While in London we attended several large and enthusiastic reform meetings. We heard Bradlaugh address his constituency on that memorable day at Trafalgar Square, at the opening of parliament, when violence was anticipated and the parliament houses were surrounded by immense crowds, with the military and police in large numbers to maintain order. We heard Michael Davitt and Miss Helen Taylor at a great meeting in Exeter Hall, the former on home-rule for Ireland, and the latter on the nationalization of land, showing that in ancient times the people had many privileges long since denied. They even had forests and commons and the road-side, where their cows, sheep and geese could glean something. The facts and figures given in these two lectures as to the abject poverty of the people and the cruel system by which every inch of land had been grabbed by their oppressors, were indeed appalling. A few days before sailing we made our last visit to Ernestine L. Rose and found our noble coadjutor, though in delicate health, pleasantly situated in the heart of London, as deeply interested as ever in the struggles of the hour.

Dining one day with Mrs. Lucas, we were forcibly impressed with the growing liberality of people of all shades of belief and of all professions. The guests on that occasion were Mrs. Hallock, sister-in-law of Robert Dale Owen, thoroughly imbued with his religious and social ideas; Dr. Mary J. Hall, the only woman practicing homeopathy in England; Miss Henrietta Mueller, member of the London school-board; Miss Clara Spence, a young actress from America, who gave us some fine recitations; and such liberals in politics and religion as Mrs. Stanton Blatch and myself, while our hostess was an orthodox Friend. However we were all agreed on one point, the right of women to full equality everywhere. In the evening we went to see Mrs. Hallock's daughter, Ella Deitz, in the play of "Impulse." We urged Mrs. Lucas to accompany us, but she said she had never been to a theater in her life.

A great discomfort in all English homes is the cold draughts through their halls and unoccupied rooms. A moderate fire in the grates in the family apartments is their only mode of heating, and they seem quite oblivious as to the danger of throwing a door open into a cold hall on one's back while the servants pass in and out with the various courses' at dinner. As we Americans were sorely tried under such circumstances, it was decided in the Basingstoke mansion to have a hall stove, which, after a prolonged search, was found in London and duly installed as a presiding deity to defy the dampness that pervades all those ivy-covered habitations, as well as the neuralgia that wrings their possessors. What a blessing it proved, more than any one thing making the old English house seem like an American home! The delightful summer heat we in America enjoy in the coldest weather is quite unknown to our Saxon cousins. Although many came to see our stove in full working order, yet we could not persuade them to adopt the American system of heating the whole house at an even temperature. They cling to the customs of their fathers with an obstinacy that is incomprehensible to us, who are always ready to try experiments. Americans complain bitterly of the same freezing experiences in France and Germany, and in turn foreigners all criticise our over-heated houses and places of amusement.

An evening reception at Mrs. Richardson's, in the city of York, gave us an opportunity of a personal greeting with a large circle of ladies identified with the suffrage movement, and a large public meeting the next day in the Town Hall enabled us to judge still further of the merits of English women as speakers. Here I was entertained by Mrs. Lucretia Kendall Clarke, an American, who had spent five years as a student in Dresden, where she made the acquaintance of Mr. Clarke. It is said in England that the American girls capture all the choice young men; that our rich cattle-dealers get all their best horses, cows, sheep, dogs, and that in time we shall rob them of all that is best in the country. One thing is certain, we shall always regret our hospitable invitation to the sparrows, as they are making war on our native birds instead of fulfilling their mission to the "Diet of Worms." In company with Mrs. Scatcherd we spent an hour in that magnificent York cathedral, said to be one of the finest in England. Being there at the time for service we had the benefit of the music. To us, lost in admiration of the wonderful architecture and the beautiful carving in wood and stone, the solemn strains of the organ reverberating through those vast arches made the whole scene very impressive. As women in many of the churches are not permitted to take part in the sacred ceremonies, the choir is composed of men, and boys from ten to fifteen who sing the soprano and alto. But these old ideas, like the old Roman wall that still surrounds that city, time only can remove.

We had a merry trip from York to London. Miss Mueller, Mrs. Chant, Mrs. Shearer, Miss Stackpole, in our compartment, discussed freely the silly objections to woman's enfranchisement usually made by our legislators. We found on comparing notes that the arguments usually made were the same in the House of Commons as in the halls of Congress. If the honorable gentlemen could only have heard their stale platitudes with good imitations in voice and manner, I doubt whether they would ever again air their absurdities. I regretted that our Caroline Gilkey Rogers had not been there to have given her admirable impersonation of a Massachusetts legislator.

A few days later I attended another meeting in Birmingham and stayed with a relative of Joseph Sturge, at whose home I had visited forty years before. This was called to discuss the degradation of women under the Contagious Diseases acts. Led by Josephine Butler, the women of England have been deeply stirred on the question of repeal, and are very active in their opposition to the law. We heard Mrs. Butler speak in many of her society meetings, as well as on several public occasions. Her style is not unlike that we hear in Methodist class-meetings from the best cultivated of that sect; her power grows out of her deeply religious enthusiasm.

In London we met Emily Faithful, who had just returned from a lecturing-tour in the United States, and were much amused with her experiences. Having taken prolonged trips over the whole country from Maine to Texas for many successive years, Miss Anthony and I could easily add the superlative to all her narrations. She dined with us one day at Mrs. Mellen's, where we also had the pleasure of meeting Miss Jane Cobden, a daughter of the great Corn-law reformer, who was much interested in forming Liberal leagues, to encourage the Liberal party and interest women in the political questions under consideration. She passed a day with us at Basingstoke, and together we visited Mrs. Caird, the author of "Whom Nature Leadeth," an interesting story of English life. I found the author a charming woman, but in spite of the title I really could not find one character in the three volumes that seemed to follow the teachings of nature.

Two weeks again in London, visiting picture-galleries, museums, libraries, going to teas, dinners, receptions, concerts, theaters and reform-meetings; it is enough to turn one's head to think of all the different clubs and associations managed by women. It was a source of constant pleasure to me to drive about in hansoms and try to take in the vastness of that wonderful city; to see the beautiful equipages, fine saddle-horses and riders and the skill with which the bicycles were so rapidly engineered through the crowded streets. The general use of bicycles and tricycles all over England, even for long journeys, is fast becoming the favorite mode of locomotion both for ladies and gentlemen.

It was a pleasant surprise to meet the large number of Americans usually at the receptions of Mrs. Peter Taylor.[580] Graceful and beautiful in full dress, standing beside her husband, who evidently idolizes her, Mrs. Taylor appeared quite as refined in her drawing-room as if she had never been "exposed to the public gaze," while presiding over a suffrage convention. Mr. Peter Taylor, M. P., has been untiring in his endeavors to get a bill through parliament against "compulsory vaccination." Mrs. Taylor is called the mother of the suffrage movement. The engraving of her sweet face which adorns the English chapter will give the reader a good idea of her character. The reform has not been carried on in all respects to her taste, nor on what she considers the basis of high principle. Neither she nor Mrs. Jacob Bright has ever been satisfied with the bill asking the right of suffrage for "widows and spinsters" only. To have asked this right "for all women duly qualified," as but few married women are qualified by possessing property in their own right, the result would have been substantially the same without making any invidious distinctions. Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Bright felt that as married women were the greatest sufferers under the law, they should be the first rather than the last to be enfranchised. The others, led by Miss Becker, claimed that it was good policy to make the demand for "spinsters and widows," and thus exclude the "family unit" and "man's headship" from the discussion; and yet these were the very points on which the objections were invariably based. They claimed that if "spinsters and widows" were enfranchised they would be an added power to secure to married women their rights. But the history of the past gives no such assurance. It is not certain that women would be more just than men, and a small privileged class of aristocrats have long governed their fellow-countrymen. The fact that the spinsters in the movement advocated such a bill shows that they are not to be trusted in extending it. John Stuart Mill, too, was always opposed to the exclusion of married women in the demand for suffrage.

If our English friends had our system of conventions and discussions in which every resolution is subject to criticism, changes could be more readily effected. But as their meetings are now conducted, a motion to amend a resolution would throw the platform into the wildest confusion and hopelessly bewilder the chairman. We saw this experiment made at the great demonstration in St. James' Hall the night before Mr. Mason's bill was to be acted on in the House of Commons. For its effect on their champions some were desirous that a resolution should be endorsed by that great audience proposing higher ground; that instead of "spinsters and widows," the demand should be for "all duly qualified women." After the reading of one of the resolutions Miss Jessie Craigen arose and proposed such an amendment. Mr. Woodhall, M. P., in the chair, seemed quite at a loss what to do. She was finally, after much debate and prolonged confusion, suppressed, whether in a parliamentary manner or not I am unable to say. Here we should have discussed the matter at length if it had taken us until midnight, or adjourned over until next day, "the spinsters and widows" having been the target for all our barbed arrows until completely annihilated.

Spending two months in traveling on the continent, Miss Anthony had many amusing experiences. While visiting our minister and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Sargent, at Berlin, she occupied some rainy days, when sight-seeing was out of the question, in doing up papers and writing a large number of letters on our official paper, bearing the revolutionary mottoes, "No just government can be formed without the consent of the governed," "Taxation without representation is tyranny." For a brief period she was in the full enjoyment of that freedom one has when a pressing duty to family and friends has been thoroughly discharged. But alas! her satisfaction was soon turned to disappointment. After a few days a dignified official appeared at the American Legation with a large package bearing the proscribed mottoes, saying, "such sentiments cannot pass through the post-office in Germany." So all that form of propagandism was nipped in the bud, and in modest, uncomplaining wraps the letters and papers started again for the land of the free and reached their destination.

But this experience did not satisfy the "Napoleon of our movement" that the rulers in the old world could securely guard their subjects from those inflammable mottoes to which from long use we are so indifferent. She continued to sow the seeds of rebellion as she had opportunity, in Germany, France, Switzerland and Italy. It is well for us that she did not experiment in Russia, or we should now be mourning her loss as an exile in Siberia. At all points of interest books are kept for visitors to register their names; Miss Anthony uniformly added some of our Pilgrim Fathers' heroic ejaculations in their struggle for liberty, which friends visiting the same places afterwards informed us were carefully crossed out so as to be quite illegible. But we may hope for their restoration in the near future and that they may yet do an effective work. Thus circumscribed with her pen and not being able to speak a foreign language, happily no rebellions were fomented by her rapid transit through their borders.

My sense of justice was severely tried with all I heard of the persecutions of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh for their publications on the right and duty of parents to limit population. Who can contemplate the sad condition of multitudes of young children in the old world whose fate is to be brought up in ignorance and vice—a swarming, seething mass whom nobody owns—without seeing the need of free discussion of the philosophical principles that underlie these tangled social problems. The trials of Foote and Ramsey, too, for blasphemy, seemed unworthy a great nation in the nineteenth century. Think of well-educated men of good moral standing, thrown into prison in solitary confinement for speaking lightly of the Hebrew idea of Jehovah and the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus! Our Protestant clergy never hesitate to make the dogmas and superstitions of the Catholic church seem as absurd as possible, and why should not those who imagine they have outgrown Protestant superstitions make them equally ridiculous? Whatever is true can stand investigation and ridicule.

The last of April, when the wild-flowers were in their glory, Mrs. Mellen and her lovely daughter, Daisy, came down to Basingstoke to enjoy its beauty. As Mrs. Mellen had known Charles Kingsley and entertained him at her residence in Colorado, she felt a desire to see his former home. Accordingly, one bright morning Mr. Blatch drove us through Stralfieldsage over the grounds of the Duke of Wellington, well stocked with fine cattle, sheep and deer. This magnificent place was given him by the English government after the battle of Waterloo. A lofty statue of the duke that can be seen for miles around stands at the entrance. A drive of a few miles further brought us to Eversley, the home of Canon Kingsley, where he preached many years and where all that is mortal of him now lies buried. We wandered through the old church, among the moss-covered tombstones and into the once happy home, now silent and deserted, his loved ones scattered in different quarters of the globe. Standing near the last resting-place of the author of "Hypatia," his warning words for woman, in a letter to John Stuart Mill, seemed like a voice from the clouds, saying with new inspiration and power, "This will never be a good world for woman until the last remnant of the canon law is civilized off the face of the earth."

Mrs. Mellen's spacious home in Pembroke Gardens, Kensington, was thrown open for her American friends in London to celebrate the Fourth of July. A large number of our English acquaintances were also present, who very kindly congratulated us on the stirring events of that day in 1776. Of the Americans assembled, many contributed to the general entertainment. Grace Greenwood, Miss Rachel Foster, Miss Kate Hillard and Miss Mildred Conway gave recitations. Miss Lippincott, daughter of Grace Greenwood, sang some fine operatic music; Mrs. Carpenter of Chicago sang sweetly, playing her own accompaniment; Mr. Frank Lincoln gave some of his amusing impersonations; Miss Maud Powell of Chicago, only fourteen years of age, who had been taking lessons in France and Germany for some years, played exquisite airs on the violin; Mrs. Flora Stark, Miss Alice Blatch and Miss Conway gave us some fine classical music on the piano, and Nathaniel Mellen sang some pathetic negro melodies.[581] Altogether it was a pleasant occasion and I felt quite proud of the varied talents manifested by our young people. Some English friends remarked on their cleverness and readiness, all spontaneously called out without any time for preparation.

We heard Mr. Fawcett speak to his Hackney constituents at one of his campaign meetings. In the course of his remarks he mentioned with evident favor as one of the coming measures the disestablishment of the church, and was greeted with loud applause. Soon after he spoke of woman suffrage as another question demanding consideration, but this was received with laughter and jeers, although the platform was crowded with advocates of the measure, among whom were the wife of the speaker and her sister, Dr. Garrett Anderson, who sat just behind him. The audience were evidently in favor of releasing themselves from being taxed to support the church, forgetting that women were taxed also not only to support the church, in which they had no voice, but the State, too, with its army and navy. Mr. Fawcett was not an orator, but a simple, straightforward speaker. He made but one gesture, striking his right clenched fist into the palm of the left hand at the close of all his strongest assertions; but being sound and liberal, he was a great favorite with his constituents.

A pleasant trip southward through Bath to Bristol brought us to the home of the Misses Priestman and Mrs. Tanner, sisters-in-law of John Bright. I had stayed at their father's house forty years before, so we felt like old friends. I found them all charming, liberal women, and we enjoyed a few days together, talking over our mutual struggles, and admiring the beautiful scenery for which that part of the country is quite celebrated. The women of England were just then organizing political clubs, and I was invited to speak before the one in Bristol. They are composed of men and women alike, for the discussion of all political questions. The next day I spoke to women alone in the church on the Bible view of woman's creation and destiny. It is strange that those who pretend to be well-versed in Scripture do not see that the simultaneous creation of man and woman and the complete equality of the sexes are as clearly taught in the first chapter of Genesis as the reverse is in the allegorical garden-scene in the second. The drive over the suspension-bridge by moonlight to dine with Mrs. Garnet, a sister of John Thomasson, M. P., was a pleasant episode to public speaking and more serious conversation. There, too, we had an evening reception. There is an earnestness of purpose among English women that is very encouraging under the prolonged disappointments reformers inevitably suffer. There is something so determined and heroic in what Mary Priestman does and says that one would readily follow her through all dangers. It added much to my comfort in this visit to have an escort in Mrs. Lucas.

Later Miss Anthony visited Bristol and had a complimentary reception at the Misses Priestman's. She was the guest of Miss Mary Estlin, who had spent some time in America, a dear friend of Sarah Pugh and Parker Pillsbury. Miss Estlin was from home during my visit, so that I did not see her while in England. The order of English homes among the wealthy classes is very enjoyable. All goes on from year to year with the same servants, the same surroundings, no changes, no moving, no building even; in delightful contrast with our periodical upheavings, always uncertain where we shall go next, or how long our main dependents will stand by us.

From Bristol we went to Greenbank to visit Mrs. Helen Bright Clark, a daughter of the great orator. In the evening the parlors were crowded, and I was asked to give an account of the suffrage movement in America. Some clergymen questioned me in regard to the Bible position of woman, whereupon I gave quite an exposition of its general principles in favor of liberty and equality. As two quite distinct lines of argument can be woven out of those pages on any subject, on this occasion I selected all the most favorable texts for justice to woman, and closed by stating the limits of its authority. Mrs. Clarke, though thoroughly in sympathy with the views I had expressed, feared lest my very liberal utterances might have shocked some of the strictest of the laymen and clergy. "Well," I said, "if we who do see the absurdities of the old superstitions never unveil them to others, how is the world to make any progress in the theologies? I am now in the sunset of life, and I feel it to be my special mission to tell people what they are not prepared to hear, instead of echoing worn-out opinions." The result showed the wisdom of my speaking out of my own soul. To the surprise of Mrs. Clark, the primitive Methodist clergyman called on Sunday morning to invite me to occupy his pulpit in the afternoon and present the same line of thought I had the previous evening. I accepted his invitation. He led the services and I took my text from Genesis i., 27, 28, showing that man and woman were a simultaneous creation, endowed with equal power in starting.

Mr. and Mrs. Clark I found very agreeable, progressive people, with a nice family of boys and girls. Like all English children, they suffered too much repression, while our American children have too much latitude. If we could strike the happy medium between the two systems, it would be a great benefit to the children of both countries. The next day we drove down to see Glastonbury cathedral. England is full of these beautiful ruins, covered with flowers and ivy, but the saddest spectacles, with all this fading glory, are the men, women and children whose nakedness neither man nor nature seeks to drape.

Returning to London we accepted an invitation to take tea with Mrs. Jacob Bright. A choice circle of three it was, and a large server of tempting viands was placed on a small table before us. Mrs. Bright, in earnest conversation, had helped us each to a cup of tea, and was turning to help us to something more, when over went table and all, tea, bread and butter, cake, strawberries and cream, silver, china, in one conglomerate mass. Silence reigned. No one started; no one said "Oh!" Mrs. Bright went on with what she was saying as if nothing unusual had occurred, rang the bell, and when the servant appeared, pointing to the debris, she said, "Charles, remove this." I was filled with admiration at her coolness, and devoutly thankful that we Americans maintained an equally dignified silence.

At a grand reception given in our honor by the National Central Committee, in Princess' Hall, Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P., presided and made an admirable opening speech, followed by his sister, Mrs. McLaren, with a highly complimentary address of welcome. By particular request Miss Anthony gave a presentation of the industrial, legal and political status of American women; while I set forth their educational, social and religious limitations. Mr. John P. Thomasson, M. P., made the closing address, expressing his satisfaction with the addresses of the ladies and the progress made in both countries.[582]

Mrs. Thomasson, daughter of Mrs. Lucas, gave several delightful evening parties,[583] receptions and dinners, some for ladies alone, where an abundant opportunity was offered for a critical analysis of the idiosyncracies of the superior sex, especially in their political dealings with women. The patience of even such heroic souls as Lydia Becker and Caroline Biggs was almost exhausted with the tergiversations of members of the House of Commons. Alas for the many fair promises broken, the hopes deferred, the votes fully relied on and counted, all missing in the hour of action. One crack of Mr. Gladstone's whip put a hundred Liberals to flight in a twinkling, members whom these noble women had spent years in educating. I never visited the House of Commons that I did not see Miss Becker and Miss Biggs trying to elucidate the fundamental principles of just government to some of them. Verily their divine faith and patience merited more worthy action on the part of their representatives.

We formed very pleasant friendships with Miss Frances Lord and Miss Henrietta Mueller, spending several days with the latter at 58 Cadogan square, and both alike visited us at different times in Basingstoke. Miss Lord has translated some of Ibsen's plays very creditably to herself, and, we understand, to the satisfaction of the Swedish poet. Miss Lord is a cultured, charming woman, attractive in society, and has a rare gift in conversation; she is rather shrinking in her feelings. Miss Mueller, her devoted friend, is just the opposite; fearless, aggressive and self-centered. Miss Lord discharged her duties as poor-law guardian faithfully, and Miss Mueller, as member of the London school-board, claimed her rights when infringed upon, and maintained the dignity of her position with a good degree of tact and heroism. We met Miss Whitehead, another poor-law guardian, at Miss Mueller's, and had a long talk on the sad condition of the London poor and the grand work Octavia Hill had done among them. Miss Mueller read us a paper on the dignity and office of single women. Her idea seems to be very much like that expressed by St. Paul in his epistles, that it is better for those who have a genius for public work in the church or State not to marry; and Miss Mueller carries her theory into practice thus far. She has a luxurious establishment of her own, is fully occupied in politics and reform, and though she lives by herself she entertains her friends generously, and does whatever it seems good to her to do. As she is bright and entertaining and has many worshipers, she may fall a victim to the usual fate in spite of her admirable essay, which has been printed in tract form and circulated extensively in England and America. Miss Mueller gave Miss Anthony and myself a farewell reception on the eve of our departure for America, when we had the opportunity of meeting once more most of the pleasant acquaintances we had made in London. Although it was announced for the afternoon, we did in fact receive all day as many as could not come at the hour appointed. Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell took breakfast with us; Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Seville[584] and Miss Lord were with us at luncheon; Harriet Hosmer and Olive Logan soon after; Mrs. Peter Taylor later, and from three to six o'clock the parlors were crowded.

