Jump to content

History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4/Chapter 26

From Wikisource
History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4 (1889)
edited by Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper
Chapter 26
3465914History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4 — Chapter 261889Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper

CHAPTER XXVI.

ARIZONA.[1]

The Territory having elected delegates to a convention to be held in Phoenix in August and September, 1891, to prepare a constitution for Statehood, Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone of Massachusetts sent Mrs. Laura M. Johns of Kansas to Arizona in August to endeavor to secure a clause in this constitution granting suffrage to women. She was received in Tucson by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes, editors and proprietors of an influential daily paper, who gave every possible assistance.

Mrs. Johns soon went to Phoenix, where the convention was in session, and followed up a previous correspondence with the delegates by personal interviews. She found a powerful champion in ex-Attorney-General William Herring, chairman of the committee which had the question of woman suffrage in charge. When she asked permission to address this committee it set an early date and suggested that it might be pleasanter for the ladies if the hearing should be held in a private residence. Accordingly Mrs. E. D.-Garlick, formerly of Winfield, Kansas, opened her parlor, invited a number of ladies who were interested and the committee met with them and listened courteously to their plea for the ballot. A favorable report was presented to the convention and General Herring, Mrs. Johns, Mrs. Hughes and others spoke eloquently in favor of its acceptance. The measure was lost by three votes.

So much interest had been manifested that a Territorial Suffrage Association was formed, with Mrs. Hughes as president and Mrs. Garlick as corresponding secretary. Mrs. Johns intended to organize the Territory but was suddenly called home by a death in her family.

Four years later, in 1895, while she was working in New Mexico for the National Association, she was requested by Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, chairman of its organization committee, to speak at the annual convention in Phoenix; and on the way she held preliminary meetings at Tucson, Tempe and other places.

In January, 1896, Mrs. Hughes, whose husband was now Governor, went to the convention of the National Association in Washington to interest that body in Arizona, which it was then expected would soon enter Statehood. She made a strong appeal, assuring the delegates that the pioneer men of the Territory were willing to confer the suffrage on the women who had braved the early hardships with them, and saying:

It is of the most vital importance that our women be enfranchised before the election of delegates to the approaching constitutional convention, as the Congressional enabling act provides that all persons qualified as voters under the Territorial law shall be qualified to vote for delegates to this convention and for the ratification or rejection of the same. If our women are enfranchised before the enabling act is passed, then Arizona is safe and no power can prevent them from being accorded their rights in the constitution, and if their rights are not conceded they will see to it that the constitution fails of ratification.

In March the National Association sent Mrs. Johns again into the Territory and she remained until May. In company with Mrs. Hughes she made a successful tour through the Salt River Valley, receiving generous hospitality, addressing large audiences and forming local clubs. The two ladies then crossed the Territory to Yuma, speaking at various points on the way, and went from there to Prescott. Governor Hughes himself spoke at the meetings held in Clifton. Mrs. Johns then went to the Northern counties. Altogether most of the towns were visited, and while the distances were great and the difficulties numerous, the meetings were well attended and earnest advocates were found even in small mining camps among the mountains.

Mrs. Johns returned in the winter of 1897 and addressed the Legislature in behalf of a bill for woman suffrage but no action was taken. Among the friends and workers not elsewhere mentioned were the Hon. and Mrs. George P. Blair, ex-Mayor Gustavus Hoff, C. R. Drake, John T. Hughes; the other officers of the suffrage association were Mrs. C. T. Hayden, vice-president; Mrs. R. G. Phillips, corresponding secretary; Mrs. Lillian Collins, recording secretary; Mrs. Mary E. Hall, treasurer.

In the winter of 1899 the time seemed propitious for a vigorous movement, and Mrs. Chapman Catt and Miss Mary G. Hay spent a month at Phoenix during the legislative session. Every possible effort was made, there seemed to be a remarkable sentiment in favor of woman suffrage among the better classes and it looked as if it would be granted. The final result is thus described in Mrs. Chapman Catt's report to the national convention the following April:

Our bill went through the House by an unprecedented majority, IO yeas, 5 nays, and then, as in Oklahoma, the remonstrants concentrated their opposition upon the Council. Here, as there, the working Opponents were the saloon-keepers, with the difference that in Arizona they are often the proprietors of a gambling den and house of prostitution in connection with the saloons, and thus the opposition was more bitter and intolerant because it was believed greater damage would result from the votes of women. Every member of the Council received letters or telegrams from the leading proprietors of such resorts, threatening political ruin if he failed to vote against the measure. It was well known that money was contributed from these same sources. Here, as in Oklahoma, a majority were pledged to support the bill, but here, too, they played a filibustering game which prevented its coming to final vote. Pledges made to women are not usually counted as binding, but these pledges, as in Oklahoma, were made to men who were political coworkers. They did not deem it prudent to break these pledges by an open vote against the bill, but they held that they were not violated when they kept the matter from coming to a vote. The opposition was led by the proprietor of the largest and richest saloon in the Territory.

