The following from The Revolution shows that the women of St. Louis were awake on the question of taxation:
The women here have endeavored to find out to what extent taxation without representation, because of sex, obtains in this city, and as the result of their inquiries they are enabled to place on their records the following very suggestive document.
Assessor's Office, St. Louis, January 30, 1869.
To Mrs. Couzins and Emma Finkelnburg, Committee of the Ladies' Suffrage Association:
In reply to your request to report to your association the amount of property listed in the city of St. Louis in the name of ladies, permit me to state that the property in question is represented by over 2,000 tax-paying ladies, and assessed at the value of $14,490,199.
Robt. J. Rombauer, Assessor.
Yours very respectfully,
This exhibit has opened the eyes of a good many people. "Two thousand on 'em," exclaimed a male friend of mine, "and over fourteen millions of property! Whew! What business have these women with so much money?" Well, they have it, and now they ask us, "Shall 2,000 men, not worth a dollar, just because they wear pantaloons go to the polls and vote taxes on us, while we are excluded from the ballot-box for no other reason than sex?" What shall we say to them? They ask us if the American Revolution did not turn on this hinge, No taxation without representation. Who can answer?
The advocates of suffrage in St. Louis made their attacks at once in both Church[379] and State, and left no means of agitation untried. There has never been an association in any State that comprised so many able men and women who gave their best thoughts to every phase of this question, and who did so grand a work, until the unfortunate division in 1871, which seemed to chill the enthusiasm of many friends of the movement.
In the winter of 1869 the association sent a large delegation of ladies to the legislature with a petition containing about 2,000 signatures. A correspondent in The Revolution, February 6, 1869, said:
It will not be feminine to say, yet I fear I must say, the women of Missouri have stormed their capitol, and if it is not yet taken, the outworks are in our hands, and I believe with a few more well-directed blows the victory will be ours. On February 3 a large delegation of ladies, representing the Suffrage Association of Missouri, visited Jefferson City for the purpose of laying before the legislature a large and influentially signed petition, asking the ballot for women; and we were gratified to see the great respect and deference shown to the women of Missouri by the wisest and best of her legislators in their respectful and cordial reception of the delegates. Both Houses adjourned, and gave the use of the house for the afternoon, when eloquent addresses were made by Mrs. J.G. Phelps of Springfield, Dr. Ada Greunan of St. Louis, and the future orator of Missouri, Miss Phœbe Couzins, whose able and effective address the press has given in full. Of the brave men who stood up for us, it is more difficult to speak. To give a list would be impossible; for every name would require a eulogy too lengthy for the pages of The Revolution. We will, therefore, record them on the tablets of our memory with a hand so firm that they shall stand out brightly till time shall be no more. Of the small majority who oppose us we will say nothing, but throw over them the pall of merciful oblivion.
The first woman suffrage convention ever held in the city of St. Louis, or the State of Missouri, assembled in Mercantile Library, October 6, 7, 1869. Many distinguished people were on the platform.[380] At this convention Mr. Francis Minor introduced a very able series of resolutions, on which Mrs. Minor made a remarkably logical address.[381] The following letter from Mr. Minor shows the careful research he gave to the consideration of this question:
St. Louis, December 30, 1869.
Dear Revolution: So thoroughly am I satisfied that the surest and most direct course to pursue to obtain a recognition of woman's claim to the ballot, lies through the courts of the country, that I am induced to ask you to republish the resolutions that I drafted, and which were unanimously adopted by the St. Louis convention. And I will here add, that to accomplish this end, and to carry these resolutions into practical effect, it is intended by Mrs. Minor, the president of the State Association, to make a test case in her instance at our next election; take it through the courts of Missouri, and thence to the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington. I think it will be admitted that these resolutions place the cause of woman upon higher ground than ever before asserted, in the fact that for the first time suffrage is claimed as a privilege based upon citizenship, and secured by the Constitution of the United States. It will be seen that the position taken is, that the States have the right to regulate, but not to prohibit, the elective franchise to citizens of the United States. Thus the States may determine the qualifications of electors. They may require the elector to be of a certain age, to have had a fixed residence, to be of a sane mind, and unconvicted of crime, etc., because these are qualifications or conditions that all citizens, sooner or later, may attain; but to go beyond this, and say to one-half the citizens of the State, notwithstanding you possess all these qualifications you shall never vote, is of the very essence of despotism. It is a bill of attainder of the most odious character.
