Volume III Part 101 (1/2)
Carpenter, Mrs. A. T. Anderson and Mrs. Laura Howe Carpenter, Minneapolis.
[449] From John G. Whittier, Mrs. Julia B. Nelson (teaching school in Tennessee) and Henry B. Blackwell.
[450] Miss Carrie Holbrook, Miss Eva McIntyre, Miss Harriman.
[451] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note F.
[452] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note G.
CHAPTER XLVIII.
DAKOTA.
Influences of Climate and Scenery--Legislative Action, 1872--Mrs.
Marietta Bones--In February, 1879, School Suffrage Granted Women--Const.i.tutional Convention, 1883--Matilda Joslyn Gage Addressed a Letter to the Convention and an Appeal to the Women of the State--Mrs. Bones Addressed the Convention in Person--The Effort to Get the Word ”Male” Out of the Const.i.tution Failed--Legislature of 1885--Major Pickler Presents the Bill--Carried Through Both Houses--Governor Pierce's Veto--Major Pickler's Letter.
Philosophers have had much to say of the effect of climate and scenery upon the human family--the inspiring influence of the grand and the boundless in broadening the thought of the people and stimulating them to generous action. Hence, one might naturally look for liberal ideas among a people surrounded with such vast possessions as are in the territory of Dakota. But alas! there seems to be no correspondence in this republic between areas and const.i.tutions. Although Dakota comprises 96,595,840 acres, yet one-half her citizens are defrauded of their rights precisely as they are in the little States of Delaware and Rhode Island. The inhabitants denied the right of suffrage by their territorial const.i.tution are, the Indians not taxed (a hint that those who pay taxes vote), idiots, convicts and women. But from records sent us by Mrs. Marietta Bones, to whom we are indebted for this chapter, there seem to have been some spasmodic climatic influences at work, though not sufficiently strong as yet to get that odious word ”male” out of the const.i.tution. Our Dakota historian says:
The territorial legislature, in the year 1872, came within one vote of enfranchising women. That vote was cast by Hon. W. W.
Moody, who, let it be said to his credit, most earnestly espoused the cause in our const.i.tutional convention in 1883, and said in the course of his remarks: ”Are not my wife and daughter as competent to vote as I am to hold office?” which question caused prolonged laughter among the most ignorant of the delegates, and cries of, ”You're right, Judge!” Although it is deeply to be regretted that through one vote twelve years ago our women were deprived of freedom, yet we must forgive Judge Moody on the ground that ”it is never too late to mend.”
In February, 1879, the legislature revised the school law, and provided that women should vote at school meetings. That law was repealed in March, 1883, by the school towns.h.i.+p law, which requires regular polls and a private ballot, so, of course, excluding women from the small privilege given them in 1879. That act, however, excepted fifteen counties[453]--the oldest and most populous--which had districts fully established, and therein women still vote at school meetings.
In towns.h.i.+ps which are large and have many schools under one board and no districts, the people select which school they desire their children to attend. The persons who may so select are parents: first, the father; next, the mother, if there be no father living; guardians (women or men), and ”persons having in charge children of school age.” These persons hold a meeting annually of their ”school,” and such women vote there, and one of them may be chosen moderator for the school, to hold one year.
This office is a sort of responsible agency for the school, and between it and the towns.h.i.+p board.
Since the legislation upon the subject of school suffrage there has not been much work done for the promotion of the cause. The wide distances between towns and the spa.r.s.ely settled country make our people comparative strangers to each other. We lack organization; the country is too new; in fact, the most and only work for woman suffrage has been done by Matilda Joslyn Gage and myself, and, owing to disadvantages mentioned, that has been but little. Mrs. Gage reached Dakota just at the close of the Huron convention, held in June, 1883, to discuss the question of territorial division. The resolutions of the convention declared that just governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed; that Dakota possessed a population of 200,000, women included; that the people of a territory have the right, in their sovereign capacity, to adopt a const.i.tution and form a State government. Accordingly, a convention was called for the purpose of enabling those residing in that part of Dakota south of the forty-sixth parallel to organize a State. Mrs. Gage at once addressed a letter to the women of the territory and to the const.i.tutional convention a.s.sembled at Sioux Falls:
_To the Women of Dakota:_
A convention of men will a.s.semble at Sioux Falls, September 4, for the purpose of framing a const.i.tution and pressing upon congress the formation of a State of the southern half of the territory. This is the moment for women to act; it is the decisive moment. There can never again come to the women of Dakota an hour like the present. A const.i.tution is the fundamental law of the State; upon it all statute laws are based, and upon the fact whether woman is inside or outside the pale of the const.i.tution, her rights in the State depend.
