History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4/Chapter 24

 

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN THE STATES.

The preceding chapters have been devoted principally to efforts made in behalf of women by the National-American Suffrage Association through its conventions, committees, officers, speakers, organizers and members. Contemporaneous with this line of action there has been for a number of years a similar movement in the respective States carried forward through their associations auxiliary to the National, their committees, officers, speakers, organizers and individual membership. Each of the two divisions has been largely dependent upon the other, the States forming the strength of the national body, the latter extending assistance to the States whenever a special campaign has been at hand or help has been needed in organizing, convention or legislative work. The following chapters are confined wholly to the situation in the various States and are subdivided into Organization, Legislative Action, Laws, Suffrage, OfficeHolding, Occupations and Education. Their object is to give a general idea of the status of woman at the close of the nineteenth century and the manifold changes of which it is the result. It is desired also to put on record the part which women themselves have had in the steady advance which will be observed.

The account of only the past seventeen years is given, as the three preceding volumes of this History relate in detail the pioneer work and the gains made previous to 1884. Unfortunately it is inevitable in a recital of this kind that many names should be omitted which are quite as worthy of mention as those that find place, for in some instances the records are imperfectly kept and in others the list is so long as to forbid reproduction.^[1] It has been necessary to bar compliments in order to avoid unjust discrimination and to meet the demands of limited space. To posterity the work is of more importance than the workers, and those who have engaged in the efforts to improve the condition of women necessarily have had to possess a spirit of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice which neither expected nor desired personal rewards.

The subject of Organization in most of the States is treated in the briefest possible manner, the intention being merely to show that in every State and Territory there has been some attempt to gather into a working force the scattered individuals who believe in the justice of woman suffrage and wish to obtain it. More extended mention of course is due to the older States, where there has been continuous organized work for many years, and where the societies have remained intact and held their regular meetings in spite of such defeats and discouragements as never have had to be faced by any other cause. It is most difficult to form and maintain an association which has not a concrete object to labor for, and when a campaign for an amendment is not actually in progress, the suffrage in the distant future appears largely as an abstraction. The early days of the movement necessarily had to be given to creating the sentiment which would later be organized, and it is only within the past decade that the time has seemed ripe for systematic effort in this direction. The lack of effective organization has been a serious but unavoidable weakness which henceforth will be remedied as speedily and thoroughly as possible.

It is a favorite argument of the opponents of woman suffrage that the many gains of various kinds have not been due to the efforts of women themselves. Under the head of Legislative Action will be found the dates and figures to prove that, year after year, in almost every State, women have gone to the Legislatures with appeals for every concession which has been granted. and many more which have been refused. The bills presented by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union have not been specifically included because they are fully recorded in the publications of that body, and because this volume is confined almost exclusively to the one subject of enfranchisement. While the Suffrage Associations have directed their legislative efforts principally to secure action for this purpose, individual members have joined the W. C. T. U. innumerable times in its attempts to obtain other bills of advantage to women and children, and in some instances this has been done officially by the associations.

Among various measures in which the two organizations have united may be mentioned the raising of the "age of protection" for girls; the securing of women physicians in all institutions where women and children are confined, and women on the boards of all such; women city physicians; matrons at jails and station houses; better conditions for working women; the abolition of child-labor; industrial schools for girls. Measures which have been especially championed by the W. S. A., but which the W. C. T. U. has aided officially or individually, have been those asking for every form of suffrage; equal property laws for wives; the opening of all educational institutions to women; their admission to all professions and occupations; the repeal of laws barring them from office; the enactment of laws giving father and mother equal guardianship of children.^[2]

