Resolutions of respect to the memory of Mrs. Abby P. Ela, William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina Grimké Weld were adopted by a rising vote.
In the National Citizen of December 14, 1879, we find the following:
Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire had an executive hearing before the governor and council of that State, November 18, in regard to the management of the State prison. Mrs. Ricker, who in winter practices law in Washington, and is known as "the prisoner's friend," referred to the cruel treatment of convicts in various States, notably in New Hampshire, where prisoners are not permitted to read the magazines or the weekly newspapers which contain no record of crime, nor to receive words from their friends, as in other States they are allowed at stated times to do. When Mrs. Ricker desired to see a certain prisoner and let him know he had friends who were yet mindful of his comfort, the warden replied that he did not wish that man "to think he had a friend in the world." Mrs. Ricker warmly protested against such brutality. The attorney-general agreed with Mrs. Ricker, remarking that the line between crimes punished and those not punished, and the lines between those in prison and those outside who ought to be there, were so dim and shadowy that great care should be exercised in order to secure just and humane treatment for prisoners. Mrs. Ricker's remarks were earnest and dignified, and were listened to with the closest attention by the governor and his official advisers. At the close of the hearing the governor referred the subject to the special prison committee of the council, directing its members to procure all possible information as to the management of penitentiaries in other States, and report at the next meeting. Through Mrs. Ricker's influence the last legislature passed an act providing that any convict may send sealed letters to the governor or council without their being read by the warden.
In 1882 a judicial decision in New Hampshire recognized the advance legislation of that State in regard to the position of married women. This decision shows that they are no longer under the shadow of the old common law, but now hold equal dignity and power as individuals and joint heads in family life. The "divinely ordained head," with absolute control in the home, to rule according to his will and pleasure, is at last ruled out of the courts altogether, as the following case illustrates:
Mrs. Harris and her husband sued Mrs. Webster and her husband for slanders uttered by Mrs. Webster against Mrs. Harris. The suit was brought on the old theory that the legal personality of the wife is merged in that of her husband; that she is under his control, his chattel, his ox, and therefore he is responsible for her trespasses as for those of his other domestic cattle. The Court held that the wife is no longer an "ox" or "chattel," but a person responsible for her acts, and that her innocent husband could not be held responsible for her wrong. In rendering the decision in this case, Judge Foster further said: "It is no longer possible to say that in New Hampshire a married woman is a household slave or a chattel, or that in New Hampshire the conjugal unity is represented solely by the husband. By custom and by statute the wife is now joint master of the household, and not a slave or a servant. The rule now is that her legal existence is not suspended. So practically has the ancient unity become dissevered and dissolved that the wife may not only have her separate property, contracts, debts, wages, and causes of separate action growing out of a violation of her personal rights, but she may enter into legal contract with her husband and enforce it by suit against him."
The writer of the following letter is a successful farmer, remarkable for her executive ability in all the practical affairs of life, as well as for her broad philanthropy. One year she sent, as a contribution to our Washington convention, a tub of butter holding about sixty pounds, which was sold on the platform and the proceeds put into the treasury of the National Association:
Dear Friends assembled in the Washington Convention:
Last week our new town-house was dedicated. The women accompanied their husbands. One man spoke in favor of woman suffrage—said it was "surely coming." In this town, at the Corners, for several years they tried to get a graded school, but the men voted it down. After the women had the school-suffrage, one lady, who had a large family and did not wish to send her children away from home, rallied all the women of the Corners, carried the vote, and they now have a good graded school. Our village is moving down, that the boys and girls may have the benefit of the good school there. I think the women who have been indifferent and not availed themselves of their small voting privilege, by which we might have established the same class of school in our village, will now regret their negligence, at least every time they have to send three miles for a doctor. Thus, stupid people, blind to their own interest, punish themselves. I regret not being able to send a fuller report of the good that woman's use of the ballot, in a limited form, has done for us in this State. The voting in the town-hall is the "infant school" for women in the use of the ballot. Thanking the ladies all for meeting at the capital of the nation, and regretting not to be counted among the number, I am,
Mary A. P. Filley.
