they have a right to a voice in making them. Many of the ablest women of this country hold that belief, and of all our noble statesmen, not one has advanced an answer to this demand—reasonable, if it does come from women. A French essayist held that as women are a part of society, they have a right to be judges of its members, assist in making its laws, and condemn and punish transgressors. They have their influence, but that is not so effective as power. * * * * Some of the brightest intellects that adorn the social circles throughout this country and State hold these views and ably advance them. Among them in this State are Mrs. E. L. Saxon, Mrs, Merrick, wife of ex-Chief-Justice Merrick, and Mrs. Dr. Harriette Keating. When our convention was discussing the suffrage question, these ladies petitioned to be heard. Of course the request was allowed. Last Tuesday evening the above-mentioned ladies addressed the congress at length. Their speeches were able, and the ideas they advanced were sound logic; but if carried into effect may prove beneficial, and may not. Woman suffrage is an experiment. Like everything else, we will never know its effects until after it is tried. We only wish that there were a few more men in that convention who could make as able speeches as did these ladies—notwithstanding the Utopian ideas advanced.
When the new constitution finally went forth, it contained, as the result of all our arguments and appeals, but one little concession:
Article 232. Women twenty-one years of age and upwards, shall be eligible to any office of control or management under the school laws of the State.
Judge I. F. Marshall of Catahoula parish, an accomplished gentleman and able lawyer, suggested this article, and it was presented and championed by Hon. F. L. Claiborne[1] of Pointe Coupée. The women of Louisiana have never realized any advantage from this law. All school offices are filled by appointment of the governor, and there was no serious agitation for the enforcement of this clause in the new constitution until the autumn of 1885, when, in response to the demand that women should be appointed on the school-board of New Orleans, Gov. McEnery, through a correspondent of the Times-Democrat, gave his opinion as follows:
If a married woman occupied an office under the school laws, in which it was necessary to bring a suit to enforce some right connected with it, she would have-to get the consent of her husband to bring the suit and join him with her. There are only a few exceptional cases where the married woman can legally act independently of her husband. Our code so recognizes the paramount control of the husband that when a widow, who is the tutor of her minor children, wishes to marry, and gets the consent of a family meeting to be retained in the tutorship, the code, article 255, says: Her second husband becomes of necessity the co-tutor, and, for the administration of the property subsequently to his marriage, becomes bound in solido with his wife. And so it would be in the appointment of a married woman to a public office. Her husband, of necessity, would share it with her; would, in fact, be the officer. And as to unmarried women, Article 232 does not repeal any of their disabilities. It does not repeal the laws creating the essential differences between men and women. It, as I stated, simply asserts a right, and is inoperative until there is legislation to enforce it.
The Daily Picayune of November 16, under the head lines of "Women as Members of School Boards," "The Law and the Facts in the Case Presented by Mrs. Merrick," gives the following:
———
↑The Claibornes are a distinguished Virginia family, but belong to the history of Mississippi and Louisiana since territorial times. Mr. Claiborne now regrets that he did not go farther, for he is satisfied that women may be trusted with powers that have long been withheld. He says he was led to reflect seriously on the subject by the able addresses of Mrs. Keating, Mrs. Saxon and Mrs. Merrick, who made a profound impression on the convention.