Returning from London I passed my birthday, November 12, in Basingstoke. It was a sad day to us all, knowing that it was the last before my departure for America. When I imprinted the farewell kiss on the soft cheek of little Nora in the cradle, she in the dawn and I in the sunset of life, I realized how widely the long years and the broad ocean would separate us forever. Miss Anthony, who had been visiting Mrs. Parker, near Warrington, met me at Alderly Edge, where we spent a few days in the charming home of Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Bright. There we found their noble sisters, Mrs. McLaren and Mrs. Lucas, young Walter McLaren and his lovely bride, Eva Mueller, whom we had heard several times on the suffrage platform. We rallied her on the step she had lately taken, notwithstanding her sister's able paper on the blessedness of a single life. While here we visited Dean Stanley's birthplace; but on his death the light and joy went out, and the atmosphere of the old church whose walls had once echoed to his voice, and the house where he had spent so many useful years, seemed sad and deserted. But the day was bright and warm, the scenery all around was beautiful, cows and sheep were still grazing in the meadows, the grass as green as in June. This is England's chief charm, forever green, some compensation for the many cloudy days. An evening reception in Mrs. Bright's spacious parlors, with friends from Manchester and other adjoining towns, with speeches of welcome and farewell, finished our visit at Alderly Edge.

As our good friends Mrs. McLaren and Mrs. Lucas had determined to see us safely on board the Servia, they escorted us to Liverpool, where we met Mrs. Margaret Parker, Mrs. Scatcherd and Dr. Fanny Dickinson of Chicago. Another reception was given us at the residence of Dr. Ewing Whittle. Several short speeches were made, all cheering the parting guests with words of hope and encouragement for the good cause.

Here the wisdom of forming an international association was considered. The proposition met with such favor from those present that a committee was appointed to correspond with the friends in different nations. As Miss Anthony and myself are members of that committee,[585] now that these volumes are finished and we are at liberty once more, we shall ascertain as soon as possible the feasibility of a grand international conference in New York in 1888, to celebrate the fourth decade of our movement for woman's enfranchisement. Such conventions have been held by the friends of anti-slavery, peace, temperance, social purity and evangelical christianity, and why may not the suffrage cause, too, receive a new impetus from the united efforts of its friends in all countries.

On the broad Atlantic for ten days we had many opportunities to review all we had seen and heard. There we met our noble friends, Mr. and Mrs. Hussey of New Jersey; also Mrs. Margaret Buchanan Sullivan of Chicago, just returning from an extended tour in Ireland, who gave us many of her rich experiences. Sitting on deck hour after hour, how often I queried with myself as to the significance of the boon for which women were so earnestly struggling. In asking for a voice in the government under which we live, have we been pursuing a shadow for forty years? In seeking political power, are we abdicating that social throne where they tell us our influence is unbounded? No! no! the right of suffrage is no shadow, but a substantial entity that the citizen can seize and hold for his own protection and his country's welfare. A direct power over one's own person and property, an individual opinion to be counted on all questions of public interest, is better than indirect influence, be it ever so far-reaching.

Though influence, like the pure white light, is all-pervading, yet it is oft-times obscured with passing clouds and nights of darkness; like the sun's rays, it may be healthy, genial, inspiring, though sometimes too direct for comfort, too oblique for warmth, too scattered for any given purpose. But as the prism by dividing the rays of light reveals to us the brilliant coloring of the atmosphere, and as the burning-glass by concentrating them in a focus intensifies their heat, so does the right of suffrage reveal the beauty and power of individual sovereignty in the great drama of national life, while on a vital measure of public interest it combines the many voices of the people in a grand chorus of protest or applause.

After an unusually calm, pleasant voyage, for November, we sailed up our beautiful New York harbor just as the sun was rising in all his glory, gilding every hill-top and distant spire in the landscape, and with grateful hearts we celebrated the national Thanksgiving-day once more with loving friends in the great Republic.

FOOTNOTES:

[575] He asked me confidentially if I knew what the "D" in his name stood for. "Why," said I, "in line with your profession, it must be for 'Divinity,' or 'Doxology.'" "No," said he, "for 'Dynamite.'" As we were being blown up just then in all parts of London, I begged him not to explode until Sunday morning in old South Church, as I would rather see a wreck of the old theologies than of our charming hostess and Corney Green, who were giving us this pleasant entertainment.

[576] She says she prefers to be known as the wife of Duncan McLaren, a member of parliament from Edinburgh for sixteen years, who always voted right on the woman question, while John Bright is opposed to the movement.

[577] She occupies the home of an English woman who has taken her seven children to Germany for their education. How strange it is that so many parents imagine that they can educate their children better in a foreign land.

[578] After dinner, while the gentlemen still lingered at the table, the ladies being alone, an unusual amount of heresy as to the rights of "the divinely appointed head of the house" found expression. A young English-woman, who had been brought up in great retirement, turned to me and said, "I never heard such declarations before; do you ladies all really believe that God intended men and women to be equal, and do you really feel that girls have a right to enjoy as many privileges as boys?" In chorus we all promptly said, "We do," and I added, "If you will recall all the events of your life thus far, and your own feelings at times, you will find that again and again your own heart has protested against the injustice to which you have been subjected. Now," said I, "think a little, and see if you can recall no sense of dissatisfaction at the broad difference made between your sisters and brothers." "Well," said she, "I did often wonder why father gave the boys half a crown a week for spending money, and us girls a few pence; why so much thought and money were expended on their education, and so little on ours; but as I saw that that was the custom everywhere, I came to the conclusion that they were a superior order of beings, and so thought no more about it, and I never heard that theory contradicted until this evening."

[579] Among these were Mr. and Mrs. Haslam, Mr. Wigham, brother of Eliza Wigham, and his cultured wife; Hannah Webb, the daughter of Richard, and Thomas Webb and daughters, in whose old family-record book of visitors she was shown the autographs of William Lloyd Garrison and Nathaniel P. Rogers over the date of 1840.

[580] On one occasion I counted fourteen: Miss Risley Seward, Mrs. Louise Chandler Moulton, Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard, Miss Rachel Foster, Mrs. William Mellen and two sons and daughters, Mr. Theodore Tilton. Miss Anthony, Mrs. Stanton Blatch and myself.

[581] Aside from those already mentioned were William Henry Channing, L. N. Fowler, the phrenologist, and his daughter; Mrs. Louise Chandler Moulton, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Stanton Blatch, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Powell, Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Phillips, several members from the Bright, the McLaren and the Cobden families, Mrs. Conway, Miss Emily Faithful, Mr. William Henry Blatch, Mr. Stark, the artist; Philip Marston, the blind poet; Miss Orme and Miss Richardson, attorneys-at-law; Judge Kelley, wife and daughter Florence, Miss Lydia Becker, Miss Caroline Biggs and sisters, Miss Julia Osgood.

[582] Among the distinguished persons on the platform were Frances Power Cobbe, Dr. Garrett Anderson, Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Jacob Bright, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Thomasson, Mrs. Margaret Parker, Mrs. Alice Scatcherd, Miss Becker, Miss Biggs, Mrs. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. Conway, Oscar Wilde and his queenly mother, Charles McLaren, M. P., Mrs. Peter A. Taylor, Miss Helen Taylor, Miss Orme, Miss Mueller, Miss Lord, Miss Foster, Mrs. and Miss Blatch, Mrs. Mellen, Miss Tod of Belfast, Mrs. Chesson, daughter of George Thompson, the great anti-slavery orator, and very many others whose names we cannot recall.

[583] Where we met Mrs. Fawcett, Dr. Garrett Anderson, Sir Hugh Staples, Mr. Mitchell, the Misses Stackpole and brothers, Madame Venturi, Miss Biggs and sisters, Miss Frances Lord and her sister, who is doing a noble work in her kindergarten.

[584] Mrs. Seville, whose husband was a professor at Sandhurst College, having recently awoke to the indignities the church heaps upon women, made her protest in discarding her bonnet and appearing on Sundays with her head uncovered, contrary to Paul's injunctions. Having thus attended church for two years, involving much criticism and disturbance, both the vicar and the bishop labored with her to resume the bonnet, but she remained incorrigible. She read us a letter of remonstrance from the bishop, over which we all had a hearty laugh.

[585] The following is the report of the action prepared that evening by Mrs. Parker: "At a large and influential gathering of the friends of woman suffrage, at Parliament Terrace, Liverpool, November 16, 1883, convened by E. Whittle, M. D., to meet Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony prior to their return to America, it was proposed by Mrs. Margaret E. Parker of Penketh (near Warrington), seconded by Mrs. McLaren of Edinburgh, and unanimously passed:

"That this meeting, recognizing that union is strength and that the time has come when women all over the world should unite in the just demand for their political enfranchisement; therefore

"Resolved, That we do here appoint a committee of correspondence, preparatory to forming an International Woman Suffrage Association.

"Resolved, That the committee consist of the following friends, with power to add to their number:

"For the American Center—Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Miss Susan B. Anthony, Miss Rachel Foster. London Center—Mrs. Peter A. Taylor, Mrs. Margaret B. Lucas, Miss Helen Taylor, Miss Henrietta Mueller, Miss Caroline A. Biggs, Mr. and Mrs. Charles McLaren, Miss Eliza Orme, Miss Rebecca Moore, London; Mrs. Harriot Stanton Blatch, Basingstoke. Manchester Center—Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Bright, Manchester; Mr. and Mrs. J. P. Thomasson, Bolton; Mrs. Margaret E. Parker, Penketh; Dr. and Mrs. Whittle, Liverpool; Mrs. Oliver Scatcherd, Leeds; Mr. and Mrs. Walter McLaren, Bradford; Mrs. Philips, Liverpool; Mr. and Mrs. Crook, Bolton; Mr. Berners, Mr. Russell, Liverpool; Miss Becker, Manchester. Bristol Center—Miss Helen Bright Clarke, Street; Mrs. Alfred Ostler, Birmingham; Miss Priestman, Bristol. Center for Scotland—Mrs. Duncan McLaren, Mrs. Elizabeth Pease Nichol, Miss Eliza Wigham, Edinburgh. Center for Ireland—Miss Tod, Belfast; Mrs. Haslam, Dublin. Center for France—M'lle Hubertine Auclert, Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Stanton, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris.



APPENDIX.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CENTENNIAL YEAR.

Among those who sent most cordial letters of greeting, with requests that their names should be enrolled in the centennial autograph-book as signers of the woman's declaration of sentiments, were: Maine, Lavinia M. Snow, Lucy A. Snow; New Hampshire, Marilla M. Ricker, Abby P. Ela; Massachusetts, E. T. Strickland, Sarah E. Wall; Rhode Island, Paulina Wright Davis; Connecticut, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen Burr, Julia and Abby Smith; New York, Clemence S. Lozier, Henrietta Paine Westbrook, Nettie A. Ford, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Charlotte A. Cleveland, Elizabeth M. Atwell; Pennsylvania, E. A. Stetson Lozier, Anna Thomson; New Jersey, Ellen Dickinson, S. Mary Clute, Mary M. Van Clief, S. H. Cornell, Emma L. Wilde, Jennie Dixon, Casa Tonti, Marie Howland, Lucinda B. Chandler; District of Columbia, Addie T. Holton, Margaret E. Johnson, Sabra P. Abell, Ruth Carr Dennison, Ellen H. Sheldon, Mary Shadd Cary and ninety-four others, Mary F. Foster, Susan A. Edson; Virginia, Sally Holly, Carrie Putnam; Kentucky, Annie Laurie Quinby; Tennessee, Elizabeth Avery Meriwether; Louisiana, Elizabeth Lisle Saxon; Michigan, Sarah C. Owen, Margaret J. E. Millar; Illinois, A. J. Grover, Edward P. Powell, Cynthia A. Leonard, Susan H. Richardson; Missouri, Francis Minor, Annie R. Irvine; California, Sarah L. Knox, Sarah J. Wallis, Carrie M. Robinson, Mary E. Kellogg, Georgiana Bruce Kirby; Oregon, Mrs. A. J. Johns, Eveline Merrick Roork, Charles A. Reed; Washington Territory, Mary Olney Brown, Abby H. H. Stuart; Utah Territory, Annie Godbe; Iowa, Amelia Bloomer, Submit C. Loomis, Philo A. Lyon and seventy-five others of Humboldt, Jane A. Telker, Nancy R. Allen, Margaret Euart Colby, Mrs. Ellen M. Robinson, Mrs. G. R. Woodworth, Mrs. W. W. Johnson, Mrs. Caroline A. Ingham, Mrs. Mabel A. Stough, Mrs. R. H. Spencer, Mrs. J. W. Kenyon, Mrs. A. M. Horton, Miss L. T. Dood, Mary L. Watson, Mrs. Sarah A. McCoy, Mrs. J. J. Wilson, Mrs. F. L. Calkins, Mrs. L. H. Smith, Mrs. Emma C. Spear, Mrs. M. L. Burlingame, Mrs. G. W. Blanchard, Mrs. D. L. Ford, Mrs. E. C. Buffam, Mrs. Cora A. Jones, Mrs. Clara M. Wilson; Wisconsin, Laura Ross Wolcott, M. Josephine Pearce, Eliza T. Wilson, H. S. Brown; Minnesota, Sarah Burger Stearns; Kansas, Susan E. Wattles, Elsie Stewart, Henrietta L. Miller, Lottie Griffin, Jane M. Burke, Malura Hickson, Elsie J. Miller; Colorado, Alida C. Avery; Ohio, Sarah R. L. Williams, Margaret V. Longley; England, Lydia E. Becker, Caroline A. Biggs, Jessie M. Wellstood.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXX.

CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

ARTICLE 1. This organization shall be called the NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

ARTICLE 2. The object of this Association shall be to secure NATIONAL Protection for women in the exercise of their right to vote.

ARTICLE 3. All citizens of the United States subscribing to this Constitution, and contributing not less than one dollar annually, shall be considered members of the Association, with the right to participate in its deliberations.

ARTICLE 4. The officers of this Association shall be a President, a Vice-President from each of the States and Territories, Corresponding and Recording Secretaries, a Treasurer and an Executive Committee of not less than five.

ARTICLE 5. A quorum of the Executive Committee shall consist of nine, and all officers of this Association shall be ex-officio members of the committee, with power to vote.

ARTICLE 6. All woman suffrage societies throughout the country shall be welcomed as auxiliaries, and their accredited officers or duly appointed representatives shall be recognized as members of the National Association.

OFFICERS OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION, 1886.

President—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Tenafly, N. J.

Vice-Presidents-at-Large—Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine, Wis.; Phoebe W. Couzins, St. Louis, Mo.; Abigail Scott Duniway, Portland, Ore.

Honorary Vice-Presidents—Ernestine L. Rose, London, England; Priscilla Holmes Drake, Huntsville, Ala.; Mrs. Perry Spear, Eureka Springs, Ark.; Sarah. J. Wallis, Mayfield; Sarah Knox Goodrich, San Jose, Cal.; Mary F. Shields, Colorado Springs, Col.; Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, New Haven, Conn.; Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Sioux Falls, Dak. Ter.; Rosina M. Parnell, Susan A. Edson, M. D., Ellen M. O'Connor, Washington, D. C.; Catherine V. Waite, Myra Bradwell, Chicago, Ill.; Zerelda G. Wallace, Indianapolis; Eliza Hamilton, Fort Wayne, Ind.; Amelia Bloomer, Council Bluffs; Mary V. Cowgill, West Liberty, Ia.; Prudence Crandall Philleo, Elk Falls; Mary T. Gray, Wyandotte; Mary A. Humphrey, Junction City, Kan.; Elizabeth H. Duval, Rinaldo, Ky.; Ann T. Greeley, Ellsworth; Lucy A. Snow, Rockland, Me.; Anna Ella Carroll, Baltimore, Md.; Sarah E. Wall, Worcester; Paulina Gerry, Stoneham, Mass.; Catherine A. F. Stebbins, Detroit, Mich.; Charlotte O. Van Cleve, Minneapolis, Minn.; Caroline Johnson Todd, St. Louis, Mo.; Harriet S. Brooks, Omaha, Neb.; Eliza E. Morrill, Sarah H. Pillsbury, Concord; Mary Powers Filley, North Haverhill, N. H.; Sarah G. Hurn, Vineland; Delia Stewart Parnell, Bordentown, N. J.; Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., New York; Amy Post, Rochester; Sarah H. Hallock, Milton; Mary R. Pell, Flushing, N. Y.; Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Hollywood, N. C.; Sophia O. Allen, South Newbury; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo; Louise Southworth, Cleveland, O.; Harriet W. Williams, Portland, Ore.; M. Adeline Thomson, Philadelphia, Penn.; Catherine C. Knowles, East Greenwich; Elizabeth B. Chace, Valley Falls, R. I.; Elizabeth Van Lew, Richmond, Va.; Mary Olney Brown, Abbie H. H. Stuart, Olympia, Wash. Ter.; Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee; Emma C. Bascom, Madison, Wis.

Vice-Presidents—Caroline M. Patterson, Harrison, Ark.; Ellen Clarke Sargent, San Francisco, Cal.; Mrs. L. J. Terry, Pueblo, Col.; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Hartford, Conn.; Marietta M. Bones, Webster City, Dak.; Mary A. Stewart, Greenwood, Del.; Ruth C. Dennison, Washington, D. C.; Mrs. C. B. S. Wilcox, Interlachen, Fla.; Althea L. Lord, Savannah, Ga.; Dr. Jennie Bearby, Mountain Home, Idaho; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston, Ill.; Helen M. Gougar, Lafayette, Ind.; Jane Amy McKinney, Decorah, Ia.; Laura M. Johns, Salina Kan.; Mary B. Clay, Richmond, Ky.; Caroline E. Merrick, New Orleans, La.; Sophronia C. Snow, Hampden Corners, Me.; Caroline Hallowell Miller, Sandy Spring, Md.; Harriette R. Shattuck, Malden, Mass.; Fannie Holden Fowler, Manistee, Mich.; Sarah Burger Stearns, Duluth, Minn.; Olivia Fitzhugh, Vicksburg, Miss.; Virginia L. Minor, St. Louis, Mo.; Clara Bewick Colby, Beatrice, Neb.; Maria H. Boardman, Reno, Nev.; Ada M. Jarrett, Magdalena, N. Mex.; Marilla M. Ricker, Dover, N. H.; Cornelia C. Hussey, East Orange, N. J.; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York, N. Y.; Mary Bayard Clarke, New Berne, N. C.; Frances D. Casement, Painesville, O.; Harriette A. Loughary, McMinneville, Ore.; Matilda Hindman, Pittsburgh, Penn.; Anna S. Aldrich, Providence, R. I.; Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, Memphis, Tenn.; Jennie Bland Beauchamp, Denton, Tex.; Jennie A. Froiseth, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lydia Putnam, Brattleboro', Vt.; Mrs. Roger S. Greene, Seaettle, Wash. Ter.: Alura C. Collins, Milwaukee, Wis.; Amalia B. Post, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Executive Committee—May Wright Sewall, Chairman, 429 North New Jersey street, Indianapolis, Ind.; Laura DeForce Gordon, San Francisco; Mary J. Channing, Pasadena, Cal.; Dr. Alida C. Avery, Denver, Col.; Frances Ellen Burr, Emily P. Collins, Hartford, Conn.; Mrs. J. S. Pickler, Falktown; Linda W. Slaughter, Bismark, Dak. Ter.; Belva A. Lockwood, Dr. Caroline B. Winslow, Washington, D. C.; Flora M. Wright, Drayton Island, Fla.; Julia Mills Dunn, Moline; Rev. Florence Kollock, Englewood; Dr. Alice B. Stockham, Ada C. Sweet, Chicago, Ill.; Mary E. Haggart, Mary E. N. Cary, Indianapolis, Ind.; Narcisa T. Bemis, Independence; Mary J. Coggeshall, Des Moines, Ia; Annie C. Wait, Lincoln Center; Henrietta B. Wall, Mrs. S. A. Hauk, Hutchinson, Kan.; Sally Clay Bennett, Mary A. Somers, Richmond; Laura White, Manchester, Ky.; Maria I. Johnson, Mound, La.; Charlotte A. Thomas, Portland, Me.; Amanda M. Best, Bright Seat, Md.; Harriet H. Robinson, Malden; Sara A. Underwood, Dorchester Mass.; Julia Upton, Big Rapids; Cordelia Fitch Briggs, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Julia Bullard Nelson, Red Wing: Mrs. L. H. Hawkins, Shakopee; Mary P. Wheeler, Kasson, Minn.; Anne R. Irvine, Oregon; Elizabeth A. Meriwether, St. Louis, Mo.; Jennie F. Holmes, Tecumseh; Orpha C. Dinsmoore, Omaha, Neb.; Hannah R. Clapp, Carson City, Nev.; Mrs. A. B. I. Roberts, Candia, N. H.; Augusta Cooper Bristol, Vineland; Theresa A. Seabrook, Keyport, N. J.; Mathilde F. Wendt, New York; Caroline G. Rogers, Lansingburgh; Ellen S. Fray, Lewia C. Smith, Rochester, N. Y.; Sarah M. Perkins, Elvira J. Bushnell, Cleveland; Sarah S. Bissell, Toledo, O.; Mrs. J. M. Kelty, Lafayette, Ore.; Deborah L. Pennock, Kennett Square; Harriet Purvis, Philadelphia, Penn.; Lillie Chace Wyman, Valley Falls, R. I.; Lide Meriwether, Memphis, Tenn.; Mrs. D. Clinton Smith, Middleboro', Vt.; Mrs. F. D. Gordon, Richmond, Va.; Eliza T. Wilson, Menomonie; Laura James, Richland Center, Wis.; Barbara J, Thompson, Tacoma, Wash. Ter.; Mrs. J. H. Hayford, Laramie City, Wyoming Ter.

Recording Secretaries—Julia A. Wilbur, Caroline A. Sherman, Washington, D. C.

Corresponding Secretaries—Rachel G. Foster, Philadelphia, Penn.; Ellen H. Sheldon, Washington, D. C.

Foreign Corresponding Secretaries—Caroline A. Biggs, London; Lydia E. Becker, Manchester, England; Marguerite Berry Stanton, Hubertine Auclert, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris, France; Clara Neymann, Berlin, Germany.

Treasurer—Jane H. Spofford, Riggs House, Washington, D. C.

Auditors—Eliza T. Ward, Ellen M. O'Connor, Washington, D. C.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXII.

CONNECTICUT.

Is the Family the Basis of the State?

BY JOHN HOOKER.

The proposition that the family is the basis of the State has come down through many generations, so far as I know, unchallenged; but in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood, and for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, it is entirely a fallacy. The State depends upon the family for the continuance of its population, just as it depends upon the school for the intelligence of its people and on religious institutions for their morality. But the State stands in no political relation to the family any more than to the school and the church. What is meant by the proposition as generally used is, that the State is politically an aggregate of families and not of individuals. This is entirely untrue, and if true the fact would be calamitous. Civil government is supposed to have had its origin in family government, the patriarch becoming chief of a tribe which was substantially the outgrowth and expansion of a single family; but if a nation was to be formed of such tribes it would be essential to its peace and prosperity that they should as soon as possible mingle into one homogeneous mass, and that no citizen should consider himself of one tribe rather than another. It is the family idea in a government like ours that makes the feuds which are handed down from generation to generation in some parts of the country. It made the frequent bloody contests of the clans in Scotland, and the dissensions of the Hebrew tribes. In a republic nothing can be more disastrous than that great political leaders should have large family followings. The first duty of the citizen is to forget that he belongs to any family in particular. He is an individual citizen of the State, and when he becomes a magistrate he must practically ignore the fact that he has family relatives who feel entitled to his special favor. He must, like justice, be blind to every fact except that the applicant for office or for justice is an individual citizen and must stand wholly on his personal merits or the justice of his cause.

The proposition that the family is the basis of the State thus taken by itself is entirely false; but even if true, the use made of it as an argument against giving suffrage to women is equally fallacious. This can be shown by a single illustration. We will suppose there are two families, in both of which the father dies, leaving in one case a widow and one son, and in the other a widow and six daughters. Where is now the family representation? The son whom we will suppose to be of age, goes to the polls and we will suppose sufficiently represents the family to which he belongs; but where is the family representation for the other widow and her six daughters? She may be the largest tax-payer in the State, and yet she can have no voice in determining what taxes shall be laid, nor to what purposes the money shall be appropriated.

The question whether the family is the basis of the State cannot be made an abstract question of political philosophy. Indeed the question is unmeaning when put as an abstract one. We might just as well ask, "Is the climate cold in a State?" or, "Is the English language spoken in a State?" It is only as we ask these questions about a particular State that they have any meaning. "Is it cold in Russia?" "Is English spoken in Connecticut?"

Take the case of a State ruled by a despot. Here the people are not the political basis of the State, either as families or as individuals. They have no political power whatever. The political basis of the State is the will of the despot. He is himself and alone the State politically. He makes the laws himself, and shoots and hangs those who disobey them. The people are indispensable to the State, and so in one sense its basis, just as the square miles that compose its territory are its physical basis, but the people stand in no political relation whatever to the State, any more than the rocks and gravel of its territory. It is only where the people of the State have the whole or a part of its political power, that the question can possibly arise as to whether individuals or families are its political basis. And when it thus arises, it comes up wholly with reference to a particular State, and not as an abstract question. And then it is wholly a question of fact, not one of political philosophy; a matter for simple ascertainment, not for speculation and reasoning. Thus, suppose the question to be, "Is the family or the individual the political basis of the State of Connecticut?" We are to answer the question solely by looking at the constitution and laws of the State. We look there and find that it is as clear as language can make it that the political basis of the State is the individual and not the family. The individual is made the voter—not the family—and that is the whole question. It was perfectly easy for the people, if they had so desired, when they were adopting a constitution, to make families and not individuals the depositaries of political power, but they chose to give the power to individuals, and thus the question is absolutely settled for the State. It is true, the State does not carry out completely its own theory, but this was its theory, and what it did was wholly in this direction and away from the family theory. We go to the constitution of the State to settle this question, just as we would to settle the question whether the governor's term is one year or two, or whether the judges hold office for a term of years or for life. While considering whether either of these provisions ought to be adopted, we are dealing with a matter proper for opinions and argument, but when the provisions have been adopted, the whole question becomes one of fact, and we look only to the constitution to determine it, and treat it as a matter not for discussion but for absolute ascertainment.

When one is advocating the theory that the family should be the political basis of the State, he is simply saying that the constitution ought to be amended and the right of voting taken away from individuals and given to families. But it is idle to urge this. Such a measure would not get even a respectable minority of votes. It is decisive on this point that not a single representative government, so far as the writer knows, has adopted the theory that the family and not the individual should vote. A law peculiar to Russia gives its villages, in the management of their local matters, the right of voting by families—a perfect illustration, on a very small scale, of the family as the political basis of a State. But here woman suffrage is admitted as a necessary result; and where there is no man to represent the family, or he is unable to attend, the woman of the house casts the vote.

The advocates of woman suffrage have no interest whatever in this question, as it is idle to suppose that it can become a practical one. The writer has taken what trouble he has in the matter solely in the interest of correct thinking.

Hartford, May, 1879.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVII.

NEW YORK.

Brief on the Legislature's Power to Extend the Suffrage, Submitted February 19, 1880, to the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of the State of New York.

BY HAMILTON WILCOX.

I. LEGISLATURE OMNIPOTENT.—Unlike the Federal constitution, the State constitution does not reserve all powers not expressly delegated. It is held by the authorities that in the absence of positive restriction the legislature is omnipotent.

"In a judicial sense, their authority is absolute and unlimited, except by the express restrictions of the fundamental law" (Court of Appeals, 1863, Bank of Chenango vs. Brown, 26 N. Y., 467; S. P., Cathcart vs. Fire Department of New York, Id., 529; Supreme Court, 1864, Clark vs. Miller, 42 Barb., 255; Luke vs. City of Brooklyn, 43 Id., 54).

"Only on the ground of express constitutional provisions limiting legislative power, can courts declare void any legislative enactment" (Court of Error. 1838, Cochran vs. Van Surlay, 29 Wend., 365; Newell vs. People, 7 N. Y. [3 Seld.], 9, 109).

"Before proceeding to amend, by judicial sentence, what has been enacted by the law-making power, it should clearly appear that the act cannot be supported by any reasonable intendment or allowable presumption" (Court of Appeals, 1858, People vs. Supervisors of Orange, 17 N. Y., 235; affi'g, 27 Barb., 575).

II. POWERS UNDEFINED.—The constitution forbids the legislature to do certain things. Otherwise it does not define or limit the legislature's powers (Art. 3, Sec.Sec. 3, 18, 19, 24).

III. NO PROHIBITION.—No constitution of New York has ever forbidden the legislature to extend the suffrage beyond the classes specified by such constitution; nor has any ever forbidden unspecified persons to vote. The constitution simply secures the suffrage to certain classes, and there leaves the matter.

IV. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The constitution declares that the object of its establishment is to secure the blessings of freedom to the people (Preamble, Revised Statutes, vol. 1., p. 82). Hence it, and all enactments under it, must be understood and construed, where a contrary intent is not clearly expressed, to be aimed at securing freedom to all.

V. DISFRANCHISEMENT.—The constitution follows this declaration by laying down at its outset, as its fundamental principle, that "No member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizens thereof, except by the law of the land" (Art. 1, Sec. 1, do., do.). Disfranchisement, then, must be express by the law. It cannot constitutionally be inflicted through mere implication or silence.

Rules for the securing of freedom have often been found to cover unforeseen cases. Such was the fact in the famous decision of Lord Mansfield in 1774, that slavery was against the common law, under which slavery was afterward abolished throughout the British empire; and the decision of the highest court of Massachusetts, that the terms of the constitution of 1780 conferred freedom on the slaves of that State.

Women, it is now fully recognized, are citizens, and hence "members of the State," entitled to the security guaranteed. The practice under the constitution has been to treat as disfranchised all persons not specified as entitled to vote. Though this practice is plainly against the declared object and principle of the constitution, it has been general and mostly continuous, and has thus acquired the force of law. This, however, does not impair the legislature's power to correct the practice by express enactment.

VI. PRECEDENTS.—The legislature has repeatedly corrected this practice by express enactments securing freedom to various portions of the people.

(a). CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1801.—The act calling this convention extended the suffrage for members of that body—the highest officers of the State—to "all free male citizens over twenty-one years of age," while the constitution secured suffrage only to male holders of and actual taxpayers on a fixed amount of real estate (Session Law 1801, ch. 69, p. 151; constitution of 1777, do., 1, 39).

(b). CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1821.—The act providing for the convention that framed the constitution of 1822, while the existing constitution (as above) only specified as entitled to vote, holders of and taxpayers on a fixed amount of real estate—this act allowed all freeholders, however small the value of their holdings, all actual taxpayers, all officers and privates, ex-officers and ex-privates, in militia or in volunteer or uniform corps, all persons exempt by law from taxation or militia duty, all workers on public roads and highways, or payers of commutation for such work; to vote on the question whether the convention should be held, to vote in the choice of delegates thereto—again for the highest officers of the State—and to vote on the question of adoption of the new constitution—to exercise a voice in framing the State's fundamental law. The council of revision, including the governor, which opposed and defeated part of this act, made no objection to this feature (Session Laws 1821, ch. 90, p. 83).

The vote for governor, 1820, was 93,437—the largest ever cast in the State. That on the question of calling the convention in 1821 was 144,247. One act of the legislature thus enfranchised fifty thousand persons. The vote on the new constitution stood: For, 74,732; against, 41,402; majority for, 33,330. Thus the votes of fifty thousand persons—enfranchised, not by the constitution but by the legislature—carried the adoption of a new constitution, which further secured to them the freedom which the legislature had opened to them. The vote for governor in 1824—the next hotly-contested election—was 190,545; so that the immediate effect of the legislature's act was to add 97,108 persons to the constituency—to make a mass of new voters who outnumbered those specified by the constitution.

(c). ALIENS VOTING.—The constitution specifies none but "citizens" as entitled to vote; yet the legislature, by a school law of many years' standing, allowed aliens to vote for school functionaries, on filing with the secretary of state notice of intention to become naturalized (1 R. S., art. 2, Sec. 1, p. 65; 2 R. S., 63, Sec. 12; 2 R. S., 1,096, Sec. 31).

(d). NORTHFIELD.—The proprietors of swamp-lands in the town of Northfield, Richmond county, were authorized to elect directors of drainage, without any restriction or qualification but ownership (Session Laws 1862, ch. 80, Sec. 2, p. 233).

(e). The taxpayers of Newport, Herkimer county, were authorized to vote on the question of issuing bonds to raise money for a town-house. Under this law women who were taxpayers voted (Act April 9, 1873, Session Laws, ch. 187, Sec. 3, p. 304).

(f). The taxpayers of Dansville, Livingston county, were authorized to vote on the issue of water-bonds. Under this act women voted (Act April 24, 1873, Session Laws, ch. 285, Sec. 4, p. 409).

(g). The taxpayers of Saratoga Springs were authorized to vote on the question of issuing bonds for the construction of an additional water-main. Under this ninety-nine women voted (Act May 13, 1876, Session Laws, ch. 254, Sec. 4, p. 250).

VII. SCHOOL SUFFRAGE.—If the legislature can admit aliens to vote at school-meetings, it can admit female citizens to do so.

VIII. PRESIDENTIAL SUFFRAGE.—1. The federal constitution provides that electors of president and vice-president shall be appointed "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" (Art. 2, Sec. 2).

2. It also provides that "this constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" (Art. 6, Sec. 2).

3. The legislature has the power under the federal constitution to provide whatever method it may choose for the appointment of the electors. The courts have no power to interfere, and even an executive veto would have no force. The legislature has sole and full power to say who may vote for electors and how the election shall be held.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PENNSYLVANIA.

BY CARRIE S. BURNHAM.

The common law of England as modified by English statutes prior to the Revolution has been formally adopted either by constitutions and statutes or assumed by courts of justice as the law of the land in every State save Louisiana, and in the absence of positive statutes is the common law of the United States. To understand the legal status of woman in Pennsylvania it is therefore necessary, First—To ascertain her condition under the common law; Second—How this law has been modified in this State by statutes.

COMMON LAW.

By the common law, which Lord Coke calls "the perfection of reason," women arrive at the age of discretion at twelve, men at fourteen; both sexes are of full age at twenty-one, entitled to civil rights, and if unmarried and possessed of freehold, they are equally entitled to the exercise of political rights (Blackstone, I., 463; IV., 212; Bouvier's Institutes, 156, 157; Decisions of English courts in 1612, quoted in 7 Mod. Rep., 264).

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law"; that is, the legal existence of the woman is "merged in that of her husband." He is her "baron," or "lord," bound to supply her with shelter, food, clothing and medicine, and is entitled to her earnings—the use and custody of her person, which he may seize wherever he may find it (Blackstone, I., 442, 443; Coke Litt., 112 a, 187 b; 8 Dowl., P. C., 632.)

The husband being bound to provide for his wife the necessaries of life, and being responsible for "her morals" and the good order of the household, may choose and govern the domicil, choose her associates, separate her from her relatives, restrain her religious and personal freedom, compel her to cohabit with him, correct her faults by mild means and, if necessary, chastise her with moderation, as though she was his apprentice or child. This is in "respect to the terms of the marriage contract and the infirmity of the sex" (Bl., I., 444; 1 Bishop on Mar. and Div., 758; 8 Dowl. P. C., 632; Bouv. Insts., 277, 278, 2,283; 1 Wend. Bl., 442, note; 4 Petersdorf's A. B., 21, note).

Woman's character, exposed to the vilest slanders of "malignity and falsehood," and her chastity are protected on account of the injury sustained by the father, husband or master from loss of her services, or wrongful entry of his house, rather than the injury done to her as an individual (Bl. I., 445, note; III., 141, 143, note; 3 Serg. and Rawle, Penn., 36; 3 Penn., 49; 2 Watts' Penn., 474).

The husband is entitled to recover damages for "criminal conversation with his wife," or for injury to her person whereby he is deprived of his "marital rights," or of her "company and assistance"; also an action of trespass vi et armis against the individual enticing her away or encouraging her to live separately from him; the offense implies force and constraint, "the wife having no power to consent," and is punishable with fine and imprisonment (Bl., III., 139; 2 Inst., 434; Bouvier's Institutes, 3,495).

The wife has no action for injuries to her husband as she is not entitled to his services, neither has she any separate interest in anything during her coverture. The law takes notice only of the injuries done to the "superior of the parties related"; because "the inferior has no kind of property in the company, care or assistance of the superior, as the superior is held to have in those of the inferior" (Blackstone, III., 143; Bouv. Insts., 3,495).

The husband, by marriage, becomes entitled absolutely to the personal property of his wife, which at his death goes to his representatives; also to the rents and profits of her lands, to the interest in her chattels real and choses in action, of which he can dispose at pleasure, except by will. He acquires the same right in any property whether real or personal of which she may become possessed after marriage, and is liable during coverture for her debts contracted before marriage (Bl., II., 434, 435; Bouv. Insts., 4,005; Coke Litt., 46, 351).

At his death she becomes possessed of her wardrobe and jewels, such of her chattels as remain undisposed of, and her own real estate; also quarantine (i. e., forty days' residence in "his mansion"), one-third of his personality absolutely and the use of one-third of any real estate of which he is possessed during coverture for the term of her natural life. His mansion, realty and personalty includes what they have jointly earned as well as that of which he was possessed at marriage. The widow's right to one-third of the personal estate was abolished by English statutes prior to the Revolution, but has since been revived by Pennsylvania statutes (Blackstone, II., 129, 134, 139, 436, 492, 493; Coke Litt., 31, 34; Bouvier's Institutes, 1,750; Brightley's Purdon, 806, 2 and 3).

At the death of the wife their joint earnings, also her chattels real, vest absolutely in the husband, and if they have had a living child the husband, as "tenant by the curtesy," becomes possessed of her entire real estate for life. The wife loses her dower by adultery, but the husband does not lose his curtesy on that account. Her dower is also barred by his treason and by a divorce grounded on his adultery (Blackstone, II., 127, 434; Roper, Husband and Wife, 1,210; 2 Kent, 131; 7 Watts, 563; Bouvier's Institutes, 1,732).

A husband cannot convey real estate directly to his wife, but may through a trustee; neither can he give "anything to her nor covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence, and to covenant with her would be to covenant with himself." Their covenants or indebtedness to each other before marriage are by the marriage extinguished (Blackstone, I., 442; Coke Litt., 3, 30; 112 a; 187 b; Connyn. Dig. Baron and Feme, D).

The husband may devise any property to his wife, but the wife cannot make a will, the law supposing her to be under his coercion; neither can she bind her person or property, nor make nor enforce a contract, nor can she be a witness in any matter in which her husband is interested (Blackstone, II., 293, 498, 444; 2 Kent, 179; Bouv. Insts., 1,441; Connyn. Dig. Pleader, 2 A, 1; Baron and Feme, W; 2 Roper, Husband and Wife, 171).

A wife, with the consent of her husband, may act as his or other's attorney, may be a guardian, trustee, administratrix or executrix, but cannot sue in auter droit unless her husband join in the suit. This incapacitates her to act independently in either capacity (Blackstone, II., 503; 1 Anders., 117; 2 Story, Eq. Juris., 1,367, note; 57 Penn. St. Rep., 356).

A wife cannot enforce her rights nor defend any action brought against her, but must plead coverture in person, being incapable of appointing an attorney (Bouv. Insts., 2,787, 2,907; 41 N. H., 106; 2 Saund., 209; c. n. 1).

When a woman marries after having commenced a suit, the suit abates; but the husband may in equity sue her for his marital rights in her property; marriage of a female partner dissolves the partnership (Bouv. Insts., 4,037, 1,494; 4 Russ. Ch., 247; 3 Atk. Ch., 478; 2 P. Will Ch., 243).

The father of legitimate children is bound for their maintenance and education, is entitled to their labor and custody and has power to dispose of them until twenty-one years of age, by deed or legacy, even though they are unborn at his death. The testamentary guardian's right to their custody supersedes that of their mother (Bl., I., 447, 451, 453; 2 Kent, 191 and 193; Bouv. Insts., 344; 5 Rawle, 323; 2 Watts, 406; 5 East, 221; Purd. Dig., New Ed., 411, 29; 5 Pitts, L. J., 406; 1 Pitts, 412).

"A mother is entitled to no power, but to reverence and respect, from her children"; she has no legal authority over them nor right to their services, but her property is liable for their maintenance if the father has not an estate. The mother's appointment of a testamentary guardian is absolutely void (Bl., I., 453 and 461, note by Chitty; Vaughan, 180; 1 Leg. Gaz. R., 56).

The mother of a "natural or illegitimate" child is its natural guardian, entitled to its control and custody and her settlement is its domicil (Bl., I., 459; 2 Kent, 216; 5 Term Rep., 278; Newton vs. Braintree, 14 Mass., 382).

"Intestate personal property is divided equally between males and females, but a son, though younger than all his sisters, is the heir to the whole of real property" (Bl., I., 444, note by Christian).

PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES AND COURT DECISIONS.

This "perfection of reason" (the common law) has been changed in Pennsylvania in the following particulars:

All women, married and single, are deprived of political rights by the use of the generic word "freeman" in the constitution (29 Legal Intelligencer, 5).

Heir at common law is abolished by statute; however, the right to administer vests in the male in preference to the female of the same degree of consanguinity. Half-brothers are entitled to the preference over own sisters (Purdon, 410, 27; Single's Appeal, 59 Penn. St. R., 55).

Any property belonging to a woman before marriage, or which accrues to her during coverture by gift, bequest or purchase, continues, by the act of April 11, 1848, to be her separate property after marriage, and is not liable for the debts of her husband nor subject to his disposal without her written consent, duly acknowledged before one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas as voluntarily given; provided, that he is not liable for the debts contracted before or after marriage, or for her torts (Purdon's Dig., 1,005, 13).

"This act protects the wife's interest in her separate property both as to title and possession," but "does not empower her to convey her real estate by a deed in which her husband has not joined," nor "create a lease without his concurrence," nor "execute an obligation for the payment of money or the performance of any other act," nor in any way dispose of her property save by gift or loan to him; she may bind her separate estate for his debts, and in security for the loan she may take a judgment or mortgage against the estate of the husband in the name of a third person, who shall act as her trustee (18 Penn. St. R., 506, 582; 21, 402; 1 Gr., 402; 6 Phila., 531; Pur. Dig., 1,007, 21).

The husband is the natural guardian or trustee of the property of the wife; but by application "to the Court of Common Pleas of the county where she was domiciled at the time of her marriage," the court will appoint a trustee (not her husband) to take charge of the property secured to her by the act of 1848. This act, however, does not authorize the appointment of a trustee, to the exclusion of her husband, of property owned by her prior to the passage of the act, nor was it intended to affect vested rights of husbands and does not protect them for the wife's benefit against the claims of creditors (10 Penn. St. Rep., 398 and 505; 18, 392 and 509; 21, 260; 1 Jones, 272).

In a clear case the wife's real estate cannot be levied upon and sold by a creditor of the husband, but the burden of proof is upon her to show by evidence "which does not admit of a reasonable doubt," that she owned the property before marriage or acquired it subsequently by gift, bequest, or paid for it with funds not furnished by her husband nor the result of their joint earnings. The wife's possession of money is no evidence of her title to it (18 Penn. St. Rep., 366; 7 Phila., 118).

If no property, or not sufficient property, of the husband can be found, the separate property and goods of the wife may be levied upon and sold for rent or for debts incurred for the support of the family (Purd. Dig., 1,006, 15; 38 Penn. St. Rep., 344).

A married woman's bond and warrant of attorney are absolutely void, nor can she make a valid contract except for a sewing-machine or for the improvement of her separate property, and her bond given or a judgment confessed by her for such debt is void (24 Penn. St. Rep., 80; Act of 1872, Pur. Dig., 1,010).

She may sell and transfer shares of the capital stock of any railroad company, but cannot herself or by attorney transfer certificates of city loan (28 Leg. Int., 116; Act June 2, 1871).

A married woman cannot enforce her rights against third persons, either for the performance of a contract or the recovery of her property, without her husband join in the suit, although the party contracting with her is liable to an action (1 Gr., 21; Act of 1850 and 1839; 6 Phila., 223).

If divorced or separated from her husband by his neglect or desertion, she may protect her reputation by an action for slander and libel; but if her husband is the defendant, this suit, as also for alimony and divorce, must be in the name of a "next friend." She is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus if unlawfully restrained of her liberty (Purd. Dig., 510, 12; 513, 24; 754, 1).

The wife of a drunkard or profligate man by petitioning the Court of Common Pleas, setting forth these facts and his desertion of her and neglect to provide for her and their children, may be entitled to the custody of her children, and, as a "feme sole trader," empowered to transact business and acquire a separate property, which shall be subject to her own disposal during life, and liable for the maintenance and education of her children. Her testimony must be sustained "by two respectable witnesses" (Pur. Dig., 692, 5; Act of 1855, 2; 2 Roper, Husband and Wife, 171, 173).

By act of April, 1872, any married woman having first petitioned the court, stating under oath or affirmation her intention of claiming her separate earnings, is entitled to acquire by her labor a separate property which shall not be subject to any legal claim of her husband or of his creditors, she, however, being compelled "to show title and ownership in the same." The husband's possession of property is evidence of his title to it; not so with the wife (Purd. Dig., 1,010, 38, 39; 4 Lansing, 164; 61 Barb., 145).

A married woman may devise her separate property by will, subject, however, to the husband's curtesy, which in Pennsylvania attaches, though there be no issue born alive, and which she cannot bar (Purd. Dig., 806, 804; I Pars., 489; 26 Penn. St. R., 202, 203; 2 Brewster, 302).

The husband may bar the wife's dower by a bona fide mortgage given by himself alone or by a judicial sale for the payment of his debts. It is also barred by a divorce obtained by her on the ground of his adultery, and in case of such divorce she is entitled to the value of one-half of the money and property which the husband received through her at marriage (Purd. Dig., 514; 2 Dall. 127; 12 Serg. and R., 21; I Yeates Pa., 300).

A single woman's will is revoked by her subsequent marriage, and is not again revived by the death of her husband; a single man's will is revoked by marriage absolutely only when he leaves a widow but no known heirs or kindred (Purd. Dig., 1,477, 18 and 19; 47 Penn. S. Rep., 144, 34, 483).

If the husband die intestate leaving a widow and issue, the widow shall have one-third of his and their joint personalty absolutely, and one-third of the real estate for life; if there are no children, but collateral heirs, she is entitled to the use of one-half the realty, including the mansion-house, for her life, and one-half the personalty absolutely (Purd. Dig., 806, 2 and 3; Act of 1833, 1).

If the wife die intestate leaving a husband and no issue, he is entitled to her entire personalty and realty during his life; if there are children her personal estate is divided between the husband and children share and share alike; in either case he is entitled to their entire joint estate (Purd. Dig., 806, 5; Act of 1848, 9).

Married women may be corporate members of any institution composed of and managed by women, having as its object the care and education of children or the support of sick and indigent women (Purd. Dig., 283; Act of 1859, 1).

It is a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to employ any woman to attend or wait upon an audience in a theater, opera or licensed entertainment, to procure or furnish commodities or refreshments (Purd. Dig., 337, 112).

A man, by marriage, is subjected to no political, civil, legal or commercial disabilities, but acquires all the rights and powers previously vested in his wife. He is capable of all the offices of the government from that of postmaster to the presidency, and of transacting all kinds of business from the measuring of tape to the practice of the most learned professions. Woman, deprived of political power, is limited in opportunities for education, and, if married, is incapable of making a contract; hence crippled in the transaction of any kind of business.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XLII.

INDIANA.

Ạ

Governor Porter made the following novel appointment: On August 30, 1882, Mrs. Georgia A. Ruggles, from Bartholomew county, presented to Governor Porter an application for a requisition from the governor of Indiana upon the governor of Kansas, for William J. Beck, charged with the crime of bigamy. Beck had been living a few months in Bartholomew county and had passed as an unmarried man; had gained the affections of a young lady much younger than himself and much superior to him by birth and education. After their marriage the fact that Beck had already one wife became known and he fled to Kansas. Mrs. Ruggles was a friend to the young lady who had been thus duped, and upon learning the facts she called the attention of the proper authorities to the matter, and begged them to effect Beck's arrest. They were not disposed to do so, and upon various excuses postponed action. She therefore determined to take the matter into her own hands. Governor Porter granted her the desired requisition; she went to Kansas, and on September 10, 1882, she received Beck from Samuel Hamilton, sheriff of Ellsworth county; she herself brought the prisoner, in cuffs, to Indiana, and, September 13, she delivered him into the hands of Thomas E. Burgess, sheriff of Bartholomew county. Beck was tried, convicted and sent to the penitentiary. This bit of justice was the fruit of a woman's pluck and a governor's good sense.

EXTRACT FROM GEN. COBURN'S ADDRESS.

The people expect that they will in their own way and time inaugurate such measures as will bring these questions in their entire magnitude into the arena. I hope to see 10,000 women in convention here. They can, if they will, create a public sentiment in favor of their enfranchisement that will be irresistible. They have the ears of the voters; they have access to the columns of the newspapers; they control all the avenues of social life. What can they not accomplish, if, with their whole hearts they set about it? The sphere of public life has many vacant places to be filled by women. Why shall they not serve upon the boards of trustees of our great reformatory and benevolent institutions, as superintendents in our hospitals, and as directors and inspectors in our prisons? The last legislature conferred upon them the right to hold any office in our great school system except one, that of State superintendent of public instruction. From them may now be selected, president of the State university, or of the Normal School, or of Purdue University, school commissioners and county superintendents. But the legislature should give them the power to rescue our prisons, hospitals and asylums from the indescribable horror of filth, neglect and cruelty which hangs like a murky cloud over many of them. Men have tried it and failed. Stupidity or partisanship or brutality or avarice, has transformed many a noble foundation of benevolence into a hell of abomination. Some one must step in to inspect; to enforce order, cleanliness and virtue; to bring comfort and hope to the downcast and to the outcast of society. This purpose must be backed up by the strong arm of power, by the sanction of the law, and that law must have upon it the stamp of woman's intellect. This year the women of Indiana can place themselves in the van of human progress and dictate the policy which mankind must recognize as just and true for ages to come. The public mind is not unprepared for this measure. The spread and the acceptance of great ideas is almost miraculous in intelligent communities.

Ḅ

LEGAL OPINION BY W. D. WALLACE, ESQ., UPON THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO AUTHORIZE WOMEN TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.

Capt. W. DeWitt Wallace, Attorney-at-law, Lafayette, Ind.:

DEAR SIR: You will confer a favor upon the friends of woman suffrage in Indiana, if you will send me, in writing, your opinion, as a lawyer, in answer to the following question, giving your reasons therefor: Can the legislature of this State empower women to vote for presidential electors?

MARY F. THOMAS, President I. W. S. A.

Richmond, Ind., December 30, 1880.

LAFAYETTE, Ind., January 5, 1881.

Dr. Mary F. Thomas, President of Indiana Woman Suffrage Association, Richmond, Indiana:

DEAR MADAM: In your favor of the 30th ult., you ask my opinion upon, to me, a novel and most interesting question, viz.: "Can the legislature empower women to vote for presidential electors?" After the most careful consideration which I have been able to give to the subject, consistent with other duties, and with the aid of such books as I have at command, I answer your question in the affirmative. The grounds of my opinion I will proceed to state: Section 1, article 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that the president and vice-president shall be chosen by electors appointed by the several States, declares in the following words how said electors shall be appointed:

Each State shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which said State may be entitled in the congress, etc., etc.

Now, in the absence of any provision in the State constitution, limiting or attempting to limit the discretion of the legislature as to the manner in which the presidential electors shall be chosen, there can be no doubt but that the legislature could empower female, as well as male, citizens to participate in the choice of presidential electors.

Section 2, article 2 of our State constitution is as follows: In all elections, not otherwise provided for by this constitution, every white male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years, and upwards, who shall have resided in the State during the six months immediately preceding such election * * * * shall be entitled to vote in the township or precinct where he may reside.

Two questions at once suggest themselves upon the reading of this section: First—Does the section apply to elections of presidential electors, and thus become a limitation upon the discretion of the legislature in case it shall direct the appointment of the electors by a popular vote? Second—If so, can a State constitution thus limit the discretion which the Constitution of the United States directs shall be exercised by the legislature? I shall consider the last question first.

While the legislature is created by the State, all its powers are not derived from, nor are all its duties enjoined by the State. The moment the State brings the legislature into being, that moment certain duties enjoined, and certain powers conferred, by the nation, attach to it. Among the powers and duties of the legislature, which spring from the national constitution, is the power and duty of determining how the State shall appoint presidential electors. The Constitution of the United States declares in the most explicit terms that the State shall do this "in such manner as the legislature may direct." In the case of Ex-Parte Henry E. Hayne, et al., reported in volume 9, at page 106, of the Chicago Legal News, the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina, in speaking of the authority upon which a State legislature acts in providing for the appointment of presidential electors, says:

Section 1, article 2 of the constitution provides that electors shall be appointed in such manner as the legislature of each State may direct. When the legislature of a State, in obedience to that provision, has, by law, directed the manner of appointment of the electors, that law has its authorities solely from the Constitution of the United States. It is a law passed in pursuance of the constitution.

Hon. James A. Garfield, who was a member of the Electoral Commission, in discussing before that body the source of the power to appoint electors, said:

The constitution prescribes that States only shall choose electors. * * * To speak more accurately, I should say that the power is placed in the legislatures of the States; for if the constitution of any State were silent upon the subject, its legislature is none the less armed with plenary authority conferred upon it directly by the national constitution.—[Electoral Commission, p. 242.

That this section of the national constitution has always been understood to lodge an absolute discretion in the legislature, is proved by the practice in the different States. Chief Justice Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States," in speaking of this section of the constitution and the practice under it, says:

Under this authority, the appointment of electors has been variously provided for by the State legislatures. In some States the legislatures have directly chosen the electors by themselves; in others they have been chosen by the people by a general ticket throughout the whole State, and in others by the people in electoral districts fixed by the legislature, a certain number of electors being apportioned to each district. No question has ever arisen as to the constitutionality of either mode, except that of a direct choice by the legislature. But this, though often doubted by able and ingenious minds, has been firmly established in practice ever since the adoption of the constitution, and does not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal existed to adjudicate upon it.—[2 Story on Constitution, section 1,472.

Judge Strong, one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a member of the electoral commission, in discussing the subject of this section, says:

I doubt whether they [the framers of the national constitution] had in mind at all [in adopting this section] the idea of a popular election as a mode of appointing State electors. They used the word appoint, doubtless thinking that the legislatures of the States would themselves select the electors, or empower the governor or some other State officer to select them. The word appoint is not the most appropriate word for describing the result of a popular election. Such a mode of appointment, I submit is allowable, but there is little reason to think it was contemplated. * * * It was not until years afterward that the electors were chosen by vote.—[Electoral Commission, p. 252.

Senator Frelinghuysen, also a member of the Electoral Commission, thus speaks of the practice in the several States:

Under this power [the power given by the section of the national constitution, which we are now considering] the legislature might direct that the electors should be appointed by the legislature, by the executive, by the judiciary, or by the people. In the earliest days of the republic, electors were appointed by the legislatures. In Pennsylvania they were appointed by the judiciary. Now, in all the States except Colorado, they are appointed by the people.—[Electoral Commission, p. 204.

If then it be true that the power to determine how the presidential electors shall be appointed is derived from the national constitution, and that power is a discretionary one, to be exercised in such manner as the legislature may direct, how can it be said that a State constitution can limit or control the legislative discretion? If the State can limit that discretion in one respect it can limit it in another, and in another, and in another, until it may shut up the legislature to but a single mode of appointment, which is to take away, and absolutely destroy all its discretion, and this is nullification, pure and simple. One of the questions before the electoral commission in the case of South Carolina, was whether the electoral vote of that State should not be rejected because the legislature, in providing for the appointment of the electors, had failed to obey a requirement of the State constitution in regard to a registry law. This raised, in principle, the very question we are now considering, and on that question Senator O. P. Morton, who was a member of the commission, and who was an able lawyer as well as a great statesman, thus expressed himself:

They [the presidential electors] are to be appointed in the manner prescribed by the legislature of the State, and not by the constitution of the State. The manner of the appointment of electors has been placed by the Constitution of the United States in the legislature of each State, and cannot be taken from that body by the provisions of a State constitution. * * * The power to appoint electors by a State, is conferred by the Constitution of the United States, and does not spring from a State constitution, and cannot be impaired or controlled by a State constitution.—[Electoral Commission, p. 200.

The distinguished lawyer and statesman [Hon. William Lawrence] who made the principle argument before the commission in favor of admitting the vote of the State, took the same ground (Electoral Commission, p. 186).

The opinion of Justice Story, expressed in the Massachusetts constitutional convention of 1820, on a very similar question, and one involving the same principle, quoted by Mr. Lawrence in his argument, is very high authority, and I reproduce it here. He (Justice Story) said:

The question then was whether we have a right to insert in our constitution a provision which controls or destroys a discretion which may be, nay must be, exercised by the legislature in virtue of powers confided to it by the Constitution of the United States. The fourth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States declares that the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed by the legislature thereof. Here an express provision was made for the manner of choosing representatives by the State legislatures. They have an unlimited discretion on the subject. They may provide for an election in districts sending more than one, or by general ticket for the whole State. Here is a general discretion, a power of choice. What is the proposition on the table? It is to limit the discretion, to leave no choice to the legislature, to compel representatives to be chosen in districts; in other words to compel them to be chosen in a specific manner, excluding all others. Were not this plainly a violation of the constitution? Does it not affect to control the legislature in the exercise of its powers? * * * It assumes a control over the legislature, which the Constitution of the United States does not justify. It is bound to exercise its authority according to its own view of public policy and principle; and yet this proposition compels it to surrender all discretion. In my humble judgment * * * it is a direct and palpable infringement of the constitutional provisions to which I have referred.—[Electoral Commission, p. 186.

The conclusion seems irresistible that a State constitution cannot determine for the legislature who shall, or shall not, participate in the choice of presidential electors, and that in so far as our State constitution may attempt to do so, it is an infringement of the national constitution. The discretion of the legislature, by virtue of the supreme law of the land, being (except in so far as it is controlled by the national constitution itself) thus absolutely unlimited, it may, without doubt, as I think, authorize all citizens without regard to sex, to participate in the choice of presidential electors. But it has been suggested to me that possibly by the State legislature, as used in the section of the national constitution which we have been considering, was meant the whole people of the State in whom the legislative power originally resides and not the organized legislative body which they may create. We answer first that the language of the section will not admit of this construction. It clearly recognizes a distinction between the State or the people of the State, and its legislature. The language is not "each State shall appoint in such manner as it may direct," etc., but it is, "each State shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct," etc.

Again, it is a familiar canon of construction that in determining the meaning of a statute, recourse may be had to the history of the times in which it was enacted. When the Constitution of the United States was framed, all of the States had organized legislatures, or representative bodies who wielded the legislative power, and without doing violence to language, we must suppose that it was to them the constitution referred. Again, the State legislatures are referred to not less than ten times in the national constitution, and in each instance the reference is such as to make it clear that the organized representative bodies are intended, and in article 5 they are, in express terms, distinguished from conventions of the States. Indeed, the fundamental idea of the American government is that of a representative republic as opposed to a pure democracy, and it may well be doubted whether a State government, without a representative legislative body of some kind, would, in the American sense, be republican in form.