FOOTNOTES:

After the disappointing result the Campaign Committee held a meeting, passed resolutions of fealty to the cause and adjournedsine die. But in order to perpetuate the work already done and be ready for "new business" at any time, the Los Angeles County Woman Suffrage League was organized the following week, Mrs. Elmira T. Stephens, president; Mrs. Gray, chairman of advisory board; Mrs. Craig, secretary. The natural reaction after defeat followed and no work was done for several years.

In November, 1900, the State president, Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, came to Los Angeles and gave a parlor talk at the home of her hostess, Mrs. I. G. Chandler, and later an address at a public meeting in the Woman's Club House, of which Mrs. Caroline M. Severance was chairman. Practically all were in favor of reviving the old Woman Suffrage League and an executive committee was appointed, Mrs. Sarah Burger Stearns (formerly of Minnesota), chairman.

At its call a meeting was held December 1, and the league reorganized: President, Mrs. Severance; vice-president, Mrs. Shelley Tolhurst; secretary, Mrs. Carl Schutz; treasurer, Mrs. Amelia Griffith; chairman of executive committee, Mrs. Stearns. A leaflet announcing the formation of the league, its plan of work, etc., was largely circulated. A committee was appointed who went before the Legislative Conference, which was held later in the Chamber of Commerce, and expressed the thanks of the league for the efforts of the Southern California members who had worked and voted for the School Suffrage Bill at the previous session of 1899.

The executive committee meets once a month and special sessions are called whenever necessary. The plan of work, as outlined by Mrs. Stearns, was sent to the State convention at San Francisco and cordially approved.

In February half of a show window on Broadway was secured, with ample floor space back of it. With the donation of $100 by a Los Angeles woman both were made attractive with flags, engravings and furnishings. Above a handsome desk the suffrage flag with its four stars is draped and photographs of prominentwomen adorn the walls. The suffrage papers are kept on file and quantities of fresh literature are ready for distribution. Stationery, photographs, medallions, etc., are for sale, a register is open for the enrollment of friends and a member of the league is always in attendance. When another amendment campaign is to be made Southern California will be found ready for work and will declare in its favor by a largely increased majority.

Laws:The original property law of California is an inheritance from the Mexicans, which it incorporated in its own code, and it is quite as unjust as those which still exist on the statute-books of some States as a remnant of the barbarous old English Common Law. Community property includes all which is accumulated by the joint labors of husband and wife after marriage. This is in the absolute control of the husband. Previous to 1891 he could dispose of all of it as if he had no wife, could will, sell, mortgage, pledge or give it away. That year the Legislature enacted that he could not make a gift of it or convey it without a valuable consideration, unless the wife consented in writing, although he could still dispose of it in ordinary business transactions without her knowledge or consent. The decision in the Spreckles case apparently nullified this law, as the gift was made in 1893 and the Supreme Court in 1897 declared it legal.[185]

In 1895 it was provided that at the husband's death the wife is entitled to one-half of what remains, subject to one-half of the debts. At the death of the wife the whole belongs absolutely to the husband without administration. If some portion of it may have been set apart for her support by judicial decree, thisis subject to her testamentary disposition, or, if she makes none, it passes to her heirs.

A homestead to the value of $5,000, which must continuously be occupied by the family, may be selected from the community property, or from the husband's separate estate, or from the wife's with her consent. If from the first-named it belongs to the survivor, if from the separate property it descends to his or her heirs, subject to the power of the court to assign it to the family for a limited period. During marriage it can not be mortgaged or conveyed without the signature of both. In case of divorce, if it has been selected from community property, it may be assigned to the innocent party absolutely or for a limited time, or it may be sold and the proceeds divided, according to decree. If selected from separate property it shall be returned to the former owner, but the court may assign it for a limited time to the innocent party.

In 1897 a law was passed that if the estate is less than $1,500 it shall be assigned to the widow, subject to incumbrances, funeral charges and expenses of settlement.

Separate property consists in what was possessed before marriage or is received by gift or inheritance afterwards. If the deceased leave wife or husband and only one child, or the lawful issue of one, the separate estate is divided in equal shares. If there be more than one child or the issue of one, the widow or widower is entitled to one-third. If there is no issue the survivor takes one-half and the other half goes to the father, mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased. If none exists, the survivor is entitled to the whole estate.

Either husband or wife may dispose of separate property without the consent of the other. Until 1894 it rested upon the wife to prove that property was her separate possession, but now the proof rests upon the contestants. Until 1897 she was compelled to prove that it was not paid for with community earnings. Neither of these recent laws applies to property acquired previous to May 19, 1889.

A married woman may be administrator or executor. (1891.)

The wife may engage in business as sole trader and her husband is not liable for her contracts, but her earnings, and alsoany wages she may make by her labor, are community property and belong absolutely to him, and suit for them must be brought by him. By becoming a sole trader she makes herself liable for the support of the family.

A married woman may sue and be sued and make contracts in regard to her separate property, but in torts of a personal nature she must be sued jointly with her husband, although the wife may defend in her own right.

Until 1899 common law marriage was legal, and this consisted merely in a promise and the mutual assumption of marital rights, duties and obligations. That year a law was passed requiring a license and a civil or religious ceremony. The law declares specifically that "the husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him."

The wife may sue for separate maintenance without divorce.

The father is the guardian of the minor children and entitled to their custody, services and earnings. At his death, or if he has abandoned his family, the guardianship belongs to the mother, if suitable.

The husband is expected to give his family proper maintenance. There is no penalty for not supporting a wife but he can be arrested for failure to support the children. If he have no property or is disabled from any cause, then the wife must support him and the family out of her property or her earnings. The husband decides what are necessaries and may take even her personal belongings to pay for them.

In 1887 the W. C. T. U. asked to have the "age of protection" for girls raised from 10 to 18 years, but secured only 14. In 1895 they succeeded in having a bill passed for 18 years but it was vetoed by Gov. James H. Budd. In 1897 they obtained one for 16 years which he signed and it is now the law. The penalty is imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than five years.

Suffrage:Women possess no form of suffrage.

In 1900, to make a test case, Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent brought suit before Judge M. C. Sloss, of the Supreme Court of San Francisco, to recover her taxes for that year, about $500. The city through its attorney filed a demurrer which was argued March 29 by George C. Sargent, son of the plaintiff and a memberof the bar. He based his masterly argument on the ground that a constitution which declares that "all political power is inherent in the people" has no right to exclude one-half of the people from the exercise of this inherent power. He quoted the most eminent authorities to prove that taxation and representation are inseparable; that the people of the United States would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed the constitutional right of granting or withholding their own money; that it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people that no taxes can be imposed upon them except with their consent given personally or by their representatives. He said in closing:

If Article I of the State constitution defines inalienable rights and Article II abrogates them, it is monarchy. The Code of Civil Procedure says that where one of two constructions is in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former shall be accepted. The question is whether the Court shall grant this right, or whether by toil and struggle it shall be wrung from the consciences of the electors.

The court decided that the case required a mandamus before the Registrar. Application was then made for a writ of mandate against the Registrar of Elections to compel him to place Mrs. Sargent's name upon the list of voters. Should this be denied she asked to have her taxes returned. Both demands were refused by Judge Sloss in the Superior Court. He took the ground that if Mr. Sargent's argument should be carried to its logical conclusion it would enfranchise idiots, lunatics and criminals; that if there is a conflict between the two sections of the constitution cited it should be settled in favor of limiting the suffrage to males, as where a general and a particular provision are inconsistent the latter is paramount to the former. He quoted various State Supreme Court decisions and declared that he decided the case according to the law.[186]

As Mrs. Sargent had every assurance that this judgment would be sustained by the Supreme Court she did not carry the case further. It attracted attention and comment in all parts of the country and she received encouragement and wishes for her success from all classes of society.

Office Holding:The Legislature of 1873 made women eligible to all School offices. None ever has been elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction but there is scarcely a county where women have not served as superintendents. At present seventeen are acting in this capacity. They have frequently been elected School Trustees and a woman is now president of the San Francisco school board at a salary of $3,000 per annum.

The constitution is interpreted to prohibit women from holding any other office. It is claimed by some that this does not include the boards of State institutions, but out of twenty-six such boards and commissions only one ever has had a woman memberâ€”Mrs. PhÅ“be A. Hearst, who is on the Board of Regents of the State University.

There are women on local library boards. A woman has been assistant State Librarian, and there have been women deputies and clerks in county and city offices. At present in the offices of the Attorney-General, Board of Examiners, State Department of Highways and Debris Committee women hold positions as clerks at salaries of from $1,200 to $1,800. They may serve as notaries public.

In the autumn of 1899 the California Woman's Club resurrected an old law which never had been enforced, providing for the appointment of assistant women physicians at the hospitals for the insane "provided there are already three assistant male physicians." They petitioned the proper authorities and the matter was presented to the State Lunacy Commission by Gov. Henry T. Gage with his earnest indorsement. From highly qualified candidates, whom the club had in readiness, two were appointed, and the promise was made that others should be at an early date. In a short time the superintendent of one hospital wrote that he did not see how they ever had managed without a woman physician.

A woman physician is on the Board of Health in Oakland.

In 1891 a law was passed providing for jail matrons in cities of 100,000 and over. This included only San Francisco and was not mandatory. In 1901 a law was secured requiring all cities of over 15,000 to have a matron at jails and city prisons, to beappointed for two years at a salary of $50, $65 or $75 a month, according to the size of the city.

Occupations:After the hard struggle to obtain a law admitting women to the bar in 1877, a long contest followed to secure their admission to the Hastings College of Law, a branch of the State University, which ended in a favorable decision of the Supreme Court.[187]As a result of these efforts the constitutional convention of 1879 incorporated a provision that "No person shall, on account of sex, be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful business, vocation or profession." This does not, however, include appointive or elective offices.

Education:This same constitution of 1879 provided also that "No person shall be debarred admission to any of the collegiate departments of the State University on account of sex." Most of the smaller colleges are co-educational.

The assertion will hardly be questioned that the gifts of women for educational purposes in all parts of the Union, in all time, do not equal those made by the women of California within the last decade. As a memorial to their son, U. S. Senator and Mrs. Leland Stanford erected the Leland Stanford, Jr., University at Palo Alto in 1890 and endowed it with many millions of dollars. Mr. Stanford's death before it was fully completed threw the estate into litigation for a number of years, the legality of even some portion of the university endowment being in doubt. He left the bulk of his great fortune to his wife, and, after the estate was settled and free from all encumbrances, she reaffirmed the titles of all previous gifts and added the largest part of her own property. The endowment is now about $30,000,000, all but $4,000,000 of this having been given by Mrs. Jane Lathrop Stanford. This is the largest endowment ever made by any one person for one institution, and places Stanford at the head of the endowed universities of the world. It has been co-educational in all departments from the beginning and the tuition is practically free.

In 1894 Mrs. Miranda Lux of San Francisco left a bequest of $750,000 for a school of manual training for both sexes. In 1898 Miss Cora Jane Flood of San Francisco conveyed to the Universityof California her magnificent estate at Menlo Park and 4,000 shares of stocks, valued at not far from $1,000,000. The request was made that the income should be devoted to some branch of commercial education. Mrs. Jane Krom Sather of Oakland has given about $200,000 to the University. The donations of Mrs. PhÅ“be A. Hearst have been thus far about $300,000, but this is merely preliminary to the great endowment of millions for which she has arranged. It is exclusive also of $30,000 a year for several archÃ¦ological expeditions. Liberal gifts have been made by other women.

In the public schools there are 1,722 men and 6,425 women teachers. The average monthly salary of the men is $81.08; of the women $64.76. As a law of 1873 requires equal pay of teachers for equal work, these figures show that the highly salaried positions are largely occupied by men.

Women's clubs play a very prominent part in the social life. Of these, 111 with a membership of over 7,000 belong to the State Federation. The oldest in the State is the Ebell of Oakland, organized over twenty-five years ago, and having now a handsome club house and a membership of 500. It raised $20,000 to purchase a site for the new Carnegie Library. The Century Club of San Francisco with 275 members is one of the oldest and most influential; the California Club has an active membership of 400; and there are a number of other flourishing clubs in that city, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda and Sacramento, of from 175 to 250 members. The Friday Morning Club of Los Angeles, with a membership of 500, owns a beautiful club house. The Ebell of that city has 300 members, and clubs of from 150 to 200 are found in various places in Southern California.

FOOTNOTES:[162]The History is indebted for most of the material in this chapter to Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent of San Francisco, honorary president, and Miss Carrie A. Whelan of Oakland, corresponding secretary, of the State Woman Suffrage Association.[163]SeeHistory of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, Chap. LIII[164]Other names which appear in the scant records are Dr. Cora Morse, Mesdames William A. Keith, A. W. Manning, Helen Moore, Emily Pitt Stevens, Julia Schlessinger, Gertrude Smytheâ€”of San Francisco and the towns around the bay; E. L. Collins of the StocktonDaily Mail, Mrs. D. P. Burr and Mrs. James Gillis of Stockton.[165]For full description see Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLV.[166]President, Mrs. Ellen Clark (Aaron A.) Sargent; first vice-president, Mrs. Annie K. (General John) Bidwell; second vice-president, Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn; third vice-president, Mrs. John Spalding; corresponding secretary, Mrs. George Oulton; recording secretary, Mrs. Hester A. Harland; treasurer, Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich; auditors, Mrs. Mary Wood (John F.) Swift and Mrs. Isabel A. Baldwin.[167]Ida Husted Harper, the Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Mary Wood Swift, Dr. Ida V. Stambach, Harriet E. Cotton, Ada H. Van Pelt.[168]The others who have held office in the State association since 1896 areâ€”first vice-presidents, Mesdames Frank M. Smith, C. R. Randolph, H. J. D. Chapman, Mary Wood Swift, second vice presidents, Mrs. Annie K. Bidwell, Mrs. E. O. Smith, third vice-presidents, Mrs. Elmira T. Stevens, Mrs. R. H. Pratt, Mrs. A. K. Bidwell, corresponding secretaries, Mrs. Harriet E. Cotton, Miss Mary E. Donnelly, Dr. Amy G. Bowen, Miss Carrie A. Whelan, recording secretaries, Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn, Miss Mary G. Gorham, Mrs. Henry Krebs, Jr., Mrs. Dorothy Harnden, treasurers, Mrs. Mary S. Sperry (six years), Miss Clara M. Schlingheyde; auditors, Mrs. Lovell White, Mrs. George Oulton, Miss Mary S. Keene, Dr. Alida C. Avery, Mrs. Mary Mc. H. Keith, Mrs. Anna K. Spero.[169]Among those who have been officially connected with the work are Col. P. T. Dickinson, Col. George and Mrs. Olive E. Babcock, Drs. Alice Bush, Susan J. Fenton, Kellogg Lane, Carra B. Schofield, Rev. C. W. Wendte, Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Mr. and Mrs. John L. Howard, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Woodhams, Mesdames A. E. S. Banks, S. C. Borland, J. C. Campbell, Ella E. Greenman, L. G. Judd, Mary McHenry Keith, A. A. Moore, M. B. Pelton, Emily M. Vrooman, C. L. Wood, J. A. Waymire, John Yule; Misses Mollie E. Connors, Mary S. Keene, Mary Snell, Winifred Warner, Carrie A. Whelan.[170]Among the most active members are Mesdames M. B. Braley, Fred L. Foster, Sarah Knox Goodrich, J. H. Henry, H. Jennie James, A. K. de Jarnette (Spero), E. O. Smith, Laura J. Watkins, Alice B. Wilson.[171]Immediately afterwards the ladies said to one of the members, "Why did you break your pledge to us and vote against the bill?" Without a moment's hesitation he answered, "Because I had a telegram this morning from the Liquor Dealers' Association telling me to do so."[172]Chairman, Ellen Clark Sargent; vice-chairman, Sarah B. Cooper; corresponding secretary, Ida Husted Harper; recording secretary, Harriet Cooper; treasurer, Mary S. Sperry; auditors, Mary Wood Swift and Sarah Knox Goodrich.State Central Committee: Mrs. Sargent, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Swift, Mrs. Sperry, Mrs. Blinn, with Mary G. Hay, chairman.[173]Later Mrs. Ida Crouch Hazlitt of Colorado, Mrs. Laura M. Riddell of San Diego and other State women were added to the organizing force.[174]Dr. Elizabeth Sargent was chairman of the Committee on Petitions for Northern and Mrs. Alice Moore McComas for Southern California. As the names had to be collected in the winter months preceding the spring campaign, the distances to be covered were long and the labor was the free offering of busy women, it is surprising that the list was so large. It by no means represented the suffrage sentiment in the State.[175]Alameda had sent in the largest petition for woman suffrage of any county in the State, and San Joaquin afterwards gave a big majority vote for the amendment.[176]A number of young women who were engaged the greater part of every day in teaching, stenography, bookkeeping, etc., gave every hour that could be spared to the work at headquarters, a free will offering. Among those who deserve special mention are Misses Mary, Louise and Sarah Donnelly, Mary Gorham, Clara Schlingheyde, Effie Scott Vance, Evelyn Grove, Mrs. N. W. Palmer, Winifred and Marguerite Warner and Carrie A. Whelan. Mrs. Lelia S. Martin also contributed five months' time.[177]Los Angeles County gave a majority of 4,600 in favor of the amendment.[178]Many personal incidents and anecdotes of this campaign will be found in the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLVII.[179]This portion of the chapter was prepared by Mrs. Alice Moore McComas, former president of the Los Angeles Woman Suffrage Association and chairman of the Southern California press committee during the amendment campaign of 1896. A considerable amount of space is given because it presents so admirable an example of the manner in which the work in such a campaign should be done.[180]The first paper to establish a Suffrage Column was the Los AngelesExpress, in 1887, H. Z. Osborne, editor. This was conducted by Mrs. McComas for three years.[181]Among the many were Gertrude Foster, the young California actress, who added attraction to many programs with her brilliant readings, and Jessie, daughter of Superior Judge Waldo York, who won the prize of $75 offered by Dr. Ella Whipple Marsh, superintendent of franchise of the Southern California W. C. T. U., for the best essay on woman suffrage, one hundred young people of both sexes competing. An oratorical contest for young college menâ€”original orations on woman suffrageâ€”resulted in a $20 prize to Edwin Hahn of Pomona College, five young men participating. Clare, daughter of Judge C. C. McComas, gave highly-appreciated recitations on the woman question, and Miss Nina Cuthbert, the young teacher of elocution, delighted many audiences with her readings and wonderful imitations.[182]Prominent among these were the Single Tax Club, Royal Arcanum, Foresters, Native Daughters of the Golden West, Socialist League, Y. M. C. A., Carpenters' Union, Woman's Relief Corps, Y. W. C. A., Friday Morning Woman's Club and the Fraternal Brotherhood.[183]It is regretted that the carefully compiled list of these papers, sent by Mrs. McComas, is too long to be used. [Eds.[184]In addition to men and women already mentioned the following is a partial list of those who aided in various ways: Annie B. Andrews, Alice Armor, Prof. W. C. and Sarah A. Bowman, Mary M. Bowman, Mrs. (Dr.) B. W. Beacher, Mary E. Benson, Mary E. Bucknell, Alice E. Broadwell, Rollo K. Bryan, James G. Clark, Mary L. Crawford, Lucy E. Cook, Mary Lynde Craig, Pauline Curram, Gen. A. B. Campbell, Edith Cross, Adelaide Comstock, Prof. G. A. Dobinson, the Hon. C. H. Dillon, Florence Dunham, Virginia W. Davis, Sallie Markham Davis, Ella H. Enderline, Katheryne Phillips Edson, Dr. and Mrs. Eli Fay, Ada C. Ferriss, Mary E. Fisher, Miss M. M. Fette, Kate Tupper Galpin, Mary E. Garbutt, Prof. Burt Estees Howard, Emma Hardacre, Mary I. Hutchinson, Rachel Handby, Mrs. C. E. Haines, Georgia Hodgeman, Judge and Mrs. Ivan, Mrs. Mary E. and Miss Kinney, Mrs. E. A. and Miss Lawrence, Alice Beach McComas, Ben S. May, Susie Munn, Mattie Day Murphy, Dr. Mary Nixon, Mrs. C. W. Parker, Delia C. Percival, Ursula M. Poats, Mary Rankin, Rachel Reid, Aglea Rothery, Mr. and Mrs. W. C. B. Randolph, Caroline M. Severance, Mrs. Fred Smith, Dora G. Smith, Drusilla E. Steele, Annie B. Smith, Gabrella Stickney, Mrs. A. Tichenor, Mrs. R. H. F. Variel, Dr. Theoda Wilkins, Mrs. (Dr.) Wills, Fanny Wills, Attorney Sarah Wild, Judge Waldo York, Jessie York.[185]Claus Spreckles gave his son Rudolph a large amount of sugar stock which was community property, and Mrs. Spreckles did not join. Afterwards he sued to recover and the Supreme Court, all the Judges concurring, decided the gift was legal. Justice Temple rendered the decision as follows:"All these differences point to the fact that the husband is absolute owner of the community property. The marital community was not acquired for the purpose of accumulating property, and the husband owes no duty to the community or to the wife, either to labor or accumulate money, or to save or to practice economy to that end. He owes his wife and children suitable maintenance, and if he has sufficient income from his separate estate he need not engage in business, or so live that there can be community property. If he earns more than is sufficient for such maintenance, he violates no legal obligation if he spends the surplus in extravagance or gives it away. The community property may be lost in visionary schemes or in mere whims. Within the law he may live his life, although the community property is dissipated. Of course I am not now speaking of moral obligations."[186]During this trial Mrs. Sargent and her friends in attendance were caricatured in the most shameless manner by the San FranciscoCall, which had passed under a new management.[187]SeeHistory of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, p. 757.

[162]The History is indebted for most of the material in this chapter to Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent of San Francisco, honorary president, and Miss Carrie A. Whelan of Oakland, corresponding secretary, of the State Woman Suffrage Association.

[163]SeeHistory of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, Chap. LIII

[164]Other names which appear in the scant records are Dr. Cora Morse, Mesdames William A. Keith, A. W. Manning, Helen Moore, Emily Pitt Stevens, Julia Schlessinger, Gertrude Smytheâ€”of San Francisco and the towns around the bay; E. L. Collins of the StocktonDaily Mail, Mrs. D. P. Burr and Mrs. James Gillis of Stockton.

[165]For full description see Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLV.

[166]President, Mrs. Ellen Clark (Aaron A.) Sargent; first vice-president, Mrs. Annie K. (General John) Bidwell; second vice-president, Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn; third vice-president, Mrs. John Spalding; corresponding secretary, Mrs. George Oulton; recording secretary, Mrs. Hester A. Harland; treasurer, Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich; auditors, Mrs. Mary Wood (John F.) Swift and Mrs. Isabel A. Baldwin.

[167]Ida Husted Harper, the Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Mary Wood Swift, Dr. Ida V. Stambach, Harriet E. Cotton, Ada H. Van Pelt.

[168]The others who have held office in the State association since 1896 areâ€”first vice-presidents, Mesdames Frank M. Smith, C. R. Randolph, H. J. D. Chapman, Mary Wood Swift, second vice presidents, Mrs. Annie K. Bidwell, Mrs. E. O. Smith, third vice-presidents, Mrs. Elmira T. Stevens, Mrs. R. H. Pratt, Mrs. A. K. Bidwell, corresponding secretaries, Mrs. Harriet E. Cotton, Miss Mary E. Donnelly, Dr. Amy G. Bowen, Miss Carrie A. Whelan, recording secretaries, Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn, Miss Mary G. Gorham, Mrs. Henry Krebs, Jr., Mrs. Dorothy Harnden, treasurers, Mrs. Mary S. Sperry (six years), Miss Clara M. Schlingheyde; auditors, Mrs. Lovell White, Mrs. George Oulton, Miss Mary S. Keene, Dr. Alida C. Avery, Mrs. Mary Mc. H. Keith, Mrs. Anna K. Spero.

[169]Among those who have been officially connected with the work are Col. P. T. Dickinson, Col. George and Mrs. Olive E. Babcock, Drs. Alice Bush, Susan J. Fenton, Kellogg Lane, Carra B. Schofield, Rev. C. W. Wendte, Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Mr. and Mrs. John L. Howard, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Woodhams, Mesdames A. E. S. Banks, S. C. Borland, J. C. Campbell, Ella E. Greenman, L. G. Judd, Mary McHenry Keith, A. A. Moore, M. B. Pelton, Emily M. Vrooman, C. L. Wood, J. A. Waymire, John Yule; Misses Mollie E. Connors, Mary S. Keene, Mary Snell, Winifred Warner, Carrie A. Whelan.

