History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 2/Chapter 24
CHAPTER XXIV.
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 1873, 74, 75.
The fifth Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January 16th and 17th, 1873. The President, Miss Anthony, in opening, said:
Again, there are two ways of securing the right of suffrage under the Constitution as it is; one by a declaratory act of Congress instructing the officers of election to receive the votes of women, the other in appeals to the courts by instituting suits as women have already done, in order to secure a judicial decision on the broad interpretation of the Constitution "that all persons are citizens, and all citizens voters." The vaults in yonder Capitol hold the petitions of many thousands of women for a Declaratory Act, and the calendars of our courts show that many are already testing their right to vote under the XIV. Amendment. I stand here under indictment for having exercised my right as a citizen to vote at the last election; and by a fiction of the law, I am now in custody, and not free on this platform.
A series of resolutions[1] were reported, and discussed at great length. After the appointment of committees,* Matilda Joslyn Gage made the annual report. She said:
Though the casual observer might think but little progress had been made during the year, this is not the fact. There has been in many ways a marked advance, and although I do not claim to have a complete and exact record, I would mention points which have come under my notice.
Soon after the opening of the last session of Congress several important bills were introduced. The Hon. Mr. Hoar introduced a bill against Territorial disfranchisement, which, as women vote in two Territories, was a bill having an important bearing upon this question of suffrage. About the same time, the Hon. Mr. Butler introduced a bill for a Declaratory Law to protect women citizens in their right to vote. During the progress of our annual Convention in January last, a memorial was presented, and a hearing obtained before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The speeches made by women at that time have been printed in pamphlet form, and extensively circulated throughout the nation. Within a few days after this hearing, a petition, containing 35,000 names, was presented to the House by the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler. During his remarks upon this occasion his coadjutors left their seats and pressed around him, so anxious were.they to hear, until, in order to give all an equal chance, the Speaker was forced to call to order.
The Hon. Matt. Carpenter made an elaborate argument before the Supreme Court, in the Myra Bradwell case. Mrs. Bradwell, as is well known, is the editor of a paper, entitled the Legal News, which is ably conducted, and accepted as authority by the profession. Mrs. Bradwell, upon applying for admission to the bar in Illinois, found her husband a "legal disability," and carried her case up to the Supreme Court. This argument was also published and circulated in pamphlet form.
The Hon. Mr. Munroe, member from Indiana, presented a petition from the women of that State, praying for the removal of political disabilities; and in the Senate Mr. Wilson introduced a bill to allow women to hold office in the Territories.
In February an argument was made before the Senate Military Committee in behalf of women who served in the army. Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren argued in person before a Congressional committee, in reference to moneys due her deceased husband.⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
Mrs. Lockwood and Mrs. Spencer both gave interesting statements in regard to women voting in the District of Columbia, and ably argued their right to do so under the National Constitution. Mrs. Lockwood introduced the following resolution:
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:
We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, being deprived of some of the privileges and immunities of citizens, among which is the right to vote, beg leave to submit the following resolution:
Resolved, That we, the officers and members of the National Woman Suffrage Association, in convention assembled, respectfully ask Congress to enact appropriate legislation, during its present session, to protect women citizens in the several States of this Union in their right to vote.
Francis Miller, Esq. said that he had one reason for congratulation in being engaged in the suit with Mr. Riddle, as it gave him an opportunity to do something for the women of his country. Under the XIV. Amendment he contended that women had the right to vote, and no lawyer that read the amendment could decide in any other way.
It was not true that the cohorts of this issue had been defeated every time, but it was true that they had gained two victories. Chief-Justice Cartter had decided that woman was a full citizen, and had not the right to vote, simply because they had not passed a law necessary for the purpose. If the XIV. Amendment did not confer suffrage they must go through the States with a new amendment, and fight a battle in each. He thought that very obscure ideas prevailed on the subject. How could anyone that had no self-government enjoy any inalienable right? It was said that the ballot was a creature of legislation, consequently not natural. This was an absurdity. There was no way in the world for a man to govern himself except by the ballot. To deny any one the only means of exercising that right is a wrong before heaven and should be redressed. He did not propose to go into a legal argument; the best of his ability has been expended in the cause, and is before the public.
At the evening session Mrs. Gage gave the following address:
Let us look back a hundred years. The War of the Revolution commenced merely as a rebellion of the Colonies against the Nation to which they belonged. Though all were located on the continent of America, each colony was under its own charter, separate and distinct from every other one. Each colony resisted what it deemed to be acts of oppression against itself. Therefore, the War of the Revolution began as the resistance of individual colonies, but with the progress of this resistance grew up a feeling of united interests, and in 1774 eleven of these colonies, and a portion of the twelfth, connected themselves under certain articles of association. The colonies still considered themselves as belonging to the British Empire, and in these articles avowed their allegiance to His Majesty, George the Third. Although we date the birth of our nation two years later, our nationality actually dates back to these articles of association, for the colonies bound themselves as one in regard to non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption; the first two pledges having National bearing as regarded commerce, and the last one regulating internal affairs in a National manner. This course of the colonies made them one, and has had a bearing on our every step since, even up to this day of grace, January 17, 1873. Resolutions of independence and freedom from all control of Great Britain were introduced into the Colonial Congress in June, 1776, and the committee which was then appointed to draft a declaration of independent government was required to base it upon the first resolution of the June declaration of rights, which said, "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent," etc. The veriest school-boy needs not to be told the date of this instrument, which we are fond of terming the "Great Charter of our Liberties;" yet even professed statesmen, from that day to this, have seemingly forgotten that this declaration was agreed to, and signed by the already United Colonies in their Congress assembled, and issued as the action of "one people." No new Congress met; the declaration was not the act of single colonies, or states, but the act of already united colonies, or states, and in this instrument we first find our National name of United States.
The members of Congress did not sign this declaration as New Yorkers, or Virginians, or New Englanders, but as Americans. Nor was it referred to different colonies for approbation, but on that very Fourth of July, 1776, Congress, with already National authority, flung to the world the announcement that these united colonies were a Nation, and ordered that copies of the declaration should be sent to the several colonial assemblies, conventions, councils of safety, and to each of the commanding officers of the Continental troops, and that it should be proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the head of the army. We see, therefore, that the Declaration of Independence, in being truly National, was wholly centralizing—and much more so than any act since, and is therefore the truest basis of our liberties.
Our age has annihilated space; danger lies in darkness and distance. With every newspaper, every railroad, every line of telegraph, danger from centralized National power grows less. With the newspaper, the railroad, the telegraph, the course of the government is constantly before our eyes The reporter penetrates everywhere, the lightning flashes everywhere, and before plans are scarcely formed here in Washington, the miner of California, the lumberman of Maine, and the cotton-grower of Carolina are passing opinions and interchanging views upon them with their neighbors. The increase of education in the common schools, and the vast private correspondence of the country, too, help to put the proceedings of the government under the cognizance of the whole people. Our danger lies elsewhere, and to clearly see it we must still look back to the early history of our Nation. For a few months after the Declaration of Independence, our new-born republic worked under a common sentiment, for a common interest; but ultimately self-interest prompted the claim of "State Rights." This doctrine was, by wise men, seen to be utterly destructive to the government, and in the second year of our independence it became necessary to fight this State-right doctrine, and the second step was taken in centralization, by the Articles of Confederation, which were declared to make the Union perpetual, and States were forbidden to coin money, establish their own weights and measures, their own post-offices, and forbidden to do many other things which, by right, belong to independent self-controlling States.
So anxious was the Nation to set its own power upon a firm basis, entirely over and above that of the States, that back in these articles of confederation we find the term "privileges and immunities," that vexed phrase in the present discussion. In the fourth article, the inhabitants of each State were declared to be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens of the several States, etc. These articles, unlike the declaration, were made dependent upon ratification by the Legislatures of the several States, which was not fully accomplished till 1781.
For awhile all went merry as a marriage bell. Power had been further centralized, and the Nation felt secure. But there had been left a little loophole, which was destined to create State claims in defiance of the general government. Congress soon found that under the articles of confederation the limitation of States was more theoretical than practical. It found that though, in a general way, the United States possessed national powers, as over boundaries, peace and war, the issue of money, the establishment of post-offices, etc., yet in the very necessary matter of revenue, and the regulation of trade and commerce, it was powerless against the States. The old form of the confederation was found insufficient to secure the full independence of the United States as a Nation, and in the very year that the articles were fully adopted, and before the last State had given its adherence (1781), a member of Congress from New Jersey moved a recommendation to the States to invest Congress with additional means of paying the public debt and prosecuting the war of the Revolution, by laying duties on imports and prize goods.
This proposition at once roused opposition, and it is well to remember that it did not first come from a Southern State. "State rights" is not a peculiar Southern doctrine. South Carolina was not the original nullifying State. It was Rhode Island, which then, as to-day, set at defiance national authority, and asserted her right to control her own internal affairs. The New England States, which claim to lead the Union in all that is grand and good, must be made to bear the shame of the evils into which they have also led. Even John C. Calhoun learned his first State rights lessons in Connecticut and Massachusetts of the most eminent men; of President Dwight when a student in Yale college, and Theophilus Parsons, with whom he read law in Massachusetts. When Rhode Island, in 1781, refused to comply with the recommendations of Congress in regard to levying duties on imports and prizes, she looked only at her own interests as a sea-board State. The address of her Assembly to Congress, through Hon. William Bradshaw, gave reasons of purely local self-interest for her refusal; but her State selfishness was seen by the patriots of the hour not to be even that of an enlightened State-interest, and Congress at once declared there "could be no general security, no confidence in the Nation, at home or abroad, if its actions were under the constant revisal of thirteen different deliberations."
It therefore became necessary to take another step in the centralization of power, and let it be remembered that every such successive step we have traced was taken in the interests of liberty, and for the benefit of the whole people. The Nation has acted in the defense of its citizens against the tyranny of States. We are not first citizens of Rhode Island, or South Carolina, but, if we belong to the Nation at all, we are first parts of that Nation. I am first a citizen of the United States, then a citizen of the State of New York, then a citizen of Onondaga county in that State, and then a citizen of the town of Manlius, and lastly, a citizen of the village of Fayetteville. That every person born or naturalized in the Nation, is first a citizen of the Nation, must be borne in mind, for upon that depend the liberties of every man, woman and child in the Nation, black or white, native or foreign. Although Rhode Island led in State rights, she had many followers, as only four States complied with the recommendation of Congress to invest that body with more powers for collecting the revenue and prosecuting the war. This non-compliance led to active debate. In regard to the public debt it was said, "That it must, once for all, be defined and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to each other, and not revocable by any, without a breach of the general compact." If a feeling of insecurity existed in regard to the property interests of the Nation when but thirteen legislative bodies assumed their control, how much greater is the insecurity of our personal interests if they are, as is assumed, under the control of thirty-seven separate legislative bodies, and subject to their constant revision?
The controversy soon based itself upon the security of human rights. It was said that it "had ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature," that "the citizens of the United States were responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society," and that it was for "the people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the Federal Government was instituted, to decide whether they would support their rank as a Nation." Virginia and New York ultimately led in the proceeding which caused the formation of the Constitution; New York, through her Legislature, declaring that the radical source of the government embarrassments lay in the want of sufficient power in Congress, and she suggested a convention for the purpose of establishing a firm National government. Out of this agitation grew the Constitution of the United States, which was the third great step in the centralization of power, and let it be remembered that every such successive step we have traced was taken in the interests of liberty, and for the benefit of the whole people. The Nation has acted in the defense of its citizens against the tyranny of States. We are not first citizens of Rhode Island, or South Carolina, but, if we belong to the Nation at all, we are first parts of that Nation. I am first a citizen of the United States, then a citizen of the State of New York, then a citizen of Onondaga county in that State, and then a citizen of the town of Manlius, and lastly, a citizen of the village of Fayetteville. That every person born or naturalized in the Nation, is first a citizen of the Nation, must be borne in mind, for upon that depend the liberties of every man, woman and child in the Nation, black or white, native or foreign. Although Rhode Island led in State rights, she had many followers, as only four States complied with the recommendation of Congress to invest that body with more powers for collecting the revenue and prosecuting the war. This non-compliance led to active debate. In regard to the public debt it was said, "That it must, once for all, be defined and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to each other, and not revocable by any, without a breach of the general compact." If a feeling of insecurity existed in regard to the property interests of the Nation when but thirteen legislative bodies assumed their control, how much greater is the insecurity of our personal interests if they are, as is assumed, under the control of thirty-seven separate legislative bodies, and subject to their constant revision?
The controversy soon based itself upon the security of human rights. It was said that it "had ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature," that "the citizens of the United States were responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society," and that it was for "the people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the Federal Government was instituted, to decide whether they would support their rank as a Nation." Virginia and New York ultimately led in the proceeding which caused the formation of the Constitution; New York, through her Legislature, declaring that the radical source of the government embarrassments lay in the want of sufficient power in Congress, and she suggested a convention for the purpose of establishing a firm National government. Out of this agitation grew the Constitution of the United States, which was the third great step in the centralization[Pg 527] of power. The pride and the boast of this country has been more fully centered, if possible, on the Constitution than on the Declaration, and yet the Constitution was not framed until eleven years after our existence as a Nation—not ratified by the whole of the original States until about fourteen years after we had taken rank as a free and independent people—Rhode Island being the last State to give her adherence—and it was expressly framed and adopted in order to centralize power, and to destroy the State rights doctrine.
Washington himself, in transmitting, as President of the Convention, the Constitution to Congress, said: "It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all," and in the deliberations of the Convention upon the subject, they kept steadily in view that which appeared to them "the greatest of every true American—the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, safety, and, perhaps, our National existence." Thus we see not only the desire of the originators of the Constitution to strengthen the National power by that instrument, but we also have the views of Washington himself in regard to the necessity of consolidating power in the Nation.
The various amendments to the Constitution have been adopted with the intent of further defining and securing National power. The first ten, which were called the conciliatory amendments, were suggested in the conventions of a number of the States at the very time of adopting the Constitution. The first Congress which met thereafter proposed twelve amendments, of which ten were adopted in 1791, only two years after the full adoption of the Constitution. These ten amendments secured religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right of people to be secure in their houses, trials by jury, etc. All of them centralizing power in the National hands, and at the same time securing broader liberty to the people. These amendments were passed at the first session of the First Congress. An eleventh amendment was proposed by the Third National Congress in 1794, and declared ratified in 1798, thus making eleven amendments to the Constitution in the short space of seven years. In 1803 a twelfth amendment was proposed by the Eighth Congress, and ratified in 1804.
We pass now over quite a space of time, in which the National power and State power retained their relative positions to each other. Perhaps in no better place can I mention two constantly existing, yet diverse tendencies in the people of the United States, which are well-defined in the minds of but few persons. There are two kinds of centralized power, one dangerous to liberty, and the other fortifying and securing liberty. The dangerous is that which has grown to such dimensions in the various States, multiplying legislation and regulating each petty local concern within its borders, down to a village cemetery. This has led to that destruction of liberty—a multiplication of statutes which have scarcely been recorded ere a second legislative body has annulled them. Each State has, in fact, been an immense centralized power; and as bitter as has been the South against centralized National power, we have in it seen a most imperious, tyrannical exercise of centralized power under the specious name of State rights. The evil is such a constantly increasing one under the old constitutions, that they are being revised in many States with special intent to check this centralizing tendency. New York has now a commission sitting, and Pennsylvania a convention in session, for the purpose of revising their constitutions, and attention has been especially directed to this dangerous feature of State centralization. The new constitution of Illinois limits the passage of special laws by its legislature to certain specified subjects, leaving all local interests in the hands of local corporations. The need of the hour—and, in fact, I may say the new tendency of the hour—is toward diffused power within the limits of States in matters pertaining solely and entirely to their small or local interests.
The centralization that fortifies and secures liberty is National centralization, which we have traced through six steps since 1776, and which has, within the last ten years, received a new impetus by the XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments, and which, as they successively followed each other at short intervals, may be termed the seventh, eighth, and ninth steps in centralization. By and through these three amendments the Nation fortified and enlarged its powers in reference to personal rights. It defined citizenship; it secured the exercise of the ballot—and we can not fail to see that in these last three centralizing steps, it more broadly than ever before enlarged the bounds of liberty. The protection of citizens of the Nation, by the Nation, is the national duty.
This is the second tendency of which I spoke. Most persons who have been awake to the evils of State centralization, have applied the same rules of judgment to National centralization. The two are dissimilar as are darkness and light. State centralization is tyranny; National centralization is freedom. State centralization means special laws; National centralization means general laws. The continued habit of States to make laws for every part of their own boundaries brought to the surface the "State rights" theory which precipitated upon us our civil war. States had become so absolute in themselves that out of it grew the feeling of absoluteness in regard to the Nation. But is it not strange that after the late sad experience there can still be found people so stupid as not to see that the security of individual citizens of the Nation in matters pertaining to their personal political rights, does lie, and in the very fact of our Nationality must lie, in National power superior to State power? The corner-stone of our Nation is political equality. Our ancestors came here for civil and religious freedom. To secure political freedom they formed themselves into a Nation; if the United States has no power to protect its citizens it is not a Nation.
The eighth step in centralization, the XIV. Amendment, specifically declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States, and of the States in which they reside." Notwithstanding this plain language—notwithstanding the corner-stone of this Nation is political equality—notwithstanding the chief right of citizenship in this country is a right to share in making its laws—notwithstanding the Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, yet 10,000 naturalized citizens of the United States have, during this session of Congress, petitioned that body for protection of their rights as citizens of the United States against the State in which they live.
"State rights" is again rearing its head. Rhode Island is again raising her hand against National power. She again assumes to be superior to the United States. All foreign-born citizens of that State, not possessed of a freehold estate of $134 value, or property amounting to an annual rental of $7, are, by State law, forbidden to vote. These men were naturalized under a law of the United States, not under a law of Rhode Island. The United States not only made them citizens, but expressly in the XIV. Amendment declares them to be citizens, and yet little Rhode Island presumes to be stronger than the United States.
Here again arises what I have shown to be the question of the hour. Is the United States a Nation? If it does not possess powers to protect its own citizens it is not a Nation. Citizens of the United States are entitled to protection, whether they are robbed of their liberties in a Spanish dungeon, or in the States of Rhode Island or New York. The Judiciary Committee of Congress has reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island. Does Congress intend to sustain State Rights? What better is it for those 10,000 men that they became naturalized? If they are first citizens of the United States, as the XIV. Amendment declares, they should be protected in their rights of citizenship by the United States against the States, and their thirty-seven isolated methods of legislation. This adverse report of the Judiciary Committee in regard to the 10,000 disfranchised men of Rhode Island, foreshadows the course of Congress in regard to the great class of citizens now knocking at its door. Women claim National protection as citizens of the Nation.
The original Constitution in its fourth article touches upon State control, for it declares that the Constitution shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government. The "shall" is imperative. It shall! Even as long ago as 1787 it was declared that the people of the States should no longer be dependent upon State caprice for their rights, but the general government took upon itself the authority and the duty of enforcing in each State a republican form of government. Either this article is a mere sounding phrase, or the Constitution has such power, although until the XIV. Amendment the real status of citizenship had not been settled. People thought of themselves as first citizens of the States, then of the United States, but now such a position can not be taken. The eighth step in centralization settled that point; "every person," not every male person—but "every person born or naturalized in the United States"—"is a citizen of the United States, and of the State in which he resides." First, entitled to national protection, and through the Nation to State protection. Moreover,
The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are by article sixth of the Constitution, declared to 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.
Is the Constitution supreme in the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, whose petition the honorable judiciary reported adversely upon, the 12th of December?
The naturalized citizens of our country should rise en masse against his attack upon their liberties. If Rhode Island can say that a naturalized citizen shall not vote unless possessed of a certain amount of property, any State can, with equal justice, enact a law declaring that only those naturalized citizens who live in brick houses shall vote; a law, equally as binding as the present property qualification in Rhode Island, can be enacted, that only those foreign-born citizens who come over in a Cunarder shall vote. Why not? If a State has a right to deprive one class of citizens of its vote for one cause, it has a right to deprive any other class of its vote for any reason.
The power and the mischief do not stop here. If a State has power over the political rights of a naturalized citizen of the United States, it has like power over the native-born citizen. If a State has power over the franchise of the women citizens of the United States, it also has power over the men citizens. Unjust laws, like curses, go home to roost; they can always be made to plague their enactors. When the rights of any one class of citizens are assailed, a blow is struck against the rights of all. The danger to individual liberty lies in special laws. If States are powerful enough to weaken the National constitution, then are we weak indeed. The safety of the citizen lies in a strong National constitution: it lies in a National centralization of power that shall override the States in their attempt to destroy individual rights.
If the National government has not power over the ballot in the several States, where did the United States Commissioner get his authority to institute proceedings against Miss Anthony for voting in the State of New York? If the ballot is in the control of the States, then is the United States guilty of a high-handed outrage against New York, in the case of the fourteen women who are now bound over for trial in Rochester for voting at the last election. If the control of the franchise is the right of each State as sovereign, then the National law of 1870 in regard to frauds in voting was an unauthorized interference of the United States in a matter belonging solely to the respective States. On the contrary, if the question as to who may vote in any State—exclusive of black men, over whom it is conceded the nation has thrown its ægis of protection—is one of National control, how does it happen that the Judiciary Committee of the present Congress reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island? If, then, voting is a matter of State control alone, what authority had the United States to prosecute Susan B. Anthony? One of two things is plainly true. Either the United States authorities had no right to prosecute Miss Anthony in the State of New York, or, if they had, then they had the right to regulate suffrage in Rhode Island. If the general government could not extend suffrage to Irishmen in Rhode Island, it could not abolish it for women in New York.
The time has passed when men can take their choice between "State sovereignty" and "centralized power." What State of the thirty-seven has power to make a treaty, to form an alliance, to declare war? Not one, because not one of them is a sovereign State. An attempt would be treason against the Nation. If the general government can not be secure with a diversity of laws in regard to war, or the tariff, in regard to questions of property, how much less secure is it with diverse laws in regard to personal rights; in regard to the elective franchise, the vital principle of our government.
This government does not stand to-day on free trade, or tariff, or the war-power, or its right to manage post-offices, or to coin money, or to make treaties. Not one of these singly, nor all collectively, form the ground-plan of this Nation. This Nation stands upon the ballot, the self-governing power; it stands upon the right of every person governed by the Nation to share in the election of its rulers.
How can statesmen believe the Nation secure unless personal rights are held inviolable? The National government has control over money, currency, and national banks. It will not trust its question of finance to individual States; shall it trust the personal political rights of its citizens where it can not its money? Is it not an anomaly that the lesser rights shall be held by the Nation, the greater by the States?
In the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, and that of Susan B. Anthony and other women of New York and elsewhere, who try to vote, there is one great dissimilarity. The suffrage of the 10,000 is only regulated. As soon as each one secures real estate to the small value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars, he votes; but there women can never vote, simply because they are women. Property amounts to nothing; education amounts to nothing; even native-born citizenship amounts to nothing; the ballot for them is not regulated but prohibited because they were born women instead of men. Congress would quickly waken up to an appreciation of its power over the ballot, if under pretense of "regulating" suffrage, all the male citizens of a State were denied the ballot simply because they were men. The Nation would lose no time in deciding that a regulation of a character not possible to overcome was not a regulation, but a prohibition destructive of every natural right. The word "deny" would be elucidated by able lawyers and lexicographers. We should then be told that to deny pre-supposes an existing right; that only positive rights can be denied, and force of arms would be invoked to maintain the existence of those rights.
The battle for suffrage is narrowed down to the meaning of "privileges and immunities." Those who believe the consent of the governed to be the fundamental principle of the Nation, define "privileges and immunities" as the right of voting, which is the only "consent." Thaddeus Stevens went so far as to affirm that "inalienable rights" in the Declaration meant the ballot. Persons who thus define "inherent rights" belong to the true national, patriotic class. But others, deeply tinctured with belief in the supreme right of States, declare "privileges and immunities" to comprehend anything and everything except the ballot. Even some good Republicans, contrary to the principles indorsed and sustained by them in the war amendments, led by their prejudices against acknowledging woman's right to self-government; have declared that "privileges and immunities" merely signify civil and legal rights, but not political. Such was the groundwork of the argument of the Hon. Matt. Carpenter in the Myra Bradwell case. What a farce! It declared at an early day that the United States possessed the greatest trust ever confided to a "political society." "political society."[Pg 532] "Political society" is the foundation of our nation, and our political trust is the ballot.
It has been said by a member of the present Congress that no man in that body doubts that the Constitution authorizes women to vote, precisely as it authorizes trial by jury and many other rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, but that in order to give them practical force there must be legislation; that these guaranteed rights are not self-executing. This is a fine legal quibble, stated for a purpose; but since legal minds disagree upon this point, a caviller might say no law is self-executing; all laws require enforcement. It may be said that the Ten Commandments are not self-executing; yet though given to Moses, not only as the underlying constitution of the Jewish nation and all nations, they contain self-executing provisions, bearing the penalties of their infraction within themselves. By their simple statement they carry within themselves the authority for their enforcement. The provision that the sun shall each day rise and run its accustomed rounds is a self-executing provision, until some Joshua vetoes this divine right of the sun.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no difficulty should be found in executing its provisions. But while, as aimed against the exercise of arbitrary power, we have no objection to the passage of a declaratory law which shall make plain to every United States judge, and to the most obtuse inspector of election, that women are voters, we still claim that the recent "Act for enforcing the XIV. Amendment" should protect woman in the exercise of her rights of self-government.
Although the States ratified the XIII., XIV. and XV. Amendments by the requisite two-thirds vote, they still find it difficult to realize the fact that these amendments have actually strengthened the National power. The Enforcement Act, and the previous law in regard to frauds in voting, may be called definitions of these last centralizing steps, but as yet neither amendments nor definitions are fully comprehended. A Rhode Island lawyer astutely said: "The people of the United States have not yet awakened to a sense of the vast centralizing power hidden in the XIV. Amendment." Opposition and struggles have already come, and will continue to arise, but legislators may beat their brains as they will, the fact of new National centralization still remains. Though State power dies never so hard, die it must, as only through reorganized National power can the political rights of citizens of the United States be protected.
"Citizen suffrage" is to-day the battle-ground of "State Rights," and the denial of woman's constitutional right to vote, and of National protection in voting, is the weapon it uses against the Nation. This question of citizen suffrage is not a woman question alone, but it is a question of the rights of citizenship affecting every man in this wide land. Let us, then, have the centralization which shall recognize the United States as the supreme political power of the land, which shall no longer allow the political rights of citizens of the United States to be the plaything of thirty-seven petty legislatures, of thirty thousand ambitious demagogues. Without this, our National experiment is a failure; without this, we are not freemen, but slaves; without this, we are neither protected nor self-protecting; without this, centralized State power, under the specious name of "State rights," will continue to be a many-headed monster, impossible to overcome. Elect the President direct by the people, and for a single term, if you will; take from him his immense official patronage; base senatorship upon population, not upon State sovereignty through legislative gift; limit the power of the judiciary: these steps must come; make of the people in reality what they now are in theory—sovereigns, not first of States, or the Nation, but of themselves, possessing in themselves all rights, all powers, whose exercise is only delegated to the Nation as their servant.
The call[2] for the annual May Convention in New York announced the interesting fact that it was the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Woman Suffrage movement. The speakers[3] represented many of the far Western States. Among the letters of interest was one from Madam Mathilde Francisca Anneke, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who accompanied her letter with a beautiful laurel wreath to be presented to the founder of the Woman's Rights movement, the venerable Lucretia Mott[4]. The resolutions embody the substance of the various speeches made at that Convention. The following letters were read:
My Dear Miss Anthony:—Being detained from attending this very important Convention, which celebrates twenty-five years of as honest and glorious work as ever was done by man or woman upon the face of the earth, permit me through yourself, as president of the National Society, to address a few words to my fellow-workers in the cause of political equality.
At first, let me beg you, my friends, one and all, to read the report of the first Convention held at Seneca Falls, twenty-five years ago, as I have just been doing for the third time, that you may join me in heartfelt admiration
of the distinguished women who there enunciated a "declaration of sentiments" equal to the old Declaration of Independence, and founded on a similar list of grievances as those which provoked and justified the Revolutionary war. Especially will you note the speech of a woman there, hardly thirty years of age, which for philosophic comprehension of the great truths of liberty and responsibility, for patriotism and eloquence, has not been surpassed in the history of our country. This alone should be sufficient to send the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, side by side with the grandest of our revolutionary statesmen, down to the latest posterity.
The moving spirit of the occasion, however, we are told, was Lucretia Mott, who spoke with her usual eloquence to a large and intelligent audience on the subject of "Reform in General," and, from time to time, during the numerous sessions of the Convention, swayed the assembly by her beautiful and spiritual appeals, and was the first to affix her name to this prophetic and inspired "Declaration of sentiments"—an act which she will tell you to-day, I trust, has brought to her more joy than, perhaps, any other act of her life.
Had I the means, the printed report of this Convention should be placed in the hands of every woman in the United States capable of reading it and understanding its high import. And, my friends, if this could be done, our labors would be well nigh ended, and those women who so desire might approach the polls unmolested, leaving their sisters "who have all the rights they want" in the comfortable security of homes made twice secure in that they are guarded by the watchful care of the mothers as well as by the courage of the fathers of the republic. That these noble women, so intensely in earnest to secure the blessings of liberty to all their posterity, and so deeply conscious of the heavy responsibilities of such a trust, should have suspended their claims during the season of our civil war, and have thrown themselves into the contest for the rights of enslaved black men, is only new proof, where none was wanting, of the unselfishness of their nature, and the purity of their motive. But the war being over, and a new million of black males being added to the many million white males as rulers of the land, what do we find to-day? Susan B. Anthony, the Garrison of the woman's rights movement, not dragged by a rope round her neck, through the streets of Rochester, precisely, but indicted for the crime of attempting to vote for her rulers, she being an honest citizen of the United States, and a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the State of New York! Nevertheless, permit me, dear friend, to congratulate you upon the immense progress in our work which this indicates. It is but a little time since you and your illustrious compeers were counted only worthy of jests and sneers or contemptuous neglect. That you are called to-day to answer for the crime of loving liberty too well, declares to us who are watching your career, that the beginning of the end is close at hand, that slavery is soon to cease, and reconstruction to begin under the auspices of noble women not a few, and of the noble men who have acted as a body-guard through all these years of struggle.
I have heard that with your accustomed indomitableness you have been attempting to instruct your possible jurors of the county upon the just principles of personal liberty and a republican form of government. But have you considered in doing this to what an incompetent jury you are possibly consigning your case, and with it the hopes of multitudes of your sisters, who, less favored than yourself, in not actually having been allowed to enter the sacred precincts of the polls, have put their trust in you as in one who should not fail, sooner or later, to achieve a victory for herself and for us all? Have you considered the result of white male legislation for nearly one hundred years, in elaborating a jury that must inevitably consist of fools or knaves, and twelve of these to declare in unison upon a case of which they have formed no previous opinion, though the papers have rung with it, and you have lectured every night for more than a month to crowded houses upon it? But even this difficulty you are able to meet, and we leave our destiny in your hands with unfaltering hope and faith, saying only, as many a time before, God bless Susan B. Anthony In conclusion, let me urge upon you, dear friends, one and all, that each man and woman of you shall work for impartial suffrage as though the welfare of our beloved country depended upon the devotion of each single life, and the day is ours. I am now and always yours for liberty,
Miss Susan B. Anthony: Your favor requesting my opinion of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the New Orleans and Bradwell cases, was received yesterday. I had not then seen those decisions, indeed they were not ready for distribution until to-day. I have very hastily run over them and only feel prepared to say that there is nothing in them necessarily conclusive of the suffrage cases. The opinion of the Court in the New Orleans cases is given by a bare majority, four out of the nine justices dissenting, and the majority expressly say: '"We hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which no State can abridge until some case involving those, privileges may make it necessary to do so." This language leaves us entirely at liberty to present the question whether suffrage is one of these "privileges" to their consideration. There are expressions in the dissenting opinions that upon the rules of interpretation applied to any other subject than the rights of women would indicate that the minority were fully prepared to admit that the recent amendments to the Constitution the new magna charta as one of the justices styles them recognized the right of suffrage in women. Justice Field says: "That only is a free government, in the American sense of the term, under which the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue his happiness is unrestrained, except by just, equal, and impartial laws." Justice Bradley says: "The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons. A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right. He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens." Such language on any other subject would be conclusive, but the crust of custom and prejudice is hard and thick and strong, and the heat of the lava of regeneration may not yet have weakened it sufficiently to allow of its destruction and removal.:
We will try to have our cases fully prepared for argument when reached in the call of the calendar, which will be about next January, and after doing our best in them will have to trust for success if not in this in some other effort.
Miss Anthony gave the incidents of her arrest and trial to an immense audience in the evening, moving them alternately to laughter and indignation. At the close of this convention a large reception was given to the friends of woman suffrage by Dr. Clemence Lozier at her hospitable home in 34th street, New York. Her spacious parlors were crowded until a late hour. The occasion was enlivened with music, readings, and short, spicy speeches.
The National Woman Suffrage Association held its fifth convention at Washington in January, 1874. Before the arrival of the principal actors, the hall was filled with spectators. Soon after 11 o'clock the President, accompanied by a large number of speakers[5] and friends, came on the stage. Many interesting letters were received[6] and a series of resolutions[7] reported. Mrs. Gage occupied the evening with an address on Judge and Jury. The following brief sketch of the convention by Frances Ellen Burr is as good a summary of the proceedings as we find.
(Correspondence Hartford Times,) Washington, Jan. 15, 1874.
The National Woman Suffrage Convention opened in Lincoln Hall this morning with a full house.
Miss Anthony opened the meeting by reading the call, and then briefly
stated its purposes, which were to bring influences to bear upon Congress that will secure National protection for women in their right to vote. Black men are the only ones guaranteed by the National Constitution in their right to vote. Women ask for the same security. <A letter from the Hon. E. G. Lapham, of New York, puts a point in the closing paragraph to the effect that the most degraded elector, who would sell his vote for a dollar, or for a dram, couldn't be induced by the offer of a kingdom to sell his right to vote.
Miss Anthony stated that the two articles of the woman suffrage creed were: First, That every woman should get her vote into the ballot box whenever she could get a judge of election to take it; and wherever refused, should go just the same again next time. Second, That all women owning property should refuse to pay taxes. She read a memorial to Congress for "no taxation without representation," the closing paragraph running as follows:
Therefore, We pray your honorable bodies to pass a law during the present session of Congress, that shall exempt women from taxation for national purposes so long as they are unrepresented in national councils.
Mrs. Spencer has a case now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. She carried a suit for herself and seventy-two other women who applied to be made voters and were refused. She has prepared a petition for woman suffrage for the women of the District of Columbia, on the ground, as Miss Anthony stated it, that as "this little ten-mile square belongs to us all, if the women here are enfranchised; those of the rest of the nation can not long be shut out." As Congress has absolute control over the District, no one can dispute its right to enfranchise the women here, even though they dispute its control of this matter in other parts of the nation. Miss Spencer submitted the following petition for woman suffrage by the women of the district of Columbia:
Whereas, The same court further decided that the said first section of the XIV. Amend-
ment does not execute itself, but requires the supervention of legislative power in the exercise of legislative discretion to give it effect. And
Whereas, The Congress of the United States is the legislative body having exclusive jurisdiction over this District,
Therefore, We respectfully pray your honorable bodies for the passage of an act amending an act entitled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," approved Feb. 21, 1871, by striking the word "male" from the seventh section of said act, thus placing the constitutional rights of the women of this District, as declared by the highest judicial tribunal, under the protection of the legislative power.
She said it might surprise and encourage many, as it did her, to learn that neither the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution, nor legislative enactment, general or local, has ever forbidden women to vote. They have simply permitted certain male citizens to vote, and have said nothing about women whatever. It is one thing to forbid women to vote; it is quite another thing to simply fail to expressly declare that they may. Some people think the Bible forbids women to vote because it doesn't say anything about it from beginning to end. True, it does not give any authority for it. Neither does it give any authority for using sewing-machines or clothes-wringers. The zeal of the people who search the Scriptures in the interest of bigotry and intolerance, assumes that all that is not commanded to women is strictly forbidden. Judge Cartter says the general Constitution interposes not a single obstacle to woman suffrage, and there is therefore no need of a new amendment; while the State constitutions simply leave her right in abeyance by omitting to declare it. That this view of the general constitution largely prevails is shown by so many women bringing suits against those who have rejected their votes, under the constitution as it is. Mrs. Spencer's manner is very pleasing, and her speech was pungent and to the point. She closed with the following pithy illustration of the need of woman's influence in legislative matters:
I wanted a loaf of bread one day in a great hurry, and found six dram-shops on one square and only one bakery, and that was shut.
Mrs. Spencer was followed by Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Black, and Mr. Davis, of Philadelphia, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott. Committees on resolutions and finance were appointed, and the meeting adjourned till afternoon. F. E. B.
This convention, of which I sent you some account in my last letter, adjourned last night, sine die. Lincoln Hall has been crowded at all the sessions except one, when an admission fee was charged. And the admission fee worked up a little unpleasantness in another direction, for in such a case a license has to be bought of the city authorities. So on Thursday evening before the meeting opened, word was sent to Miss Anthony in the ante-room, that a police officer was after her. "Well, let him come then," she replied; "I shan't go after him, that's sure." In due time the policeman walked in, brass buttons and all. Miss Anthony had a pleasant little conversation with him for a few minutes. The policeman was very mild and amiable, and so was Miss A. Having had considerable experience with officers of justice(?), she has gotten a little used to them—in fact, rather indifferent. Hard knocks and rubs conduce to philosophy, and Miss Anthony has acquired a philosophy akin to that of Diogenes in his tub. She told the policeman she had no intention of paying this government for the poor privilege of coming here to demand justice at its hands. While Miss Anthony was as calm as a June morning, and wholly indifferent in the matter, Mrs. Belva Lockwood, a practicing attorney in this city, raised such a din about the policeman's ears that he took to his heels, and didn't darken the ante-room doors of Lincoln Hall again while the convention was in session. That license remains in statu quo.
Mrs. Stanton said that people were always saying women didn't want to vote, but the fact that the word "male" was in all the statute books showed that men knew all the time that they would vote if they had a chance. But whether they want to or not is a matter, she claimed, that had nothing to do with the question. It is time woman had a civil rights bill. No woman can enter Columbia College, Princeton, Harvard, or Yale. During the century we have spent $16,000,000 for the boys of New York, and $1,500,000 for the girls. Are you willing to believe, women, that your girls are sixteen times less valuable than the boys? What is the reason of this low valuation of woman? Because she is never to have anything to do with the State. It is a humiliating thing to ask, but I insist that the white women of this country be placed on the same civil and political footing with the colored men from the plantations of the South. If a woman traveling alone is belated at night, the hotels slam their doors in her face and turn her into the street. We want a civil rights bill that shall make every white woman just as respectable as a negro or a white man.
