REMARKS OF ELIZABETH D. BACON, OF CONNECTICUT.

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am from the historic State of Connecticut, one of the thirteen original colonies, and one that furnished more than her quota of men in the Revolutionary war; for our ancestors thoroughly believed that “all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that “taxation without representation is tyranny.”

Yet, now, after more than a century and a quarter have passed away, we find that one-half of our people have no voice whatever in our Government, and that an ever-increasing class are directly taxed without representation. The amount of property possessed by women in their own names, and not in connection with their husbands, is very large, considering the conditions under which they have existed, in the city of New Haven alone amounting to $10,976,560. Yet the owners of this can not say how a single dollar of the revenue thus obtained shall be expended.

In the town of Glastonbury, only a few miles from Hartford, where I reside, some years ago the Smith sisters, having the blood of Revolutionary ancestors coursing in their veins and feeling the injustice of taxation without representation, refused to pay their taxes. What was the result? Their cows were wrested from them and sold at public auction at great sacrifice. Now, if our forefathers were right when they cast the tea overboard in Boston Harbor, then were not the Smith sisters right? We realize that without concentrated action but little could be accomplished by their method; therefore, the rather would we arouse you to a sense of the justice of our demands.

The economic conditions of women to-day are far different from those which existed fifty years ago. Now more than 25 per cent of the women 003 4of our State are either property owners or engaged in industrial occupations for their own support, and oftentimes for the support of others dependent upon them. Yet they are allowed no privilege in making laws governing their property or their earnings. Is this not unjust in the extreme, and a travesty upon our boasted republican Government? Legislation has not kept apace with this radical change; but, gentlemen, is it not time a step forward should be taken?

Among the large and increasing number of women whom I represent in Connecticut, there are some brave, earnest ones, seconded in their efforts by some just and noble men, who have been and are striving to bring about more equitable laws. The progress has been slow, and you, gentlemen, who so well understand the intricacies of legislation, know what gigantic difficulties we have to overcome, and, therefore, must realize how much better this question would be settled if an amendment were added to that grand old Constitution, making this in reality “a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Hence, we ask, in the interest of justice and equality and of a larger development of humanity, that you recommend an amendment that shall give to women the same rights as are possessed by men.

REMARKS OF MARY E. MAREHAND MILLIGAN, OF DELAWARE.

The next lady introduced to the committee was Mary E. Marehand Milligan, of Delaware. She said:

Gentlemen of the Committee: I am here in behalf of the womanhood of the State of Delaware. I need not take the time to explain the exact boundary lines of this State, neither need I say that this is one of the smallest States of this great Republic of ours. I need only say, by way of refreshing your memory, that Delaware, all through our Continental Constitutional Convention, stood at the head of the line, from the fact that she had been the first to sign the Declaration of Independence that has made this, our beautiful country, a free Republic.

Delaware has a history that it can be proud of. Delaware has had good men to represent it, and we give them honor. It is because we feel that you are honorable men that we call your attention to the fact that we, the mothers, wives, and sisters of Delaware, are living under a maddening injustice, and we join hands with our sister States from Maine to California, and insist, if we are to be taxed, we ought to be recognized in the law-making power. Taxation without representation has been decided to be base injustice, and has cost the best blood of our country to establish the fact. We, the women of Delaware, decline being classified with the maniac, the convict, the blanketed Indian, and the simpering idiot. This is the place assigned your wife and mother! Only think of it! Are the women of Delaware less noble than our sisters of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah? Have our women proved or shown in any way that they were unfit to assume grave responsibilities? Are the men of Delaware less proud of their wives and mothers and daughters? I think not.

On every hand we are asked if the great suffrage movement is gaining favor in our State. I answer, yes. Upon the first call for organization there was response from all directions. Within the coming six months there will be an organized club in every county and district in the State. Our women are in earnest. And “When she will, she will!”

Gentlemen, our plea is before you. We ask only justice. As you respect yourselves, your homes, your wives, mothers, and sisters, give 004 5this matter your earnest attention. It has become a grave question, and we hope that Delaware will not have to forfeit her position too seriously, but that she may be the first Eastern State to grant the right of franchise equally to all citizens, regardless of sex.

REMARKS OF MRS. ELLEN POWELL THOMPSON, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mrs. Ellen Powell Thompson, of the District of Columbia, was the next lady introduced. She said:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I do not think it is necessary for me to say one word in advocacy of the abstract justice of women's right to an equal share with men in the exercise of the power of suffrage in this Government. I have never met a reasoning, thinking man who denies it as an abstract principle. But abstract justice and political practice are not always expressions of one and the same thing—I suppose never will be—so practically the granting or not granting the right of suffrage to a disfranchised class must turn upon the question as to whether the giving of the ballot to the disfranchised class will add to the power, the strength, the stability of the Government, and the protection and freedom of the governed.

And the vital part of this question to be answered, it seems to me, is whether the to-be-enfranchised class is sufficiently intelligent, sufficiently qualified by an understanding of the principles of a democratic form of government, and has a sufficient love for and devotion to these principles for an intelligent, judicious, and patriotic exercise of this right of suffrage. Now, I have never heard even the most prejudiced, bigoted opponent of woman suffrage deny the love and devotion of the women of this land to their country; or, in other words, their patriotism. So I think I can assume that for granted. Then, as to their intelligence and understanding of the principles of our Government. Intelligence and understanding of these principles, I think all will admit, are the results of education and experience.

Now, women have not had so very much experience in governmental matters, I will concede; nor is it easy to understand how they can have until they are tried. We can not swim without water to swim in, nor demonstrate ability in political affairs without opportunities to act in political matters. Nor has such an absurdity as demonstrated ability in something a class has never had an opportunity to do been called for whenever the right of suffrage has been granted to a disfranchised class in this country. But wherever full suffrage has been given to women, as in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, or municipal or school suffrage, as in some other States, I believe the power has been wisely judiciously, patriotically exercised for good government, good morals, justice, and human rights.

Then comes the understanding of the principles of our Government derived from education. And here I wish to call attention to the fact that the average degree of education is now, and has been for twenty years, greater among girls than among boys. The figures are startling. In Washington three-fifths of the pupils in the higher grades (above the seventh) are girls, two-fifths boys; and in other towns and cities only one-fourth, and in some cases, one-fifth, are boys. In these higher grades, the grades where civil government, the Constitution of the United States, and the philosophy of history are taught, are mostly girls. I believe the argument of educational training and fitting is all on the side of the women. In the country schools, the common people's 005 6colleges, the proportion of girls attending is fully as preponderating. And it is this better-trained, longer-trained class of American citizens that is asking for suffrage to-day. That it can and has exercised wide beneficial influence in political affairs some recent elections show.

There are two ways by which the right of suffrage can be granted: One by the States directly, as has been done in three States; the other by an amendment to our Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the States. The association which I represent, the District of Columbia Woman Suffrage Association, composed of women and men from many States of the Union, believes that the latter is the true, the better way. It believes that a principle as fundamental, as vitally fundamental to the principles of democratic government as equal suffrage for all regardless of sex should be enunciated in our organic law, and they ask its enactment at your hands.

REMARKS OF MRS. FRANK L. HUBBARD, OF ILLINOIS.

Mrs. Frank L. Hubbard, of Illinois, was the next speaker. She said:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: I sadly fear that whatever may be brought to bear upon you this morning in the way of convincing argument will not have its full weight, because many of you gentlemen have allowed yourselves, I am afraid, to become convinced that we are the sort of women who will want to talk when you want to think. At any rate, we are the sort of women who have demonstrated some of the virtues of statesmen—patience and punctuality.

Senator Call. Allow me to suggest that we always allow half an hour to get everybody here.

Mrs. Hubbard. Illinois believes in this work, and Illinois hopes that from this session of Congress will come the encouragement which has been looked for for the last forty years; hoped for and planned for by our leaders all that time. Think of it; forty years of wandering in the wilderness of prejudice, and no miracle has interposed in our behalf to open the way to the promised land. It rests with you, gentlemen of this honorable committee, to say whether, before the close of this session, we shall be leagues farther on the weary way that we must travel before we can come into possession of our kingdom.

After all the logical arguments which have been brought before you I will attempt nothing along that line, but the women of my imperial State have drawn in a desire for the freedom of full citizenship with every breath from her boundless prairies. And we ask you if you know of any just cause or impediment by reason of which we should be debarred from participating in all the rights and duties of citizenship.

We have no more voice in the management of this great State of Illinois ourselves than have the men who fill our penitentiaries. And we ask for some representative voice in the government of that State so dear to us. We believe it is ours by right, and that it requires no further argument to convince you of the abstract justice of our claim. But it does seem that something more is required, and it remains for us to find out what it is.

While we are here to-day representing a body of nonpartisan women, I, as an individual, do not believe that woman's entrance into politics can be along any ethereal lines, but simply along the established lines of party politics. And when this great law-making body can be brought to realize that women will be powerful national allies, instead of fanciful creatures trying to bring about an impossible political millennium, 006 7our claims will receive the consideration which they deserve at your hands.

Miss Anna Howard Shaw. The voice of Indiana's women was to be given us through her delegate, Mr. Chairman, but she has gone to act as sergeant-at arms for Mrs. Anthony, and requests me to say that the claims of the women of Indiana for the right of suffrage, the right of self-government, rest upon the same principles as those that were acted upon by the founders of our Government.

REMARKS OF MRS. SARAH CLAY BENNETT, OF KENTUCKY.

The next speaker introduced was Mrs. Sarah Clay Bennett, of Kentucky. She said:

Gentlemen of the Committee: Senator Lindsay and Representative McCreary, of Kentucky, have just presented a memorial to Congress in behalf of the Equal Rights Association of that State. This memorial asks the members of that honorable body to protect the female citizens of the United States against State denial of that right to vote for members of Congress which the women of New Jersey exercised until 1807, by a law made in pursuance of the first section of the fourteenth amendment of our National Constitution, in accordance with the Virginia Minor and Yarbrough decisions by the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. And the few minutes I have allotted to me this morning I wish to devote to this subject.

From what the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, who rendered the Virginia Minor and Reese decisions, say, in their Cruikshanks decision of 1876, you can very readily perceive that these gentlemen affirmed in these decisions that the privileges or immunities which were conferred upon citizens of the United States by our national Constitution were necessarily privileges of citizens of the United States; but that those which were conferred upon them by the constitutions of the States were not.

And that Congress had power to make laws providing punishments for the protection of persons in the new “right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” because it came from the fifteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. But that Congress had no power to make such laws for the protection of persons in the right of suffrage itself in the several States, because the right to vote in the States came from the States, and was never “granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States.”

And in speaking of the rights of Mrs. Minor, of Missouri, under the first section of the fourteenth amendment, in their Virginia Minor decision of 1875, the judges of the Supreme Court first said: She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges or immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of the privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption. If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri, confining it to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States as amended, and, consequently, void.

And then decided that the right of suffrage was not one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States by saying, in the conclusion of the decision: Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of 007 8the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

So the judges of the Supreme Court who rendered the Yarbrough decision of 1884 affirmed that the right of suffrage was one of the necessary privileges of citizens of the United States, and that the constitutions and laws of the States, confining it to men, were in violation of the Constitution of the United States as amended and consequently void, by holding in that decision that the right to vote for Members of Congress in the States was “conferred by the Constitution of the United States” upon the “citizens,” and guaranteed against the statutes of the States by the first section of the fourteenth amendment.

And they have thus declared that the fourteenth amendment has annulled the word “male” in the constitutions and laws of the States, confining the right of suffrage to men, and restored to women that right to vote for Members of Congress which they exercised in New Jersey until 1807. So I hope you gentlemen will report a bill from this committee to Congress protecting white and black women in their constitutional right to vote for Members of Congress in the several States of this Union.

Black men now sit side by side with white men upon our great American throne, and rule over the white women of these United States. And I believe that one of the things which induced the white men of this country to extend the ballot to black men in preference to their own wives was because they thought God ruled over His church and they wanted to be like God, and therefore withheld the ballot from women in order that they might rule over their wives, just as they thought God ruled over His church. So I wish to call the attention of you gentlemen to the fact that St. Paul declares that the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church, being Himself the Savior of the body; and that the church shall reign with Christ. For I believe that the white and black men of this country will elevate women up to places upon our great American throne, when they realize that our Creator has manifested Himself in the flesh and died upon the cross in order to lift His church up to a seat by His own side, that she might reign with Him eternally in the heavens.

REMARKS OF CAROLINE H. MILLER, OF MARYLAND.

The next speaker introduced was Caroline H. Miller, of Maryland. Mrs. Miller spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: We are here to-day to give reasons why we desire the ballot. I will therefore offer no apology for the few straightforward remarks I am about to make.

Two years ago my colored boy attained his majority. About that time I had occasion to say to him, “Edward, you need not split the wood that you bring up to my room; I prefer it in large pieces.” He replied, “Dis wood is too heavy to bring up de steps widout splittin' it.” I wanted to explain, but it was useless. The proposition was too stupendous for his intellect; and yet he was considered competent under the laws of our country to assist in the great questions of political economy; for on election day he wended his way to the polls and deposited his ballot, thereby enrolling himself among my sovereigns.

Gentlemen, this is one reason why I want to vote; I want to apply my intelligence where it will in some measure counteract or at least neutralize the dense ignorance of my serving man. When slavery was 008 9swept from his race—that grand consummation at which my soul rejoiced—it was through a resistless tide of human blood. How will it be removed from us? For is not slavery synonymous with taxation without representation, with the living and, it may be, suffering under laws in the framing of which we have no voice? I will tell you how I believe it will be done. Through the stirrings of an innate and overwhelming sense of justice in the minds and in the hearts of you, the lawmakers, that you can rest no longer under the startling paradox that we women, the equally intelligent and capable companions of men, are unfitted through the mere chance of sex to govern ourselves. It may be treason to admit it, but, as a general rule, I believe that women are not as strong intellectually as men. I believe, in the main, that men are better workers than women.

But what has this to do with the question? We need no more compare the two in these respects than we need compare trees with grass, or air with water. The point is this: Do the women we know govern themselves as well as do the men we know? In the capacity of mother, at least—and I presume that the majority of women become mothers—we have an ample training school in self government.

Senator Peffer. The best in the world.

Mrs. Miller. We have constantly to arbitrate cases in our own growing families requiring patience and prudence, sound judgment, justice, and fortitude. Why may not these attributes be as safely applied in the conducting of a nation as in the conducting of a home? An old and threadbare apothegm rushes to my lips—excuse its appearance, for it so well suits our case here to-day—“Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.”

Rev. Anna H. Shaw. Those are the sentiments of us all.

REMARKS OF LAVINA A. HATCH, OF MASSACHUSETTS.

The next lady introduced to the committee was Lavina A. Hatch, of Massachusetts. She said:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have various things which I would say for Massachusetts, but as I have only a few minutes allotted me within which to speak, I shall make my argument as brief as possible.

There is nothing so hard to explain as an axiom. So every year as we come before this committee the more difficult becomes our task to give reasons why we want the ballot. It seems an affront to your good sense to bring arguments for what is self evident. So we will not waste time on fundamental truths, but I will give a few reasons why it is expedient to give woman the ballot.

The great advances that woman has made in public affairs, her rapid strides in education, the constant appeal to her to undertake great enterprises in the interest of charity and mercy show that the nation is deprived of the highest development of her powers by not clothing her with the ballot, for the responsibility of being a factor in the Government has a sobering effect and prompts one to bring the best judgment to bear. Another reason why it is expedient is, woman suffrage has been tried in three States by full, and in many by partial, suffrage and, as all admit, it has worked well. So this is a practical and another strong reason for giving the ballot to her. Another reason of its expediency is, the more who take part in suffrage the greater hold has the nation on the loyalty and cooperation of its citizens. It is a popular loan distributed among the people of a Commonwealth.

009 10

But the greatest reason of all to me is that women are pressing to the front. Years ago there were a few leaders, but the rank and file of womankind were indifferent to the suffrage; now unbelievers are the exceptions. Even the opponents of woman suffrage admit this, and say it is in the air and bound to come sooner or later. Is it not expedient to grant it now, when women may become trained in its normal workings, rather than have it granted in the exigency of some social revolution, when it might be turned, because unskilled, into channels of bigotry and fanaticism?

Some years ago, in Massachusetts, a petition for municipal suffrage was sent to the legislature. Many friends of the cause spoke in its favor, but there was one man who used all the eloquence with which he was possessed in terms derogatory of the petition. “What,” said he, “are the names of 7,000 women worth? They are of no more consequence than 7,000 mice.” Now, that was a most ungentlemanly remark, and a slur upon his mother, as well as upon all women.

But from the standpoint of those of his caliber he spoke the truth. Without the moral support of the ballot a petition of 7,000 men would have been worth no more. With it 700 men, or a much less number, would have great weight.

Gentlemen, I beg of you all to use your best efforts to have this just petition granted now.

REMARKS OF MAY STOCKING KNAGGS, OF MICHIGAN.

The next lady introduced to the committee was Mrs. May Stocking Knaggs, of Michigan. She said:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: I stand before you representing nearly 600,000 women of the age of 21 years and upward in the great State of Michigan. Of these about 100,000 are wage-earning women, in the trades, industries, and professions. These women are asking for the ballot that they may protect their industrial interests, as the ballot has been given to all classes of men to protect their various interests. There are also about 76,000 property-holding women, owning $34,000,000, and paying into the Treasury yearly something over $2,000,000 in taxes.

Our forefathers rebelled against British domination upon the principle that “taxation without representation is tyranny,” and if it is tyranny for men it is tyranny for women also. Again, the women of our State are placed in a peculiar position. We often hear it said that women are classed before the law with idiots, lunatics, and criminals, but this is not true in the State of Michigan. There is nothing in the constitution of our State that debars these classes from the ballot box. The idiot and the lunatic, if they have wits enough to fold and deposit a ballot, may do so. The criminal who has served his term in the penitentiary, or been pardoned out, is not disfranchised.

In the Kansas Building at the World's Fair many of you saw a notable picture, a portrait of Frances E. Willard, her face the enthronement of intellectual and spiritual power. At one corner was a driveling idiot, at another a frantic maniac, at a third a low-browed criminal, and in the fourth a painted and befeathered Indian; and this picture was called “Woman and her political peers.” But if that picture were brought into our State it would have to be rechristened “Woman and her political superiors.” Gentlemen, it is humiliating; it is unjust. We therefore appeal to you in behalf of the wives, daughters, and sisters of the 010 11loyal men of Michigan to do what lies in your power to remove from us this stigma.

Senator Peffer. And it ought to be done.

REMARKS OF MRS. JULIA B. NELSON, OF MINNESOTA.

The next lady introduced was Julia B. Nelson, of Minnesota. She said:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: Like all the other women who appear before you this morning, I come as a missionary, according to the first meaning of the word—missionary, one who is sent. I am sent by the women of Minnesota to advocate a doctrine that is older than the Monroe doctrine and more intensely American—the Jeffersonian, Washingtonian, broadly republican, truly democratic principle found in the Declaration of Independence—the right of the individual—the inherent, inalienable right of which the ballot is the sign and seal. Our forefathers made no mistake in saying that all men are created equal. They did not mean to say all “males.” They used the word “man” in its broad sense, the sense in which we understand it when women bear the burdens of government and pay the penalties of violated law.

Without the ballot man has no assurance that his inalienable rights will be respected or protected. Where some have the ballot and others have it not, those who are ballotless hold all their privileges and possessions at the mercy of all the rest. The right of petition, which has been woman's chief right, is merely the right to be a beggar. Should the wives, mothers, and daughters of this Republic be beggars all?

I come from a State where we have little to complain of as regards rights of property. We may possess what is ours, hold it in our own names, make our wills, and even commit matrimony without invalidating them, so that the women who are dead may have their will whether they have had it while they lived or not. Widows are well provided for, as compared with the widows of many other States. But some tell us because we are accorded the rights of property and the right to education we have nothing more to ask—that we have no grievance. Had our forefathers any grievance when the people of England treated them as inferior to themselves? It was not the paltry tax on tea for which they rebelled and fought the eight years' war of the Revolution. It was because they were unwilling to be treated as inferiors—taxed without representation and governed by those whom they had no voice in choosing.

Women are treated as inferiors in this Government, which claims to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. They are classed with idiots, lunatics, maniacs, paupers, minors, convicts, wild Indians, and arch traitors—with all who have neither intelligence nor morality.

Yet we are told that our grievance is all in our minds. That is just where it is. Those who have no minds have no grievance, and the more mind we have the more grievance. The woman whose mind is developed as the minds of some of the women of to-day have had the chance to be, feels more keenly the contempt of the men who make laws in which she and her children are concerned without reference to her and her wishes or the interests of her family, than the ignorant woman of other lands, who is yoked with the beasts in the field, feels and resents a blow.

Future punishment is now generally supposed to be all in the mind, but those who know what mental suffering is are convinced that the 011 12lake of fire and brimstone is but a faint picture of what may befall those who go unwhipped of justice through the world when the slumbering conscience wakens after death's mystery.

As the minds of American women are broadened by education and by the degree of freedom which they already possess, they resent more and more the stigma of incompetency for self-government which has been placed upon them in every State constitution, save in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. They protest against men's assuming to think for them and treating them as perpetual minors.

The son of Hagar, the bondwoman, was a wild man; his hand was against every man, and every man's hand was against him. The son of the free woman was the child of promise. It is because woman has not been free to develop her own powers and to decide her own destiny that there are so many Ishmaels in society to-day and so few children of promise. We ask for freedom not only because liberty is sweet to all God's children, but also because it is the condition most favorable for human development. In pleading for the passage of the joint resolution looking to a sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the right of a citizen of the United States to vote shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or by any State on account of sex, we are not asking for the disfranchisement of any man nor that any woman shall be compelled to vote. Can any lover of liberty ask for more? Can any friend of justice grant us less?

REMARKS OF MRS. V. CONKLING WHITNEY, OF MISSOURI.

The next lady introduced to the committee was Mrs. V. Conkling Whitney, who spoke as follows:

Members of the Committee and Friends Here: I come to-day merely to ask the right of women to vote as citizens of the United States—not as women, especially, but as citizens—because we know that the foundation upon which all free governments rest, and out of which all these natural rights to vote flow as from a common center, has been very clearly and definitely stated by Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his late work on sociology, to be the liberty of each individual, limited by the like liberty of all.

As the fundamental truth originating and yet circumscribing the validity of laws and of constitutions, it seems to me it can not be stated in a simpler form. Every person has a right and freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal rights and freedom of any other person; or go back of Herbert Spencer, to the foundation of all righteous legislation, and do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you; this is the law and the only law of just social relationships. And it is in this law, embodied in statute form, that the rights of individual liberty, of thought, of speech, and of political action find their complete justification and expression.

It will be observed that absolute equality is the essence of it all. Any recognition of an inequality of rights is, and must be, fatal to liberty. Under our form of government these rights inhere in the individual. They are a part of their very existence as individuals, as citizens. They are not the gift of any man or any aggregation of men. The assumption that freedom in any of its forms is a privilege conceded by society is utterly and entirely unwarrantable; because society itself, as constituted under our form of government, is a concession from the individual for mutual protection and mutual benefit. And society or government represents nothing more than the liberty of each, limited 012 13by the liberty of all; and it is in this fundamental truth that we find the core and the essence of this right of franchise, or suffrage, alike for both men and women.

It is in this sense and flowing from this axiom that the rights of franchise inhere and appertain to all men and women alike. Franchise is in itself nothing more than a mode of participating in the common government, and represents only the interest each individual or person has therein; an interest, as you see, as vital as life and liberty itself. Now, that limitations may attach thereto, just as they attach to freedom of speech or freedom of action, is perfectly true. But they must be equal limitations applicable to all men and to all women alike as citizens, and these limitations must not be leveled at the inherent right of any individual, or class, or sex, or color.

The exclusion of criminals from franchise (convicted criminals, I should say), the designation of terms of minority as connected with the exercise of political duties, the attempt to regulate the admission of citizenship to persons coming from foreign countries—all these limitations find their justification in a principle which so far from recognizing in government or society a purely arbitrary control of the rights and exercise of self-government or personal liberty brings it down within the rigid and narrow limits of equality and necessity. The consideration before mentioned that the right of franchise is neither more nor less than the right of self-protection and self-government, as exercised through a personal participation in the common government of all, shows that if it be not a natural right, it will be difficult to say in what a natural right consists. Indeed, it is the most natural of any of our rights, inasmuch as its denial to any person is the denial of all right to personal liberty; for how can such a right exist when the right to maintain it is denied to a man or woman?

An inherent right. If the right of men and women to share in the government over us is not inherent, from whence does it come? Who can give the right to govern another? And how can man give that which he himself does not possess? Society is but the aggregate of individual men and women, and its authority represents only the conceded rights of all alike.