The W. C. T. U. alone has secured temperance measures of many kinds, including a law in every State requiring scientific temperance instruction in the public schools; in many States curfew laws, and statutes prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and of liquor on or near fair grounds, Soldiers' Homes and schoolhouses, and preventing gambling devices, immoral exhibits, etc. The Federation of Women's Clubs has obtained laws for free traveling libraries and has united with other organizations in various States in efforts for equal guardianship of children, school suffrage, women on school and library boards and the abolishing of child labor. Other associations have joined in one or more of the above lines of work and have had independent measures of their own, such as prison reform, social purity, the assistance of different races—as the negro' and the Indian—village improvement, kindergartens, public playgrounds, etc. It would not be possible to draw a distinct line dividing the legislative work of one association from the others, except that it may be said the suffrage societies have made the franchise their chief point, believing it to be the power with which the rest could be gained, and the temperance unions have made their principal attack upon the liquor traffic, considering it the greatest evil. The objects of the various bodies are indicated in the last chapter of this volume on Organizations of Women, but whatever these may be, if they include any direct, practical work their promoters usually find themselves at the door of the Legislature asking for help. Here they get their first lesson in the imperative necessity of possessing a vote, and seeing their measures fail because asked for by a disfranchised class, to whom the legislators are in no way indebted, they frequently become ardent advocates of suffrage for women.

As it would be wholly impossible in the small space which can be allowed to include an account of all the legislative work done by women, mention is made principally of that for the franchise. While the successes have been few compared to the number of bills presented, the record is valuable as indicating that determined and persistent effort will not be relaxed until it is granted in every State.

Under the head of Legislation is related also the attempts to get from Constitutional Conventions an amendment striking out the word “male” as a qualification for suffrage. It includes, besides, graphic accounts of the campaigns made in behalf of such amendments when submitted to the voters by the Legislatures. Those who have not closely followed these events doubtless will be surprised to learn the amount of effort which has been expended by women to obtain the franchise. It is infinitely greater than has been put forth for this purpose by all other classes combined, since the Revolutionary War was fought to secure to every Citizen the right of individual representation.

The Laws regarding women as here given are in no sense of the word a “brief,” but merely present the facts in the language of a layman and in the simplest and most concise form. Those relating to property are in the nature of a curiosity. An attorney in San Francisco who was asked for information as to the laws in general for women in California, answered that to give in full those of property alone would require as much space as could be granted in the History for the entire chapter. It is not possible to make in these introductory paragraphs an adequate digest of these laws in various States. They are not precisely the same in any two of the forty-nine States and Territories, and they offer a striking illustration of the attempts of law-makers, during the last few decades, to rectify in a measure the legal outrages of the past, and of their inability in the present state of their development to grant absolute justice. That must await the lawmakers of the future, and probably the time when women shall have a part in selecting them.

All that can be claimed for the statutes quoted herein is that they are as nearly correct as it has been possible to make them. With but one or two exceptions, the Attorney-Generals in every State have been most courteous and obliging when appealed to for assistance. The laws for women, however, have been so taken from and added to, so torn to pieces and patched up, that the best lawyers in many States say frankly that they do not know just what they are at the present time. Legislatures and code revision committees are continually tinkering at them and every year witnesses some changes in most of the States.^[3] A very thorough abstract of the laws, made in 1886 by Miss Lelia J. Robinson, LL. B., a member of the bar in Massachusetts, was of almost no use in the compilation for this volume because of the endless alterations since that time. The Legal Status of Women, a condensed resume issued in 1897 by the National Suffrage Association, has been covered thickly with pencil marks during the preparation of this summary, as the reports received from different States have shown the changes effected in the few years which have since elapsed. A new book, Woman and the Law, prepared by a lecturer on political science in one of our largest universities and published in 1901, was hailed with joy, but was found to include a number of laws which had been repealed within the past four or five years and to omit some very important ones. which had been enacted during this time, as well as to contain frequent mistakes in regard to others.

These instances show the impossibility of an absolutely authentic presentation of the laws for women in their constantly changing condition. Although it was the intention to close this History with 1900, in several States, notably Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Illinois and Wisconsin, laws have been passed since that date of sufficient importance to demand a place. During the two years of its preparation the entire codes of property laws for women in Massachusetts and Virginia have been revolutionized.

An amusing part of a difficult task has been the reluctance of men to admit the existence of laws which are conspicuously unjust to women, the admission being frequently accompanied by the statement that it is the intention to change them at an early date, or that it would only be necessary to call the attention of the Legislature to them in order to secure their repeal. Even women themselves in States where the statutes especially discriminate against them, have written that these must not be published unless those from all the others are given. Whether this is due to State pride or personal humiliation is not clearly evident.

The one encouraging feature is that in almost every State decided progress is shown since 1848, when in New York and Pennsylvania the first change was made in the English Common Law which then everywhere prevailed, and which did not permit a married woman to hold property, to buy or sell, to sue or be sued, to make a contract or a will, to carry on business in her own name, to possess the wages she earned, or to have her "children in case of divorce. An examination of the laws in the following chapters will show that the wife now may own and control her separate property in three-fourths of the States, and in the other fourth only one Northern State is included. In every State a married woman may make a will, but can dispose only of her separate property. In about two-thirds of the States she possesses her earnings. In the great majority she may make contracts and bring suit. The property rights of unmarried women always have been nearly the same as those of unmarried men, but the Common Law declared that "by marriage husband and wife are one person in law and the legal existence of the wife is merged in that of the husband. He is her baron or lord, bound to supply her with shelter, food, clothing and medicine, and is entitled to her earnings and the use and custody of her person, which he may seize wherever he may find it." (Blackstone, I, 442.)^[4]

In his Commentaries, after enumerating some of the disabilities of woman under these laws, Blackstone calmly argues that the most of them were really intended for her benefit, "so great a favorite is the female sex with the law of England." He strikes here the keynote of even the special statutes which have superseded the Common Law in the various States, all have been "intended for her benefit," man alone being the judge of what she needed and careful while providing it to retain within himself the exclusive power of law-making. It has been gradually dawning upon him, however, that, as a human being like himself, her needs are very similar to his own, and where he has failed to see it she has reminded him of it as she has slowly learned this fact herself. The laws show an awakening conscience on the part of men and a tardy but continuous advance toward justice to women, although there is yet very much to be desired. For instance, in reading the laws regarding the inheritance of separate property, which in a number of States is now made the same for widow and widower, the first thought will be, "These are absolutely just." But a little investigation will show that the separate property of either is what he or she possesses at marriage or receives afterwards by gift or inheritance, while all that is acquired-during marriage by the joint earnings of the two belongs to the husband. In many States the law now provides that if the wife engages in business as a sole trader or goes outside the home to work, her earnings belong to her, but all the proceeds of her labor within the household are still the sole and separate property of the husband. The Common Law on this point, which never has been changed in a single State,^[5] makes the services of the wife belong to the husband, and in return she is legally entitled only to food, shelter and clothes, and these of such quality and quantity as the husband dictates. She can not dispose by will of any of the property acquired during marriage, nor has she any control of it during the husband's lifetime.

These facts should be borne in mind when reading the laws which declare that husband and wife have the same power to dispose of separate property. Comparatively few women in this country have property when married, especially if young at the time, and the same is true of the majority of men, but afterwards the woman may never hope to accumulate any, as the joint earnings of the marriage partnership belong exclusively to the husband, and the duties of the average household prevent the wife from engaging in outside work. However, in order that she might not be left absolutely penniless after years of labor, the Common Law provided that she should be entitled to "dower," i. e., the possession, for her lifetime, of one-third of all the real estate of which her husband was possessed in fee simple during the marriage. That is, she should receive the life-use of one-third of any realty she might have brought into the marriage and one-third of all they had earned together. But if the husband had converted these into cash, bonds, stocks or other personal property, she could legally claim nothing. He had "curtesy," i. e., the life-use of all her real estate, (sometimes dependent on the birth of children, sometimes not), and usually the whole of her personal estate absolutely.

Curtesy has now been abolished in over one-half the States. The law of dower still exists in more than one-half, but special statutes in regard to personal property and the wife's separate estate have been made so liberal that in comparatively few States is she left in the helpless condition of olden times. In about one-half of them she takes from one-third to the whole (if there are no children) of both real and personal estate absolutely; but in all of them it is only at the death of the husband that she has any share or control of the joint accumulations except such as he chooses to allow. At the death of the wife all of these belong legally to the husband and she can not secure to her children or her parents any part of the property which she has helped to earn. Space forbids going into a discussion of the general upheaval which follows the death of the husband, the inventories which must be taken, the divisions which must be made, generally resulting in the breaking up of the home; while at the death of the wife all passes peacefully into the possession of the husband and there is no scattering of the family unless he wishes it. A general but necessarily superficial statement of the property laws will be found in connection with each State in the following chapters, and they represent a complete legal revolution during the past half century.

Fathers and mothers are given equal guardianship of children in the District of Columbia and nine States—Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York and Washington. (See Pennsylvania.) In all others the father has the sole custody and control of the persons, education, earnings and estates of minor children. Where this right is abused the mother can obtain custody only by applying for separation or divorce or proving in court the unfitness of the father. In a number of States the father may by will appoint a guardian even of a child unborn, to the exclusion of the mother. In others the widow is legally entitled to the guardianship but forfeits it by marrying again. Others do not permit a widow to appoint by will a guardian for her children. Tennessee and Louisiana offer examples of the English and French codes in this respect.

Although the father is the sole guardian and entitled to the services of the children, and although the joint earnings of the marriage belong exclusively to him, and in a number of States he is declared in the statutes to be the "head of the family," in many of them the mother is held to be equally liable for its support. Her separate property may be taken for this purpose and she is also required to contribute by her labor. In such cases the husband decides what constitutes "necessities" and the wife must pay for what he orders. A recent decision of the Illinois courts compelled a wife to pay for the clothes of an able-bodied husband. In most but not all of the States the husband, if competent, is punished for failure to support his family. The punishment consists in a fine, the State thus taking from the family what money he may possess; or confinement in prison, where he is boarded and lodged while the family is in nowise relieved.

It has not been deemed necessary to consider at length the subject of divorce, except to mention the laws of the few States which discriminate against women. South Carolina is the only one which does not grant divorce; New York the only one which makes adultery the sole cause. In the remainder the causes have a wider range, but in all the records show that the vast majority of divorces are granted to wives. The following list is taken from the New York Sun (1902) and corresponds with information gathered from other sources:

Habitual drunkenness, in all except eight States.
Wilful desertion, generally.
Felony, in all except three.
Cruelty, and intolerable cruelty, in all except five.
Failure by the husband to provide, in twenty.
Fraud and fraudulent contract, in nine.
Absence without being heard from, for different periods, in six.
Ungovernable temper, in two.
Insupportably cruel treatment, outrages and excesses, in six.
Indignities rendering life burdensome, in six.
Attempt to murder other party, in three.
Insanity or idiocy at time of marriage, in six.
Insanity lasting ten years, in Washington; incurable insanity, in North Dakota, Florida and Idaho.
Husband notoriously immoral before marriage, unknown to wife, in West Virginia. [Pregnancy of wife before marriage, unknown to husband, in many States].
Fugitive from justice, in Virginia.
Gross misbehavior or wickedness, in Rhode Island.
Any gross neglect of duty, in Kansas and Ohio.
Refusal of wife to remove into the State, in Tennessee.
Mental incapacity at time of marriage, in Georgia.
Three years with any religious society that believes the marriage relation unlawful, in Massachusetts; and joining any such sect, in New Hampshire.
When parties can not live in peace and union, in Utah.
Vagrancy of the husband, in Missouri and Wyoming.
Excesses, in Texas.
Where wife by cruel and barbarous treatment renders condition of husband intolerable, in Pennsylvania.

By reference to the History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. I, pp. 482, 717, 745 and following, it will be seen that the resolutions favoring divorce for habitual drunkenness offered in the first women’s conventions, during the early ’50’s, almost disrupted the meetings, and caused press and pulpit throughout the country to thunder denunciations, but half a century later such laws exist in thirty-seven of the forty-five States and meet with general approval. It is frequently charged that the granting of woman suffrage has been followed by laws for free divorce, but an examination of the statutes will show that exactly the same causes obtain in the States where women do not vote as in those where they do; that there has not been the slightest change in the latter since the franchise was given them; and that in Wyoming, where it has been exercised since 1869, there is the smallest percentage of divorce in proportion to the population of any State in the Union. The three places which are so largely utilized by outsiders who wish a speedy divorce, because only a ninety days' residence is required, are North and South Dakota and Oklahoma, in neither of which have women any suffrage except for school trustees.

The "age of consent or protection" for girls, i. e., the age when they are declared to have sufficient understanding to consent to intercourse, and above which they can claim no legal protection, was fixed at ten years by the Common Law. No action was taken by any State to advance the age up to which they might 'be protected until 1864, when Oregon raised it to fourteen years. No other State followed this example until 1882, when Wyoming made it fourteen. In 1885 Nebraska added two years making it twelve. At this date women commenced to besiege the Legislatures in all parts of the country, and there was a general movement from that time forward to have the age of protection increased, but in almost every instance where this has been accomplished, the penalty for violation of the law has been reduced, and now in thirteen States no minimum penalty is named. The age still remains at ten years in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina. In Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia the age is twelve years, but in Tennessee it is only a "misdemeanor" between twelve and sixteen. (For the recent efforts of women in Georgia and Florida to have the age advanced, and their failure, see the chapters on those States.) In Delaware the Common Law age of ten years was reduced to seven by the Legislature in 1871, and no protection was afforded to infants over seven until 1889 when the age was raised to fifteen, but the crime was declared to be only a "misdemeanor."

Women who have "all the rights they want," and men who insist that "the laws are framed for the best interests of women," are recommended to make a study of those presented herewith.

Under the head of Suffrage it is stated whether women possess any form of it and, if so, in what it consists. The story of the four States where they have the complete franchise—Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Idaho—naturally is most interesting, as it describes just how this was obtained and gives considerable information on points which are not fully understood by the general public. The chapter on Kansas doubtless will come next in interest, as there women have had the Municipal ballot since 1887. It is frequently said in criticism that women have School Suffrage in twenty-six States and Territories, including the five mentioned above, but they do not make use of it in large numbers. What this fragmentary suffrage includes, the restrictions thrown around it and the obstacles placed in its way, are described in the chapters of those States and Territories where it prevails—Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

It will be seen that in New York women tax-payers in villages, and in Louisiana and Montana all tax-paying women, may vote on questions submitted for taxation, and an account is given of the first use which women made of this privilege in Louisiana in 1899. In Iowa all women may vote on the issuing of bonds. In Mississippi they have the merest form of a franchise on a few matters connected with country schools and the running at large of stock. In Arkansas they may sign a petition against liquor selling within certain limits and their names count for as much as men's. After a careful study of the situation the wonder will not be that women do not exercise more largely these grudgingly given and closely-restricted privileges, but that in many States they think it worth while to exercise them at all. In the four, however, where they have the Full Suffrage, and in Kansas where they have the Municipal, the official figures which have been carefully tabulated will demonstrate beyond further controversy that where they possess exactly the same electoral rights as men they use them in even a larger proportion. These statistics answer conclusively the question, "Do women want to vote?"

The information as to Office-Holding is necessarily somewhat desultory as there is no record in any State of the women in office. This is true even of those pertaining to the schools, and in very few cases does the State Superintendent of Public Instruction know how many women are serving as county superintendents and members of school boards. The information on these points contained in the State chapters was secured principally through personal investigation and by an extended correspondence, and while it is believed to be entirely correct so far as it goes, it does not by any means include the total number of offices filled by women. Imperfect as is the list it will be a surprise to those who look upon office-holding as the natural prerogative of man. <A stock objection to woman suffrage is that women will be wanting the offices. An examination of the reports here submitted will disclose the surprising fact that in a number of States where women do not vote they are filling as many offices as in those where they have the full franchise. Probably the majority of State constitutions declare that the offices must be held by electors, but where this proviso is not made, women have been elected and appointed to various offices and so far as can be learned have given general satisfaction.^[6]

