Volume IV Part 41 (1/2)

We must inspire our people with a new sense of their sacred duties as citizens of a republic, and place new guards around our ballot-box. Walking in Paris one day I was greatly impressed with an emblematic statue in the square Chateau d'Eau, placed there in 1883 in honor of the republic. On one side is a magnificent bronze lion with his fore paw on the electoral urn, which answers to our ballot-box, as if to guard it from all unholy uses.... As I turned away I thought of the American republic and our ballot-box with no guardian or sacred reverence for its contents.

Ignorance, poverty and vice have full access; thousands from every incoming steamer go practically from the steerage to the polls, while educated women, representing the virtue and intelligence of the nation, are driven away. I would like to see a monument to ”educated suffrage” in front of our national Capitol, guarded by the G.o.ddess Minerva, her right hand resting on the ballot-box, her left hand on the spelling book, the Declaration of Rights and the Federal Const.i.tution. It would be well for us to ponder the Frenchman's idea, but instead of the royal lion, representing force to guard the sacred urn, let us subst.i.tute wisdom and virtue in the form of Woman.

The Was.h.i.+ngton _Star_ said of the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee:

The members paid a tribute to the devotion of the woman suffragists, and at the same time showed appreciation of it by nearly all being in attendance at the hearing this morning. It is seldom that more than a quorum of any committee can be induced to attend a hearing of any sort. To-day fifteen out of seventeen members were present and manifested a deep interest in the remarks submitted by the women. The character of the a.s.semblage was one to inspire respect, and the force and intelligence of what was said warranted the attention and interest shown. The people who not many years ago thought that every woman suffragist was a masculine creature who ”wanted to wear the pants” would have been greatly embarra.s.sed in their theories had they been present at the hearing to-day. There was not a mannish-appearing woman among the number. It was such an a.s.semblage as may be seen at a popular church on Sunday, or at a fas.h.i.+onable afternoon reception. In fact there was not anywhere such an affectation of masculinity as is common among the society women of the period.

Each year there have appeared more young women at these hearings, and the average of youth seemed greater to-day than ever before.

Fas.h.i.+onably attired and in good taste, representative of the highest grade of American womanhood, the fifty or sixty women present inspired respect for their opinions without destroying the sentiment of gallantry which men generally feel that they must extend towards women.

The speakers before this committee[115] presented The Practical Working of Woman Suffrage. Miss Anthony introduced them. Limited Suffrage in the United States was discussed by Prof. Ellen H. E. Price of Swarthmore College, Penn., whose address was rendered especially valuable by a carefully compiled table of statistics showing the amount of suffrage possessed by women in every State and Territory.

Munic.i.p.al Suffrage in Kansas was described by J. W. Gleed; Woman Suffrage in Wyoming by ex-U. S. Senator Joseph M. Carey; Woman Suffrage in Colorado by the Hon. Martha A. B. Conine, member of its State Legislature; Woman Suffrage in Idaho by Wm. Balderston, editor of the Boise _Statesman_; Woman Suffrage in Foreign Countries by Miss Helen Blackburn, editor _The Englishwomen's Review_.[116] Woman Suffrage in Utah was depicted by State Senator Martha Hughes Cannon:

....The history of the struggle in Utah for equal rights is full of interest and could be recounted with advantage. But, after all, the results which have been attained speak with such unerring logic, and vindicate so thoroughly the argument that woman should take part in the affairs of government which so vitally affect her, that I point to the actual conditions now existing as a complete vindication of the efforts of equal suffragists, and as the most cogent of all reasons why woman should have the right to aid in nominating and electing our public officers.

I can say, in all sincerity, that there is a strong and c.u.mulative evidence that even those who opposed equal suffrage with the greatest ability and vehemence would not now vote for the repeal of the measure. The practical working of the law demonstrates its wisdom and verifies the claims which were advanced by its ardent advocates. It has proved to the world that woman is not only a helpmeet by the fireside, but when allowed to do so she can become a most powerful factor in the affairs of the Government.

None of the unpleasant results which were predicted have occurred. The contentions in families, the tarnishment of woman's charm, the destruction of ideals, have all been proved to be but the ghosts of unfounded prejudices. ”The divinity which doth hedge woman about like subtle perfume” has not been displaced.

Women have quietly a.s.sumed the added power which always was theirs by right, and with the grace and ready adaptation to circ.u.mstances peculiar to the women of America, they have so conducted themselves that they have gained admiration and respect while losing none of their old-time prestige.

Before suffrage was granted to women they had ideas upon public questions. Suffrage has given them opportunity for practical expression of these views. They pay more attention to political affairs. They studied political economy more earnestly. They familiarize themselves with public questions, and their mistakes, if they have made any, have not thus far been brought to light.

