While eight women were candidates for the city council no one of them expected to be elected, but each entered the lists to make an educational campaign. Two of these campaigns were especially noteworthy. Marion K. Drake led the forlorn hope in running against the notorious alderman, “Bathhouse John” Coughlin who for over twenty years has disgraced the first ward and city of Chicago by exploiting the floating vote of the lodging houses. Her spirited campaign against his character and the conditions for which he stands was well supported by many of the most influential men and women of the city, and resulted in doubling the vote cast against him as compared with that of two years ago. With 7,355 men voting in that ward, and only a few more than 3,000 women, this is a good showing although nearly 600 more women voted for the discredited man than for the worthy woman candidate, which is not surprising in view of the dependence of the underworld upon its patrons.
In the great cosmopolitan tenement house family ward, surrounding the Northwestern University Settlement, its head resident, Harriet E. Vittum, made a most effective educational campaign. Her slogans were “For the babies,” “For the school children,” “For the working boys and girls,” “For men and women,” under each of which she grouped the better home conditions and municipal policies for which she asked votes. A house to house canvass among the foreign people, rousing mass meetings with many men speaking for her in the foreign languages and a children’s parade of many hundreds of little boys and girls were some of the features of the campaign. That any woman in such a “man’s world” as this ward has been could have secured 1,421 votes, the number next highest to that of the reëlected alderman speaks highly for her candidacy.
In deciding the important public measures, including heavy bonded issues, the women showed as intelligent discrimination as the men. In proportion as these propositions were actually most dangerous or doubtful, they were overwhelmingly defeated—notably a discredited subway scheme, a suspicious county hospital bond issue, and some city bond issues for purposes for which other funds are available.
Many women served as clerks and judges of election throughout the city, with two noteworthy results—that their services were highly commended by the election commissioners and that every woman official reported the most considerate and decorous speech and conduct upon the part of the men during registration and election days. The leading election commissioner issued the following statement on the morning after election: “Chicago women are again to be congratulated as an influence for good in politics. Their presence was like oil on the turbulent waters in every precinct of every ward in which there were bitter clashes. In no precinct did the presence and activity of women in the political contest make them mannish. There was less drunkenness around the polling places than there has been in years, because the practical politicians knew that drunken workers around a polling place would drive away the vote of the women for their candidates. Today’s election really demonstrated that elections and government have been brought closer to the home. The women have shown that. Above all, the women in all walks of life and in all parties proved they are interested in and appreciate their duty.”
Mary E. McDowell who led the fight for a better candidate who almost won out in the stockyards district had this to say: “After nineteen years I thought I knew my ward. But I never really began to know it till I came to experience this great new neighborliness which has come to all of us women through the political work of the election.”
Jane Addams, who was judge of election in her own precinct surrounding Hull House, said: “I was amazed at the way the women of my own ward had informed themselves. Of the 159 women registered in the precinct, 139 voted. The women in every ward of the city showed that they had an intelligent understanding of the issues. I think it was a great thing to have women in Chicago brave enough to run in this aldermanic election and to be willing to face the probable defeat. There was something very exhilarating, something very young and courageous in the willingness of a woman to tackle the fight against Alderman Coughlin. It has undoubtedly been a red-letter day for women, this first day of voting.”
Women’s votes down state get full credit from both the politicians and the newspapers, not to say the liquor dealers, for having put out of business 946 saloons in 114 incorporated cities and villages. In 29 more the vote to remain dry rolled up a majority of 8,888, aggregating a total dry vote in these districts of 35,462. While the liquor forces carried 60 cities and villages and thus kept them “wet,” they failed to win a single township which was dry prior to the election. In some places, as at Springfield, women’s votes helped swell the majority for the saloons. But in a total vote estimated at 200,000 cast on the saloon issue outside Chicago, where the issue was not raised, the Chicago Tribune figures that 100,000 were cast by women and that 65 per cent. of these were against the saloon.
Clearly in anticipation of women’s voting in Chicago, an ordinance was passed by the Chicago City Council abolishing the “family entrance” and “ladies’ entrance” signs from saloons. This action was not opposed by the liquor interests represented by the vigilant and aggressive United Societies. To the representative women who promoted this action, one of the most notorious of Chicago’s aldermen, who for many years has led the forces for evil in the city council, once a majority and now a hopeless minority, declared: “You are doing a noble work, ladies; you should now clean-up the dance halls.”
The handwriting seems to be on the walls, the enemies of the good themselves being judges.
Lest Graham Taylor may be considered a partial witness, we submit the two following extracts from the New York Times on the Chicago women voters, for no one accuses that paper of being a feminist advocate: