WASHINGTON.
The following account of the unconstitutional disfranchising of the women of Washington Territory in 1888 was carefully prepared by the editors of the Woman's Journal (Boston). When the editors of the present volume decided to incorporate it as a part of the History of Woman Suffrage it was submitted to Judge Orange J. Jacobs of Seattle for legal inspection. He returned it with the statement that it was correct in every particular. It constitutes one of the many judicial outrages which have been committed in the United States in the determination to prevent the enfranchisement of women:
Women voted in Washington Territory for the first time in 1884, and were disfranchised by its Supreme Court in 1887.
Equal suffrage was granted by the Legislature in October, 1883. The women at once began to distinguish themselves there, as in Wyoming and elsewhere, by voting for the best man, irrespective of party. The old files of the Washington newspapers bear ample evidence to this fact. The first chance they had to vote was at the municipal elections of July, 1884. The Seattle Mirror said:
"The city election of last Monday was for more reasons than one the most important ever held in Seattle. The presence of women at the voting-places had the effect of preventing the disgraceful proceedings usually seen. It was the first election in the city where the women could vote, and the first where the gambling and liquor fraternity, which had so long controlled the municipal government to an enormous extent, suffered defeat."
The Post-Intelligencer said:
"After the experience of the late election it will not do for any one here to say the women do not want to vote. They displayed as much interest as the men, and, if anything, more.... The result insures Seattle a first-class municipal administration. It is a warning to that undesirable class of the community who subsist upon the weaknesses and vices of society that disregard of law and the decencies of civilization will not be tolerated."
Quotations might be multiplied from the papers of other towns, testifying to the independent voting of the women, the large size of their vote, the courtesy with which they were treated, and the greater quiet and order produced by their presence at the polls.
Next came the general election of November, 1884. Again the newspapers were practically unanimous as to the result. The Olympia Transcript, which was opposed to equal suffrage, said: "The result shows that all parties must put up good men if they expect to elect them. They can not do as they have in the past—nominate any candidates, and elect them by the force of the party lash."
The Democratic State Journal said: "No one could fail to see that hereafter more attention must be given at the primaries to select the purest of material, by both parties, if they would gain the female vote."
Charles J. Woodbury visited Washington about this time. In a letter to the N. Y. Evening Post, he said: "Whatever may be the vicissitudes of woman suffrage in Washington Territory in the future, it should now be put on record that at the election, Nov. 4, 1884, nine-tenths of its adult female population availed themselves of the right to vote with a hearty enthusiasm."
He goes on to say that he arrived in Seattle on Sunday, and was surprised at the quiet and order he found prevailing, and at the general Sunday closing of the places of business: "Even the bars of the hotels were closed; and this was the worst town in the Territory when I first saw it. Now its uproarious theaters, dance-houses, squaw-brothels and Sunday fights are things of the past. Not a gambling house exists."
Women served on juries, and meted out the full penalty of the law to gamblers and keepers of disorderly houses. The Chief Justice of the Territory was the Hon. Roger S. Greene, a cousin of U. S. Senator Hoar, a man of high character and integrity, and a magistrate celebrated throughout the Northwest for his resolute and courageous resistance to lynch law. In his charge to the grand jury at Port Townsend, August, 1884, he said:
"The opponents of woman suffrage in this Territory are found allied with a solid phalanx of gamblers, prostitutes, pimps, and drunkard-makers—a phalanx composed of all in each of those classes who know the interest of the class and vote according to it."
In his charge to another grand jury later, Chief Justice Greene said:
"Twelve terms of court, ladies and gentlemen, I have now held, in which women have served as grand and petit jurors, and it is certainly a fact beyond dispute that no other twelve terms so salutary for restraint of crime have ever been held in this Territory. For fifteen years I have been trying to do what a judge ought, but have never till the last six months felt underneath and around me, in the degree that every judge has a right to feel it, the upbuoying might of the people in the line of full and resolute enforcement of the law."
Naturally, the vicious elements disliked "the full and resolute enforcement of law." The baser sort of politicians also disliked the independent voting of the women. The Republicans had a normal majority in the Territory, but they nominated for a high office a man who was a hard drinker. The Republican women would not vote for him, and he was defeated. Next they nominated a man who had for years been openly living with an Indian woman and had a family of half-breed children. Again the Republican women refused to vote for him, and he was defeated. This brought the enmity of the Republican "machine" upon woman suffrage. The Democratic women showed equal independence, and incurred the hostility of the Democratic "machine."
