Among the petitions sent in this year for Municipal Suffrage was one signed by President Helen A. Shafer of Wellesley College, a number of the professors and about seventy students who were over twenty-one. The committee reported in favor of both Municipal and License Suffrage. The former was discussed March 12 and lost by a vote, including pairs, of 90 yeas, 139 nays. TheWoman's Journalsaid: "Although not a majority, the weight of character, talent and experience was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, as is shown by the fact thatthe chairmen of thirty of the House Committees, out of a total of forty-one, were recorded in its favor."
License Suffrage passed the Senate, 15 yeas, 12 nays, after a long fight, and was defeated in the House, 101 yeas, 42 nays.
1890—Suffrage petitions were presented and also petitions asking that fathers and mothers be made equal guardians of their children; that contracts between husbands and wives be legally valid; and that a widow be allowed to stay more than forty days in the house of her deceased husband without paying rent. All these were refused.
On March 12 a hearing was given to the petitioners for suffrage. Mrs. Stone, Mr. Blackwell, the Rev. J. W. Hamilton, Mrs. Ellen B. Dietrick, the Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley, Mr. Crane of Woburn and Miss Alice Stone Blackwell spoke in behalf of the W. S. A., and Mrs. Susan S. Fessenden, Mrs. Amelia C. Thorpe and Miss Tobey in behalf of the W. C. T. U. Mr. Ropes, Dr. A. P. Peabody and J. B. Wiggin spoke against woman suffrage. Mr. Lord asked that the hearing be extended foranother day, as he wished to speak in behalf of the remonstrants, although no petitions had been sent in. Mr. Blackwell requested the chairman of the committee to ask Mr. Lord to state definitely whom he represented. The chairman answered that if he did not choose to tell he could not compel him. On March 19 a hearing was given to Mr. Lord, who spoke for more than an hour. The usual distinguished suffrage advocates spoke in answer.
On April 8 seventy-nine Republican Representatives met at the Parker House, Boston, in response to an invitation from the Republican members of the House Committee on Woman Suffrage. Ex-Gov. John D. Long presided. Addresses were made by Mr. Long, U. S. Collector Beard, Mayor Thomas N. Hart of Boston, the Hon. Albert E. Pillsbury, ex-president of the Senate, ex-Governor Claflin and State Treasurer George E. Marden. Letters were read from the Hon. W. W. Crapo and ex-Governor Ames. The following was unanimously adopted:
Resolved, That it is the duty of the Republican party of Massachusetts forthwith to extend Municipal Suffrage to the women of the commonwealth.
Resolved, That it is the duty of the Republican party of Massachusetts forthwith to extend Municipal Suffrage to the women of the commonwealth.
On April 17, after extended discussion in the House, the bill was lost, including pairs, by 73 yeas, 141 nays. The same Legislature defeated a proposal to disfranchise for a term of three years men convicted of infamous crimes, and it voted to admit to suffrage men who did not pay their poll-tax.
1891—On February 4 a hearing was granted to the petitioners for Municipal Suffrage, conducted by Mr. Blackwell for the association, by Mrs. Fessenden for the W. C. T. U. To the usual speakers for the former were added Mrs. Helen Campbell, the Rev. Charles G. Ames, and also the Rev. Daniel Whitney, who had advocated woman suffrage in the Massachusetts constitutional convention of 1853 and now celebrated his eighty-first birthday by supporting it again. The speakers for the W. C. T. U. were the Rev. Joseph Cook, Mrs. Thorpe, President Elmer Hewitt Capen of Tufts College, Mrs. Katherine Lente Stevenson and others. Mrs. Martha Moore Avery spoke for the labor reformers. No remonstrants appeared.
In the Senate, March 31, Senators Gilman, Nutter and Breedspoke for Municipal Suffrage, and no one in the negative. The bill was lost by a vote, including pairs, of 12 yeas, 25 nays.
This year a bill was passed requiring the appointment of women as factory inspectors, and two were appointed.
1892—The suffrage association petitioned for Municipal and Full Suffrage, also for equal property rights for women. The W. C. T. U. for Municipal and License Suffrage, and both societies for legislation granting women equal facilities with men in registering to vote for school committee. On March 2 a hearing was given by the Committee on Election Laws on an order introduced by Senator Gorham D. Gilman to remove the poll-tax prerequisite for women's school vote, as it had been removed from men. Bills to secure for them a more just and liberal method of registration, drafted by ex-Governor Long and Mr. Blackwell, were submitted. Addresses were made by these two, Senator Gilman, Mrs. Cheney, Dr. Salome Merritt, Mrs. Brockway and others.
On February 19 a hearing was given on the suffrage petitions which were advocated by Senator Gilman, Colonel Dudley, Mrs. Howe, Lucy Stone, Mr. Blackwell, the Hon. George S. Hale, Mrs. Trask Hill and others. No remonstrants appeared. On March 14 the hearing for the W. C. T. U. was held with many prominent advocates.
License Suffrage was discussed in the House April 27, and on aviva vocevote was declared carried, but on a roll call was defeated, 93 yeas, 96 nays. A reconsideration was moved next day and the advocates of the bill secured twenty-three additional votes, but the opponents also increased their vote and the motion was refused. Out of the 240 members 117 recorded themselves in favor of the bill. Municipal Suffrage was voted down in the Senate May 2, without debate, by 10 yeas, 22 nays.
The poll-tax was abolished as a prerequisite for voting in the case of women. This had been done in the case of men in 1890. A bill to permit a wife to bring an action against her husband, at law or in equity, for any matter relating to her separate property or estate passed the House but was defeated in the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported against legislation to enable a woman to be appointed a justice of the peace.
