In Oberlin, where the experiment has been tried under the most favorable circumstances, it has proved a failure so far as the regular college course is concerned. The number of young women in that course, instead of increasing with the prosperity of the institution, has diminished, so that it now averages only two or three to a class. The rest pursue a different curriculum, live in a separate dormitory, and study by themselves in a course of their own, reciting, indeed, with the young men, and by way of reciprocity and in true womanly compassion, allowing some of them to sit at their table in the dining-hall, but yet constituting substantially a female seminary, or, if you please, a woman's college in the university.—Scribner, February, page 457.
In the autumn of 1884 an effort was made to exclude women from Adelbert College. We give an account thereof from the pen of Mrs. Sarah Knowles Bolton, published in the English Woman's Review of January, 1885:
Dear Editor: The city of Cleveland has been stirred for weeks on this question of woman's higher education. Western Reserve College, founded in 1826, at Hudson, was moved to Cleveland in 1874, because of a gift of $100,000 from Mr. Amasa Stone, with the change of name to Adelbert College, in memory of an only son. A few young women had been students since 1873. In Cleveland, about twenty young ladies availed themselves of such admirable home privileges. Their scholarship was excellent—higher than that of the young men. They were absent from exercises only half as much as the men. Their conduct was above reproach. A short time since the faculty, except the president, Dr. Carroll Cutler, petitioned the board of trustees to discontinue coëducation at the college, for the assumed reasons that girls require different training from boys, never "identical" education; that it is trying to their health to recite before young men; "the strain upon the nervous system from mortifying mistakes and serious corrections is to many young ladies a cruel additional burden laid upon them in the course of study"; "that the provision we offer to girls is not the best, and is even dangerous"; that "where women are admitted, the college becomes second or third-rate, and that, worst of all, young men will be deterred from coming to this college by the presence of ladies." An "annex" was recommended, not with college degrees, but a subordinate arrangement with "diploma examinations, so far and so fast as the resources of the college shall allow."
As soon as the subject became known, the newspapers of the city took up the question. As the public furnishes the means and the students for every college, the public were vitally interested. Ministers preached about it, and they, with doctors and lawyers, wrote strong articles, showing that no "annex" was desired; that parents wished thorough, high, self-reliant education for their daughters as for their sons; that health was not injured by the embarrassment (?) of reciting before young men; that young men had not been deterred from going to Ann Arbor, Oberlin, Cornell, and other institutions where there are young women; that it was unjust to make girls go hundreds of miles away to Vassar or Smith or Wellesley, when boys were provided with the best education at their very doors; that, with over half the colleges of this country admitting women, with the colleges of Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and France throwing open their doors to women, for Adelbert College to shut them out, would be a step backward in civilization.
The women of the city took up the matter, and several thousands of our best names were obtained to a petition, asking that girls be retained members of the college; judges and leading persons gladly signed. The trustees met November 7, 1884. The whole city eagerly waited the result. The chairman of the committee, Hon. I. W. Chamberlain of Columbus, who had been opposed to coëducation at first, from the favorable reports received by him from colleges all over the country, had become a thorough convert, and the report was able and convincing.
President Angell of Michigan University, where there are 1,500 students, wrote: "Women were admitted here under the pressure of public sentiment against the wishes of most of the professors. But I think no professor now regrets it, or would favor the exclusion of women. We made no solitary modification of our rules or requirements. The women did not become hoydenish; they did not fail in their studies; they did not break down in health; they have been graduated in all departments; they have not been inferior in scholarship to the men. We count the experiment here successful."
Galusha Anderson, president of Chicago University, wrote: "Our only law here is that the students shall act as gentlemen and ladies. They mingle freely together, just as they do in society, as I think God intended that they should, and the effect in all respects is good. I have never had the slightest trouble from the association of the sexes."
Chancellor Manatt of Nebraska University, for four years engaged in university work at Yale, in answer to the questions as to whether boys would be driven away from the institution, replied: "This question sounds like a joke in this longitude. As well say a girl's being born into a family turns the boys out of doors. It rather strengthens the home attraction. So in the university. I believe there is not a professor or student here who would not, for good and solid reasons, fight for the system."
President Warren of Boston University, lately the recipient of, £200,000, wrote: "The only opponents of coëducation I have ever known are persons who know nothing about it practically, and whose difficulties are all speculative and imaginary. Men are more manly and women more womanly when concerted in a wholly human society than when educated in a half-human one."
President White of Cornell wrote: "I regard the 'annex' for women in our colleges as a mere make-shift and step in the progress toward the full admission of women to all college classes, and I think that this is a very general view among men who have given unprejudiced thought to the subject. Having now gone through one more year, making twelve in all since women were admitted, I do not hesitate to say that I believe their presence here is good for us in every respect."
Professor Moses Coit Tyler of Cornell said: "My observation has been that under the joint system the tone of college life has grown more earnest, more courteous and refined, less flippant and cynical. The women are usually among the very best scholars, and lead instead of drag, and their lapses from good health are rather, yes, decidedly, less numerous than those alleged by the men. There is a sort of young man who thinks it not quite the thing, you know, to be in a college where women are; and he goes away, if he can, and I am glad to have him do so. The vacuum he causes is not a large one, and his departure is more than made up by the arrival in his stead of a more robust and manlier sort."
The only objectors to coëducation were from those colleges which had never tried it; President Porter of Yale thought it a suitable method for post-graduate classes, and President Seeley for a course of "lower grade" than Amherst.
President Cutler of Adelbert College made an able report, showing that the progress of the age is towards coëducation. Only fifty-three Protestant colleges, founded since 1830, exclude women; while 156 coëducational institutions have been established since that date.
Some of the trustees thought it desirable to imitate Yale,[292] and others felt that they knew what studies are desirable for woman better than she knew herself! When the vote was taken, to their honor be it said, it was twelve to six, or two to one, in favor of coëducation. The girls celebrated this just and manly decision by a banquet.
The inauguration of the women's crusade at this time (1874) in Ohio created immense excitement, not only throughout that State, but it was the topic for the pulpit and the press all over the nation. Those identified with the woman suffrage movement, while deeply interested in the question of temperance, had no sympathy with what they felt to be a desecration of womanhood and of the religious element in woman. They felt that the fitting place for petitions and appeals was in the halls of legislation, to senators and congressmen, rather than rumsellers and drunkards in the dens of vice and the public thoroughfares. It was pitiful to see the faith of women in God's power to effect impossibilities. Like produces like in the universe of matter and mind, and so long as women consent to make licentious, drunken men the fathers of their children, no power in earth or heaven can save the race from these twin vices. The following letter from Miriam M. Cole makes some good points on this question:
If the "woman's war against whisky" had been inaugurated by the woman suffrage party, its aspect, in the eyes of newspapers, would be different from what it now is. If Lucy Stone had set the movement on foot, it would have been so characteristic of her! What more could one expect from such a disturber of public peace? She, who has no instinctive scruples against miscellaneous crowds at the polls, might be expected to visit saloons and piously serenade their owners, until patience ceases to be a virtue. But for women who are so pressed with domestic cares that they have no time to vote; for women who shun notoriety so much that they are unwilling to ask permission to vote; for women who believe that men are quite capable of managing State and municipal affairs without their interference; for them to have set on foot the present crusade, how queer! Their singing, though charged with a moral purpose, and their prayers, though directed to a specific end, do not make their warfare a whit more feminine, nor their situation more attractive. A woman knocking out the head of a whisky barrel with an ax, to the tune of Old Hundred, is not the ideal woman sitting on a sofa, dining on strawberries and cream, and sweetly warbling, "The Rose that All are Praising." She is as far from it as Susan B. Anthony was when pushing her ballot into the box. And all the difference between the musical saint spilling the precious liquid and the unmusical saint offering her vote is, that the latter tried to kill several birds with one stone, and the former aims at only one.