[170]Among the most active members are Mesdames M. B. Braley, Fred L. Foster, Sarah Knox Goodrich, J. H. Henry, H. Jennie James, A. K. de Jarnette (Spero), E. O. Smith, Laura J. Watkins, Alice B. Wilson.

[171]Immediately afterwards the ladies said to one of the members, "Why did you break your pledge to us and vote against the bill?" Without a moment's hesitation he answered, "Because I had a telegram this morning from the Liquor Dealers' Association telling me to do so."

[172]Chairman, Ellen Clark Sargent; vice-chairman, Sarah B. Cooper; corresponding secretary, Ida Husted Harper; recording secretary, Harriet Cooper; treasurer, Mary S. Sperry; auditors, Mary Wood Swift and Sarah Knox Goodrich.State Central Committee: Mrs. Sargent, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Swift, Mrs. Sperry, Mrs. Blinn, with Mary G. Hay, chairman.

State Central Committee: Mrs. Sargent, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Swift, Mrs. Sperry, Mrs. Blinn, with Mary G. Hay, chairman.

[173]Later Mrs. Ida Crouch Hazlitt of Colorado, Mrs. Laura M. Riddell of San Diego and other State women were added to the organizing force.

[174]Dr. Elizabeth Sargent was chairman of the Committee on Petitions for Northern and Mrs. Alice Moore McComas for Southern California. As the names had to be collected in the winter months preceding the spring campaign, the distances to be covered were long and the labor was the free offering of busy women, it is surprising that the list was so large. It by no means represented the suffrage sentiment in the State.

[175]Alameda had sent in the largest petition for woman suffrage of any county in the State, and San Joaquin afterwards gave a big majority vote for the amendment.

[176]A number of young women who were engaged the greater part of every day in teaching, stenography, bookkeeping, etc., gave every hour that could be spared to the work at headquarters, a free will offering. Among those who deserve special mention are Misses Mary, Louise and Sarah Donnelly, Mary Gorham, Clara Schlingheyde, Effie Scott Vance, Evelyn Grove, Mrs. N. W. Palmer, Winifred and Marguerite Warner and Carrie A. Whelan. Mrs. Lelia S. Martin also contributed five months' time.

[177]Los Angeles County gave a majority of 4,600 in favor of the amendment.

[178]Many personal incidents and anecdotes of this campaign will be found in the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLVII.

[179]This portion of the chapter was prepared by Mrs. Alice Moore McComas, former president of the Los Angeles Woman Suffrage Association and chairman of the Southern California press committee during the amendment campaign of 1896. A considerable amount of space is given because it presents so admirable an example of the manner in which the work in such a campaign should be done.

[180]The first paper to establish a Suffrage Column was the Los AngelesExpress, in 1887, H. Z. Osborne, editor. This was conducted by Mrs. McComas for three years.

[181]Among the many were Gertrude Foster, the young California actress, who added attraction to many programs with her brilliant readings, and Jessie, daughter of Superior Judge Waldo York, who won the prize of $75 offered by Dr. Ella Whipple Marsh, superintendent of franchise of the Southern California W. C. T. U., for the best essay on woman suffrage, one hundred young people of both sexes competing. An oratorical contest for young college menâ€”original orations on woman suffrageâ€”resulted in a $20 prize to Edwin Hahn of Pomona College, five young men participating. Clare, daughter of Judge C. C. McComas, gave highly-appreciated recitations on the woman question, and Miss Nina Cuthbert, the young teacher of elocution, delighted many audiences with her readings and wonderful imitations.

[182]Prominent among these were the Single Tax Club, Royal Arcanum, Foresters, Native Daughters of the Golden West, Socialist League, Y. M. C. A., Carpenters' Union, Woman's Relief Corps, Y. W. C. A., Friday Morning Woman's Club and the Fraternal Brotherhood.

[183]It is regretted that the carefully compiled list of these papers, sent by Mrs. McComas, is too long to be used. [Eds.

[184]In addition to men and women already mentioned the following is a partial list of those who aided in various ways: Annie B. Andrews, Alice Armor, Prof. W. C. and Sarah A. Bowman, Mary M. Bowman, Mrs. (Dr.) B. W. Beacher, Mary E. Benson, Mary E. Bucknell, Alice E. Broadwell, Rollo K. Bryan, James G. Clark, Mary L. Crawford, Lucy E. Cook, Mary Lynde Craig, Pauline Curram, Gen. A. B. Campbell, Edith Cross, Adelaide Comstock, Prof. G. A. Dobinson, the Hon. C. H. Dillon, Florence Dunham, Virginia W. Davis, Sallie Markham Davis, Ella H. Enderline, Katheryne Phillips Edson, Dr. and Mrs. Eli Fay, Ada C. Ferriss, Mary E. Fisher, Miss M. M. Fette, Kate Tupper Galpin, Mary E. Garbutt, Prof. Burt Estees Howard, Emma Hardacre, Mary I. Hutchinson, Rachel Handby, Mrs. C. E. Haines, Georgia Hodgeman, Judge and Mrs. Ivan, Mrs. Mary E. and Miss Kinney, Mrs. E. A. and Miss Lawrence, Alice Beach McComas, Ben S. May, Susie Munn, Mattie Day Murphy, Dr. Mary Nixon, Mrs. C. W. Parker, Delia C. Percival, Ursula M. Poats, Mary Rankin, Rachel Reid, Aglea Rothery, Mr. and Mrs. W. C. B. Randolph, Caroline M. Severance, Mrs. Fred Smith, Dora G. Smith, Drusilla E. Steele, Annie B. Smith, Gabrella Stickney, Mrs. A. Tichenor, Mrs. R. H. F. Variel, Dr. Theoda Wilkins, Mrs. (Dr.) Wills, Fanny Wills, Attorney Sarah Wild, Judge Waldo York, Jessie York.

[185]Claus Spreckles gave his son Rudolph a large amount of sugar stock which was community property, and Mrs. Spreckles did not join. Afterwards he sued to recover and the Supreme Court, all the Judges concurring, decided the gift was legal. Justice Temple rendered the decision as follows:"All these differences point to the fact that the husband is absolute owner of the community property. The marital community was not acquired for the purpose of accumulating property, and the husband owes no duty to the community or to the wife, either to labor or accumulate money, or to save or to practice economy to that end. He owes his wife and children suitable maintenance, and if he has sufficient income from his separate estate he need not engage in business, or so live that there can be community property. If he earns more than is sufficient for such maintenance, he violates no legal obligation if he spends the surplus in extravagance or gives it away. The community property may be lost in visionary schemes or in mere whims. Within the law he may live his life, although the community property is dissipated. Of course I am not now speaking of moral obligations."

"All these differences point to the fact that the husband is absolute owner of the community property. The marital community was not acquired for the purpose of accumulating property, and the husband owes no duty to the community or to the wife, either to labor or accumulate money, or to save or to practice economy to that end. He owes his wife and children suitable maintenance, and if he has sufficient income from his separate estate he need not engage in business, or so live that there can be community property. If he earns more than is sufficient for such maintenance, he violates no legal obligation if he spends the surplus in extravagance or gives it away. The community property may be lost in visionary schemes or in mere whims. Within the law he may live his life, although the community property is dissipated. Of course I am not now speaking of moral obligations."

[186]During this trial Mrs. Sargent and her friends in attendance were caricatured in the most shameless manner by the San FranciscoCall, which had passed under a new management.

[187]SeeHistory of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, p. 757.

After the campaign of 1877, when a woman suffrage amendment was defeated in Colorado, the first really important step forward was the organization at Denver, in 1890, of a little club to aid the campaign in South Dakota. In April Miss Matilda Hindman, who was working there, came from that State to ask assistance and formed a committee of six, who pledged themselves to raise $100. They were Miss Georgiana Watson, president; Mrs. Susan Sharman, secretary; Mrs. Mary J. Nichols, treasurer; and Mesdames Amy K. Cornwall, Jennie P. Root and Lavinia C. Dwelle.

Shortly afterward Mrs. Louise M. Tyler removed from Boston to Denver, bearing a letter from Lucy Stone urging Colorado suffragists to unite in an organization auxiliary to the National Woman Suffrage Association. Mrs. Tyler heard of this small band, called with Mrs. Elizabeth P. Ensley, delivered her message, and their names were added to the list of members. The organization was completed and became an auxiliary.

About this time Mrs. Leonora Barry Lake followed her lecture, delivered under the auspices of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union by an appeal to the women of the audience to join the suffrage association; and among those who responded were two whose ears had longed for such a gospel sound, Mrs. Emily R. Meredith and her daughter Ellis. Temperance women who repeatedly had found their work defeated by the lack of "the right preservative of rights," such women as Mrs. Anna Steele, Mrs. Ella L. Benton, Mrs. Eliza J. Patrick and others, thought truly that a society whose sole aim should be the ballot was a necessity.At this time the meetings were held in Mrs. Tyler's parlor. Miss Watson was much occupied with school duties, and in the fall of 1890 Mrs. Tyler was chosen president in her stead.

In 1891 a petition for the right of suffrage by constitutional amendment was presented to the Legislature, but the bill not being introduced within the specific time it went by default. Ashamed of their lack of political acumen, the women then persuaded Representative F. F. O'Mahoney, who had a bill prohibiting foreigners from voting on their first naturalization papers, to strike the word "male" from his measure, thus making it an equal suffrage enactment, but bill and rider were defeated. The ladies who worked for suffrage were treated with such scant courtesy by some of the legislators, and the general sentiment was so adverse, that ultimate success looked very distant to the most sanguine friends.

Some of the club even questioned the advisability of giving an afternoon a week, as they had been doing, to the study of a government in which they had no part and might never hope to have. Mrs. Sharman, a small, delicate woman, who already had passed four-score years, was its inspiration. She advised the members to remain united, ready for active effort when opportunity offered, and in the meantime to continue as seed-sowers and students of citizenship in the preparatory department.

The membership slowly increased. Mrs. Tyler served as president until 1892, when Mrs. Olive Hogle was elected. Mrs. Benton (Adams) had given the use of her rooms in the central part of Denver, and the society remained with her until, having outgrown its quarters, it accepted the hospitality of Dr. Minnie C. T. Love early in 1893.

In the spring of 1891 a small majority of its members had put up a woman candidate for the East Denver school board and tried their "prentice hands" at voting. It is a settled fact that a partial suffrage seldom awakens much interest. The school ballot had been given to women by the constitution when Colorado became a State, but here, as elsewhere, they exercised it only when aroused by some especial occasion. Mrs. Scott Saxton was the candidate selected. The wiser of the suffragists thought the work should have been undertaken sooner, if at all,as there was not then sufficient time for canvassing, and the result proved they were right. More women voted than ever before, but the men opposed to women on the school board came out in still greater numbers. Twelve hundred ballots were castâ€”by far the largest school vote ever polled in the district. Of these about 300 were for Mrs. Saxton.

Two years later this effort was repeated and other organizations of women aided the suffragists. Mrs. Ione T. Hanna was the candidate. There were four tickets in the field and over 6,000 votes were cast. This time both men and women voted in favor and, in the face of bitter opposition, Mrs. Hanna was elected by 1,900 majority.

A bill providing that the question of full suffrage for women should be submitted to the voters at the next general election was drawn by J. Warner Mills and presented in the House early in 1893 by J. T. Heath. On this, and all other occasions when advice or assistance was needed, Mr. Mills gave his legal services without charge.

This was indeed the golden opportunity, the tide which taken at the flood might lead on to fortune. The Populist party, which was in power, had a suffrage plank in its State platform; in both the other parties there were individuals who favored it; and, if the bill passed, the Governor's signature was a certainty. But there are as many vicissitudes in the life of a bill as in that of an infant. It is thrown in the midst of its fellows to struggle for existence, and the outcome is not a question of the survival of the fittest but of the one that receives the best nursing. If it escapes the death that lurks in the committee room, it still may be gently crowded toward the edge until it falls into the abyss which awaits bills that never reach the third reading.

Mrs. Tyler, chairman of legislative work, gave a large share of her time during the entire session to looking after the bill in the House, and Miss Minnie J. Reynolds was equally untiring in the Senate. Three other suffrage bills were introduced that session but two yielded precedence to the one prepared by the association. The author of the third believed that women could obtain suffrage only through a constitutional amendment, which was what his bill called for. The women received such contradictoryadvice on this point as to awaken much anxiety. However, they read in their meetings a copy of the statutes of Colorado, and possessing only plain common sense and not the legal ability which would have qualified them for a place in the Supreme Court, concluded that the referendum to the voters, which their bill provided for, was the proper thing to request.

The opposition came from the usual sources. After the bill was presented, theRemonstrance, the organ of the anti-suffrage society in Boston, soon appeared on the desk of every legislator. The liquor influence also was prominent in the lobby.

The bill was reported from the committee to the House on Jan. 24, 1893, with the recommendation that it should not pass and a minority report in favor. The former was rejected by a vote of 39 to 21. The bill was brought to a final vote on March 8. A number of the members of the suffrage club and some other women who approved their cause were present by request of the friends in the House. Some of the arguments used were peculiar. Ruth didn't vote and she married very well (at least at the second trial) nor did any of the women referred to in the Bible, so why should the women of the United States do so? One Representative said he always attended to affairs out of doors and left those within to his wife. He thought that was the right way and didn't believe his wife would vote if she could. "But she says she would," declared another, who was prompted by Mrs. Tyler, and a ripple of laughter arose at the speaker's expense.

There was the customary talk about neglected homes and implied disbelief in woman's ability to use the ballot rightly, but only one man tried the weapon of insult. Robert W. Bonynge spoke so slightingly of the character of women who upheld equal suffrage that one incensed woman, not a member of the association and presumably ignorant of parliamentary courtesy, gave a low hiss. Immediately he assumed the denunciatory and threatened immediate expulsion of all persons not members from the House. Frank Carney then arose and referred to the fact that the anti-suffrage speakers had received repeated applause from their adherents and no notice had been taken of it, although itwas equally out of place. Mr. Bonynge subsided from his position and continued his speech.[189]

The bill finally passed by 34 ayes, 27 noes; divided politically as follows: Ayes, 22 Populists, 11 Republicans, 1 Democrat; noes, 3 Populists, 21 Republicans, 3 Democrats.

Hamilton Armstrong had introduced the bill into the Senate, where it had been tabled to await the action of the House. It passed on April 3 by 20 ayes, 10 noes: Ayes, 12 Populists, 8 Republicans, no Democrat; noes, one Populist, 4 Republicans, 5 Democrats.

The bill received the signature of the Populist governor, Davis H. Waite, without delay.

A general election was to be held in the fall of 1893, so that the verdict of the voters was soon to follow. At the annual meeting of the State Woman Suffrage Association that spring the officers chosen were: President, Miss Martha Pease; vice-president, Mrs. Ellis Meredith; secretary, Mrs. C. S. Bradley; treasurer, Mrs. Ensley; chairman executive committee, Mrs. Tyler. On motion of Mrs. Meredith, the name of the society was changed to the Non-Partisan Equal Suffrage Association of Colorado, as in the word "equal" there is an appeal to justice which does not seem to exist in the word "woman."

The women realized the conflict before them in the near future, and Mrs. Ellis Meredith volunteered to visit the Woman's Congress, which was to meet at Chicago in May, during the World's Fair, and appeal for aid to the representatives of the National Association who would be there. Miss Susan B. Anthony, Mrs. Lucy Stone and other notables were present and appointed a meeting to listen to appeals. These asked help for the Constitutional Convention Campaign in New York and the Kansas Amendment Campaign, which were both considered very hopeful compared to what was thought in the East to be the almost hopeless campaign in Colorado. Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake presented the claims of New York, Mrs. Laura M. Johns of Kansas, and Mrs. Meredith of Colorado. "Why was your campaign precipitated when our hands are so full?" was one ofthe discouraging questions. "Are all those Mexicans dead?" asked Miss Anthony, referring to the heavy vote against equal suffrage in the first Colorado campaign of 1877. "No," said Mrs. Meredith, "the Mexicans are all there yet;" but she explained that there were favorable influences now which did not then exist. In the labor unions women members voted, and this fact inclined the men belonging to them to grant the full franchise. The W. C. T. U., now organized throughout the State, had become a firm friend and advocate, and the ruling political party was favorable. Clearly this was the time to strike.

A promise of consideration and such aid as the National Association was able to furnish was given. Later they decided to send Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt and guarantee her expenses in case she was not able to raise them in the State. From her past record, they thought it likely she would not only do that but put money in the treasury, and the result justified their expectations. She was a financial help, but, much as money was needed, her eloquence and judgment were worth more, and she always will have a warm place in the hearts of Colorado women who were active in the campaign of 1893.

When that campaign opened, there were just $25 in the treasury. Lucy Stone sent a donation of $100. Iowa and California gave aid, and there were small contributions in money from members of the E. S. A. and from auxiliary clubs formed by Mrs. Chapman Catt in different parts of the State.

Besides these, others already had been organized. In Longmont a club was formed in the spring of 1893 by Mesdames Mary L. Carr, Orpha Bacon, Rosetta Webb and Jane Lincoln. They took up the study of laws relating to the property rights of women and endeavored to awaken interest in the question to be settled the following November. The majority which Longmont gave for suffrage is a testimony to the value of their work. In Colorado Springs Mrs. Mary C. C. Bradford was president of a large local society which afterward became auxiliary to the State association, with Mrs. Ella L. C. Dwinnell as president, and did excellent work in El Paso County. In Greeley many of the workers of 1877 were still active. Mrs. Lillian Hartman Johnson organized a club in Durango and spoke for the cause. Mrs.A. Guthrie Brown formed one in Breckinridge of which Mesdames H. R. Steele, C. L. Westermann and E. G. Brown were active members.

All these clubs, large and small, scattered throughout the State, assisted in arousing public sentiment, but the situation in Denver was the one of most anxious interest. It is always in cities that reforms meet defeat, for there the opposing interests are better organized and more watchful. In no other State is the metropolis so much the center of its life as is Denver of Colorado. Through this modern Palmyra, which stands in the center of the continent and of the tide of commerce from East and West, flow all the veins and arteries of the State life. Arapahoe County, in which it is situated, contains more than one-fourth of the population of the entire State. Upon the women of Denver, therefore, was imposed a triple share of responsibility. Besides the importance of the large vote, there rested particularly upon the members of its suffrage club the burden of having invited this contest and made it a campaign issue.