1893—This year for the first time the State W. S. A., the National W. S. A. of Massachusetts, the W. C. T. U., the Independent Women Voters and the Loyal Women of American Liberty all united in petitioning for a single measure, Municipal Suffrage. The hearing at the State House on February 1 was conducted by Mr. Blackwell. Addresses were made by Lucy Stone,[318]Mrs. Howe, Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mrs. Stevenson, the Rev. Louis A. Banks, Mayor Elihu B. Hayes of Lynn, Mrs. A. J. Gordon, Mrs. Trask Hill, Mrs. A. P. Dickerman, Mrs. Fiske of St. Johns, N. B., Amos Beckford, George E. Lothrop, Mrs. M. E. S. Cheney and Miss Blackwell. Mrs. M. E. Tucker Faunce was the sole remonstrant.
The committee reported in favor of the petitioners, 7 yeas, 4 nays. The question was debated in the Legislature February 21. Every inch of space was crowded, the first three rows of the men's gallery were allowed on this occasion to be occupied by women and even then many stood. On motion of Representative White of Brookline an amendment was adopted by 110 yeas, 90 nays, providing that Municipal Suffrage should be granted conditionally; the question be submitted to a vote of the men and women of the State, and the measure to go into effect only in case the majority of those voting on it voted in favor. The bill as amended was then defeated by 111 yeas, 101 nays, almost every opponent of suffrage voting against it. They thus virtually declared that they were not willing women should have Municipal Suffrage even if the majority of both men and women could be shown to favor it. The adverse majority this year was ten votes; the smallest in any previous year had been 49.
1894—Gov. Frederick T. Greenhalge, in his inaugural message to the Legislature, strongly urged that it should consider the extension of Municipal Suffrage to women.
On January 18 a hearing was given by the Joint Special Committee. No remonstrant petitions had been sent in. The chairman invited alternate speeches from suffragists and opponents, but only one of the latter presented himself, J. Otis Wardwell of Haverhill, who said:
I appear here this morning for a lady who, I understand, has occupied a position as chairman or secretary of an organization that has for some time been an active opponent of woman suffrage.Mr. Blackwell—May I inquire what the organization is that the gentleman refers to? We have never been able to find out much about this organization against woman suffrage. We hear that there is one, but if so it is a secret society. What is the name of it?Mr. Wardwell—I do not know the name of it, sir. [Laughter.]
I appear here this morning for a lady who, I understand, has occupied a position as chairman or secretary of an organization that has for some time been an active opponent of woman suffrage.
Mr. Blackwell—May I inquire what the organization is that the gentleman refers to? We have never been able to find out much about this organization against woman suffrage. We hear that there is one, but if so it is a secret society. What is the name of it?
Mr. Wardwell—I do not know the name of it, sir. [Laughter.]
When pressed for the name of the lady at whose request he appeared he finally acknowledged that it was Mrs. C. D. Homans of Boston. It was afterwards reported that she was extremely indignant with him for having disclosed her name.
Addresses in favor of suffrage were made by Mrs. Howe, Mrs. Livermore, Mr. Ernst, Mr. Garrison, Mr. and Miss Blackwell, for the State W. S. A.; by Mrs. Cheney, president, for the State School Suffrage Association; by Dr. Salome Merritt and Miss Charlotte Lobdell for the National W. S. A. of Massachusetts; by Willard Howland, Mrs. Gleason and others for the W. C. T. U.; by Mrs. Trask Hill for the Independent Women Voters; and by Mrs. Avery for the labor element; also by Miss Catherine Spence of Australia, Mrs. Emily A. Fifield of the Boston school board, and others. Henry H. Faxon added a few words.
A second hearing was given January 19, at which Mrs. Fessenden and twelve other speakers represented the W. C. T. U. No remonstrants appeared. At the request of a member of the Joint Special Committee a third hearing was given on January 29. The Rev. Dr. Hamilton, Mrs. L. A. Morrison, Mrs. Trask Hill and others spoke in favor of suffrage, and Jeremiah J. Donovan against it. The committee made a majority report against Municipal Suffrage and a minority report in favor.
On January 31 Arthur S. Kneil offered an amendment providing that the question should be submitted to the men and women of the State, and that the act should take effect only if a majority of the votes cast on the proposition were in favor. Wm. H. Burges wanted it submitted to the men only. A second amendment proposed to lay the whole matter on the table till the opinion of the Supreme Court could be taken on the constitutionality of Mr. Kneil's amendment. On February 1 there was a spirited discussion but finally both amendments were defeated,and the minority report in favor of the bill was substituted for the adverse majority report by a vote of 104 yeas, 90 nays.
On February 2 Senator Arthur H. Wellman urged the adoption of his order that the Justices of the Supreme Court should be required to give their opinion to the House on three questions:
1. Is it constitutional, in an act granting to women the right to vote in town and city elections, to provide that such act shall take effect throughout the commonwealth upon its acceptance by a majority of the voters of the commonwealth?2. Is it constitutional to provide in such an act that it shall take effect in a city or town upon its acceptance by a majority of the voters of such city or town?3. Is it constitutional to provide that such an act shall take effect throughout the commonwealth upon its acceptance by a majority of the voters of the commonwealth, including women specially authorized to register and vote upon this question?
1. Is it constitutional, in an act granting to women the right to vote in town and city elections, to provide that such act shall take effect throughout the commonwealth upon its acceptance by a majority of the voters of the commonwealth?
2. Is it constitutional to provide in such an act that it shall take effect in a city or town upon its acceptance by a majority of the voters of such city or town?
3. Is it constitutional to provide that such an act shall take effect throughout the commonwealth upon its acceptance by a majority of the voters of the commonwealth, including women specially authorized to register and vote upon this question?