The code of Dakota, under the head of ”Personal Relations,”
says: ”The husband is the head of the family. He may choose any reasonable place, or mode of living, and the wife must conform thereto.” Under this cla.s.s legislation, which was framed by man entirely in his own interests, the husband may, and in many cases does, file a preemption claim, build a shanty, and place his wife upon the ground as ”a reasonable place and mode of living,” while he remains in town in pursuit of business or pleasure.
Let us examine this condition of affairs a little closer. If the wife is not pleased with this ”place and mode of living,” but should leave it, she is, under this law of cla.s.s legislation, liable to be advertised as having left the husband's bed and board, wherefore he will pay no debts of her contracting. And how is it if she remains on this until her continued residence upon it has enabled her husband to prove up? Does she then share in its benefits? Is she then half owner of the land? By no means. Chapter 3, section 83, article V. of the Code, says: ”No estate is allowed the husband or tenant by courtesy upon the death of his wife, nor is any estate in dower allowed to the wife upon the death of the husband.”
This article carries a specious fairness on its face, but it is a bundle of wrongs to woman. By the United States law, only ”the head of the family” is allowed to enter lands--either a preemption, homestead or tree claim. In unison with the United States, the law of Dakota (see chapter 3, section 76) recognizes the husband as the head of the family, and then declares that no estate in dower is allowed to the wife upon the death of her husband. Neither has she any claim upon any portion of this land the husband, as head of the family, may take, except the homestead, in which she is recognized as joint owner. The preemption claim upon which, in a comfortless claim-shanty, she may have lived for six months, or longer, if upon unsurveyed land, as ”the reasonable place and mode of living” her husband has selected for her, does not belong to her at all. She has no part nor share in it. Upon proving, her husband may at once sell, or deed it away as a gift, and she has no redress. It was not hers. The law so declares; but she is her husband's, to the extent that she can be thus used to secure 160 acres of land for him, over which she has no right, t.i.tle, claim or interest. I have not s.p.a.ce to pursue this subject farther, but will a.s.sure the women of Dakota that reading the code, and the session laws of the territory will be more interesting to them than any novel. If they wish to still farther know their wrongs, let them look in the code under the heads of ”Parent and Child,” ”Crimes Defined,” ”Probate Court,” etc., etc.
Every woman in Dakota should be immediately at work.
Inasmuch as the const.i.tution is the fundamental law of the State, it should be the effort of the women of Dakota to prevent the introduction of the restrictive word ”male.” The delegates to the Sioux Falls convention have now largely been elected. Address letters of protest to them against making the const.i.tution an organ of cla.s.s legislation. In as far as possible have personal interviews with these delegates, and by speech make known your wishes on this point. These are your only methods of representation. You have in no way signified your desire for a const.i.tution. You have not been permitted to help make these laws which rob you of property, and many other things more valuable. Many women are settling in Dakota. Unmarried women and widows in large numbers are taking up claims here, and their property is taxed to help support the government and the men who make these iniquitous laws.
I have not mentioned a thousandth part of the wrongs done woman by her being deprived of the right of self-government.
Every injustice under which she suffers, as wife, mother, woman, child, in property and person, is due to the fact that she is not recognized as man's political equal--and her only power is that of protest. Lose not a moment, then, women of Dakota, in objecting to the introduction of the word ”male” into the proposed new const.i.tution. Besides seeing and writing to delegates, make effort to be present at Sioux Falls during the time of the convention, to labor with delegates from distant points, and to go before committees, and the convention itself, with your protests.
Above all, remember that _now_ is the decisive hour.
MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Vice-President-at-Large_, _National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation_.