Mr. BAYARD: I move the that Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business. [The motion was agreed to.]

JANUARY 9, 1882.

Mr. HOAR: I now ask for the consideration of the resolution relating to a select committee on woman suffrage.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: There being ten minutes left of the morning hour, the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] asks for the consideration of the resolution relating to woman suffrage. The pending question is on the motion of the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] to refer the subject-matter to the Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BUTLER (when Mr. Pugh's name was called): I was requested by the senator from Alabama [Mr. Pugh] to announce his pair with the senator from New York [Mr. Miller].

The roll-call was concluded.

Mr. TELLER: On this question I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]. If the senator from Alabama were present, I should vote "nay."

Mr. MCPHERSON (after having voted in the affirmative): I rise to ask the privilege of withdrawing my vote. I am paired with my colleague [Mr. Sewell] on all political questions, and this seems to have taken a political shape.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The senator from New Jersey withdraws his vote.

The result was announced—yeas 27, nays 31. So the motion was not agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The question recurs on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. EDMUNDS: Let it be read for information. The secretary read the resolution.

Mr. EDMUNDS: "Shall" ought to be stricken out and "may" inserted, because the Senate ought always to have the power to refer any particular measure as it pleases.

Mr. HOAR: I have no objection to that modification.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The senator from Massachusetts accepts the suggestion of the senator from Vermont, and the word "may" will be substituted for "shall."

Mr. HILL of Georgia: I wish to say that I have opposed all resolutions, whether originating on the other side of the chamber or on this side, appointing special committees. They are all wrong. They are not founded, in my judgment, on a correct principle. There is no necessity to raise a select committee for this business. The standing committees of the Senate are ample to do everything that it is proposed the select committee asked for shall do. The only result of appointing more special committees is to have just that many more clerks, just that much more expense, just that many more committee-rooms. This is not the first time I have opposed the raising of a select committee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The morning hour has expired, and it requires unanimous consent for the senator from Georgia to proceed with his remarks.

JANUARY 21, 1882.

Mr. HOAR: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration of the resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: If there is no objection, unanimous consent will be assumed.

Mr. FARLEY and others: I object.

Mr. HOAR: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. SHERMAN: Let it be proceeded with informally, subject to the call for other business.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The question is on the motion of the senator from Massachusetts. [Putting the question.] The Chair is uncertain from the sound and will ask for a division.

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division—ayes 32, noes 20.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The resolution is before the Senate and the senator from Georgia [Mr. Hill] has the floor.

Mr. HILL of Georgia: Mr. President, I do not intend to say one word on the subject of woman suffrage. I shall not get into that discussion which was alluded to by the senator from Massachusetts. The senator will remember, if he refreshes his recollection, that when my late colleague, now no longer a senator, made a motion for the appointment of a select committee in relation to the inter-oceanic canal, I opposed it distinctly, though it came from my colleague, upon the ground that the appointment of select committees ought to stop, that it was wrong; and I oppose this resolution for the same reason. I voted against a resolution to raise a select committee offered by a senator on this side of the chamber at the present session, and I have voted against all resolutions of that character.

No senator, in my judgment, will rise in his place in the Senate and say that it is necessary to appoint a special committee to consider the matters referred to in the resolution. It is true I am a member of the committee, and perhaps ought not to refer to it, but we have a standing committee, of which the distinguished senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] is chairman, the Committee on Privileges and Elections, that, I take occasion to say, is a very proper committee for this matter to go to; and that committee has almost nothing on earth to do. There is but one single subject-matter now before it, and I believe there will be scarcely another question before that committee at this session. There is not a contested election; there is not a dispute about anybody's seat; and yet it is a Committee on Privileges and Elections. What is the reason for going on continually and appointing these select committees, when there are standing committees here, properly organized to consider the very question specified by the resolution, with nothing to do?

Now, I am going to say one other thing, I do not pretend that the purpose I am now about to state is the purpose of the senator from Massachusetts. I have no reflections to make as to what this resolution is intended for, but we do know that there is an idea abroad that select committees are generally appointed for the purpose of giving somebody a chairmanship, that somebody may have a clerk. That is not the case here, I dare say. I do not mean to intimate that it is the case here, but it ought to be put a stop to; it is all wrong. I think, though, that there ought to be a resolution passed by this body giving every senator who has not a committee a clerk. Everybody knows that every chairman of a committee has a clerk in the clerk of that committee. The other senators, at least in my opinion, ought each to have a clerk. I would vote for such a resolution. I believe it would be right, and I believe the country would approve it. Every senator knows that he has more business to attend to here than he can possibly perform. Why, sir, if I were to attend to all the business in the departments and otherwise that my constituents ask me to perform, I could not discharge half my duties in this chamber; and every senator, I dare say, has the same experience. It is to the public interest, therefore, in my judgment, that every senator should have a clerk. I am unable to employ a clerk from my own funds; many other senators are more fortunately situated; but still I must do that or move the appointment of a special committee for the purpose in an indirect way of getting a clerk. It is not right.

It has been said that if senators each have a clerk, for instance, a clerk at $100 a month salary during the session, which would be a very small matter, the members of the other House would each want a clerk. It does not follow. There is a vast difference. A member of the other House represents a narrow district, a single district; a senator represents a whole State. Take the State of New York. There are thirty-three representatives in the House from the State of New York; there are but two senators here from that State. Those two senators in all likelihood have as much business to perform here for their constituents as the thirty-three members of the House. There is, therefore, an eminent reason why a senator should have a clerk and why a member of the House should not.

I cannot vote for the appointment of select committees unless you raise a select committee for every senator in the body so as to give him a clerk. You have appointed select committees for this business and for that. It gives a few men an advantage when the business of the country does not require it, whereas if you appointed a clerk for each senator, with a nominal salary of $100 per month during the session, it would enable every senator to do his work more efficiently both here and for his constituents; it would put all the senators on a just equality; it would be in furtherance of the public interest; and it would avoid what I consider (with all due deference and not meaning to be offensive) the unseemly habit of constantly moving the appointment of select committees in this body. This is all I have to say. I vote against the resolution simply because I am opposed to the appointment of a select committee for this or any other purpose that I can now think of.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. VEST called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and the principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. JONES of Florida (when his name was called): I propose to vote for this resolution, but at the same time I do not regard my vote as in any way committing myself on the subject of female suffrage. If they think an investigation of this subject should be had in this way, I for one am willing to have it. I vote "yea."

Mr. TELLER, (when his name was called): On this question I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]; otherwise I should vote "yea."

The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced—yeas 35, nays 23; so the resolution was agreed to.[82]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 20, 1881.

Mr. WHITE of Kentucky: I ask consent to offer for consideration at this time the resolution which I send to the clerk's desk.

The clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That a select committee of seven members of the House of Representatives be appointed by the Speaker, to whom shall be referred all petitions, bills and resolves providing for the extension of suffrage to women, or for the removal of legal disabilities.

Mr. MILLS of Texas: I object.

Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania: A similar resolution has already been referred to the Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER (Mr. Keifer of Ohio): Objection being made to its consideration at this time, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Rules.

The resolution was referred accordingly.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 25, 1882.

Mr. REED of Maine: I rise to make a privileged report. The Committee on Rules, to whom were referred sundry resolutions relating to the subject, have instructed me to report the resolution which I send to the desk.

The clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That a select committee of nine members be appointed, to whom shall be referred all petitions, bills and resolves asking for the extension of suffrage to women or the removal of their legal disabilities.