A further investigation of the subject will show that the language of the constitutions of all the States, with the exception of those of Massachusetts and Virginia, on the subject of suffrage is peculiar. They almost all read substantially alike: "White male citizens, etc., shall be entitled to vote," and this is supposed to exclude all other citizens. There is no direct exclusion, except in the two States above named. Now the error lies in supposing that an enabling clause is necessary at all. The right of the people of a State to participate in a government of their own creation requires no enabling clause; neither can it be taken from them by implication. To hold otherwise would be to interpolate in the constitution a prohibition that does not exist. In framing a constitution the people are assembled in their sovereign capacity; and being possessed of all rights and all powers, what is not surrendered is retained. Nothing short of a direct prohibition can work a disseizin of rights that are fundamental. In the language of John Jay to the people of New York, urging the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, "silence and blank paper neither give nor take away anything," and Alexander Hamilton says (Federalist, No. 83), "Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between silence and abolition."
The mode and manner in which the people shall take part in the government of their creation may be prescribed by the constitution, but the right itself is antecedent to all constitutions. It is inalienable, and can neither be bought, nor sold, nor given away. But even if it should be held that this view is untenable, and that women are disfranchised by the several State constitutions directly, or by implication, then I say that such prohibitions are clearly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and yield thereto. The language of that instrument is clear and emphatic: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." "No State shall make, or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It would be impossible to add to the force or effect of such language, and equally impossible to attempt to explain it away.
Francis Minor.
Very respectfully,
The St. Louis Democrat spoke of the convention as follows:
Readers of our report have doubtless been interested to observe the fair spirit and dignified manner of the woman suffrage convention, and the ability displayed in some of the addresses. It is but due to the managers to say that they extended most courteous invitations to gentlemen not identified with the movement to address the convention, and state freely their objections to the extension of the franchise. Of those invited some were prevented by duties elsewhere from attending. Others, it may be, felt that it would scarcely be a gracious thing, in spite of the liberality of the invitation, to occupy the time of a convention in favor of the extension of the franchise with arguments against it. But the objections which, after all, probably have most weight with candid men are those which it is not easy to discuss in public, namely: "Will not extension of suffrage to women have an injurious effect upon the family and sexual relations?" "Will not the ballot be used rather by that class who would not use it wisely than by those who are most competent?" We do not argue these questions, but are sure that some frank discussion of them, however delicate the subject may be, is necessary to convince the great majority of those who are still doubting or opposed. Meanwhile the reports are of interest, and reflect no little credit upon the women of this city who have taken so prominent a part in the movement.
The officers of the Missouri Society were annually reëlected for several years, and the work proceeded harmoniously until the division in the National Association. The members of the Missouri Society took sides in this division as preference dictated. Mr. and Mrs. Minor, Miss Forbes, Miss Couzins and others were already members of the National Association, and sympathized with its views and modes of pushing the question.
In order that there might be no division in the Missouri Association, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Minor and unanimously adopted, declaring that each member of the society should be free to join the National body of his or her choice, and that the Missouri Association, as a society, should not become auxiliary to either the "National" or the "American." The good faith of the association was thus pledged to respect the feelings and wishes of each member, and as long as this course was observed all went well. But, at the annual meeting in 1871, just after Mrs. Minor had for the fifth time been unanimously reëlected president, in violation of the previous action of the association a resolution was introduced and passed, declaring that the association should henceforth become auxiliary to the American. This gross disregard of the wishes and feelings of those who were members of the National Association left them no alternative, with any feeling of self-respect, but to withdraw; and accordingly Mrs. Minor at once tendered her resignation as president and her withdrawal as a member of the association. She was followed in this course by Mr. Minor, Miss Couzins, Miss Forbes and others.[382] However, the work went steadily on. Meetings were held regularly from week to week, with occasional grand conventions, tracts and petitions were circulated, and constant agitation in some way kept up.