The necessity for matrons at police stations and jails, and for women physicians in all institutions where women and children are confined, is too evident to need any argument in its favor, and yet it is only within the past ten years that they have been thus employed to any extent and even now they are found in only a small fraction of such institutions. The objection to these matrons on the part of the police force has been strenuous, and yet, almost without exception, after they have gained a foothold, the police officers testify that they do not understand how the department got on without them. It ought to be equally evident that there should be women on the boards of all institutions which care for women and children, but, although in most instances these positions have no salary, there is the most violent opposition to giving women a place, and the concession has had to be wrung from Legislatures in the few States where it has been obtained. The right of women and their value to school offices is now partly conceded in about half the States. Women librarians also have met with some favor. As to offices in general, most of which carry either salary or patronage or both, they will continue to be regarded as belonging entirely to voters and as perquisites of party managers with which to reward political service, although all of them are proportionately supported by women tax-payers.

As regards Occupations, the census of 1900 shows 3,230,642 women engaged in wage-earning employments, exclusive of domestic service, and the question of their admittance to practically all such may be regarded as settled, but it has not been gained without a contest. Women, however, are still barred from the best-paying positions and are usually compelled to accept unequal wages for equal work. This is partly due to disfranchisement and partly to economic causes and can be remedied only by time. In many of the States of which it is said, "No profession is forbidden to women," the test has not been made, and until some woman attempts to be a minister, physician, lawyer or notary public it can not be known whether she will encounter a statutory prohibition.

The department of Education presents the most satisfactory condition. The battle for co-education, which means simply a chance for women to have the best advantages which exist, has been bitterly fought. A guerilla warfare is still maintained against it, but the contest is so nearly finished as to warrant no fears as to the future. Every State University but those of Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Virginia, is open to women on exactly the same terms as to men (with the exception of some departments of Pennsylvania). They have full admission to Chicago and Leland Stanford Universities, two of the largest in the United States. They may enter the post-graduate department of Yale and receive its degrees. Harvard and Princeton are still entirely closed to them, as are a number of the smaller of the old, established Eastern universities, but this is largely compensated by the great Woman's Colleges of the East—Bryn Mawr, Wellesley, Smith and Vassar—which accommodate nearly 4,000 students. The Medical Department of Johns Hopkins, and Medical, Theological, Law and Dental Colleges in all parts of the country, admit women to their full courses. This is true also of Agricultural Colleges and of Technical Institutes such as Drexel and Pratt. There is now no lack of opportunity for them to obtain the highest education, either along the line of general culture or specialized work.^[7]

The details of the following chapters will show that the civil, legal, industrial and educational rights of women are so far secured as to give full assurance that they will be absolute in the near future. The political rights are further off, for reasons which are presented in the introduction to this volume, but the yielding of all the others is proof sufficient that the spirit of our institutions will eventually find its fullest expression in perfect equality of rights for all the people.

 

1. The names of newspapers which have supported this cause are not given, partly for these reasons and partly because on this question they reflect simply the personal views of the editors, and a change of management may cause a complete reversal of their attitude toward woman suffrage.
2. A reading of these chapters will show that the suffrage societies have started many progressive movements and then turned them over to other organizations of women, believing they would thrive better if freed from the effects of the prejudice against woman suffrage and everything connected with it.
3. Notwithstanding these efforts, the very statutes which are intended to be fair to women are continually found to be defective, and whenever any doubt arises as to their construction the Common Law must prevail, which in all cases is unjust to women. An example of this kind will be found in the chapter on New York, showing that it was held in 1901 that a wife's wages belonged to her husband, although it was supposed that these bad been secured to her beyond all question by a special statute of 1860.
4. For abstract of the Common Law in regard to women see History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, p. 961.
5. A few of the States were formed under the Spanish er French code instead of the English Common Law, but neither was more favorable to women.
6. No mention is made of women postmasters as these are found in all States. The first were appointed by President Grant during his first term of office, 1868-1872.
7. In the various States under the head of Education, Roman Catholic colleges and universities are not considered, as they are nowhere co-educational.   The public school statistics are taken from the reports for 1898-9 of the U. S. Commissioner of Education.