The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the report of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. HOLMAN of Indiana: I ask that the latter portion of the resolution be again read. It was not heard in this part of the house.

The resolution was again read.

Mr. TOWNSHEND of Illinois: I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.

Mr. TOWNSHEND: My inquiry is whether that resolution should not go to the House calendar.

The SPEAKER: It is a privileged report under the rules of the House from the Committee on Rules. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. MCMILLIN of Tennessee: I make the point of order that it must lie over for one day.

The SPEAKER: It is the report of a committee privileged under the rules.

Mr. MCMILLIN: The committee are privileged to report, but under the rule the report has to lie over a day.

The SPEAKER: The gentleman from Tennessee will oblige the Chair by directing his attention to any rule which requires such a report to lie over one day. It changes no standing rule or order of the House.

Mr. MCMILLIN: It does, by making a change in the number and nature of the committees. All measures of a particular class, the resolution states, must be referred to the proposed committee, whereas heretofore they have been referred to a different committee. Therefore the resolution changes the rules of the House.

The SPEAKER: The Chair is of opinion the resolution does not rescind or change any standing rule of the House. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. SPRINGER: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the Chair to the fact that this does distinctly change one of the standing rules of the House. One of the standing rules is—

The SPEAKER: The Chair has passed on that question, and no appeal has been taken from his decision.

Mr. SPRINGER: I desire to call the attention of the Chair to Rule 10, which specifically provides for the appointment of the full number of committees this House is to have, and this is not one of them.

The SPEAKER: Not one of the standing committees, but a select committee.

Mr. SPRINGER: That rule provides there shall be a certain number of committees, the names of which are therein given.

Mr. REED: I sincerely hope this will not be made a matter of technical discussion or debate. It is a matter upon which members of this House must have opinions which they can express by voting, in a very short time, without taking up the attention of the House beyond what is really necessary for a bare discussion of the merits of the question.

Mr. MCMILLIN: Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. REED: Certainly.

Mr. MCMILLIN: Would you not, as a parliamentarian, concede that this does change the existing rules of the House?

Mr. REED: By no manner of means, especially when the accomplished Speaker has decided the other way, and no gentleman has taken an appeal from his decision. [Laughter.]

Mr. MCMILLIN: Then you have no opinion beyond his decision?

The SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] that this resolution does not change any of the standing committees of the House which are provided for in Rule 10.

Mr. SPRINGER: It provides for a new committee.

The SPEAKER: It provides for a select committee. The subject was referred to the Committee on Rules by order of the House, and this is a report on the resolution so referred.

Mr. SPRINGER: The rule provides that no standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.

The SPEAKER: The Chair would decide that this does not propose any change or rescinding of any standing rule of the House.

Mr. SPRINGER: Does the Chair hold that the making of a new rule is not a change of the existing rules?

The SPEAKER: The Chair does not decide anything of the kind.

Mr. SPRINGER: What does the Chair decide?

The SPEAKER: The Chair does not undertake to decide any such question, for it is not now presented.

Mr. SPRINGER: Is this not a new rule?

The SPEAKER: It is not.

Mr. SPRINGER: It is not?

The SPEAKER: It is a provision for a select committee.

Mr. SPRINGER: Can you have a committee without a rule of the House providing for it?

The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. ATKINS: On that question I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and there were—yeas 115, nays 84, not voting 93; so the resolution was carried.[83]

Mr. REED moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

On Monday, March 13, 1882, the Chair announced the appointment of the following gentlemen as the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage authorized by the House: Mr. Camp of New York, Mr. White of Kentucky, Mr. Sherwin of Illinois, Mr. Stone of Massachusetts, Mr. Hepburn of Iowa, Mr. Springer of Illinois, Mr. Vance of North Carolina, Mr. Muldrow of Mississippi and Mr. Stockslager of Indiana.

The Annual Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall as usual, January 18, 19, 20, 1882. The afternoon before the convention, at an executive session held at the Riggs House, forty delegates were present from fourteen different States.[84] Among these were five from Massachusetts, and for the first time that State was represented on the platform of the National Association. Mrs. Stanton gave the opening address, and made some amusing criticisms on a recent debate on Senator Hoar's proposition for a special committee on the rights and disabilities of women. Such a committee had been under debate for several years and it was during this convention that the bill passed the Senate.

Invitations to attend the convention were sent to all the members of congress, and many were present during the various sessions. Miss Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary, read the minutes of the last convention, and, instead of the usual dry skeleton of facts, she gave a glowing description of that eventful occasion. Clara B. Colby gave an interesting narration of the progress of woman suffrage in Nebraska, and of the efforts being made to carry the proposition pending before the people, to strike the word "male" from the constitution in the coming November election.

Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley of Providence, R. I., spoke upon "Our Demand in the Light of Evolution." He said:

It is about a century since our forefathers declared that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and about a half century since woman began to see that she ought to be included in this declaration. At present the expressions of the Declaration of Independence are a "glittering generality," for only one-half of the people "consent." Modern science has demonstrated the truth of evolution—like causes produce like results—and this is seen in the progress of government and of woman. From the time when physical force ruled, up to the present, when ostensibly in the United States every person is his own ruler, there have been many steps. The importance of the masses has steadily taken the place of the importance of individuals. At first the idea was "You shall obey because I say so"; then, "You shall obey because I am your superior, and will protect you"; now it is "Everyone shall be his own protector." But we do not live up to this idea while only one-half instead of the whole of "everyone" is his own protector. The phases of woman's advancement are fitly described by the four words—slave, subject, inferior, dependent; and no step in this advance has been accomplished without a hard struggle. The logic of evolution in government points to universal suffrage. The same logic points to unqualified individual freedom for woman.

Mrs. Blake in reporting from her State said:

Governor Cornell was the first New York Governor to mention woman in an inaugural address, and the bill allowing women to vote in school elections was passed the same winter. There was a great deal of opposition in different parts of the State to the voting of women. In some country districts where the polls are in the school-houses, certain men went early and locked the doors, filled the room with smoke and even put tobacco on the stoves to make it as disagreeable for the women as possible. More respectable men had to ventilate and clean the rooms to make them decent for either man or woman. From this lowest class of opponents up to those who say: "My dear, you'd better not make yourself conspicuous!" the spirit is the same. Believing that under our constitution women are already entitled to the ballot, we do not ask for a constitutional amendment, but for a bill extending the suffrage at once.

Mrs. COLBY in contrast to this stated that in Nebraska the greatest courtesy had always been shown to women who voted at school elections. There is only one organized effort against woman suffrage, and that is made by the "Sons of Liberty!" "O, Consistency, thou art a jewel!"

The following resolution introduced into the Senate, January 11, by Mr. Morgan of Alabama, was finally referred to the Committee on Woman Suffrage. This was the first subject brought before them for action.

Resolved, That the committee on "The extension of suffrage to women, or the removal of their disabilities," be directed to examine into the state of the law regulating the right of suffrage in the territory of Utah, and report a bill to set aside and annul any law or laws enacted by the legislature of said territory conferring upon women the right of suffrage.

Miss Couzins made an admirable speech on the following resolution:

Resolved, That Senator Morgan's bill to deprive the women of Utah of the right of suffrage because of the social institutions and religious faith originated and maintained by the men of the territory, is a travesty on common justice. While the wife has not absolute possession of even one husband, and the husband has many wives, surely the men and not the women, if either, should be deprived of the suffrage.