Women have acted as delegates to county and State conventions, and represented Utah in the national convention of one of the great political parties, held in Chicago in 1896. They have acted upon political committees and have taken part in political management, and, instead of being dragged down, as was most feared, their enfranchis.e.m.e.nt has tended to elevate them. Under our system of the Australian ballot, they have found that the contaminating influence of which they had been told was but a bugbear, born of fright, produced by shadows. They learned that to deposit their vote did not subject them to anything like the annoyance which they often experienced from crowds on ”bargain days,” while their presence drove from the polls the ward workers who had been so obnoxious in the past.

Through the courtesy of the Governor and the approval of the Senate they have been given places upon various State boards, and in the last Legislature, in both the Senate and the House, they represented the two most populous and wealthy counties of Utah.

The bills introduced by women received due consideration, and a majority were enacted into laws. Whatever they have been required to do they have done to the full satisfaction of their const.i.tuents, and they have proved most careful and painstaking public officers.

No one in Utah will dispute the statements I have made. To the people of that young commonwealth, destined by its manifold resources and the intelligence of its men and women to become the Empire State of the Rocky Mountains, I refer you, in the fullest confidence that, with scarcely a dissenting voice, they will say that woman suffrage is no longer an experiment, but is a practical reality, tending to the well-being of the State.

Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, national recording secretary, took for a subject The Indifference of Women:

It is often said that the chief obstacle to equal suffrage is the indifference and opposition of women, and that whenever the majority ask for the ballot they will get it. But it is a simple historical fact that every improvement thus far made in their condition has been secured, not by a general demand from the majority, but by the arguments, entreaties and ”continual coming”

of a persistent few. In each case the advocates of progress have had to contend not merely with the conservatism of men, but with the indifference of women, and often with active opposition from some of them.

When a man in Saco, Me., first employed a saleswoman the men boycotted his store, and the women remonstrated with him on the sin of which he was guilty in placing a young woman in a position of such publicity. When Lucy Stone tried to secure for married women the right to their own property, they asked with scorn, ”Do you think I would give myself where I would not give my property?” When Elizabeth Blackwell began to study medicine, the women at her boarding house refused to speak to her, and those pa.s.sing her on the streets would hold their skirts aside so as not to touch her. It is a matter of history with what ridicule and opposition Mary Lyon's first efforts for the education of women were received, not only by the ma.s.s of men, but by the ma.s.s of women as well. In England when the Oxford examinations were thrown open to women, the Dean of Chichester preached a sermon against it, in which he said: ”By the s.e.x at large, certainly, the new curriculum is not asked for. I have ascertained, by extended inquiry among gentlewomen, that, with true feminine instinct, they either entirely distrust or else look with downright disfavor on so wild an innovation and interference with the best traditions of their s.e.x.” Pundita Ramabai tells us that the idea of education for girls is so unpopular with the majority of Hindoo women that when a progressive Hindoo proposes to educate his little daughter it is not uncommon for the women of his family to threaten to drown themselves.

All this merely shows that human nature is conservative, and that it is fully as conservative in women as in men. The persons who take a strong interest in any reform are always comparatively few, whether among men or women, and they are habitually regarded with disfavor, even by those whom the proposed reform is to benefit. Thomas Hughes says, in School Days at Rugby: ”So it is, and must be always, my dear boys. If the Angel Gabriel were to come down from heaven and head a successful rise against the most abominable and unrighteous vested interest which this poor old world groans under, he would most certainly lose his character for many years, probably for centuries, not only with the upholders of the said vested interest, but with the respectable ma.s.s of the people whom he had delivered.”

Many changes for the better have been made during the last half century in the laws, written and unwritten, relating to women.

Everybody approves of these changes now, because they have become accomplished facts. But not one of them would have been made to this day if it had been necessary to wait until the majority of women asked for it. The change now under discussion is to be judged on its merits. In the light of history the indifference of most women and the opposition of a few must be taken as a matter of course. It has no more rational significance than it has had in regard to each previous step of woman's progress.

Miss Anthony closed with an impa.s.sioned argument which profoundly moved both the committee and the audience. The chairman said that in all the years there had never been so dignified, logical and perfectly managed a hearing before the Judiciary, and several of its members corroborated this statement and a.s.sured the ladies present of a full belief in the justice of their cause. Yet neither the Senate nor the House Committee made any report or paid the slightest heed to these earnest and eloquent appeals.

FOOTNOTES:

[112] The Sunday afternoon preceding the convention religious services were held in the theatre, which was crowded. The sermon was given by the Rev. Anna Howard Shaw, from the text, ”One shall chase a thousand and two put ten thousand to flight.”

[113] A most interesting account of that historic occasion may be found in the History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. I, p. 67.