Jump to content

History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4/Chapter 69

From Wikisource
History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4 (1889)
edited by Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper
Chapter 69
3467567History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4 — Chapter 691889Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper

CHAPTER LXIX.

WASHINGTON.[1]

The history of woman suffrage in Washington begins with the passage of a bill by the Legislature, giving women the full rights of the ballot on the same terms as men, which was approved Nov. 23, 1883, by the Territorial Governor, William A. Newell. This was due principally to the efforts of a few individuals, both men and women, as there was no organization.[2]

The municipal elections of the following spring brought the first opportunity to exercise the newly-acquired right. The women evinced their appreciation of it by casting 8,368 ballots out of the whole number of 34,000, and the leading papers testified to the widespread acknowledgment of the strength and moral uplift of their vote.

The general election of November, 1884, naturally showed a larger vote by both men and women, the latter casting 12,000 out of the 48,000 ballots. It was estimated at this time that there were less than one-third as many women as men in the Territory. When the scattered population, the long distances and the difficulties of travel are taken into consideration it must be admitted that women took the largest possible advantage of the recently granted privileges.

For the next two years they continued to use the franchise with unabated zeal, and newspapers and public speakers were unanimous in their approval. In a number of instances the official returns, during the three-and-a-half years they possessed the suffrage, exhibited a larger percentage of women voting than of men. Chief Justice Roger S. Greene of the Supreme Court estimated that at the last election before they were disfranchised four-fifths of all the women in the Territory went to the polls.

Many women have remarked upon the increased respect and courtesy of the men during this period. Mrs. Elizabeth Matthews, who removed from New Orleans to Port Townsend in 1885, states that, although accustomed from babyhood to the deferential gallantry of the men of the South, she never had dreamed that any women in the world were receiving such respectful consideration as she found in Washington Territory at that time. The political parties realized the necessity of putting their best men to the front, and it was fully conceded that ethics had become a factor in politics.

Prior to the Legislature of 1886 some discussion arose as to the constitutionality of the Equal Suffrage Law, and, in order to remove all doubt, a strengthening Act was passed, which was approved by Gov. Watson C. Squire, November 29.

On Feb. 3, 1887, the case of Harlan vs. Washington came before the Territorial Supreme Court. Harlan had been convicted of carrying on a swindling game by a jury composed of both men and women, and he contested the verdict on the ground that women were not legal voters. The Supreme Court, whose personnel had been entirely changed through a new Presidential administration, decided that the law conferring the elective franchise upon them was void because it had not been fully described in its title. This decision also rendered void nineteen other laws which had been enacted under the same conditions.

The members of the next Legislature had been elected so long before the rendering of this decision that their seats could not be contested; and as their election had been by both men and women they were determined to re-establish the law which the Supreme Court had ruthlessly overthrown. Therefore the Equal Suffrage Law was re-enacted, perfectly titled and worded, and was approved by Gov. Eugene Semple, Jan. 18, 1888.

The members of a convention to prepare a State constitution were soon to be chosen, and the opponents of woman suffrage were most anxious to have the question considered by the Supreme Court before the election of the delegates. They arranged that the judges of the spring municipal election in a certain precinct should refuse to accept the vote of a Mrs. Nevada Bloomer. the wife of a saloon-keeper and herself an avowed opponent of woman suffrage. This was done on April 3, and she brought suit against them. The case was rushed through, and on August 14 the Supreme Court decided that the Act of January 18 was invalid, as a Territorial Legislature had no right to enfranchise women, and that in consequence the Equal Suffrage Law was void. The Judges responsible for this decision were Associate Justices George Turner and William G. Langford. The very Act of Congress which organized the Territory of Washington stated explicitly that, at elections subsequent to the first, all persons should be allowed to vote upon whom the Territorial Legislature might confer the elective franchise.

By the organic act under which all the Territories were formed women had been voting in Wyoming since 1869 and in Utah since 1870. The arbitrary disfranchisement of the women of the latter by Congress in 1887 demonstrated that this body did have supreme control over suffrage in the Territories, and therefore unimpeachable power to authorize their Legislatures to confer it on women, as had been done by that of Washington. There never was a more unconstitutional decision than that of this Territorial Supreme Court. Congress should have refused to admit the Territory until women had voted for delegates to the constitutional convention and on the constitution itself.[3]

Without doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would have reversed the decision of the Territorial Court, but Mrs. Bloomer refused to allow the case to be appealed, and no one else had authority to do so.

As the women were thus illegally restrained from voting for delegates, the opponents of their enfranchisement were enabled to elect a convention with a majority sufficient to prevent a woman suffrage clause in the constitution for Statehood.

Henry B. Blackwell, corresponding secretary of the American W. S. A., came from Massachusetts to assist in securing such a clause. After a long discussion as to whether he should be permitted to address the convention, both sides agreed that the delegates should be invited to hear him in Tacoma Hall. His address was highly praised even by newspapers and persons opposed to equal suffrage. Four days later, with Judge Orange J. Jacobs and Mrs. Elizabeth Lyle Saxon, he was granted a hearing before the Suffrage Committee of the convention.

The question of incorporating woman suffrage in the new State constitution was debated at intervals from Aug. 9 to 15, 1880. The fight for the measure was led by Edward Eldridge and W. S. Bush. In a long and able argument Mr. Eldridge reviewed the recent decision of the Supreme Court and made an eloquent plea for justice to women. Substitutes granting to women Municipal Suffrage, School Suffrage, the right to hold office, the privilege of voting on the constitution, all were defeated. Finally a compromise was forced by which it was agreed to submit a separate amendment giving them Full Suffrage, to be voted on at the same time as the rest of the. constitution, women themselves not being allowed to vote upon it.[4]

Only two-and-a-half months remained before election, the women were practically unorganized, there were few speakers, no money, and the towns were widely scattered. Miss Matilda Hindman of Pennsylvania and Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby of Washington, D. C., editor of the Woman's Tribune, came on and canvassed the State. Both were effective speakers and they received as much local assistance as possible, but all the money and influence which could be commanded by the disreputable element that had suffered from the woman's vote were brought to bear against the amendment, and its defeat was inevitable.

The constitution was adopted Nov. 5, 1889, the woman suffrage amendment receiving 16,521 ayes, 35,913 noes; an adverse majority of 19,392.

In 1890 the first State Legislature conferred School Suffrage on women to the extent of voting for trustees and directors.

The political campaign of 1896 was one in which reform of all kinds was unusually in evidence. Three women sat as delegates in the State Fusion Convention at Ellensburg. Mrs. Laura E. Peters, president of the suffrage club at Port Angeles, was a Populist delegate and was chosen a member of the Platform Committee. Through her efforts a suffrage plank was inserted in the platform of that branch of the convention.

The president of the State Suffrage Association, Mrs. Homer M. Hill, said in her official report: "The People's Party was composed of Silver Republicans, Populists and Democrats. At the State convention these met in separate sessions. The Democrats voted down a resolution demanding that the Committee on Platform bring in a report favoring the amendment. The Silver Republicans passed one 'commending the action of the Free Silver party in presenting to the people the proposed amendment to the constitution.' The Populists inserted in their platform a plank declaring that 'direct legislation without equal suffrage would be government by but one-half of the people,' and unequivocally favored the amendment.

"Although each of these three parties had its own platform, the combination formed the People's Party and made its fight upon one composed of eleven planks, or articles of faith, to which all three agreed, but equal suffrage was not one of them. Therefore the so-called union platform, minus suffrage, was the one generally published and used as the basis of the campaign speeches. Because of this no speaker of the People's Party was obliged to mention the amendment, and it was avoided as an issue in the campaign; the State Central Committee permitted each speaker to say what he pleased personally, but he was not allowed to commit the party or to urge men to vote for if. Nearly every one, however, advocated equal suffrage.

"The Republicans, in convention at Tacoma, adopted the following: 'Firmly believing in the principle of equal rights to all and special privileges to none, we recommend to the voters of the State a careful consideration of the proposed constitutional amendment granting equal suffrage;' and this always was published as part of the platform. A few of the leading Republican orators advocated the amendment and none spoke against it. Its defeat is commonly attributed to the fact that 20,000 of the People's party did not vote upon it, and that the Republicans passed the word a short time before election to vote against it.

"Mrs. W. Winslow Crannell, who was sent out by the Albany (N. Y.) Anti-Suffrage Association, did not hold a meeting of women or a public meeting in the State. She conferred with men whom the anti-suffrage representative, Alfred Downing of Seattle, already knew, and her coming tended to arouse the loyal support of the suffragists.

"The Prohibition party gave official indorsement. The Social Democratic party and the Socialist Labor party both inserted suffrage planks in their platforms. The latter claims 9,000 votes in the State."

The Fusion party was everywhere successful and the Legislature of 1897 was composed of reform elements. Mrs. Peters had charge of the Equal Suffrage Bill, which was introduced on the first day of the session by the Hon. J. P. de Mattos, and proposed to amend the constitution by striking out the word "male" from the suffrage clause. This passed the House on February 4 by 54 ayes, 15 noes. The bill was amended in the Senate and was strongly supported by Joseph Hill and W. V. Rinehart. The amended bill passed the Senate on February 25 by 23 ayes, II noes, and was returned to the House.

