are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the electing of representatives is in this condition." Benjamin Franklin wrote: "They who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and to their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf." This is the condition of the women of New Jersey. It is evident to every reasonable mind that these unjustly disfranchised citizens should be reïnstated in the right of suffrage. Therefore, we, your memorialists, ask the legislature at its present session to submit to the people of New Jersey an amendment to the constitution, striking out the word "male" from article 2, section 1, in order that the political liberty which our forefathers so nobly bestowed on men and women alike, may be restored to "all inhabitants" of the populous and prosperous State into which their brave young colony has grown.
With but a slight change of officers and arguments, these conventions were similar from year to year. There were on all occasions a certain number of the clergy in opposition. At one of these meetings the Rev. Mr. McMurdy condemned the ordination of women for the ministry. But woman's fitness[1]for that profession was successfully vindicated by Lucretia Mott and Phebe A. Hanaford. Mrs. Portia Gage writes, December 12, 1873:
There was an election held by the order of the township committee of Landis, to vote on the subject of bonding the town to build shoe and other factories. The call issued was for all legal voters. I went with some ten or twelve other women, all taxpayers. We offered our votes, claiming that we were citizens of the United States, and of the State of New Jersey, also property-holders in and residents of Landis township, and wished to express our opinion on the subject of having our property bonded. Of course our votes were not accepted, whilst every tatterdemalion in town, either black or white, who owned no property, stepped up and very pompously said what he would like to have done with his property. For the first time our claim to vote seemed to most of the voters to be a just one. They gathered together in groups and got quite excited over the injustice of refusing our vote and accepting those of men who paid no taxes.
- ↑ This has been well illustrated by Mrs. Hanaford in her own case, she having preached for nearly twenty years with but three changes of place, and ten of these passed successively in the Universalist churches in Jersey City.—[E. C. S.
- ↑ Vineland, July 15, 1879.—Club met at the residence of Mrs. Bristol. The meeting was opened with music by Mrs. Parkhurst, followed by a recitation by Miss Etta Taylor. Mrs. Andrew read an excellent essay, opposing the national bank system. Mrs. Bristol gave an instructive lesson in political economy on "Appropriation." The next lesson will be upon "Changes of Matter in Place." Appropriate remarks were made by Mrs. Neyman of New York, Mr. Broom, Mrs. Duffey and Mr. Bristol. Several new names were added to the list of membership. Miss Etta Taylor gave another recitation, which closed the exercises of the afternoon. In the evening a pleasant reception was held, and many invited guests were present. The exercises consisted of vocal and instrumental music, social converse and dancing. The club will meet again in two weeks.—[C. L. Ladd, Secretary.
- ↑ Isaac Collins, her grandfather, died at Burlington, March 21, 1817, a man remarkable alike for his uprightness, industry, intelligence and enterprise. He was a Quaker by birth and conviction, and a printer, appointed by King George III. for the province of New Jersey. He printed many valuable books, almanacs, Bibles, revised laws, government money, and a weekly paper, The New Jersey Gazette. In making his will he so divided his property that each of his six daughters received twice the sum that he gave to each of the seven sons. This he explained by saying that the latter could go into business and support themselves, but his daughters must have enough to live upon, if they chose to remain single; he did not wish them to be forced to marry for a support