Intemperance, great a curse as it is, is not the only evil whose effects bear most heavily on women. Wrong is hydra-headed, and to work so hard to cut off one head, when there is a way by which all may be dissevered, is not a far-sighted movement; and when you add to this the fact that the head is not really cut off, but only dazed by unexpected melodies and supplications, there is little satisfaction in the effort. We learn that, outside of town corporations that have been lately "rectified," the liquor traffic still goes on, and the war is to be carried into the suburbs. What then? Where next? Which party can play this game the longer? Tears, prayers and songs will soon lose their novelty—this spasmodic effort will be likely soon to spend itself; is there any permanent good being wrought? Liquor traffic opposes woman suffrage, and with good reasons. It knows that votes change laws, and it also knows that the votes of women would change the present temperance laws and make them worth the paper on which they are printed. While this uprising of women is a hopeful sign, yet it cannot make one law black or white. It may, for a time, mold public opinion, but depraved passions and appetites need wholesome laws to restrain them. If women would only see this and demand the exercise of their right of suffrage with half the zeal and unanimity with which they storm a man's castle, it would be granted. This is the only ax to lay at the root of the tree.
Springfield, Ohio, has just had a case in a Justice Court which attracted much attention and awakened much interest. A woman whose husband had reduced his family to utter want by drunkenness, entered a suit against the rumseller. An appeal from the drunkard's wife to the ladies of Springfield had been circulated in the daily papers, which so aroused them that a large delegation of the most respectable and pious women of the city came into the court. But the case was adjourned for a week. During this time the excitement had become so great that when the trial came on the court-room was full of spectators, and the number of ladies within the rail was increased three-fold. Mrs. E. D. Stewart made the plea to the jury. A verdict was rendered against the rumseller. An appeal will be taken; but the citizens of Springfield will never forget the influence which the presence of women, in sympathy with another wronged woman, had upon the court. And what added power those women would have had as judges, jurors and advocates; citizens crowned with all the rights, privileges and immunities justly theirs by law and constitution.
Of the work in Geauga county, Mrs. Sophia Ober Allen, of South Newbury writes:
In the winter of 1851-2, Anson Read circulated a petition praying the legislature to protect married women in their property rights; and from that time the subject of women's rights was frequently discussed in social and literary gatherings. In 1871, Mrs. Lima Ober proposed to be one of six women to go to the township election and offer her vote. Nine[293] joined her, but all their votes were rejected, the judges saying they feared trouble would be the result if they received them. From that year to 1876 these heroic women of South Newbury persisted in offering their votes at the town, state and presidential elections; and though always refused, they would repair to another room with the few noble men who sustained them, and there duly cast their ballots for justice and equality. On one occasion they polled fifty votes—thirty-one women and nineteen men. In 1876 they adopted a series of stirring resolutions with a patriotic declaration of principles.
In 1873, large meetings were held, and a memorial sent to the constitutional convention, asking for an amendment, that "the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any adult citizen except for crime, idiocy or lunacy." On January 12, 1874, a political club was organized,[294] which has been active in holding meetings and picnics, circulating petitions and tracts. On July 4, 1874, a basket picnic was held in Ober and Allen's grove, at which Gen. A. C. Voris was among the speakers.[295] Hon. A. G. Riddle, whose early life was spent mostly in Newbury, encouraged and assisted the work, both by voice and pen. During the winter of 1878, Susan B. Anthony, in company with my husband and myself, lectured in several towns under the auspices of the club. Miss Eva L. Pinney, a native of Newbury, was employed by the club to canvass the county. Her success was marked. In 1879 the treasury received a bequest of $50, from Reuben H. Ober, who, though spending much of his time in the East, ever sustained a live interest in the home society.[296]
Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams sends us the following report from the Toledo society:
In the winter of 1869, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony returning from an extended trip through the West, spent a few days in Toledo. In addition to public meetings, their coming was the occasion for many pleasant and hospitable gatherings. A large circle of intelligent and earnest women were longing and waiting to do something to speed the movement for woman suffrage, when the coming of these pioneers of reform roused them to action. It was like the match to the fire all ready for kindling, and an organization was speedily effected.[297] From that time forward, the air seemed magnetized with reform ideas, and to the loyal band who stood true to their flag, new members were added from time to time, and from this little band went forth an influence, a steady force which has operated silently though continuously through both visible and invisible channels, moulding the thought and action of the community. The meetings of this association were regularly reported by the daily press, with more or less justice, according as the reporter present, or the newspaper which reported the proceedings, was more or less friendly.