Mrs. Blake followed with an anecdote of a girl who applied for admission to Ann Arbor University. One of the sentences she had to translate from the Greek was this one from Antigone: "Seeing then that we are women, ought we not to be modest and not try to compete with men?" She took the highest honors in Greek, and was ahead of every man in the class. She prepared a Greek composition and introduced this sentence: "Seeing then that we are men, ought we not to be ashamed that we have been vanquished by women?"
Mrs. Stanton thought if girls could come out of colleges and schools ahead of the boys in their studies, it was pretty clear proof that they could accomplish almost anything within the power of human capacity, for girls have to study under all sorts of disadvantages that boys do not have to contend with. Hang a hoop-skirt on a boy's hips; lace him up in a corset; hang pounds of clothing and trailing skirts upon him; puff him out with humps and bunches behind; pinch his waist into a compass that will allow his lungs only half their breathing capacity; load his head down with superfluous hair—rats, mice, chignons, etc., and stick it full of hair-pins; and then set him to translating Greek and competing for prizes in a first-class university. What sort of a chance would he stand in running that race or any other!! Mrs. Stanton read a civil rights bill for women, to be presented to Congress. This bill is to secure to them, equally with colored men, all the advantages and opportunities of life; open to them all colleges of learning; secure to them the right to sit on juries; to sue and be sued; to practice in all our courts on the same terms with colored men; to be tried by a jury of their peers; to be admitted to theaters and hotels alone; to walk the streets by night and by day, to ramble in the forest, or beside the lakes and rivers, as do colored men, without fear of molestation or insult from any white man whatsoever, to secure equal place and pay in this world of work.
She also presented a series of resolutions, nine in number. The first five are for freedom generally, and no taxation without representation. The sixth and seventh denounce the bills of Senators Frelinghuysen and Logan, the former being designed to deprive the women of the Territories of jury trial, and the latter to restore the common law in the Territories. The eighth recognizes the importance of the organization of the Grangers; and the ninth opposes the granting of general amnesty to former rebels. This resolution Mrs. Stanton denounced, speaking in favor of universal amnesty. Quite a spicy discussion ensued on this resolution, which was drawn up by Mrs. Joslyn Gage. Mrs. Stanton in her remarks in opposition, said it was hardly worth while for women in their conventions to throw any stigma on Jefferson Davis. The institution of slavery was sustained by the North as well as the South; the North got out expurgated editions of books for the Southern market. It was in bad taste for the North to denounce the South, and it was in particularly bad taste for woman suffragists who are clamoring for representation and for the ballot, to call for its denial to any part of the nation.
Col. R. J. Hinton, of Washington, also denounced the resolution, saying that it violated one of the fundamental principles of the woman suffrage platform, which is that the limitation of suffrage is a gross outrage. Miss Anthony very pertinently said: "All the trouble on this platform is that we haven't the right to vote. If we had it we shouldn't complain of anybody else voting." The resolution was voted down by a large majority.
At the evening session the Hall was literally packed. Mrs. Dundore of Baltimore, and Miss Taintor of California were the first speakers. Then the fascinating St. Louis lawyer, Miss Phoebe Couzins, whose logic is as sound as her wit is sparkling, was introduced, and delivered an address on "Woman as Lawyer," a subject which, in most hands, would have put the audience to sleep, but in hers, kept them wide awake with laughter and applause at her brilliant sallies. At the conclusion of her speech the Hutchinsons sang a stirring song, and then Miss Anthony introduced the colored member of Congress from South Carolina, Mr. A. J. Ransier, who spoke unqualifiedly in favor of woman suffrage. Mr. Ransier is president of a woman suffrage association in South Carolina. He was a little inclined to repeat himself, and after having returned several times to the statement that he had "no speech to make," an old lady in the audience popped up on the bench and said: "Well, if you haven't got a speech to make, I have," and immediately started out at the rate of twenty-five knots an hour, utterly oblivious of the rights of Mr. Ransier, who already had the floor, and who was very politely waiting for her to subside. Miss Anthony, after patiently waiting some time, said she should have to call the lady to order, but she paid no attention to the call. After a while the ludicrous situation set the audience to smiling audibly, and the louder they smiled, and the greater the excitement grew, the swifter flew the old lady's tongue. After consultation among the managers of the meeting, it was finally decided to send a policeman to quietly remove this garrulous disturber of the peace. A policeman was accordingly summoned, but his entreaties had no effect on the old lady, who stoutly maintained her perch, and declared she would not go with him. Then Miss Couzins descended from the platform, and accomplished with her winning ways what the policeman couldn't. She calmed the troubled waters—got the old lady to sit down by her side and keep the peace the rest of the evening. Who wouldn't maintain the peace when entreated from such a quarter? Mr. Ransier was enabled to finish his speech—a really good one—Miss Anthony remarking at its close that she wished she could have had him for her judge instead of Mr. Hunt. She then made a wide awake and telling speech, which, if this letter were not already too long, I should like to give. At its close she introduced Mrs. Guthrie, a daughter of Frances Wright, that woman of rare mind and original thought, who came from England to this country some forty or more years ago; and who, with Robert Owen and some others, tried to start a colony on the community system. To the surprise of all, Mrs. Guthrie declared herself opposed to woman suffrage. At the close of her remarks the Doxology was sung, and the convention adjourned sine die. F. E. B.
The correspondent of the Boston Commonwealth, after giving a pen-picture of the ladies on the platform, said:
The Convention laid out some very practical work for the consideration and action of Congress. It circulated a petition and obtained six hundred names of citizens, both men and women of the District, asking that the word male be stricken from the organic act of the District government. This was presented by Mr. Dawes, for Mr. Butler, to the House, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, before the members of which the ladies to-day had a hearing. Their case was presented and briefly argued by Mr. Miller, a lawyer of some promise and reputation, a resident of the District. Mrs. Sarah Spencer, of Washington, addressed the Committee on the legal points involved. She said that the petitioners did not conceal the point that the XIV. Amendment did not give them the right to vote, but since Congress had referred them to the State legislatures, they came now to ask that the women of the District be allowed to vote. Mrs. Spencer answered the argument so often made, that all of the bad women would vote and the good ones would stay at home. She said in reply to this oft-repeated objection, that she had found in talking with that class they made the same objection to woman suffrage that the fashionable women make, and were quite as averse to its adoption. Again, she said statistics show the lamentable fact that only one-fifth of this class live to be eighteen years of age; their average length of life being only five years, no real danger was to be apprehended from giving woman the ballot. Mrs. Spencer spoke with feeling, and evidently made a favorable impression upon the Committee. Mrs. Lockwood made a few pertinent remarks. As this lady has lately been admitted to the bar in this city, she can speak from experience upon many points of law and fact. Miss Burr, of Hartford, asked simply for full justice, eschewing law and legal lore upon the subject, willing to be numbered with Plato and John Stuart Mill on this question. Miss Couzins appealed to the heart; as so many knock-down arguments had been hurled at their heads she preferred to attack the heart. She said she felt great delicacy in appearing before so much learning and wisdom, but the veteran commanderin-chief of the forces, Miss Anthony, had ordered her to the front, and when she told her she must spike a gun, like a good soldier, although a raw recruit, she obeyed. Miss Anthony introduced the speakers, and closed the meeting with a few well-chosen words.
It was a picture worthy the brush of an old master. Eleven lawyers seated around a table, with Benjamin F. Butler at the head, listening to women pleading for the right of self-government. Their faces, as they listened, every one of them with respectful attention, was a study worthy the most thoughtful student of human nature. Some of them listened, no doubt, for the first time to an argument in favor of this innovation, but the most unbelieving were evidently impressed with the earnestness and strong feeling displayed in the advocacy of the cause. The room was well filled with spectators, drawn together, some from sympathy, others from idle curiosity, but all were compelled to respectful consideration by the ease, dignity, and ability displayed by the ladies in presenting their cause. Only upon the faces of a few newspaper reporters just emerging from adolescence into manhood, rested the traditional sneer at the strong-minded; and when the hour for adjournment arrived, one of the members of the Committee remarked he regretted that a longer time could not have been given to the ladies. To those who think the cause of woman suffrage has gone backwards, we commend the proceedings of this meeting of the Judiciary Committee.
In addition to the petition for suffrage in the District, another one has also been drawn, which Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa, will present at an early day, asking for the remission of the fine imposed upon Miss Anthony for voting at the last Presidential election.
By the way, an incident showing the singular independence of Gen. Grant happened on Saturday. When the President was taking his afternoon stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue, he met Miss Anthony and Miss Couzins. Instead of bowing and passing on, as most any one of the high dignitaries occupying official position would have done, he stopped, shook hands, and entered into conversation with them. The chief justiceship being the absorbing subject of interest, Miss Couzins suggested the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, since he seemed to have so much trouble in getting a man to suit. The President pleasantly replied he would not subject any woman to the ordeal of such an examination as she would be subjected to over Sunday, if the announcement of the nomination to that office were made. Miss Anthony said if he would only nominate Henry R. Selden, her counsel, the man who had brains and courage enough to defend her for voting for him, the country would at once recognize it as the best possible thing that could be done. The group, as they stood there on the avenue, the President of the United States with a pleased and animated face, and Miss Anthony, whom everybody knows and respects, even although they don't believe in suffrage for women, and the strikingly handsome young lawyer from St. Louis, in animated conversation over the Chief Justiceship, was the object of attraction of all passing by. If some fortunate photographer could have taken the picture his fortune would have been secured beyond doubt.
On May 28th, 1874, while the bill to establish the Territory of Pembina was pending in the Senate, Mr. Sargent, of California, moved to add "sex" to line 10 of section 5, which would make the clause read:
Resolved, That the Legislative Assembly shall not, at any time, abridge the right of suffrage, or to hold office, on account of sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude of any resident of the Territory.
The President pro tempore.—The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California.
Mr. Sargent.—At the time when the last National Convention of the Republican party assembled in Philadelphia, which nominated General Grant for his second term, there was assembled a body of able, respectable ladies of the United States, who urged upon that convention a consideration of the subject involved in the amendment which I propose; and as a concession to the demand made by those persons, a plank was inserted in the platform whereby it was declared that the Republican party would treat with consideration the claims of women to be admitted to additional rights. Since that time, although the Republican party has had a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and elected the President of its choice, and now has full power and has had ever since the assembling of this Congress to carry out this promise, not one step has been taken in this direction. It has not been for want of petition or solicitation. It certainly has not been because the matter has not been called to the attention of both Houses of Congress, for petition after petition has been presented, and no action has been taken except adverse action in the other House, the committee reporting back those petitions with the recommendation that the prayer be not granted. In the Senate we have not yet been favored with the views of the committee to whom those petitions were referred. Considering that a great constitutional question was involved, it might be assumed that these subjects would receive very early attention at the hands of the committees of the Senate; but up to this time we have had no light on the matter.
I believe, Mr. President, that the amendment which I offer to this bill is justified by the organic law of the United States, and in fact required by that law. Before the adoption of the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States women were hedged from the ballot-box by the use of the word "male." Since that time another rule has been prescribed by the organic law, giving to all citizens of the United States the right to exercise this highest privilege of a citizen. By the XIV. Article of Amendment it is provided that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This most important declaration is now the organic law of the United States. It does not say "all males born or naturalized in the United States," but "all persons," and it can not be contended successfully that a woman is not a person, and not a person within the meaning of this clause of the Constitution.
This being the status of all individuals, male and female, they being citizens of the United States, it is provided that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Of course if any State is prohibited from doing this, any Territory should be prohibited from doing it, because no Territory can constitutionally do that which a State itself can not do. Then, if women are citizens of the United States, and there is no right to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as proclaimed by the supreme law of the land, what are these privileges and immunities? Grant White, in his able work on "Words and Their Uses," defines, on page 100, the privileges and immunities of citizens, and among them gives the right to vote and the right to hold office. Webster gives the same definition of the word "citizen" and so does Worcester, and Bouvier's Law Dictionary speaks expressly of these rights of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office; and there is little adverse authority to these definitions.
The Constitution, if it needs construction at all—and it would hardly seem to need it in a case so plain as this—must be construed by the ordinary and authoritative use of the words contained in it; and here is both the ordinary and the authoritative use of those words. This matter has not been without judicial construction. In the Circuit Court Reports (4 Washington, 371), it was held that these privileges and immunities included the right to hold office and to exercise the elective franchise; and this view was adopted by Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries, volume II., page 71. So that both by United States courts and the best and highest commentary upon the laws of the United States the construction which I contend for of the XIV. Amendment is insisted upon and ably illustrated. The considerations which I have urged address themselves not merely to Republicans, they address themselves with great force to my Democratic friends who are such sticklers for the Constitution. Although that is true, nevertheless the Republican party has pledged itself especially to a respectful consideration of these demands in its last national platform, and it has control of both Houses of Congress and of the executive department.
Passing from that consideration, we have all persons born or naturalized in the United States declared by the Constitution to be citizens; and we have the meaning of the word "citizen" given by our courts, by our lexicographers, by our law commentators; we have further their "privileges and immunities" settled by all these authorities to include the right to vote and the right to hold office. In consonance with this organic law, the policy of which is not open to discussion because it has been adopted according to all the legal forms by the people of the United States, I offer this amendment.
Were this the time and place, and were not the discussion foreclosed by the considerations which I have already advanced, I might speak at some length upon the advantage which there would be in the admission of women to the suffrage. I might point with some pride to the experiment which has been made in Wyoming, where women hold office, where they vote, where they have the most orderly society of any of the Territories, where the experiment is approved by the executive officers of the United States, by their courts, by the press, and by the people generally; and if it operates so well in Wyoming, where it has rescued that Territory from a state of comparative lawlessness to one of the most orderly in the Union, I ask why it might not operate equally well in the Territory of Pembina or any other Territory? I hope the time is not far distant when some of the older States of the Union like New York, or Massachusetts, or Ohio. may give this experiment a fuller chance. But so far as it has gone, the experiment has been entirely in favor of legislation for admitting women to the ballot-box. And I do not believe that in putting these higher responsibilities upon women we degrade their character, that we subject them to uncongenial pursuits, that we injure their moral tone, that we tarnish their delicacy, that we in any way make them less noble and admirable as women, as wives, and mothers. I believe that by realizing the intention of the Constitution, which uses words that are so fully explained by our courts and by our writers upon the uses of words, we simply open a wider avenue to women for usefulness to themselves and to society. I think we give them an opportunity, instead of traveling the few and confined roads that are open to them now, to engage more generally in the business of life under some guarantee of their success. I believe that, instead of driving them to irregular efforts like those which they recently have made in many of the States to overthrow liquor selling, it will give them an opportunity through the ballot-box to protect their families, to break up the nefarious traffic and purify society. As it is now, their energies in this direction are repressed, and sometimes in order to have force are compelled to be exercised even in opposition to law. I would give them an opportunity to exercise them under the forms of law, and I would enforce the law by the accession of this pure element. I do not think that they would be corrupted by it, but rather that society and politics would be purified by admitting them to the ballot-box and giving them this opportunity.
I therefore trust that, in the spirit of the pledge that was made by us as Republicans, in the spirit of the adhesion to the Constitution professed by our democratic friends, there may be an assent to this amendment, and that the United States will engraft this feature in the organic law of this new Territory. There is nothing peculiar in the form of this proposition. All the original steps which we took toward circumscribing slavery were taken by engrafting provisos on the organic laws of Territories, from Nebraska down, providing that the Territories, when organized, should not do this or that affecting the liberty of human beings. In the mode pursued by that legislation, and according to those precedents, I now propose that the Constitution shall be invoked; that women shall have the right in this Territory which is guaranteed by the organic law.
Mr. Stewart.—If this region is to be created into a Territory, I think it eminently proper that this amendment should be adopted. The question of female suffrage is a question that is being seriously considered by a large portion of the people of the United States. We may think lightly of it here; we may think it never will be accomplished; but there are a great many earnest people who believe if females had the ballot they could better protect themselves, be more independent, and occupy useful positions in life which are now denied to them. Whether they be correct or not, it is not necessary for us to determine in passing upon this amendment. Here is a new Territory to be created, and it is a good opportunity to try this experiment. If it works badly, when the Territory becomes a State there is nobody committed. It is not an amendment of the organic law of the nation. This is a bill simply providing for the organization of a Territory and for a preliminary government, and I should like for one to see this experiment tried the experiment of negro suffrage in the District of Columbia, and it became catching and spread all over the South. Now, when there is a large portion of the people of the United States desirous of having this principle illustrated, here is a fair field for the illustration of it, that they may see and we may see, whether there is anything in their arguments by the practical illustration of them for a few years until this new Territory shall become a State. I say let them have female suffrage there and try it. If it works well, their arguments will be vindicated; if it works badly, it need not be followed. I hope that the Senator from Minnesota will consent that this shall become a part of the law. Let us try it. It will do no harm.
Mr. Boreman.—I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of woman suffrage, nor a discussion of the propriety or impropriety of the adoption of a provision in favor of it upon this bill. I think this is not a very good time to "try experiments," to use the language of the Senator from Nevada, and I trust we may have a vote upon this question.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Ingalls in the Chair).—The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from California.
Mr. Sargent and Mr. Sprague called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.
Mr. Morton.—I desire simply to state my views upon this amendment; views long entertained. I am in favor of the amendment on what I regard as the fundamental principles of our Government, upon the theory upon which we have based our Government from the beginning. The Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The word "men" in that connection does not mean males, but it means the human family; that all human beings are created equal. This will hardly be denied. I remember it was formerly contended that the Declaration of Independence in this clause did not include black people. It was argued learnedly and frequently, in this Chamber and out of it, that the history surrounding the adoption of that declaration showed that white men only were intended. But that was not the general judgment of the people of this country. It was held to embrace all colors and all races. It embraces both sexes; not simply males, but females. All human beings are created equal. That is the foundation principle of our Government. It then goes on to say:
If these rights are fundamental, if they belong to all human beings as such, if they are God-given rights, then all persons having these God-given rights have a right to use the means for their preservation; the means is government: "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I ask you whether the women of this country have ever given their consent to this Government? Have they the means of giving their consent to it? The colored men had not given their consent to it. Why? Because they had not the right to vote. There is but one way that the consent to government can be given, and that is by a right to a voice in that government, and that is the right to vote. I know it was argued in times past in regard to the South that the master gave the consent on the part of his slaves; that he represented them; that he had their good at heart, and that he gave their consent. We denied that. We know it was not true. Now, sir, to come down to the main question, I ask if the women of this country have given their consent to this Government? You say they are consenting. I say they are assenting to it, the majority of them; but they have no means of giving their consent to this Government within the theory of the Declaration of Independence; and they can not consent to it unless they have a voice, have a right to vote "yes" or to vote "no."
What was the old theory of the common law? It was that the father represented the interests of his daughter, the husband of his wife, and the son of his mother. They were deprived of all legal rights in a state of marriage, because it was said that they were taken care of by those who stood to them in these relations; but they never were taken care of. The husband never took care of the rights of his wife at common law; the father never took care of the rights of his daughter; the son never took care of the rights of his mother. The husband at common law was a tyrant and a despot. Why, sir, he absorbed the legal existence of his wife at common law; she could not make a contract except as his agent. Her legal existence was destroyed, and the very moment the marriage was consummated he became the absolute owner of all her personal property. What was the theory of it? The old theory of the common law, as given in elementary writers, was that if the wife was allowed to own property separate from her husband it would make a distinct interest; it would break up and destroy the harmony of the marriage relation; the marriage relation must be a unit; there must be but one interest; and therefore the legal existence of the wife must be merged into that of the husband. I believe a writer as late as Blackstone laid it down that it would not do to permit the wife to hold any property in severalty from her husband, because it would give to her an interest apart from his.
We have got over that. It took us one hundred and fifty years to get past that, and from year to year in this country, especially in the last twenty-five years, we have added to the rights of the wife in regard to property and in many other respects. We now give to her a legal status in this country that she has not in England or in any European country. She has now a legal status that she had not twenty-five years ago, and progress is still going on in that direction. While it was argued by old law-writers and old law-makers that to allow women to hold property separate from their husbands was to break up the harmony of the marriage relation, we know practically that it has not worked that way. We know that as we have made woman independent, recognized her legal existence as a wife, secured her rights, it has elevated her. We know that instead of disturbing the marriage relation, it has improved it constantly; and I believe that the woman has the same natural right to a voice in this Government that the man has. If we believe in the theory of our Government that must be so. I believe that as you make woman the equal of man in regard to civil rights, rights of property, rights of person, political rights, you elevate her, you make her happier; and as you do that you elevate the male sex also.
This idea that women will be degraded by allowing them to go to the polls comes down to us from other countries and from remote periods of civilization. Why, sir, in countries now that claim to be civilized it is said that to allow the wife or the mother to go to the dinner-table with the husband and meet his guests face to face degrades her and degrades them. In some countries a woman must not appear on the streets unless she is so closely veiled that she can not be recognized; for it is said to allow her to go upon the streets barefaced or so thinly veiled that she can be recognized, subjects her to insult and degrades her; and in some countries to-day it destroys her character as effectually as other things would destroy her character in our country. We know that is a prejudice; and the idea that woman will be degraded by giving her the right of suffrage is a remnant of that same idea. It is born of the same parentage. It has no sounder reason for it than these other nations have. I believe that to give women the right of suffrage would elevate the character of suffrage in this country. It would make the polls more decent, more respectable than they are now. Why, sir, fifty years ago the idea of women attending political meetings was intolerable to a great many people. The idea of her going to lectures of a scientific character was thought to be out of all reason. But now women go to political meetings. In almost every canvass in my State there are nearly as many women who attend the meetings as men. What is the effect of it? Are they degraded? On the contrary, their presence elevates the character of those meetings. It is an assurance of peace, it is a security against rowdyism and violence, because in this country men have to be very low if they are guilty of rowdyism or blackguardism in the presence of women. We have a habitual respect for them; and I can testify from my own experience in politics that the attendance of women upon political meetings, so far from degrading them or affecting men injuriously, has elevated the character of political assemblages, has made them more respectable, has secured to them immunity from violence, and from degrading scenes and blackguardism, and so it will be at the polls. When a woman is allowed to go to the polls and vote her sentiments and convictions, it will have the same effect there that her presence has in society. There is not a bit of doubt about it. And there will be no more discord in the family circle than there was when, in violation and against the old principles of the common law, you gave a woman the right to retain her legal existence after marriage and to own property separate and apart from her husband. These old notions have been giving away one after another little by little, and we shall finally come down to the true theory of our Government in all respects, and that is to allow every person, man or woman, who is to be affected and controlled by the Government, whose interest or whose happiness is to be controlled by or depends on the administration of that Government, to have an equal voice in that Government. Therefore I give my vote heartily and cheerfully for this amendment.
Mr. Flanagan.—I confess, sir, that I was delighted when my distinguished friend from California presented this amendment. Unlike my distinguished friend from Indiana, however, I am a new convert to this doctrine. He has been of this opinion long since, I am gratified to learn. I have reflected much on this subject, and within the last few months I have settled down in my determination, and that is to advocate this great measure. Why have I so recently arrived at that conclusion? In the last few months the women's war upon the whisky trade and intemperance at large has prompted me thus to declare unequivocally for them and their glorious efforts. It is from them and with them that I hope, judging from their success up to this time, to save this great Nation from the worst curse known to the human family, that of intemperance; and I believe it is they and only they through Almighty God who can do it. Man has been found incompetent and unable to perform that great and desired object. And gratified am I to receive the idea from my distinguished friend, that if women had the right to vote they would not be expelled from many pursuits as they now are, or be compelled to go upon the streets as they now are, seeking in self-defense the preservation of man. The effect of this measure on politics has been so well described by the distinguished Senator from Indiana that I need not comment upon that branch of the subject. They would tend to purify the atmosphere morally, either at the ballot-box or anywhere else, I care not where it may be. They are more directly interested in good morals, in the temperance of the world and everything bearing on that line, than the husbands are. I think it is a right they are entitled to in every sense of the word, and from this time henceforth I am a woman's rights man.
Mr. Merrimon.—Mr. President, I will not yield to any Senator in the measure of my respect for and admiration of woman; I do not propose by any act or word of mine to detract from her dignity or to diminish the pleasures she may enjoy in this life; but I claim the right to be the judge, in conjunction with herself, of what is best calculated to elevate and protect her dignity and promote her happiness. I do not believe that woman herself believes that her dignity would be elevated or her happiness promoted by putting her upon an exact equality, civilly or politically, in both points of view, with man; and very strong and controlling evidence of that fact is, that neither in this country nor in any country has woman—I mean the great mass of them—ever demanded such a state of things. Our Government has existed for about a hundred years, and the number of females who have demanded to be invested with equal political and civil rights and to be placed upon an exact equality with the male portion of our population, compared with those who have remained in retirement, who have staid at their homes and lived and ruled within that sphere in which it seems God 
intended that they should rule, is as a drop in the sea. So it appears in this conclusive way that the women of America do not demand this state of things. They do not protect themselves by votes, nor do they need to do so. They shape the man when he is a child, rule him with the power of love, and thus they shape, affect, and often control the destinies of men, nations, and empires. I do not propose, however, to go into a discussion in detail of what the women desire or what we ought to grant. My main purpose is to reply very briefly to some remarks that fell from the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Morton] in reference to the Declaration of Independence. I differ, with all respect, from the revolutionary construction which he puts upon that instrument. It is true, as he says, that the Declaration of Independence provides in these words:
Now, I maintain in the first place that we must put a reasonable construction on those words. Plainly, to my mind, all men are created equal in point of natural rights, certainly not equal in point of civil rights, not equal in point of political rights. By nature man has no civil or political rights. Natural rights are one sort of rights; civil rights are another sort of rights; and political rights are a third sort of rights. Every human being has a natural right to life and liberty; but every human being has not a natural right to government. He has not a natural right to the civil rights conferred and defined by a system of government. When he becomes subject to civil government he surrenders a part of his natural rights—agrees that civil government may regulate these and then enjoys the benefit of civil rights conferred by civil government; but then he does not thereby necessarily become entitled to political rights. He can not become entitled to political rights until they shall be conferred upon him by government.
Mr. Morton.—Will the Senator cite what follows?
Mr. Merrimon.—When our fathers adopted the Declaration of Independence, and declared these general truths, they had reference to the natural rights of man, and only to those rights. They well knew the distinctions to which I have adverted, had them in view and acted upon them, as I shall now proceed to show.
Mr. Morton.—It says that "to secure these rights" referred to, the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments were instituted which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Now, I ask if women are a part of "the governed?"
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir; they are a part of "the governed," and I say that they have not only assented, but they have consented to this system of government.
Mr. Morton.—How?
Mr. Merrimon.—I say so, because they have never raised their voice in opposition to it; they have given for nearly a century their highest moral sanction to it; we have had a moral expression from the American women with a degree of unanimity and cordiality that is striking. I am warranted in saying that nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand have given their moral assent, in as full a measure as it was possible for them to do, to our system of government. They have sustained it under all circumstances with their love, their hands, and their hearts, with their smiles and their tears, educated their children to love it and to die for it. They have manifested their love for it in every form, it has never appeared, be it said to their honor, that they disliked or disapproved it. They have had the right under the bill of rights of every State in the Union, they have had the right under the Constitution of the Union at all times to memorialize the States and to memorialize Congress, protesting against any abridgment of their natural or civil rights, if they deemed there was any abridgment of those rights. But I repeat what I said a while ago, the number who have thus memorialized Congress and the State governments, compared with those who have not opened their mouths on this subject, is as a drop in the sea compared to the waste of waters. They have yielded their assent to this system of government; they have ratified it by every means in their power outside of exercising the political right to vote. I know that there are a few women in the country who complain, but those who complain, compared with those who do not complain, are as one to a million.
But to get back to the point. Those who established the Declaration of Independence gave an exposition to their view of it in the formation and administration of the several State governments they adopted. For years in those State governments they provided civil and political distinctions and discriminations; they provided that certain classes of white men should enjoy certain classes of rights, that certain other men should not enjoy the same rights. They provided that the male population should enjoy rights that the female should not enjoy. They provided that the white race should be free and that the black race should be slaves. They did that, and according to their action and the organic laws which they adopted, they said in the most solemn manner they could, that that system of government carried out the purposes they meant to declare and define in the Declaration of Independence. They not only did that, but they had a right to do it, nor was it inconsistent with the declaration, for it referred only to natural rights, and when they instituted governments they provided civil and political rights, and therefore there was no contradiction and no practical absurdity as is suggested. Their theory was practical and adapted to the comprehension and protection of human rights. They were not visionary theorists but practical statesmen. They were not radical but conservative in their notions of government. Not only the State governments did at first what I have indicated, but when the American people came to establish the Constitution of the United States they again provided in the Constitution a distinction and discrimination between the male and the female portion of the American people; they provided that the males should hold the offices, that the males should have the right to vote; and not only that, but by way of further exposition of their views of the nature, purposes, and meaning of the Declaration, they provided that the black race should be slaves. That Constitution recognizes negro slavery in three several provisions.
Mr. Morton.—Does the Senator speak of the Constitution of the United States?
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir. In the matter of representation, slavery was expressly provided for; it was recognized in another provision relative to prohibiting the importation of certain persons until after the year 1808; and in another provision which provided that those held to labor, escaping to another State, should be surrendered to their masters on demand. The Constitution of the Union, made in pursuance of this very Declaration of Independence and conforming to it, recognized a distinction between the white race and the black race, and recognized and provided distinctions between the male and the female portions of the people of the American Union, and thereby in the most absolute manner drew the civil and political distinctions that have been kept up in one way or another from that day to this, and which I contend, with a view to good government, so far as the male and female portions of the American people go, ought to be kept up and perpetuated. It seems to me that any one who will take into consideration the facts to which I have called attention must see that the broad, radical construction which the Senator puts on the Declaration of Independence can not be sustained by reason, authority, or practice.
But, sir, I want now to refer to the position taken by the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent]. He says that under the Constitution by the XIII., XIV. and XV. articles of Amendment, Congress has no power to deprive the females of this country of the right of suffrage. That I deny as emphatically as I can. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, p. 65:
The right of suffrage is the right to choose officers of the Government, and it does not carry along the right of citizenship. (Bates on Citizenship, 4, 5.) Our laws make no provision for the loss or deprivation of citizenship. (Id.)
The word "citizen" is not mentioned in this clause, and its idea is excluded in the qualifications for suffrage in all the State constitutions. (Id., 5, 6.)Mr. Sargent.—What clause is he commenting on?
Mr. Merrimon.—He is commenting on section 2 of article 1. He says further:
No person in the United States did ever exercise the right of suffrage in virtue of the naked, unassisted fact of citizenship. (Id.)
There is a distinction between political rights and political powers. The former belong to all citizens alike, and cohere in the very name and nature of citizenship. The latter (voting and holding office) does not belong to all citizens alike, nor to any citizen merely in virtue of citizenship. His power always depends upon extraneous facts and superadded qualifications; which facts and qualifications are common to both citizens and aliens. (Bates on Citizenship.)I read these hasty citations of authority which happen to be convenient to show that there is a distinction between political power and political rights, and in further support of the distinction between citizenship, or civil rights, and political rights.
Mr. Sargent.—Will my friend allow me a moment?
Mr. Merrimon.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Sargent.—The author there is commenting on the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and I think his reasoning on that upon general principles may be correct, at any rate it is in consonance with the authority that he cites. But it will be observed that by the XIV. article, section 1, it is provided that—
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
And then it says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens,
Covering the whole broad ground. Whatever may be the privileges and immunities of citizens are covered and protected by this clause. This is subsequent to the article commented on there and changes the spirit of the old Constitution, is inconsistent with it, repeals it, or modifies it pro tanto; or else there would be no object in the adoption of the XIV. article.
Mr. Merrimon.—I was just coming to the discussion of that Amendment. The XIV. Amendment applies to civil rights. As I have shown, a citizen merely by virtue of citizenship does not enjoy political rights; neither the right to vote nor the right to hold office. The manifest object and purpose of the XIV. Amendment was to secure to all the American people equality of right in the States, equality of right under the United States, civilly, not politically; and that is made more manifest when we consider the second section of the XIV. Amendment. It is in these words:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Thus it appears the amendments recognized the right of the State itself to regulate the political right to vote. The XV. article of Amendment still further confirms my view. It provides that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote"—and that word "vote" is material there—"the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State." Note what follows: "On account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The right of a citizen of the United States in the first place to vote shall not be abridged on account of three considerations, to-wit: race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Why was it limited to those three causes? Manifestly because the framers of this article saw that Congress had the power to abridge the rights of the colored race—indeed, any race—in the matter of voting and in the matter of holding office as well. Can it be contended that the United States would not have the power to-day to provide that a negro or an Indian or a Chinese or a Mongolian, if naturalized, and a citizen, should not hold office under the United States Government? It is plain they would have such power. But they can not act upon the ground of race, color, or previous condition as to the matter of voting, and the restriction is to that alone. This clause provides expressly that as to voting the right of no human being shall be abridged because of his race, or his color, or his previous condition of serviservitude, But that does not imply that the States shall not have the power to abridge this right for other causes. Each State has the power to-day to abridge the right to vote because a man can not read, because he can not write, or for any similar cause. The States have power to provide that a man shall not be allowed to hold office or to vote because he can not read or because he can not write, or for any cause whatever. That is not only so according to the plain construction to be given to the XV. Amendment, but some of the States exercise such power in this country to-day.
Mr. Sargant.—Will the Senator allow me to direct his mind to one consideration?
Mr. Merrimon.—I will.
Mr. Sargant.—The XV. Amendment to the Constitution which the Senator refers to, reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged:" It does not create a right, it says "the right"; it speaks of something existing which shall not be denied. The right, then, to vote is the right of a citizen of the United States; the right exists. In other words, the right which exists of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged.
Mr. Merrimon.—There is no affirmative provision or principle in the Constitution that confers such a right, and my friend arrives at his conclusion by a simple inference; that is all. And I apprehend that a right of so much moment, contravening the whole policy of the Government, heretofore, can not be established by a simple inference; and especially in the strength and in the face of the fact, however it might be as to other matters, that the United States shall not have the power to abridge the right for the cause mentioned. Besides this, if I concede what the honorable Senator says, he must acknowledge that it is within the power of the United States to abridge the right to vote for other causes than those stated. The constitution of Connecticut prescribes these qualifications: Every white male citizen of the United States; one year's residence; freehold of the yearly value of six dollars; good moral character; able to read any article of the Constitution or any section of the statutes of the State. But if that State had undertaken to restrict the right to vote because a man was black or because he belonged to a particular race, or because heretofore he had been subject to a condition of servitude, that would be absolutely null and void; or if they had put in that he should not vote because he was white it would be null and void.
Next, by the constitution of Massachusetts, the right to vote is limited to "male citizens (excepting persons or paupers under guardianship); residence in the State one year; in the town or district six months; having paid all required taxes." That constitution has existed since 1780. It was provided further in that constitution that "no person shall have the right to vote or to be eligible to office under this Commonwealth who shall not be able to read the constitution in the English language and write his name. So that the power which I insist belongs to the United States, and I think I have shown belongs to the States, not only exists, but is actually exercised by States, at least two States of the Union, at this moment; and indeed in nearly or quite all the States there are more or less restrictions of the right to vote; and the State and the Union have absolute power to abridge the political right to vote except for three causes only, and those three causes are race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Mr.Stewart.—I hope that the Senate will not suppose that there is any constitutional question here involved. It is simply a question of regulating the suffrage in a Territory, exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States. There is no doubt of the power of Congress to allow women to vote in the Territories, and I hope there will not be a great deal of time spent on that matter.
Mr. Merrimon.—Why do you want to go into a remote, sparsely settled Territory to make the experiment?
Mr. Stewart.—Why not try it everywhere? Why not try it in North Carolina? Because we can not.
Mr. Merrimon.—Why not try it in this city? Mr. Stewart.—Because we have not the power to do it.
Mr. Merrimon Merrimon.—You have in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Sargent.—We tried the question of negro suffrage in Nebraska first.
Mr. Stewart.—Negro suffrage was opened in a Territory when there were less people in it than there are here, and see how that has spread. Mr. Merrimon.—My friend did not hear my question. Why not confer suffrage on the women of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Sargent.—We will the first time we get a chance.
Mr. Stewart.—The Senator from North Carolina asks, "Why not try it here?" The question has been suggested whether there is not a constitutional reason for not trying it here, and that constitutional question applies to males as well as females. The Constitution says that Congress shall have exclusive power of legislation within the District of Columbia, and it shall exercise like power over places owned by the United States with the consent of the States for arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, making this District under the exclusive control of Congress. I think that nothing but the emergencies of the case could have justified the experiment we tried here with negro suffrage; but we did it. We now have a fair field in the West where the country is rich and inviting, as my friend from Minnesota says, a country that is able to become a State; the land fertile, the climate salubrious, and is to be occupied by the very best people, and we can try it there under the most favorable auspices.
Mr. Conkling.—May I ask a question?
Mr. Stewart.—Most certainly.
Mr. {{sc|Conkling}Conkling.—The Senator has assured us so often that he is in earnest, that I know he will be able to afford those like me who are following him, although they may be somewhat in the dark, the requisite information. Some Senator inquired of my friend why he did not try the experiment here, and he answered that Congress has power to legislate here, and therefore there is no experiment to try here. Now I know my friend does not mean to paddle out of any thing, because he has courage enough to stand up to it; and I submit to him that that is rather "thin." Under the organic law of this District men vote here annually; the things upon which they vote are prescribed; and if the Senator is in earnest, I should like to know some better reason why he does not try it here. An amendment is in order on this bill to try it here. We have confessedly in this District, exceptionally in this District the entire power upon this question; and if the Senator is in earnest, knowing as he does that under the organic law, of which as a member of the committee of investigation he has learned so much, voting is to be done and is now committed exclusively to men and denied to women, I beg him to state some broader and better answer to the question why he does not try it here. And let me remind him at the same time that under the rules of the Senate an amendment is in order to this bill; he need not go beyond this bill in order to insure the right in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Stewart.—Inasmuch as the Senator from New York has designated me as the leader whom he is to follow, and I take it for granted he is in earnest in his question, I shall occupy the time of the Senate briefly in answering it. When the question arises for suffrage at all in this District, with my present ideas, I shall vote for female suffrage in this District. I was saying that I do not think there need be any popular voting at all in this District by males or females, for the reason that the great mass of people here are merely sojourners. I think we should govern the District directly by the Congress of the United States, that can pass all needful laws. When the question comes up properly as to the District, it will be time enough to meet it. Here is the question directly up as to a Territory, and there is no doubt about this being a good opportunity.