Alfred S. Roe and the other leading advocates of Municipal Suffrage withdrew their opposition to the order, saying that they preferred the bill as it stood, but that if amendments were to be added to it at any subsequent stage it would be well to know whether they were constitutional. The order was adopted.
On March 3 four Justices of the Supreme Court—Field, Allen, Morton and Lathrop—answered "No" to all three questions. Justices Holmes and Barker answered "Yes" to all three; and Justice Knowlton answered "No" to the first and third and "Yes" to the second. These opinions were published in full in theWoman's Journalof March 10, 1894.
On March 14 Municipal Suffrage was discussed in open session. An amendment was offered to limit the right to taxpaying women and a substitute bill to allow women to vote at one election only. The latter was offered by Richard J. Hayes of Boston, who said, "You would see the lowest women literally driven to the polls by thousands by mercenary politicians. The object lesson would settle the question forever." The amendment and the substitute were lost and the bill was passed to its third reading by a vote, including pairs, of 122 yeas, 106 nays.
On March 29 the galleries were crowded with women. Richard Sullivan of Boston offered an additional section that the question be submitted to the men at the November election for an expression of opinion. This was adopted by 109 yeas, 93 nays.The bill to grant women Municipal Suffrage at once, irrespective of what the expression of opinion in November might be, was then passed to be engrossed, by a vote, including pairs, of 118 yeas, 107 nays. A motion to reconsider was voted down.
On April 5 the bill came up in the Senate. Floor and galleries were crowded and hundreds were turned away. Senator William B. Lawrence of Medford, a distiller, offered as a substitute for the bill a proposal to submit the question to the men at the November election for an expression of opinion as a guide to action by the next Legislature. He said it was absurd to grant women the suffrage first and call for an expression of opinion by the men afterward. The vote on the substitute was a tie, 19 yeas, 19 nays. To relieve the president of the Senate from the necessity of voting Senator John F. Fitzgerald changed his vote, but Senator Butler declined to be so relieved and gave his casting vote against the substitute. The bill for Municipal Suffrage was then defeated by 14 yeas, 24 nays.
The BostonHerald, of April 9, had an editorial entitled Liquor and Woman Suffrage, expressing satisfaction in the defeat of the bill but emphatic disapproval of the corrupt methods used against it in the Senate. A majority of the Senators had promised to vote for it but the Liquor Dealer's Association raised a large sum of money to accomplish its defeat, a persistent lobby worked against it and several Senators changed front. TheHeraldplainly intimated that the result was due to bribery.
The credit of the unusually good vote in the House in 1893 and '94 was largely due to Representative Alfred S. Roe of Worcester, an able member, highly esteemed and very popular, who worked for the bill with the utmost zeal and perseverance.
There were petitions this year from many different organizations representing a vast aggregate membership. On June 9 a bill to allow women to be notaries public was defeated in the Senate by 10 yeas, 12 nays.
1895.—On January 30 a great hearing was held in old Representatives' Hall at the State House, with floor, aisles and galleries crowded to the utmost capacity. Senator Alpheus M. Eldridge presided and Mrs. Livermore, as president of the State Association, conducted the hearing for the five organizationsthat appeared as petitioners. Addresses were made by Lady Henry Somerset, Mrs. Howe, Mr. Blackwell, Profs. Hayes and Webster of Wellesley College, Mrs. Fessenden, Mrs. Trask Hill, Mrs. Emily McLaughlin, Mrs. Boland, John Dean, F. C. Nash, Frank H. Foster, chairman of the legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor for Massachusetts, James F. Norton, the representative of 10,000 Good Templars.
No opposing petitions had been sent in but Thomas Russell appeared as attorney for the remonstrants and said: "Believing as they do that the proper place for women is not in public urging or remonstrating against legislation before public gatherings, but rather in the home, the hospital, the school, the public institution where sin and suffering are to be found and to be alleviated, they have not themselves appeared before you"—but had sent him.[319]Representative Roe said that the lawyer who had spoken for the remonstrants at the hearing of 1894 had received $500 for his services, and asked Mr. Russell if he appeared in the same capacity. He answered that no compensation had been promised him, and that he did not mean to accept any. He added: "I represent no organization, anything more than an informal gathering of ladies, and as for the numbers I can not state. But I do not come here basing my claim to be heard on the numbers of those who have asked me to appear. It is the justice of the cause which I speak upon that entitles me to a hearing, as it would if there were no one but myself."
Later twelve remonstrances were sent in, signed by 748 women. For suffrage there were 210 petitions from 186 towns and cities representing 133,111 individuals, men and women.
The opposition, alarmed by the large affirmative vote of 1894, this year put forth unprecedented efforts. Daily papers were paid for publishing voluminous letters against suffrage—sometimes of four columns—and an active and unscrupulous lobby worked against the bill. For the first time in history an anti-suffrage association was formed within the Legislature itself. Representatives Dallinger, Humphrey, Bancroft of Clinton, Eddy of New Bedford, and others, organized themselves intoa society, elected a chairman and secretary and worked strenuously and systematically, making a thorough canvass of the House and pledging as many members as possible to vote "No."
The suffragists made the mistake of devoting their attention mainly to the Senate, where it was expected that the bill would come up first, and where it was believed that the main difficulty would be, but on March 5 the Municipal Suffrage Bill was brought up in the House. Every inch of space was crowded with spectators. After much discussion the bill was defeated by 137 yeas, 97 nays.
On March 13 a bill to raise the "age of protection" for girls from 16 to 18 years was defeated by 108 yeas, 55 nays.
On May 17 Senator Wellman's bill for a "mock referendum" was adopted by the Legislature. It proposed to take a vote of the men and women of the State on the question "Is it expedient that Municipal Suffrage should be extended to women?"
