Their suffragist opponents will not be gainsaid. While the condition of woman and her children has been mitigated, much remains to do, they say, and the more quickly by the ballot. For example, while eighteen States, comprising nearly one-half the population of the Union—41,231,000, to be exact—enjoy the benefit of joint guardianship laws, and in twenty-seven more States the surviving mother is made sole guardian of her children with the same powers exercised by the father in his lifetime, six States remain—Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, and Maryland, with a combined population of 9,104,000—in which the father has power to bequeath the guardianship to a stranger and away from the mother. To be sure, in this ninth of the population of the country the custom ignores the common law; husbands uniformly leave the guardianship of children to their wives, and the mother shares authority over them with the father. But here is a field for corrective legal action. The question is whether, if women had the vote, this would be the swiftest and most direct means of bringing about the reform demanded. A suffragist writer has said: "It took the mothers of Massachusetts fifty-five years to get an equal guardianship law, but after the women obtained the ballot in Colorado the very next Legislature enacted one." She forgot that New York's joint guardianship law was passed a year before the Colorado statute. Mrs. George W. Townsend of Buffalo, who as head of the Woman's Educational and Industrial Union was active in urging the passage of the joint guardianship laws in both States, says of the one in New York:
Our Union was especially careful that the Suffrage Association should not know of the Union's effort until after the law was passed. I remember that a prominent suffragist called to see me as soon as she heard of it, and said, "How did you accomplish this great good, and not let us know?" And I answered, "Because we did not let you know." I think I was justified in saying that, because many men in both houses were so opposed to woman suffrage that they would not have voted for our bills. The guardianship bill was passed without a negative vote in either house.
The work was done in a systematic manner. Circulars giving full information in regard to laws in other States, and as to what we desired to accomplish, and reasons therefor, were sent to every legislator. There was no lobbying, and, in fact, it was not necessary for me to go to Albany at all.
It should be noted in this connection that in Wyoming, while it is not among the "benighted" states that permit the father to will the guardianship of his children away from the mother, the women have had an equal voice in the State Government for more than half a century without making fathers and mothers joint guardians of their children. It is not clear, therefore, that joint guardianship laws have been passed the more quickly by reason of woman suffrage.
But other tests should be applied. The new complaints of woman that have arisen since the Declaration of 1848 deal largely with her condition in the industries which men have thrown open to her. Has the suffrage enabled her more quickly to ameliorate this condition? Around this point the strife rages between the "pros" and the "antis." Miss Minnie Bronson, who was employed from 1907 to 1909 by the Federal Bureau of Labor to investigate the conditions of labor of women and children, and who acted as the Special Agent of the Bureau to report on the strike of shirtwaist makers in 1910 has prepared a statement for the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women embodying a comparison of the laws for the protection of wage-earning women in the various States of the Union. Miss Bronson's contentions have been deemed of sufficient importance to merit a reply, with an introduction by Jane Addams, written by the two best qualified woman suffragist authorities on women in the industries, Miss Edith Abbott of Hull House, Chicago, and Professor Sophonisba P. Breckinridge of the University of Chicago. The allegations of Miss Bronson and the specific replies of her opponents thereto are marshaled below:
| "Anti" Contentions | Suffragist Replies |
| A suffragist addressing the
women shirtwaist strikers in
New York declared that if the
women engaged in this industry
had had the ballot such a
strike as theirs would be unnecessary.
The speaker would
have been surprised to learn
that 40 per cent, of the strikers
were men, 36 per cent,
were women under 21 years,
and 6 per cent. were women
workers of voting age who
had not been in this country
long enough to gain a residence. | When we say that if women
had a vote there would be an
end of child labor, and that
young girls would work shorter
hours, this does not mean that
we think the children in the
mills and factories and workshops
are going to be allowed
to vote. In England conditions
improved for all workingmen
when some workmen
got the vote; in this country
when some women get the
vote conditions for all workingwomen
will improve. |
| Laws governing the labor of
women are constantly improved,
not because women
have the ballot or want it, but
because women are entering
more and more into the industrial
life of the country. In
forty-four states the laws
for safeguarding wage-earning
women are better and more
comprehensive than the laws
for the safeguarding of wage-earning
men. Moreover, a
comparison of the labor laws
of the various states shows
that there are more and better
laws for the protection of
women wage-earners in the
non-suffrage states than in
states where women have the
ballot. | Any fair-minded person
need only recall the long series
of statutes enacted in all the
leading industrial states, covering
nearly three-fourths of a
century, as a result of workmen's
efforts to get through
laws a larger measure of justice
than they could obtain
through their attempts to bargain
with individual employers.
This legislation, although
it may in a few cases protect
the workingwoman as well as
the workingman, represents
the results of long years of
earnest struggle by workingmen
with votes to improve
their condition. Miss Bronson
ignores this, laying stress on
the fact that some states have
a few special provisions to protect
wage-earning women from
exploitation likely to injure
health and endanger their children's
health. |
| In thirty-four states laws
have been passed limiting the
hours of labor in which a
woman may be employed.
Three of the four woman
suffrage states where women
have voted long enough to
affect legislation have no such
law, and the 54-hour law in
Utah was not enacted until
1911, fifteen years after woman
suffrage became operative
there. | No suffragist would deny
that protective legislation has
been obtained in states where
women do not vote. It is well
known that most of this legislation
was obtained through
the laborious efforts of suffragists.
No argument that protective
legislation does not exist
in some of the states in which
women have the ballot is
valid which ignores the special
needs of these states. Colorado,
Wyoming, Idaho and
Utah are all mining and agricultural
states and have very
few wage-earning women who
are employed in factories.
Massachusetts had 152,713
women in "manufacturing and
mechanical pursuits" when
the last United States Census
of Occupations was taken;
Idaho had only 681. A similar
contrast might be drawn for
any of the other states: thus,
Wyoming had 501 women in
industrial occupations while
New York in the same year
had 136,788. |
| Thirty-nine states compel
employers in stores, factories,
shops, etc., to provide seats
for female employés. Nine
states have no such laws, and
one of the nine states is a
suffrage state. | The one suffrage state,
Idaho, that fails to provide
seats for saleswomen had 153
saleswomen in all at a time
when Massachusetts had
11,985, Illinois, 12,149, and
New York, 30,858. In most
of the thirty-nine states where
voteless women have secured
these laws, they have never
received the means of enforcing
them. The protective
laws protect no one. |
| In forty-two states, the
territory of Alaska, and the
District of Columbia, the earnings
of a married woman are
secured to her absolutely, and
cannot be required by law, as
can the earnings of a married
man, for the support of the
family, nor are they liable for
her husband's debts. Six
states do not so provide, and
one is a suffrage state. | No reply. |
| Sixteen states regulate the
employment of women at
night, and specifically state
the hours between which
women may not be employed.
These laws were all enacted
under male suffrage. In these
sixteen states are all those
that prohibit night work for
girls who are minors, but who
are over 16 and therefore not
protected by child labor laws. | Night work for women is
not prohibited in Idaho, Colorado,
Wyoming, and Utah,
for the same reason that the
workingmen of Nebraska have
not passed a law protecting
seamen. |
| Twenty-four states, only
one a suffrage state, restrict
the number of hours of employment
for women, both by
the day and week, thus causing
one day of rest in seven.
The suffrage states of Washington
and California, while
limiting women's work to
forty-eight hours a week,
passed both laws while under
male suffrage. | The same legislature of California
that granted equal suffrage
passed the eight-hour
law for women. Massachusetts
has passed a 54-hour a
week law for women as the
culmination of forty years of
effort by indirect influence to
improve conditions for women
in industry. Utah in 1911
passed a nine-hour law for
women after less than two
years of effort by its advocates.
The first legislature
of which they asked it gave it
to women with votes. Of the
non-suffrage states not one
has an eight-hour law for
women, and only five have
nine-hour laws. |
| Eliminating the manufacturing
states of the east, which
have the most and best remedial
laws for women, the suffrage
states of Idaho and
Wyoming do not limit the
hours a woman may be employed,
while the neighboring
male-suffrage states of Oklahoma,
South Dakota, North
Dakota, and Nebraska regulate the hours by law, and
Nebraska prohibits the employment
of women at night in
all manufacturing mechanical,
or mercantile establishments,
and in hotels, and restaurants,
and limits the number of hours
per week, thereby insuring one
day of rest. | The Nebraska law provides
for a ten-hour day and a sixty-hour
week and does not prohibit
Sunday labor. Nebraska,
in company with a large number
of other states, has a law
prohibiting Sunday labor,
which applies to both men and
women.
The fact that Colorado has
no Sunday labor law argues
as much against suffrage for
men as for women, since the
men in the large metal-working
establishments are chiefly
affected by absence of Sunday
laws. Anyway, such laws are
rarely enforced. |
| An eight-hour law for
women was enacted in Colorado
in 1903, a very inadequate
law, for it was restricted
in its application to women
who must stand at work, and
exempted the great majority
of women employed in that
state in the "seated trades" of
ready-made clothing, dress-making,
millinery and like
occupations, and in candy-making,
box-making, and
cigar-making. The law was
pronounced unconstitutional
in 1907 by the Supreme Court
of Colorado, although state
courts and the Federal Supreme
Court have upheld similar
laws in neighboring male-suffrage
states. Not until
1912, nineteen years after
woman suffrage came into
Colorado, was a law finally
secured limiting the hours of
women at work. | The eight-hour day of the
Colorado law, made for the
majority of workingwomen of
Colorado a forty-eight-hour
week, in contrast with the
60-hour week in the neighboring
states of Oklahoma, South
Dakota, North Dakota, and
Nebraska. It is little short of
ridiculous to discuss these laws
as if they were all genuinely
protective through proper
enforcement. The last census
of occupations showed but 65
women and girls in Colorado
employed in candy-making,
11 in box-making, and 30 in
cigar-making, in contrast to
1,184 saleswomen, 762 waitresses,
1,599 in hand and steam
laundries,—all in the standing
trades. |
| Laws not enacted under
woman suffrage are those in
Massachusetts prohibiting employers
from deducting the
wages of women when time is
lost because machinery has
broken down, and prohibiting
the employment of women for
a fixed period before and after
childbirth; the law in Delaware
and Louisiana exempting
the wages of women from
execution, and laws in California,
Illinois, and Washington,
providing that no person
shall on account of sex be disqualified
from entering upon
or pursuing any lawful business,
vocation, or profession. | The Massachusetts law relating
to broken-down machinery
was passed to correct
peculiar abuses in the textile
industries. This law was not
needed in suffrage states. In
a few states the courts took
the position that since women
were not voters they could
not become practicing lawyers;
corrective statutes were
passed. No such law would
be needed in a state where
women do participate in the
Government. |
| A suffragist says that in
Massachusetts the average
pay of a female teacher is only
one-third that of a male
teacher, and in almost all the
states it is unequal, whereas
Wyoming and Utah give equal
pay for equal work. Where
teachers are doing the same
grade of work no such percentage
as three to one obtains in
Massachusetts. Female teachers
do not in the majority of
cases receive the same pay as
men for the work of the same
grade; but here the law of
supply and demand is paramount.