Mr. Conkling.—I beg to inquire when ever in time or eternity that question will come up here, unless some champion who has the courage and genius of my friend brings it up? Who shall bring it up if he refuses to do it? And when a bill is pending to which that amendment is appropriate, and his attention is called to it, if he flinches, if he goes back, who shall we hope for to come hereafter who will break a lance in such a cause? I say to him that unless he wants to discourage me and other men of less courage who are trying to follow him, he must not flinch by saying that he can not do anything about it until it comes on a motion to bring it up. He should bring it up himself.
Mr. Stewart.—The only fear I have as to the Senator from New York is that he will not have sufficient courage to follow. (Laughter.) The question is up now. The question is squarely up on this amendment whether we will allow the females in this distant Territory to vote. I propose to vote for it. He has said that I was his leader. The only question now is whether he has the courage to follow my lead, I following the lead of the Senator from California. I want to put his courage to the fullest test now. I only ask him to follow me in this one little step. If he breaks down here, I hope he will not say any thing more about it; and I am afraid he will. I will say to him, however, that the time will come when he will look very much astonished if anybody questions the right of a female to vote; and when that time comes, I shall never mention his past record to him because I do not mention unpleasant things to gentlemen. I say that for his benefit in case he should not do the gallant thing he proposes to do of following me, I following the lead of the Senator from California. The question is squarely up, and is nothing more than this: will you give women a chance to try this experiment where it is admitted it can do no harm, and where a large portion if not a majority of the people of the United States believe it will do a great good? Try this experiment there; and if the struggle which is inaugurated there shall spread over the country as the struggle that was inaugurated in Kansas spread over the country and finally terminated in the colored man having full rights, if it should have full effect on the rest of the country, so be it. I rather think it will.
Mr. Merrimon.—In the discussion in which I engaged, I was more anxious about the principle involved than I was about the particular amendment, and therefore I hardly mentioned it in the hasty argument which I submitted. In order to support my position now, I desire to read a report from the Judiciary Committee which embraces the very subject under discussion, the question of the power of the State governments and the Federal Government to abridge the right to vote and hold office. The subject came before that committee in the way of a petition of certain citizens of the State of Rhode Island who insisted that their rights as citizens of the United States were abridged—
Mr. Stewart.—Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. Merrimon.—Certainly.
Mr. Stewart.—Suppose the American people come to the conclusion that it is right that females should vote, does not the Senator think there will be plenty of ways to accomplish it notwithstanding that report of the Judiciary Committee?
Mr. Merrimon.—O yes, I think so; but I do not care to debate that. My object was to throw light on this question. I do not want a wrong construction put upon the powers of the Government at this day. It is important that we should be upon the right line and keep upon it; and with a view to strengthen my argument I ask the Clerk to read the report which I send to the desk. It is very brief; and I beg leave to say now that it is well known to the Senate and must be known to the country that this committee embraces the ablest lawyers in this country on constitutional law.
The Chief Clerk read the following report submitted by Mr. Edmunds on the 26th of May, 1870:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of citizens of Rhode Island setting forth, by reference, the XIV. and XV. Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and stating that, "the State of Rhode Island, notwithstanding the provisions of the above-named amendments, persists, in and by the first section of article 2 of the constitution of said State, in denying and abridging the right of about 10,000 citizens of the United States to vote at any and all elections holden in said State," and praying that Congress will "pass such appropriate legislation as may be found necessary to obtain for, and secure to, the citizens of the United States resident in Rhode Island all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States," respectfully report:
That the constitution of Rhode Island, adopted in 1842, prescribes two alternative classes of qualifications for voting. The first gives to all male citizens of the United States of a certain age, etc., the right to vote, if they own real estate of the value of $134, or which shall rent for $7 per annum. The second gives to every male native citizen of the United States of a certain age, etc., the right to vote, if he pays a tax of $1 a year, etc., although he may not own real estate. No man or party has ever questioned the right of the people of Rhode Island and of every other State to establish such a constitution of government as maybe agreeable to their views of the public welfare in that State, although its provision as to suffrage may not conform to the opinions of other States. At the time when this constitution of Rhode Island was adopted the right to regulate the qualifications of voters belonged exclusively to the respective States. The petition under consideration fully recognizes this, but it raises the question (although studiously framed in such a manner as not to declare or insist upon such a conclusion) whether, by the XIV. and XV. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, natives of foreign countries who have become citizens of the United States are not entitled to vote in Rhode Island, without regard to the qualifications imposed by her Constitution?
The committee is unanimously of the opinion that this question must be answered in the negative.
The "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" mentioned in the petition as secured by the XIV. Amendment do not include the right of suffrage. If they did, the right must necessarily exist in all citizens of the United States from the mere fact of citizenship, without the power in any State or in Congress to abridge the same in any degree; and in such case, therefore, no qualification of any kind could be imposed, and all persons (being citizens), males and females, infants, lunatics, and criminals, without respect to age, length of residence, or any other thing, would be entitled to participate directly in all elections. Every provision in every State which experience has proved to be essential to security and good order in society would thereby be overthrown. It is enough to say that the rights secured by this amendment to the constitution are of an altogether different character. The XV. Amendment does apply to rights of suffrage, and to those only. By it the State of Rhode Island, in common with every other State, is forbidden to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States "to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But, plainly, the constitution of Rhode Island does not preclude any citizen from voting on either or any of the grounds thus prohibited. No fact of race, or color, or previous servitude prevents any citizen from voting in Rhode Island. Neither of these qualities depends in any degree upon the place of his nativity. This seems too obvious to need discussion. It is also a fact, appearing in the public records of Congress and doubtless known to the petitioners, that when the XV. Amendment was under consideration by Congress it was proposed to embrace in it a prohibition of any denial of suffrage, on account of "nativity," and that this proposition was not agreed to, for the reason that Congress did not think it expedient to restrict the ancient powers of the States in these respects any further than appeared to be absolutely needful to secure to the whole people the great results of the overthrow of the rebellion.
The committee is therefore of opinion that there is nothing in the provisions of the constitution of Rhode Island referred to in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
Whether these provisions are wise or right in themselves is a matter over which neither the committee nor Congress has any control. That subject belongs to the people of Rhode Island, who it must be presumed will correct any and all errors that may from time to time be found to exist in her internal affairs.Mr. Merrimon.—I think the Senator from Nevada will be unable to answer that position.
Mr. Carpenter (Mr. Ingalls in the chair.)—Mr. President———
Mr. Edmunds.—Before the Senator from Wisconsin proceeds with his remarks, I should like to ask the chairman of the committee whether he means to include Indians and Canadians? The language is "every inhabitant of the United States."
Mr. Sargent.—No, it is qualified further, as the Senator will see if the whole section is read.
Mr. Edmunds.—Not as to the first election. Mr. Sargent.—No, it is qualified further, as the Senator will see if the whole section is read.
Mr. Edmunds.—Not as to the first election.[Pg 562]
Mr. Sargent.—I think myself the section is very inartificially drawn.
Mr. Edmunds.—I do not know but that it is very artificially drawn, if it is intended to include the Indian and the Canadian.
Mr. Sargent.—To answer the Senator from Vermont I ask that the final proviso of the section be read, which qualifies the part he referred to.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Provided, further, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared on oath, before a competent court of record, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and Government of the United States.
Mr. Edmunds.—That does not relate to the first election.
Mr. Sargent.—That objection applies to the details of the bill; it does not apply to my amendment.
Mr. Edmunds.—That is true.
The Presiding Officer.—The Senator from Wisconsin is entitled to the floor.
Mr. Carpenter.—Mr. President, as the yeas and nays have been ordered on this question and I shall vote for this amendment, without going into any argument of the general question, I desire to say one word as to the reason why I shall so vote.
I believe it is not one of woman's rights, but it is one of man's that the franchise should be extended to women. I believe there is no situation in which man can be placed where the aid of woman is not beneficial; that in all the relations of life, in all the occupations and all the duties of life it was the intention of God in creating the race that woman should be the helpmate of man, everywhere and in all circumstances and occupations. Look through your country, look in your railroad cars, look in your post-offices, look in your dry-goods stores, and there you see everything decent and orderly and quiet. Why? Because women go there. The only place in this country from which they are excluded by law is the voting place, and in many of our large cities those places are the most disgraceful that can be found under our institutions. Now, I believe if the elections were open to ladies as well as gentlemen, to women as well as men, there would be as much order, quiet, and decency at the voting places as there is in a railroad car, and for precisely the same reason. If our wives and mothers and daughters were going to these election places there would be order and decency there, or there would be a row once for all that would make them decent. I have more confidence in the influence of women at the elections in New York City to reform the condition of things that exists there and bring about decency and order at the elections and the prevention of violence and fraud, than I have in all the Army and Navy that the President can send there under the election bill which was put through here by my honorable friend from New York (Mr. Conkling).
Without enlarging on the subject, I shall vote for this amendment, not because this Territory is located, as some Senator has said, near Minnesota. I would vote for female suffrage in the District of Columbia to-morrow; I would vote for it in the State of Wisconsin; I would vote for it anywhere and everywhere if I had an opportunity to do so.
Mr. Morrill, of Maine.—Mr. President, I shall vote against this ment, and for the reason that I do not consider the right of suffrage a woman's right or a man's right. I do not understand it to be a natural right at all. It is a political right; and I do not understand, as applied to women, that it is a privilege at all. It is akin to a service; and it is a very rough service. It is in its nature akin to militia service. The man who exercises the ballot must be prepared to defend it with the bayonet; and therefore the propriety of its being confined in all ages to men. That it is not a natural right is apparent to anybody who reflects upon it; and it never was so considered in any country in the world.
We talk about it here now as a natural right, and my honorable friend who sits next me (Mr. Morton) has invoked the principles of the Declaration of Independence and said that it stands with those rights which are called inherent, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not so in any sense whatever, and never was so regarded. If it were, do you not perceive that it applies as well to infants as to adults? If it is natural to all citizens, then it applies, as I have said, to infants as well as to adults. I regard it as strictly a political right. It does not inhere in man naturally, or in woman; and I do not propose, myself, to impose it on women. It is a severe, rugged service, which in my judgment ought not to be imposed on women. My honorable friend from Wisconsin says there is no position in life in which the society of woman would not be an improvement. How is it on the deck of a battle-ship? How is it in military affairs? Should she be placed in the militia to enforce the results of a ballot? Is there any one of us who believes that? Is there anybody here who would be glad to see a woman in the train-band, on the muster-field, at the cannon's mouth, or on the decks of your war-ships? That is what your argument means, if it means anything logically.
But sir, I am not going to argue the proposition at all. I am going to vote against it because the right of suffrage is that rugged and severe service which man has no right to devolve upon woman. It is enough to say that when the American women want the ballot, when they come to hanker for it, and fall in love with the exercise of the ballot at the polls, I am in favor of their voting, but not until then; and I am not in favor of that sentimental sort of stuff which is gotten up somewhere or other by portions of the people who would force it upon the American women as a general proposition. Whenever they come to desire it, whenever the American women come to ask it, and particularly when they come to demand it, or even to solicit it, there will be no question as to what the American Congress will do; but until that time comes I shall vote steadily against it.
Nobody will be surprised at these sentiments from me who has had occasion to know the sentiments that I have expressed on this same subject on former occasions. I will send to the desk and ask to have read a paragraph or two from a speech made by me some years ago on the subject of suffrage.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
Moreover, it associates the wife and mother with policies of State, with public affairs, with making, interpreting, and executing the laws, with police and war, and necessarily disseverates her from purely domestic affairs, peculiar care for and duties of the family; and, worst of all, assigns her duties revolting to her nature and constitution, and wholly incompatible with those which spring from womanhood.
Besides, the ballot is the inseparable concomitant of the bayonet. Those who practice the one must be prepared to exercise the other. To introduce woman at the polls is to enroll her in the militia; to transfer her from the class of non-combatants to the class of combatants.—Congressional Globe, part 1, second session Thirty-ninth Congress, 1866-'67, page 40.Mr. Sargent.—I have no doubt of the consistency of my friend from Maine on this proposition and on every other. I have no doubt that the remarks which he made formerly on this subject he repeats to-day with the same idea of their entire correctness; but I differ with him upon both the propositions which he advances. He says that women do not desire the right of suffrage and there is no evidence before Congress that they do desire it. Why, sir, the tables of your committee-rooms have been loaded with petitions from every State in this Union on this subject, and they come forward day after day.
Mr. Edmunds.—And remonstrances also.
Mr. Sargent.—Very few indeed.
Mr. Stewart.—I suggest to my friend from California if the only question is whether women desire the right of suffrage or not, that can only be determined by submitting it to them. When we wish to ascertain whether the male citizens of the country desire a proposition, we submit the question to them and let them vote upon it.
Mr. Sargent.—That suggestion is very just. But the fact that there are remonstrances against the extension of the suffrage to women shows that there is agitation, and agitation shows interest in the matter. If this opinion were not in danger of prevailing, if it were not sweeping over the country, we would get no remonstrances; it would be looked upon as mere idle wind blowing nowhere and amounting to nothing. I say these petitions are coming here in every form. There are large and popular conventions, attended by ladies and attended by a great many men, making strong efforts to this end. There is as much agitation on this point as there was for the abolition of slavery before the war broke out.
Now I come to the other proposition of my friend from Maine. He says the ballot and the bayonet go together, and that he who handles the one must be prepared to handle the other. What do you do with men who are past the years of military service and exempted by your laws? Do you deprive them of the ballot? That of itself is a sufficient answer to that argument They are not inseparable. Fortunately for our country the necessity for the use of the bayonet occurs very seldom; but when it does occur there are large classes of male voters who are not called to the field, but are exempted by the policy of our law. No one believes that if women had this privilege, or this immunity, or this right—whatever you may call it—put into their hands we would therefore require of them to do things that would degrade or unsex them, or that would be improper for them to perform. I believe that men would have the same respect for women with the ballot in their hands as without it.
It is not for the few women who remonstrate from luxurious parlors, sitting upon sofas, in the glare of the gaslight, changing and choosing their phrases, but for the great class of laboring women in the country that I appeal for this redress. I appeal for the women who have been struggling on in these Government offices, doing the same work that men do, aye, and in many cases doing it better, for about one-half of the pay. Do you suppose if they had ballots they would not make their voices heard here and get for the same work the same pay? Who ever knew a labor strike of women to succeed? When women in New York City and other places are bowed down to the earth by their labor—making shirts at a shilling a day—and they strike for more pay, for more bread, for an opportunity to live, who ever heard of one of their strikes succeeding? Men strike from their workshops and they succeed, and why? Because they have the ballot; because they have political force, because they have the power of citizenship behind them in its fullest sense. Give these poor struggling women the same chance and they can make their way to a fair remuneration of wages in the public offices, and they can make their way in the workshops, and these toiling mothers, widows, and sisters supporting orphan brothers and sisters will have some opportunity to vindicate their rights and to procure not merely political rights, but a chance to live, and a chance to avoid infamy.
Senators talk about this question as if the ballot was not demanded for women. Will you tell me why it was that the great party which controls both branches of Congress and holds the Executive, when it met in Philadelphia at that grand convention, put a plank in its platform stating that these demands for further rights should be respectfully considered? Do you think there was no agitation, no desire on the part of women for the ballot when that great convention could be moved to a declaration like this:
The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women or America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to higher fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights shall be treated with respectful consideration.
Was that mere euphuism, mere phrasing? Did that mean nothing? Did it respond to no demand? Ay, sir, did it not only respond to a demand which was there pressed, but did it not imply a duty, a pledge which this party ought to redeem?
But the Senator from Maine, as well as the Senator from North Carolina, asserts that the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution has no relation whatever to political rights, that it relates to something with reference to social equality, something in the far distance, but does not touch this question at all. When I called the attention of the Senator from North Carolina to the XV. Amendment which says "the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged," assuming the right to exist, not saying that the right hereafter shall exist and shall not be abridged; but the right now existing by fair intendment shall not be abridged, he replied "that I deduced this right by an inference," and he thought a right of this kind ought not to stand on mere inference. His argument for the opposite construction, that the right to vote may be abridged for any other cause than those enumerated in the amendment, is drawn only by an inference from it. The affirmative language is that the right shall not be abridged for certain causes; and then by an inference the Senator says it may be abridged for others. In other words, his argument is that I am not at liberty to infer from the Constitution of the United States rights for women or rights for mankind. I shall not extend it by inference in favor of freedom, but any inference which will limit its operation, which will destroy or curtail its meaning, is legitimate.
Mr. Merrimon: What clause of the Constitution does the Senator assert creates the right?
Mr. Sargent: The first section of the XV. Amendment declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged—speaking of it as an affirmative right; not speaking of it as here established but as a right which of course must have been established by the XIV. Amendment.
Now, sir, to show that I do not strain the interpretation of the Constitution, I desire to refer to some few authorities even under the old Constitution which go very far to answer the authority that the Senator cited. Bushrod Washington, a member of the United States Supreme Court, and well known as a jurist of high attainments and great powers of mind, in the case of Corfield vs. Coryell declared what I shall read, which is approvingly cited by Kent, the master writer upon American law, in the second volume of his Commentaries:
It was declared in Corfield vs. Coryell that the privileges and immunities conceded by the Constitution of the United States to citizens in the several States were to be confined to those which were in their nature fundamental, and belonged of right to the citizens of all free governments. Such are the rights of protection of life and liberty, and to acquire and enjoy property, and to pay no higher impositions than other citizens, and to pass through or reside in the State at pleasure, and to enjoy the elective franchise according to the regulations of the laws of the State.
Those, according to the decision in Corfield vs. Coryell, cited approvingly by Chancellor Kent, are the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States. Then comes in the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," and further, that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Now, sir, I quote from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under the title "citizen." He gives what the word means, first in English law, and then he comes down to American law:
One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for Representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people.
A citizen is a person who has certain political rights, and the word is properly used only to imply or suggest the possession of these rights.
Is it a mere question of privilege or immunity? It is a right which exists and so it is considered in all the law; so it is treated in the well-considered decisions on the subject, and by the text writers.
By the pledge which was given by the dominant party of the country in their last National Convention, by the allegiance which Democrats themselves owe to the Constitution of the United States, by the higher benefit which will be conferred upon society, upon the women themselves who are struggling for a chance in life, and upon men themselves by the purification of society, I ask that this amendment be adopted.
Mr. Bayard: I should like to ask the honorable Senator a question before he takes his seat. I understand that he denies the power of the Congress of the United States or of a State to exclude a female from voting, to make an exclusion based upon sex, because it would be an infringement of her rights as a citizen, under the meaning of that word in the Constitution, according to the construction given it by the courts. I should like to ask him whether he considers that an exclusion by reason of age is not just as arbitrary and unauthorized as the exclusion by reason of sex, and by what right can it be that a State or the United States shall arbitrarily fix a period in a person's life at which he shall attain his civil rights? In most of the States, and by the common law of England, the age of twenty-one years was fixed as what they term the majority, when a person becomes sui juris. Under the laws of the various States of this Union, following the laws of other civilized communities of older date, a period has been fixed in the life of man at which he attains his civil rights. Ordinarily it is at the age of twenty-one years; under the civil law it is twenty-five; it is so in France; it is so in Spain; it is so in the French and Spanish Colonies. Among the English-speaking people the age of twenty-one years is the period fixed. If the rights which have been spoken of by the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from California are inalienable, natural rights, are part and parcel of those "privileges and immunities" referred to by the Constitution of the United States, how can it be that a law, a mere arbitrary enactment by a State or by Congress, shall exclude a man who is twenty years and six months old from exercising those inalienable rights, those privileges and immunities which six months after, by the mere difference of time, they permit him to enjoy? I have stated the question at length for the purpose of letting the Senator from California answer it more fully.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. President, I do not think the Constitution prevents a regulation of the power to vote. The States unquestionably have a right to fix the time when voting shall take place, to fix the places where the voting shall be done, and they have the right to fix the age at which voting shall be exercised. But under the Constitution they have no power to prescribe a test which is not equally attainable by all persons. They have no right to say that only white men shall vote, for that would exclude black men. They have no right to say that only black men shall vote, for that would exclude white men. They have no right to say that only men shall vote, for that would exclude women. The Constitution says that all shall be put on an equality in this respect, that any test which may be required shall apply to all alike, men and women, black or white.