The Mock Referendum:This is called by the advocates of equal rights a "mock referendum" because it was to have no legal validity and was to give the women nothing even if it should be carried in their favor. TheWoman's Journalsaid:
Two years ago an amendment was added to the Municipal Suffrage Bill providing that it should become law when ratified by a vote of the majority of the men and women of the State. Nearly every opponent in the House voted against the bill after that amendment had been incorporated, showing clearly that they were not willing to let women have suffrage even if a majority of the men and women of the State should vote for it. It was then believed that such action would be constitutional. The Supreme Court afterwards gave its opinion that Municipal Suffrage could not be extended by a popular vote of either the men or the women, or both, but must be extended, if at all, by the Legislature. Following that decision, the opponents have become clamorous for a popular vote.
Two years ago an amendment was added to the Municipal Suffrage Bill providing that it should become law when ratified by a vote of the majority of the men and women of the State. Nearly every opponent in the House voted against the bill after that amendment had been incorporated, showing clearly that they were not willing to let women have suffrage even if a majority of the men and women of the State should vote for it. It was then believed that such action would be constitutional. The Supreme Court afterwards gave its opinion that Municipal Suffrage could not be extended by a popular vote of either the men or the women, or both, but must be extended, if at all, by the Legislature. Following that decision, the opponents have become clamorous for a popular vote.
The suffragists, who, beginning in 1869, had petitioned year after year for the submission to the voters of a legal and straightforward constitutional amendment, which would give women the ballot if the majority voted for it, were disgusted with this sham substitution. Mrs. Livermore, the State president, declared that she would neither take part in the mock vote herself nor advise others to do so. This feeling was so general that at the last meeting of the executive committee of the W. S. A. forthe season, in June, it was found impossible even to pass a resolution recommending those men and women who favored equal suffrage to go to the polls and say so.
A number of individual suffragists, however, believed that advantage should be taken of the chance to make an educational campaign and, as theWoman's Journalof June 8 said, "to use the opportunity for what it is worth as a means of agitation." Therefore a Suffrage Referendum State Committee was formed of more than fifty prominent men and women, including U. S. Senator Hoar, ex-Governor Long, the Hon. J. Q. A. Brackett, Mrs. Howe, Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Fannie B. Ames, Mrs. Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward, the editors of theWoman's Journaland others. Mrs. Mary Clarke Smith was employed as organizer, beginning July 10, and as good a campaign was made as the circumstances permitted. By the time the executive committee reassembled in October, every one had become convinced of the wisdom of this course, and the State Suffrage Association and the Referendum Committee worked hand in hand during the last few weeks before election. It was a disadvantage that the bill for the "mock referendum" was passed just before people went away for the summer, and that the vote was to be taken soon after they came back in the fall; nevertheless, a spirited campaign was made, a large number of meetings and rallies were held and a great quantity of literature was distributed.
About six weeks before election a Man Suffrage Association was formed with Francis C. Lowell as chairman, Thomas Russell as treasurer and Charles R. Saunders as salaried secretary.[320]This society was composed wholly of men. It sent out an enormous number of circulars and other documents, spent money like water, enlisted active political workers, utilized to a considerable extent the party "machines," and as far as possible secured a committee of men to work at each polling place on election day and roll up a large negative vote of men. It contained a number of influential politicians who displayed much skill in their tactics. They published a manifesto against equal rights signed by onehundred prominent men. TheWoman's Journal, which printed this document on October 19, said:
In the main the protest represents merely money and social position. There are half-a-dozen names on it which it is a pity and a shame to see there. All the rest were to be expected. They are men whose opinion would be of weight on questions of stocks and bonds, but whose opinion on questions of moral reform has only a minus value.... Its signers have pilloried themselves for posterity. It is regarded as discourteous to-day to remind President Eliot of Harvard that his father was the only member of Congress from Massachusetts who voted for the Fugitive Slave Law. Forty years hence it will be regarded as cruel to remind the children of these gentlemen [among whom was President Eliot] that their fathers put their names to a protest against equal rights for women.
In the main the protest represents merely money and social position. There are half-a-dozen names on it which it is a pity and a shame to see there. All the rest were to be expected. They are men whose opinion would be of weight on questions of stocks and bonds, but whose opinion on questions of moral reform has only a minus value.... Its signers have pilloried themselves for posterity. It is regarded as discourteous to-day to remind President Eliot of Harvard that his father was the only member of Congress from Massachusetts who voted for the Fugitive Slave Law. Forty years hence it will be regarded as cruel to remind the children of these gentlemen [among whom was President Eliot] that their fathers put their names to a protest against equal rights for women.
At first the two anti-suffrage associations, the men's and the women's, co-operated with the suffragists in getting up debates; but no man ever consented to take part in one against suffrage a second time, and toward the end of the campaign it became almost impossible to secure speakers in the negative. Both sides published appeals and counter-appeals and the question was discussed in the press, at public meetings and in social circles to an extent unprecedented in the history of the State. Even the advertisements in the street cars began with the query in large letters, Should Women Vote? in order to attract attention to a particular brand of soap, etc.
During the early part of the canvass the opponents of suffrage circulated pledges for signature by women promising to vote "No" in November,[321]but they soon became convinced that in trying to get out a large vote of women against suffrage they had undertaken more than they could accomplish. The Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women supplied in plate form to a large number of State papers a series of articles one of which urged women to express themselves against suffrage, warned them that "silence will be cited as consent," and said: "It is our duty in any clear and forcible way that presents itself, to say 'I am not sure that our country should run this enormous new risk.'"
The "antis" have since asserted that in saying "in any clearand forcible way that presents itself," they did not mean to include the most obvious way,i. e., by voting "No" when given an opportunity by the Legislature to do so. Later in the campaign they issued a manifesto declaring that they did not urge women to register or vote, and thatsilence was not to be interpreted as consent. And finally, just before registration closed in Boston and the other cities, when it was clear that the majority of women were not going to register to vote either way, they issued another manifesto urging womennotto vote against suffrage!
This was a transparent device to conceal the fewness of their numbers, and they thus stultified all their previous professions, as they had asserted for years that whenever women were given the right to vote on an important question it would be their duty to do so, irrespective of their personal inclinations, and it was in order to save women from this burden that their enfranchisement was opposed. If they could have brought out an overwhelming vote of women against equal suffrage, of course they would have done so. Since they could not, it was their policy to advise women not to express themselves and thus let the few who were strongly opposed be confounded with the mass of those who were indifferent. The Man Suffrage Association, which professed to be working in full harmony with the women's organization, declared in small and inconspicuous type that it did not urge women to take the trouble to register, merely for the sake of expressing themselves on the referendum, but that it did urge those who voted at all to vote "No." It published a circular giving reasons "why women and the friends of women should vote no," and it covered walls and fences from one end of the State to the other with huge placards bearing in enormous letters the words, "Men and Women, Vote No!"
The main object of this association, however, was not to get an expression of opinion from the women (which would weigh little either way) but to influence the Legislature through a large negative vote from the men. Mr. Saunders was reported in an interview in the BostonHeraldas saying that the women who took the trouble to vote at all would probably vote in favor ten to one (it proved to be twenty-five to one), but that if themenwould give a good majority against it the Legislature could be relied upon to defeat a genuine amendment for years.
The suffragists spent only $1,300 during the entire canvass. The Man Suffrage Association never made the sworn report of its receipts and expenditures which the law requires of every campaign committee, although even the papers opposed to suffrage exhorted it to do so and warned it that it was placing itself in a false position by refusing, but the treasurer published an unsworn statement, not of his receipts but of his general expenditures, by which it appeared that the association, during the six weeks of its existence, spent $3,576. In addition large sums were expended by the women's anti-suffrage association, which, not being a campaign committee but a permanent society, was under no legal obligation to file a statement.
The "mock referendum" was voted on at the State election, Nov. 5, 1895, receiving 108,974 yeas, 187,837 nays. Men cast 86,970 yeas, 186,115 nays; women cast 22,204 yeas, 861 nays. Forty-eight towns gave a majority for equal suffrage, two were a tie, and in several the adverse majority was only one or two votes, and yet in most of these towns no suffrage league existed, and in some of them no suffrage meeting ever had been held.
The number of men who voted in the affirmative was a general surprise. A leaflet by one of the leading remonstrants, circulated during the campaign, asserted that "not one citizen of sound judgment in a hundred is in favor of woman suffrage;" but nearly one-third of the male voters who expressed themselves declared for it. There was the smallest affirmative vote in the most disreputable wards of Boston. Nearly 2,000 more votes of men were cast for suffrage than had been cast for prohibition in 1889. The proportion of votes in favor was almost twice as large as in Rhode Island, the only other New England State in which the question had been submitted, although in that there was no anti-suffrage association in the field. Outside of Boston the largest negative vote by women was cast in Cambridge and Newton, which have the reputation of being remonstrant strongholds. In 238 of the 322 towns not one woman voted "No." In most of these the anti-suffrage association had no branches, and there is no reason to suppose that the women ever had heardof its eleventh-hour advice to women not to vote. In every county, and in every Congressional, Senatorial and Representative district the women's vote was in favor at least ten to one. The "mock referendum" answered the main purpose of its promoters, however, for it did seriously cut down the vote for suffrage in the Legislature for several years thereafter, but it made a host of converts among the people at large and gave a fresh impetus to the activity of the State Suffrage Association, which ever since has steadily grown in membership.
1896—The usual petitions for suffrage were presented from 79 cities and towns, with 7,780 signatures. The Joint Special Committee on Woman Suffrage, which had been appointed annually for many years, was discontinued, with the good result that the suffragists ever since have had their hearings before two more influential committees, those on Constitutional Amendments and on Election Laws. On February 26 the latter gave a hearing for Municipal Suffrage. Mr. Blackwell opened the case for the petitioners and the usual number of fine addresses were made. Thomas Russell spoke for the remonstrants, and Miss Blackwell replied to him. On February 27 the Committee on Constitutional Amendments gave a hearing. Addresses were made by Mrs. Howe, Mr. Garrison, the Rev. Florence E. Kollock, Oswald Garrison Villard, Mr. Ernst, Mrs. Isabel C. Barrows, Miss Cora A. Benneson and Clyde Duniway, formerly of Oregon. Mr. Russell again spoke for the remonstrants and was answered by Miss Blackwell, Miss Gail Laughlin and Mrs. Mary Clarke Smith.
On March 4 a hearing was given to the petitioners for License Suffrage. Just after the hearing closed Mr. Russell arrived to remonstrate, but too late.
On March 9 a hearing was given on the petition of the State W. S. A. that the times of registration should be the same for women (school) voters as for men.
The Committee on Constitutional Amendments recommended that the question of submitting a suffrage amendment be referred to the next Legislature—three dissenting and favoring its submissionthis year. On March 23 consideration of the question was voted down and the yeas and nays were refused.
On March 31 and April 1 License Suffrage was discussed and finally defeated by 93 yeas, 116 nays, including pairs.
The Committee on Election Laws reported in favor of Municipal Suffrage but the bill was defeated.
The Supreme Court decided that women could not be made notaries public because they are not distinctly named as eligible in the State constitution.