The women teachers
of New York City receive
equal pay with men teachers,
granted by a male-suffrage
legislature. | The doctrine of the inflexibility
and almost sacred character
of supply and demand is
outworn. The supply of child
labor has been greatly reduced
in many states, and is
entirely cut off in others by
means of protective legislation;
in still other states the
demand for child labor has
greatly decreased as the result
of inconvenient protective
child labor laws and the demand
for labor of men and
women has correspondingly
increased. To get equal pay
the women teachers in New
York City had to put in six
years of hard and exhausting
work by "indirect influence"
while in the suffrage states
the same result has come about
almost automatically. |
In this conflicting testimony it does not appear that the complaint of Lucretia Mott and her sister suffragists in 1848 that woman had been oppressed on all sides is valid to-day. Both Miss Bronson and her suffragist opponents agree that woman in industry has been protected, not oppressed. It is admitted that this is not a result of the exercise of the ballot by woman. It is unfortunate, of course, that the suffrage states are in the agricultural and mining stages of civilization, and cannot show how formidable the women's vote might be in correcting the oppressive man-made laws. It is a little deplorable, too, that the women in the male-suffrage states should have spent so much of their time proving that protective laws might be gotten by the despised indirect methods. Dr. Abbott and Professor Breckinridge have perceived this tactical error, and they note it in these words:
American women would probably have got the vote long ago if they had followed the present English method of making suffrage a paramount issue, first, last, and all the time. Instead of this, Miss Jane Addams in Illinois, Mrs. Florence Kelley in New York, and a host of other ardent suffragists have labored with the greatest devotion and self-sacrifice to secure protective legislation for women and children. How much effort they have put into it, how much time and energy it has cost, only those who have been closely associated with them know. It should not be forgotten that, as the result of their experience, they say that the ballot is the swiftest and surest way to bring about the reforms which are asked by and for the women workers of the country.
But how can that last sentence be verified? Was it not explicitly admitted that the suffrage states, by reason of their mining and agricultural status, have had little occasion to reform the laws for women workers, and that the reforms have all been worked out in the east? The male workers under male suffrage have done this for themselves, and incidentally for the women workers among them. Of course, there are fewer woman bread-winners, the proportion being five men to one woman. But women share equally in the benefits of labor legislation, besides being specially protected. The unions have even succeeded in leveling up a little the scale of women's wages, thus measurably meeting the complaint of 1848 that in her employments woman "receives but a scanty remuneration." And despite the equal pay laws for teachers in the suffrage states the average pay for women teachers is much below that of men teachers. Dr. Helen M. Sumner, the suffragist writer of the book Equal Suffrage says: "Taking public employment as a whole, women in Colorado receive considerably less remuneration than men;" and "the wages of men and women in all fields of industry are governed by economic conditions." Dr. Sumner's tables show that the pay of women in Colorado has never been quite half as much as the pay of men; while the average weekly wage of women in that state is 97 cents higher than the average in the United States, the average weekly pay of men is $3.62 higher than for the United States as a whole. Dr. Sumner frankly acknowledges that the suffrage has probably nothing to do with the wages of either men or women.
As for hours of work, the contention of the suffragists that the 54-hour a week law in Massachusetts was "the culmination of forty years of effort by indirect influence to improve conditions for women in industry," while Utah granted such a law after less than two years of effort by its suffragist advocates, merits the comment that the forty years, or one-eighth that time, were not consumed in agitating for this specific bit of legislation. The struggle for the law limiting hours of women's work in Massachusetts lasted a little longer than in Utah, chiefly because Utah is an agricultural state where manufacturers have less at stake in the passage of such a restrictive measure. It is not probable that the legislators of Utah blenched and yielded this point through fear of the women's vote, or that any but humanitarian motives dictated the legislation in either state.
Considerations of humanity, indeed, and not politics, seem to animate the legislative programs for the protection of women and children in most states, whether male suffragist or equal suffragist. Pennsylvania, for example, is one of the black states on the suffragist maps, because it has never extended the franchise to woman, even for the election of school committees. If the woman's vote is requisite, we should see the protective laws of Pennsylvania far behind those of Colorado. Colorado has had equal suffrage since 1893, and of all the woman suffragist states, conditions there are most nearly like those in the male suffragist East. For comparison, I draw on two unchallenged documents, one prepared by Mary C. Bradford and published by the Colorado Equal Suffrage Association—with some additions by Elinor Byrns and Helen Ranlett, printed in The New York Evening Post of Nov. 10, 1913—summarizing the protective laws for women and children passed in that state from 1893 to 1912; the other, a statement of similar laws in force in Pennsylvania in 1912, put forth by the Pennsylvania Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage: