Notwithstanding all the efficient work done by the officers of the State association, the local clubs and the platform speakers, this measure would not have become a law but for the vigilant work of the women with the Legislature itself. Mrs. Johns was on hand from the first, tactfully urging the bill. She had very material aid in the constant presence, active pen and careful work of J. B. Johns, her husband. Mrs. Helen M. Gougar of Indiana was granted the privilege of addressing the House while in session. Prominent women from all parts of the State were in attendance, using their influence with the members from their districts. On the day of final debate in the House the floor and galleries were crowded, over 300 women being present. A jubilee impossible to describe followed the announcement that the bill had passed.[274] The next day the House was transformed by the women into a bower of blossoms.
In March, the next month after Municipal Suffrage was granted to women, the "age of protection" for girls was raised from ten to eighteen years.
Two years later, in 1889, a bill was presented to amend this law, which passed the Senate by 26 yeas, 9 nays, and was sent to the House. It was so smothered in words that the general public was not aware of its meaning. By the time it reached the House, however, the alarm had been sounded that it proposed to reduce the age of consent, and there was a storm of protest. This was not alone from women but also from a number of men. The Labor Unions were especially active in opposition and the House was inundated with letters and petitions. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee which reported it with the recommendation that it be not passed. Its author claimed that it was intended simply to afford some protection for boys.[275] In 1891 Attorney-General L. B. Kellogg recommended that, in order to protect young men of immature years from women of immoral life, inquiry as to the character of the woman bringing the charge should be permitted. Gov. Lyman U. Humphrey urged that such an amendment should be adopted, which could be done without lowering the age of protection for girls. No change, however, has been made in the law.
In 1889 the divorce law was so amended as to give the wife all the property owned by her at the time of marriage and all acquired by her afterward, alimony being allowed from the real and personal estate of the husband.
This year a bill was passed creating the Girls' Industrial School. Mrs. S. A. Thurston was one of the prime factors in securing this bill.
As the Legislature was overwhelmingly Republican the greatest effort was put forth to secure a law making it mandatory to place women on the State Boards of Charitable Institutions. Thirty-six large petitions were introduced by as many members in each House but all failed of effect.
In 1891 the Populist party gained control of the House of Representatives, although the Senate was still Republican. Mrs. Annie L. Diggs had been appointed by the Farmers' Alliance on their State legislative committee and she began a vigorous campaign to secure Full Suffrage for Women by Statutory Enactment, which it was believed could be done under the terms of the constitution. The bill was introduced into the House and urged by J. L. Soupene. Mrs. Diggs had the assistance of Col. Sam Wood and other ardent friends of suffrage. The Committee on Political Rights of Women reported the bill favorably, and said through its chairman, D. M. Watson:
While the constitution declares in the first section of its suffrage article that "every white male person, etc., shall be deemed a qualified elector," in the second section it names certain persons who shall be excluded from voting. Women are not given the right to vote in the first nor are they excluded in the second, and this indicates that the question of their right to vote was intended to be left to the Legislature. The Supreme Court (Wheeler vs. Brady, 15th Kas., p. 33,) says: "There is nothing in the nature of government which would prevent it. Women are members of society, members of the great body politic, citizens as much as men, with the same natural rights, united with men in the same common destiny, and are capable of receiving and exercising whatever political rights may be conferred upon them."
On February 14 the bill received 60 yeas, 39 nays, not a constitutional majority. The sentiment in favor was so strong among the Populists that a reconsideration was finally secured and the bill passed by 69 yeas—64 Pop., 4 Rep., 1 Dem.; 32 nays—16 Pop., 12 Rep., 4 Dem. Previous to its passage the Speaker, P. P. Elder (Pop.) presented a protest signed by himself, 7 Populists, 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats, declaring it to be unconstitutional and giving eight other objections.[276]
The friends were much elated at its passage over this protest and sent at once for Mrs. Johns to come to Topeka and work for its success in the Senate. She made every possible effort but in vain, the Republicans basing their refusal on its unconstitutionality. There was every reason to believe the Supreme Court would have upheld the statute.