Volume III Part 10 (1/2)
Hon. Wm. D. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, performed like service in the House:
Mr. KELLY asked leave to offer a resolution, reciting that pet.i.tions were about to be presented to the House of Representatives from citizens of thirty-five States of the Union, asking for the adoption of an amendment to the const.i.tution to prohibit the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of any citizen of any State; and that there be a session of the House on Sat.u.r.day, January 12, at which time the advocates of the const.i.tutional amendment may be heard at the bar. These pet.i.tions ask the House to originate a movement which it cannot consumate, but which it can only submit to the States for their action. The resolution only asks that the House will hear a limited number of the advocates of this amendment, who are now in the city, and on a day when there is not likely to be a session for business. They only ask the privilege of stating the grounds of their belief why the const.i.tution should be amended in the direction they indicate.
Many of these ladies who pet.i.tion are tax-payers, and they believe their rights have been infringed upon.
Mr. CRITTENDEN of Missouri, objected, and the resolution was not entertained.
This refusal to women pleading for their own freedom was the more noticeable, as not only had Mesdames Sherman and Dahlgren been heard upon the floor of the Senate in opposition, but the floor of the House was shortly after granted to Charles Stewart Parnell, M.
P., that he might plead the cause of oppressed Ireland. The Was.h.i.+ngton _Union_ of January 11, 1878, largely sustained by federal patronage, commented as follows:
To allow the advocates of woman suffrage to plead their cause on the floor of the Senate, as proposed yesterday by Mr. Sargent, would be a decided innovation upon the established usages of parliamentary bodies. If the privilege were granted in this case it would next be claimed by the friends and the enemies of the silver bill, by the supporters and opponents of resumption, by hard money men and soft money men, by protectionists and free-traders, by labor-reformers, prohibitionists and the Lord knows whom besides. In fact, the admission of the ladies to speak on the floor of the Senate would be the beginning of lively times in that body.
The convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January, 8, 9, 1878. The house was filled to overflowing at the first session. A large number of representative women occupied the platform.[25] In opening the meeting the president, Dr. Clemence Lozier, gave a resume of the progress of the cause. Mrs. Stanton made an argument on ”National Protection for National Citizens.”[26] Mrs. Lockwood presented the following resolutions, which called out an amusing debate on the ”man idea”--that he can best represent the home, the church, the State, the industries, etc., etc.:
_Resolved_, That the president of this convention appoint a committee to select three intelligent women who shall be paid commissioners to the Paris exposition; and also six other women who shall be volunteer commissioners to said exposition to represent the industries of American women.
_Resolved_, That to further this object the committee be instructed to confer with the President, the Secretary of State, and Commissioner McCormick.
A committee was appointed[27] and at once repaired to the white-house, where they were pleasantly received by President Hayes. After learning the object of their visit, the president named the different cla.s.ses of industries for which no commissioners had been appointed, asked the ladies to nominate their candidates, and a.s.sured them he would favor a representation by women.
Miss JULIA SMITH of Glas...o...b..ry, Conn., the veteran defender of the maxim of our fathers, ”no taxation without representation,”
narrated the experience of herself and her sister Abby with the tax-gatherers. They attended the town-meeting and protested against unjust taxation, but finally their cows went into the treasury to satisfy the tax-collector.
ELIZABETH BOYNTON HARBERT of the Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, spoke on the temperance work being done in Chicago, in connection with the advocacy of the sixteenth amendment.
LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE reviewed the work in New York in getting the bill through the legislature to appoint women on school boards, which was finally vetoed by Governor Robinson.
Dr. MARY THOMPSON of Oregon, and Mrs. CROMWELL of Arkansas, gave interesting reports from their States, relating many laughable encounters with the opposition.
ROBERT PURVIS of Philadelphia, read a letter from the suffragists of Pennsylvania, in which congratulations were extended to the convention.
MARY A. S. CAREY, a worthy representative of the District of Columbia, the first colored woman that ever edited a newspaper in the United States, and who had been a worker in the cause for twenty years, expressed her views on the question, and said the colored women would support whatever party would allow them their rights, be it Republican or Democratic.
Rev. OLYMPIA BROWN believed that a proper interpretation of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments did confer suffrage on women.
But men don't so understand it, and as a consequence when Mahomet would not come to the mountain the mountain must go to Mahomet.
She said the day was coming, and rapidly, too, when women would be given suffrage. There were very few now who did not acknowledge the justice of it.
ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER gave her idea on ”A Reconstructed Police,” showing how she would rule a police force if in her control. Commencing with the location of the office, she proceeded with her list of feminine and masculine officers, the chief being herself. She would have a superintendent as aid, with coordinate powers, and, besides the police force proper, which she would form of men and women in equal proportions; she would have matrons in charge of all station-houses. Her treatment of vagrants would be to wash, feed, and clothe them, make them st.i.tch, wash and iron, take their history down for future reference, and finally turn them out as skilled laborers. The care of vagrant children would form an item in her system.
Mrs. LAWRENCE of Ma.s.sachusetts, said the country is in danger, and like other republics, unless taken care of, will perish by its own vices. She said twelve hundred thousand men and women of this country now stand with nothing to do, because their legislators of wealth were working not for the many, but the few, drunkenness and vice being superinduced by such a state of things. She insisted that women were to blame for much of the evil of the world--for bringing into life children who grow up in vice from their inborn tendencies.
Dr. CAROLINE B. WINSLOW of Was.h.i.+ngton, referred to the speech of Mrs. Lawrence, saying she hoped G.o.d would bless her for having the courage to speak as she did. There is no greater reform than for man and woman to be true to the marital relations.
BELVA A. LOCKWOOD said the only way for women to get their rights is to take them. If necessary let there be a domestic insurrection. Let young women refuse to marry, and married women refuse to sew on b.u.t.tons, cook, and rock the cradle until their liege-lords acknowledge the rights they are ent.i.tled to. There were more ways than one to conquer a man; and women, like the strikers in the railroad riots, should carry their demands all along the line. She dwelt at length upon the refusal of the courts in allowing Lavinia Dundore to become a constable, and asked why she should not be appointed.
The Rev. OLYMPIA BROWN said that if they wanted wisdom and prosperity in the nation, health and happiness in the home, they must give woman the power to purify her surroundings; the right to make the outside world fit for her children to live in. Who are more interested than mothers in the sanitary condition of our schools and streets, and in the moral atmosphere of our towns and cities?
Marshal FREDERICK DOUGLa.s.s said his reluctance to come forward was not due to any lack of interest in the subject under discussion. For thirty years he had believed in human rights to all men and women. Nothing that has ever been proposed involved such vital interests as the subject which now invites attention.
When the negro was freed the question was asked if he was capable of voting intelligently. It was answered in this way: that if a sober negro knows as much as a drunken white man he is capable of exercising the elective franchise.