Assessor's Office, St. Louis, January 30, 1869.
To Mrs. Couzins and Emma Finkelnburg, Committee of the Ladies' Suffrage Association:
In reply to your request to report to your association the amount of property listed in the city of St. Louis in the name of ladies, permit me to state that the property in question is represented by over 2,000 tax-paying ladies, and assessed at the value of $14,490,199.
Robt. J. Rombauer, Assessor.
Yours very respectfully,
It will not be feminine to say, yet I fear I must say, the women of Missouri have stormed their capitol, and if it is not yet taken, the outworks are in our hands, and I believe with a few more well-directed blows the victory will be ours. On February 3 a large delegation of ladies, representing the Suffrage Association of Missouri, visited Jefferson City for the purpose of laying before the legislature a large and influentially signed petition, asking the ballot for women; and we were gratified to see the great respect and deference shown to the women of Missouri by the wisest and best of her legislators in their respectful and cordial reception of the delegates. Both Houses adjourned, and gave the use of the house for the afternoon, when eloquent addresses were made by Mrs. J.G. Phelps of Springfield, Dr. Ada Greunan of St. Louis, and the future orator of Missouri, Miss Phœbe Couzins, whose able and effective address the press has given in full. Of the brave men who stood up for us, it is more difficult to speak. To give a list would be impossible; for every name would require a eulogy too lengthy for the pages of The Revolution. We will, therefore, record them on the tablets of our memory with a hand so firm that they shall stand out brightly till time shall be no more. Of the small majority who oppose us we will say nothing, but throw over them the pall of merciful oblivion.
St. Louis, December 30, 1869.
Dear Revolution: So thoroughly am I satisfied that the surest and most direct course to pursue to obtain a recognition of woman's claim to the ballot, lies through the courts of the country, that I am induced to ask you to republish the resolutions that I drafted, and which were unanimously adopted by the St. Louis convention. And I will here add, that to accomplish this end, and to carry these resolutions into practical effect, it is intended by Mrs. Minor, the president of the State Association, to make a test case in her instance at our next election; take it through the courts of Missouri, and thence to the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington. I think it will be admitted that these resolutions place the cause of woman upon higher ground than ever before asserted, in the fact that for the first time suffrage is claimed as a privilege based upon citizenship, and secured by the Constitution of the United States. It will be seen that the position taken is, that the States have the right to regulate, but not to prohibit, the elective franchise to citizens of the United States. Thus the States may determine the qualifications of electors. They may require the elector to be of a certain age, to have had a fixed residence, to be of a sane mind, and unconvicted of crime, etc., because these are qualifications or conditions that all citizens, sooner or later, may attain; but to go beyond this, and say to one-half the citizens of the State, notwithstanding you possess all these qualifications you shall never vote, is of the very essence of despotism. It is a bill of attainder of the most odious character.
A further investigation of the subject will show that the language of the constitutions of all the States, with the exception of those of Massachusetts and Virginia, on the subject of suffrage is peculiar. They almost all read substantially alike: "White male citizens, etc., shall be entitled to vote," and this is supposed to exclude all other citizens. There is no direct exclusion, except in the two States above named. Now the error lies in supposing that an enabling clause is necessary at all. The right of the people of a State to participate in a government of their own creation requires no enabling clause; neither can it be taken from them by implication. To hold otherwise would be to interpolate in the constitution a prohibition that does not exist. In framing a constitution the people are assembled in their sovereign capacity; and being possessed of all rights and all powers, what is not surrendered is retained. Nothing short of a direct prohibition can work a disseizin of rights that are fundamental. In the language of John Jay to the people of New York, urging the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, "silence and blank paper neither give nor take away anything," and Alexander Hamilton says (Federalist, No. 83), "Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between silence and abolition."
