Volume IV Part 59 (1/2)

The following list is taken from the New York _Sun_ (1902) and corresponds with information gathered from other sources:

Habitual drunkenness, in all except eight States.

Wilful desertion, generally.

Felony, in all except three.

Cruelty, and intolerable cruelty, in all except five.

Failure by the husband to provide, in twenty.

Fraud and fraudulent contract, in nine.

Absence without being heard from, for different periods, in six.

Ungovernable temper, in two.

Insupportably cruel treatment, outrages and excesses, in six.

Indignities rendering life burdensome, in six.

Attempt to murder other party, in three.

Insanity or idiocy at time of marriage, in six. Insanity lasting ten years, in Was.h.i.+ngton; incurable insanity, in North Dakota, Florida and Idaho.

Husband notoriously immoral before marriage, unknown to wife, in West Virginia. [Pregnancy of wife before marriage, unknown to husband, in many States].

Fugitive from justice, in Virginia.

Gross misbehavior or wickedness, in Rhode Island.

Any gross neglect of duty, in Kansas and Ohio.

Refusal of wife to remove into the State, in Tennessee.

Mental incapacity at time of marriage, in Georgia.

Three years with any religious society that believes the marriage relation unlawful, in Ma.s.sachusetts; and joining any such sect, in New Hamps.h.i.+re.

When parties can not live in peace and union, in Utah.

Vagrancy of the husband, in Missouri and Wyoming.

Excesses, in Texas.

Where wife by cruel and barbarous treatment renders condition of husband intolerable, in Pennsylvania.

By reference to the History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. I, pp. 482, 717, 745 and following, it will be seen that the resolutions favoring divorce for habitual drunkenness offered in the first women's conventions, during the early '50's, almost disrupted the meetings, and caused press and pulpit throughout the country to thunder denunciations, but half a century later such laws exist in thirty-seven of the forty-five States and meet with general approval.

It is frequently charged that the granting of woman suffrage has been followed by laws for free divorce, but an examination of the statutes will show that exactly the same causes obtain in the States where women do not vote as in those where they do; that there has not been the slightest change in the latter since the franchise was given them; and that in Wyoming, where it has been exercised since 1869, there is the smallest percentage of divorce in proportion to the population of any State in the Union. The three places which are so largely utilized by outsiders who wish a speedy divorce, because only a ninety days'

residence is required, are North and South Dakota and Oklahoma, in neither of which have women any suffrage except for school trustees.

The ”age of consent or protection” for girls, i. e., the age when they are declared to have sufficient understanding to consent to intercourse, and above which they can claim no legal protection, was fixed at ten years by the Common Law. No action was taken by any State to advance the age up to which they might be protected until 1864, when Oregon raised it to fourteen years. No other State followed this example until 1882, when Wyoming made it fourteen. In 1885 Nebraska added two years making it twelve. At this date women commenced to besiege the Legislatures in all parts of the country, and there was a general movement from that time forward to have the age of protection increased, but in almost every instance where this has been accomplished, the penalty for violation of the law has been reduced, and now in thirteen States no minimum penalty is named. The age still remains at ten years in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina. In Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia the age is twelve years, but in Tennessee it is only a ”misdemeanor” between twelve and sixteen. (For the recent efforts of women in Georgia and Florida to have the age advanced, and their failure, see the chapters on those States.) In Delaware the Common Law age of ten years was reduced to seven by the Legislature in 1871, and no protection was afforded to infants over seven until 1889 when the age was raised to fifteen, but the crime was declared to be only a ”misdemeanor.”

Women who have ”all the rights they want,” and men who insist that ”the laws are framed for the best interests of women,” are recommended to make a study of those presented herewith.

Under the head of Suffrage it is stated whether women possess any form of it and, if so, in what it consists. The story of the four States where they have the complete franchise--Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Idaho--naturally is most interesting, as it describes just how this was obtained and gives considerable information on points which are not fully understood by the general public. The chapter on Kansas doubtless will come next in interest, as there women have had the Munic.i.p.al ballot since 1887. It is frequently said in criticism that women have School Suffrage in twenty-six States and Territories, including the five mentioned above, but they do not make use of it in large numbers. What this fragmentary suffrage includes, the restrictions thrown around it and the obstacles placed in its way, are described in the chapters of those States and Territories where it prevails--Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Ma.s.sachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Hamps.h.i.+re, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Was.h.i.+ngton, Wisconsin.

It will be seen that in New York women tax-payers in villages, and in Louisiana and Montana all tax-paying women, may vote on questions submitted for taxation, and an account is given of the first use which women made of this privilege in Louisiana in 1899. In Iowa all women may vote on the issuing of bonds. In Mississippi they have the merest form of a franchise on a few matters connected with country schools and the running at large of stock. In Arkansas they may sign a pet.i.tion against liquor selling within certain limits and their names count for as much as men's. After a careful study of the situation the wonder will not be that women do not exercise more largely these grudgingly-given and closely-restricted privileges, but that in many States they think it worth while to exercise them at all. In the four, however, where they have the Full Suffrage, and in Kansas where they have the Munic.i.p.al, the official figures which have been carefully tabulated will demonstrate beyond further controversy that where they possess exactly the same electoral rights as men they use them in even a larger proportion. These statistics answer conclusively the question, ”Do women want to vote?”

The information as to Office-Holding is necessarily somewhat desultory as there is no record in any State of the women in office. This is true even of those pertaining to the schools, and in very few cases does the State Superintendent of Public Instruction know how many women are serving as county superintendents and members of school boards. The information on these points contained in the State chapters was secured princ.i.p.ally through personal investigation and by an extended correspondence, and while it is believed to be entirely correct so far as it goes, it does not by any means include the total number of offices filled by women. Imperfect as is the list it will be a surprise to those who look upon office-holding as the natural prerogative of man. A stock objection to woman suffrage is that women will be wanting the offices. An examination of the reports here submitted will disclose the surprising fact that in a number of States where women do not vote they are filling as many offices as in those where they have the full franchise. Probably the majority of State const.i.tutions declare that the offices must be held by electors, but where this proviso is not made, women have been elected and appointed to various offices and so far as can be learned have given general satisfaction.[156]