Yours sincerely,
North Haverill, January 5, 1884.
In closing this chapter some mention should be made of the invaluable services of Senator Blair,[193] who, in his place, has always nobly defended the rights of women. He was a member of the first special committee ever appointed to look after the interests of women in the United States Senate. The leaders of the movement in that State claim that they helped to place Senator Blair in his present position by defeating his predecessor, Mr. Wadleigh, who was hostile to the enfranchisement of women.
United States Senate, Washington, D. C., March 5, 1884.
My Dear Miss Anthony: I had the honor duly to receive your invitation to address the National Association during its sessions in this city, for which I heartily thank you; but the pressure of duties in the Senate, service upon committees being just now specially exacting, makes it impossible for me to accept.
I trust that I need not assure you of my full belief that woman has the right and ought to have the privilege to vote. Whenever a fundamental right exists both public and individual welfare are promoted by its exercise and injured by its suppression. The exercise of rights is only another name for the discharge of duties, and the denial of the suffrage to an adult human being, not deprived of it for mental or penal disability, is an intolerable wrong. Such denial is not only a deprivation of right to the individual, but it is an injury to the State, which is only well governed when controlled by the conflicting opinions, sentiments and interests of the whole, harmonized in the ballot-box, and, by its fiat, elevated to the functions of law. But you have no occasion for expression of theoretical views from me.
If I may be pardoned a suggestion, it would be the specification to the public mind of the practical uses and benefits which would result from the exercise of the suffrage by women. Men are not conscious that women lack the practical protection of the laws or the comforts and conveniences of material and social relations more than themselves. The possession of the ballot as a practical means of securing happiness does not appear to the masses to be necessary to women in our country. Men say: "We do the best we can for our wives and children and relatives. They are as well off as we." In a certain sense this appears to be true. The other and higher truth is that woman suffrage is necessary in order that society may advance. The natural conservatism of an existing order of things will not give way to a new factor in the control of affairs, until it has been shown in what way enlightened selfishness may hope for good to society if the change be made. Here it seems to me that the convention may now strike a blow more powerful than for many years. Society has not so labored with the great problems which concern its own salvation for generations.
What would woman do with the ballot if she had it? What for education? What for sobriety? What for social purity? What for equalizing the conditions and the rewards of labor—the labor of her own sex first—and towards a just division of production among all members of the community? What for the removal, or for the amelioration when removal is impossible, of hunger, cold, disease and degradation, from the daily lives of human beings? What could and what would woman do with the ballot which is not now as well done by man alone, to improve the conditions which envelope individual existence as with bands of iron? What good things—state them seriatim, as the lawyers say—could woman do in New Hampshire and in New York city, and ultimately among the savage tribes of the earth, which she cannot do as well without as with the suffrage? Would woman by her suffrage even help to remove illiteracy from Louisiana, intemperance from New England, and stop society from committing murder by the tenement-house abuses of New York? Let the convention specify what practical good woman will try to achieve with her God-given rights, provided that men will permit her to enjoy them. Show us wherein you will do us good if we will rob you no longer. It might influence us greatly. Why should we do right for nothing? In fact, unless you show that the exercise of your alleged right will be useful, can you logically conclude that you have any? We must have proof that the experiment will not fail before we will even try it. You must connect the ballot with progress and reform and convince men that they, as well as women, will be better off for its possession by the whole of the adult community rather than only by a part. Theories may be true, but they are seldom reduced to practice by society unless it can be clearly seen that their adoption will heal some hurt or introduce some broad and general good.
The increasing discussion of industrial, educational, sanitary, and social questions generally, indicates the domain of argument and effort where victories for the advocates of enlarged suffrage are most likely, and I think are sure to be won. Woman should study specially what is called, for the want of a better term, the labor problem—a problem which includes in its scope almost everything important to everybody. I know this is an unnecessary suggestion, for it is just what you are doing. I only write it because repetition of the important is better than to recite platitudes or even to quote the declaration. I believe in your success because I believe in justice and in the advancement of mankind.
Henry W. Blair.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,