The History of Woman Suffrage, Volume IV

by Unknown

The general election of November, 1884, naturally showed a larger vote by both men and women, the latter casting 12,000 out of the 48,000 ballots. It was estimated at this time that there were less than one-third as many women as men in the Territory. When the scattered population, the long distances and the difficulties of travel are taken into consideration it must be admitted that women took the largest possible advantage of the recently granted privileges.

For the next two years they continued to use the franchise with unabated zeal, and newspapers and public speakers were unanimous in their approval. In a number of instances the official returns, during the three-and-a-half years they possessed the suffrage, exhibited a larger percentage of women voting than of men. Chief Justice Roger S. Greene of the Supreme Court estimated that at the last election before they were disfranchised four-fifths of all the women in the Territory went to the polls.

Many women have remarked upon the increased respect and courtesy of the men during this period. Mrs. Elizabeth Matthews, who removed from New Orleans to Port Townsend in 1885, states that, although accustomed from babyhood to the deferential gallantry of the men of the South, she never had dreamed that any women in the world were receiving such respectful consideration as she found in Washington Territory at that time. The political parties realized the necessity of putting their best men to the front, and it was fully conceded that ethics had become a factor in politics.

Prior to the Legislature of 1886 some discussion arose as to the constitutionality of the Equal Suffrage Law, and, in order to remove all doubt, a strengthening Act was passed, which was approved by Gov. Watson C. Squire, November 29.

On Feb. 3, 1887, the case of Harlan vs. Washington came before the Territorial Supreme Court. Harlan had been convicted of carrying on a swindling game by a jury composed of both men and women, and he contested the verdict on the ground that women were not legal voters. The Supreme Court, whose personnel had been entirely changed through a new Presidential administration, decided that the law conferring the elective franchise upon them was void because it had not been fully described in its title. This decision also rendered void nineteen other laws which had been enacted under the same conditions.

The members of the next Legislature had been elected so long before the rendering of this decision that their seats could not be contested; and as their election had been by both men and women they were determined to re-establish the law which the Supreme Court had ruthlessly overthrown. Therefore the Equal Suffrage Law was re-enacted, perfectly titled and worded, and was approved by Gov. Eugene Semple, Jan. 18, 1888.

The members of a convention to prepare a State constitution were soon to be chosen, and the opponents of woman suffrage were most anxious to have the question considered by the Supreme Court before the election of the delegates. They arranged that the judges of the spring municipal election in a certain precinct should refuse to accept the vote of a Mrs. Nevada Bloomer, the wife of a saloon-keeper and herself an avowed opponent of woman suffrage. This was done on April 3, and she brought suit against them. The case was rushed through, and on August 14 the Supreme Court decided that the Act of January 18 was invalid, as a Territorial Legislature had no right to enfranchise women, and that in consequence the Equal Suffrage Law was void. The Judges responsible for this decision were Associate Justices George Turner and William G. Langford.

The very Act of Congress which organized the Territory of Washington stated explicitly that, at elections subsequent to the first, all persons should be allowed to vote upon whom the Territorial Legislature might confer the elective franchise.

By the organic act under which all the Territories were formed women had been voting in Wyoming since 1869 and in Utah since 1870. The arbitrary disfranchisement of the women of the latter by Congress in 1887 demonstrated that this body did have supreme control over suffrage in the Territories, and therefore unimpeachable power to authorize their Legislatures to confer it on women, as had been done by that of Washington. There never was a more unconstitutional decision than that of this Territorial Supreme Court. Congress should have refused to admit the Territory until women had voted for delegates to the constitutional convention and on the constitution itself.[458]

Without doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would have reversed the decision of the Territorial Court, but Mrs. Bloomer refused to allow the case to be appealed, and no one else had authority to do so.