Again, if a man or woman can be divested of this right to vote either by themselves or by the will of government, then you must realize at once that government has no limit to its rightful tyranny. It may divest not only you and me, one person, or sex, or class, but a hundred, a thousand, a million, all except the chosen few or the imperial one, thus arriving inevitably and summarily at oligarchic or despotic rule; and if any person can divest himself or herself of this right and this duty, what other right, what other duty, is sacred from his renunciation? And so woman must vote, or society becomes chaotic or despotic.

To demonstrate the utter falsity and the pernicious and dangerous consequences of the idea that the right to share in the common government is a privilege to be farmed out by government at its discretion and to whom it chooses, it is only necessary to ask, If that be so, whence comes the right to representation?

That our Government, and other Governments, do undertake to limit the franchise to the few men as a privilege coming from the body corporate has nothing to do with the question, for I am now discussing inherent rights, not the wrong practices of our Government. Neither are we to be frightened nor driven from this position by the difficulties which may arise in readjusting our form of government to this new and righteous order of things.

013 14

No one can for a moment, with any show of reason or justice, deny that the rights of women are intrinsically and forever the same as those of men. Nor is this vital theme and topic deserving only the sneer of the vulgar or the coarse irony and jest of the more brutal part of mankind. I venture to affirm that the purity, the refinement, and intuitive reading of character, the elegant culture of the women of our land, if brought to bear upon the conduct of our political affairs, would do much to elevate them in all their aims, and to speedily and permanently conform them to higher standards of justice and equity.

The facts are, this participation of women in civil affairs is neither a new nor an uncommon experiment. In all countries and under all forms of government where political power has been of an absolute and hereditary character, women have shared it whenever they happened by birth to hold the position to which it was attached; and I confess that all history confirms the fact of their wisdom and integrity in these high positions of trust, and of their eminent ability and fitness to administer the government. With this incontrovertible evidence flooding the pages of history, it certainly is not fair to withhold any longer this right from woman and then insist that she is unfit or incapable of exercising it wisely.

It is plain that the public mind is fast ripening toward a radical change in the position of woman on this question. Already nearly all the colleges in the United States have opened their doors and welcome all women who desire to pursue a liberal course of study. Medical colleges, law schools, theological institutes, all invite woman now to come and fit herself for any and every position and profession to which her tastes and her unquestioned ability and talents may lead her; for where women are, there open forth all possibilities of attainment, of culture, and of character.

REMARKS OF MARY D. HUSSEY, OF NEW JERSEY.

The next speaker introduced to the committee was Mary D. Hussey, of New Jersey. She said:

Mr. Chairman: New Jersey was the only State of the original thirteen that came into the Union with a constitution (adopted two days before the Declaration of Independence), which guaranteed to all inhabitants equal rights, irrespective of sex.

In early acts of her legislature defining the qualifications of voters we find the words “he or she” were used, showing that the men of our State intended to enfranchise the women, who, with them, had endured all the hardships of the colonial days. And for thirty one years the women of New Jersey had their opinions counted at the ballot box. And in one election they made such effective use of this opportunity that when the defeated party again came into power they passed an act, in 1807, unconstitutionally depriving the women of their right to vote.

But the long injustice resulting from this political crime shall not continue forever; for I stand here to represent thousands of the best women of my State who will never rest until their political disabilities are removed.

REMARKS OF MARIANNA W. CHAPMAN, OF NEW YORK.

The next lady introduced was Marianna W. Chapman, of New York. She spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: In presenting 014 15the claims of woman suffrage we find in our opponents a constantly retreating element. Our new antisuffragists tell us that suffrage is not a right, that it is not a privilege, and that it has nothing to do with the questions of justice or injustice; that all such notions are as old-fashioned as the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and do not belong to the new code of ethics.

They insist that the community to-day is looking only at practical results, and that it is therefore necessary to base our argument upon the ground of gain or loss to the national welfare. While we do not admit the truth of these statements, we are willing to meet our adversaries upon any ground, anywhere; and we therefore claim that we have at the ballot box to-day, taking the people as men and women, the larger proportion of the saloon element, the gambling element, the criminal element, and the smaller proportion of the church element, the philanthropic element, and that the nation thereby sustains a loss of virtue.

We further claim that it sustains a loss in intelligence. It is not possible for me to reason from other than the figures of my own State, because it is only with them that I am familiar, but I think that the States on this side of the mountains at least have similar conditions with approximate results.

In his last report the secretary of the New York State University reported that 56 per cent of the students in the seminaries and academies of the State of New York were girls, and that the boys received 140 of the honor credentials and the girls 298, a proportion of 68 per cent for the girls. We shall take only 32 per cent of this superior intelligence to the polls.

And in noting the statistics of immigration for 1893, we found that there came to this country 11 foreign men to every 4 foreign women. This, with probably other circumstances, combined to produce the result in our census of 1890, which reported 56,000 more native-born white women in the State of New York than native-born white men. I say white, because the colored population is nearly equal in the matter of sex. This loss in the proportion of native-born voters argues another loss of intelligence at the ballot box.

Then we have opponents who have retreated to the last plank, insisting that behind every ballot must be a bullet to sustain its choice, whereas we know that the wisdom and experience which cast the best ballot are apt to be in inverse ratio to the power of wielding clubs and handling guns. Even if it were otherwise, these people do not remember that under the laws of the United States the only force permissible in the settlement of difficulties rests in a paid department—an army, navy, and police force—all of which is paid for by the money of men and women, both of whom are, therefore, entitled to the service; or, if that is cast aside, we may claim, with Mrs. Wallace, that some woman has gone down into the valley of the shadow of death for every soldier that ever was born, and that is commensurate service.

REMARKS OF MISS HELEN MORRIS LEWIS, OF NORTH CAROLINA

The next lady introduced to the committee was Miss Helen Morris Lewis, of North Carolina. She said:

Gentlemen of the Committee: I am here in the interests of the women of North Carolina to petition that we be granted equal rights with men. In our State women are accorded no suffrage whatever; they are permitted to hold no political offices, and many of the laws are detrimental to our welfare.

015 16

It should be the duty of every civilized government to place a safeguard around individual liberty, by allowing its people to have a voice to protect their interests.

Ambassador Bayard says: “The result of the destruction of personal freedom is the enfeeblement of the moral fiber and the paralysis of individual, intellectual, and moral growth.” These remarks were forcibly illustrated to me a short time since. I lost railroad connection and found myself stranded at one of our remote towns. I resolved to make the most of my time by delivering an address on woman suffrage.

To accomplish this purpose it was necessary for me to visit every house in person and acquaint the inmates with my intention.

