Miss Anthony was to have presided at this meeting and in referring to her absence on account of illness Dr. Shaw said: "I am not taking Miss Anthony's place this evening—there is only one Susan B. Anthony, but it is also true that there is only one Clara Barton and but one Julia Ward Howe and these grand women we have with us." Miss Barton, who, in her soft plum-colored satin with fichu of white lace, her dark hair parted smoothly over her forehead, did not seem over sixty although she was eighty-four, was enthusiastically received and said in part: "What greater honor and what greater embarrassment than to be asked to take ever so small a step on a platform that Susan B. Anthony had expected to tread. As I stand here tonight my thoughts go back to the time when Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Miss Anthony were pioneers struggling for this righteous cause. I think the greatest reforms, the greatest progress ever made for any reforms in our country have been along the lines on which they worked. Miss Anthony's has been a long life. She has trod the thorny way, has walked through briars with bleeding feet, but it is through a sweet and lovely way now and the hearts of the whole country are with her. A few days ago some one said to me that every woman should stand with bared head before Susan B. Anthony. 'Yes,' I answered, 'and every man as well.' I would not retract these words. I believe that man has benefited by her work as much as woman. For ages he has been trying to carry the burden of life's responsibilities alone and when he has the efficient help of woman he will be grateful. Just now it is new and strange and men cannot comprehend what it would mean but the change is not far away. The nation is soon to have woman suffrage and it will be a glad and proud day when it comes."
Mrs. Howe in the dignity of her eighty-seven years made a lovely picture in a gown of mauve satin with a creamy lace scarf draped about her head and shoulders. She was escorted to the front of the platform by the Governor and said in her brief response: "Madam president and you dear suffrage friends, and the rest of you who are going to become suffrage friends before we leave this city, I give you thanks for this friendly greeting. I am very, very glad to meet you all. I am not going to preach a sermon but I have a text from the New Testament, a question that the Lord asked when the crowd came to see him, 'What came ye out to see? A reed shaken with the wind?' No, it was a prophet that they came to see and hear. When you come to these suffrage meetings you do not come to see reeds shaken by the wind. We do not any of us claim to be prophets but you do come to hear a prophecy, a very glad prophecy which some of us have believed in and followed for years, and all the way of that following has been joyous and bright though it has not been popular. I remember many years ago going with Mrs. Livermore and Lucy Stone to a meeting in New England and the report was sent out that 'three old crows were coming to disturb the town with their croakings.' I can never forget that evening. When Mary Livermore looked the audience over in her calm and dignified manner they quieted down as if by magic. When reasonable measures are proposed in a reasonable way there are always some people who will respond and be convinced. We have no desire to put out of sight the difficulties of government. When we talk about woman suffrage people begin to remember how unsatisfactory manhood suffrage is, but I should like to see what men would do if there was an attempt to take it away. We might much improve it by bringing to it the feminine mind, which in a way complements the masculine. I frankly believe that we have half the intelligence and good sense of humanity and that it is quite time we should express not only our sentiments but our determined will to set our faces toward justice and right and to follow these through the thorny wilderness if necessary—follow them straight, not to the 'bitter end,' for it will not be bitter but very sweet and I hope it will come before my end comes."
For the second time Dr. Shaw had written her president's address but although it was a statesmanlike document the audience missed the spontaneity, the sparkle of wit, the flashes of eloquence that distinguished her oratory above that of all others, and there was a general demand that hereafter she should give them the spoken instead of the written word. She complied and while it was a gain to the audiences of her day and generation it was a great loss to posterity. Even extended quotations can give little idea of this address which filled over ten columns of the Woman's Journal.
