FOOTNOTES:

Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton (N. Y.), as had been her custom during all the years since she had ceased to appear in person before these committees, sent a strong appeal for justice, beginning as follows:

In adjusting the rights of citizens in our newly-acquired possessions, the whole question of suffrage is again fairly open for discussion in the House of Representatives; and as some of the States are depriving the colored men of the exercise of this right and all of the States, except four, deny it to all women, I ask Congress to submit an amendment to the National Constitution declaring that citizens not allowed a voice in the Government shall not be taxed or counted in the basis of representation.To every fair mind, such an amendment would appear pre-eminently just, since to count disfranchised classes in the basis of representation compels citizens to aid in swelling the number of Congressmen who may legislate against their most sacred interests. If the Southern States that deny suffrage to negro men should find that it limited their power in Congress by counting in the basis of representation only those citizens who vote, they would see that the interests of the races lay in the same direction. A constitutional amendment to this effect would also rouse the Northern States to their danger, for the same rule applied there in excluding all women from the basis of representation would reduce the number of their members of Congress one-half. And if the South should continue her suicidal policy toward women as well as colored men, her States would be at a still greater disadvantage....By every principle of our republic, logically considered, woman's emancipation is a foregone conclusion. The great "declarations," by the fathers, regarding individual rights and the true foundations of government, should not be glittering generalities for demagogues to quote and ridicule, but eternal laws of justice, as fixed in the world of morals as are the laws of attraction and gravitation in the material universe.In regard to the injustice of taxing unrepresented classes, Lord Coke says: "The supreme power can not take from any man his property without his consent in person or by representation. The very act of taxing those who are not represented appears to me to deprive them of one of their most sacred rights as free men, and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right; for what one civil right is worth a rush when a man's property is subject to be taken from him without his consent?Woman's right to life, liberty and happiness, to education, propertyand representation, can not be denied, for if we go back to first principles, where did the few get the right, through all time, to rule the many? They never had it, any more than pirates had the right to scour the high seas, and take whatever they could lay hands upon.

To every fair mind, such an amendment would appear pre-eminently just, since to count disfranchised classes in the basis of representation compels citizens to aid in swelling the number of Congressmen who may legislate against their most sacred interests. If the Southern States that deny suffrage to negro men should find that it limited their power in Congress by counting in the basis of representation only those citizens who vote, they would see that the interests of the races lay in the same direction. A constitutional amendment to this effect would also rouse the Northern States to their danger, for the same rule applied there in excluding all women from the basis of representation would reduce the number of their members of Congress one-half. And if the South should continue her suicidal policy toward women as well as colored men, her States would be at a still greater disadvantage....

By every principle of our republic, logically considered, woman's emancipation is a foregone conclusion. The great "declarations," by the fathers, regarding individual rights and the true foundations of government, should not be glittering generalities for demagogues to quote and ridicule, but eternal laws of justice, as fixed in the world of morals as are the laws of attraction and gravitation in the material universe.

In regard to the injustice of taxing unrepresented classes, Lord Coke says: "The supreme power can not take from any man his property without his consent in person or by representation. The very act of taxing those who are not represented appears to me to deprive them of one of their most sacred rights as free men, and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right; for what one civil right is worth a rush when a man's property is subject to be taken from him without his consent?

Woman's right to life, liberty and happiness, to education, propertyand representation, can not be denied, for if we go back to first principles, where did the few get the right, through all time, to rule the many? They never had it, any more than pirates had the right to scour the high seas, and take whatever they could lay hands upon.

Miss Elizabeth Sheldon Tillinghast (Conn.) considered The Economic Basis of Woman Suffrage:

....However we may explain it, and whether we like it or not, woman has become an economic factor in our country and one that is constantly assuming larger proportions. The question is now what treatment will make her an element of economic strength instead of weakness as at present. The presence of women in business now demoralizes the rate of wages even more than the increase in the supply of labor. Why? Principally because she can be bullied with greater impunity than voters—because she has no adequate means of self-defense. This seems a hard accusation, but I believe it to be true.Trade is a fight—an antagonism of interests which are compromised in contracts in which the economically stronger always wins the advantage. There are many things that contribute to economic strength besides ability, and among them the most potent is coming more and more to be the power which arises from organization expressing itself in political action. Without political expression woman's economic value is at the bottom of the scale. She is the last to be considered, and the consideration is usually about exhausted before she is reached.She must do better work than men for equal pay or equal work for less pay. In spite of this she may be supplanted at any time by a political adherent, or her place may be used as a bribe to an opposing faction. Women are weak in the business world because they are new in it; because they are only just beginning to learn their economic value; because their inherent tendencies are passive instead of aggressive, which makes them as a class less efficient fighters than men.For these reasons women are and must be for years, if not for generations, economically weaker than men. Does it appeal to any one's sense of fairness to give the stronger party in a struggle additional advantages and deny them to the weaker one? Would that be considered honorable—would it be considered tolerable—even among prize-fighters? What would be thought of a contest between a heavy-weight and a feather-weight in which the heavy-weight was allowed to hit below the belt and the feather-weight was confined to the Marquis of Queensberry's rules? And yet these are practically the conditions under which women do business in forty-one of our States.While the State does not owe any able-bodied, sound-minded man or woman a living, it does owe them all a fair—yes, even a generous opportunity to earn their own living, and one that shall not be prolongeddying. I do not claim that woman suffrage would be a panacea for all our economic woes. But I do claim that it would remove one handicap which women workers have to bear in addition to all those they share in common with men. I do claim that the men of the future will be healthier, wiser and more efficient wealth-producers if their mothers are stimulated by a practical interest in public affairs. I do claim that that nation will be the strongest in which the economic conditions are the most nearly just to all, and in which co-operation and altruism are the most completely incorporated in the lives of the people.

Trade is a fight—an antagonism of interests which are compromised in contracts in which the economically stronger always wins the advantage. There are many things that contribute to economic strength besides ability, and among them the most potent is coming more and more to be the power which arises from organization expressing itself in political action. Without political expression woman's economic value is at the bottom of the scale. She is the last to be considered, and the consideration is usually about exhausted before she is reached.

She must do better work than men for equal pay or equal work for less pay. In spite of this she may be supplanted at any time by a political adherent, or her place may be used as a bribe to an opposing faction. Women are weak in the business world because they are new in it; because they are only just beginning to learn their economic value; because their inherent tendencies are passive instead of aggressive, which makes them as a class less efficient fighters than men.

For these reasons women are and must be for years, if not for generations, economically weaker than men. Does it appeal to any one's sense of fairness to give the stronger party in a struggle additional advantages and deny them to the weaker one? Would that be considered honorable—would it be considered tolerable—even among prize-fighters? What would be thought of a contest between a heavy-weight and a feather-weight in which the heavy-weight was allowed to hit below the belt and the feather-weight was confined to the Marquis of Queensberry's rules? And yet these are practically the conditions under which women do business in forty-one of our States.

While the State does not owe any able-bodied, sound-minded man or woman a living, it does owe them all a fair—yes, even a generous opportunity to earn their own living, and one that shall not be prolongeddying. I do not claim that woman suffrage would be a panacea for all our economic woes. But I do claim that it would remove one handicap which women workers have to bear in addition to all those they share in common with men. I do claim that the men of the future will be healthier, wiser and more efficient wealth-producers if their mothers are stimulated by a practical interest in public affairs. I do claim that that nation will be the strongest in which the economic conditions are the most nearly just to all, and in which co-operation and altruism are the most completely incorporated in the lives of the people.

Mrs. Hala Hammond Butt (Miss.) discussed The Changed Intellectual Qualifications of the Women of this Century, with the intense eloquence of Southern women, and closed as follows:

There are mighty forces striving within our souls—a latent strength is astir that is lifting us out of our passive sleep. Defenseless, still are we subject to restrictions, bonds as illogical in theory as unjust in practice. Helpless, we may formulate as we will; but demonstrate we may not. The query persists in thrusting itself upon my mind, why should I be amenable to a law that does not accord me recognition? Why, indeed, should I owe loyalty and allegiance to a Government that stamps my brow with the badge of servility and inferiority?Our human interests are identical—yours and mine; our paths not far apart; we have the same loves, the same hates, the same hopes, the same desires; a common origin, a common need, a common destiny. Our moral responsibilities are equal, our civil liabilities not less than yours, our social and industrial exactions equally as stringent as yours, and yet—O, crowning shame of the nineteenth century!—we are denied the garb of citizenship. Gentlemen, is this justice?

Our human interests are identical—yours and mine; our paths not far apart; we have the same loves, the same hates, the same hopes, the same desires; a common origin, a common need, a common destiny. Our moral responsibilities are equal, our civil liabilities not less than yours, our social and industrial exactions equally as stringent as yours, and yet—O, crowning shame of the nineteenth century!—we are denied the garb of citizenship. Gentlemen, is this justice?

Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch, auditor of the National Suffrage Association and a member of the Chicago bar, demonstrated The Protective Power of the Ballot:

The spirit of struggle against oppression and dependence is in the air, and all have breathed it in—women as well as men. They, too, feel the desire for freedom, opportunity, progress; the wish for liberty, a share in the government, emancipation. The practical method by which these aspirations can be realized is through the ballot. It is the insignia of power. The Outlander wants it; so does the Filipino, the Slav, the Cuban; so do women. Women need the ballot not only for the honor of being esteemed peers among freemen, but they want it for the practical value it will be in protecting them in the exercise of a citizen's prerogatives....But, it is asked, "Have not women had some sort of protection without the ballot?" Yes, but it has been only such protection asthe caprice or affection of the voting class has given, gratuities revocable at will. The man of wealth or power defends his wife, daughter or sweetheart because she is his, just as he would defend his property. His own opinions, not her views, decide him concerning the things from which she should be protected. Should she ever need protection against "her protector," there is no one to give it....Entrance into remunerative employments in many instances has been denied women. In many of the States the professions of law, medicine, dentistry and all the elective offices are closed by statute. Appointive positions, also, which women might legally hold are practically withheld from them because of their lack of the ballot. The appointing power—president, governor, mayor, judge or commissioner—all owe their own positions to voters who expect some minor appointment in acknowledgment of service.Even large private corporations not supposed to be influenced by politics have occasionally desired and received governmental help and protection. In return, the employes of these enterprises have been advised to vote for the party which has protected their employers' business. At a caucus, a street parade and on election day, the 500 or 10,000 or 100,000 persons employed in a certain industry make a considerable political showing if they are all voters. On such occasions women employes are of no value. Women refused employment in various enterprises not alone are injured in their feelings, but they are not protected in their right to earn food, shelter and clothes.There are many different kinds of employment which do not debar women, but even in these they need protection in securing a fair return for their labor. In an investigation conducted by the U. S. Department of Labor concerning the wages received by men and women it appeared that in 75 per cent. of the 782 instances investigated, men received 50 per cent. higher wages than did women laboring with the same degree of efficiency on the same kind of work.Women also need protection of their property. A man who knows the inside truth says, "Widows and minors are always assessed higher than men." If the assessor desires re-election, one of the easiest methods of securing it is to lower the assessments of the politicians who control most voters....Women also want protection for the one sphere which even the most conservative loudly proclaim should be theirs—the home. That the water supply is good and abundant, that the sewage is carried away properly and speedily, that contagious cases are isolated, that food is pure in quality and reasonable in price, that inspection of food is honest and scientific, that weights and measures are true, that gas and electricity are inexpensive, that buildings are strongly constructed—these are all matters under the control of certain officials elected by voters....Women, too, want protection for the children, proper regulations in regard to the schools, the trains at crossings, seducers, tramps and child abductors. They want strict laws against obscene literatureand the unhealthy cigarette; and what is equally important, honest enforcement of such laws and ordinances....One class can not, will not, legislate better for all classes than they can do for themselves. So men alone can not legislate better for women and men than can the two for both. Women need the ballot to protect themselves and all that they hold dear.

But, it is asked, "Have not women had some sort of protection without the ballot?" Yes, but it has been only such protection asthe caprice or affection of the voting class has given, gratuities revocable at will. The man of wealth or power defends his wife, daughter or sweetheart because she is his, just as he would defend his property. His own opinions, not her views, decide him concerning the things from which she should be protected. Should she ever need protection against "her protector," there is no one to give it....

Entrance into remunerative employments in many instances has been denied women. In many of the States the professions of law, medicine, dentistry and all the elective offices are closed by statute. Appointive positions, also, which women might legally hold are practically withheld from them because of their lack of the ballot. The appointing power—president, governor, mayor, judge or commissioner—all owe their own positions to voters who expect some minor appointment in acknowledgment of service.

Even large private corporations not supposed to be influenced by politics have occasionally desired and received governmental help and protection. In return, the employes of these enterprises have been advised to vote for the party which has protected their employers' business. At a caucus, a street parade and on election day, the 500 or 10,000 or 100,000 persons employed in a certain industry make a considerable political showing if they are all voters. On such occasions women employes are of no value. Women refused employment in various enterprises not alone are injured in their feelings, but they are not protected in their right to earn food, shelter and clothes.

There are many different kinds of employment which do not debar women, but even in these they need protection in securing a fair return for their labor. In an investigation conducted by the U. S. Department of Labor concerning the wages received by men and women it appeared that in 75 per cent. of the 782 instances investigated, men received 50 per cent. higher wages than did women laboring with the same degree of efficiency on the same kind of work.

Women also need protection of their property. A man who knows the inside truth says, "Widows and minors are always assessed higher than men." If the assessor desires re-election, one of the easiest methods of securing it is to lower the assessments of the politicians who control most voters....

Women also want protection for the one sphere which even the most conservative loudly proclaim should be theirs—the home. That the water supply is good and abundant, that the sewage is carried away properly and speedily, that contagious cases are isolated, that food is pure in quality and reasonable in price, that inspection of food is honest and scientific, that weights and measures are true, that gas and electricity are inexpensive, that buildings are strongly constructed—these are all matters under the control of certain officials elected by voters....