Here it reached a vote March 11, the last day before the close of the session, only through Mrs. Peters' slipping up to Speaker Charles E. Cline's desk and whispering to him to recognize L. E. Rader, who wished to present it. As the Speaker was a staunch suffragist he did so. The bill passed by 54 ayes, 15 noes, and was sent back for the signature of the President of the Senate and then returned to the House for the Speaker to sign. Mrs. Peters thus relates what happened after he had done so:

By the merest accident, Senator Thomas Miller, a friend, obeyed an impression to examine the bill to see if it were all right, when lo and behold! he discovered that the true bill had been stolen during the short recess and an absolutely worthless bill engrossed and signed. Senator Miller at once made the fraud public and Speaker Cline tore his signature from the bill. On Thursday morning, the last day, a certified copy of the true bill was sent to the House, where it was ratified and returned to the Senate. I then requested the President of the Senate to make me a special messenger to take the bill to the Governor for his signature. As I happened to hold the peculiar position of having voted (at the State convention) for both those gentlemen, and as I had taken pains to remind them of that fact, and as both the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor were suffragists, I found no difficulty in having my request granted. I said that the bill had been delayed, deformed, pigeon-holed and stolen, and I would not feel safe until it was made law by the Governor's signature. I was duly sworn in as special messenger, and very proudly carried the bill to the office, where Gov. John R. Rogers affixed his signature to it and declared it law.

The history of the campaign which followed, as condensed by the president, Mrs. Hill, shows that active work did not begin until the convention held at Seattle in January, 1898. The executive committee was called together after its adjournment and the situation thoroughly canvassed. A resolution which welcomed work for the amendment by other societies under their own auspices was unanimously passed, as it was realized that there was not time in which to bring all suffragists into line under one management. Money was scarce and hard to obtain, and public attention was divided between the Spanish-American War and the gold excitement in Alaska. The association at once turned its attention to the obtaining of funds, the securing of the favorable attitude of the press and the formal indorsement of the amendment by other organizations.

Clubs were formed in wards and precincts to hold meetings, assist the State association financially, distribute literature and circulate a petition for signatures of women only, asking that the voters cast their ballots for the proposed amendment. It was impossible to prosecute the petition work thoroughly throughout the State, but the largest cities — Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane and Olympia — with many country precincts, both east and west of the mountains, were very satisfactorily canvassed. It was found that over 88 per cent. of all the women asked to sign the petition did so. The rest were divided between the indifferent and those positively opposed. No one received a salary for services. Less than $500 was collected, and $5.47 remained in the treasury, after every bill was paid, the day before election.

The State association issued 5,000 pieces of literature of its own, a booklet of thirty pages containing testimonials from leading citizens of the four Free States — Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. Early in the campaign Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, chairman of the national organization committee, sent 62,200 pieces. Henry B. Blackwell, editor of the Woman's Journal, shortly before the election forwarded from Boston 500 pieces to each of the thirty-four counties in Washington. This literature no doubt helped to swell the vote for the amendment.

Forty country newspapers were regularly sent free to State headquarters; the city papers at half-rates. The press was courteous in every instance, and either advocated equal suffrage, kept silence or opened its columns to both sides. The Seattle Daily Times strongly favored it.

The Christian Church Convention, which met in Tacoma early in the campaign, gave hearty indorsement to the amendment. The M. E. Church 'Conference followed at the same place with a vote of 27 ayes, 26 noes; the Congregational Convention at Snohomish with one dissenting vote. Presbyterian and other ministers throughout the State quietly gave their support. The ministerial associations of Seattle each received a committee from the E. S. A. One of the members of the Ministers' Association of Spokane read a paper on Equal Suffrage, which was interestingly discussed, showing eight in favor, three opposed and one doubtful. The Christian Endeavorers at their convention in Walla Walla passed a resolution calling attention to the approaching election, and asking for the intelligent consideration of the amendment; eight of the trustees were in favor of recommending active work in local societies, but because the sentiment was not more nearly unanimous no action was taken. The Independent Order of Good Templars and the Prohibition party indorsed the amendment. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union lent a helping hand judiciously. All demands and arguments were non-sectarian and non-political, being based upon the claims of justice as the only tenable ground on which to stand.

Many of the most self-sacrificing workers came from the liberal and free-thought societies, which are generally favorable to equal rights. The Western Central Labor Union of Seattle extended courtesies to the E. S. A. and kept suffrage literature in its reading-room. The Freemen's Labor Journal of Spokane, State organ of the trades unions, supported the amendment. Single Taxers, as a rule, voted for it. The State Grange in convention formally indorsed it and promised support.[5]

On Nov. 5, 1898, the amendment was voted upon, receiving 20,658 yeas, 30,540 nays; majority opposed, 9,882. As in 1889, the adverse majority was 19,392, a clear gain was shown of 9,510 in nine years.

In 1899 a bill was prepared for the State association by Judge J. W. Langley, amending the constitution so that whenever an amendment giving the right of suffrage to women should be submitted to the people, the women themselves should be permitted to vote upon it. John W. Pratt introduced the bill in the House, but it was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Revision and not reported. Near the close of the session Mr. Pratt brought it up on the floor of the House. A motion to postpone it indefinitely was immediately made and, practically without discussion, was carried by almost a unanimous vote.

Organization: For twelve years before the women of Washington were enfranchised, Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway of Oregon was in the habit of canvassing the Territory in behalf of woman suffrage, traveling by rail; stage, steamer and on foot, and where she found halls and churches closed against her, speaking in hotel offices and even bar-rooms, and always circulating her paper the New Northwest. The Legislature recognized her services by a resolution in 1886, when accepting her picture, The Coronation of Womanhood. There was not during all this time any regularly organized suffrage association. When in the summer of 1888 the women of the Territory saw the franchise taken away from them by decision of the Supreme Court, a number of local societies were formed and soon banded themselves into an association of which the Hon. Edward Eldridge was president until his death in 1892. Afterward A. H. Stewart was made president, Mrs. Laura E. Peters, vice-president, and Mrs. Bessie Isaacs Savage, secretary. Mrs. Zerelda N. McCoy was president of the Olympia Club, and Mrs. P. C. Hale, treasurer.

On Jan. 21, 22, 1895, the first delegate convention was held in Olympia, and a State Equal Suffrage Association formally organized. Mrs. Savage was elected president; Mrs. Clara E. Sylvester, vice-president; Mrs. Lou Jackson Longmire, secretary; Mrs. Ella Stork, treasurer. In April a special meeting was held in Seattle and the State was divided into six districts for organization and other work, as it was evident there would soon be another amendment campaign.

The second convention was held in Seattle, Jan. 29, 30, 1896, with the Hon. Orange J. Jacobs as the principal speaker.

Throughout 1897 the efforts of the suffragists were directed toward securing a resolution from the Legislature for the submission of an amendment, and no convention was held.

In January, 1898, the State association again met in Seattle. Mrs. Homer M. Hill was elected president; Mrs. Peters, vicepresident; Miss Martha E. Pike, secretary; Mrs. Savage, treasurer.

The management of the exposition held in Seattle for three weeks in October, kindly accorded space to the Red Cross, Equal Suffrage Association, W. C. T. U., Kindergarten and City Federation of Women’s Clubs. Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, with Miss Mary G. Hay, paid Washington a visit during this month. She spoke in the first M. E. Church at Seattle to a large audience, and the Woman’s Century Club tendered her a reception. At Tacoma the Woman’s Study Club arranged a lecture for her in the Tacoma Hotel parlors, which was well attended by representative people. Mrs. Emma C. McCully made the preparations for her at Ellensburg, and Mrs. Lida M. Ashenfelter bore the expense of the meeting at Spokane.

In December, 1899, the State Teachers’ Association passed a resolution strongly indorsing equal suffrage. The Mental Science Convention took similar action.

Since the defeat of the amendment in 1898 no State conventions have been held. During 1900 the corresponding secretary, Miss Pike, visited many towns and conferred with representative women in reference to again taking up the work; while the president, Mrs. Hill, endeavored to secure the interest and indorsement of the various political parties.

Legislative Action And Laws: In 1886 the Legislature amended the Homestead Law and gave to widows possession of the homestead, wearing apparel and household furniture of their deceased husbands, and the right to comply with the legal provisions for securing homesteads in case the husbands had not done so; it further declared that the homestead should be inviolate from executions for the payment of debts, either individual or community; it amended the community property law, giving husband and wife equal rights in the testamentary disposition of it. It also enabled married women to act as administrators.

In 1890 the Legislature conferred School Suffrage upon women. The act was approved by Gov. E. P. Terry on March 27. The same Legislature passed a bill requiring employers to provide seats for their female employes, and enacted that all avenues of employment should be open to women. It amended the community property law so that husband or wife could prevent the sale of his or her interest.

In 1891 a bill was passed which made a woman punishable for the crime of arson, even though the property set fire to might belong to her husband.

The Legislature of 1893 appropriated $5,000 for the Woman's Department of the State at the World's Fair in Chicago. A bill passed this year provided matrons for jails in cities of 10,000 or more inhabitants. The "age of protection" for girls was raised from 12 to 16 years. Unfortunately the title of this bill was omitted and in compiling the code it was excluded, but the Supreme Court afterward legalized the action of the Legislature.

In 1899 the age was raised to 18 years. This was accomplished through the efforts of the W. C. T. U., under the management of Misses Mary L. and Emma E. Page. The penalty is imprisonment in the penitentiary for life or "for any term of years." No minimum penalty is given. Deceit or fraud may be considered force.

Married women were granted the right to act as executors of wills in 1899.

Dower and curtesy are abolished. The testamentary rights of husband and wife are the same in regard to their separate property. If either die without a will, leaving only one child, or the lawful issue of one, the widow or widower takes half the real estate. If there is more than one child living, or one child and lawful issue of one or more children deceased, the widow or widower takes one-third of the real estate. If there is no descendant living the survivor receives one-half the real estate, unless there is neither father, mother, brother nor sister of the decedent living, when he or she takes all of it. The surviving husband or wife has one-half the personal property if there is issue living, otherwise all of it, after the debts are paid.

The old Spanish law in regard to community property obtains. While each retains control of his or her separate estate, the control of the community property is vested absolutely in the husband. This includes all acquired after marriage by the joint or separate efforts of either; lands acquired under the homestead laws; lands purchased with money derived from profits or loans of the wife's separate estate; lands purchased by her with money saved from household expenses; and the court has held that even her earnings outside the home are community property unless she is living apart from her husband. The husband can not convey this without the wife's signature, and he can not dispose of more than one-half of it by will. Upon the death of either husband or wife one-half of the community property descends to the survivor, and the other half is subject to testamentary disposition. If there is no will the survivor takes half and the heirs of the deceased half; if there are none he or she takes the whole. The survivor has the preference in the right of administration.

A married woman may make contracts and sue and be sued in her own name. Husband and wife can not enter into business partnerships with each other.

By an act of 1879 father and mother were given equal guardianship of the children, and in case of the death of either the guardianship passed to the survivor. But in 1896 the Legislature enacted that the father might appoint by will a guardian of both persons and estates of minor children to the exclusion of the mother.

The same Legislature passed a law making the expenses of the family and education of the children chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife, or either of them, and provided that in relation thereto they might be sued jointly or separately.

Suffrage: Since 1890 women may vote for school trustees, bonds and appropriations on the same terms as men, but can not vote for State or county superintendents.

Office Holding: In the fall of 1894 Miss Ella Guptil was elected superintendent of schools for Clallam County. Her right to hold the office was contested by her opponent, C. E. Russell. Miss Guptil asked the following Legislature to make her position definite, and in February, 1895, a bill was passed and approved by Gov. John H. McGraw which removed all doubt, and she assumed the office.

At the present time (1900) there are seven women county superintendents. ‘Women may sit on the school boards of all cities and towns. They are not eligible to any other elective office.

In 1897-98 Mrs. Carrie Shaw Rice served as a member of the State Board of Education. Women do not sit on other boards.

The law requires women matrons in the jails of all cities of 10,000 inhabitants and upwards, but not at police stations.

Women are employed in subordinate capacities in various State and municipal offices. They are also librarians in many places.

They can not serve as notaries public.

Occupations: It was enacted by the Legislature of 1890 that: “Hereafter in this State every avenue of employment shall be open to women; and any business, vocation, profession and calling followed and pursued by men may be followed and pursued by women, and no person shall be disqualified from engaging in or pursuing any business, vocation, profession, calling or employment on account of sex: Provided, That this section” shall not be so construed as to permit women to hold public office.”

Education: All of the educational institutions are open to both sexes alike.

In the public schools there are 1,033 men and 2,288 women teachers. The average monthly salary of the men is $42.13; of the women, $34.53.

  1. The History is indebted for the material for this chapter to Miss Martha E. Pike of Seattle, corresponding secretary of the State Equal Suffrage Association.
  2. See History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, p. 776.
  3. For further information see Appendix for Washington.
  4. For addresses and other proceedings see the Woman's Tribune, Oct. 5, 1889, and the following numbers.
  5. That practically all of the best elements in the State favored this amendment, and yet it was defeated, shows how thoroughly the disreputable classess controlled politics.