Thomas F. Keenan, an opponent of woman suffrage, introduced a bill to license houses "for commercial sexual intercourse," which he alone voted for.[322]
1897—It was decided to ask this year for a thorough revision and equalization of the statutes bearing on domestic relations, in view of the fact that the last Legislature had appointed a committee of lawyers to revise and codify the laws. Especial attention was called to the need of a law making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children. Mr. Ernst, in behalf of the association, prepared a bill equalizing the property rights of husbands and wives. Mr. Russell, in behalf of the M. A. O. F. E. S. W. (which had for years been circulating leaflets declaring that the laws of Massachusetts were already more than just to women) prepared a bill tending in a similar direction; and a Judge of Probate prepared a more limited bill. All three appeared before the revising committee and, after repeated conferences, a bill making some improvements was recommended by the committee and enacted by the Legislature, but with a proviso that it should not go into effect until the following year, in order that the next Legislature might have a chance to amend it.
On February 10 the committee gave a hearing to the petitioners for the submission of an amendment to enfranchise women. It was addressed by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Cheney, Mrs. Boland, the Rev. Thomas Scully, the Rev. Mr. Ames, the Rev. Augusta Chapin, Miss Blackwell and others. No remonstrants appeared.The committee reported favorably, but on February 18 the bill was defeated by 74 yeas, 107 nays.
On February 24 the Committee on Election Laws heard arguments for Municipal and Presidential Suffrage, and also on the petition of the W. C. T. U. for License Suffrage. The committee had before it 144 largely signed petitions for suffrage and none against it. Mrs. Howe and Mr. Blackwell spoke in behalf of the measures asked for by the suffrage association, and a large number of prominent women for the W. C. T. U. Mr. Russell, Mrs. J. Elliott Cabot, Frank Foxcroft, Miss Dewey, Dr. Walter Channing, Mrs. A. J. George, A. Lawrence Lowell and Miss Mary A. J. McIntyre spoke against all three bills. Miss Blackwell, at the close, replied in behalf of both associations. Members of the committee asked the president of the anti-suffrage association, Mrs. Cabot, and almost all the women who spoke on that side whether they would vote for or against license if they had the ballot. Everyone answered that she would vote for license. Mr. Russell had declared that if women were allowed to vote, "no license would be carried in every town and city of the commonwealth, contrary to the will of the people." The committee gave a majority report against all the bills.
On March 10 the question of accepting the adverse report on License Suffrage came up in the Legislature. The vote stood, 100 yeas, 100 nays, and Speaker John L. Bates gave his casting vote in favor of substituting the bill for the adverse report. On March 18 the question was debated and the vote resulted in 108 yeas, 125 nays. There was much public interest and a lively discussion in the papers. Municipal and Presidential Suffrage were lost without a roll-call. A bill to make the Boston School Board appointive instead of elective, which would have deprived women of their School Suffrage, was defeated.
1898—The hearing on February 2 was conducted by Mr. Blackwell for the petitioners; Mr. Russell for the remonstrants. A letter from ex-Gov. William Claflin in favor of suffrage was read. Mrs. Anna Christy Fall, Mr. Garrison, ex-U. S. Attorney Frank B. Allen, Mrs. Helen Adelaide Shaw, Dr. A. E. Winship, editor of theJournal of Education, and others spoke for suffrage; Mrs. Arthur D. Gilman, Mrs. Egbert C. Smythe, Mrs. Rotheryof Wellesley, Mrs. Lincoln R. Stone and Mrs. George against it. Miss Blackwell replied for the petitioners. The committee reported "leave to withdraw." On February 14, after debate in the House of Representatives, the vote stood 44 yeas, 97 nays.
On February 23 the committee gave a hearing on Municipal Suffrage and on License Suffrage, both of which were eloquently urged. Mrs. Cabot, Mrs. Charles E. Guild, the Rev. Thomas Van Ness, the Rev. Reuen Thomas, Mrs. Henry F. Durant, Mrs. William T. Sedgwick, Mr. Foxcroft and Mr. Russell spoke in opposition. Municipal Suffrage was not debated, but after discussion on March 10 and 11, in the House of Representatives, the vote on License Suffrage, including pairs, stood 60 yeas, 116 nays.
The record for 1899 and 1900 presented no variations except that a number of local associations petitioned for Municipal Suffrage for Taxpaying Women. The State association did not officially ask for this, though the majority of its officers favored the measure. The annual hearings were given, the usual large crowds were in attendance, the ablest men and women in the State advocated the granting of suffrage, those heretofore mentioned spoke in opposition,[323]and the negative vote was in about the same proportion as before the "remonstrants" made their appearance.[324]
Laws:Until 1845 the women of Massachusetts suffered to the fullest extent the barbarities of the English Common Law. After that date the changes were gradual but very slow. From 1884 there was but little improvement in the property laws until 1899, when a radical revision was effected by a legislative committee and approved by the Legislature. As there was to be a general revision of the statutes and the new book would not be issued until Jan. 1, 1902, it was decided that all should go into effect at that date. The new property law for women provides as follows: No distinction is made between real and personal property in distributing the estate. The surviving husband or wife takes and holds one-third if the deceased leaves children or their descendants; $5,000 and one-half of the remaining estate if the deceased leaves no issue; and the whole if the deceased leaves no kindred. This is taken absolutely and not for life. Curtesy and dower have not been abolished but the old-time curtesy, which is a life interest in the whole of a deceased wife's real estate, is cut down to a life interest in one-third, the same as dower; and in order to be entitled to dower or curtesy the surviving husband or wife must elect to take it in preference to abiding by the above provisions.
Either husband or wife can make a will under the new law without the consent of the other, but the survivor, if not satisfied with the will of the deceased, can waive it within a year and take the same share of the estate that he (or she) would have taken if there had been no will, except that, if he would thus become entitled to more than $10,000 in value, he shall receive, in addition to that amount, only the income during his life of the excess of his share of such estate above that amount; and except that, if the deceased leaves no kindred, he, upon such waiver, shall take the interest he would have taken if the deceased had died leaving kindred but no issue.