In the early fall, the City League of Denver was organized with 100 members and Mrs. John L. Routt, wife of the ex-governor, as president. Mrs. Thomas M. Patterson and Mrs. N. P. Hill were prominent workers in this club. A Young Woman's League was formed by Misses Mary and Margaret Patterson and Miss Isabel Hill, and there were other leagues in various parts of the city. In all this work Mrs. Tyler was indefatigable.

Miss Minnie J. Reynolds, chairman of press work, enlisted the help of seventy-five per cent. of the newspapers. In some cases editorial approval and assistance were given, in others space was allowed for suffrage matter. In August Mrs. Elizabeth Tabor donated the use of two rooms in the opera house block, one large enough to seat several hundred persons, the other a suitable office for the corresponding secretary. Dr. Minnie C. T. Love had acted gratuitously in that capacity and opened communication with suffragists throughout the State, but it was now deemed necessary to employ some one who could devote her entire time to the work. Miss Helen M. Reynolds was chosen and added to unusual capability the most earnest zeal. The rooms were furnished through loans of rugs, desks, chairs, etc.

Equal suffrage was indorsed by the county conventions of the Republican, Prohibition and Populist parties, and also at a called meeting of the Democratic State Central Committee. Many ministers and lawyers spoke in its favor. Among the latter were Charles S. Thomas, since governor of the State, J. Warner Mills, Judge L. C. Rockwell, Charles Hartzell, Eugene Engley and Attorney-General I. N. Stevens, who was one of the most trusted advisers.

There were also women speakers of experience: Mrs. Therese Jenkins of Wyoming, Mrs. Susan S. Fessenden of Massachusetts; Mrs. Dora Phelps Buell, Mrs. Mary Jewett Telford, president of the Woman's Relief Corps in the Department of Colorado and Wyoming and also president for several terms of the State W. C. T. U., who made a five-months' speaking tour; Mrs. Leonora Barry Lake of St. Louis, who spoke efficiently under the auspices of the Knights of Labor. Mrs. Laura Ormiston Chant of England delivered an address on her way westward.

Some women made speeches who never had been on the platform before but have since developed much oratorical ability. When needed, women who did not dare risk an unwritten address read papers. Meetings were held all over the city and State. "I should think," said a banker, "from the campaign the women are running that they had a barrel of money;" but he was a contributor to the fund and knew it was very limited. In all about $2,000 were raised, over $300 of which were spent for literature. Some of the most efficient leaflets were written by members of the association and printed in Denver. Nearly 150,000 of these were issued.

In the city press Mrs. Patience Mapleton represented the cause in theRepublican; Mrs. Ellis Meredith in theRocky Mountain News. There were house to house canvassers, distributors of literature and others who rendered most valuable assistance and yet whose names must necessarily remain unrecorded. The most of this service was given freely, but some of the women who devoted all their time received moderate salaries, for most of the workers belonged to the wage-earning class. The speakers asked no compensation but their expenses were frequently borne. Halls and churches had to be paid for and on several occasionsopera houses were rented. When in the final report the expenses of election day were given as $17 a murmur of amusement ran through the audience.

The women who "had all the rights they wanted" appeared late in the campaign. Some of them sent communications to the papers, complaining of the effort to thrust the ballot upon them and add to the already onerous duties of life. When told that they would not be compelled to vote and that if silent influence was in their opinion more potent than the ballot, it would not be necessary to cast it aside for the weaker weapon, they responded indignantly that if they had the franchise of course it would be their duty to use it. Let it be noted that many of them have voted regularly ever since they were enfranchised, though some have reconsidered and returned to their silent influence.

The liquor element slept in fancied security until almost the eve of election, as they did not believe the amendment would receive popular sanction. When they awoke to the danger they immediately proceeded to assess all saloon keepers and as many as possible of their prominent patrons. They got out a large number of dodgers, which were put into the hands of passers-by. These were an attack upon equal suffrage and the women who advocated it, and at the bottom of the first issue was a brewer's advertisement. This dodger stated that "only some old maids like Lucy Stone, Susan Anthony, Frances Willard, Elizabeth Stanton and Mary Livermore wanted to vote." They also employed an attorney to juggle the ballots so that they might be thrown out on a technicality. There was consternation among the suffragists when the ballot was finally produced bearing the words "For the Amendment," "Against the Amendment," for it was well known that the measure was not an "amendment." The best legal talent in Denver was consulted and an opinion rendered that the ruse would prove of no avail, as the intention was still clear. The women, however, issued a leaflet instructing the voters just where to put the cross on the ticket if they wished to vote for equal suffrage.

The suffragists were divided in opinion as to the presence of women at the polls on the election day which was to decide their fate. Some thought it might be prejudicial, but the friendsamong the men strongly approved their presence in order to influence voters. What future election could be of more importance to women than this, and why should they hesitate to show their interest? Under directions from suffrage headquarters workers at the polls distributed the leaflets, often supplementing them by their own eloquence. No woman received any discourtesy.

The night of November 7 was an anxious one. Women went home and lay awake wondering whether they had done everything possible to insure success, or whether failure might be the result of some omission. When the returns published the next morning, although incomplete, showed that success really had crowned their efforts it seemed almost too good to be true. All day long and in the evening people were coming and going at suffrage headquarters with greetings and congratulations. Women of all classes seemed drawn together by the new tie of citizenship.

The full returns gave the result as follows: For suffrage, 35,798; against. 29,451; an affirmative majority of 6,347.

What were the causes of this unique success? First, it may be claimed that Western men have more than others of that spirit of chivalry of which the world has heard so much and seen so little. The human mind inclines to justice, except when turned aside by prejudice, and there is less prejudice against and a stronger belief in equal rights in the newer communities. The pressure of hard times, culminating in the panic of 1893, undoubtedly contributed to the success of the Populist party, and to its influence the suffrage cause owes much. A new party boldly accepts new principles while the old parties are struggling to conform to precedents. This is shown clearly in both the legislative and the popular vote. It was in the counties giving Populist pluralities that the majority of 6,818 in favor of equal suffrage was found. The counties which went Republican and Democratic gave a majority of 471 against the measure. The fact, however, that in all parties there were friends who were willing to work and speak for it, and also the number of suffrage bills which had been introduced at this time, showed that the State was ready for it.

Back to Index Next