Women, too, want protection for the children, proper regulations in regard to the schools, the trains at crossings, seducers, tramps and child abductors. They want strict laws against obscene literatureand the unhealthy cigarette; and what is equally important, honest enforcement of such laws and ordinances....

One class can not, will not, legislate better for all classes than they can do for themselves. So men alone can not legislate better for women and men than can the two for both. Women need the ballot to protect themselves and all that they hold dear.

The hearing was closed by Miss Shaw, who said in ending her remarks:

Dire results have been predicted at every step of radical progress. When women first enjoyed higher education the cry went out that the home would be destroyed. It was said that if all the women were educated, all would become bluestockings, and if all women became bluestockings all would write books, and if all women wrote books what would become of the homes, who would rear the children? But the schools were opened and women entered them, and it has been discovered that the intelligent woman makes a wiser mother, a better homemaker and a much more desirable companion, friend and wife than a woman who is illiterate, whose intellectual horizon is narrowed.In many of the States where the statutes were based on the old English common law, the husband absorbed the wife's property as he absorbed her personal rights. Then came the demand for property rights for wives, but the cry went up they will desert their homes. Then it was found there were thousands of women who could have no home if they were not permitted to pursue avocations in the outside world. And then it was said that the moral life of women would be degraded by public contact. Yet the statistics show that in those occupations in which women are able to earn a livelihood in an honorable and respectable manner they have raised the standard of morality rather than lowered it.The results have not been those which were predicted. The homes have not been broken up; for human hearts are and always will be the same, and so long as God has established in this world a greater force than all other forces combined—which we call the divine gravity of love—just so long human hearts will continue to be drawn together, homes will be founded, families will be reared; and never so good a home, never so good a family, as those founded in justice and educated upon right principles. Consequently the industrial emancipation of women has been of benefit to the home, to women and to men.The claim is made that we are building a barrier between men and women; that we are antagonistic because men are men and we are women. This is not true. We believe there never was a time when men and women were such good friends as now, when they esteemed each other as they do now. We have coeducation in our schools; boys and girls work side by side and study and recite together. When coeducation was first tried men thought they would easily carry off the honors; but soon they learned their mistake.That experience gave to men a better opinion of woman's intellectual ability.There is nothing in liberty which can harm either man or woman. There is nothing in justice which can work against the highest good of humanity; and when on the ground of expediency this measure is opposed, in the words of Wendell Phillips, "Whatever is just, God will see that it is expedient." There is no greater inexpediency than injustice....We do not ask the ballot because we do not believe in men or because we think men unjust or unfair. We do not ask to speak for ourselves because we believe men unwilling to speak for us; but because men by their very nature never can speak for women. It would be as impossible for all men to understand the needs of women and care for their interests as it would be for all women to understand the needs and care for the interests of men. So long as laws affect both men and women, both should make the laws.Gentlemen, we leave our case with you. I wish those who oppose this measure could know the great need of the power of the ballot in the hands of those who struggle in the world's affairs. I thank you in the name of our association for your kindness in listening to us. There will never be laid before you a claim more just—one more in accord with the fundamental principles of our national life.

In many of the States where the statutes were based on the old English common law, the husband absorbed the wife's property as he absorbed her personal rights. Then came the demand for property rights for wives, but the cry went up they will desert their homes. Then it was found there were thousands of women who could have no home if they were not permitted to pursue avocations in the outside world. And then it was said that the moral life of women would be degraded by public contact. Yet the statistics show that in those occupations in which women are able to earn a livelihood in an honorable and respectable manner they have raised the standard of morality rather than lowered it.

The results have not been those which were predicted. The homes have not been broken up; for human hearts are and always will be the same, and so long as God has established in this world a greater force than all other forces combined—which we call the divine gravity of love—just so long human hearts will continue to be drawn together, homes will be founded, families will be reared; and never so good a home, never so good a family, as those founded in justice and educated upon right principles. Consequently the industrial emancipation of women has been of benefit to the home, to women and to men.

The claim is made that we are building a barrier between men and women; that we are antagonistic because men are men and we are women. This is not true. We believe there never was a time when men and women were such good friends as now, when they esteemed each other as they do now. We have coeducation in our schools; boys and girls work side by side and study and recite together. When coeducation was first tried men thought they would easily carry off the honors; but soon they learned their mistake.That experience gave to men a better opinion of woman's intellectual ability.

There is nothing in liberty which can harm either man or woman. There is nothing in justice which can work against the highest good of humanity; and when on the ground of expediency this measure is opposed, in the words of Wendell Phillips, "Whatever is just, God will see that it is expedient." There is no greater inexpediency than injustice....

We do not ask the ballot because we do not believe in men or because we think men unjust or unfair. We do not ask to speak for ourselves because we believe men unwilling to speak for us; but because men by their very nature never can speak for women. It would be as impossible for all men to understand the needs of women and care for their interests as it would be for all women to understand the needs and care for the interests of men. So long as laws affect both men and women, both should make the laws.

Gentlemen, we leave our case with you. I wish those who oppose this measure could know the great need of the power of the ballot in the hands of those who struggle in the world's affairs. I thank you in the name of our association for your kindness in listening to us. There will never be laid before you a claim more just—one more in accord with the fundamental principles of our national life.

No one can read the arguments for the enfranchisement of women as presented before these two committees without a profound conviction of the justice of their cause and the imperative duty of those before whom they pleaded it to report in favor of submitting the desired amendment. This report would simply have placed the matter before the respective Houses of Congress. But neither committee took any action whatever and as far as practical results were concerned these eloquent pleas fell upon deaf ears and hardened hearts.

A unique feature was added to the hearings this year because, for the first time, the advocates of woman suffrage were opposed before the committees by a class of women calling themselves "remonstrants." TheWoman's Journalsaid:

About a dozen women from New York and Massachusetts, with one from Delaware, came to Washington and made public speeches before Congressional Committees to prove that a woman's place is at home. They said they were led to take this action by their alarm at the activity of the National-American W. S. A.The party of "antis" who came to the Senate hearing in the Marble Room would not have been able to get in but for Miss Anthony. As this room accommodates only about sixty persons, admission was by tickets, and these had been issued to delegates only. The "antis," having no tickets, were turned away; but Miss Anthony,learning who they were, persuaded the doorkeeper to admit them, introduced them herself to the chairman of the committee, and placed them in good seats near the front, where they certainly heard more about the facts of equal suffrage than they ever did before.[129]Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge and Miss Bissell addressed the Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage, and Mr. Thomas Russell, Mrs. A. J. George, Miss Emily Bissell and Mrs. Rossiter Johnson addressed the House Judiciary Committee. In each case they secured the last word, to which they were not entitled either by equity or custom, by asking to speak at the conclusion of the suffrage hearing. It was trying to have to listen to egregious misstatements of fact, and to hear theWoman's Journalaudaciously cited as authority for them, without a chance to reply.

The party of "antis" who came to the Senate hearing in the Marble Room would not have been able to get in but for Miss Anthony. As this room accommodates only about sixty persons, admission was by tickets, and these had been issued to delegates only. The "antis," having no tickets, were turned away; but Miss Anthony,learning who they were, persuaded the doorkeeper to admit them, introduced them herself to the chairman of the committee, and placed them in good seats near the front, where they certainly heard more about the facts of equal suffrage than they ever did before.[129]

Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge and Miss Bissell addressed the Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage, and Mr. Thomas Russell, Mrs. A. J. George, Miss Emily Bissell and Mrs. Rossiter Johnson addressed the House Judiciary Committee. In each case they secured the last word, to which they were not entitled either by equity or custom, by asking to speak at the conclusion of the suffrage hearing. It was trying to have to listen to egregious misstatements of fact, and to hear theWoman's Journalaudaciously cited as authority for them, without a chance to reply.

The time for these hearings belonged exclusively to the suffrage delegates, the chairmen of the two congressional committees stating that they would appoint some other day for the "remonstrants." The delegates, however, declaring that they had no objections, the "antis" were permitted to read their papers at the close of the suffrage hearing, thus having the benefit of the large audiences, but furnishing a vast amount of amusement to the suffragists.[130]

TheWoman's Journalsaid in its perfectly fair description:

The chairman of the House Committee asked Mrs. A. J. George of Massachusetts, who conducted the hearing for the "antis," a number of questions that she could not answer, and Thomas Russell of that State had to prompt her repeatedly. The chairman would ask a question; Mrs. George would look nonplussed; Mr. Russell would lean over and whisper, "Say yes," and she would answer aloud "Yes." The chairman would ask another question; Mr. Russell would whisper, "Say no," and Mrs. George would answer "No." This happened so often that both the audience and the committee were visibly amused, and several persons said it was Mr. Russell who was really conducting the hearing. He is a Boston lawyer who has conducted the legislative hearings for the "antis" in Massachusetts for some years.

Mrs. Dodge, in her speech, begged the committee not to allow the "purely sentimental reasons of the petitioners" to have any weight, and said: "The mere fact that this amendment is asked as a compliment to the leading advocate of woman suffrage on the attainment of her eightieth birthday, is evidence of the emotional frame of mind which influences the advocates of the measure, and which is scarcely favorable to the calm consideration that should be given to fundamental political principles." Miss Anthony's birthday had not been mentioned by any speaker before either committee, and the suffragists under her leadership had been making their pleas and arguments for a Sixteenth Amendment for over thirty years.

As the suffrage speakers were not permitted to answer the misstatements and prevarications of the "remonstrants" at the time of the hearings and these were widely circulated through the press, the convention passed the following resolutions on motion of Miss Alice Stone Blackwell:

Whereas, At this morning's Congressional hearing letters were read by the anti-suffragists from two men and one woman in Colorado, asserting equal suffrage in that State to be a failure; therefore,Resolved, That we call attention to a published statement declaring that the results are wholesome and that none of the predicted evils have followed. This statement is signed by the Governor and three ex-Governors of Colorado, the Chief Justice, all the Judges of the State Supreme Court, the Denver District Court and the Court of Appeals; all the Colorado Senators and Representatives in Congress; President Slocum of Colorado College, the president of the State University, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Attorney-General, the mayor of Denver, prominent clergymen of different denominations, and the presidents of thirteen of the principal women's associations of Denver. The social science department of the Denver Woman's Club has just voted unanimously to the same effect, and the Colorado Legislature lately passed a similar resolution by a vote of 45 to 3 in the House and 30 to 1 in the Senate. On the other hand, during the six years that equal suffrage has prevailed in Colorado the opponents have not yet found six respectable men who assert over their own names and addresses that it has had any bad results.Whereas, At the Congressional hearing it was asserted that equal suffrage had led to no improvements in the laws of Colorado; therefore,Resolved, That we call attention to the fact that Colorado owes to equal suffrage the laws raising the age of protection for girls to eighteen years; establishing a State Home for Dependent Childrenand a State Industrial School for Girls; making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children; removing the emblems from the Australian ballot; prohibiting child labor; also city ordinances in Denver providing drinking fountains in the streets; forbidding expectoration in public places, and requiring the use of smoke-consuming chimneys on all public and business buildings.

Whereas, At this morning's Congressional hearing letters were read by the anti-suffragists from two men and one woman in Colorado, asserting equal suffrage in that State to be a failure; therefore,

Resolved, That we call attention to a published statement declaring that the results are wholesome and that none of the predicted evils have followed. This statement is signed by the Governor and three ex-Governors of Colorado, the Chief Justice, all the Judges of the State Supreme Court, the Denver District Court and the Court of Appeals; all the Colorado Senators and Representatives in Congress; President Slocum of Colorado College, the president of the State University, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Attorney-General, the mayor of Denver, prominent clergymen of different denominations, and the presidents of thirteen of the principal women's associations of Denver. The social science department of the Denver Woman's Club has just voted unanimously to the same effect, and the Colorado Legislature lately passed a similar resolution by a vote of 45 to 3 in the House and 30 to 1 in the Senate. On the other hand, during the six years that equal suffrage has prevailed in Colorado the opponents have not yet found six respectable men who assert over their own names and addresses that it has had any bad results.

Whereas, At the Congressional hearing it was asserted that equal suffrage had led to no improvements in the laws of Colorado; therefore,

Resolved, That we call attention to the fact that Colorado owes to equal suffrage the laws raising the age of protection for girls to eighteen years; establishing a State Home for Dependent Childrenand a State Industrial School for Girls; making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children; removing the emblems from the Australian ballot; prohibiting child labor; also city ordinances in Denver providing drinking fountains in the streets; forbidding expectoration in public places, and requiring the use of smoke-consuming chimneys on all public and business buildings.

This anecdote was related the next day: "Miss Anthony's love of the beautiful leads her always to clothe herself in good style and fine materials, and she has an eye for the fitness of things as well as for the funny side. 'Girls,' she said yesterday, after returning from the Capitol, 'those statesmen eyed us very closely, but I will wager that it was impossible after we got mixed together to tell an anti from a suffragist by her clothes. There might have been a difference, though, in the expression of the faces and the shape of the heads,' she added drily."

On Tuesday afternoon about two hundred members of the convention were received by President McKinley in the East Room of the White House. Miss Anthony stood at his right hand and, after the President had greeted the last guest, he invited her to accompany him upstairs to meet Mrs. McKinley, who was not well enough to receive all of the ladies. Giving her his arm he led her up the old historic staircase, "as tenderly as if he had been my own son," she said afterward. When she was leaving, after a pleasant call, Mrs. McKinley expressed a wish to send some message to the convention and she and the President together filled Miss Anthony's arms with white lilies, which graced the platform during the remainder of the meetings.

FOOTNOTES:[120]The statistics used in this paper were taken from the report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education for 1899.[121]Seechapter on Louisiana.[122]The address of Miss Laughlin created a sensation. A member of the United States Labor Commission was in the audience, and was so much impressed with the power of this young woman that shortly afterwards she was made a member of this commission to investigate the condition of the working women of the United States. Her valuable report was published in pamphlet form.[123]Seechapter on Kansas.[124]Immediately after the convention, the New YorkTimespublished an alleged interview with Mrs. Paul, in which she was made to say that she was not a believer in suffrage for women. She at once denied this emphatically over her own signature, saying that the interview was a fabrication and that she was an advocate of the enfranchisement of women especially because of the need of their ballot in city government.[125]This was held the first week in December, 1901, and netted about $8,000 for the association.[126]It will be noticed in this pamphlet that all but one of the favorable reports from congressional committees were made during the years when Miss Anthony had a winter home at the Riggs House, through the courtesy of its proprietors, Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Spofford, and was able to secure them through personal attention and influence. There were always some members of these committees who were favorable to woman suffrage, but with the great pressure on every side from other matters, this one was apt to be neglected unless somebody made a business of seeing that it did not go by default. This Miss Anthony did for many years, and during this time secured the excellent reports of 1879, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886 and 1890. The great speech of Senator T. W. Palmer, made February 6, 1885, was in response to her insistence that he should keep his promise to speak in favor of the question. In 1888-90 Mrs. Upton, who was residing in Washington with her father, Ezra B. Taylor, M. C., did not permit the Judiciary Committee to forget the report for that year, which was the first and only favorable House Report.[127]For account of the work of the association before Congress seeChap. I.[128]George W. Ray, N. Y., chairman; John J. Jenkins, Wis.; Richard Wayne Parker, N. J.; Jesse Overstreet, Ind.; De Alva S. Alexander, N. Y.; Vespasian Warner, Ill.; Winfield S. Kerr, O.; Charles E. Littlefield, Me.; Romeo H. Freer, W. Va.; Julius Kahn, Calif.; William L. Terry, Ark.; David A. De Armond, Mo.; Samuel W. T. Lanham, Tex.; William Elliott, S. C.; Oscar W. Underwood, Ala.; David H. Smith, Ky.; William H. Fleming, Ga.[129]That this was a mistaken courtesy was proved by subsequent events, as afterwards Mrs. Dodge came out with a card in the New YorkSundenying that they were admitted through the intervention of Miss Anthony.[130]In the official Senate report of the hearing the arguments of the suffragists filled forty pages; those of the "antis" five pages. They consisted of brief papers by Mrs. Dodge and Miss Bissell. The former took the ground that the Congress should leave this matter to be decided by the States; that women are not physically qualified to use the ballot; and that its use by them would render "domestic tranquillity" a byword among the people. Miss Bissell began by saying, "It is not the tyranny but the chivalry of men that we have to fear," and opposed the suffrage principally because the majority of women do not want it, saying, "I have never yet been so situated that I could see where a vote could help me. If I felt that it would, I might become a suffragist perhaps."

[120]The statistics used in this paper were taken from the report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education for 1899.

[121]Seechapter on Louisiana.

[122]The address of Miss Laughlin created a sensation. A member of the United States Labor Commission was in the audience, and was so much impressed with the power of this young woman that shortly afterwards she was made a member of this commission to investigate the condition of the working women of the United States. Her valuable report was published in pamphlet form.

[123]Seechapter on Kansas.

[124]Immediately after the convention, the New YorkTimespublished an alleged interview with Mrs. Paul, in which she was made to say that she was not a believer in suffrage for women. She at once denied this emphatically over her own signature, saying that the interview was a fabrication and that she was an advocate of the enfranchisement of women especially because of the need of their ballot in city government.

[125]This was held the first week in December, 1901, and netted about $8,000 for the association.

[126]It will be noticed in this pamphlet that all but one of the favorable reports from congressional committees were made during the years when Miss Anthony had a winter home at the Riggs House, through the courtesy of its proprietors, Mr. and Mrs. C. W. Spofford, and was able to secure them through personal attention and influence. There were always some members of these committees who were favorable to woman suffrage, but with the great pressure on every side from other matters, this one was apt to be neglected unless somebody made a business of seeing that it did not go by default. This Miss Anthony did for many years, and during this time secured the excellent reports of 1879, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886 and 1890. The great speech of Senator T. W. Palmer, made February 6, 1885, was in response to her insistence that he should keep his promise to speak in favor of the question. In 1888-90 Mrs. Upton, who was residing in Washington with her father, Ezra B. Taylor, M. C., did not permit the Judiciary Committee to forget the report for that year, which was the first and only favorable House Report.

[127]For account of the work of the association before Congress seeChap. I.

[128]George W. Ray, N. Y., chairman; John J. Jenkins, Wis.; Richard Wayne Parker, N. J.; Jesse Overstreet, Ind.; De Alva S. Alexander, N. Y.; Vespasian Warner, Ill.; Winfield S. Kerr, O.; Charles E. Littlefield, Me.; Romeo H. Freer, W. Va.; Julius Kahn, Calif.; William L. Terry, Ark.; David A. De Armond, Mo.; Samuel W. T. Lanham, Tex.; William Elliott, S. C.; Oscar W. Underwood, Ala.; David H. Smith, Ky.; William H. Fleming, Ga.

[129]That this was a mistaken courtesy was proved by subsequent events, as afterwards Mrs. Dodge came out with a card in the New YorkSundenying that they were admitted through the intervention of Miss Anthony.

[130]In the official Senate report of the hearing the arguments of the suffragists filled forty pages; those of the "antis" five pages. They consisted of brief papers by Mrs. Dodge and Miss Bissell. The former took the ground that the Congress should leave this matter to be decided by the States; that women are not physically qualified to use the ballot; and that its use by them would render "domestic tranquillity" a byword among the people. Miss Bissell began by saying, "It is not the tyranny but the chivalry of men that we have to fear," and opposed the suffrage principally because the majority of women do not want it, saying, "I have never yet been so situated that I could see where a vote could help me. If I felt that it would, I might become a suffragist perhaps."

It had been known for some time before the suffrage convention of Feb. 8-14, 1900, that Miss Anthony intended to resign the presidency of the national association at that time, when she would be eighty years old, but her devoted adherents could not resist urging that she would reconsider her decision. When they assembled, however, they found it impossible to persuade her to continue longer in the office. The WashingtonPostof February 8 said:

Miss Susan B. Anthony has resigned. The woman who for the greater part of her life has been the star that guided the National Woman Suffrage Association through all of its vicissitudes until it stands to-day a living monument to her wonderful mental and physical ability has turned over the leadership to younger minds and hands, not because this great woman feels that she is no longer capable of exercising it, but because she has a still larger work to accomplish before her life's labors are at an end. In a speech which was characteristic of one who has done so much toward the uplifting of her sex, Miss Anthony tendered her resignation during the preliminary meeting of the executive committee, held last night at the headquarters in the parlors of the Riggs House.Although Miss Anthony had positively stated that she would resign in 1900, there were many of those present who were visibly shocked when she announced that she was about to relinquish her position as president of the association. In the instant hush which followed this statement a sorrow settled over the countenances of the fifty women seated about the room, who love and venerate Miss Anthony so much, and probably some of them would have broken down had it not been that they knew well her antipathy to public emotion. In a happy vein, which soon drove the clouds of disappointment from the faces of those present, she explained why she no longer desired to continue as an officer of the association after having done so since its beginning."I have fully determined," she began, "to retire from the active presidency of the association. I was elected assistant secretary of a woman suffrage society in 1852, and from that day to this have always held an office. I am not retiring now because I feel unable,mentally or physically, to do the necessary work, but because I wish to see the organization in the hands of those who are to have its management in the future." Then jestingly she continued: "I want to see you all at work, while I am alive, so I can scold if you do not do it well. Give the matter of selecting your officers serious thought. Consider who will do the best work for the political enfranchisement of women, and let no personal feelings enter into the question."

Although Miss Anthony had positively stated that she would resign in 1900, there were many of those present who were visibly shocked when she announced that she was about to relinquish her position as president of the association. In the instant hush which followed this statement a sorrow settled over the countenances of the fifty women seated about the room, who love and venerate Miss Anthony so much, and probably some of them would have broken down had it not been that they knew well her antipathy to public emotion. In a happy vein, which soon drove the clouds of disappointment from the faces of those present, she explained why she no longer desired to continue as an officer of the association after having done so since its beginning.

"I have fully determined," she began, "to retire from the active presidency of the association. I was elected assistant secretary of a woman suffrage society in 1852, and from that day to this have always held an office. I am not retiring now because I feel unable,mentally or physically, to do the necessary work, but because I wish to see the organization in the hands of those who are to have its management in the future." Then jestingly she continued: "I want to see you all at work, while I am alive, so I can scold if you do not do it well. Give the matter of selecting your officers serious thought. Consider who will do the best work for the political enfranchisement of women, and let no personal feelings enter into the question."

While Miss Anthony seemed at the height of her physical and mental vigor, those who loved her best felt it to be right that she should be relieved of the burdens of the office which were growing heavier each year as the demands upon the association became more numerous, and should be free to devote her time to certain lines of work which could be done only by herself. They tried to imitate her own cheerfulness and philosophy in this matter, but found it more difficult than it ever before had been to follow where she led.

The last of the resolutions, presented to the convention a few days later by the chairman of the committee, Henry B. Blackwell, read as follows: "In view of the announced determination of Miss Susan B. Anthony to withdraw from the presidency of this association, we tender her our heartfelt expression of appreciation and regard. We congratulate her upon her eightieth birthday, and trust that she will add to her past illustrious services her aid and support to the younger workers for woman's enfranchisement. We shall continue to look to her for advice and counsel in the years to come. May the new century witness the fruition of our labors."

This was unanimously adopted by a rising vote. Observing that many of the delegates were on the point of yielding to their feelings, Miss Anthony arose and in clear, even tones, with a touch of quaint humor, said:

I wish you could realize with what joy and relief I retire from the presidency. I want to say this to you while I am still alive—and I am good yet for another decade—don't be afraid. As long as my name stands at the head, I am Yankee enough to feel that I must watch every potato which goes into the dinner-pot and supervise every detail of the work. For the four years since I fixed my date to retire, I have constantly been saying to myself, "Let go, let go, let go!" I am now going to let go of the machinery but not of the spiritual part. I expect to do more work for woman suffragein the next decade than ever before. I have not been for nearly fifty years in this movement without gaining a certain "notoriety," at least, and this enables me to get a hearing before the annual conventions of many great national bodies, and to urge on them the passage of resolutions asking Congress to submit to the State Legislatures a Sixteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution forbidding disfranchisement on account of sex. This is a part of the work to which I mean to devote myself henceforward. Then you all know about the big fund which I am going to raise so that you young workers may have an assured income and not have to spend the most of your time begging money, as I have had to do.

The convention proceeded to the election of officers. Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake (N. Y.), who was a candidate for president, asked permission to make a personal explanation and said: "I have received from many parts of the United States expressions of regard and esteem that have deeply touched me. But in the interests of harmony I desire to withdraw my name from any consideration you may have wished to give me." Of the 278 votes cast for president Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt (N. Y.) received 254; eleven of the remaining twenty-four were cast for Miss Anthony and ten for Mrs. Blake. The other members of the old board were re-elected almost unanimously.[131]

The WashingtonPostsaid: "There was a touching scene when the vote for Mrs. Chapman Catt was announced. First there was an outburst of applause, and then as though all at once every one realized that she was witnessing the passing of SusanB. Anthony, their beloved president, the deepest silence prevailed for several seconds. Lifelong members of the association, who had toiled and struggled by the side of Miss Anthony, could not restrain their emotions and wept in spite of their efforts at control." The WashingtonStarthus described the occasion:

Mrs. Blake not being in the hall, Miss Anthony was made a committee of one to present Mrs. Catt to the convention. The women went wild as, erect and alert, she walked to the front of the platform, holding the hand of her young co-worker, of whom she is extremely fond and of whom she expects great things. Miss Anthony's eyes were tear-dimmed, and her tones were uneven, as she presented to the convention its choice of a leader in words freighted with love and tender solicitude, rich with reminiscences of the past, and full of hope for the future of the new president and her work."Suffrage is no longer a theory, but an actual condition," she said, "and new occasions bring new duties. These new duties, these changed conditions, demand stronger hands, younger heads and fresher hearts. In Mrs. Catt you have my ideal leader. I present to you my successor."By this time half the women were using their handkerchiefs on their eyes and the other half were waving them in the air.

"Suffrage is no longer a theory, but an actual condition," she said, "and new occasions bring new duties. These new duties, these changed conditions, demand stronger hands, younger heads and fresher hearts. In Mrs. Catt you have my ideal leader. I present to you my successor."

By this time half the women were using their handkerchiefs on their eyes and the other half were waving them in the air.

The object of all this praise stood with downcast eyes and evidently was deeply moved. At length she said in response:

Good friends, I should hardly be human if I did not feel gratitude and appreciation for the confidence you have shown me; but I feel the honor of the position much less than its responsibility. I never was an aspirant for it. I consented only six weeks ago to stand. I was not willing to be the next president after Miss Anthony. I have known that there was a general loyalty to her which could not be given to any younger worker. Since Miss Anthony announced her intention to retire, there have been editorials in many leading papers expressing approval of her—but not of the cause. She has been much larger than our association. The papers have spoken of the new president as Miss Anthony's successor. Miss Anthony never will have a successor.A president chosen from the younger generation is on a level with the association, and it might suffer in consequence of Miss Anthony's retirement if we did not still have her to counsel and advise us. I pledge you whatever ability God has given me, but I can not do this work alone. The cause has got beyond where one woman can do the whole. I shall not be its leader as Miss Anthony has been; I shall be only an officer of this association. I will do all I can, but I can not do it without the co-operation of each of you. The responsibility much overbalances the honor, and I hope you will all help me bear the burden.

A president chosen from the younger generation is on a level with the association, and it might suffer in consequence of Miss Anthony's retirement if we did not still have her to counsel and advise us. I pledge you whatever ability God has given me, but I can not do this work alone. The cause has got beyond where one woman can do the whole. I shall not be its leader as Miss Anthony has been; I shall be only an officer of this association. I will do all I can, but I can not do it without the co-operation of each of you. The responsibility much overbalances the honor, and I hope you will all help me bear the burden.

MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT. Successor of Miss Susan B. Anthony as President of National-American Woman Suffrage Association.MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT.Successor of Miss Susan B. Anthony as President of National-American Woman Suffrage Association.

It was voted on motion of Mrs. Rachel Foster Avery to make Miss Anthony honorary president, which was done with applause and she observed informally: "You have moved me up higher. I always did stand by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and my name always was after hers, and I am glad to be there again."

The press notices said of the new officer:

Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, the newly-elected president of the National Suffrage Association, is a young and handsome woman with a charming personality, and is one of the most eloquent and logical speakers upon the public platform. For the past five years she has been lecturer and organizer for the association, where she has shown rare executive ability and earnestness of purpose.She has traveled from east to west and from north to south many times, lectured in nearly every city in the Union and has been associated with every important victory that equal suffrage has won of late years. She was in Colorado during the amendment campaign, and the women attribute their success to her more than to any other person from outside the State. She was in Idaho, where all four political parties put suffrage planks into their platforms and the amendment carried. She went before the Louisiana constitutional convention, by the earnest invitation of New Orleans women, and it gave tax-paying women the right to vote upon all questions submitted to the tax-payers.

She has traveled from east to west and from north to south many times, lectured in nearly every city in the Union and has been associated with every important victory that equal suffrage has won of late years. She was in Colorado during the amendment campaign, and the women attribute their success to her more than to any other person from outside the State. She was in Idaho, where all four political parties put suffrage planks into their platforms and the amendment carried. She went before the Louisiana constitutional convention, by the earnest invitation of New Orleans women, and it gave tax-paying women the right to vote upon all questions submitted to the tax-payers.

It had been known for several years that Mrs. Chapman Catt was Miss Anthony's choice as her successor; she was considered the best-equipped woman in the association for the position, and the vote of the delegates showed how nearly unanimous was her election. The Rev. Anna Howard Shaw, who for a number of years had been vice-president-at-large, could have had Miss Anthony's sanction and the unanimous vote of the convention if she would have consented to accept the office.

Mrs. Chapman Catt opened the next day's meeting by saying:

A surprise was promised as part of this afternoon's program and a pleasant duty now falls to me. It is to present Miss Anthony with the spirit of a gift, for the gift itself is not here. Suffrage people from all over the world go to see Miss Anthony at her home in Rochester, N. Y., and consequently the carpets of the parlor and sitting-room are getting a little worn. When she goes home she will find two beautiful Smyrna rugs fitting the floors of those two rooms—the gift of her suffrage friends. I am also commissioned to present her with an album. Some of our naughty officers have been making fun of it and saying that albums are all out of date; but this one contains the photographs of all the presidents of theState Suffrage Associations, and the chairmen of standing committees. No collection of "antis" could be found that would present in their faces as much intelligence and strength of character.

Miss Anthony expressed her thanks, and said: "These girls have disproved the old saying that a secret can not be kept by a woman, for I have not heard a word of a rug or a picture."

From the Utah Silk Commission composed of women came a handsome black brocaded dress pattern, the work of women, from the tending of the cocoons to the weaving of the silk. A beautiful solid silver vase was presented from "the free women of Idaho." There was also from this State an album of two hundred pages of pen drawings, water colors and pressed flowers, with a sentiment on each page, the contributions of as many individuals. California sent more than one hundred dollars. From every State came gifts of money, silver-plate, fine china, sofa cushions, books, pictures, exquisite jewelry, lace, chatelaine bags and every token which loving hearts could devise. To each Miss Anthony responded with a terse sentence or two, half tender, half humorous; the audience entered fully into the spirit of it all, and the convention was like a big family enjoying the birthday of one of its members.

Of the last session on February 14, the WashingtonPostsaid:

A vast audience consisting of both men and women witnessed at the Church of Our Father, last evening, the passing of Susan B. Anthony as president of the National Suffrage Association. It was the final evening session of the Thirty-second annual convention, which, Miss Anthony announced at its close, had been the most successful from every point of view of any ever held.Long before the opening hour arrived the church was completely filled, and people stood eight and ten deep in the aisles, sat around the edge of the speakers' platform and filled the approaches to the church. Miss Anthony and many of the other speakers, who arrived at eight o'clock, had great difficulty in reaching the platform.

Long before the opening hour arrived the church was completely filled, and people stood eight and ten deep in the aisles, sat around the edge of the speakers' platform and filled the approaches to the church. Miss Anthony and many of the other speakers, who arrived at eight o'clock, had great difficulty in reaching the platform.

John C. Bell, member of Congress from Colorado, made the opening address in which he said: "The greatest obstruction to human progress is human prejudice. As long as men are controlled more by their prejudices than by their reason, they will be slaves to habit. If women had voted from the foundation of the Government it would now be as difficult to deprive them of this privilege as it would be to repeal the Bill of Rights, but as themen have done the voting from the beginning, the force of habit is successfully battling with both reason and justice." He refuted the charge that woman suffrage made dissension in families, saying: "You must bear in mind that the extending of the elective franchise to women not only elevates and broadens them but the men as well."

The address of Mrs. Blatch on Woman and War was among the most notable of the convention. She declared that one of the good effects of war was that "it made women work." ThePostsaid: "Mrs. Harriot Stanton Blatch, a daughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, whose present home is in England, laid the blame of all the British reverses in the Transvaal at the door of what she termed 'the evils of an idle aristocracy.' In a most dramatic manner she denounced the course of the British Empire. After summing up the war situation she said: 'The English armies now on the battle-fields in the Transvaal have at their heads as officers sons of this idle aristocracy, who through their incompetency are not fit to be leaders. They are beneath contempt, but to the English soldier all honor is due. He is all right.'"

The speech of the pioneer Quaker suffragist, Mrs. Caroline Hallowell Miller (Md.), delighted the audience, and her comparison of Abraham Lincoln and Susan B. Anthony, "both having devoted their lives to freedom," was enthusiastically received. Then occurred one of the pleasant diversions so characteristic of these suffrage conventions. During the interval while the collection was being taken, Mrs. Helen Mosher James, niece of Miss Anthony, stepping to the front of the platform, said: "This is the Rev. Anna Shaw's birthday. Her friends wish to present her with an easy chair to await her when she comes back wearied from going up and down the land, satchel in hand, on her many lecture tours. Here are fifty-three gold dollars, one for each year of her life, and we wish her to buy such a chair as suits her best."

In response the little minister said in part: "I am not like Miss Anthony, so used to having gifts poured in upon me that I know just what to say. I shall buy the chair when I have been told what is the correct thing to buy by another niece of Miss Anthony's, who for twelve years has made a home for me. If youwant to see a pretty little spot, come to our home, and every one of you shall sit inourchair."[132]

Then Miss Anthony, clasping the hand of Mrs. Chapman Catt, led her forward and introduced her to the audience as "president of the National-American Woman Suffrage Association." TheWoman's Journalthus described the occasion:

She was received with immense applause, the great audience rising and waving handkerchiefs. She spoke on The Three I's, showing how every effort of women for improvement was called, first, indelicate, then immodest, and finally impracticable, but how all the old objections had been proved to be, in legal phrase, "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial."The woman's rights agitation began in the early days of the republic, and a moral warfare along that line has been waged for more than a hundred years. Each step has been fiercely contested. The advocates of every claim have been lovers of justice and the opponents have been adherents of conservatism. The warfare has been waged in three distinct battles, the weapon of the opponents always being ridicule, that of the defenders, appeals to reason.In the early days, when colleges and public schools were closed to women and the education of girls was confined to the three R's, an agitation was begun to permit them to take more advanced studies. Society received it with the cry "indelicate." At that time delicacy was the choicest charm of woman and indelicacy was a crushing criticism. But the battle was won.The second great battle occurred between 1850 and 1860. Upon every hand incorrigible woman, with a big W, arose to irritate and torment the conservatives of the world. She appeared in the pulpit, on the platform, in conventions, in new occupations and in innumerable untried fields. Everywhere the finger of scorn was pointed at her, and the world with merciless derision pronounced her immodest. But that battle was won.We are now in the heat of the greatest of all battles. Woman asks for the suffrage. The world answers, "impractical." We are told that this movement is quite different from all others because there is an organized opposition of women themselves against it, but the "remonstrant" is not new. This century has witnessed ten generations of remonstrants. In 1800 the remonstrant was horrified at the study of geography. In 1810 she accepted geography but protested against physiology. In 1820 she accepted physiology but protested against geometry. In 1830 she accepted geometry but protested against the college education. In 1840 she accepted the college but remonstrated against the property laws for married women. In 1850 she accepted the property laws but remonstrated against public speaking. In 1860 she protested againstthe freedom of organization. In 1870 she remonstrated against the professions for women. In 1880 she protested against school suffrage. In 1890 she protested against women in office. In 1900 she accepts everything that every former generation of remonstrants has protested against and, availing herself of the privilege of free public speech secured by this women's rights movement, pleads publicly that she may be saved from the burden of voting.The remonstrant of 1800 said "indelicate," of 1850 "immodest," of 1900 "impractical." That the forces of conservatism will surrender as unconditionally to the forces of justice in the great battle of the impractical as they did in the battle of the indelicate and of the immodest is as inevitable as that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The woman's rights agitation began in the early days of the republic, and a moral warfare along that line has been waged for more than a hundred years. Each step has been fiercely contested. The advocates of every claim have been lovers of justice and the opponents have been adherents of conservatism. The warfare has been waged in three distinct battles, the weapon of the opponents always being ridicule, that of the defenders, appeals to reason.

In the early days, when colleges and public schools were closed to women and the education of girls was confined to the three R's, an agitation was begun to permit them to take more advanced studies. Society received it with the cry "indelicate." At that time delicacy was the choicest charm of woman and indelicacy was a crushing criticism. But the battle was won.

The second great battle occurred between 1850 and 1860. Upon every hand incorrigible woman, with a big W, arose to irritate and torment the conservatives of the world. She appeared in the pulpit, on the platform, in conventions, in new occupations and in innumerable untried fields. Everywhere the finger of scorn was pointed at her, and the world with merciless derision pronounced her immodest. But that battle was won.

We are now in the heat of the greatest of all battles. Woman asks for the suffrage. The world answers, "impractical." We are told that this movement is quite different from all others because there is an organized opposition of women themselves against it, but the "remonstrant" is not new. This century has witnessed ten generations of remonstrants. In 1800 the remonstrant was horrified at the study of geography. In 1810 she accepted geography but protested against physiology. In 1820 she accepted physiology but protested against geometry. In 1830 she accepted geometry but protested against the college education. In 1840 she accepted the college but remonstrated against the property laws for married women. In 1850 she accepted the property laws but remonstrated against public speaking. In 1860 she protested againstthe freedom of organization. In 1870 she remonstrated against the professions for women. In 1880 she protested against school suffrage. In 1890 she protested against women in office. In 1900 she accepts everything that every former generation of remonstrants has protested against and, availing herself of the privilege of free public speech secured by this women's rights movement, pleads publicly that she may be saved from the burden of voting.

The remonstrant of 1800 said "indelicate," of 1850 "immodest," of 1900 "impractical." That the forces of conservatism will surrender as unconditionally to the forces of justice in the great battle of the impractical as they did in the battle of the indelicate and of the immodest is as inevitable as that the sun will rise tomorrow.

At the close of her fine address, of which this is the barest synopsis, Miss Anthony came forward and asked triumphantly, "Do you think the three hundred delegates made a mistake in choosing that woman for president?"—a question which brought out renewed applause. She then introduced to the audience the other officers, all of whom except Mrs. McCulloch had served in their present capacity from eight to ten years, Mrs. Avery having been corresponding secretary twenty years. They were enthusiastically greeted. Afterwards she presented Miss Clara Barton, the president of the Red Cross Association, an earnest advocate of suffrage, and as the cheers for her rang out, Miss Anthony observed, "Politically her opinion is worth no more than an idiot's."

Miss Anthony came forward at the close of the program and, the audience realizing that she was about to say good-bye, there was the most profound stillness, with every eye and ear strained to the utmost tension. A woman who loved the theatrical and posed for effect would have taken advantage of this opportunity to create a dramatic scene and make her exit in the midst of tears and lamentations, but nothing could be further from Miss Anthony's nature. Her voice rang out as strong and true as if making an old-time speech on the rights of women, with only one little break in it, and she covered this up by saying quickly, "Not one of our national officers ever has had a dollar of salary. I retire on full pay!"

The WashingtonPostsaid of this occasion:

The convention closed its labors with the farewell address of Miss Anthony. The retiring president paid a magnificent tribute to the faithful women whose aid and loyal companionship she had enjoyed for so many years. Emphatically she declared that shewas not going to give up her efforts in behalf of that for which she had struggled so long, and concluded: "I am grateful to this association; I am grateful to you all, and to the world, for the great kindness which has been mine. To-morrow I will have finished fourscore years. I have lived to rise from the most despised and hated woman in all the world of fifty years ago, until now it seems as if I am loved by you all. If this is true, then I am indeed satisfied."Miss Anthony lost control of her voice for a moment. She soon regained her composure, however, and, calling the officers of the association to her side, she told of what each individual had done for the organization. It was a pretty picture. The audience caught the spirit of determination from Miss Anthony and a thunderous applause and waving of handkerchiefs followed.

Miss Anthony lost control of her voice for a moment. She soon regained her composure, however, and, calling the officers of the association to her side, she told of what each individual had done for the organization. It was a pretty picture. The audience caught the spirit of determination from Miss Anthony and a thunderous applause and waving of handkerchiefs followed.

The great crowd sang the doxology and even then seemed unwilling to disperse, hundreds of people staying for a hand-shake and a few personal words with the officers and delegates.

The day following the close of the convention was the eightieth anniversary of Miss Anthony's birth, and many suffrage advocates from different parts of the country had come to the national capital to assist in celebrating it. The following program was handsomely prepared for distribution and was carried out, except that Mrs. Birney and Dr. Smith were unavoidably absent.

Celebration of the Eightieth BirthdayofSUSAN B. ANTHONY,at theLafayette Opera House, Washington, D. C., Feb'y 15, 1900.

Back to Index Next