I have never found anywhere, however, so many strong, determined, able men, anxious to espouse our cause as in Arizona. The general sentiment is overwhelmingly in our favor. At one time three prominent men were in Phoenix to do what they could for the suffrage bill, each of whom had traveled four hundred miles for this. express purpose. Governor N. O. Murphy recommended woman suffrage in his message and did all that was possible to assist its passage. The press is favorable, the intelligent and moral citizens are eager for it, but the vicious elements, as everywhere, are opposed. For a month the question was bitterly contested, but its foes prevented a vote. So again a campaign, which was sure of victory had each man voted his conviction, ended in crime and bribery won the day. The pay of legislators in the Territories is. very small, and the most desirable men can not afford to serve. In consequence there drifts into every Legislature enough men of unprincipled character to make a balance of power. It may interest you to know that in both Territories we were told that all such legislation is controlled by bribery, and that our measure could be put through in a twinkling by "a little money judiciously distributed," but to such suggestions we replied that what the suffragists had won they had won honestly and we would postpone further advances till they could come in the same way. In the future years of strife over this question there will be many hands stained with guilt, but they will be those of the remonstrants and not ours. Though crime prevented the victory, yet we were abundantly assured of the lasting results of the campaign.

Laws: Curtesy and dower were abolished by Territorial legislation, but in 1887 Congress passed an act granting a widow dower in all the Territories. If either husband or wife die without a will, leaving descendants, out of the separate property of either the survivor has one-third of the personal and a life use of one-third of the real estate. If there are no descendants, the survivor has all of the personal and a life use of one-half the real estate; if there are neither descendants nor father nor mother of the decedent, the survivor has the whole estate. The community property goes entirely to the survivor if there are no descendants, otherwise one-half goes to the survivor, in either case charged with the community debts. If the widow has a maintenance derived from her own property equal to $2,000, the whole property so set apart, other than her half of the homestead, must go to the minor children. If the homestead was selected from the community property it vests absolutely in the survivor. If selected from the separate property of either, it vests in that one or his heirs. It can not exceed $5,000 in value.

Married women have the exclusive control of their separate property; it is not liable for the debts or obligations of the husband; it may be mortgaged, sold or disposed of by will without his consent. The same privileges are extended to husbands.

A married woman may sue and be sued and make contracts in her own name as regards her separate property, but she must sue jointly with her husband for personal injuries, and damages recovered are community property and in his control.

If a married woman desire to become a sole trader she must file a certificate in the registry of deeds setting forth the nature and place of business. She can not become a sole trader if the original capital invested exceeds $10,000 unless she takes oath that the surplus did not come from any funds of the husband. If the wife is not a sole trader her wages are community property and belong to the husband while she is living with him.

The father is the legal guardian of the minor children. At his death the mother becomes guardian so long as she remains unmarried, provided she is a suitable person.

If the husband fails to support his wife, she may contract debts for necessaries on his credit, and for such debts she and her husband must be sued jointly and if he is not financially responsible her separate property may be taken.

The "age of protection" for girls was raised from 10 to 14 years in 1887, and to 18 in 1895. The penalty is confinement in the penitentiary for life or for not less than five years.

Suffrage: Since 1887 every person, male or female, twenty-one years old, who is the parent or guardian of a child of school age residing in the district, or has paid Territorial or county school tax, exclusive of poll-tax, during the preceding year, is eligible to the office of school trustee and entitled to vote for this officer at any School District election. This includes all cities and towns in the Territory.

Office Holding: Women may legally serve as school trustees, court commissioners, clerks of court, official stenographers, deputies and clerks in Territorial, county and municipal offices, and notaries public. Very few, however, are filling any of these offices.

Governor L. C. Hughes held that women were qualified to sit on any State Board and appointed one on the board of the State Normal School and one assistant superintendent of the Insane Asylum. None have since been appointed. There are no women physicians in any public institutions, and no police matrons at any jail or station-house.

Occupations: No profession or occupation is legally forbidden to women.

Education: The State University is co-educational. In the public schools there are 122 men and 257 women teachers. The average monthly salary of the men is $73.23; of the women, $63.17.

  1. The History is indebted to Mrs. L. C. Hughes of Tucson, former president of the Territorial Woman Suffrage Association, and to Mrs. Laura M. Johns of Kansas for material used in this chapter.