The mode and manner in which the people shall take part in the government of their creation may be prescribed by the constitution, but the right itself is antecedent to all constitutions. It is inalienable, and can neither be bought, nor sold, nor given away. But even if it should be held that this view is untenable, and that women are disfranchised by the several State constitutions directly, or by implication, then I say that such prohibitions are clearly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, and yield thereto. The language of that instrument is clear and emphatic: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." "No State shall make, or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It would be impossible to add to the force or effect of such language, and equally impossible to attempt to explain it away.
Francis Minor.
Very respectfully,
Readers of our report have doubtless been interested to observe the fair spirit and dignified manner of the woman suffrage convention, and the ability displayed in some of the addresses. It is but due to the managers to say that they extended most courteous invitations to gentlemen not identified with the movement to address the convention, and state freely their objections to the extension of the franchise. Of those invited some were prevented by duties elsewhere from attending. Others, it may be, felt that it would scarcely be a gracious thing, in spite of the liberality of the invitation, to occupy the time of a convention in favor of the extension of the franchise with arguments against it. But the objections which, after all, probably have most weight with candid men are those which it is not easy to discuss in public, namely: "Will not extension of suffrage to women have an injurious effect upon the family and sexual relations?" "Will not the ballot be used rather by that class who would not use it wisely than by those who are most competent?" We do not argue these questions, but are sure that some frank discussion of them, however delicate the subject may be, is necessary to convince the great majority of those who are still doubting or opposed. Meanwhile the reports are of interest, and reflect no little credit upon the women of this city who have taken so prominent a part in the movement.
In answer to an earnest solicitation for facts and incidents of the suffrage movement in Missouri, Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, one of the earliest and most active friends in that State, sends us the following:
I think the cruel war had much to do in educating the women of Missouri into a sense of their responsibilities and duties as citizens; at least all who first took part in the suffrage movement had been active on the Union side during the war, and that having ended in the preservation of the government, they naturally began to inquire as to their own rights and privileges in the restored Union. My own feelings were first fully awakened by the hanging of Mrs. Surrat; for, although a Unionist and an abolitionist, I could but regard her execution by the government, considering her helpless position, as judicial murder. I wrote on the subject to the editor of the New York Independent. The letter was handed to Miss Anthony, and resulted in an invitation to the next meeting of the Equal Rights Society. This almost frightened me, for I had hitherto looked askance at the woman's rights movement.
Meeting an old friend and neighbor not long after, the talk turned upon negro suffrage. I expressed myself in favor of that measure, and timidly added, "And go farther—I think women also should vote." She grasped my hand cordially, saying, "And so do I!" This was Mrs. Virginia L. Minor. We had each cherished this opinion, supposing that no other woman in the community held it; and this we afterwards found to have been the experience of many others. This was in 1866; and in the following autumn Mrs. Minor prepared and circulated for signatures a card of thanks to Hon. B. Gratz Brown for the recognition of woman's political rights he had given in the United States Senate in a speech upon extending the suffrage to the women of the District of Columbia.[383] This card received enough names to justify another step—that of a petition to the Missouri General Assembly. This was headed by Mrs. Minor, and circulated with untiring energy by her, receiving several hundred signatures, and was sent to the legislature during the winter, where it received some degree of favor.
But as yet no effort had been made toward an organization. The first step in that direction was in May, 1867, by Mrs. Lucretia P. Hall and her sister, Miss Penelope Allen, daughters of Mrs. Beverly Allen, and nieces of General Pope, in the parlors of Mrs. Anna L. Clapp, the president of the Union Aid Society during the war. Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Clapp and myself called a public meeting on May 8, when the Woman Suffrage Society of Missouri was organized, with Mrs. Minor president.
In the winter of 1868 the association sent a large delegation of ladies to Jefferson with a petition containing about 2,000 names, to present to the legislature. The Republicans were then in the ascendency, and the ladies having many professed friends among the members, were received with every demonstration of respect. Addresses were made by Miss Phœbe Couzins and Dr. Ada Greunan. The petition was respectfully considered and a fair vote given for the submission of an amendment.
Subsequent sessions of the legislature have been besieged, as was also the constitutional convention in 1875; but beyond the passage of several laws improving the general status of women, we have not made much impression upon the law-making power of our State; not so much since the State passed into the hands of the Democrats, as while the Republicans were in the majority.
But the public meetings and social influence of our association have done much for the cause of woman suffrage. Strangers are surprised to find so little prejudice existing against a movement so decidedly unpopular in many places. The convention held in St. Louis in October, 1869, was one of the very best I have ever known, and its influence was long felt for good. In the spring of 1871 our association became auxiliary to the American, and in consequence several of our active members seceded, viz.: Mr. and Mrs. Minor, Miss Couzins, Dr. Greunan and others. In the autumn of 1872 the American Association held its annual meeting in St. Louis.
The law school of Washington University has always been open to women. Miss Couzins was the first to avail herself of its advantages in 1869, though Miss Barkaloo of Brooklyn, denied admission to Columbia Law School, soon joined her, and was admitted to the bar in 1870. While Miss Barkaloo was not the first woman admitted to the bar in the United States, she doubtless was the first to try a case in court. She died after a few months of most promising practice.[384] Miss Couzins was admitted to the bar in May, 1871.
The St. Louis School of Design, which has done much for woman, was originated by members of our association; principally by Mrs. Mary F. Henderson, who has given untiring effort in that direction. Our members were also instrumental in opening to women the St. Louis Homeopathic Medical College, and active in opposing what was known as the St. Louis "Social Evil Law." They aided Dr. Eliot in his valiant struggle against that iniquity. Mrs. E. Patrick and myself called the first public meeting to protest against the law. It was repealed March 27, 1874.
You are probably familiar with Mrs. Minor's suit to obtain suffrage under the fourteenth amendment. We all admired her courageous efforts for that object. Previous to that attempt our society had earnestly advocated a sixteenth amendment for the protection of woman's right to vote, but held the matter in abeyance pending the suit. After its failure, we again renewed our efforts for a sixteenth amendment, circulating and sending to Washington our petitions. Our association holds monthly meetings and proposes to continue the agitation.[385] I ought to say, perhaps, that our society lends all the help possible to other States. It gave $520 to Michigan in 1874, and $200 to Colorado in 1877.
R. N. H.
To bring the question of woman's right as a citizen of the United States to vote for United States officers before the judiciary, Mrs. Minor attempted to register in order to vote at the national election in November, 1872, and being refused on account of her sex, brought the matter before the courts in the shape of a suit against the registering officer.[386] The point was decided adversely to her in all the courts, being finally reported in Vol. 21 of Wallace's U. S. Supreme Court Reports. The importance of this decision cannot be over-estimated. It affects every citizen of the United States, male as well as female, if, as there pronounced, the United States has no voters of its own creation. The Dred-Scott decision is insignificant in comparison. Mrs. Minor made the following points in her petition:
1. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff is entitled to any and all the "privileges and immunities" that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.
2. The elective franchise is a "privilege" of citizenship, in the highest sense of the word. It is the privilege preservative of all rights and privileges; and especially of the right of the citizen to participate in his or her government.
3. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government—the Constitution of the United States. If not found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to exercise it.
4. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the privileges of citizens, expressly declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
5. It follows that the provisions of the Missouri constitution and registry law before recited are in conflict with, and must yield to the paramount authority of, the Constitution of the United States.
At a mass meeting held in St. Louis January 25, 1875, a committee[387] was appointed to prepare an address to the people of the State, setting forth the necessity of such action by the constitutional convention, soon to assemble, as would insure to all citizens the right of choice in their lawmakers and in the officers whose duty it should be to execute the laws. The address was prepared and widely circulated over the State. In June, the convention being in session at Jefferson, Mrs. Minor, Miss Couzins, and Mrs. Dickinson went to the capitol and were granted a gracious hearing, but no action was conceded.
In May, 1879, the National Woman Suffrage Association held its annual meeting at St. Louis, holding its session through the day, morning, afternoon and evening, and so much interest was aroused that on May 13 a local society was organized under the head of the National Woman Suffrage Association for St. Louis,[388] with Mrs. Minor president, which has continued to do most efficient service to the present. During the summer of 1879, Mrs. Minor refused to pay the tax assessed against her:
St. Louis, Mo., August 26, 1879.
Hon. David Powers, President Board of Assessors: I honestly believe and conscientiously make oath that I have not one dollars' worth of property subject to taxation. The principle upon which this government rests is representation before taxation. My property is denied representation, and therefore can not be taxable. The law which you quote as applicable to me in your notice to make my tax return is in direct conflict with section 30 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the State which declares, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," And that surely cannot be due process of law wherein one of the parties only is law-maker, judge, jury and executioner, and the other stands silenced, denied the power either of assent or dissent, a condition of "involuntary slavery" so clearly prohibited in section 31 of the same article, as well as in the Constitution of the United States, that no legislation or judicial prejudice can ignore it. I trust you will believe it is from no disrespect to you that I continue to refuse to become a party to this injustice by making a return of property to your honorable body, as clearly the duties of a citizen can only be exacted where rights and privileges are equally accorded.
Virginia L. Minor.
Respectfully,
Again, in February, 1881, Mrs. Minor made an able argument before the legislative committee on constitutional amendments in support of the petition for the enfranchisement of the women of the State. Her pivotal point was, "By whatever tenure you, as one-half of the people, hold it, we, the other half, claim it by the same." And again in December of the same year at a meeting of the Knights and Ladies of the Father Matthew Debating Club, at which the subject was, "Is the woman's rights movement to be encouraged?" Patrick Long, Daniel O'Connel Tracy, Richard D. Kerwen, spoke in the affirmative; several gentlemen and two ladies in opposition, when Mrs. Minor, who was in the audience, was called out amid great applause, to which she responded in an able speech, showing that the best temperance weapon in the hands of woman is the ballot.
1. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff is entitled to any and all the "privileges and immunities" that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.
2. The elective franchise is a "privilege" of citizenship, in the highest sense of the word. It is the privilege preservative of all rights and privileges; and especially of the right of the citizen to participate in his or her government.
3. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government—the Constitution of the United States. If not found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to exercise it.
4. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the privileges of citizens, expressly declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
5. It follows that the provisions of the Missouri constitution and registry law before recited are in conflict with, and must yield to the paramount authority of, the Constitution of the United States.
St. Louis, Mo., August 26, 1879.
Hon. David Powers, President Board of Assessors: I honestly believe and conscientiously make oath that I have not one dollars' worth of property subject to taxation. The principle upon which this government rests is representation before taxation. My property is denied representation, and therefore can not be taxable. The law which you quote as applicable to me in your notice to make my tax return is in direct conflict with section 30 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the State which declares, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," And that surely cannot be due process of law wherein one of the parties only is law-maker, judge, jury and executioner, and the other stands silenced, denied the power either of assent or dissent, a condition of "involuntary slavery" so clearly prohibited in section 31 of the same article, as well as in the Constitution of the United States, that no legislation or judicial prejudice can ignore it. I trust you will believe it is from no disrespect to you that I continue to refuse to become a party to this injustice by making a return of property to your honorable body, as clearly the duties of a citizen can only be exacted where rights and privileges are equally accorded.
Virginia L. Minor.
Respectfully,