Miss COUZINS said: The task of dealing fairly and justly with this territorial complication should never be committed to the blundering legislation of man alone. His success as a legislator and executive for woman in the past does not inspire a confidence that in this most serious problem he will be any the less an unbiased judge and law-giver. This government of men permitted the establishment of a religious colony, so called, whose basis of faith was the complete humiliation of women; recognized the system by appointing its chief, Brigham Young, governor of the territory, under whose fostering care polygamy grew to its present proportions.

That woman has not thrown off the yoke of religious despotism can be readily appreciated when we recognize the fact that man, from time immemorial, has played upon her religious faith to exalt his own attributes and degrade hers; that through this teaching her abiding belief in his superior capacity to interpret scriptural truths for her has been the means of sacrificing her power of mind, her tender affections, her delicate sensibilities, on the altar of his base selfishness throughout the ages. Orthodoxy recognizes no "inspiration" for woman to-day. She is not "called" save to serve man. Under its teaching her thought has been padlocked in the name of Divinity, and her lips sealed in sacrilegious pretense of authority from heaven; and nothing so clearly bespeaks the degenerating influence of the ages of this masculine teaching as the absolute faith manifested by the women of Utah in this ipse dixit of man's religious doctrine. Their emancipation must necessarily be slow.

The paternal government allowed polygamy to be planted, take root, and grow in a wilderness where the attraction of nobler minds and freer thoughts was not known. The victims came from the political despotisms of the old world to be shackled in a land of freedom with a still darker despotism, and under the aegis of the American flag they have borne children as a religious duty they owed to God and man; and surely it can not be expected, even with that grand emancipator, from king and priestcraft rule, the ballot, that at once they will vote themselves outcast and their children illegitimate.

It took the white men of this nation one hundred years to put away that relic of barbarism, slavery; the removal of the twin relic will come through liberty for woman, higher education for children, and the incoming tide of Gentile immigration. The fitting act of justice is not disfranchisement of woman, as Senator Morgan proposes, and the reenactment of that old Adamic cry: "The woman whom thou gavest," but the disfranchisement of man, who is the only polygamist, and the stepping down and out of the sex as a legislator under whose fostering care this evil has grown. Retire to your sylvan groves and academic shades, gentlemen, as Mrs. Stanton suggests, and let the Deborahs, the Huldahs, and the Vashtis come to the front, and let us see what we can do toward the remedy of your wretched legislation. But suffrage for women in Utah has accomplished great good. I spent one week there in close observation. Outside of their religious convictions, the women are emphatic in condemnation of wrong. Their votes banished the liquor saloon. I saw no drunkenness anywhere; the poison of tobacco smoke is not allowed to vitiate the air of heaven, either on the streets or in public assemblies. Their court-room was a model of neatness and good order. Plants were in the windows and handsome carpets graced the floor. During my stay, the daughter of a Mormon, the then advocate-general of the territory, was admitted to the bar by Chief-Justice McKean of the United States Court, who, in fitting and beautiful language, welcomed her to the profession as a woman whose knowledge of the law fitted her to be the peer of any man in his court. She told me that she detested polygamy, but felt that she could render greater service to the emancipation of her sex inside of Utah than out. At midnight I wandered, with one of my own sex, about the streets to test the assertion that it was as safe for women then as at mid-day. No bacchanalian shout rent the air; no man was seen reeling in maudlin imbecility to his home. No guardians put in an appearance, save the stars above our heads; no sound awoke the stillness but the purling of the mountain brooks which washed the streets in cleanliness and beauty. What other city on this continent can present such a showing? With murder for man and rapine for woman where man alone is maker and guardian of the laws, it behooves him to pause ere he launches invectives at the one result of woman's votes.

Mrs. Gougar, on our Washington platform for the first time, delighted the audience with her readiness and wit. She has a good voice, fine presence, and speaks fluently, without notes.

She spoke of the reformatory prison for women in her State, and said that the statistics showed that eighty-two per cent. of the women confined there were sent out reformed. Speaking of the gallantry of men, she cited a case of a man who came to an Indiana lawyer and desired him to make a will. The following conversation ensued: "I want you to make this will so that my wife will have $400 a year; that's enough for any woman." "Is she the only wife you ever had?" "Yes." "How long have you been married?" "Forty-two years." "How many children have you had?" "Eleven." "Did you have all your property before marriage?" "No; didn't have a cent; I've earned it all." "Has your wife helped you in any way to earn it?" "Why, yes, I suppose she has; but then I want to fix my will so she can only have $400 a year; it's enough." "Well, sir, you will have to move out of the State of Indiana then, for the law provides for the wife better than that, and you will have to get another lawyer." It is needless to say that this lawyer is a staunch champion of woman suffrage, and it is pleasant to know that there are more such men being educated by this agitation.

Mrs. Maxwell gave a fine recitation of "The Dying Soldier," at one of the evening sessions. It was evident by the sparkling eyes of the Indiana delegation that the ladies had in reserve some pleasant surprise for the convention, which at last revealed itself in the person of Judge Orth, a live member of congress from Indiana, who stood up like a man and avowed his belief in woman suffrage. His words were few but to the point, and his hearers all knew exactly where he stood on the question.

The next evening the Nebraska delegation, determining not to be outdone, captured one of their United States senators and triumphantly brought him on the platform. It was a point gained to have a congressman publicly give in his adhesion to the question, but how much greater the achievement to appear in the convention with a United States senator. It was a proud moment for Mrs. Colby when Senator Saunders, a large man of fine proportions, stepped to the front. But alas! her triumph over the Indiana ladies was short indeed, for while the senator surpassed the representative in size and official honors, he fell far below him in the logic of his statements and the earnestness of his principles. In fact the audience and the platform were in doubt at the close of his remarks as to his true position on the question. Mrs. May Wright Sewall, who followed him, sparkled with the satisfaction she expressed in paying most glowing tributes to the men of Indiana and their State institutions. She said:

The principal objection to woman suffrage has always been that it will take women from their homes and destroy all home life. She showed that there is not an interest of home which is not represented in the State, and that the subordination of the State to the family has kept pace with the subordination of physical to spiritual force. Woman has an interest in everything which affects the State, and only lacks the legitimate instrument of these interests—the ballot—with which to enforce them. Life regulates legislation. Domestic life is woman's sphere, but a sphere of much larger dimensions than has ever yet been accorded it, these dimensions reaching out and controlling the functions of the State. The ballot is not a political or a military, but a domestic necessity.

Mrs. Harriette R. Shattuck spoke on the golden rule, asking men to put themselves in the place of disfranchised women, and then legislate for them as they would be legislated for. Mrs. Robinson gave a resume of the legal, political and educational position of women in Massachusetts. Mrs. Hooker showed that political equality would dignify woman in home life, give added weight to her opinions on all questions, and command new respect for her from all classes of men. Mrs. Colby gave an interesting address on "The Social Evolution of Woman":

She traced the history of woman from the time when she was bought and sold, up to the present. She said that the first believer in woman's rights was the one who first proposed that women should be allowed to eat with their husbands. This once granted, everything else has followed of necessity, and the ballot will be the crowning right. Once women were not allowed to sing soprano because it was the "governing part." From these and many like indignities woman has gradually evolved until she now stands on an equality with man in many social rights.