A letter published in The Revolution of June 10, 1869, indicates the practical work of our association:
The first skirmish along the line of the suffrage army in Ohio has been fought, and the friends of reformation may well rejoice at the result. In this city there has existed for a long time a library association to which women were admitted as members, but in the control or management of which they had no voice. Under the pressure of influences set in motion by your visit, it was resolved that this relic of the past should be swept away, that women should be represented in the management as well as in the membership of the association. At the late election six directors were to be chosen among other officers, and Miss Anna C. Mott,[298] Mrs. M. W. Bond and Mrs. M. J. Barker were candidates upon a ticket called the Equal Rights Ticket, headed by Mr. A. W. Gleason, for president. The dangerous proposition, not only of allowing women to vote, but of giving them offices, was a bombshell in the camp of conservatism, and every influence that could be, was brought to bear against this ticket. After an exciting contest, the result showed that notwithstanding a powerful and influential opposition, the ticket was elected by a vote of from 186 to 220 out of 327 votes. This result has been all the more grateful, because in the opposition were to be found many of the most wealthy and respected citizens of Toledo.
As an index of the interest the women manifested in that election, three-fourths of them voted. It was interesting to notice the firmness with which the women walked up to the ballot-box. No trembling was perceptible. They carried the ballot with ease, deposited it with coolness, watched to see that no fraud was perpetrated, and then departed as noiselessly as they came. The deed was done. Woman's honor, woman's purity, woman's domestic felicity, woman's conjugal love, woman's fidelity to her home duties, all these and a thousand other of the finer qualities were destroyed. No more peace in families; no more quiet home evenings; no more refined domestic women; but wrangling and discords instead. Soldiers and sailors, policemen and gravel-shovelers had taken the place of wives and mothers. Sick at heart I went to my home and wept for American womanhood. But the sun rose as usual, and the world still revolved. I went to the police-court—all was quiet. I passed to the county-court, and looked over the docket—no new divorce cases met my gaze. With unsteady hand I have opened the morning papers for the past few days, but nothing there betrayed the terrible results of that false step. Oh, women! women! In the days of Indian warfare, the skilled hunter would tell you that after an attack, when all was quiet, and you thought the enemy had departed, the greatest danger awaited, and the most careful vigilance was required. So I still keep watching, for I know the vengeance of the gods must fall upon this worse than Sodom, for since women have voted, surely there be not five righteous within the city. Real estate is not falling, however, but then!—
The evening after the election, the friends of the association and of the successful tickets, gathered to witness the incoming of the new administration. Hearty words of cheer for the future were spoken. The president, Mr. Gleason, delivered a beautiful inaugural address, of which I send you a few sentences, and the meeting adjourned.
The president said: While thanking you most heartily, ladies and gentlemen, for the distinguished honor conferred upon me in the election, I do not forget that it is due to the great principles of equal rights and universal suffrage—not to any merits of my own. We live in an age of progress. In my humble opinion we have taken a great step forward in admitting ladies to the management of this association—not only from the fact that in this particular institution they hold an equal footing with ourselves, and of right are entitled to all its privileges, but from the more important fact that it is a recognition here of those principles which are now claiming recognition in the political institutions of our country. It is in the natural order of events that this "equal rights" movement should meet with opposition. All movements of a novel and radical character at their commencement meet with opposition. This is the ordeal through which they must pass, but their success or failure depends upon their intrinsic merit. Nothing is to be feared from opposition to any movement that possesses these elements. Whatsoever idea has its origin in the recesses of human nature, will, sooner or later, become embodied in living action, and so we have this assurance—that as here, so also in the political institutions of our country—this principle of equal rights, both to man and woman, will at last prevail.
In 1871 the Sunday Journal offered the association half a column, which was gratefully accepted, and Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams appointed editor. The department increased to a full page, and the circulation of the paper became as large as that of either of the city dailies. When there was danger of its being sold to opponents of the cause, Mrs. Williams purchased one-half interest, and by so doing kept the other half in the hands of the friendly proprietor. In the Sunday Journal the association had a medium through which it could promptly answer all unjust attacks, and thus kept up a constant agitation. In November, 1875, the sale of the paper closed for a while direct communication between the association and the public. But soon becoming restive without any medium through which to express itself, the society started The Ballot-Box in April, 1876, raising money among the citizens in aid of the enterprise. With this first assistance the paper became at once self-supporting, and continued thus until April, 1878,[299] when it was transferred to Matilda Joslyn Gage, and published at Syracuse, N. Y.
The convention for the remodeling of the constitution of the State, in 1873-74, afforded an opportunity for unflagging efforts of the members of the association in the circulation of petitions; and so successful were they that when their delegates presented themselves with 1,500 signatures, asking for an amendment securing the right of suffrage to women, a member of the convention, on scanning the roll, exclaimed: "Why, you have here all the solid men of Lucas county." Mr. M. R. Waite, since chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was president of the convention, and in presenting the petition said the names on that paper represented fifteen millions of dollars. Mr. Waite's courtesy indicated stronger convictions regarding the rights of women than he really possessed. In an interview with our committee, appointed to secure a hearing from the members-elect—Mr. Waite and Mr. Scribner—Mr. Waite declared himself in favor of according equal wages to women, and believed them entitled to all other rights, except the right to vote. He thought women were entitled to a hearing in the convention, and would aid them all he could to secure the privilege. Mr. Waite, with great kindness of nature, possesses an inborn conservatism which curbs his more generous impulses. He adhered to this position in his decision in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, declaring that "the constitution of the United States has no voters." Many of the most sanguine friends were greatly disappointed. They had fully believed his love of justice would lead him to the broad interpretation of the constitution, so clearly the true one, set forth in the first article of the fourteenth amendment. It did prevail, however, when, after saying the constitution does not confer the right of suffrage with citizenship, he said: "If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power is not with the Supreme Court."
When, in February, 1873, an irascible judge of the Court of Common Pleas refused to ratify the appointment of a woman—Miss Mary Sibley—to the office of deputy clerk, which she had filled for eight years with unusual acceptance, on the ground that not being an elector she was legally disqualified, the association determined to dispute the decision in her behalf, and on applying through their president to Mr. Waite to act as counsel, he gave his unhesitating acceptance, and declared that if the appointment was illegal, the law ought to be changed at once. True to his promise, he defended her most ably, and engaged other counsel to act with him. His services were given gratuitously.
Subsequently, in the constitutional convention, an amendment was adopted making women eligible to appointive offices, and also to any office under the school control, with the exception of State commissioner. But when voted upon, the new constitution was lost, and with it these amendments. The cause had able advocates in the convention, leading whom was General A. C. Voris of Akron, who was made chairman of the Special Committee on Woman Suffrage. The Standing Committee on Elective Franchise was extremely unfriendly, conspicuously so the chairman, Mr. Sample. A Special Committee on Woman Suffrage was appointed, which performed its duty faithfully, and reported unanimously in favor. Mr. Voris worked for the measure with an enthusiasm equaled only by his ability. When the report came up for discussion he made a masterly speech of two hours, during which the attention was so close that a pin could be heard to drop. Other able speeches were also made in favor of the measure by some of the most talented members of the convention. It came within two votes of being carried. The defeat was largely due to the liquor influence in the convention. The cause, however, received a new impetus through the exertions of General Voris, to whom, second to no other person in Ohio, should the thanks of the women be rendered. During the contest the Toledo society was constantly on the alert. On three occasions it sent its delegates to the convention; but it has not limited its work to Ohio alone; it has given freely of its means whenever it could to aid the struggle in other States, and has rolled up large petitions to congress asking for a sixteenth amendment.
When the State convention met in Toledo, February, 1873, the members of the city society exerted themselves to the utmost to have all arrangements for their reception and entertainment of the most satisfactory character, and the delegates unanimously agreed they had never before had so delightful and successful a meeting. Many lasting friendships were formed. The opera-house was well filled at every session of the three days' convention. At the opening session a cordial address of welcome was given by Rev. Robert McCune, one of Toledo's most eloquent Republicans. The mayor of the city, Dr. W. W. Jones, a staunch Democrat, also made a courteous speech.
The Toledo Society has always held itself an independent organization, though its members, individually, have identified themselves as they chose with other associations. Its attitude has been of the most uncompromising character. It has never been cajoled into accepting a crumb in any way in the place of the whole loaf. Sometimes this has brought upon it the condemnation of friends, but in the long run it has won respect, even from bitter opponents. An illustration of this was given in its action with regard to the centennial celebration. The Fourth of July, 1876, was to be observed in Toledo as a great gala day. Long before its arrival preparations were in progress through which patriotic citizens were to express their gratitude over the nation's prosperity on the one-hundredth anniversary of freedom. All trades, professions and organizations were to join in one vast triumphal procession. A call was issued for a meeting, to which all organizations were requested to send representatives. The Woman Suffrage Association was not neglected, and a circular of invitation was mailed to its president. This raised a delicate question, for how could women take part in celebrating the triumphs of their country whose laws disfranchised them? But, having received a courteous recognition, they must respond with equal courtesy. The letter was laid before the society, and the president instructed to politely decline the honor. The Ballot-Box of May, 1876, contains the correspondence:
Toledo, Ohio, April 8, 1876.
At a meeting of citizens, held at White's Hall, on the evening of the 6th inst., the undersigned were instructed to invite your organization, with others, to send a representative to a meeting to be held at White's Hall, on the evening of Monday, April 17, which will elect an executive committee, and make other arrangements for a celebration by Toledo of the one-hundredth anniversary of American independence in a manner befitting the occasion and the character of our city. It is earnestly desired that every organization, of whatever nature, in Toledo, be represented at this meeting. We would, therefore, ask of you that you lay the matter before your organization at its next regular meeting, or in case it shall hold no meeting before the 17th, that you appear as a representative yourself.
Guido Marx, Chairman.
D. R. Locke, James H. Emory, Secretaries.
This was laid before the association at a meeting which occurred the same afternoon, and by the order of the society the invitation therein conveyed was replied to in season to be read at the meeting at White's Hall, April 17:
Toledo, Ohio, April 15, 1876.
Hon. Guido Marx, Messrs. D. R. Locke and James H. Emory:
Gentlemen: The printed circular, with your names attached, inclosed to my address as president of the Toledo Woman Suffrage Association, inviting that body to send a representative to a meeting to be held at White's Hall, Monday evening, April 17, to elect an executive committee and make other arrangements for a celebration by Toledo of the one-hundredth anniversary of American independence, was received just in time to lay before the meeting held April 10. It was there decided that while the members of the association fully appreciate the generosity of the men of Toledo, and feel grateful for the implied recognition of their citizenship, yet they manifestly have no centennial to celebrate, as the government still holds them in a condition of political serfdom, denying them the greatest right of citizenship—representation.
Conscious, however, of the great results which the nation's hundred years have achieved in building up a great people, we are aware that you, as American men, have cause for rejoicing, and we bid you God-speed in all efforts which you may make in the approaching celebration. In an equal degree we feel it inconsistent, as a disfranchised class, to unite with you in the celebration of that liberty which is the heritage of but one-half the people. It is the will, therefore, of the association that I respond to the above effect, thanking you for your courteous invitation, and recognizing with pleasure among your names those who have heretofore extended to us their sympathy and aid. I remain, with sincere respect, yours,
Sarah R. L. Williams, President T. W. S. A.
The letter was intended to be in all respects courteous, as the writer and the society which she represented had naught but the kindest of feelings toward those who, in so friendly a manner, recognized their citizenship by inviting them to take part in the meeting, and also toward the Toledo public, who, as a general thing, had treated their organization with friendly consideration. It appears, however, that their attitude was misconstrued, according to articles subsequently published in the Blade and Commercial, which we reproduce below:
The women say they "manifestly have no centennial to celebrate." If we are not mistaken, the women of this country have enjoyed greater progress than the men under our free government, and it illy becomes them now to steadily and persistently pout because they have not yet attained the full measure of their earthly desires—the ballot-box. Better by far give a hearty show of appreciation of benefits received, and thereby materially aid in further progress. Nothing can be gained by their refusing to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of civil and religious liberty. The rights of all are necessarily restricted wherever there is a government, and time and experience can alone demonstrate just what extension or contraction of rights and liberties may be essential to the general good. In our judgment the women, by refusing to participate in the coming Fourth of July celebration, have committed an error, the influence of which cannot but prove prejudicial to the interests of their association. The opposite course would undoubtedly have won friends.—Blade.