Mr. Bayard: But the law does no such thing. There are classes, and a very large and great class in the State that the Senator represents, who can not become citizens of the United States and can not vote there.
Mr. Sargent: Why not?
Mr. Bayard: Because of their race; because they are Asiatics and not Africans.
Mr. Sargent: The Constitution of the United States does not prevent it.
Mr. Bayard: No; but the law of Congress prevents it. The Senator says these are all entitled under the law.
Mr. Sargent: I will not detain the Senate now on the point referred to by the Senator. He has shifted his ground and I will not follow him. Whenever legislation comes up on that subject I will discuss it. They are not citizens of the United States. I am dealing now with citizens whose privileges and immunities as such no one has a right to abridge.
Mr. Ferry, of Michigan: It is not my intention to speak on the merits of this proposition; but inasmuch as the Senator from Maine (Mr. Morrill) has raised the question of consistency and appealed to his record, it reminds me of the fact that the question of woman suffrage appeared as early, I think, as 1858, before the Legislature of Michigan. I had the honor of holding a seat in the Senate of the State at that time, and the question was referred to the committee of which I was a member, and it fell to my lot to report upon it. If my recollection serves me rightly the resolution favoring the right of women to vote was lost by but a majority of three in the Michigan Senate.
Mr. Edmunds: Which way was the report?
Mr. Ferry, of Michigan: I am reminded by the Senator from Vermont that perhaps I have not intimated which side the report took. The report was in favor of woman suffrage, and it may be regarded as having contributed to so large a vote. To-day, sir, is the first time since that occasion that I have been officially called upon to record my judgment upon the same question. I have had no reason since that report was drawn to shake my belief that the right of suffrage will not be jeopardized or perverted if wielded by the hand of woman. Believing that now and desiring to act in accord with my action in 1858 in the Senate of my native State. I am glad of the opportunity to prove my consistency by voting for woman suffrage to-day.
Mr. Anthony: Mr. President, I am quite content that this experiment of female suffrage should be tried in this new Territory. I believe that female suffrage is coming with the other ameliorations and changes which have been tending for so many years in the same direction. I have not taken any part in the measures which have been agitated to hasten that event. I think it will come in its own good time; but I should do very great injustice to myself if I should allow it to be supposed that my opinion is based upon some of the arguments that have been made here. I do not believe that suffrage is a natural right. I believe it is a right that grows out of society, a political right, and that it is within the body-politic to decide upon its limits, its modifications, and its conditions. The only question in my mind is whether it is proper and expedient. I think that the XIV. Amendment has nothing whatever to do with it.
Mr. Morton: Mr. President, the Senators from Rhode Island, Maine, and North Carolina have all said that the right to vote is not a natural right, but merely a political right. Is not that a distinction without a difference? If I have a natural right, I have a right to use the necessary and proper means to enforce that right; it is a part of it. To say that I have a natural right but have not the right to use the means for its protection is illogical; it makes nonsense of it. The natural and proper means to enforce any right are a part of it. The right of self-defense is one of the natural rights; everybody concedes it, and to take from me the natural and effective means of defending myself is to take from me the right itself. Government is the means of securing natural rights, and should depend upon the consent of the governed. Therefore the right to give or to withhold my consent is a part of the natural right. Let us come down to the substance and put away these shadowy distinctions. To say that I have the right of self-defense, but that I have no right to use the knife or any instrument necessary to protect my life against the assassin, is nonsense. So far as the right of government is concerned, the right to assent, to consent, or to dissent, the natural means under our system is the right to vote. You can not conceive any other. Therefore it is a part of the right and without it the other is worth nothing.
Mr. Edmunds: I wish to ask the Senator from Indiana whether persons under the age of twenty-one and eighteen years respectively have not all the natural rights that grown-up people have?
Mr. Morton: I think I can answer that question very readily, if the Senator is through.
Mr. Edmunds: That is my only question at present.
Mr. Morton: Every right must have some sort of regulation.
Mr. Edmunds: That does not answer the question.
Mr. Morton: Wait until I get through. We have in our country, and I believe generally in Europe, certainly in England, agreed that twenty-one years is the age when men and women have come into the full possession of their understanding and are supposed to be so well informed that they can take upon themselves the government of their own fortunes and the control of their own property. The mere fact that this thing is to be regulated does not take away the right. The natural right to own and control property is regulated in that way. There must be some age fixed. We know the infant can not do it; we know the child ten years old has not the necessary knowledge of the world or strength of understanding; and we have agreed upon a certain age when men and women come to the possession of their understanding and are able to take care of their own rights, whatever they may be.
Mr. Edmunds: May I ask the Senator, after all, what his opinion is, whether a child of tender years, say ten years of age, has not every natural right that a man of seventy has?
Mr. Morton: Certainly.
Mr. Edmunds: Morally, legally, and every other way? Mr. Morton: To my mind that furnishes no argument at all.
Mr. Edmunds: I am not arguing it.
Mr. Morton: It is merely putting an extreme case to say that a woman twenty-five years of age shall not have the right to vote because if she votes the child in her arms has the right to vote. Is there any force in that?
Mr. Edmunds: I have not put any case at all. I am asking the Senator from Indiana, which he seems to be very unwilling to answer, whether a child of tender years has or has not, in his opinion, the same natural rights that a grown-up person has. That can be answered one way or the other without saying it is an argument.
Mr. Morton: I suppose the child has the right, certainly the incipient right; but that amounts to nothing when you apply it to a child that has not the strength, the experience, the knowledge of the world, or the age to exercise it. The common sense of mankind in this and every other country fixes a certain age when men and women shall be regarded as mature and qualified to take care of themselves.
Mr. Edmunds: They do not fix the same age, let me suggest to the Senator.
Mr. Morton: Now, Mr. President, unless we are prepared to deny the very fundamental doctrine upon which our Government is based, we must admit that women have the same rights that men have. The Senator from North Carolina will not deny that women have the same natural rights that men have. The Senator nods his assent. Then if that is so, they have the same natural right to use the means necessary to protect those rights that men have. That right, so far as men are concerned, is the ballot.
Mr. Merrimon: Natural means.
Mr. Morton: Whatever means are necessary and proper to the protection of a natural right are natural means.
Mr. Bayward: Did the Senator from Indiana answer the Senator from Vermont in the affirmative or negative?
Mr. Morton: I tried to answer him.
Mr. Bayward: I merely ask the question. He says now very triumphantly to the Senator from North Carolina that the rights of men and women are the same, their natural rights are the same.
Mr. Morton: Yes.
Mr. Bayward: I ask are the rights of children different from those of men?
Mr. Morton: I think not, but I do not think there is any force in that argument, as I said before. There is a certain common sense and a certain practical regulation of natural rights all the world over.
Mr. Edmunds: But is it the common sense of men alone, let me suggest to the Senator. The children may differ with us; they generally do on such questions.
Mr. Morton: I will not spend any time on that argument.
Mr. Edmunds: I think that is wise.
Mr. Morton: To say that the mature woman has not the right to vote because the child in her arms must have the same right, comes so near making nonsense of the whole business that I dismiss it, and come back to the other statement, that women having the same natural rights that men have, have the right to the use the same means for their protection; and as the means under our form of government for the protection of the natural rights of men is the right to vote, women should have the same right and power accorded to them. The whole theory of natural rights is mere trash unless you shall give women the right and the power to protect them. The Declaration of Independence says that governments are instituted for that purpose, and that they must depend upon the consent of the governed; and as the women are one-half of the governed, they have a right to give one-half of the consent.
The Senator from North Carolina says that the women of the country have consented to our form of government, because they have not dissented. They have no power to refuse their consent. They may remonstrate and scold about it, but that amounts to nothing; their consent one way or the other means nothing except so far as their influence may be concerned. There were four and a half million of slaves who did not remonstrate against their bondage. Why? They had no means of doing it, and if they had had it would not have amounted to anything. Would the Senator argue from that, that they had no natural rights, or that they were consenting to their bondage? When you take into consideration the fact that men have all "political power and all the other sources of influence and power over women," it is not very strange perhaps that a majority of them are not asking for the right of suffrage. Some women at least are asking for it; I know that very many women all over the country believe they have the right to vote and ought to vote who never go near a political meeting and never sign petitions or anything of that kind. I would be willing to-day to submit the question to the votes of the women of the United States whether they should have that privilege or not. But suppose that a majority do not want the ballot, how does that affect the rights of the minority who do want it? One woman can not consent for another.
I believe women will never have their rights in this country, will never enjoy the same means for taking care of themselves and making an honest living in the world, until they have the right to vote. As soon as they have that right you will find they will be placed upon an equality with men. The Senator from California refers to the fact, and it is a notorious fact, that in every State in this Union, women are paid only about one-half for the same quantity and the same kind of labor that men receive. Does any man say that there is any sense or any justice in that distinction? Will that ever be remedied until woman has the right to vote? It never will.
I believe, Mr. President, in every point of view the right of suffrage should be extended to woman. I maintain that it is a God-given right to take part in the administration of that government which controls their earthly destinies and interests. I believe it is for the interest of the men, for the interest of children, for the interest of our country, for the interest of the race.
Mr. Edmunds: I could name a dozen instances all of which show that in all the States of this Union, speaking as a general rule, as it is in Great Britain and in almost all other civilized countries, the law, instead of discriminating against womanhood, discriminates in its favor in every respect whatever except the political respect of voting. That is a fact that no man can truthfully deny who has studied the history of society or who knows anything about the history of legislation in civilized States. Therefore, it does not do to say that the right to vote, the privilege of voting, or the duty of voting—because I use those phrases as not having the peculiar meaning that the Senator from California imputes to them, is essential to the protection of the female sex as such, because, as I have said, the protection that the law gives them is now in all respects, where their rights or privileges come in collision with the rest of society, greater than is extended to men.
The Senator from Indiana insists—and he has a perfect right to do so, of course—that the right to vote is a natural right, and, therefore, if females are excluded from voting, as they are by the constitutions and laws of the various States, it is an infringement upon natural right, and that that infringement ought to be abolished. Of course, his conclusion is correct if his premises are true; but is the right to vote a natural right? Can the Senator refer me to the work of any writer upon natural or municipal law from the beginning of the world to the year 1860, which maintains, or asserts, or insinuates, or suggests that the right to vote in a political community is a natural right?
Mr. Morton: I do not call to mind any author.
Mr. Edmunds: No; the Senator does not. With candor he says so, because the Senator, learned in history as he is, knows, as the rest of us know, that there is no such thing. He knows that in all the discussions and all the turmoils of society where the rights of men and women in political respects, the rights of society at large, have been discussed and turned over and over and all manner of experiments in government tried and suggested, it never has been suggested that the right to participate in the government of a political community is a natural right belonging to every human being.
Mr. Morton: I ask the Senator, if there are natural rights, do not the natural and necessary means to protect those rights become a part of them? What is the right worth if that be denied?
Mr. Edmunds: I answer no, in the broad sense in which the Senator has put it. If he asks of me as to a state of nature, without being organized into any social or political community whatever, then I answer yes, and every man is what the civil writers called in old times a barbarian; and he is invested, upon his own judgment and in his own right, with the power of defending and affirming whatever natural rights he has against all comers, exactly as a nation stands in respect to another nation; no man has a right to impose upon him any restraint; no man has a right to demand from him any concession; he is absolutely independent; and when his rights or claims come in conflict with those of anybody else he "fights it out" or runs away. So far, there is natural right, no doubt, but I hope the Senator has not gone back quite so far from the present condition of the world as to wish to discuss questions of that kind. That is not what he means. What he means by natural rights no doubt is what organized communities recognize as things of natural right, and those are things which are inherent in the person but are regulated and limited and restrained according to the rights and necessities of all the other persons in the community. In an organized society the right of self-defense is not a natural right in the broad sense, so that under all circumstances A B or C D has a right to defend himself against all aggression. An officer may come to arrest me on a warrant issued by a court irregularly. I have not the right to slay the officer because he takes me on the warrant. My place to resist is not by my natural force, not by raising a mob, but by going to the court that issued the warrant and showing that it had been issued contrary to law. And yet on the Senator's notion every time a man is brought under the law, if he does not agree with the law, his business is to fight. The community can not get along in that way. There is no such right as that in society.
Mr. Stewart: I ask the Senator what right, whether it be a natural right or an acquired right, has one man to govern another, or has society to govern the individual?
Mr. Edmunds: What right?
Mr. Stewart: Is it a natural or acquired right?
Mr. Edmunds: No man has a natural right to govern another, or an acquired right, or a political right, or a civil right that I know of, unless he is appointed the guardian of somebody. Of course, of that the Senator has not any experience; certainly not on the side of being a ward.
Mr. Stewart: Then what right has society, the body of men, to govern an individual? Is it a natural right or an acquired right?
Mr. Edmunds: Suppose I should answer the Senator and say I do not know?
Mr. Stewart: What right have they to take from him his freedom in his savage state to do as he pleases? And if they have a right to take it from him, what right have they to say he shall not participate with them equally in the regulations that shall be made for his government? If they have a right to govern him, he has a right, whether it be natural or not, to have a voice in it, if the principle of equality and fair play is one of the fundamental principles that should govern mankind.
Mr. Edmunds: I see the Senator's point. The substance of it is, if I correctly understand him, that if society has a right to govern him, he has a right to govern society, and that makes equality; and if the majority has a right to control him, he has a right to control the majority, and there is equality! Very well. I leave the Senator, with his point, to enjoy it.
Now, let us return to the subject. It is perfectly plain that the right to vote is one which society, as it is organized, is to determine by its fundamental laws. Society does determine, in the State of Vermont, if you please, that voting must only be exercised by males above the age of twenty-one years, those who are not in the penitentiary, those who are not in the lunatic asylums, those who are not idiots, and so on. The laws of Indiana may provide the same thing, or may declare that the age shall be twenty, or may declare as the Roman law used to do, that it shall be twenty-five, and so on; or it may declare as the Constitution of the United States does as to the age of Senators and as to the age of the President of the United States. On the argument of Senators in favor of this amendment to this bill, there would exist no right whatever in constituted society to make any limitation upon the free exercise of political rights to vote and hold office in respect to age. Why say a man can not be a member of the Senate until he is thirty years of age? Who can say he is not just as good at twenty-nine?
The Senator from Indiana says that common sense teaches that we must put some limitation on this. So it does; and common sense has taught that it is left to each political community to determine what are the qualifications and limitations upon the privilege of exercising political rights; and it has always been so, and it always will be so, because when the Senator proposes to say that the other sex may vote—which I admit he has a perfect right to say, and society may so say—he does not undertake to say that ladies of seventeen, instead of eighteen, shall vote, because they come of age in my State at eighteen, and do in many of the States—the Senator does not propose to say that all ladies of seventeen shall vote; and yet it is impossible to say that there is any distinction in respect to intelligence as a matter of right, any philosophical distinction between one year and another. True, as the Senator says, you may run it down so far that at last you have reached a condition of infancy, and there everybody says the child is not wise enough to vote, is not wise enough to do anything without having guardianship and tutelage. But if you put it upon the ground of natural right, the child has just as good a right to say to you that he shall be the judge of it, as you have to say to him that you must be; and this shows that the notion of any natural right of anybody of any age to participate in the government of society is an absolute absurdity. It is one of those figments of the imagination that have crawled into some people's brains within a very few years, and will go out again as other delusions do.
Then when you come to the XIV. Amendment it is equally obvious that that has nothing to do with the subject. If anybody had thought it related to suffrage when the XV. Amendment was passed, nobody would have voted for it, because on that theory the right to vote did exist in all colored persons, females as well as males; and yet nobody of any party or any creed pretended at that time when we proposed the XV. Amendment that we had guaranteed the right to vote by the XIV. Nobody suspected it; nobody suggested it; and nobody believed in it, and very few people do now, for the simple reason that the XIV. Amendment was directed, as everybody knows, by its language, by its history, by its relation to other laws, to what are called civil rights; but I am not going to define what they are, because to do so takes time. So, Mr. President, the XV. Amendment was passed in order to secure a right to vote without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Then you come to the real question which is involved here; and that is the propriety of providing that females, twenty-one years of age, not idiots, not lunatics, not in the penitentiary—standing upon the same limitations that men do in these respects—are to vote. That presents a fair question, one that we have a perfect right to pass upon; and I have only said what I have in order to show that we had not better run crazy over the idea that we were dealing with natural and inalienable rights, and that we were violating human rights if we happened to say no, or that we were vindicating human rights in the sense now spoken of if we should say yes. We are merely considering a question of political expediency, as confessedly we have the power in governing the Territories to let anybody vote we choose. We can put the whole concern in Pembina, if we think it wise, into the hands of the madmen up there, and I do not know but that they are in the majority, for I certainly know nothing about it.... If no other Senator wishes to make any remarks, I move to lay the bill upon the table.
Mr. Sargent: I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. Mr. Hager: I hope the Senator from Vermont will withdraw his motion. I desire to make a few remarks.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Clayton in the chair). The motion is not debatable.
Mr. Hager: I ask the Senator to withdraw the motion for a few minutes.
Mr. Edmunds: If the Senator will renew it when he finishes his remarks, I will do so.
Mr. Hager: Very well.
Mr. Edmunds: I withdraw the motion.
Mr. Hager: Mr. President, it seems to me strange that a question of so much importance as that raised by this amendment appears to be, from the positions taken by Senators on the floor, should be presented upon this bill, which, if amended as proposed, will not confer the right of suffrage upon females throughout the country; and for us to undertake to legislate upon this question in regard to a distant Territory where perhaps there are few or no women, unless they be of the Indian race, is to me a very astonishing thing.... If suffrage should be extended to females let it come up as a distinct, independent proposition by itself, and then every Senator can take his position in regard to a question which affects the whole country, and not a distant Territory merely. That is the way, in my opinion, to get at it.... Inasmuch as in the wisdom of the Government and people of the United States the right to the elective franchise has been conferred upon the black race in this country, I see no reason on the ground of qualification why it should not be conferred upon females.... But I am unwilling to legislate by piecemeal in this manner. If there is any good in it; if, as the Senator from Indiana says, as a matter of right women should be entitled to the franchise, that right should be co-extensive with the whole country, and not be limited to the little Territory of Pembina, which is not yet organized.
Mr. Edmunds.—I renew the motion to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. Sargent.—On that motion I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Ramsey.—I should like to appeal to the Senator from Vermont to withdraw the motion for five minutes.
Mr. Stewart.—We will not lay it on the table.
Mr. Ramsey.—Very well; let the vote be taken. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas, 24; nays, 24; as follows:
Nays—Messrs. Bogy, Boreman, Boutwell, Carpenter, Chandler, Clayton, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Gilbert, Harvey, Hitchcock, Logan, Mitchell, Morton, Patterson, Pratt, Ramsey, Sargent, Spencer, Sprague, Stewart, Tipton, West, and Windom—24.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Allison, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Kelly, Lewis, Morrill of Vermont, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—25.So the motion was not agreed to.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Clayton in the chair.)—The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent], upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. Bayard.—Mr. President, it would seem scarcely credible that in the Senate of the United States an abrupt and sudden change in so fundamental a relation as that borne by the two sexes to our system of Government should be proposed as an "experiment," and that it should be gravely recommended that a newly organized Territory under act of Congress should be set aside for this "experiment," which is in direct, grossly irreverent disregard of all that we have known as a rule, our great fundamental rule, in organizing a government of laws, whether colonial, State, or Federal, in this country.
I frankly say, Mr. President, that which strikes me most forcibly is the gross irreverence of this proposition, its utter disregard of that Divine will by which man and woman were created different, physically, intellectually, and morally, and in defiance of which we are now to have this poor, weak, futile attempt of man to set up his schemes of amelioration in defiance of every tradition, of every revelation, of all human experience, enlightened as it has been by Divine permission. It seems to me that to introduce so grave a subject as this, to spring it here upon the Senate without notice in the shape of an amendment to a pending measure, to propose thus to experiment with the great laws that lie at the very foundation of human society, and to do it for the most part in the trivial tone which we have witnessed during this debate, is not only mortifying, but it renders one almost hopeless of the permanence of our Government if this is to be the example set by one of the Houses of Congress, that which claims to be more sedate and deliberate, if it proposes in this light and perfunctory way to deal with questions of this grave nature and import. Sir, there is no time at present for that preparation which such a subject demands at the hands of any sensible man, mindful of his responsibilities, who seeks to deal with it.
This is an attempt to disregard laws promulgated by the Almighty Himself. It is irreverent legislation in the simplest and strongest sense of the word. Nay, sir, not only so, but it is a step in defiance of the laws of revealed religion as given to men. If there be one institution which it seems to me has affected the character of this country, which has affected the whole character of modern civilization, the results of which we can but imperfectly trace and but partly recognize, it is the effect of the institution of Christian marriage, the mysterious tie uniting the one man and the one woman until they shall become one and not two persons. It is an institution which is mysterious, which is beyond the reach and the understanding of man, but he certainly can best exhibit his sense of duty and proper obligation when he reverently shall submit to and recognize its wisdom. All such laws as proposed by this amendment are stumbling-blocks, and are meant to be stumbling-blocks in the way of that perfect union of the sexes which was intended by the law of Christian marriage. Suffrage is a political franchise; it is not a right; because the word "right" is used in reference to voting in the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution, that does not make it a right. It is in the very nature of government a political privilege confided, according to the exigency, the expediency, ency by the wisdom of those who control the government, to a certain class. If this right to vote be what the Senator from Indiana declares it to be, a natural and inalienable right, then you have no more right to deny it to a person who is under the age of twenty-one than you have to deny it to a person who is over the age of twenty-one years. Sir, the difference is radical. Voting is no right; it is a privilege granted, a franchise which is granted to certain classes, more or less extended according to the supposed expediency which shall control the minds of those who frame the constitution of government for a people. There is no wrong done, so far as the abnegation of a right is involved, by denying this to certain classes of a community, whether on account of age or sex or any other supposed causes of disqualification. In this country the whole foundation of our institutions has been that the male sex when arrived at years of supposed discretion alone should take part in the political control of the country.
It is not necessary for me to speak now of other influences than those that come from politics; it is not necessary for me to dwell upon the actual and potential influences that control the fate of men and of nations. We all know they are not those most apparent. We all know it is the passions, the affections, the sympathies, and desires of the human heart and human ambition that control the vote, and not the vote that controls them. And now you propose to try an "experiment" upon a community composed of your own fellow-citizens, which is in defiance of all human experience, all suggestions of philosophy, of your own laws, and of every lesson you should have drawn from every civilized nation that has preceded you.
Under the operation of this Amendment, what will become of the family hearthstone around which cluster the very best influences of human education? You will have a family with two heads—a "house divided against itself." You will no longer have that healthful and necessary subordination of wife to husband, and that unity of relationship which is required by a true and a real Christian marriage. You will have substituted a system of contention and difference warring against the laws of nature herself, and attempting by these new fangled, petty, puny, and most contemptible contrivances, organized in defiance of the best lessons of human experience, to confuse, impede, and disarrange the palpable will of the Creator of the world. I can see in this proposition for female suffrage the end of all that home life and education which are the best nursery for a nation's virtue. I can see in all these attempts to invade the relations between man and wife, to establish differences, to declare those to be two whom God hath declared to be one, elements of chaotic disorder, elements of destruction to all those things which are, after all, our best reliance for a good and a pure and an honest government.
As I said, Mr. President, I rose simply to express my astonishment that a measure of this kind could have received the assent which it apparently has received from the Senate of the United States in the vote just recorded. The subject is too broad, it is too deep, it is too serious to attempt to discuss it unprepared and within the time which is allotted to me. I sincerely hope that if this subject is to be acted upon, it will be after long, serious, severe, close consideration. Let all sides of the subject be viewed in all its vastness and far-reaching consequences. Let Senators consider the results, and let at least their aims in this matter be something higher than mere political and partisan considerations, which I fear have animated much of the discussion to which we have listened. Mr. President, I trust sincerely that the vote just taken, indicating the refusal of the Senate to lay this bill upon the table, may not indicate the will of the Senate in respect of this Amendment. We have no right to subject this or any other portion of our fellow-citizens to so sad, so untoward, so unhappy an experiment as is here proposed. I have sat in this Chamber, and seen laws leveled with the most serious and cruel penalties against a class of people practicing polygamy in our Territories. What will this law do? Will it not in fact sever those relations to which I have referred as being essential for the virtue and safety of a State? What is your State unless it is founded upon virtuous and happy homes? And where can there be a virtuous and happy home unless a Christian marriage shall have consecrated it?
No, Mr. President, I trust that this Amendment will not be adopted, that we shall not trifle in this way with the happiness of a large portion of our fellow-citizens, that we shall not set what I must consider this indecorous example of government; and I trust that the vote of the Senate most emphatically will stop here, and I trust stop permanently even the suggestion of granting the political franchise of voting to the women of America. They do not need it, sir. I can not, of course, speak for all, but I know that I can speak the sentiment of many when I say that to them the proposition is abhorrent to take them from the retirement where their sway is so admitted, so beneficent, so elevating, and to throw them into another sphere for which they are totally unfitted and where all that at present adorns and protects them must be taken away by the rough and vulgar contact with those struggles which men are much better fitted to meet. No, sir; the relations of the sexes as they exist to-day under the laws of this country have produced happy and stable government, or at least are not responsible for the evil features which we witness. The best protection for the women of America is in the respect and the love which the men of America bear to them. Every man conversant with the practical affairs of life knows that the fact, that the mere fact that it is a woman who seeks her rights in a court of justice alone gives her an advantage over her contestant which few men are able to resist, I would put it to any who has practiced law in the courts of this country; let him stand before a jury composed only of men, let the case be tried only by men; let all the witnesses be men; and the plaintiff or the defendant be a woman, and if you choose to add to that, even more unprotected than women generally are, a widow or an orphan, and does not every one recognize the difficulty, not to find protection for her rights, but the difficulty to induce the men who compose the juries of America to hold the balance of justice steadily enough to insure that the rights of others are not invaded by the force of sympathy for her sex? These are common every-day illustrations. They could be multiplied ad infinitum.
Mr. President, there never was a greater mistake, there never was a falser fact stated than that the women of America need any protection further than the love borne to them by their fellow-countrymen. Every right, every privilege, many that men do not attempt, many that men can not hope for, are theirs most freely. Do not imperil the advantages which they have, do not attempt in this hasty, ill-considered, shallow way to interfere with the relations which are founded upon the laws of nature herself. Depend upon it, Mr. President, man's wisdom is best shown by humble attention, by humble obedience to the great laws of nature; and those discoveries which have led men to their chiefest enjoyment and greatest advantages have been from the great minds of those who did lay their ears near the heart of nature, listened to its beatings, and did not attempt to correct God's handiwork by their own futile attempts at improvement.
Mr. Stewart.—Mr. President, I listened to the speech of the Senator from Delaware with great attention; I appreciate his feelings on the subject; and it has occasioned me to have some reflection upon this subject during the time he was speaking. I want to call the attention of the Senator from Delaware and of the Senate and of the country to a few facts in regard to this matter of woman's rights, and to see whether it has not been well to change some of the ancient order of things. There was a time among our Anglo-Saxon fathers when it was seriously discussed in the law-books what size the whip should be with which a husband could properly chastise his wife. If it was no larger than the thumb, I believe no action would lie. Those were the good old times, and those times you can see illustrated to-day all over the world where savages——
Mr. Sargent.—That was when we were near to nature.
Mr. Stewart.—Yes; that was when man held sway, and when God's law of man's supremacy was omnipotent! Then harmony was preserved. If you will go out into my State and see the Indian women carrying the loads on their backs and the men riding on horses, and the women doing the work, you will see the harmony of the supremacy of man! Now, I undertake to say that there is no surer criterion of the civilization of any nation than the position which woman occupies; and the less dependent she is, the more she has to do with the management of society, the more she is regarded as an individual, the higher that society stands; but where she depends exclusively on man and man's justice, there you have absolute barbarism. Do you think that women have been less loyal to their husbands, do you think that virtue has been less protected in this country since the rights of women were vindicated by the law, since they were entitled to hold property? Have they not been as good wives as they were formerly? Has society been injured thereby? Show me the nation that elevates its women and acknowledges their rights and protects them by the law and severs them in point of protection from the caprice or the sympathy of men—show me that nation, and that nation shall be first. It is one of the evidences of the advance of civilization in America that woman does occupy the position she does here; and it is idle to say that society will be destroyed by recognizing her as having rights to protect.
It is very well for women who chance to have kind husbands and luxurious homes, under the flattery of their husbands, to sneer at their less fortunate sisters who are debarred every right. It is very well for those who have luxury and power and wealth to trample upon the unfortunate that cry for bread and for help. It is very easy to philosophize about laws and say that women are not fit for this place and not fit for that; that it is indelicate, and all that kind of thing, to allow her to earn an honest living or to have a place in a Department where she can do work; it is very well for us to say, "Here, we will give her only half pay for the same labor;" but they who serve and they who suffer feel it differently. How is the voice of women on this subject to be heard? Shall it be heard from that class only who are satisfied with their protection, or shall the voice of the weak and the starving be heard? There is no way for it to be heard. We see it daily. You talk about degradation. One of the great sources of the degradation of this country, one of the great sources of the breaking up of families and destroying society is your low groggeries and your gambling-houses and your places of resort for bad men, that are tolerated in spite of your laws and will be so long as men only vote. The women suffer by these things; and that consideration alone has often made me hesitate upon this question. I do believe that if the good women of America could speak to-day they would reform many evils that we wink at or allow to exist because we want the votes of the parties who are committing these sins against society. I say let the women have a voice; and when it is said that this is ill-considered, that this is not the proper time, and that this is too serious a business to be considered by the Senate of the United States on this bill, I tell you society is marching on to it, and as I remarked before, it will not be ten years before there will be no voice in this Senate against female suffrage. It is necessary for women, if they are to be protected in society and not to be the prey of man, that they shall have the ballot to protect themselves. It is the only thing in a free government that can protect any one; and whether it is a natural right or an artificial right it is nonsense to discuss. It is a necessary right; it is necessary to freedom; it is necessary to equal rights; it is necessary to protection; it is necessary for every class to have the ballot if we are to have a square deal.
Mr. Boreman.—I had not intended to utter a word. I supposed the bill would pass upon the report which was made by the committee. I am inclined now to think that if it had not been for the unfortunate, if I may say so, amendment offered by my friend from California [Mr. Sargent] it would have passed long since. But this question of woman suffrage is one upon which all our friends probably do not desire to vote either one way or the other, and it is a very convenient way to get rid of voting on the question directly to lay this bill on the table. Fortunately that question has been settled for the present, and I am glad the Senate has seen fit not to lay the bill on the table.
Mr. Edmunds.—The Senator speaks about people not wishing to vote on the amendment directly; and as I made the motion to lay on the table I assume that he refers to me. I beg to disabuse his mind on that subject, inasmuch as I am opposed to the amendment and am perfectly free to vote against it, and in doing so I suppose I represent, according to the latest advices I have, a very large majority of the people of Vermont.
Mr. Boreman.—I agree with the Senator from Vermont on the subject of woman suffrage myself.
Mr. Edmunds.—Then I hope the Senator will not suggest that I am trying to dodge the question by moving to lay the bill on the table. Mr. Boreman.—Not at all. I did not allude to the Senator who made the motion; and the remark I made was more intended to be playful than serious. I simply thought that probably the bill had enough friends to pass it if that subject was not mooted. I may be mistaken. However, I shall be glad to have a vote on the bill either with or without woman suffrage incorporated in it. I shall vote against incorporating it, but if it is put there I shall nevertheless be gratified to have the bill passed. I feel no interest in it except as representing what I believe to be the interests and wishes of those to be affected by it. I think the circumstances are such as to justify Congress in organizing the Territory, else as representing the committee I should not have reported the bill. That is all I desire to say.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Anthony in the chair).—The question is on the amendment of the Senator from California [Mr. Sargent], upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Johnson (when his name was called).—On this question I am paired with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Spencer]. If he were here he would vote "yea" and I should vote "nay."
Mr. Bogy (after having first voted in the negative).—I rise to withdraw my vote. At the time I voted I forgot that I was paired with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Dorsey]. I should have voted "nay" and he would have voted "yea."
The Presiding Officer.—The vote will be withdrawn if there be no objection.
Mr. Morrill, of Maine (after having first voted in the negative).—It occurs to me that I am paired with the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Oglesby). If he were here he would vote "yea" and I should vote "nay." I ask leave to withdraw my vote.
The Presiding Officer.—Leave will be granted if there is no objection.
The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced—yeas 19, nays 27; as follows:
Nays—Messrs. Allison, Bayard, Boreman, Boutwell, Buckingham, Clayton, Conkling, Cooper, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Hitchcock, Jones, Kelly, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Ramsey, Ransom, Saulsbury, Scott, Sherman, Wadleigh, and Wright—27.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Bogy, Brownlow, Cameron, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Howe, Ingalls, Johnson, Lewis, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Schurz, Spencer, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—27.So the amendment was rejected.
The Presiding Officer.—The question now is on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. Morton called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.
Mr. Edmunds.—I ask the chairman of the committee if the clause still stands in the bill which authorizes all the male inhabitants of that Territory to vote at the first election?
Mr. Boreman.—I think the Senator is mistaken about that. Mr. Edmunds.—I am not asking whether I am mistaken or not; I am asking if the clause remains as it stood reported by the committee?
Mr. Boreman.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmunds.—That is enough for me.
Mr. Ramsey.—There is nothing new in that.
The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted—yeas 19, nays 29; as follows:
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Boutwell, Buckingham, Carpenter, Conkling, Conover, Davis, Edmunds, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hager, Hamilton of Maryland, Ingalls, Johnson, McCreery, Merrimon, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Norwood, Ransom, Sargent, Saulsbury, Scott, Sprague, Stewart, Washburn, West, and Wright—29.
Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Allison, Brownlow, Cameron, Cooper, Cragin, Dennis, Dorsey, Fenton, Ferry of Connecticut, Golthwaite, Gordon, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Howe, Lewis, Morton, Oglesby, Pease, Robertson, Schurz, Spencer, Stevenson, Stockton, and Thurman—25.Though the measure was lost, and the women sad under repeated disappointments, yet the progress was noted with gratitude. In 1866 only nine Senators voted in favor of woman's enfranchisement after a three days' discussion of the measure. In 1874, after eight years of education, nineteen voted aye to the proposition.
The seventh Washington Convention was held January 14th and 15th, 1875, in Lincoln Hall as usual. Mrs. Stanton opened the proceedings by stating that owing to the death of the President of the association, Martha C. Wright, the duties of presiding officer devolved upon her. After paying a well-merited tribute to her noble coadjutor, she said that many of their noblest friends had passed away. Among them Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, Hon. Gerrit Smith, and Rev. Beriah Green.
This meeting comes at a most auspicious moment, when the entire Nation is wide awake to the rights of self-government now being trampled on in Louisiana. At such a crisis it would seem that liberty-loving statesmen might easily be converted to the idea of universal suffrage. On every principle that they now demand self-government for the people of Louisiana, they should extend the right of suffrage to the women of that State now in so unsettled a condition. The annual report and resolutions were discussed and speeches made by Miss Anthony and Mrs. Blake during the morning session. Letters were read from Robert Dale Owen, of Philadelphia, Rev. O. B. Frothingham, of New York, Paulina Wright Davis, of Providence, Dr. J. C. Jackson, of Dansville, N. Y., and Abby Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn. Miss Couzins' speech in the evening on the "Social Trinity" was a touching appeal for woman's moral, spiritual, and æsthetic influence on humanity at large. Miss Carrie Burnham made an interesting argument showing that the disabilities of women might be directly traced to papal decrees; to the canon rather than the civil law. Miss Lillie Devereux Blake made a strong appeal on the duty of enfranchising the women of the Nation before celebrating the coming Centennial. She thought it would be an act of justice that would glorify that day as it could be done in no other manner. Belva A. Lockwood, Marilla M. Ricker, Catharine Stebbins, Lavinia Dundore, and Dr. Clemence Lozier, all took part in the discussion of the resolutions.
4. Resolved, That to deny the right of suffrage to the women of the Nation, is a dangerous innovation on the rights of man, since the assumed power to deny the right to one class, is the implied power to deny it to all others; acting on this principle, New Hampshire abridges the rights of her citizens by forbidding Catholics to hold office; and Rhode Island abridges the rights of her citizens by forbidding foreigners to vote, except on a property qualification.
5. Resolved, That our thanks are due to the Hon. A. A. Sargent and the other eighteen Senators who voted for woman suffrage on the Pembina Bill, and to the 40,000 brave men who went to the polls and voted for woman suffrage in Michigan.
6. Resolved, That in the death of Martha C. Wright, the President of our National Association, Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, the first woman in the country who entered the medical profession, the Rev. Beriah Green, and the Hon. Gerrit Smith, steadfast advocates of woman suffrage, we have in the last year been called to mourn the loss of four most efficient and self-sacrificing friends of our movement—women and men alike true to the great principles of republican government.
Whereas, It is now proposed to celebrate our coming centennial birthday as a free Government, inviting the monarchies of the Old World to join in the festivities, while the women of the country have no share in its blessings; therefore,
Resolved, That the National Woman Suffrage Association will hold a convention in Philadelphia on July 4, 1876, to protest against such injustice unless Congress shall in the meantime secure to woman the rights, privileges, and immunities of American citizens.
Resolved, That we cordially invite all women in the Old World and the New, to co-operate with us in promoting the objects of the convention in 1876. As the enfranchisement of woman would be the most fitting way of celebrating this great event in our nation's history, women suffragists throughout the country should now make an united effort with Congress and all State Legislatures to act on this question, that when the old liberty bell rings in the dawn of the new century, we may all be free and equal citizens of a true republic.
Miss Anthony said that man neither supports woman nor protects her. The census reports show that two million women are entirely independent of men in regard to employments. Thousands of women do work outside the home from necessity. A million women are engaged in domestic service providing for their own necessities, and a million more are supporting their families and drunken husbands.