Martha McClellan Brown read an able essay on "The Power of the Veto." She is a woman of fine presence, pleasing manners and a well trained voice that can fill any hall. Her address was one of the best in the convention and all felt that in her we had a valuable acquisition to our Association. Mrs. Gage gave an able address on "The Moral Force of Woman Suffrage."

During the first day of the convention a request, signed by the officers of the association, was sent to the Special Committee on Woman Suffrage in the Senate, asking for a hearing on the sixteenth amendment to the constitution. The hearing was granted on Friday morning, January 20, 1882. A distinguished speaker in England having advised the friends of suffrage there to employ young and attractive women to advocate the measure, as the speediest means of success, Miss Anthony took the hint in making the selection for the first hearing before the committee of those who had never been heard before,[85] of whom some were young, and all attractive as speakers. Miss Anthony said that she would introduce some new speakers to the committee, in order to disprove the allegation that "it was always the same old set." The committee listened to them with undivided attention throughout, and at the conclusion of the hearing the following resolution, offered by Senator George of Mississippi, was adopted unanimously:

Resolved, That the committee are under obligations to the representatives of the women of the United States for their attendance this morning, and for the able and instructive addresses which have been made, and that the committee assure them that they will give to the subject of woman suffrage the careful and impartial consideration which its grave importance demands.

In describing the occasion for the Boston Transcript, Mrs. Shattuck said:

As we stood in the committee-room and presented our plea for freedom, we felt that at last we had obtained a fair hearing, whatever its result might be. And the most encouraging sign of the impression made by our words was the change in the faces of some of the members of the committee as the speaking went on. At first there was a look of indifference and scorn—merely toleration; this gradually changed to interest mingled with surprise; finally, as Miss Anthony closed with one of her most eloquent appeals, all the faces showed a decided and almost eager interest in what we had to say. Senator George, who certainly looked more unpropitious than any other one, assured the ladies that he would give to the subject of woman suffrage that careful and impartial consideration which its grave importance demands. This, from one who heralded his entrance by inquiring of Miss Anthony, in stentorian tones, if she "wanted to go to war," was, to say the least, a concession. The speakers were closely questioned by some members of the committee, who afterwards told us "that they had never heard a speech on the subject before and were surprised to find so much in the demand, and to see such ability as was manifested by the women before them."

The committee having expressed a wish to hear others on the subject, appointed the next morning at 10 o'clock.[86] Mrs. Stanton, being introduced by the chairman, said:

Gentlemen, when the news of the appointment of this committee was flashed over the wires, you cannot imagine the satisfaction that thrilled the hearts of your countrywomen. After fourteen years of constant petitioning, we are grateful for even this slight recognition at last. I never before felt such an interest in any congressional committee, and I have no doubt that all who are interested in this reform, share in my feelings. Fortunately your names make a great couplet in rhyme,

Lapham, Anthony and Blair, Jackson, George, Ferry and Fair.

which will enable us to remember them always. This I discovered in writing your names in this volume, which allow me to present you.

The gentlemen rising in turn received with a gracious bow "The History of Woman Suffrage" which, Mrs. Stanton told them, would furnish all the arguments they needed to defend their clients against the ignorance and prejudice of the world. Mr. George of Mississippi asked why this agitation was confined to Northern women; he had never heard the ladies of the South express the wish to vote. Mrs. Stanton referred him to those to whom the volume before him was dedicated. "There," said she, "you will find the names of two ladies from one of the most distinguished families in South Carolina, who came North over forty years ago, and set this ball for woman's freedom in motion. But for those noble women, Sarah and Angelina Grimke, we might not stand here to-day pleading for justice and equality." As the speakers had requested the committee to ask questions, they were frequently interrupted. All urged the importance of a national protection, preferring congressional action, to submitting the proposition to the popular vote of the several States. On this point Mr. Jackson of Tennessee asked many pertinent questions. Mrs. Shattuck, writing of this occasion to the Boston Transcript, said:

One of the speakers eloquently testified to the interest of many Southern women in this subject, and urged the Southern members of the committee not to declare that the women of the South do not want the ballot until they have investigated the matter. After the hearing three Southern ladies, wives of congressmen, thanked her for what she had said. The member from Mississippi showed a great deal of interest and really became quite waked up before the session ended. But, when we look at it in one light, there is something exceedingly humiliating in the thought that women representing the best intellect and the highest morality of our country, should come here in their grand old age and ask men for that which is theirs by right. Is it not time that this aristocracy of sex should be overthrown? Several of the senators were so moved by the speeches that they personally expressed their thanks, and one who has long been friendly, said the speeches were far above the average committee-hearings on any subject. We might well have replied that the reason is because all the speakers feel what they say and know that the question is one of vital importance.

In securing these hearings before this special committee of the Senate the friends feel they have reached a milestone in the progress of their reform. To secure the attention for four hours of seven representative men of the United States, must have more effect than would a hundred times that amount of time and labor expended upon their constituents. If one of these senators, for instance, should become convinced of the justice of woman's claim to the ballot, his constituency would begin to look upon that question with respect, whereas it would take years to bring that same constituency up to the position where they could elect such a representative. To convince the representatives is to sound the keynote, and it is for this reason that these hearings before the Senate committee are of such paramount importance to the suffrage cause.

At the close of the hearing Mrs. Robinson presented each member of the committee with her little volume, "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement."

January 23 the House Committee on Rules[87] gave a hearing to Mrs. Jane Graham Jones of Chicago, Mrs. May Wright Sewall and Miss Anthony. During this congress the question of admitting the territory of Dakota as a State was discussed in the Senate. Our committee stood ready to oppose it unless the word "male" were stricken from the proposed constitution.

Immediately after this most of the speakers went[88] to Philadelphia where Rachel Foster had made arrangements for a two-days convention. Rev. Charles G. Ames gave the address of welcome.

He told of his conversion to woman suffrage from the time when he believed women and men were ordained to be unequal, just as in nature the mountain is different from the valley—he looking down at her, she gazing up at him—until the time when he began to see that women are not of necessity the valleys, nor men of necessity the mountains; and so on, until now he believes women entitled to stand on an equal plane with men, socially and politically.

The President, Mrs. Stanton, responded. Hannah Whitehall Smith of Germantown, prominent in the temperance movement, spoke of the hardship of farmers' wives, and asked:

If that condition was not one of slavery which obliged a woman to rise early and cook the family breakfast while her husband lay in bed; to work all day long, and then in the evening, while he smoked his pipe or enjoyed himself at the corner grocery, to mend and patch his old clothes. But she thought the position of woman was changing for the better. Even among the Indians a better feeling is beginning to prevail. It is Indian etiquette for the man to kill the deer or bear, and leave it on the spot where it is struck down for the woman to carry home. She must drag it over the ground or carry it on her back as best she may, while he quietly awaits her coming in the family wigwam. A certain Indian, after observing that white folks did differently by their women, once resolved to follow their example. But such was the force of public opinion that, when it was discovered that he brought home his own game, both he and his wife were murdered. This shows what fearful results prejudice may bring about; and the only difference between the prejudice which ruled his tribe in regard to woman and that which rules white American men to-day, is a difference in degree, dependent upon the difference in enlightenment. The principle is the same. The result would be the same were each equally ignorant.