For the first time in the history of our association we meet to protest against the disenfranchisement of women in a State in which the first public demand for a part in the conduct of our government was made by a woman. It was in an impassioned appeal to your Assembly, that in 1647 Mistress Margaret Brent demanded "a part and voyce" as representative of the estate of her kinsman, Lord Baltimore, whose name your city bears. Here Mary Catherine Goddard published Baltimore's only newspaper through all the severe struggle of the Revolutionary War, and it is stated upon good authority that when Congress, then in session in Baltimore, sent out the official Declaration of Independence, with the names of the signers attached, it was published by official order in Miss Goddard's paper; that her name was on the sheet which was officially circulated throughout the country; but, although a memorial sheet was afterwards placed in the Court House, Miss Goddard's name was not left on it. This omission is but one of many evidences that in the compilation of the world's historic events it has been customary to overlook the part performed by women.
Dr. Shaw took up the section on Labor in President Roosevelt's recent message to Congress in which he recommended a thorough investigation of the condition of women in industry, saying: "There is an almost complete dearth of data on which to base any trustworthy conclusions," and then drawing this one: "The introduction of women into industry is working change and disturbance in the domestic and social life of the nation; the decrease in marriage and especially in the birth-rate have been coincident with it." Dr. Shaw's comment was in part:
This is unquestionably true but it is also true that this has been coincident with the wider discovery of gold and the application of steam and electricity to mechanics ... and to draw sweeping and universal conclusions in regard to a matter upon which there is an "almost complete dearth of data" is never wise. Is it true that there is a lower birth-rate among working women than among those of the wealthy class? Are not the effects of over-work and long hours in the household as great as are those of the factory or the office? Is the birth-rate less among women who are engaged in the occupations unknown to women of the past? Or is the decline alike marked among those who are pursuing the ancient occupations but under different conditions?... If conditions surrounding their employment are such as to make it a "social question of the first importance" it is unfortunate the President had not seen that women should constitute at least a part of any commission authorized to investigate it.
One can not but wish that with his expressed desire for "fair play" and his policy of "a square deal" it had occurred to the President that, if five million American women are employed in gainful occupations, every principle of justice would demand that they should be enfranchised to enable them to secure legislation for their own protection. In all governments a subject class is always at a disadvantage and at the mercy of the ruling class. It matters not whether its name be Empire, Kingdom or Republic, whether the rulers are one or many; and in a democracy there is no way known for any class to protect its interests or to be secure in its most sacred rights except through the power of the ballot....
There had been about this time in high places an outburst of attacks on woman suffrage and predictions as to its dangerous possibilities. Dr. Shaw referred to their authors as Oracles and said: "The great difficulty is that when one Oracle claiming to be divinely inspired has laid down a specific line of conduct which if implicitly followed would lead to the proper development of woman, the happiness of man, the good of the family and the well-being of the State, another Oracle also divinely enlightened lays out a different path by which these ends may be secured, and then another and another until poor women if they should try to follow these self-appointed divine revealers would not only have to be hydra-headed to see these devious paths but hydra-footed to walk in them." Referring to Cardinal Gibbons, she said:
The Oracle of Baltimore tells us that the education and culture of women are good up to a certain point, no further, but he sagely fails to define the point, simply declaring that "too much education of the head is apt to cool the heart; the cultivation of the soul is too much neglected in the higher education; the head and the heart and the body should all be educated together; then they develop equally." There certainly can be no disagreement among us as to the latter statement but why is it more applicable to women than to men? The Oracle does not leave us in doubt as to his view, for in response to the question, "What do you think of the societies and club organizations which attract women so largely just now?" he replies: "A society like the Daughters of the American Revolution I heartily approve of, for it tends to foster patriotism and keep it alive, but other clubs of all kinds for women I strictly disapprove of."
The Oracle of Princeton, ex-President Cleveland, who has gained the most notoriety for his heavy diatribes against women's clubs, also admits that there are a few societies which it might be well for women to encourage and keep alive—religious organizations and those which administer to the needs of the heathen in a foreign land. The Oracle of Brooklyn, Dr. Lyman Abbott, adds a few more to the list and includes philanthropic, reform and social clubs. Would it be unwomanly to ask why there should have been such wide divergence in the Divine Illumination which each Oracle received?