Between 1884 and 1888 a change of administration at Washington led to a change in the Territorial Supreme Court. The newly appointed Chief Justice and a majority of the new judges of the Supreme Court [appointed by President Cleveland] were opposed to equal suffrage, and were amenable, it is said, to the strong pressure brought to bear upon them by all the vicious elements to secure its repeal. A gambler who had been convicted by a jury composed in part of women contested the sentence on the ground that women were not legal voters, and the Supreme Court decided that the woman suffrage bill was unconstitutional, because it had been headed "An Act to Amend Section So and So, Chapter So and So of the Code," instead of "An Act to Enfranchise Women.".... When the Legislature met in 1888 it re-enacted the woman suffrage bill, giving it a full heading, and strengthening it in every way possible.
Washington was about to be admitted as a State, and was preparing to hold a Constitutional Convention to frame a State constitution. There was no doubt that the majority of the women wanted to vote. Chief Justice Greene estimated that four-fifths of them had voted at the last election before they were deprived of the right. Two successive Legislatures elected by men and women jointly had re-enacted woman suffrage (for its continuance had been made a test question in the choice of the first Legislature for which the women voted, and that Legislature had been careful to insert the words "he or she" in all bills relating to the election laws). It was admitted on all hands that if the women were allowed to vote for members of the Constitutional Convention, it would be impossible to elect one that would wipe out woman suffrage. It was therefore imperative to deprive the women of their votes before the members of the convention were chosen. A scheme was arranged for the purpose. On the ground that she was a woman, the election officers at a local election refused the vote of Mrs. Nevada Bloomer, a saloon-keeper's wife, who was opposed to suffrage. They accepted the votes of all the other women. She made a test case by bringing suit against them. In the ordinary course of things, the case would not have come up till after the election of the constitutional convention. But cases for the restoration of personal rights may be advanced on the docket, and Mrs. Bloomer's ostensible object was the restoration of her personal rights, though her real object was to deprive all women of theirs. Her case was put forward on the docket and hurried to a decision.
The Supreme Court [George Turner and Wm. G. Langford] this time pronounced the woman suffrage law unconstitutional on the ground that it was beyond the power of a Territorial Legislature to enfranchise women. The Organic Act of the Territory said that at the first Territorial election persons with certain qualifications should vote, and at subsequent elections such persons as the Territorial Legislature might enfranchise. But the court took the ground that in giving the Legislature the right to regulate suffrage, Congress did not at the time have it specifically in mind that they might enfranchise women, and that therefore they could not do so.(!) The suffragists wanted to have the case appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, but Mrs. Bloomer refused.
The women themselves being prevented from voting, their friends were not able to overcome the combined "machines" of both political parties, and the intense opposition of all the vicious and disorderly elements, at that time very large on the Pacific Coast. A convention opposed to equal suffrage was elected, and framed a constitution excluding women. A friend of the present writer talked with many of the members while the convention was in session. He says almost every lawyer in that body acknowledged, in private conversation, that the decision by which the women had been disfranchised was illegal. "But," they said, "the women had set the community by the ears on the temperance question, and we had to get rid of them." One politician said, frankly, "Women are natural mugwumps, and I hate a mugwump."
The convention, however, yielded to the pressure sufficiently to submit to the men a separate amendment proposing to strike out the word "male" from the suffrage clause of the new State constitution, but no woman was allowed to vote on it. In November, 1889, this amendment was lost, the same elements that defeated it in the convention defeating it at the polls, with the addition of a great influx of foreign immigrants.
NATIONAL-AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
This is the most democratic of organizations. Its sole object is to secure for women citizens protection in their right to vote. The general officers are nominated by an informal secret ballot, no one being put in nomination. The three persons receiving the highest number of votes are considered the nominees and the election is decided by secret ballot. Those entitled to vote are three delegates-at-large for each auxiliary State society and one delegate in addition for every one hundred members of each State auxiliary; the State presidents and State members of the National Executive Committee; the general officers of the association; the chairmen of standing committees. The delegates present from each State cast the full vote to which that State is entitled. The vote is taken in the same way upon any other question whenever the delegates present from five States request it. In other cases each delegate has one vote. Any State whose dues are unpaid on January 1 loses its vote in the convention for that year.
The two honorary presidents, president, vice-president-at-large, two secretaries, treasurer and two auditors constitute the Business Committee, which transacts the entire business of the association between the annual conventions.
The Executive Committee is composed of the Business Committee, the president of each State, and one member from each State, together with the chairmen of standing committees; fifteen make a quorum for the transaction of business. The decisions reached by the Executive Committee, which meets during the convention week, are presented in the form of recommendations at the business sessions of the convention.
The constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote at any annual meeting, after one day's notice in the convention, notice of the proposed amendment having been previously given to the Business Committee, and by them published in the suffrage papers not less than three months in advance.