A singularly uncourteous letter was the one sent by the Woman Suffrage Association to the meeting at White's Hall. Ninety-nine-hundredths of the women of the country will be surprised to learn that they "have no centennial to celebrate," and will be still more surprised when they discover that it is "inconsistent" for them to unite with their brothers, fathers, sons and husbands "in the celebration of the liberty which is the heritage" of all the people. We cannot but feel that the claims set forth by the association would command more respectful consideration with the display of a different spirit. The maids and matrons of 1776 were of a different mold.—Commercial.
The Blade has been a good friend to woman suffrage for many years, but we feel that the present article was written in a spirit of needless irritability, such as we should think might ensue from a fit of indigestion. The Commercial, since its change of management, has certainly not been unfriendly, and we have thought fair. Its present comments are unjust. The following editorial appeared in The Ballot-Box of the same date:
Why We Cannot Celebrate the Centennial.—The city dailies criticise the suffrage association somewhat severely for declining to unite in the centennial celebration. Perhaps from the outlook of masculine satisfaction it may seem astonishing that patriotism should not inspire us with gratitude for the crumbs from the national table; that we should not rejoice at the great banquet being prepared. But it is as impossible for us to look from their standpoint, as for them to see from ours. While appreciating the kindnesses measured out to us in this city by our friends and the press, yet laboring without visible results for the recognition of our rights as citizens of the United States, we cannot, even through the potent incentive of sympathizing with our "husbands, fathers, brothers and sons," lay aside our grievances and rejoice in a triumph which more clearly marks our own humiliation.
Can our friends inform us what is our crime, that we are denied the right of representation? Can they point to any mental or moral deficiency, to render justifiable our being denied political rights? If not—if there is no just cause for our disfranchisement, it surely should not excite surprise that we cannot rejoice with those who systematically persist in perpetrating this great wrong. With no discredit to any of the sovereign voters of this nation, we cannot forget that the most ignorant negro, the most degraded foreigner, even refugees from justice, are accorded the rights which we have been demanding in vain; and we are conscious every day and hour these privileges are denied us, that we are not only wronged by the American government, but insulted. Every year that our appeals for political rights to congress and the legislature are denied, insult is heaped upon injury. Women are told by those who are in the full enjoyment of all the privileges which this government can confer, to rejoice in what little they have, and wait patiently until more is bestowed. Wait we must, because they have the reins of power, but to wait patiently, with the light we have to perceive our relative condition, would be doing that for which we should despise ourselves.
We are not laboring for to-day alone, but for the fruïtion which must come from the establishment of justice. If we fail in this memorial year, a brighter day must surely come. Our failure now will be the failure of the country to improve its opportunities. All the successes which may be rejoiced over, all the triumphs of trade, commerce and invention are secondary to the rights of citizens, to those principles which lie at the foundation of national liberty. When women are recognized as citizens of this republic, there will be some occasion for their thankfulness and rejoicing; then they can join in the jubilee which celebrates the birthday of a mighty nation.
At the June meeting of the association, a declaration of rights, and a series of radical resolutions were adopted. The president urged the society to stand firm in the determination to take no part in the centennial celebration, and the members of the suffrage association passed the Fourth of July quietly at their own homes, but they caused a banner, bearing the inscription, "Woman Suffrage and Equal Rights," to be hung across one of the principal streets, under which the whole procession passed. Of the original members of the society,[300] some who during its earlier years took an active part have removed elsewhere, and a few have passed to the beyond. But the majority still remain, and are earnest in their labors with the hope for a better day, undampened by the delays and disappointments which attend every step in progress.