Thomas F. Keenan, an opponent of woman suffrage, introduced a bill to license houses "for commercial sexual intercourse," which he alone voted for.[322]
1897—It was decided to ask this year for a thorough revision and equalization of the statutes bearing on domestic relations, in view of the fact that the last Legislature had appointed a committee of lawyers to revise and codify the laws. Especial attention was called to the need of a law making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children. Mr. Ernst, in behalf of the association, prepared a bill equalizing the property rights of husbands and wives. Mr. Russell, in behalf of the M. A. O. F. E. S. W. (which had for years been circulating leaflets declaring that the laws of Massachusetts were already more than just to women) prepared a bill tending in a similar direction; and a Judge of Probate prepared a more limited bill. All three appeared before the revising committee and, after repeated conferences, a bill making some improvements was recommended by the committee and enacted by the Legislature, but with a proviso that it should not go into effect until the following year, in order that the next Legislature might have a chance to amend it.
On February 10 the committee gave a hearing to the petitioners for the submission of an amendment to enfranchise women. It was addressed by Mr. Blackwell, Mrs. Cheney, Mrs. Boland, the Rev. Thomas Scully, the Rev. Mr. Ames, the Rev. Augusta Chapin, Miss Blackwell and others. No remonstrants appeared. The committee reported favorably, but on February 18 the bill was defeated by 74 yeas, 107 nays.
On February 24 the Committee on Election Laws heard arguments for Municipal and Presidential Suffrage, and also on the petition of the W. C. T. U. for License Suffrage. The committee had before it 144 largely signed petitions for suffrage and none against it. Mrs. Howe and Mr. Blackwell spoke in behalf of the measures asked for by the suffrage association, and a large number of prominent women for the W. C. T. U. Mr. Russell, Mrs. J. Elliott Cabot, Frank Foxcroft, Miss Dewey, Dr. Walter Channing, Mrs. A. J. George, A. Lawrence Lowell and Miss Mary A. J. McIntyre spoke against all three bills. Miss Blackwell, at the close, replied in behalf of both associations. Members of the committee asked the president of the anti-suffrage association, Mrs. Cabot, and almost all the women who spoke on that side whether they would vote for or against license if they had the ballot. Everyone answered that she would vote for license. Mr. Russell had declared that if women were allowed to vote, "no license would be carried in every town and city of the commonwealth, contrary to the will of the people." The committee gave a majority report against all the bills.
On March 10 the question of accepting the adverse report on License Suffrage came up in the Legislature. The vote stood, 100 yeas, 100 nays, and Speaker John L. Bates gave his casting vote in favor of substituting the bill for the adverse report. On March 18 the question was debated and the vote resulted in 108 yeas, 125 nays. There was much public interest and a lively discussion in the papers. Municipal and Presidential Suffrage were lost without a roll-call. A bill to make the Boston School Board appointive instead of elective, which would have deprived women of their School Suffrage, was defeated.
1898—The hearing on February 2 was conducted by Mr. Blackwell for the petitioners; Mr. Russell for the remonstrants. A letter from ex-Gov. William Claflin in favor of suffrage was read. Mrs. Anna Christy Fall, Mr. Garrison, ex-U. S. Attorney Frank B. Allen, Mrs. Helen Adelaide Shaw, Dr. A. E. Winship, editor of the Journal of Education, and others spoke for suffrage; Mrs. Arthur D. Gilman, Mrs. Egbert C. Smythe, Mrs. Rothery of Wellesley, Mrs. Lincoln R. Stone and Mrs. George against it. Miss Blackwell replied for the petitioners. The committee reported "leave to withdraw." On February 14, after debate in the House of Representatives, the vote stood 44 yeas, 97 nays.
On February 23 the committee gave a hearing on Municipal Suffrage and on License Suffrage, both of which were eloquently urged. Mrs. Cabot, Mrs. Charles E. Guild, the Rev. Thomas Van Ness, the Rev. Reuen Thomas, Mrs. Henry F. Durant, Mrs. William T. Sedgwick, Mr. Foxcroft and Mr. Russell spoke in opposition. Municipal Suffrage was not debated, but after discussion on March 10 and 11, in the House of Representatives, the vote on License Suffrage, including pairs, stood 60 yeas, 116 nays.
The record for 1899 and 1900 presented no variations except that a number of local associations petitioned for Municipal Suffrage for Taxpaying Women. The State association did not officially ask for this, though the majority of its officers favored the measure. The annual hearings were given, the usual large crowds were in attendance, the ablest men and women in the State advocated the granting of suffrage, those heretofore mentioned spoke in opposition,[323] and the negative vote was in about the same proportion as before the "remonstrants" made their appearance.[324]
Laws: Until 1845 the women of Massachusetts suffered to the fullest extent the barbarities of the English Common Law. After that date the changes were gradual but very slow. From 1884 there was but little improvement in the property laws until 1899, when a radical revision was effected by a legislative committee and approved by the Legislature. As there was to be a general revision of the statutes and the new book would not be issued until Jan. 1, 1902, it was decided that all should go into effect at that date. The new property law for women provides as follows: No distinction is made between real and personal property in distributing the estate. The surviving husband or wife takes and holds one-third if the deceased leaves children or their descendants; $5,000 and one-half of the remaining estate if the deceased leaves no issue; and the whole if the deceased leaves no kindred. This is taken absolutely and not for life. Curtesy and dower have not been abolished but the old-time curtesy, which is a life interest in the whole of a deceased wife's real estate, is cut down to a life interest in one-third, the same as dower; and in order to be entitled to dower or curtesy the surviving husband or wife must elect to take it in preference to abiding by the above provisions.
Either husband or wife can make a will under the new law without the consent of the other, but the survivor, if not satisfied with the will of the deceased, can waive it within a year and take the same share of the estate that he (or she) would have taken if there had been no will, except that, if he would thus become entitled to more than $10,000 in value, he shall receive, in addition to that amount, only the income during his life of the excess of his share of such estate above that amount; and except that, if the deceased leaves no kindred, he, upon such waiver, shall take the interest he would have taken if the deceased had died leaving kindred but no issue.