the amendment making women eligible for school offices was carried by a vote of 60 to 32.[268] The debate by those in favor of the amendment was so ably and eloquently conducted that we would gladly reproduce it, had not all the salient points been so often and so exhaustively presented on the floor of congress, and by some of the members from Pennsylvania.

After the passage of the school law of 1873, it was immediately tested all over the State, rousing opposition and conflict everywhere, but the struggle resulted favorably to women, who now hold many offices to which they were once ineligible. At the first election of school directors in Philadelphia the nomination of two women was hotly contested. The Evening Telegraph of February 6, 1874, gives the following:

There is progressing in the Thirteenth ward a contest which involves so peculiar and important an issue as to merit the widest publicity. It illustrates how the rights guaranteed to women under the new constitution are to be denied them, if cunning and bold chicanery are to be tolerated, by a few ward politicians. At the Republican primary election, held January 20, Mrs. Harriet W. Paist and Mrs. George W. Woelpper were duly nominated as candidates for members of the board of school directors of the ward. Both of these ladies received their certificates, that given to Mrs. Paist reading as follows:

This is to certify that at a meeting of the judges of the different divisions of the Thirteenth ward, held in accordance with the rules of the Republican party, on the evening of January 20, 1874, Mrs. Harriet W. Paist was found to be elected as candidate upon the Republican ticket from the Thirteenth ward, for school director.

CHARLES M. CARPENTER, President.

JAMES M. STEWART, } Clerks. DAVID J. SMITH, }

No sooner was it ascertained that the ladies had actually become candidates on the Republican ticket than a movement was inaugurated to oust them, the old war tocsin of "Anything to beat Grant" being for this purpose amended thus: "Anything to beat the women." This antagonism to the fair candidates was based entirely upon the supposition that their names would so materially weaken the ticket as to place the election of the Republican common councilman, Henry C. Dunlap, in the greatest jeopardy. To save him, therefore, the managers of the movement must sacrifice Mesdames Woelpper and Paist. How was this to be accomplished? Each was fortified in her position by a genuine certificate of election, and had, furthermore, expressed her determination to run. What could not be done fairly must be accomplished by strategy. Mr. Ezra Lukens called upon Mrs. Paist, stating that if she did not withdraw the Republicans who were opposed to the lady candidates would unite with the "other party" and defeat the Republican ward ticket. Mrs. Paist inquired if she had not been regularly nominated, and his reply was that she had been, but that her opponents in the party would unite with the "other party" and defeat her. Mrs. Paist was firm, and Mr. Lukens retired foiled. A day or two after, the chairman of the Thirteenth ward Republican executive committee received somehow this letter:

PHILADELPHIA, February 2, 1874.

DEAR SIR: Please accept this as my declination as school director on the Thirteenth ward Republican ticket. Hoping it will please those opposed to a lady director.

Respectfully yours, HARRIET W. PAIST.

A week previous to this the husband of Mrs. Woelpper was called upon by Mr. William B. Elliott, a member of this executive committee, and was informed by him that Mrs. Paist had withdrawn, and that it would be unpleasant, if not inexpedient, for Mrs. Woelpper to run alone. Mr. Woelpper expressed his belief that if such were the case his wife would withdraw. At a meeting of the executive committee a short time after, it was announced that both the ladies had withdrawn, and everything looked serene for victory, when the next day the members were individually informed that the letter of declination written above was a base forgery, and that neither of the ladies intended to withdraw from the contest. Another meeting of the executive committee was held on the 2d inst., at which Mr. Woelpper, jr., was present. He declared that the statement made to his father was false, and that he was present to say for his mother that she was still a candidate. This announcement fell like a bomb in a peaceful camp, causing great confusion. After order was restored, William B. Elliott, the collector, offered a resolution declaring it inexpedient to have any ladies on the ticket at this time. This resolution was opposed by F. Theodore Walton and a number of the members, who denied the power of the committee to change the ticket regularly chosen at the primary election. They favored the fair candidates, for whose election as school directors the constitution had made special provisions, and whose presence in the school-boards had been very favorably commented upon by all the papers of the city. Besides, the ladies were as legitimately entitled to their candidacy as Mr. Dunlap, and it would be a gross and unparalelled outrage to sacrifice them from mere prejudice, or in the belief that their presence would injure the chances of Mr. Dunlap. Then arose Collector Elliott, his face fairly glowing with honest indignation, and his voice sharp and stinging in his tirade against the newspapers. What did he care what the newspapers said? What are the newspapers but sheets sold out to the highest bidder? The newspapers, he cried, are all in the market, to be bought and sold the same as coal! That was their business, and they didn't want stability so long as there was cash to be got. Then he came down upon them in a perfect whirlwind of wrath for daring to favor the women candidates for school directors of the Thirteenth ward, and sat down as though he had accomplished a noble purpose.

The question on the resolution was pressed, and resulted in its adoption by a vote of 20 to 12.[269] A resolution was offered by David T. Smith that Mrs. Paist and Mrs. Woelpper be thrown off the ticket, and this resolution was carried by the same vote as the preceding one. The meeting then adjourned. In consequence of this action Mrs. Paist addressed to the citizens of the Thirteenth ward the following card, in which she declares that she does not intend to resign:

To the Citizens of the Thirteenth Ward.:

Unpleasant though it may be to thus appear before the public, I feel that I must, in justice to myself, expose the fraud and deception that have been practiced to defeat my election on the 17th of February next. I received the nomination and certificate of election signed by James M. Stewart, David T. Smith, clerks, and Charles M. Carpenter, president. Certainly they would not be guilty of deceiving, for are they not "all honorable men"? John B. Green, George M. Taylor and A. W. Lyman then (Ezra Lukens having been on a similar fruitless mission) called on the eve of January 30, 1874, wishing me to withdraw; stating that Mrs. Woelpper had done so (which was false), and they thought it would not be pleasant for me to serve. They also placed it on the ground of expediency, fearing that their candidate for council (Mr. Dunlap) was so weak that a woman on the ticket might jeopardize the election. I knew not before that woman held the balance of power. After sending their emissaries under the false garb of friendship to induce me to decline, without success, they were reduced to the desperate means of producing a letter, which was read by the secretary of the executive meeting, February 2, purporting to come from me, and withdrawing my name. I pronounce it publicly to be a forgery. I have not withdrawn, neither do I intend to withdraw. Would that I had the power of Brutus or a Patrick Henry, that I might put these designing, intriguing politicians in their true light! They deserve to be held up to the contumely and scorn of the community.

February 3, 1874. HARRIET W. PAIST.

Despite the action of the committee, these talented ladies will be run as the regular candidates for school directors. A committee of citizens of the Republican party will prepare the tickets and see that they are properly distributed, and take all precautions against fraud at the election and against any effort that may be made to count out the fair candidates at the meeting of the ward return judges. It is of the greatest importance that all good citizens of the ward shall do all in their power to secure not only the fullest possible number of votes for the lady candidates, but a fair count when they have been received. It remains to be seen whether the Republican citizens of the ward will endorse the action of a committee which from mere prejudice can throw off regularly-elected candidates from a ticket.

The ladies were elected, and Mrs. Paist served her term. Mrs. Woelpper died immediately after the election.

Anna McDowell, in the Sunday Republic of April 8, 1877, in a long article shows the necessity of some legal knowledge for women, enough at least to look after their own interests, and not be compelled through their ignorance to trust absolutely to the protection of others. They should be trained to understand that all pecuniary affairs should be placed on a business basis as strictly between themselves and their fathers and brothers as men require in their contracts with each other. After giving many instances in which women have been grossly defrauded by their relatives, she points to the will of the great railroad king of Pennsylvania:

Let us glance for a moment at the will of the late J. Edgar Thomson, than which no more unjust testament was ever offered for probate. This gentleman, the sole object of affection of two most worthy and self-sacrificing sisters, married late in life without making any adequate settlement upon the relatives to whom, in a great measure, he owed his success. He always promised to provide for them amply, saying, repeatedly, in effect, in letters which we have seen, "As my fortune advances so also shall yours; my prosperity will be your prosperity," etc. Oblivious to the ties of nature and affection, however, when he came to make his will he, out of a fortune of two millions, bequeathed to these sisters, during life, an annuity of $1,200 per annum only, leaving the rest of the income of his estate to his wife and her niece, the latter a young lady whom he had previously made independent by his skilful investment of a few thousand dollars left her by her father. Not content with the will which gave her also a large income for life out of Mr. Thomson's estate, this niece of his wife brought suit against the executors to recover bonds found after the death of the testator in an envelope on which her name was written, and through the ruling of Judge Thayer, a relation by marriage to the husband of the lady, the case was decided in her favor, and $100,000 was thus absolutely and permanently taken from the fund designed for the asylum which it was Mr. Thomson's long-cherished desire to found for the benefit and education of orphan girls whose fathers had been or might be killed by accident on the Pennsylvania and other railroads. The injustice of this decision is made manifest when we reflect that the Misses Anna and Adeline Thomson, who worked side by side with their brother as civil engineers in their father's office, and labored, without pay, therein, that he might be educated and sent abroad further to perfect himself in his profession, were cut off with a comparatively paltry stipend for life, this being still further reduced by the collateral-inheritance tax. As high an authority as Dr. William A. Hammond says that, "for a man to cut off his natural heirs in his will is prima facie evidence of abberation of mind," and we believe this to be true.

Had these sisters[270] been brothers they would have been recognized as partners and had their legal proportion of the accumulations of the business in which they labored in early years with equal faithfulness, side by side. This is but another instance of women's blind faith in the men of their families and of the danger in allowing business matters to adjust themselves on the basis of honor, courtesy and protection.

Among the literary women of the State are Sarah C. Hallowell, on the editorial staff of the Public Ledger; the daughters of John W. Forney, for many years in charge of the woman's department of Forney's Progress; Anne McDowell, editor of the woman's department in The Sunday Republic; Mrs. E. A. Wade; "Bessie Bramble" of Pittsburg has for many years ably edited a woman's department in the Sunday Leader; Matilda Hindman, an excellent column in the Pittsburg Commercial Gazette. In science Grace Anna Lewis stands foremost. Her paper read before the Woman's Congress in Philadelphia in 1876, attracted much attention. These ladies with others organized "The Century Club"[271] in 1876, for preeminently practical and benevolent work. Its objects are various: looking after working girls, sending children into the country for fresh air during summer, and improving the houses of the poor and needy. The Club has a large house to which is attached a cooking-school and lodgings for unfortunates in great emergencies.

Woman's ambition was not confined at this period to literature and the learned professions; she found herself capable of practical work on a large scale in the department of agriculture. The Philadelphia Press has the following:

The beautiful farm of Abel C. Thomas, at Tacony, near Philadelphia, is remarkable chiefly because it is managed by a woman, Mrs. Louise H. Thomas. Her husband, the intimate friend of Horace Greeley, and well known as an author and theologian, in time past, has long been too feeble to take any part in managing the property. That duty has devolved upon Mrs. Thomas. The house, two hundred yards from the Pennsylvania railroad, is hidden from view by the trees which surround it. The grounds are tastefully laid out, and the lawn mowed with a regularity that indicates constant feminine attention. The plot is 20 acres in extent. Six acres comprise the orchard and garden. In addition to apple, apricot, pear, peach, plum and cherry, there are specimens of all kinds of trees, from pine to poplar.

A Press reporter recently walked over the premises, and Mrs. Thomas explained her manner of doing business. "I look after everything about the farm; take my little sample bags of wheat to the mills, and sell the crop by it; and twice I got ten cents more a bushel than any of my neighbors. But the things I take most interest in are my cows, chickens and bees. My cattle are from Jersey island, and pure Alderney. They are very gentle and good milkers. From four of them I get about 800 pounds of butter a year. The price of this butter varies from 50 cents to $1.00 per pound. There's my dog. When it's milking time, the hired man says to the dog, 'Shep, go after the cows,' and away he goes, and in a little while the herd come tinkling up. Why send a man to do a boy's work, or a boy to do that which a shepherd dog can do just as well? The cows understand him, and readily come when they are sent after. Well, so much for the milk department. Now, as to the garden; I don't sell much from that. Still, if the vegetables were not grown, they would have to be bought, and I take all that into consideration in closing accounts. And that's one thing most farmers don't do; they don't put on the cash side of the ledger the cost of their living, for which they have been to no expense. Now, as to the bees. The first cost is about the only expense attached to these little workers. I have twenty-five colonies, and can, and do handle them with as much safety as if they were so much dry wheat. I sell about $100 worth of honey yearly, and consume half as much at home. The bees are not troublesome when you know how to handle them, but they require to be delicately handled at swarming time.

"Now, as to chickens. My stock consists exclusively of the light Brahma breed. They come early, grow fast, sell readily, are tender, and have no disposition to forage; they are not all the time wandering round and flying over the garden fence, and scratching up flower and vegetable seeds. In fact, if you'll notice, there is a docility about my live-stock that is very attractive. The cows and chickens only need articulation to carry on conversation. You didn't see the hatching department of my chicken-house? I modeled the building after one used by a Madame de Linas, a French lady living near Paris, and am much pleased with it. I sometimes raise 1,000 chickens a season. I sell them at prices all the way up from $1 to $3 apiece. You must remember that they are full-blooded, and I always have my stock replenished. I keep the best and sell for the highest prices. They are generally sold to private families, who wish to get the stock, and I always sell them alive. They are not much trouble to raise, provided you know how, and have the accommodations for doing it. I feed them corn, milk, meal and water, and pay particular attention to their being properly housed. The eggs of this breed are very rich, and I charge one dollar and a half for a setting—that is, thirteen eggs.

"I have some three or four acres of wheat growing and it is heading out finely. Oh!" said Mrs. Thomas, becoming more enthusiastic, as she reviewed the incomes from the cereals, cows, and chickens, "I am making money, and money is a standard of success, although there is to me a greater pleasure than the mere financial part of the business, which comes from the passion I have for the life. I wish, indeed, that young ladies would turn their attention to this matter. To me, it seems to open to them an avenue for acquiring a competency in an independent way; and to one who would pursue it earnestly, I know of no avocation scarcely worth being classed with it."

"And you are not lonesome out here?"

"Oh! no. I never was lonesome an hour in my life—don't have time; I have a great deal of work to do, and am always ready to do it. Indeed, the only people I pity are those who do not work, or find no interest in it. No, no; I have plenty of visitors, and last week Jennie June, Lucretia Mott, and Anna Dickinson paid me a visit and were very much pleased while here. I have two grown-up boys, one in New York and the other in California; and have reared thirteen children besides my own family—colored, French, Italian, and I know not what nationalities."

Mrs. Thomas, who is certainly a remarkable woman, is a thoroughly educated one; has traveled extensively both in Europe and this country. Herself and husband have been intimate acquaintances of many eminent men, among whom were President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton. The activity displayed in managing the estate indicates the possession of marked executive ability, and the exercise she thus receives has doubtless had its share in keeping her young, well-preserved, and good-natured.