Letters were read from Dr. Mary Thomas, President of the Indiana Association, and from Clara Barton, then traveling in Italy, deploring the subject condition of women in foreign lands. The day after the Convention the ladies received their friends in the spacious parlors at Willard's Hotel. Congressmen, lawyers, clergymen, and many bright girls from the departments were among the guests. Nothing indicates the progress of a reform more readily than the cordial social recognition of its leaders. While pausing now and then to note the adverse winds we are compelled to encounter in the jealousies, discords, and divisions of friends, and in the ridicule and misrepresentation of enemies, a broader vision shows us that the great tidal waves of thought are all flowing in one direction.
May 11, 1875, the twenty-seventh anniversary of the suffrage movement was held in the new Masonic Temple, Twenty-third street, New York. This magnificent Hall for the first time echoed to the demands of woman for an equal share in the great interests of the world.
The convention was opened with prayer by the Rev. Olympia Brown, who referred most impressively to the coming Centennial, expressing the hope that the Fourth of July, 1876, might indeed be a day of jubilee, in which liberty and justice would be secured to the whole people. The resolutions[11] were discussed with great spirit by the various speakers.[12] An interesting letter was read from Isabella Beecher Hooker, giving some of her experiences and observations in France.
The Hall was crowded in the evening to listen to Mr. Frothingham. His address was an able exposition of the injustice of the heavy taxes laid on women. He read several extracts from the reports of William I. Bowditch, of Boston, in regard to the large number of women in Massachusetts holding property, and in closing, depicted with great feeling the constant sacrifices women were compelled to endure because they had no representation in the Government. After a song by the Hutchinsons, the large audience slowly dispersed.
At a business meeting next day the officers[163] for the year were chosen, and arrangements made to canvass Iowa if, as was proposed, an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to the women of that State, should be submitted to the people.
All thoughts were now turned to the Centennial year, as to what new forms of agitation could be suggested; what onward steps of progress accomplished, for after the untiring labors of thirty years, the leaders in this movement naturally felt that the great event of the century could not pass without bringing some new liberty to woman.
- ↑ 2. Resolved, That the present attempts in our courts, by a false construction of the National Constitution, to exalt all men as sovereigns, and degrade all women as slaves, Is to establish the most odious form of aristocracy known In the civilized world—that of sex. 3. Resolved, That women are "persons" and "citizens," possessed of all the legal qualifications of voters in the several States age, property, and education and by the XIV. Amendment of the National Constitution have been secured the right of suffrage. 4. Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress, by appropriate legislation, to protect women in their exercise of this right. 5. Resolved, That women are citizens, first of the United States, and second of the States and Territories wherein they reside; hence we claim National Protection of our inalienable rights, against all State authority. 6. Resolved, That States may regulate all local questions of property, taxation, etc., but the inalienable personal rights of citizenship must be declared by the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court, protected by Congress, and enforced by the arm of the Executive. 7. Resolved, That the criminal prosecution of Susan B. Anthony by the United States, for the alleged crime of exercising the citizen's right of suffrage, is an act of arbitrary authority, unconstitutional, and a blow at the liberties of every citizen of this nation. Business Committee:Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Belva A. Lock wood, District of Columbia; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Mrs. Mary Henderson, Missouri; Mrs. Lavinia Dundore, Maryland; Edward M. Davis, Pennsylvania; Mrs. Mary A. Dobyns, Kentucky; Mrs. Anna C. Savery, Iowa; Miss Phebe Couzins, St. Louis; Mrs. Jane Graham Jones, Illinois; Mrs. Helen M. Barnard, District of Columbia; Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; Robert Purvis, District of Columbia. Finance Committee: Mrs. Ellen C. Sargent, Belva A. Lockwood, Edward M. Davis, Ruth Carr Dennison, Helen M. Barnard. Committee on Resolutions:—Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Belva A. Lockwood, Lillie Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage.
- ↑ Woman Suffrage Anniversary.—National Woman Suffrage Association.—The Twenty-fifth Woman Suffrage Anniversary will be held in Apollo Hall, New York, Tuesday, May 6, 1873. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who called the first Woman's Rights convention at Seneca Falls, 1848, will be present to give their reminiscences. That Convention was scarcely mentioned by the local press; now, over the whole world, equality for woman is demanded. In the United States, woman suffrage is the chief political question of the hour. Great Britain is deeply agitated upon the same topic; Germany has a princess at the head of its National Woman's Rights organization. Portugal, Spain, and Russia have been roused. In Rome an immense meeting, composed of the representatives of Italian democracy, was recently called in the old Coliseum; one of its resolutions demanded a reform in the laws relating to woman and a re-establishment of her natural rights. Turkey, France, England, Switzerland, Italy, sustain papers devoted to woman's enfranchisement, A Grand International Woman's Rights Congress is to be held in Paris in September of this year, to which the whole world is invited to send delegates, and this Congress is to be under the management of the most renowned liberals of Europe. Come up, then, friends, and celebrate the Silver Wedding of the Woman Suffrage movement. Let our Twenty-fifth Anniversary be one of power; our reform is everywhere advancing, let us redouble our energies and our courage.
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Ch'n Ex. Com.Susan B. Anthony, Pres,
- ↑ Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Tennessee; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Connecticut; Francia Miller, Washington, D. C.; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; Mrs. C. M. Palmer, California; Carrie S. Burnham, Pennsylvania; Ellen C. Sargent, Washington; Le Grand Marvin, Buffalo, N. Y.; Carl Doerflinger, Wisconsin; Emily Pitts Stevens, editor of the Pioneer, San Francisco, Cal.; A. Jane Duniway, editor of the New Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
- ↑ Whereas, This being the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first combined effort of women for the recognition of their civil and political rights; and, Whereas, The demands first publicly promulgated in an obscure village in the State of New York have now spreed over the world; therefore, Resolved, That while we congratulate women on the progress of this reform during a quarter of a century, we urge them not to grow discouraged or faint-hearted when obstacles arise in their attack upon hoary wrongs. We remind them that the mice is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, and that the nearer we come to victory the stronger will be the effort against us. But our cause is one of eternal justice, and must ultimately prevail. Resolved, That Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton will evermore be held in grateful remembrance as the pioneers in this grandest reform of the age; that as the wrongs they attacked were broader and deeper than any other, so as time passes they will be revered as foremost among the benefactors of the race, and that we also hold sacred the memory of their co-laborers in the Convention of 1848. Whereas, The underlying principle of our Government is equality of political rights, therefore, Resolved, That in the prosecution and trial of Susan B. Anthony, a citizen of the United State, for having cast a ballot at the last election, the Government of the United States declares it is a crime to vote, thus attempting to undermine the very foundation of the Republic. Resolved, That as in this trial Susan B. Anthony represents one-half of the people, the whole power of the United States is arrayed against the women of the nation—against law-abiding, tax-paying women citizens. Resolved, That the trial of Susan B. Anthony, though ostensibly involving the political status of woman alone, in reality questions the right of every man to share in the Government; that it is not Susan B. Anthony, or the women of the Republic who alone are on trial to-day, but it is the Government of the United States, and that as the decision is rendered for or against the political rights of citizenship, so will the men of America find themselves free or enslaved. Resolved, That the decisions of the courts in the case of Mrs. Bradwell, of Illinois, Mrs. Spencer and Mrs. Webster, of Washington; Mrs. Minor, of St. Louis; Miss Burnham, of Philadelphia, and others, are warnings to the people that their liberties are in danger. Resolved, That it is because women are not voters, and, therefore, have no recognized political power, that the members of the Forty-second Congress, while raising their own salaries from $5,000 to $7,500, dared to reject an amendment to the same bill, which proposed to raise the salaries of the women employés of the Government from $900 to $1,200. Resolved, That in the coming Centennial of our nation's birth it is mockery to ask woman to lend a helping hand without some pledge to right her wrongs; what cause has she for rejoicing unless the century shall round out with her enfranchisement, and the old liberty bell ring in equality for all. Resolved, That the report of the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of the State of New York in regard to a property suffrage qualification for women, is one of the signs of awakened thought toward our reform. Resolved, That the rapid advance of Woman's Rights in foreign countries is a subject of gratulation, and as a matter of special cheer we call particular attention to the grand international Woman's Rights Congress, under the control of the liberals of Europe, to be held in Paris during the present year. Whereas, The National Woman Suffrage Association has been requested to send delegates to the International Woman's Rights Congress to be held in Paris in October next; therefore, Resolved, That this Association empower Ernestine L. Rose, Paulina Wright Davis, Mathilde F. Wendt, Jane Graham Jones, and Elizabeth Phelps Pearsall, to represent our woman suffrage movement in that congress.
- ↑ Mrs. Nettie C. Tabor, Cal.; Frances Ellen Burr, Hartford, Conn.; Mrs. Elizabeth B. Phelps, N. Y.; Mrs. E. Langdon, N. Y.; Jane B. Archibald, D. C.; Miss Jennie V. Jewell, D. C.; Mrs. Adeliarl Gardiner, Baltimore; Kate C. Harris, Baltimore; Miss Laura Ewing, Baltimore; Phoebe W. Couzins; Edward M. Davis, Philadelphia; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York City; Ruth C. Dennison, D. C.; Sara Andrews Spencer, D. C.; Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, New York City; Belva A. Lockwood, Virginia L. Vaughn, James K. Wilcox, and the Hutchinson Family.
- ↑ Letters were received from Paulina Wright Davis, Providence, R. I.; Virginia L. Minor, St. Louis, Mo.; Hon. E. G. Lapham, Canandaigua, N. Y.; Vice-Pres. Henry Wilson, Natick, Mass.; John Van-Vhoris, Rochester, N. Y.; Dr. James C. Jackson, Dansville, N. Y.; Hon. Henry R. Selden, Rochester, N. Y.; Hon. John A. Kaseon, lowa; Thomas Weptworth Higginson, Newport, R.I.; Ernestine L. Rose, London, England; Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Carrie S. Burnham, Philadelphia, Pa.; Lewis C. Smith, Rochester, N. Y.; Asenath Coolidge, Watertown, N. Y.; Priscilla Holmos Drake, Alabama; Laura De Force Gordon, Californian; George F. Downing, Washington, D. C.; The Free Thinkers Club of Milwaukee; The Radical Democracy of Wisconsin:
- ↑ Resolved, That this convention, representing as it does all portions of our country, cordially sympathizes with the proposed efforts of the women of the District of Columbia to secure the practical enjoyment of their constitutional right to vote, as declared by the Supreme Court of said District, by the passage of an act of Congress amending the organic law of the District by striking out the word "male" from the seventh section of said act; and we earnestly request our senators and representatives to support a bill providing for such an amendment by speech and vote.
Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed by the president of this convention to co-operate with the committee heretofore appointed by the women of the District of Columbia in their application to Congress for the passage of un act amendatory of the organic act of said District, as above indicated.
Resolved, That among the important events in our struggle for the equal rights of woman we place the trial of Miss Susan B. Anthony before Hon. Ward Hunt, a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, at Canandaigua, New York, in June last, on an indictment for voting as a citizen at the general election in November, 1872; that the grossly partial course of Judge Hunt on that occasion, his seeming unacquaintance with the plainest rules of law, and his eagerness for the conviction of Miss Anthony, stand in marked contrast with the calm demeanor and clear apprehension of the facts and principles at issue which she exhibited on the trial, and their conduct respectively in this memorable contest affords proof that, though it may be possible that all women have not a constitutional right to be voters, it is very certain that some men are not fit to be judges.
Resolved, That waiving for the present moment the question whether or not Judge Hunt was correct in his decision concerning the constitutional right of women to vote for Federal officers, nevertheless, in the opinion of all sound lawyers and intelligent men, he committed a great outrage against Miss Anthony by assuming, without proof, that she voted for a candidate for Congress, and by arbitrarily refusing to allow the jury to pass upon the question of her innocence, and by peremptorily commanding them to render a verdict of guilty. That so plain is this to the minds of those who possess any clear knowledge of general principles of law, and of the ordinary duties of a criminal court, that Judge Hunt has shown by his conduct on that trial that he is too ignorant to fill his high position, or too arbitrary to be entrusted with its grave responsibilities; and, therefore, in either case, he ought to be impeached and removed from the bench.
Resolved, That by the death of John Stuart Mill, woman has lost a wise, brave friend. His great work for the enfranchisement of woman, and for the elevation of all mankind deserves the public thanks of this convention.
Resolved, That in Hon. John C. Underwood, lately removed from the bench by death, the women of his district have lost that rarest of public servants, a judge to whom the disfranchised could confidently look for justice.
Resolved, That by the death of John M. Morris, late editor of the Washington Chronicle, the cause of woman's freedom lost a tried and valued friend, whose faithfulness and judgment entitled him to the gratitude of the women of this Nation.
Miss Anthony submitted the following:
Resolved, That the thanks of the friends of woman suffrage are due to the Misses Smith, of Glastonbury, Connecticut, for their patriotic resistance to the tyranny of taxation without representation, and that all women tax payers through the country should follow their example.
Resolved, That the best means of agitating at the present hour is for all women to insist on their right of representation by actually presenting their votes at every election, and for all property-holding women to refuse to pay another dollar of tax until their right of representation is recognized
Peterboro, January 5, 1874.
Susan B. Anthony—My Dear Friend: As I am suffering from an attack of vertigo, I answer your letter by the hand of my wife. Enclosed is my contribution toward defraying the expenses of your convention. Strong as is the Constitutional argument for woman suffrage, I nevertheless hope that your convention will not tolerate the idea of measuring the rights of woman by a man-made constitution. Have you heard of a State in which women and women only bear rule, and the constitution of which was made by women only? Perhaps there is such a flagrantly unjust state, either on this or some other planet. If so, deep is the injury done to its men. But deeper the insult added to this injury if, when the men complain of being excluded from the government, the women ply to the measurement of man's rights the yardstick of a woman-made constitution. Constitutions are useful in settling ten thousand subordinate questions. But the great questions of primary and inherent human rights are to be submitted to no lower decisions than those of God's immutable and everlasting justice.
With high regard, your friend,Gerrit Smith.GEN. BUTLER'S LETTER.
Washington, December 1.My Dear Madam: As a rule I have refused to take part in any convention in the District of Columbia about any matter which might come before Congress. I do not think it proper. I went far out of my way in this regard, having given evidence that I am most strongly committed to the legality, propriety and justice of giving the ballot to woman. I do not see how I can add anything to it by appearing on the platform in advocacy of any measure that may come before me as a Member of Congress, and I do not think my sense of propriety would over-balance such considerations. Hoping that your cause may succeed, I have the honor to be, very truly yours,
Ben. F. Butler. - ↑ Annual Convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association.—For more than a quarter of a century the representative women of this nation have held annual meetings, demanding the recognition of their rights as citizens of the United States. In halls of legislation and courts of justice, as well as in Conventions, woman's equality with man in all civil and political rights, privileges and immunities, has been debated and variously decided by popular opinion, statute law and judicial decree, without arriving at any permanent settlement of the question. And until the world learns that there should be but one code of laws and morals for man and woman, this question never can be settled. But the discussion has roused woman herself to new thought and action, and kindled in her an enthusiasm that the best interests of the nation demand should be wisely directed and controlled. The fact that women are already voting, holding office and resisting taxation, that thousands are enrolling in the Grange movement and Temperance Crusade, that Woman Suffrage is to be voted upon in Michigan at the next election, should warn the Government that the hour for its action has come. It must now determine whether woman's transition from slavery to freedom shall be through reformation or revolution, whether she shall be permitted to express her interest in national questions through law by the direct power of the ballot, or outside of law by indirect and irresponsible power; and thus, by a blind enthusiasm, plunge the nation into anarchy. For an earnest discussion of the duty of the hour, we invite all persons interested in woman's enfranchisement to meet in Irving Hall, New York, on the 14th and 15th of May.
- ↑ The speakers at this Convention were Ernestine L. Rose, Martha C. Wright, O. B. Frothingham, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Carrie S. Burnham, Sarah Andrews Spencer, Frances V. Hallock, Amanda Deyo, Dr. J. Mix, Mrs. Helen M. Slocum, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Lillie Devereux Blake, Susan B. Anthony.
- ↑ Letters were received at this May Anniversary (1874) from Lucinda B. Chandler, Vineland, New Jersey; Mrs. C. C. Hussey, Report of New Jersey; Mary F. Davis, New Jersey; Catherine F. Stebbins, Michigan; Mary J. Channing, Paulina Wright Davis, Rhode Island; Alfred H. Love, Edward M. Davis, Sarah Pugh, Philadelphia; Lorenza Haynes, Theological School, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N. Y.; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo, Ohio; Harriet S. Brooks, Report for Illinois; Catharine V. Waite, Illinois; Lizzie Boynton Harbert, Iowa; Virginia L. Minor, Missouri; Annie L. Quinby, Kentucky; Sarah Burger Stearns, Duluth, Minnesota; Hon. Benj. F. Butler, Massachusetts; Mrs. C. H. Baker, Mrs. H. K. Clapp, Nevada; Sarah J. Wallis, California; Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols, Pomo, California; Mariana Thompson Folsom, Foxboro, Mass.; Emily P. Collins, La.; Mary K. Spalding, Atlanta, Ga.; Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, New York; Mary L. Booth, Harper's Bazar, New York; Ann T. Greeley, Ellsworth, Me.; Mary Olney Brown, Olympia, Washington Territory.
- ↑ Resolved, That as complete individual development depends on the harmonious exercise of our three-fold nature, and undue power given to either deranges and undermines the whole being, so in the nation, a complete experiment of self-government can be made only by the equal recognition of the rights of all citizens, and in their homogeneous education into the laws of national life. Resolved, That the decision of Chief Justice Waite, in the case of Virginia L. Minor of Missouri, that according to the Federal Constitution woman is a citizen, but not entitled to the right of suffrage, is more infamous and retrogressive in principle at this hour, than was Chief-Justice Tancy's decision in the Dred Scott case, that a black man was not a United States citizen, and therefore not entitled to the rights of a citizen of every State. Whereas, By the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Myra Bradwell of Illinois, and of Virginia L. Minor of Missouri, the Federal Constitution is declared powerless to protect the civil and political rights of woman. Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to take the necessary steps to secure an amendment to the Constitution that shall prohibit the several States from disfranchising citizens of the United States on account of sex. amendment to the Constitution that shall prohibit the several States from disfranchising citizens of the United States on account of sex. Whereas, One of the strongest evidences of the degradation of disfranchised classes is the denial of their right to testify against their rulers in courts of justice (slaves could not testify against their masters; Chinamen in California to-day can not testify against white men, nor wives in cases of crim. con. against their husbands); therefore Resolved, That the denial of Elizabeth R. Tilton's right to testify in the pending Brooklyn trial, is but proof of woman's need of the ballot in her own right for self-defence and self-protection. Resolved, That as the proposition for woman's enfranchisement is to be submitted in Iowa, in 1876, the National Woman Suffrage Association will hold there 100 county conventions, and by lectures and the circulation of tracts, help the women of Iowa to make a thorough canvass of the State. Resolved, That we congratulate the women of England for the large vote secured on the Woman's Disabilities Bill in the House of Commons. With a Queen on her throne, 400,000 women already voting, and her Premier in favor of the measure, England bids fair to take the lead in the complete enfranchisement of women.
- ↑ Rev. O. B. Frothingham, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Rev. Olympia Brown, Lillie Devereux Blake, Carrie S. Burnham, Mrs. Stanton, and Miss Anthony.