I found the men on the village square quite intelligent. The idea of giving the ballot to women was a novelty to them, but they soon hobnobbed together in front of the post-office and harangued every phase of the question with much spirit and hilarity. I felt quite encouraged at this wide-awake community, and with renewed energy started forth on my tour amid domestic life.

Have you ever visited the poorhouses of our great cities and noticed the pallid hopelessness, the sodden indifference depicted on every countenance?

Well, in an intensified degree was that hopelessness and indifference written in every line of the women's faces I met that day. They were all very poor; they had swarms of children; they were yellow and skinny, hollow-eyed and lantern-jawed, and their hair grew like drought-smitten timothy. Into each separate head I hammered woman suffrage for a solid half hour, dwelling upon the advantages it would bring to their condition. But it was pitiful to observe the feeble ray of intelligence that struggled through their torpid brains. Their bovine vacuity of expression betokened lives devoid of all interest, much less enlightenment. Imprisoned within the walls of homes that contained no comforts, much less luxuries, even the joys that should accompany motherhood had been perverted into sorrow and bitterness.

I contrasted the lives of the men on the square with those of the women. The butcher, the blacksmith, the shoemaker, amid all their grime and drudgery, had an air of self-respect; they felt that they were of importance in the world; they met together, talked on the vital questions of the nation, had ambitions as great as those of Cardinal Wolsey. The men never talked to the women, but went home only to gobble and sleep. Their wives' opinions were perfectly worthless, so they were left to a withering decay of their mental faculties.

When I ponder on the cheerful insensibility of men to the shadowed existence of women, it reminds me of an incident connected with a friend who was ill. Her little boy was rubbing her arm, when she moaned, “Oh, Tommy, mamma's so sorry she's such a trouble to you!” Tommy cheerfully replied, “Never mind, mamma; we doesn't care how much you suffer so long as you is just alive.” [Laughter.] Such men as these are but Tommys of a larger growth; they don't care how much we suffer; they think women have sufficient privileges given them in being allowed to be just alive. Now, gentlemen, there are thousands of such women as these all over the country. Do they tend to the world's advancement? Are they fit to rear intelligent citizens and to mold the characters of future generations that shall be an honor to our Republic?

These women in being deprived of the ballot are shut off from one of the greatest educational methods. If they were voters, their husbands would respect their opinions, and instead of spending their time 016 17gaining outside constituents would be gaining constituents by their own firesides. Think not that this change would unsex women; there would have to be a new creation for the feminine to become masculine, for the mother to forget her offspring or turn a deaf ear to the supplications of the weak and helpless. Women's brains and characters can develop; their nature is unchangeable. Even the fiercest and most tumultuous surroundings never alter the innate gentleness of certain men. Days of desperate carnage never made Stonewall Jackson forget his highest duty, as leaning on his musket in the starlit night he held communion with his God. A hundred battlefields never hardened General Lee, as with a heart pierced by a thousand sorrows he surrendered the sword of the lost cause at Appomattox. Such men as these never lose the innocence and gentleness with which they lisped their prayers at their mother's knees; neither can political affairs make women false to their inborn instincts or lose one atom of the soft, loving tenderness that God has implanted in their breasts.

When women's opinions are counted as well as men's, it will only be adding fresh dignity and respect to the home; it will only be opening the darkened windows and letting the sunshine of enlightenment nurture the nurseries of our nation. Voting will never lessen maternal love. Office holding will never smother conjugal affection. The hardest problems of government will never shatter love's young dream.

Gentlemen, in the name of these women of my State, and for the betterment of the wives, mothers, and daughters of our land, I implore you to use your influence for our enfranchisement.

REMARKS OF MRS. SOUTHARD, OF OKLAHOMA.

Gentlemen of the Committee: I am a home woman, and not a speaker. But among the busy cares of my home I have time to think of justice and to know that the withholding of the franchise from women is a wrong done us. And other women of Oklahoma see the same truth. Now we are organized and are a part of the great band of women in this nation asking for enfranchisement. That is the message I bring from Oklahoma to the national capital.

Rev. Anna H. Siiaw. Our women are arduous workers, many of them; and there are many of them public speakers. But some of them have never been called out to speak in public upon the conditions of the women in this country, and especially upon the political questions of the day. But we have a great many orators among us, orators who began their careers at curtain lectures and end on the stump.

MRS. LUCRETIA L. BLANKENBURG, OF PENNSYLVANIA.

The next lady introduced was Mrs. Blankenburg, of Pennsylvania. She said:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: Pennsylvania, I have no doubt you remember, was bought by William Penn of the Indians for the purpose of establishing a holy experiment—that of universal liberty to the people that settled there. And I, as a home maker and descendant from these people, come here to-day to ask you to help us make our homes what we desire. Pennsylvania is noted for her homes. She stands at the head of the list in the United States. We are noted as housekeepers and home makers. We only have one little opportunity to try our hand in politics, and that is on the school board. We do not have the right to vote for women as school directors, S.Doc.157—2 017 18but if we can secure the courtesy of the men we may be elected to school boards.

At a recent meeting held in our State, the State school superintendent said that he desired that women should be put on the school boards wherever it was possible, and gave as his reason that mothers looked after the interest of the children, and wherever there were women on the school boards things were attended to properly. The schoolhouses were kept clean, the text-books were revised, and repairs were looked after.

Now, to make one practical illustration. I live in Philadelphia. We have there several large clubs whose object is to look after the welfare of the city. We have the Women's Health Protective Association, the Civic Club, and others, with from 500 to 600 members each. We have tried in vain to get better water to drink. We have petitioned, we have had hearings before council committees, and, gentlemen, we have come to the conclusion that the word influence does not apply to politics. We have held public meetings. It is all of no avail. Our health protective association has investigated all manner of filtration systems and presented a system that has proved good elsewhere, and yet our city fathers tell us “there is no money that can be used to try filtration at present.”

We are tired of waiting for clean water, clean streets, and a wholesome city. We have petitioned to our city fathers, we have gone to Harrisburg and asked for a constitutional amendment to give us the ballot. Now we come here to you as the last resort, and we ask you to put us in such a position that we can protect our homes and make them as they ought to be.

REMARKS OF MISS MARY N. CHASE, OF VERMONT.

The next speaker introduced to the committee was Miss Mary N. Chase, of Vermont. She said:

Phillips Brooks said that the enfranchisement of woman was simply a question of justice. We women claim that the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence are our heritage as well as of man, our brother. Some of the leading statesmen in this country and England have said that the protection of life, liberty, and happiness can be secured only through the ballot. Do you claim that the broadest life, the largest liberty, are ours when we are considered as perpetual minors and are placed on the same political basis as criminals, insane, and idiots?

One thought was clearly brought out at the national convention upon which too great emphasis can not be laid. That is, that the strength, the stability, of a nation depends largely upon the recognition of this grand principle—the right of the individual to develop every God-given faculty and to exercise every power according to the dictates of his or her own conscience.

Thousands of women in this great Republic of ours believe that it is their duty as well as their right to have a voice in the government under which they live and whose laws they have to obey. This love of liberty, this desire for justice, which is thrilling the hearts of the earnest, thoughtful women of to-day, is a spark of the same Divine fire that has led thousands upon thousands to lay down life itself, if need be, for love of country, for the uplifting of humanity.

The fact that man and woman are so constituted that each can represent only one half of the human unit is proof positive that neither was ever intended to usurp authority over the other. There are many 018 19questions of vital interest to woman and the home which it is utterly impossible for man to look at from the woman's point of view. Hence arises great injustice to woman. Not because men are bad, but because they have their limitations, and can not, therefore, legislate justly for the whole human family. If woman had always held the reins of government, doubtless man would have equal cause for complaint.

Never until the Divine edict is obeyed, until the man and the woman, equal but different, standing side by side, rule and have dominion over the earth, can we, with any show of reason or justice, claim that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Rev. Anna H. Shaw. Mr. Chairman, now we go from Vermont down to Virginia, and so we come to you from all over the Union. The word of Virginia will be voiced by Mrs. Orra Langhorne.

REMARKS OF ORRA LANGHORNE, OF VIRGINIA.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: As a citizen, a native, and a resident of Virginia, I am here this morning representing a number of Virginia women, to request that when the sixteenth amendment is reported from the Judiciary Committee, you will do all in your power to secure its passage.

While we acknowledge courtesy and chivalry on the part of the men of Virginia, yet they still demand of us money for taxes without giving us the corresponding representation. They refuse us admittance to, and the benefit of, the highest and best institutions of our State, which are supported by State funds. They hold us amenable to the laws which we have no voice in making; they still deny us the advantage of earning a living in the higher professions, and deny us admittance to the learned professions even after we have been allowed to fit ourselves in spite of great obstacles for earning a living in that way. Therefore we request that the ballot be given us in order that we may protect our interests as American citizens; and we believe it will be greatly to the advantage of the administration of public affairs in our own State, and we are determined that it shall be given to us.

REMARKS OF VIRGINIA D. YOUNG, OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Gentlemen: As a native and lifelong resident of South Carolina, I claim to represent her, and wish to call your attention to certain conditions in my State which imperatively demand for their amelioration and care the ballot in the hands of her women.

In the late constitutional convention it was admitted that we suffered frauds in our elections, and the committee on suffrage worked hard, devoting all its energies to concoct some plan by which white supremacy might be attained without trenching on the fifteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

The plan finally resolved upon does not absolutely insure honest registering and honest elections. And therefore it has not solved the problem of giving a sense of protection and satisfaction to all our citizens. The truth is, the frands that have prevailed in elections in my State constitute the taproot of lynchings and mob rule. Our negro population cherish a deep sense of being defrauded of their rights at the ballot box, and the sense of wrong among the more intelligent is communicated to the more brutal among them, and they, acting on the spur of deadly hatred, wreak their vengeance on the helpless and innocent. Rape and murder and house burning all recur again and again, perpetrated by these ignorant people.

019 20

Gentlemen, give the women of South Carolina the ballot, with a property and educational qualification, and they will outnumber the negro voters so that these people's ballots can be honestly counted.

I believe from my heart that woman suffrage in South Carolina will settle straightway the present strained and uneasy relations between the races and stop the brutal crimes to punish which our impulsive white citizens take the law into their own hands and horrify the best people in our State, as well as the outside world, by lynching.

REMARKS OF MRS. LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE, OF NEW YORK

The next lady introduced to the committee was Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake, of New York. She said:

Mr. Chairmen and Gentlemen of the Committee: I desire to say one practical word. We are here to urge you to report favorably from your committee the constitutional amendment providing for woman suffrage which you now have before you. We earnestly hope that you will use your influence to secure a vote on this question in the Senate. Even if we are to be defeated, we still desire a roll call, so that we may know where every man stands on this vital question.

If I am to add a word more, after all the able arguments to which you have listened, I will relate an incident in connection with the majestic figure that crowns the Dome of this Capitol. It is a statue of Liberty, although there has been some confusion in regard to it because of the costume. It has been supposed to be Victory or Justice. Jefferson Davis was chairman of the committee which considered the designs submitted for the statue. They had various degrees of merit, but all of them represented Liberty wearing the Phrygian cap. Mr. Davis objected to this. He said that the Phrygian cap was given to the emancipated slaves of Greece to prove that they had been set free. Our American Liberty is freeborn. She wears no cap indicating that she was once a slave, but is armed with helmet and spear and shield, to show that she has always been free and is prepared, if necessary, to defend her freedom.

Alas, gentlemen, when the women of this country are enfranchised they will wear the Phrygian cap; only future generations will be freeborn.

Senator Peffer. I would ask the ladies present, through their chairwoman, whether there is any appreciable increase, taking the country over, in the number of women who are enrolling themselves in your ranks?

Rev. Anna H. Shaw. Yes, sir. The reports brought to our convention this year show not only an increase in the number of those who accept our theory, and who, therefore, are all democratic, but also in the number of home makers working for the cause in their own particular States of the Union. For the first time in the history of our cause we have representatives from every State and nearly all of the Territories in our convention, and every State in our Union is organized, with a State society with members who are actively working in our interest.

Senator Peffer. That is the only question I wish to ask.

The Chairman. Are there any other ladies who desire to be heard? We would be very glad to hear from any of you.

Rev. Anna H. Shaw. We cut their time down, Mr. Chairman, because of the shortness of the time. But now we learn that several are unavoidably absent from our meeting to-day and are not here to represent 020 21their States, and so we have a little time left which we did not at first expect to have, as they did not report that they would not be here, I would like to say a word or two in the line which was suggested by Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Blankenburg, of Philadelphia, Pa. You see, we do not all agree among ourselves any more than do the members of the Senate agree among themselves. Mrs. Miller said it was treason—and I think it was treason—when she remarked that the brains of men are stronger than those of women, and that men are harder workers than women, in the main.

In regard to the first proposition there is still a little doubt. Women have not had all the educational advantages of the men, save with a few exceptions. It is only within the last half century that the conditions have materially improved.

In the past centuries, when they had no such opportunities, there were rare exceptions which showed the strength of woman's brain, and with only a few instances was the development of her brain possible from lack of educational advantages. A thousand years from now Mrs. Miller may be able to make her statement with some degree of accuracy, but not now. But in regard to the other proposition, I doubt if there is one of us—except Mrs. Miller—who will admit that men are better workers than women. They do a better kind of work than women; but they strike for eight, ten, and twelve hours a day, and we would be glad to strike for eighteen. We can work in almost every calling. Women are usually wanted where good work is needed, but every effort is made to keep them at work which does not allow the development and growth of their intellectual powers and enjoyment of life which comes to men in every walk of life.

These women toil year in and year out without any kind of compensation. Nearly all the women of the United States, or a large majority of them, work from one year's end to the other without any salary whatever; and I doubt very much if men received for their toil what we women of the world receive for ours whether they would toil as earnestly as do the women of the world to-day, who receive no salaries save a home and affection, and sometimes they lack both home and affection.

Mrs. Blankenburg spoke of the municipal government and how it was neglected in certain departments, not because men willingly neglected things, but because men are incompetent to transact all the affairs of government. For instance, take my own city government; it is a corporation come together for the good of the whole.

I do not say that women are better than men, but certainly we are better housekeepers than men.

During certain seasons of the year—and it is not necessary to say when it is—the wind blows down the street on which I live and the dirt of a week's accumulation is scattered in every direction; so that it is a very dusty street when it is dusty. The gentlemen who have in charge the city in which I live have put the sweeping of the streets in the hands of a man who makes it a rule to sweep the streets on Tuesday. Of course the dust comes into our houses and we are covered with it; and just as the housewife has again gone through the process of cleaning her house, on Wednesday the ash man comes through the streets. We put our ashes and débris on the sidewalk in suitable receptacles a waiting his coming, and in the meantime the wind blows again and the ashes and paper are again blown into our houses. The streets are swept on Tuesday and the ashes are gathered on Wednesday.

That is a specimen of man's political housekeeping. Now, I am 021 22quite sure that if women were in our city government and had charge of the sweeping of the streets we would, with proper order, have the ashes taken up on Tuesday and the streets cleaned on Wednesday. That is only a sample of how the political works of our cities are carried on by men who hold that women do not know how to take care of city government, and is a fair example of what men would be as housekeepers. Probably if one of these men tried to sweep the stairs he would begin at the bottom. In every department of life women have shown themselves capable of taking care of the duties assigned them and to have done most excellent work.

I own a little stock in a bank in my city and have the same rights as any of the men who own stock there, and my voice goes as far as that of any other equal shareholder. I have a little stock in the railway, and the same is true of that. I own a cranberry bog; the same is true of it also. My vote there goes as far as anyone else's.

Now, this is not so in the city government; we are taxed to help support it, but we have no voice in its management. And this is the state of affairs, and its logic is beyond the mind of a woman to grasp. And it is the righting of this wrong which we ask at your hands. We ask the right to vote and to undertake the duties which we are willing and anxious and able to perform. We ask it that it may be beneficial to us as it has been to you.

It will be better for the women, and possibly it will make you better, nobler, and grander men; and so also it will be better, for the State and for the nation. In the discharge of their political duties we believe the community would be benefited, and all good men and good women of sound and strong minds will agree with me that it will be better for our industries, and make men and women better, law-abiding citizens. If the men and women unite, it will be a great deal better for our welfare than to have men make laws by themselves while women stand by as outsiders. We ask this privilege, or right, or duty, whichever it may be; and, gentlemen, we ask you in the name of the women of the United States to report this bill and, if possible, to bring it to a vote; and we also ask you—if it will be possible, and we believe it is—to grant us this power.

We thank you for your courtesy and kindness during the hearing and trust that our prayer may be granted.

The Chairman. I only desire to say, ladies, that we are very glad to see you here, and that your remarks will be printed and laid before the members of the Senate.

Senator Peffer. Before retiring I wish to say that I am not only glad to see you here, but I am glad to be here myself. [Applause.] First of all I owe you an apology, or, rather, an explanation. My early absence was not because of tardiness; it was because I did not know the meeting was called for this particular hour. As soon as I received word by telephone I dropped everything and came as fast as I could; and that was pretty fast for a 20-year-old boy. [Laughter.]

Now, I wish to say a word by way of encouragement to you. In the first place, I believe that what you ask is fundamentally right. Those of you who have studied the history of social development understand very well how your degradation in past years has come about. Originally what little there was of government was of a paternal, patriarchal character, of men only—the old man, the head of the family; the next oldest followed, and from him on down. The rest of the children were slaves, both boys and girls. Eventually, in the evolution of society, conditions were changed, until now we find you where you are. I have 022 23no time to go through the details, and the principles you understand as well as I do.

Now, take the social affairs of every married man, and there are a good many of them. At one period in his life he went out among his fellow men and women and searched for himself the best woman in the world and he made her his wife; who, allowing him to be the judge, was the best woman in the world. At that time he would not have been willing to exchange that girl for all the rest of the girls in Christendom. As years passed along he and his little wife became the father and mother of a family. Who does the most governing in that family?

One good woman here a little while ago spoke about the field in which a mother learns to govern. And instinctively I respond to her truthful statement, It is the best field in the world. I ask who it is that does the greater part of the governing? Who is constantly in attendance upon the little ones? Now, can it be true, after her children have grown up to maturity and have gone out in the world among their fellows, that the mother's interest in them is lost? Can she not see more of them?

I wish to say, in conclusion, that I do not believe that we can do without you much longer in the affairs of government.

Senator Hoar. I will not undertake to discuss this question in the few minutes that remain. I have made a great many speeches in favor of woman suffrage in my time. I was not able to be present at the hearing this morning, owing to another engagement, and have only heard the last part of what Senator Peffer has said. I will not say to you that he has persuaded me to be a convert, but that he has almost persuaded me to be a Populist, if all the sentiments he entertains are as wise as those.

The chairman declared the hearing closed.