A discretionary amount may be assigned by the Probate Court to the widow for the support of herself and minor children and takes precedence of the debts of the deceased. The old law took this allowance out of the personal estate only, and often thewidow was not able to receive the immediate assistance she needed, because the property was all in the form of real estate. The new law permits the real estate to be used if necessary. It also gives $100 to a minor child for his immediate necessities, if there is no widow; the old law gave $50. The new law permits the widow to remain in her husband's house for six months after his death. The old law gave her only forty days.
A married woman has full control of her separate property, and can dispose of her real estate subject only to the husband's interests. If she has been deserted or if the court has decreed that she is living apart from him for justifiable cause, she can by will or deed dispose of all her real and personal estate as if unmarried. The husband can do the same.
A married woman can be executor, administrator, guardian or trustee. She may make contracts with any one except her husband; may sue and be sued, carry on business in her own name, by complying with the legal requirements; control and invest her earnings and enter into partnerships. She is responsible for her contracts and debts and her property may be held for them. The husband is not liable on any judgments recovered against the wife alone, and her separate property is not liable on any judgment or execution against the husband. Suits between husband and wife are not allowed except for divorce.
The father is the legal guardian of the persons and estates of minor children; he has power to dispose of them during the lifetime of the mother and may appoint a guardian at his death.[325]
For non-support of wife and minor children the husband may be fined not exceeding $20 or imprisoned in the house of correction not exceeding six months. At the discretion of the court the fine is paid in whole or part to the town, city, society or person actually supporting such wife and children. (1893.)
The "age of protection" for girls was raised from 10 to 13 years in 1886; to 14 in 1888; to 16 in 1893. The penalty is imprisonment in the State prison for life or for any term of years, or for any term in any other penal institution in the commonwealth. This may be one day in the city jail.
Among various laws passed in the interests of women was one in 1895 making army nurses eligible to receive State aid. One of 1896 requires the State to inter the wife or widow of an honorably discharged soldier, sailor or marine who served during the Civil War, if she did not leave sufficient means for funeral expenses, provided she was married prior to 1870. In 1900 it was enacted that the State should perform a similar service for the mothers of said soldiers, sailors or marines, and that this should not be with the pauper dead, in either case.
Massachusetts has detailed laws regarding the employment of women, among them one restricting the hours of work in any mercantile establishment to fifty-eight in a week, except in retail stores during the month of December. Ten hours is a legal workday for women in general.
Separate houses of detention are required for women prisoners in cities of over 30,000.[326]
Suffrage:The original charter of Massachusetts in 1691 did not exclude women from voting. In 1780 the first constitution prohibited them from voting except for certain officers. The new constitution of 1820 limited the suffrage strictly to males.
In 1879 the Legislature enacted that a woman twenty-one years of age, who could give satisfactory evidence as to residence and who could stand the educational test (i. e., be able to read five lines of the constitution and write her name), and who should give notice in writing to the assessors that she wished to be assessed a poll tax (two dollars) and should give in under oath a statement of her taxable property (which was not required of men, as they had the option of letting the assessors guess at the amount) should thereupon be assessed and should be entitled to register and vote for members of school boards.[327]Inorder to keep her name on the registration list this entire process had to be repeated every year, while a man's name once placed on the list was kept there without further effort on his part, and the payment of the same poll tax entitled him to full suffrage.
In 1881 the poll tax was reduced to fifty cents, and the law was changed so that women's names should remain on the registration list so long as they continued to reside and pay their taxes in the place where they were registered. Even now, however, it requires constant watchfulness on their part to have this done. In 1890 the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting was abolished for men, and in 1892 for women. Only a few weeks in each year were set apart when women might register until 1898, when it was enacted that the time of registration should be the same for both.
The School Suffrage includes only a vote for members of the school board and not for supervisors, appropriations or any questions connected with the public schools. Women are not authorized to attend caucuses or have any voice in nominations of school officers. As they were thus deprived of all voice in selecting candidates, an association, Independent Women Voters, was formed in Boston in 1889 by Mrs. Eliza Trask Hill, who served as president until 1896, when she removed from the city, and Mrs. Sarah J. Boyden has filled the office since then. This organization, which was entered at the registration office as a political party, holds a caucus in each ward between January 1 and April 1 every year and nominates candidates for the School Board. Such nomination by 100 or more legal voters entitles their names to be placed on the Australian ballot. Some of the nominees of the Independent Women Voters are often accepted by the regular parties, but even when this is refused they are sometimes elected over the Republican or Democratic candidates.
Because of the conditions attached and the small privilege granted it is remarkable that any considerable number of women should have voted during these past years. When School Suffrage was first granted, in 1879, only 934 women voted, and for the first seven years the average was only 940. Since then there has been a large increase of interest. During the past seven years the number never has fallen below 5,000. In 1898, 5,201 womenvoted; in 1899, 7,090; in 1900, 9,542; and this year (1901) there were 15,545 names on the register and 11,620 voted. The highest number was reached in 1888, when under special circumstances 25,279 women were registered and 19,490 voted.
Office Holding:Women have served as School Committee (trustees) since 1874. For some time previous to 1884 they could hold by appointment the offices of overseers of the poor, trustees of public libraries, school supervisors, members of the State Boards of Education and of Health, Lunacy and Charity, without special legislation. It was required that there should be women on the boards of the three State Primary and Reform Schools, State workhouse, State almshouse and Board of Prison Commissioners, and that certain managers and officers of the Reformatory Prison for Women at Sherborn should be women.
In 1884 a bill was passed requiring the appointment of two women on the board of every Hospital for the Insane and one woman physician for each. In 1885 it was enacted that women might be assistant registers of deeds; in 1886 that they might be elected overseers of the poor. In 1887 a law was passed requiring police matrons in all cities of 30,000 inhabitants or more. There had been matrons in Boston fifteen years.
In 1890 the Supreme Court decided that a woman could not act as notary public. In 1891 it was enacted that there should be women factory inspectors; in 1895 that a woman could be appointed assistant town or city clerk; in 1896 that county commissioners might appoint a woman clerkpro tempore!
The evolution of the Special Commissioner shows the laborious processes by which women make any gains in Massachusetts. In 1883 a law was passed that women attorneys could be appointed Special Commissioners to administer oaths, take depositions and acknowledge deeds. In 1889 it was amended to give Special Commissioners the same powers as justices of the peace in the above respects and also that of issuing summonses for witnesses. In 1896 it was provided that any woman over twenty-one, the same as any man, whether a lawyer or not, could be appointed commissioner; a change of name by marriage should terminate her commission but should not disqualify her for re-appointment. In 1898 the powers were extended to appointmentsof appraisers of estates. In 1899 the powers of the Special Commissioner were made coincident with those of justice of the peace, but the authority to perform the marriage ceremony was taken from justices generally and is now given to specified ones only.
Women can not be justices of the peace. They may be appointed by the State to take acknowledgments of deeds but not to perform the marriage ceremony unless regularly ordained ministers.
Women at present are serving on State Boards as follows: Commissioners of Prisons, Charity and Free Public Library—two each; trustees of Insane Hospitals at Danvers, Northampton, Taunton, Worcester and Medfield—two each, and at Westborough, three; School for Feeble-minded, one; Hospital for Epileptics, two; for Dipsomaniacs and Inebriates, one; Hospital Cottages for Children, one; State Hospital and State Farm, two; Lyman and Industrial Schools, two.
It has been impossible to ascertain the number of women serving as School Trustees later than 1898. Then the records showed 194 on boards in 138 towns, but, as in many cases only the initials of the prefixes to the names were given, this is probably an underestimate. Women serve on the boards of public libraries.
Women are found in the following official positions in Boston: trustees of public institutions, two; of children's institutions, three; of insane hospitals, two; of bath departments, two; overseers of the poor, two; city conveyancer in law department, one; Superior Court stenographer, one; probation officers, two; chief matron House of Detention, one; supervisor of schools, one; members of school committee, four.
Occupations:Massachusetts claims the first woman who ever practiced medicine in the United States—Dr. Harriot K. Hunt, who studied with her father and began in 1835, long before a medical college in the country was open to women. In 1881 Lelia J. Robinson applied for admission to the bar in Boston and the Supreme Court decided a woman to be ineligible. The Legislature of 1892 enacted that women should be admitted to the practice of law. No professions or occupations are now legally forbidden to them.
Education:One of the first seminaries for women in the United States was Mt. Holyoke at South Hadley, Mass., now acollege with 550 students; the largest college for women in the world is Smith at Northampton, with 1,131 students; one that ranks among the four highest in existence, Wellesley, has 819; Radcliffe at Cambridge, has 407. The requirements of admission and the examinations are the same for Radcliffe as for Harvard and the courses of instruction are identical. The teaching is done by members of the Harvard faculty, over one hundred of them. All degrees must be approved by the President and Fellows of Harvard, the diplomas are countersigned by the President and bear the University seal. Nevertheless Radcliffe is not recognized as having any official connection with the ancient university. A number of graduate courses in Harvard are open to women but without degrees.
Boston University, with 1,430 students, is co-educational in all its departments, including law, medicine and theology. The same is true of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the State Agricultural College. There has been no distinction of sex in Tufts College (Univers.) since 1892; or in Clark University (post-graduate) in Worcester, since 1900. The College of Physicians and Surgeons and Tufts Colleges of Medicine and Surgery, in Boston, admit women. They are excluded from Andover Theological Seminary (Cong'l), Newton Theological Institute (Baptist), Amherst College, Williams College and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
In the public schools there are 1,197 men and 12,205 women teachers. The average monthly salary of the men is $136.23; of the women, $51.41. Omitting the High School salaries, the average amount paid to men per month is $130.09; to women, $49.61. In some counties over one-half as much is paid to women teachers as to men, but in Essex County the monthly ratio is $127.82 to men, and $47.17 to women, and in Suffolk County $200.07 to men and $63.44, or less than one-third, to women. Boston has 215 men teachers at an average monthly salary of $213.61; and 1,762 women at an average of $69.68. In no other State is the discrepancy so great in the salary of men and women teachers.
The women's clubs of Massachusetts are as the sands of the sea. Of these 169, with a membership of 21,451, belong to theState Federation. The New England Woman's Club was organized in 1868, the same year as Sorosis in New York and about one month earlier. These two are generally spoken of as the pioneers of women's clubs as they exist to-day.
When the third volume of the History of Woman Suffrage closed in 1885 it left this association three years old, with Mrs. Harriette Robinson Shattuck, president, Dr. Salome Merritt, vice-president, and thirteen other vice-presidents who represented the same number of counties. To these leaders and others it seemed necessary that Massachusetts should have this society in order to give a support to the officers and the methods of the National Woman Suffrage Association, which they were not receiving from the State society, at that time auxiliary to the American Association. In those three years conventions had been held in some twenty cities.
Mrs. Harriet M. Emerson was then engaged in preparing petitions, to which she secured many signers, asking for "a statute to enable a widow who desires it, to become on reasonable terms a co-executor with those appointed by her husband's will." For several years she spent much time on this work and had the help of many of the best citizens of Boston. It was ably presented at each session of the Legislature, but no action was taken.[329]