FOOTNOTES:

Miss Willard replied in a cordial letter that she had not the slightest wish to antagonize her or the suffrage movement and would use her influence to have the place of the convention changed. To Mrs. B. Sturtevant Peet, president of the California W. C. T. U., who was somewhat in doubt as to the necessity for such change, Miss Anthony wrote:

What you say of the good influence of your national convention in San Francisco is true so far as concerns the actual Prohibition men; but we must consider those who are making their daily bread out of the manufacture as well as the sale of liquors. There are many excellent men in California who are not total abstainers, but who believe in wine as the people of Italy and France believe in it; and I think that, in waging our campaign, we should be careful not to run against the prejudices or the pecuniary interests of that class. As I have said before, if it were a Prohibition amendment which was pending I should think it exceedingly unwise to run that campaign under the banner of woman suffrage. The average human mind is incapable of taking in more than one idea at a time. The one we want to get into the heads of the voters this year is woman's enfranchisement, and we must pull every string with every possible individual man and class of men to secure their votes for this amendment. We should be extremely careful to base all our arguments upon the right of every individual to have his or her opinion counted at the ballot-box, whether it is in accordance with ours or not. Therefore, the amendment must not be urged as a measure for temperance, social purity, or any other reform, but simply as a measure to give to women the right to vote yea or nay on each and all of them. I want every woman in California to work for the amendment, but I want her to work in the name of suffrage, not of prohibition.

The national convention was withdrawn entirely from California, and the W. C. T. U. women, in most places, worked under the one banner of the suffrage amendment during the campaign. In proof that there was no feeling on the part of the leaders against Miss Anthony, it may be stated that she received official invitations to be present at the birthday celebration of Mrs. Peet, in April; to address the State W. C. T. U. Convention at Petaluma, in October; to attend the National Convention at St. Louis in November; and to join in the farewellreception to Miss Willard in New York on the eve of her departure for Europe.

The managers of the woman's campaign supposed of course that the endorsement by the Populist and Republican State Conventions meant not only that the speakers of those parties would advocate the suffrage plank just as they did the others in their respective platforms, but that they also would permit the women themselves to speak for it in their political meetings. When they applied to Mr. Wardall and the other members of the Populist Central Committee, the schedule was promptly furnished and they were assured that their speakers would be welcomed. When they applied to the Republican Central Committee, to their amazement, they were put off with an evasive answer. Meanwhile they had Miss Anthony, Miss Shaw, Mrs. Catt and other speakers waiting for engagements and did not dare make dates ahead lest it might interfere with the big Republican rallies which they wished them to address. Again and again they went to the Republican Central Committee and asked for the schedule of their meetings and the privilege of sending their speakers to them. Finally, after weeks of anxious waiting, the chairman, Major Frank McLaughlin, sent a letter to the suffrage headquarters saying in effect: "The committee had decided not to grant this privilege; in the language used at one time by Miss Anthony, it meant 'too many bonnets at their meetings,' and they wished to reach the voters."

He added that they were at liberty to make any arrangements they chose with the county chairmen. This meant, of course, that they must ascertain the name and address of every county chairman in the State, watch the papers for the announcements of meetings, hold their speakers in reserve, and beg the privilege of having them heard. All this, when the endorsement of the suffrage amendment was the first plank in the Republican platform unanimously adopted by the State convention! There was nothing, however, except to make the best of it; but when they attempted to arrange with the county chairmen, they found Major McLaughlin had written themnot to allow the women speakers on their platforms! While many of them refused to obey his orders, he had practically destroyed the best opportunity for reaching the people.

The Republican State Convention had enthusiastically adopted a resolution declaring for "the free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1." When the National Convention met in St. Louis soon afterwards it adopted a gold standard plank, and there they were! The Populists and Democrats who agreed on a financial plank saw here an opportunity and, in many counties, effected a fusion and held their meetings together. This, of course, nullified the permission given the women to put speakers on the Populist platform, since the Democrats, as a party, were opposed to woman suffrage, and there they were! If they attempted to hold simply suffrage meetings, they could get only audiences of women, because all the men were in attendance at the political rallies. So the only thing left was for the women in every city and town in the State, whenever a political mass meeting was advertised, to go to the managers and humbly beg to have one of their speakers on the platform.

This was not often refused, and it was just as easy to get this permission from Democrats as from Republicans. The former felt that if the amendment should carry they would not object to a little of the credit, and they soon found also that the women were a drawing card. Whenever there was a purely Populist meeting, a conspicuous place and all the time desired were given to the women, but at Republican, Democratic or Fusion meetings, they always were placed at the end of the program and allowed only five or, at most, ten minutes. In order simply to get this little word, the women speakers would make long journeys and sit on the platform until every long-winded male orator had finished his speech, and until they were ready to drop from their chairs. But the audience waited for them, no matter how late, and never failed to receive them with the wildest enthusiasm. Many times when the managers would have been willing to sandwich them between other speakers, the latter would object, saying the people would go home as soon as the women had finished!

As the campaign wore on it became a fight for life with the political parties. The Call, which had come out so valiantly for woman suffrage, had been struck in a vital part, i.e., in the counting-room, by the opponents of this measure, who withdrew valuable advertising and in every possible way sought to injure the paper. Its support was used by the other wing of the Republican party to create a prejudice against the candidates it advocated; the principal stockholders were not friendly to the amendment; as the organ of the Central Committee it was deprived of independent action. So it was not surprising that, long before the close of the campaign, the great fight which the Call agreed to make had dwindled to an occasional skirmish when the pleading of the women grew too strong to be resisted.

Almost without exception the Republican orators were silent on the question of woman suffrage, even those who personally favored it. The women wrote them, interviewed them and begged them to advocate the first plank in their platform as they did all the rest, and occasionally when they would go in a body and sit on the front seats to watch the speaker, he would say a few mild words in favor of the amendment, but there were several of the Democrats who did as much. Some of the Populists advocated it, but the most prominent, who always before had spoken for it, went through the entire campaign without so much as a mention, in order to secure Democratic support. When Thomas B. Reed came into the State, at the very end of the campaign, the women felt sure of an ally, as he had long been a pronounced advocate, but he did not so much as refer to the question in his tour of the State, although they bombarded him with letters which would have impressed a heart of stone. At the last grand rally in Oakland, the day before election, with Miss Anthony on one side of him and Miss Shaw on the other, he did say that he "knew of no more reason why a woman should not vote than why a man should not"—but the battle then was already lost.

Up to within a few weeks of election, in spite of all thedrawbacks, it looked as if the amendment would win. The general sentiment throughout the State seemed to be in favor. The mere mention of the subject at any meeting was received with the greatest enthusiasm. Almost every delegate body which assembled in convention during that summer adopted a resolution of endorsement; this was true of most of the church conferences, the teachers' institutes, the State Grange and farmers' institutes, the Chautauqua assemblies and countless others. And still the women watched and waited! There was one element more powerful than all these combined, which had not yet shown its hand. It never had failed in any State to fight woman suffrage to the death, and there was no reason to believe it would not kill it in California.

Ten days before election the fatal blow came. The representatives of the Liquor Dealers' League met in San Francisco and resolved "to take such steps as were necessary to protect their interests." The political leaders, the candidates, the rank and file of the voters recognized the handwriting on the wall. From that moment the fate of the amendment was sealed. The women had determined, from the beginning of the campaign, that they would give the liquor business no excuse to say its interests were threatened, and therefore the temperance question had been kept out of the discussion as had the religious, the tariff and the financial questions. They took the sensible view that it had no more place than these in the demand for women's right to vote as they pleased on all subjects. Therefore the action of the liquor dealers had no justification in anything which the women had said or done. It simply showed that they considered woman suffrage a dangerous foe. The following letter, signed by the wholesale liquor firms of San Francisco, was sent to the saloon-keepers, hotel proprietors, druggists and grocers throughout the State:

At the election to be held on November 3, Constitutional Amendment No. Six, which gives the right to vote to women, will be voted on.It is to your interest and ours to vote against this amendment. We request and urge you to vote and work against it and do all you can to defeat it.See your neighbor in the same line of business as yourself, and have him be with you in this matter.

At the election to be held on November 3, Constitutional Amendment No. Six, which gives the right to vote to women, will be voted on.

It is to your interest and ours to vote against this amendment. We request and urge you to vote and work against it and do all you can to defeat it.

See your neighbor in the same line of business as yourself, and have him be with you in this matter.

The men in the slums of San Francisco were taken in squads and, with sample ballots, were taught how to put the cross against the suffrage amendment and assured that if it carried there never would be another glass of beer sold in the city. When the chairman of the press committee went to a prominent editor, who was opposed to woman suffrage and knew that these things were being done, and asked if there were no way by which some suffrage literature could be given to those men so that they might see there was no ground for these threats, he said: "Most of them can not read and if they could the whiskey men would never allow a page of it to get into their hands." In what way the liquor dealers worked upon the political parties, it is not necessary to speculate. The methods were not new and are pretty well understood. They control tens of thousands of votes not only in California but in every State, which they can deliver to either of the great parties that does their bidding and regards their interests.

It is absurd, however, to attribute the defeat of the suffrage amendment wholly to the liquor dealers, or to the densely ignorant, or to the foreigners. In the wealthiest and most aristocratic wards of San Francisco and Oakland, where there were none of these, the proportion of votes against the amendment was just as great as it was in the slum wards of the two cities. Those respectable, law-abiding citizens who cast their ballots against the amendment, thereby voted to continue the power of the above mentioned classes.

For weeks before the election, the most frantic efforts were made by the politicians to register new voters and colonize them in the wards where they would be most needed.[123]Columns of appeals were issued in all the newspapers to get the vast numbers of lately arrived immigrants to come to the city hall and register. Men were sent around ringing big bells and calling upon them to do this, and interpreters were employed to explain that it would not cost them a cent. Finally theregistry books were carried to the parks and other places where these men were employed, in order to secure their names.

Meanwhile the intelligent, order-loving, sober and industrious women of the State were making such efforts as never were made by any class of men, to secure this same privilege of placing in the ballot-box and having counted their opinions on questions relating to the public welfare;—opinions, one would think, that ought to be considered of as much value to the State as those which such strenuous attempts were being made to obtain. It seems, however, that intelligence, morality and thrift must wait the pleasure of ignorance, vice and idleness.

During the months of the early spring, through the efforts of a few women who worked without pay and used only their spare moments, the names of nearly 30,000 women were secured to a petition asking for the suffrage. This, of course, represented only a fraction of those which might have been obtained by continued effort, but a petition signed by even 30,000 men would have been considered worthy of attention. The vast majority of women have no money of their own and those who work for wages, as a rule, receive but a pittance, and yet there were raised in California for this amendment campaign almost $19,000, and the amount contributed by men was so small as not to be worth mentioning. The financial success was due very largely to the State treasurer, Mrs. Austin Sperry. She not only made a donation of $500, but borrowed from the bank on her personal note, when necessary, and signed blank checks to be used when the treasury was empty and repaid when outstanding pledges were collected. Mrs. Phœbe Hearst headed the list with $1,000. Mrs. Stanford gave almost as much in railroad transportation to the speakers and organizers. The next largest contributor was Mrs. Knox Goodrich, of San Jose, who for nearly thirty years had stood in California a faithful advocate of woman suffrage, giving time, money and influence. She added to her past donations nearly $500 for this campaign. Mrs. Sargent's munificence has been mentioned. A few women subscribed$100 each, but all the rest was given in sums ranging down to a few cents.

Sarah L. Knox Goodrich (Signed: "Sarah L. Knox Goodrich")

Autograph: "regard with deep respect your heroic life and entire devotion to the cause you have consecrated it to. Yours very sincerely. Phebe A. Hearst."

The true record of these contributions would wring the heart of every man in the State. A large photograph of Miss Anthony and Miss Shaw was given for every $2 pledge, and many poor seamstresses and washerwomen fulfilled their pledges in twenty-five cent installments, coming eight times with their mite. Often when there was not enough money on hand at headquarters to buy a postage stamp, there would come a timid knock at the door and a poorly dressed woman would enter with a quarter or half-dollar, saying, "I have done without tea this week to bring you this money;" or a poor little clerk would say, "I made a piece of fancy work evenings and sold it for this dollar." Many a woman who worked hard ten hours a day to earn her bread, would come to headquarters and carry home a great armload of circulars tofold and address after night. And there were teachers and stenographers and other workingwomen who went without a winter cloak in order to give the money to this movement for freedom. This pathetic story ought to be written in full and given to every man who eases his conscience by saying, "The majority of women do not want to vote;" and to every well-fed, well-clothed woman who declares in her selfish ease, "I have all the rights I want."

Knowing that if the suffrage amendment were placed first or last among the six which were to be voted on, it would be a target for those who could not read, the ladies wrote to the Secretary of State asking that it be placed in the middle of the list. He answered, June 26: "It shall be as you request and the suffrage amendment be third in order as certified by me to the various county clerks." When the tickets were printed, however, it was placed at the end of the list and thus necessarily at the end of the whole ticket, making it a conspicuous mark. The explanation given was that Governor Budd had directed the amendments to be placed on the ballot in the same order as they had appeared in his proclamation. As this had not been issued until July 20, a month after the official request of the ladies had been granted, one must conclude there was a mistake somewhere. The results were exactly what had been feared. In San Francisco alone hundreds of ballots were cast on which there was only one cross and that against the amendment; not even the presidential electors voted for.

There were 247,454 votes cast on the suffrage amendment; 110,355 for; 137,099 against; defeated by 26,734. The majority against in San Francisco was 23,772; in Alameda county, comprising Oakland, Alameda and Berkeley, 3,627; total, 27,399-665 votes more than the whole majority cast against the amendment. Berkeley gave a majority in favor, so in reality it was defeated by the vote of San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda.[124]Alameda is the banner Republican county and gave a good majority for the Republican ticket. There neverhad been a hope of carrying San Francisco for the amendment, but the result in Alameda county was a most unpleasant surprise, as the voters were principally Republicans and Populists, both of whom were pledged in the strongest possible manner in their county conventions to support the amendment, and every newspaper in the county had declared in favor of it. The fact remains, however, that a change of 13,400 votes in the entire State would have carried the amendment; and proves beyond question that, if sufficient organization work had been done, this might have been accomplished in spite of the combined efforts of the liquor dealers and the political bosses.

Near midnight of election day, a touching sight might have been witnessed on a certain street in San Francisco: two women over seventy years of age, one the beloved wife of a man whom California had selected as its representative in the United States Senate and whom the government had sent as its minister to the court of Germany; the other a woman universally admitted to be the peer of any man in the country in statesmanship and knowledge of public affairs—Mrs. A. A. Sargent and Susan B. Anthony. In the darkness of night, arm in arm, they went down the street, peering into the windows of the rough little booths where the judges and clerks of the election were counting votes. The rooms were black with tobacco smoke and in one they saw a man fall off his chair too drunk to finish the count. They listened to the oaths and jeers as the votes were announced against the suffrage amendment, to which they had given almost their lives. Then in the darkness they crept silently home, mournfully realizing that women must wait for another and better generation of men to give them the longed-for freedom.

The next morning when Miss Anthony came down to breakfast she found a group in the Sargent library reading the news of the election, and all looked at her in sorrowing sympathy. She stood still in the center of the room for a moment and then said sadly: "I don't care for myself, I am used to defeat, but these dear California women who have worked so hard, how can they bear it?"

Miss Anthony not only had donated her own services but had paid her secretary's salary of $75 per month and permitted her to give her entire time to the State headquarters for seven months, while she herself attended to the drudgery of her immense correspondence whenever she could get a spare hour. Even at the small sum of $25 for a regular speech, she would have contributed over $3,000 to this campaign, in addition to the scores of little parlor and club addresses. She gave her services freely and willingly and did not regret them, but often said that the California campaign was the most harmonious and satisfactory of any in which she ever was engaged. There was not the slightest friction between herself and the State association or State headquarters, and most of those prominent in the work were of such refinement and nobility of character that it was a pleasure to be associated with them. Not a day passed that she did not receive some token of affection from the women of the State. The Sargent home was filled with the flowers and baskets and boxes of fresh and dried fruits, etc., which were sent to her.[125]

On November 5, two days after the election, a large body of California women met in Golden Gate Hall to hold the annual State Suffrage Convention. Miss Anthony and all the national officers remained to help. There was not a trace of defeat or disappointment; all were brave, cheerful and ready to go to work again. Twelve hundred dollars were raised to settle all outstanding bills and the campaign closed without a dollar of indebtedness. As Mrs. Sargent was going abroad, a worthy presidential successor was elected, Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, wife of John F. Swift, minister to Japan, a fine presiding officer, a lady of much culture, travel and social prestige, whohad rendered valuable service throughout the campaign. The next evening the suffrage forces held a grand rally in Metropolitan Temple. Every seat in that fine auditorium was occupied and the aisles were crowded. It was not a meeting of the adherents of a lost cause, but of one which had suffered only temporary defeat. Miss Anthony presided and was given a true California ovation and, as her voice rang out with all its old-time vigor, there was not one in that vast audience but hoped she might return to lead her hosts to victory.

Autograph: "Yours with Love, Mary Wood Swift"

Saturday evening at 6 o'clock the seven eastern women started homewards, laden with tokens of affection, accompanied across the bay by a large number of loving friends, and moving off amidst smiles and tears and a shower of fragrant blossoms.

FOOTNOTES:[118]Joint campaign committee: Ellen C. Sargent, chairman; Sarah B. Cooper, vice-chairman; Ida H. Harper, corresponding secretary; Harriet Cooper, recording secretary; Mary S. Sperry, treasurer; Mary Wood Swift and Sarah Knox Goodrich, auditors. State central committee: Mrs. Sargent, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Swift, Mrs. Sperry, Mrs. Blinn, with Mary G. Hay, chairman.[119]About 1 o'clock in the morning, after this eventful night, the ladies were awakened by loud laughter and women's voices. They arose and went to the window and there in the brilliantly lighted street in front of the hotel were two carriages containing several gaily dressed women. A number of the convention delegates came out and crowded around them, three or four climbed into the carriages, wine bottles were passed and finally, with much talk and laughter, they drove off down the street, the men with their arms about the women's waists. The ladies returned to their slumbers thoroughly convinced that they had not used the correct methods for capturing the delegates of a Democratic convention.[120]The use of these rooms was donated by the manager of the Emporium, the large department store in the building. All through the summer and autumn a number of most capable young women, who were employed as stenographers, teachers, etc., gave every waking moment outside business hours to the work at headquarters, carrying home with them great packages of leaflets and circulars to be folded and addressed, looking after their own precincts, and rendering services which could not have been paid for in money. Although all were breadwinners they labored from love of the cause and without a thought of thanks or remuneration.[121]In Idaho all political State conventions, Republican, Populist and Democratic, endorsed the amendment, it received a majority of the popular vote, and the women now have full suffrage.[122]To commemorate this journey Miss Selina Solomons, of San Francisco, wrote a tender poem, beginning:"She walks on roses! she whose feetHave trod so long the stony way,They tread who lead mankind to greetThe coming of a brighter day."[123]Some of the women going the rounds with suffrage petitions in San Francisco found a house consisting of one room with three cots, where were registered twenty-seven voters.[124]Los Angeles gave a majority of 3,600 in favor of the amendment.[125]In her president's report, at the next annual convention, Mrs. Sargent said: "Susan B. Anthony! We can never forget her labor of love and devotion to the cause of woman suffrage in California. She counted not her life dear to her so that she could help to awaken the interest of men and women in the great principle to which she has devoted her life. She was not cold, nor hungry, nor tired, nor sleepy, while there was a chance to push forward the work. Throughout the campaign Miss Anthony gave her own services and those of her secretary without money and without price. She reminds one of the great Niagara, which would be wonderful if its waters rolled and dashed for only a short period; but when they roll and dash on ceaselessly, nor ever stop to rest, there the wonder of it all comes in, and we can only gaze, admire and acknowledge the great law or power behind it."

[118]Joint campaign committee: Ellen C. Sargent, chairman; Sarah B. Cooper, vice-chairman; Ida H. Harper, corresponding secretary; Harriet Cooper, recording secretary; Mary S. Sperry, treasurer; Mary Wood Swift and Sarah Knox Goodrich, auditors. State central committee: Mrs. Sargent, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Swift, Mrs. Sperry, Mrs. Blinn, with Mary G. Hay, chairman.

[119]About 1 o'clock in the morning, after this eventful night, the ladies were awakened by loud laughter and women's voices. They arose and went to the window and there in the brilliantly lighted street in front of the hotel were two carriages containing several gaily dressed women. A number of the convention delegates came out and crowded around them, three or four climbed into the carriages, wine bottles were passed and finally, with much talk and laughter, they drove off down the street, the men with their arms about the women's waists. The ladies returned to their slumbers thoroughly convinced that they had not used the correct methods for capturing the delegates of a Democratic convention.

[120]The use of these rooms was donated by the manager of the Emporium, the large department store in the building. All through the summer and autumn a number of most capable young women, who were employed as stenographers, teachers, etc., gave every waking moment outside business hours to the work at headquarters, carrying home with them great packages of leaflets and circulars to be folded and addressed, looking after their own precincts, and rendering services which could not have been paid for in money. Although all were breadwinners they labored from love of the cause and without a thought of thanks or remuneration.

[121]In Idaho all political State conventions, Republican, Populist and Democratic, endorsed the amendment, it received a majority of the popular vote, and the women now have full suffrage.

[122]To commemorate this journey Miss Selina Solomons, of San Francisco, wrote a tender poem, beginning:"She walks on roses! she whose feetHave trod so long the stony way,They tread who lead mankind to greetThe coming of a brighter day."

[122]To commemorate this journey Miss Selina Solomons, of San Francisco, wrote a tender poem, beginning:

"She walks on roses! she whose feetHave trod so long the stony way,They tread who lead mankind to greetThe coming of a brighter day."

[123]Some of the women going the rounds with suffrage petitions in San Francisco found a house consisting of one room with three cots, where were registered twenty-seven voters.

[124]Los Angeles gave a majority of 3,600 in favor of the amendment.

[125]In her president's report, at the next annual convention, Mrs. Sargent said: "Susan B. Anthony! We can never forget her labor of love and devotion to the cause of woman suffrage in California. She counted not her life dear to her so that she could help to awaken the interest of men and women in the great principle to which she has devoted her life. She was not cold, nor hungry, nor tired, nor sleepy, while there was a chance to push forward the work. Throughout the campaign Miss Anthony gave her own services and those of her secretary without money and without price. She reminds one of the great Niagara, which would be wonderful if its waters rolled and dashed for only a short period; but when they roll and dash on ceaselessly, nor ever stop to rest, there the wonder of it all comes in, and we can only gaze, admire and acknowledge the great law or power behind it."

Onthe way home from California Miss Anthony and Mrs. Catt stopped at Reno, Nev., lecturing there Sunday, while Miss Shaw hastened on to speak at Salt Lake City. Then all met at Kansas City to attend the Missouri convention, where they were the guests of Mrs. Sarah Chandler Coates. The papers refer to Miss Anthony's speeches at this convention as being the very strongest she ever had made, and of her perfect physical condition at the close of an eight months' campaign.

She went from here directly home, and on November 19 a brilliant banquet was given in honor of Miss Shaw and herself at the Hotel Livingston by the Political Equality Club. Mary Lewis Gannett was toast-mistress and about 250 guests were seated at the tables. This was followed by the State convention at Rochester. After a few days' rest Miss Anthony went to the home of Mrs. Catt, near New York, where a business meeting was held of the national executive board. With Mrs. Avery she then took one of the great Sound steamers for Boston to attend a meeting of the National Woman's Council. A reception was given by Mrs. Charles W. Bond, of Commonwealth Avenue, and one at the Hotel Vendome. She ran up to Concord, N. H., for a few days' visit with her aged friends, Mr. and Mrs. Parker Pillsbury and Mrs. Armenia S. White. Then back again to the Garrisons', and out to Medford for a day with Mrs. Edward M. Davis, the daughter of Lucretia Mott.

She left Boston December 9, to fulfill a promise made toElizabeth Buffum Chace, to spend her ninetieth birthday at her home in Valley Falls, R. I. Mrs. Chace had written a number of letters with her own trembling hand to arrange for this visit. It was only a family party, but the diary tells of the cake with ninety little candles, and other birthday features. Anna Shaw came in time for the supper, and the next day Mrs. Chace sent them in her carriage to Providence to attend the State convention. Here they were guests in the handsome old Eddy homestead, and Miss Anthony addressed a large audience in the evening. She stopped a day in New York to tell Mrs. Stanton about the California campaign, and Sunday morning reached her own dear home. Her old and loved friend, Maria Porter, had died the preceding night, and she attended the funeral services next day. On December 23 she went to Niagara Falls with her stenographer to secure reminiscences from her cousin, Sarah Anthony Burtis, aged eighty-six, who was a teacher in the home school at Battenville over sixty years before.

The year just closed had been busy but pleasant. It had brought the usual number of tokens of appreciation, one of which was notice of election as honorary member of the Chicago Woman's Club. Among the scores of invitations on file were one from Judge George F. Danforth to meet the justices of the appellate court at his home; and one to the golden wedding of her old fellow-laborers, Giles B. and Catharine F. Stebbins, at Detroit, the latter one of the secretaries of that famous first convention of 1848. Major James B. Pond, the well-known lecture manager, wrote Miss Mary Anthony: "Thank you for your kind letter and the excellent photograph of your great sister, whom I have admired and hoped and prayed for since I was a poor boy out in Kansas. I still believe she will be spared to witness a general triumph of her noble cause." The letter contained an offer of $100 for a parlor lecture by Miss Anthony at Jersey City.

A few of Miss Anthony's own letters, taken almost at random from copies on her file, will illustrate the vast scope of her correspondence and her peculiarly trenchant mode of expression.To one who wanted a testimonial from her that she might show in vindication of certain accusations, she wrote:

I went through all the fire of charges of stealing, and of every other crime in the whole calendar, twenty-five years ago—charges made, too, by people of vastly more influence than any of the women who are talking and writing today about you. I never made a public denial of one of them, through all the years of the bitterest kind of persecution, and believe I was greatly the gainer by working right on and ignoring them. It will be the mistake of your life if you go into print in your own defence. Your denial will reach a new set of people and start them to talking, while the ones who read the original charges will never see the refutation of them.

To one of the newly-enfranchised women of Utah:

The one word I should have to say to the women throughout your State would be, not so much to try to get women elected to the offices as to get the best persons, whether men or women. Naturally there will be a far less number of women than of men capable of holding office, from the very fact of their long disfranchisement. I do hope your women therefore will set a good example not only for Utah, but also for the States where they are not enfranchised; namely, that of proving it is not the spoils of office they are after. I think the women of Wyoming always have been wonderfully judicious in not being anxious to hold offices themselves, but mightily anxious as to what men hold them. It will be considered a strong objection to woman suffrage if the vast majority of your women should prove themselves mere partisans.

To a New York cousin: "Your little birthday present, the Book of Proverbs, came duly. Solomon's wise sayings, however, don't help me very much in my work of trying to persuade men to do justice to women. These men and their progenitors for generations back have read Solomon over and over again, and learned nothing therefrom of fair play for woman, and I fear generations to come will continue to read to as little purpose. At any rate, I propose to peg away in accordance with my own sense of wisdom rather than Solomon's. All those old fellows were very good for their time, but their wisdom needs to be newly interpreted in order to apply to people of today."

In answer to a letter from Illinois asking the secret of her success in life:

If I may be said to have made a success of my life, the one great elementin it has been constancy of purpose—not allowing myself to be switched off the main road or tempted into bypaths of other movements. It always has been clear to me that woman suffrage is the one great principle underlying all reforms. With the ballot in her hand woman becomes a vital force—declaring her will for herself, instead of praying and beseeching men to declare it for her. It has been a long, hard fight, a dark, discouraging road, but all along the way here and there a little bright spot to cheer us on. And now we have four true republics, whose women are full-fledged citizens, and the prospects are hopeful for others soon to follow in the wake of those blessed four. One of the most cheering things in these days is the large number of young women who are entering the work, bringing to it a new, strong enthusiasm which will push on to victory. The women over all the country are waking up to the fact that truly to possess themselves, to have their opinions respected, they must have this right of suffrage.

A letter from the secretary of a national conference which was seeking to bring about a union of reformers, Prohibitionists, Free Silver advocates, etc., asked her assistance and called forth the following response:

It is all very well for you men, who have the power to make and unmake political parties, to form a third, fourth or fiftieth party, as the case may be; but as for myself and all who are of my class, disfranchised and helpless, we have nothing to do with any of them—old or new—except to ask each and all to put a woman suffrage plank in their platform and educate their members to place a ballot in the hands of women. I never have identified myself with any political party, but have stood outside of all, asking each to pledge itself to the enfranchisement of women. Whenever any one of them has asked me to speak in its meetings on the suffrage question, I have accepted the invitation, but I never have advocated the specific measures of any.So, you see, I can be of no help to you, but I do know that no one of the reform political parties ever will amount to much standing alone, and that it would be a good thing for all of them to come together in one body. I might say, however, that least of all could I join yours, which makes "God the author of civil government." If such civil government as we have was made by God, what reason is there to expect any improvement in the future?

So, you see, I can be of no help to you, but I do know that no one of the reform political parties ever will amount to much standing alone, and that it would be a good thing for all of them to come together in one body. I might say, however, that least of all could I join yours, which makes "God the author of civil government." If such civil government as we have was made by God, what reason is there to expect any improvement in the future?

From a letter to Isabella Beecher Hooker:

Fortune indeed does not smile any too favorably upon us who feel so longingly the need to use money. I am crippled all the time and prevented from doing what I might by lack of funds. The old faith would say, I suppose, that whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth financially, but seems to me I could better do His work and my own for the regeneration of the world, if I had the money to do it with.... What a fuss the men are making nowadays over "good government"—the idiots! Can't they see it is impossible toimprove things until they get a new and better balance of power that will outweigh the one which now pulls down the political scales and makes decency kick the beam every time? It does try my soul that we can not make them see they are simply trying to lift themselves by their bootstraps. Well, they are born of disfranchised mothers, a subject class, and one can not expect different results.If I could spare the time and money I would love to accept your invitation to sit with you and your dear John in your summer retreat, and chat over the world of work for our good cause. Of the before and the after I know absolutely nothing, and have very little desire and less time to question or to study. I know this seems very material to you, and yet to me it is wholly spiritual, for it is giving time and study rather to making things better in thebetween, which is really all that we can influence; but perhaps when I can no longer enter into active, practical work, I may lapse into speculations.

If I could spare the time and money I would love to accept your invitation to sit with you and your dear John in your summer retreat, and chat over the world of work for our good cause. Of the before and the after I know absolutely nothing, and have very little desire and less time to question or to study. I know this seems very material to you, and yet to me it is wholly spiritual, for it is giving time and study rather to making things better in thebetween, which is really all that we can influence; but perhaps when I can no longer enter into active, practical work, I may lapse into speculations.

To a debating society asking her opinion on the question of "educated and property suffrage:"

I always have taken the negative; that is, have believed in universal suffrage without either property or educational qualification. I hold that every citizen has a right to a voice in the government under which he lives. While an education is highly desirable, yet a man may be unable to read but may attend political meetings, talk with his neighbors and form intelligent opinions. He may be honest and beyond bribery, and a more desirable voter than many wily and unscrupulous men who have a graduate's diploma. It is, however, the duty of the State to educate its citizens; and the Australian ballot, which has been largely adopted, is in itself an educational qualification.As to a property qualification: while in the majority of cases, perhaps, the possession of property is evidence of ability and thrift, there are many who do not own property and yet are possessed of good sense and are more capable of casting an honest and intelligent ballot than some of the wealthy men of the country; then, too, those who have least are the ones who suffer most from the legislation of the rich, and need the ballot for self-protection. I am decidedly opposed to a property qualification.

As to a property qualification: while in the majority of cases, perhaps, the possession of property is evidence of ability and thrift, there are many who do not own property and yet are possessed of good sense and are more capable of casting an honest and intelligent ballot than some of the wealthy men of the country; then, too, those who have least are the ones who suffer most from the legislation of the rich, and need the ballot for self-protection. I am decidedly opposed to a property qualification.

To one who was in deep grief she said in an affectionate letter: "Do assure me that you are beginning to think of your dear one as he was when well and moving about in his always helpful and cheering manner. To get far enough from the sickness, the suffering and the death of our friends, so as to be able to have only the thought of them in their full vigor of life, is the greatest joy which possibly can come to those who have lost their beloved."

While Miss Anthony was thus constantly giving out fromthe vast wealth of her heart and brain, she was receiving, also, from all parts of the country the strong and loving tributes of noble souls. A beautiful one which shines on the pages of 1896 was pronounced by the eloquent Dr. H. W. Thomas, of Chicago, in the course of a Sunday sermon entitled "Progressive Greatness," delivered to a large audience assembled in McVicker's Theater:

A Washington and a Lincoln have come in our great century, and between their birthdays was born a Susan B. Anthony, whose grand life has been given to a noble cause; once the target for the cruel and bitter shafts of ridicule; now deemed the noblest among women. The task of Washington and Lincoln could not be complete till the crown was placed on the brow of woman as well as man; and when the angels shall call Susan B. Anthony to the life immortal, her name, her memory on earth should and will take its place among the martyrs and saints of liberty, not for man alone, but for woman and child."

To watch the old year out and the New Year in, Miss Anthony went to Geneva, and here spent a few days very pleasantly with Elizabeth Smith Miller and her guest, Harriot Stanton Blatch. Among the New Year's remembrances were $50 from Mrs. Elda A. Orr, of Reno, Nev.; $150 from Mrs. Gross, of Chicago; and $300 from Mrs. Cornelia Collins Hussey, of Orange, N. J. The usual number of congratulatory letters were received from all classes of people, high and low, old and young, white and colored.

To show their wide range two or three may be given. From Mrs. Ellen M. Henrotin, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs: "I send to you on the New Year a fraternal greeting and my best wishes that this may prove for you and the interests you represent, a year of fulfillment. We are all serving the same cause and we are surely among the happy ones of earth that we are enabled to assist, by even a slight impetus, the 'power which makes for righteousness.' ... Therefore I send you today my heartfelt wishes for the continued success of your cause and the peace and prosperity of your life."

Her friend of fifty years, John W. Hutchinson, the last of that never-equalled family of singers, sent his New Year'sgreetings and added: "I bless you and your work. Wonderful possibilities will be the result of this great movement, which you have led, for equal rights and the franchise for women." The president of the National Council of Women, Mary Lowe Dickinson, an earnest, efficient worker for humanity, said in the course of a long letter dated January 9:

I pray that all strength and blessing of every kind may crown this coming year of your life; and O, how earnestly I hope that in it you may see the fruition of some of the work that you have been struggling with these many, many years. When I run over in my mind the present situation of the cause you represent—which seems to me more and more the one cause which must succeed if we are going to have genuine success anywhere else—I see what ground you have for encouragement and what a vast advance has been made; but I see, too, how slow it must seem to you, and how weary of waiting you must become. I know no courage like yours, and I do that courage full honor.

She had received a telegram of greeting from Frances E. Willard as soon as she arrived home from California, and January 5 accepted her urgent invitation for a little visit with her at the sanitarium of Dr. Cordelia Green, Castile; and while there addressed a parlor gathering of the patients. On January 15 she was guest of honor at a luncheon given by the Educational and Industrial Union of Rochester, at the Genesee clubhouse, to the State executive committee of the Federation of Clubs. Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson spent a few days with her, and she arranged for her to hold Sunday evening services in the Unitarian church. On January 20 the two ladies, with Miss Mary, started for the twenty-ninth annual convention of the national association, which was to be held this year at Des Moines, Ia. The thermometer was 15° below zero, the snow very deep, and Miss Anthony's friends saw her set forth on the journey to this cold western city with much anxiety. All their protests, however, were not sufficient to keep her at home; but she thought with much longing of the clean, beautiful streets of Washington, the mild climate, the Congressional committees, the crowds of visitors there from various parts of the country who always came to the convention, and she felt more strongly than ever that it was a serious mistake to take it away from the national capital.

She stopped at Chicago for a few days, and a characteristic little entry in her diary says: "I slept on a $6,000 bed last night; my! how much good suffrage work could have been done with that money." On the afternoon of January 23, Miss Anthony addressed a large meeting of the Woman's Club and in the course of her remarks paid a tribute to that organization, in which she said: "This is the banner club of the United States, not because it has such nice women for members, and not even because it is located in Chicago, but because it is a club which does a large amount of practical work."

Mrs. Foster Avery joined the party at Chicago and they reached Des Moines January 24, where they found the rest of the executive board, and all were entertained in the suburban mansion of James and Martha C. Callanan. The meetings were held in the Central Christian church, whose pastor, Rev. H. O. Breeden, extended a cordial greeting. Notwithstanding the extreme severity of the weather, 24° below zero, the audience-room was crowded to its capacity at every public session, and overflow meetings were held. The convention was officially welcomed by Governor Francis M. Drake and Mayor John McVicar; Mrs. Adelaide Ballard, State president, made the opening address, and Mrs. Macomber spoke in behalf of the women's clubs of the city. State Senator Rowan was one of the speakers. Among the letters of greeting was one from Miss Kitty Reed, daughter of Speaker Thomas B. Reed. The memorial services showed that never in any previous year had so long a list of friends to the cause passed away as in 1896. There were thirty-seven names mentioned in the resolutions.[126]

In Miss Anthony's address she spoke of the great victories in 1896, as shown by the full enfranchisement of the women of Utah and Idaho. Mrs. M. C. Woods, from the latter State, presented an interesting account of the late campaign and an outline of their work for the future. Her mother, Emmeline B. Wells, made the report for Utah. Delegates were presentfrom twenty States, and most of them were entertained in the hospitable homes of the city. A reception, attended by 500 guests, was tendered by Mr. and Mrs. Hubbell, at their elegant residence on Terrace Hill. An imaginative reporter on this occasion transformed Miss Anthony's historic garnet velvet gown, worn for the past fourteen years, into a "magnificent royal purple," and her one simple little pin into "handsome diamonds." A pleasant reception also was given by the Woman's Club in their commodious parlors. The daily newspapers contained excellent reports of the convention, but not one gave editorial endorsement of the cause it represented.

Those who believed in holding the alternate national conventions away from Washington were satisfied with the result; those who thought differently continued to hold the same opinion, and among the latter was Miss Anthony, who soon afterwards wrote to one of the business committee:

The conventions at Atlanta and Des Moines have but confirmed me in my judgment that our delegated body always should meet in Washington. For local propaganda both were undoubtedly good, but for effect in securing Congressional action, absolutely nil. I believe in resuming our old plan of holding at least two conventions every year, one for the election of officers and for its influence upon Congress in Washington every winter; the other in whatsoever State we have constitutional amendments pending, where we need to do our greatest amount of work in that direction. The best way for the national association to help create local sentiment is to build up and make a success of the different State annual meetings, and to have at least two of its ablest and most popular speakers attend as many of them as possible every year; and I think by this means we can do a great deal more to make the States feel that the national is mother to them, than by once in a lifetime holding a delegate convention within their borders. I am more and more convinced that some of the national officers must be present at every State annual meeting, and if well advertised there would be as many representatives of the local clubs present as go to our national convention.

On the way home from Des Moines Miss Anthony spent a few days at Indianapolis. The evening of February 3, Mrs. Sewall gave a reception in her honor, to which were invited the governor, members of the legislature, State officials and their wives, members of the Woman's Council and their husbands. At one end of the large drawing-room, on a slightlyraised platform covered with rugs, sat Miss Anthony and Indiana's most revered woman, Zerelda G. Wallace, to whom Mrs. Sewall presented the guests. Later in the evening both of these ladies, from their "throne," as it was laughingly called, gave pleasant informal addresses, to which Senator Roots responded on behalf of the legislature. The next day Mrs. Wallace and Miss Anthony's old friend, Hon. George W. Julian, were entertained at luncheon and had a long afternoon chat. In the evening a reception was given for her by Mr. John C. and Mrs. Lillian Wright Dean at their pleasant home "The Pines."

The morning of February 5 Miss Anthony was invited to address a joint session of the Indiana legislature in the Assembly chamber. The judges of the supreme and appellate courts and most of the State officials were present, and all the visitors' seats on the floor and in the galleries were filled with Indianapolis ladies. Miss Anthony was introduced with words of praise by Representative Packard, and spoke for an hour, making her usual strong plea for a Sixteenth Amendment enfranchising women.

On February 6, at 9a. m., in the midst of rain and sleet, she arrived in Rochester and, in less than an hour, reporters from every newspaper in the city were on hand for an interview. They had learned long since that they always were sure of a cordial reception at her cozy home, and that the returned traveller would not fail to tell them something which would make interesting reading. Miss Anthony was actuated by two motives in this: One was her desire to get as much suffrage news as possible into the papers, for no one could have a higher appreciation of the value of the press; the other was a strong sentiment of admiration and friendship for the faithful and industrious men and women who earn a living at newspaper work.

Sunday night, February 14, the birthday of Frederick Douglass was observed in the Plymouth Congregational Church. Miss Anthony presided over the large meeting and introduced the speakers.

Back to Index Next