The familiar faces of Edward M. Davis, Mary Grew, Adeline Thompson, Sarah Pugh, Anna McDowell and two of Lucretia Mott's noble daughters, gladdened many a heart during the various sessions of the convention. Beautiful tributes were paid to Mrs. Mott by several of the speakers. The Philadelphia convention was supplemented by a most delightful social gathering, without mention of which a report of the occasion would be incomplete:

Like many historical events, this was entirely unpremeditated, no one who participated in its pleasures had any forewarning, aside from an informal invitation to lunch with Mrs. Hannah Whitehall Smith and her generous husband, both earnest friends of temperance and important allies of the woman suffrage movement. Mrs. Smith met the guests at the station in Philadelphia, tickets in hand, marshaling them to their respective seats in the cars as if born to command, and on arriving at Germantown, transferred them to carriages in waiting, with the promptness of a railroad official. Without noise or confusion one and all crossed the threshold of her well-ordered mansion, and with other invited guests were soon seated in the spacious parlor, talking in groups here and there. "Ah!" said Mrs. Smith on entering, "this will never do, think of all the good things that will be lost in these side talks. My plan is to have a general conversation, a kind of love-feast, each telling her experience. It would be pleasant to know how each has reached the same platform, through the tangled labyrinths of human life." Soon all was silence and one after another related the special incidents in childhood, girlhood and mature years that had turned her thoughts to the consideration of woman's position. The stories were as varied as they were pathetic and amusing, and were listened to amidst smiles and tears with the deepest interest. And when all[89] had finished the tender revelations of the hopes and fears, the struggles and triumphs through which each soul had passed, these sacred memories seemed to bind us anew together in a friendship that we hope may never end. A sumptuous lunch followed, and amid much gaiety and laughter the guests dispersed, giving the hospitable host and hostess a warm farewell—a day to be remembered by all of us.

Our Senate committee, through its chairman, Hon. Elbridge G. Lapham, very soon reported in favor of the submission of a sixteenth amendment. We had had a favorable minority report in the House in 1871 and in the Senate in 1879—but this was the first favorable majority report we had ever had in either house:

IN THE SENATE, MONDAY, June 5, 1882.

Mr. LAPHAM: I am instructed by the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. No. 60) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to report it with a favorable recommendation, without amendment, for the consideration of the Senate. This is a majority report, and the minority desire the opportunity to present their report also, and have printed the reasons which they give for dissenting. As this is a question of more than ordinary importance, I should like to have 1,000 extra copies of the report printed for the use of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE: I present the views of the minority of the committee, consisting of the senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jackson], the senator from Nevada [Mr. Fair], and myself.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore: It is moved that 1,000 extra copies of the report be printed for the use of the Senate.

Mr. ANTHONY: The motion should go by the statute to the Committee on Printing.

Mr. LAPHAM: I will present it in the form of a resolution for reference to the Committee on Printing.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Printing, as follows:

Resolved, That 1,000 additional copies of the report and views of the minority on Senate Joint Resolution No. 60 be printed for the use of the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage.

In the Senate of the United States, June 5, 1882, Mr. Lapham, from the Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted the following report:

The Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, to whom was referred Senate Resolution No. 60, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to secure the right of suffrage to all citizens without regard to sex, having considered the same, respectfully report:

The gravity and importance of the proposed amendment must be obvious to all who have given the subject the consideration it demands.

A very brief history of the origin of this movement in the United States and of the progress made in the cause of female suffrage will not be out of place at this time. A World's Anti-slavery Convention was held in London on June 12, 1840, to which delegates from all the organized societies were invited. Several of the American societies sent women as delegates. Their credentials were presented, and an able and exhaustive discussion was had by many of the leading men of America and Great Britain upon the question of their being admitted to seats in the convention. They were allowed no part in the discussion. They were denied seats as delegates, and, by reason of that denial, it was determined to hold conventions after their return to the United States, for the purpose of asserting and advocating their rights as citizens, and especially the right of suffrage. Prior to this, and as early as the year 1836, a proposal had been made in the legislature of the State of New York to confer upon married women their separate rights of property. The subject was under consideration and agitation during the eventful period which preceded the constitutional convention of New York in the year 1846, and the radical changes made in the fundamental law in that year. In 1848 the first act "For the More Effectual Protection of the Property of Married Women" was passed by the legislature of New York and became a law. It passed by a vote of 93 to 9 in the Assembly and 23 to 1 in the Senate. It was subsequently amended so as to authorize women to engage in business on their own account and to receive their own earnings. This legislation was the outgrowth of a bill prepared several years before under the direction of the Hon. John Savage, chief-justice of the Supreme Court, and of the Hon. John C. Spencer, one of the ablest lawyers in the State, one of the revisers of the statutes of New York, and afterward a cabinet officer. Laws granting separate rights of property and the right to transact business, similar to those adopted in New York, have been enacted in many, if not in most of the States, and may now be regarded as the settled policy of American legislation on the subject.

After the enactment of the first law in New York, as before stated, and in the month of July, 1848, the first convention demanding suffrage for women was held at Seneca Falls in said State. The same persons who had been excluded from the World's Convention in London were prominent and instrumental in calling the meeting and in framing the declaration of sentiments adopted by it, which, after reciting the unjust limitations and wrongs to which women are subjected, closed in these words:

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half of the people of this country and their social and religious degradation; in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States. In entering upon the great work before us we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this convention will be followed by a series of conventions embracing every part of the country.

The meeting also adopted a series of resolutions, one of which was in the following words:

Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.

This declaration was signed by seventy of the women of Western New York, among whom was one or more of those who addressed your committee on the subject of the pending amendment, and there were present, participating in and approving of the movement, a large number of prominent men, among whom were Elisha Foote, a lawyer of distinction, and since that time Commissioner of Patents, and the Hon. Jacob Chamberlain, who afterwards represented his district in the other House. From the movement thus inaugurated, conventions have been held from that time to the present in the principal villages, cities and capitals of the various States, as well as the capital of the nation.

The First National Convention upon the subject was held at Worcester, Mass., in October, 1850, and had the support and encouragement of many leading men of the republic, among whom we name the following: Gerrit Smith, Joshua R. Giddings, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John G. Whittier, A. Bronson Alcott, Samuel J. May, Theodore Parker, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Elizur Wright, William J. Elder, Stephen S. Foster, Horace Greeley, Oliver Johnson, Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Mann. The Fourth National Convention was held at the city of Cleveland, Ohio, October, 1853. The Rev. Asa Mahan, president of Oberlin College, and Hon. Joshua R. Giddings were there. Horace Greeley and William Henry Channing addressed letters to the convention. The letter of Mr. Channing stated the proposition to be that—

The right of suffrage be granted to the people, universally, without distinction of sex; and that the age for attaining legal and political majority be made the same for women as for men.

In 1857, Hon. Salmon P. Chase, chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, then governor of Ohio, recommended to the legislature a constitutional amendment on the subject, and a select committee of the Senate made an elaborate report, concluding with a resolution in the following words:

Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report to the Senate a bill to submit to the qualified electors, at the next general election for senators and representatives, an amendment to the constitution, whereby the elective franchise shall be extended to the citizens of Ohio without distinction of sex.

During the same year a similar report was made in the legislature of Wisconsin. From the report on the subject we quote the following:

We believe that political equality, by leading the thoughts and purposes of men and women into the same channel, will more completely carry out the designs of nature. Woman will be possessed of a positive power, and hollow compliments will be exchanged for well-grounded respect when we see her nobly discharging her part in the great intellectual and moral struggles of the age that wait their solution by a direct appeal to the ballot-box. Woman's power is at present poetical and unsubstantial; let it be practical and real. There is no reality in any power that cannot be coined in votes.

The effect of these discussions and efforts has been the gradual advancement of public sentiment towards conceding the right of suffrage without distinction of sex. In the territories of Wyoming and Utah, full suffrage has already been given. In regard to the exercise of the right in the territory of Wyoming, the present governor of that territory, Hon. John W. Hoyt, in an address delivered in Philadelphia, April 3, 1882, in answer to a question as to the operation of the law, said:

First of all, the experience of Wyoming has shown that the only actual trial of woman suffrage hitherto made—a trial made in a new country where the conditions were not exceptionably favorable—has produced none but the most desirable results. And surely none will deny that in such a matter a single ounce of experience is worth a ton of conjecture. But since it may be claimed that the sole experiment of Wyoming does not afford a sufficient guaranty of general expediency, let us see whether reason will not furnish a like answer. The great majority of women in this country already possess sufficient intelligence to enable them to vote judiciously on nearly all questions of a local nature. I think this will be conceded. Secondly, with their superior quickness of perception, it is fair to assume that when stimulated by a demand for a knowledge of political principles—such a demand as a sense of the responsibility of the voter would create—they would not be slow in rising to at least the rather low level at present occupied by the average masculine voter. So that, viewing the subject from an intellectual stand-point merely, such fears as at first spring up, drop away, one by one, and disappear. But it must not be forgotten that a very large proportion of questions to be settled by the ballot, both those of principle and such as refer to candidates, have in them a moral element which is vital. And here we are safer with the ballot in the hands of woman; for her keener insight and truer moral sense will more certainly guide her aright—and not her alone, but also, by reflex action, all whose minds are open to the influence of her example. The weight of this answer can hardly be overestimated. In my judgment, this moral consideration far more than offsets all the objections that can be based on any assumed lack of an intellectual appreciation of the few questions almost wholly commercial and economical. Last of all, a majority of questions to be voted on touch the interests of woman as they do those of man. It is upon her finer sensibilities, her purer instincts, and her maternal nature that the results of immorality and vice in every form fall with more crushing weight.

A criticism has been made upon the exercise of this right by the women of Utah that the plural wives in that territory are under the control of their polygamous husbands. Be that as it may, it is an undoubted fact that there is probably no city of equal size on this continent where there is less disturbance of the peace, or where the citizen is more secure in his person or property, either by day or night, than in the city of Salt Lake. A qualified right of suffrage has also been given to women in Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kentucky, and New York. Of the operation of the law in the last-named State, Governor Cornell in a message to the legislature on May 12, said:

The recent law, 1882, making women eligible as school trustees, has produced admirable results, not only in securing the election of many of them as trustees of schools, but especially in elevating the qualifications of men proposed as candidates for school-boards, and also in stimulating greater interest in the management of schools generally. The effect of these new experiences is to widen the influence and usefulness of women.

So well satisfied are the representatives in the legislature of that State with these results that the assembly, by a large majority, recently passed to a third reading an act giving the full right of suffrage to women, the passage of which has been arrested in the Senate by an opinion of the attorney-general that a constitutional amendment is necessary to accomplish the object. In England women are allowed to vote at all municipal elections, and hold the office of guardian of the poor. In four States, Nebraska, Indiana, Oregon, and Iowa, propositions have passed their legislatures and are now pending, conferring the right of suffrage upon women.

Notwithstanding all these efforts, it is the opinion of the best informed men and women, who have devoted more than a third of a century to the consideration and discussion of the subject, that an amendment to the federal constitution, analogous to the fifteenth amendment of that instrument, is the most safe, direct, and expeditious mode of settling the question. It is the question of the enfranchisement of half the race now denied the right, and that, too, the most favored half in the estimation of those who deny the right. Petitions, from time to time, signed by many thousands, have been presented to congress, and there are now upon our files seventy-five petitions representing eighteen different States. Two years ago treble the number of petitions, representing over twenty-five States, were presented.

If congress should adopt the pending resolution, the question would go before the intelligent bodies who are chosen to represent the people in the legislatures of the various States, and would receive a more enlightened and careful consideration than if submitted to the masses of the male population, with all their prejudices, in the form of an amendment to the constitutions of the several States. Besides, such an amendment, if adopted, would secure that uniformity in the exercise of the right which could not be expected by action from the several States. We think the time has arrived for the submission of such an amendment to the legislatures of the States. We know the prejudices which the movement for suffrage to all without regard to sex, had to encounter from the very outset, prejudices which still exist in the minds of many. The period for employing the weapons of ridicule and enmity has not yet passed. Now, as in the beginning, we hear appeals to prejudice and the baser passions of men. The anathema, "woe betide the hand that plucks the wizard beard of hoary error," is yet employed to deter men from acting upon their convictions as to what ought to be done with reference to this great question. To those who are inclined to cast ridicule upon the movement, we quote the answer made while one of the early conventions was in session in the State of New York:

A collection of women arguing for political rights and for the privileges usually conceded only to the other sex is one of the easiest things in the world to make fun of. There is no end to the smart speeches and the witty remarks that may be made on the subject. But when we seriously attempt to show that a woman who pays taxes ought not to have a voice in the manner in which the taxes are expended, that a woman whose property and liberty and person are controlled by the laws should have no voice in framing those laws, it is not so easy. If women are fit to rule in a monarchy, it is difficult to say why they are not qualified to vote in a republic; nor can there be greater indelicacy in a woman going to the ballot-box than there is in a woman opening a legislature or issuing orders to an army.

To all who are more serious in their opposition to the movement, we would remind them of the words of a few distinguished men:—

I go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist in bearing its burdens, by no means excluding women.—[ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

I believe that the vices in our large cities will never be conquered until the ballot is put into the hands of women.—[Bishop SIMPSON.

I do not think our politics will be what it ought to be till women are legislators and voters.—[Rev. JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE.

Women have quite as much interest in good government as men, and I have never heard or read of any satisfactory reason for excluding them from the ballot-box; I have no more doubt of their ameliorating influence upon politics than I have of the influence they exert everywhere else.—[GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS.

In view of the terrible corruption of our politics, people ask, can we maintain universal suffrage? I say no, not without women. The only bear-gardens in our community are the town-meeting and the caucus. Why is this? Because these are the only places at which women are not present.—[Bishop GILBERT HAVEN.

I repeat my conviction of the right of woman suffrage. Because suffrage is a right and not a grace, it should be extended to women who bear their share of the public cost, and who have the same interest that I have in the selection of officials and the making of laws which affect their lives, their property, and their happiness.—[Governor LONG of Massachusetts.

However much the giving of political power to woman may disagree with our notions of propriety, we conclude that, being required by that first prerequisite to greater happiness, the law of equal freedom, such a concession is unquestionably right and good.—[HERBERT SPENCER.

In the administration of a State neither a woman as a woman, nor a man as a man has any special functions, but the gifts are equally diffused in both sexes. The same opportunity for self-development which makes man a good guardian will make woman a good guardian, for their original nature is the same.—[PLATO.

It has become a custom, almost universal, to invite and to welcome the presence of women at political assemblages, to listen to discussions upon the topics involved in the canvass. Their presence has done much toward the elevation, refinement, and freedom from insincerity and hypocrisy, of such discussions. Why would not the same results be wrought out by their presence at the ballot-box? Wherever the right has been exercised by law, both in England and this country, such has been its effect in the conduct of elections.

The framers of our system of government embodied in the Declaration of Independence the statement that to secure the rights which are therein declared to be inalienable and in respect to which all men are created equal, "governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The system of representative government they inaugurated can only be maintained and perpetuated by allowing all citizens to give that consent through the medium of the ballot-box—the only mode in which the "consent of the governed" can be obtained. To deny to one-half of the citizens of the republic all participation in framing the laws by which they are to be governed, simply on account of their sex, is political despotism to those who are excluded, and "taxation without representation" to such of them as have property liable to taxation. Their investiture with separate estates leads, logically and necessarily, to their right to the ballot as the only means afforded them for the protection of their property, as it is the only means of their full protection in the enjoyment of the immeasurably greater right to life and liberty. To be governed without such consent is clear denial of a right declared to be inalienable.

It is said that the majority of women do not desire and would not exercise the right, if acknowledged. The assertion rests in conjecture. In ordinary elections multitudes of men do not exercise the right. It is only in extraordinary cases, and when their interests and patriotism are appealed to, that male voters are with unanimity found at the polls. It would doubtless be the same with women. In the exceptional instances in which the exercise of the right has been permitted, they have engaged with zeal in every important canvass. Even if the statement were founded in fact, it furnishes no argument in favor of excluding women from the exercise of the franchise. It is the denial of the right of which they complain. There are multitudes of men whose vote can be purchased at an election for the smallest and most trifling consideration. Yet all such would spurn with scorn and unutterable contempt a proposition to purchase their right to vote, and no consideration would be deemed an equivalent for such a surrender. Women are more sensitive upon this question than men, and so long as this right, deemed by them to be sacred, is denied, so long the agitation which has marked the progress of this contest thus far will be continued.

Entertaining these views, your committee report back the proposed resolution without amendment for the consideration of the Senate, and recommend its passage.

E. G. LAPHAM, T. M. FERRY, H. W. BLAIR.

The constitution is wisely conservative in the provision for its own amendment. It is eminently proper that whenever a large number of the people have indicated a desire for an amendment, the judgment of the amending power should be consulted. In view of the extensive agitation of the question of woman suffrage, and the numerous and respectable petitions that have been presented to congress in its support, I unite with the committee in recommending that the proposed amendment be submitted to the States.

H. B. ANTHONY.

June 5, 1882, Mr. George, from the Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted the following views of the minority:

The undersigned are unable to concur in the report of the majority recommending the adoption of the joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, for reasons which they will now proceed to state.

We do not base our dissent upon any ground having relation to the expediency or inexpediency of vesting in women the right to vote. Hence we shall not discuss the very grave and important social and political questions which have arisen from the agitation to admit to equal political rights the women of our country, and to impose on them the burden of discharging, equally with men, political and public duties. Whether so radical a change in our political and social system would advance the happiness and welfare of the American people, considered as a whole, without distinction of sex, is a question on which there is a marked disagreement among the most enlightened and thoughtful of both sexes. Its solution involves considerations so intimately pertaining to all the relations of social and private life—the family circle—the status of women as wives, mothers, daughters, and companions, to the functions in private and public life which they ought to perform, and their ability and willingness to perform them—the harmony and stability of marriage, and the division of the labors and cares of that union—that we are convinced that the proper and safe discussion and weighing of them would be best secured by deliberations in the separate communities which have so deep an interest in the rightful solution of this grave question. Great organic changes in government, especially when they involve, as this proposed change does, a revolution in the modes of life, long-standing habits, and the most sacred domestic relations of the people, should result only upon the demand of the people, who are to be affected by them. Such changes should originate with, and be molded and guided in their operation and extent by, the people themselves. They should neither precede their demand for them, nor be delayed in opposition to their clearly expressed wishes. Their happiness, their welfare, their advancement, are the sole objects of the institution of government; of these they are not only the best, but they are the exclusive judges. They have commissioned us to exercise for their good the great powers which they have intrusted to us by their letter of attorney, the constitution; not to assume to ourselves a superior wisdom, or usurp a guardianship over them, dictating reforms not demanded by them, and attempting to grasp power not granted.

The organization of our political institutions is such that the great mass of the powers of government, the proper exercise of which so deeply concerns the welfare of the people, is left to the States. In that depository the will of the people is most certainly ascertained, and the exercise of power is more directly under their guidance. Our free institutions have had their great development and owe their stability more to causes connected with the direct exercise of the power of the people in local self-government than to all other causes combined. Recent events, though tending strongly to centralization, have not destroyed in the public mind the inestimable value of local self-government. Among the powers which have hitherto been esteemed as most essential to the public welfare is the power of the States to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way; and among those institutions none has been preserved by the States with greater jealousy than their absolute control over marriage and the relation between the sexes.

Another power of the States, deemed by the people when they assented to the Constitution of the United States most essential to the public welfare, was the right of each State to determine the qualifications of electors. Wherever the federal constitution speaks of elections for a federal office, it adopts the qualifications for electors prescribed by the State in which the election is to be held.

Nor has this fundamental rule been departed from in the fifteenth amendment. That impairs it only to the extent that race, color, or previous condition of servitude shall not be made a ground of exclusion from the right of suffrage. In all else that pertains to the qualifications of electors the absolute will of the State prevails. This amendment was inserted from considerations which pertain to no other part of the question of suffrage. The negro race had been recently emancipated; it was supposed that the antagonism between them and their old masters and the prejudice of race would be such as to obstruct the equal enjoyment of the rights of freedom conferred by the national forces, and would prevent the white race of the South from admitting the negro race, however deserving it might be, to equal political privileges. And, moreover, it was deemed by the North a point of honor that, having conferred freedom on the negro, he should be provided with the right of suffrage.

None of these considerations applies in the present case. It is not pretended that any such antagonism or prejudice exists between the sexes. It is not pretended that women have been redeemed from an intolerable slavery by the power of the government. It is not pretended that the sex in whose hands is the political power of the States is unwilling, from any cause, to do full justice to the other; for it is conceded that if the proposed amendment should be adopted, its incorporation into the constitution must result from the voluntary action of that sex in which is vested this political power. No good reason has been given why the congress of the United States should force or even hasten the States into such action, and no such reason can be given without a reversal of the theories on which our free institutions are based.

The history given by the majority, of the legislation of the several States in relation to the rights of persons and property of married women showing as it does a steady advance in the abolition of their common-law disabilities, conclusively demonstrates that this question may be safely left for solution where it now is and has always hitherto belonged. The public mind is now being agitated in many of the States as to the rights of women, not only as to suffrage, but as to their engaging in the various employments from which they have hitherto been excluded. This exclusion from certain employments has not been the result of municipal but of social laws—the strongest of all human regulations. As these social laws have been modified, so the sphere of woman's activities and usefulness has been enlarged. These social laws are in the main the groundwork of the exclusion of women from the right of suffrage. In the establishment of these laws, as in their modification, women themselves have even a greater influence than men. Their disability to vote is, therefore, self-imposed; when they shall will otherwise, it is not too much to say that the disability will no longer exist. If in the future it shall be found that these laws deny a right to women the enjoyment of which they desire, and for the exercise of which they are qualified, it cannot be doubted that they will give way. If, on the contrary, neither of these shall be discovered, it will happen that the exclusion of suffrage will not be considered as a denial of a right, but as an exemption granted to women from cares and burdens which a tender and affectionate regard for womanhood refuses to cast on them.

We are convinced, therefore, that the best mode of disposing of the question is to leave its solution to that power most amenable to the influences and usages of society in which women have so large and so potential a share, confident that at no distant day a right result will be reached in each State which will be satisfactory to both sexes and perfectly consistent with the welfare and happiness of the people. Certainly this must be so if the people themselves, the source and foundation of all power, are capable of self-government.

At two of its meetings the committee listened with great pleasure to several eminent ladies who appeared before it as advocates of the proposed amendment. At none of the meetings of the committee, including that at which the members voted on the proposed amendment, was there any discussion of this important subject; none was asked for or desired by any member of the committee, and the vote was taken. The reports of the majority and of the minority of the committee are therefore to be construed only as the individual opinions of the members who respectively concur in them. They are in no sense to be treated as the judgment of a deliberative body charged with the examination of this important subject.

The foregoing leads us to but one recommendation: that the committee should be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, that the resolution raising it be rescinded, and that the proposed amendment be rejected.

J. Z. GEORGE, HOWELL E. JACKSON, JAMES G. FAIR.

In a letter from Miss Caroline Biggs to the president of the National Association the following congratulations came from the friends of suffrage in England:

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR } WOMAN SUFFRAGE, 64 Berners Street, LONDON, W. }

At a meeting of the Executive Committee, on May 18, 1882, the following resolution was proposed by Mrs. Lucas, seconded by Miss Jane Cobden, and passed unanimously:

Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the National Society for Woman Suffrage have heard with hearty satisfaction that a select committee of the United States Senate in Washington has passed by a majority of votes the recommendation to adopt a constitutional amendment in favor of women's suffrage. They feel that the cause of woman is one in all countries, and they offer their most cordial congratulations to the women of America on the important step which has just been gained, and their warmest good-wishes for a speedy success in obtaining a measure which will guarantee justice and equal rights to half the population of a sister country.

Nebraska now became the center of interest, as a constitutional amendment to secure the right of suffrage to woman was submitted to be voted upon in the November election. As the submission of such a proposition makes an important crisis in the history of a State, as well as in the suffrage movement, the notes of preparation were as varied as multitudinous throughout the nation, rousing all to renewed earnestness in the work. Both the American and National associations decided to hold their annual conventions in Omaha, the chief city of the State, and to support as many speakers[90] as possible through the campaign, that meetings might be held and tracts distributed in every county of the State, an Herculean undertaking, as Nebraska comprises 230,000 inhabitants scattered over an area of 76,000 square miles, divided into sixty-six counties; and yet this is what the friends of the measure proposed to do. The American Association[91] held its convention September 12, 13, 14. The National[92] continued three days, September 27, 28, 29.

The Opera House, in which the National Association held its meeting, was completely filled during all the sessions. The address of welcome was given by Hon. A. J. Poppleton, one of the most distinguished lawyers in that State. He said:

I deem it no light compliment that, in the face of an explicit declaration that I am not in favor of woman suffrage, I have been asked to make, on behalf of the people of Omaha and the State, an address of welcome to the many distinguished men and women whom this occasion has brought together. Doubtless the consideration shown me is a recognition of the fact that I have been a life-long advocate of the advancement of women through the agencies of equality in education, equality in employment, equality in wages, equality in property-rights and personal liberty, in short, a fair, open, equal field in the struggle for life. That I cannot go beyond this and embrace equal suffrage, is due rather to long adherence to the political philosophy of Edmund Burke than any lack of conviction of the absolute equality of men and women in natural rights.

In the winter of 1852-3, when a student at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., while the spot on which we now stand was Indian country as yet untouched by the formative power of national legislation, I listened to Miss Susan B. Anthony, Miss Antoinette Brown and others in the advocacy of the rights of women. It seems a strange fortune that brings now, nearly thirty years after, one of those speakers, crowned with a national reputation, into a State carved out of that Indian country and containing 60,000 people, in advocacy of equal suffrage for her sex. This single fact proclaims in thunder tones the bravery, the fidelity, the devotion of these pioneers of reform, and challenges for them the sympathy, respect, esteem and admiration of every good man and woman in America.

The thirty years commencing about 1850 have been prolific of momentous changes. It is the era of the sewing machine, of the domestication of steam and electricity, the overthrow of the great rebellion, the destruction of slavery, the consolidation of the German empire, the fall of the second Napoleon, the birth of the French republic, the incorporation of India into the British empire, and the revolution of commerce by the Pacific railways and the Suez canal. Great changes have likewise taken place in the structure of our own State and national legislation, the most conspicuous and pronounced result being the centralization of power in the federal government. It has been preeminently a period of amelioration, a long stride in the direction of tolerance of opinion, belief, speech and creed. Hospitals, asylums, schools, colleges and the manifold agencies of an advanced Christian civilization for alleviating the average lot of humanity, have grown and multiplied beyond the experience of former times, and men like Matthew Vassar, George Peabody and John Hopkins have hastened to consecrate the abundant fruits of honorable lives to the exaltation and advancement of the race.

But in no direction have greater changes occurred in this country than in the condition of woman in respect to employment, wages, personal and property rights. In all heathen countries at this hour the mass of women are slaves or worse, wholly deprived of civil rights. In most Christian countries their legal status is one of absolute subordination in person and property to men. In this republic alone have we attained an altitude where some small measure of justice is meted out to women by the laws. In 1850 a fair measure of her rights was the grim edict of the common law holding her in guardianship prior to marriage, and upon marriage making her and all her possessions practically the property of her husband, while a cruel, unreasonable and vicious public opinion excluded her from all except menial and ill-paid service. One by one and year by year these barriers have given way, until in many States her property and personal rights enjoy the complete shelter of the law. Now more than half the occupations and employments of this age of industrial activity and progress are thronged with the faithful, efficient and contented labor of women.

The law has broken forever the thraldom of an odious and hopeless marriage by reasonable laws for divorce for just cause, given her the custody of her children, vested her with the absolute power of disposition and control over her property, inherited or acquired, freed it from the claims of her husband's creditors, and clothed her with ample legal remedies even against her husband. Perhaps Nebraska alone of all the States, by its court of last resort, has upheld the power of the wife to make contracts with her husband and enforce them against him in her own name by the appropriate legal remedies. This surely is progress. Beyond this there lies but one field to win or fortress to reduce. Then surely the worn soldier in the long campaign crowned with the garlands of victory may rest from the battle.

Not many years ago, coming from Wisconsin, I think, a girl presented herself in the Illinois courts for admission to the bar, and after a rigid and unsparing examination she was admitted with public compliment. She took an office in the great city of Chicago and in the short remnant of an uncertain life so wrought in her profession as to attain an average professional income, and win the undivided respect and esteem of her professional associates. And when from a far country, whither she had gone in hope to escape a fell disease, her lifeless corpse was brought back for sepulture, many of the foremost lawyers of Chicago gathered about her bier and bore emphatic testimony to her virtues as a woman and her attainments as a lawyer. To me no greater work has been done by any American woman. When Alta Hulett unobtrusively, silently but indomitably pressed her way to the front of the legal profession, and established herself there, she vindicated the right of her sex to contend for the highest prizes of life, and left her countrywomen a legacy which will ultimately blazon her name imperishably in the history of the advancement of women; and every American woman who, like her, goes to the front of any honorable occupation, employment or profession, and stays there, becomes her coaedjutor in work and a sharer in her reward.