A Short History of Women´s Rights by Eugene A. Hecker - HTML preview

CHAPTER X

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

In the four years intervening since this book was first written, the

progress of equal rights for women has been so rapid that the summary on

pages 175-235 is now largely obsolete; but it is useful for comparison.

In the United States at present (August, 1914), Wyoming, Colorado, Utah,

Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Kansas, Arizona, and Alaska have

granted full suffrage to women. In the following States the voters will

pass upon the question in the autumn of 1914: Montana, Nevada, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio, the last three by

initiative petition. In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York, and

Massachusetts a constitutional amendment for equal suffrage has passed

one legislature and must pass another before being submitted to the

people. The advance has been world-wide. Thus, in 1910

the Gaekwar of

Baroda in India allowed the women of his dominions a vote in municipal

elections, and Bosnia bestowed the parliamentary suffrage on women who

owned a certain amount of real estate; Norway in 1913

and Iceland in

1914 were won to full suffrage. The following table presents a

convenient historical summary of the progress in political rights:

On July 2, 1776, two days before the Declaration of Independence was

signed, New Jersey, in her first State constitution, en-franchised the

women by changing the words of her provincial charter from "Male

freeholders worth £50" to "_all inhabitants_ worth £50,"

and for 31

years the women of that State voted.

GAINS IN EQUAL SUFFRAGE

Eighty years ago women could not vote anywhere, except to a very limited

extent in Sweden and in a few other places in the Old World.

TIME PLACE KIND OF SUFFRAGE

1838 Kentucky School suffrage to widows with children

of school age.

1850 Ontario School suffrage, women married and

single.

1861 Kansas School suffrage.

1867 New South Wales Municipal suffrage.

1869 England Municipal suffrage, single women and

widows.

Victoria Municipal suffrage, married and single

women.

Wyoming Full suffrage.

1871 West Australia Municipal suffrage.

1875 Michigan School suffrage.

Minnesota Do.

1876 Colorado Do.

1877 New Zealand Do.

1878 New Hampshire Do.

Oregon Do.

1879 Massachusetts Do.

1880 New York Do.

Vermont Do.

South Australia Municipal suffrage.

1881 Scotland Municipal suffrage to the single women

and widows.

Isle of Man Parliamentary suffrage.

1883 Nebraska School suffrage.

1884 Ontario Municipal suffrage.

Tasmania Do.

1886 New Zealand Do.

New Brunswick Do.

1887 Kansas Do.

Nova Scotia Do.

Manitoba Do.

North Dakota School suffrage.

South Dakota Do.

TIME PLACE KIND OF SUFFRAGE

1887 Montana . . . . . . . School suffrage Arizona . . . . . . . Do.

New Jersey . . . . . Do.

Montana . . . . . . . Tax-paying suffrage.

1888 England . . . . . . . County suffrage.

British Columbia. . . Municipal Suffrage.

Northwest Territory . Do.

1889 Scotland. . . . . . . County suffrage.

Province of Quebec. . Municipal suffrage, single women and

widows.

1891 Illinois. . . . . . . School suffrage.

1893 Connecticut . . . . . Do.

Colorado. . . . . . . Full suffrage.

New Zealand . . . . . Do.

1894 Ohio. . . . . . . . . School suffrage.

Iowa. . . . . . . . . Bond suffrage.

England . . . . . . . Parish and district suffrage, married and

single women.

1895 South Australia . . . Full State suffrage.

1896 Utah. . . . . . . . . Full suffrage.

Idaho . . . . . . . . Do.

1898 Ireland . . . . . . . All offices except members of Parliament.

Minnesota . . . . . . Library trustees.

Delaware. . . . . . . School suffrage to taxpaying women.

France. . . . . . . . Women engaged in commerce can vote

for judges of the

tribunal of commerce.

Louisiana . . . . . . Tax-paying suffrage.

1900 Wisconsin . . . . . . School suffrage.

West Australia. . . . Full State suffrage.

1901 New York. . . . . . . Tax-paying suffrage; local taxation in

all towns and villages of

the State.

Norway. . . . . . . . Municipal suffrage.

1902 Australia . . . . . . Full suffrage.

New South Wales . . . Full State suffrage.

1903 Kansas. . . . . . . . Bond suffrage.

Tasmania. . . . . . . Full State suffrage.

1905 Queensland. . . . . . Do.

1906 Finland . . . . . . . Full suffrage; eligible for all offices.

1907 Norway. . . . . . . . Full parliamentary suffrage to the 300,000

women who already had

municipal

suffrage.

Sweden. . . . . . . . Eligible to municipal offices.

Denmark . . . . . . . Can vote for members of boards of public

charities and serve on

such boards.

England . . . . . . . Eligible as mayors, aldermen, and county

and town councilors.

Oklahoma. . . . . . . New State continued school suffrage for

women.

1908 Michigan. . . . . . . Taxpayers to vote on question of local

taxation and granting of

franchises.

Denmark . . . . . . . Women who are taxpayers or wives of

taxpayers vote for all

offices except

members of Parliament.

Victoria. . . . . . . Full State suffrage.

1909 Belgium . . . . . . . Can vote for members of the conseils

des prudhommes, and also

eligible.

Province of Voralberg Single women and widows paying taxes

(Austrian Tyrol) were given a vote.

Ginter Park, VA . . . Tax-paying women, a vote on all

municipal questions.

1910 Washington. . . . . . Full suffrage.

New Mexico. . . . . . School suffrage.

TIME PLACE KIND OF SUFFRAGE

1910 Norway. . . . . . . . Municipal suffrage made universal.

Three-fifths of the women

had it

before.

Bosnia. . . . . . . . Parliamentary vote to women owning a

certain amount of real

estate.

Diet of the Crown . . Suffrage to the women of its capital city

Prince of Krain Laibach.

(Austria)

India (Gaekwar of . . Women in his dominions vote in municipal

Baroda) elections.

Wurttemberg . . . . . Women engaged in agriculture vote for

Kingdom of members of the chamber of agriculture;

also eligible.

New York. . . . . . . Women in all towns, villages and

third-class cities vote on

bonding

propositions.

1911 California. . . . . . Full suffrage.

Honduras. . . . . . . Municipal suffrage in capital city, Belize.

Iceland . . . . . . . Parliamentary suffrage for women over

25 years.

1912 Oregon. . . . . . . . Full suffrage.

Arizona . . . . . . . Do.

Kansas. . . . . . . . Do.

1913 Alaska. . . . . . . . Do.

Norway. . . . . . . . Do.

Illinois. . . . . . . Suffrage for statutory officials

(including presidential

electors and

municipal officers).

1914 Iceland . . . . . . . Full suffrage.

In the United States the struggle for the franchise has entered national

politics, a sure sign of its widening scope. The demand for equal

suffrage was embodied in the platform of the Progressive Party in

August, 1912. This marks an advance over Col.

Roosevelt's earlier view,

expressed in the _Outlook_ of February 3, 1912, when he said: "I believe

in woman's suffrage wherever the women want it. Where they do not want

it, the suffrage should not be forced upon them." When the new

administration assumed office in March, 1913, the friends of suffrage

worked to secure a constitutional amendment which should make votes for

women universal in the United States. The inauguration ceremonies were

marred by an attack of hoodlums on the suffrage contingent of the

parade. Mr. Hobson in the House denounced the outrage and mentioned the

case of a young lady, the daughter of one of his friends, who was

insulted by a ruffian who climbed upon the float where she was. Mr.

Mann, the Republican minority leader, remarked in reply that her

daughter ought to have been at home. Commenting on this dialogue,

_Collier's Weekly_ of April 5, 1913, recalled the boast inscribed by

Rameses III of Egypt on his monuments, twelve hundred years before

Christ: "To unprotected women there is freedom to wander through the

whole country wheresoever they list without apprehending danger." If one

works this out chronologically, said the editor, Mr.

Mann belongs

somewhere back in the Stone Age. In the Senate an active committee on

woman suffrage was formed under the chairmanship of Mr.

Thomas, of

Colorado. The vote on the proposed new amendment was taken in the Senate

on March 19, 1914, and it was rejected,[428] 35 to 34, two-thirds being

necessary before the measure could be submitted to the States for

ratification. In the House Mr. Underwood, Democratic minority leader,

took the stand that suffrage was purely a State issue.

Mr. Heflin of

Alabama was particularly vigorous in denunciation of votes for women. He

said[429]:

"I do not believe that there is a red-blooded man in the world who in

his heart really believes in woman suffrage. I think that every man who

favours it ought to be made to wear a dress. Talk about taxation without

representation! Do you say that the young man who is of age does not

represent his mother? Do you say that the young man who pledges at the

altar to love, cherish, and protect his wife, does not represent her and

his children when he votes? When the Christ of God came into this world

to die for the sins of humanity, did he not die for all, males and

females? What sort of foolish stuff are you trying to inject into this

tariff debate?... There are trusts and monopolies of every kind, and

these little feminine fellows are crawling around here talking about

woman suffrage. I have seen them here in this Capitol.

The suffragette

and a little henpecked fellow crawling along beside her; that is her

husband. She is a suffragette, and he is a mortal suffering yet."

Mr. Falconer of Washington rose in reply. He remarked:[430]

"I want to observe that the mental operation of the average woman in the

State of Washington, as compared to the ossified brain operation of the

gentleman from Alabama, would make him look like a mangy kitten in a

tiger fight. The average woman in the State of Washington knows more

about social economics and political economy in one minute than the

gentleman from Alabama has demonstrated to the members of this House

that he knows in five minutes."

On February 2, 1914, a delegation of women called upon President Wilson

to ascertain his views. The President refused to commit himself. He was

not at liberty, he said, to urge upon Congress policies which had not

the endorsement of his party's platform; and as the representative of

his party he was under obligations not to promulgate or intimate his

individual convictions. On February 3, 1914, the Democrats of the House

in caucus, pursuant to a resolution of Mr. Heflin, refused to create a

woman suffrage committee. So the constitutional amendment was quite

lost. In the following July Mr. Bryan suddenly issued a strong appeal

for equal suffrage in the _Commoner_. Among his arguments were these:

"As man and woman are co-tenants of the earth and must work out their

destiny together, the presumption is on the side of equality of

treatment in all that pertains to their joint life and its

opportunities. The burden of proof is on those who claim for one an

advantage over the other in determining the conditions under which both

shall live. This claim has not been established in the matter of

suffrage. On the contrary, the objections raised to woman suffrage

appear to me to be invalid, while the arguments advanced in support of

the proposition are, in my judgment, convincing."

"Without minimising other arguments advanced in support of the extending

of suffrage to woman, I place the emphasis upon the mother's right to a

voice in molding the environment which shall surround her children--an

environment which operates powerfully in determining whether her

offspring will crown her latter years with joy or 'bring down her gray

hairs in sorrow to the grave.'

"For a time I was imprest by the suggestion that the question should be

left to the women to decide--a majority to determine whether the

franchise should be extended to woman; but I find myself less and less

disposed to indorse this test.... Why should any mother be denied the

use of the franchise to safeguard the welfare of her child merely

because another mother may not view her duty in the same light?"

The change in the status of women has been significant not only in the

political field, but also in every other direction. A brief survey of

the legislation of various States in the past year, 1913, reveals the

manifold measures already adopted for the further protection of women

and indicates the trend of laws in the near future. Acts were passed in

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, and Ohio to punish the seduction

of girls and women for commercialised vice, the laws being known as

"White Slave Acts"; laws for the abatement of disorderly houses were

passed in California, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington;

Oregon decreed that male applicants for a marriage license must produce

a physician's certificate showing freedom from certain diseases; and it

authorised the sterilisation of habitual criminals and degenerates. The

necessity of inculcating chastity in the newer generation, whether

through the teaching of sex hygiene in the schools or in some other

form, was widely discussed throughout the country.

Mothers' pensions

were granted by fourteen States; minimum wage boards were established by

three; and three passed laws for the punishment of family desertion, in

such wise that the family of the offender should receive a certain daily

sum from the State while he worked off his sentence.

Tennessee removed

the disability of married women arising from coverture.

Ten States

further limited the hours of labour for women in certain industries, the

tendency being to fix the limit at fifty-four or fifty-eight hours a

week with a maximum of nine or ten in any one day. The hours of labour

of children and the age at which they are allowed to work were largely

restricted. A National Children's Bureau, under the charge of Miss Julia

Lathrope, has been created at Washington; and Mrs. J.

Borden Harriman

was appointed to the Industrial Relations Commission.

The minuteness and

thoroughness of modern legislation for the protection of women may be

realised by noting that in 1913 alone New York passed laws that no girl

under sixteen shall in any city of the first, second, or third class

sell newspapers or magazines or shine shoes in any street or public

place; that separate wash rooms and dressing rooms must be provided in

factories where more than ten women are employed; that whenever an

employer requires a physical examination, the employee, if a female, can

demand a physician of her own sex; that the manufacture or repair for a

factory of any article of food, dolls' clothing, and children's apparel

in a tenement house be prohibited except by special permit of the Labor

Commission; that the State Industrial Board be authorised to make

special rules and regulations for dangerous employments; and that the

employment of women in canning establishments be strictly limited

according to prescribed hours.

The unmistakable trend of legislation in the United States is towards

complete equality of the sexes in all moral, social, industrial,

professional, and political activities.

In England the House of Commons rejected parliamentary suffrage for

women. Incensed at the repeated chicanery of politicians who

alternately made and evaded their promises, a group of suffragettes

known as the "militants" resorted to open violence. When arrested for

damaging property, they went on a "hunger strike,"

refusing all

nourishment. This greatly embarrassed the government, which in 1913

devised the so-called "Cat and Mouse Act," whereby those who are in

desperate straits through their refusal to eat are released temporarily

and conditionally, but can be rearrested summarily for failure to comply

with the terms of their parole. The weakness in the attitude of the

militant suffragettes is their senseless destruction of all kinds of

property and the constant danger to which they subject innocent people

by their outrages. If they would confine themselves to making life

unpleasant for those who have so often broken their pledges, they could

stand on surer ground. The English are commonly regarded as an orderly

people, especially by themselves. Nevertheless, it is true that hardly

any great reform has been achieved in England without violence. The men

of England did not secure the abolition of the "rotten-borough" system

and extensive manhood suffrage until, in 1831, they smashed the windows

of the Duke of Wellington's house, burned the castle of the Duke of

Newcastle, and destroyed the Bishop's palace at Bristol.

In 1839 at

Newport twenty chartists were shot in an attempt to seize the town; they

were attempting to secure reforms like the abolition of property

qualifications for members of Parliament. The English obtained the

permanent tenure of their "immemorial rights" only by beheading one king

and banishing another. In our own country, the Boston Tea Party was a

typical "militant outrage," generally regarded as a fine piece of

patriotism. If the tradition of England is such that violence must be a

preliminary to all final persuasion, perhaps censure of the militants

can find some mitigation in that fact. Some things move very slowly in

England. In 1909 a commission was appointed to consider reform in

divorce. Under the English law a husband can secure a divorce for

infidelity, but a woman must, in addition to adultery, prove aggravated

cruelty. This is humorously called "British fair play."

In November,

1912, the majority of the commission recommended that this inequality be

removed and that the sexes be placed on an equal footing; and that in

addition to infidelity, now the only cause for divorce allowed, complete

separation be also granted for desertion for three years, incurable

insanity, and incurable habitual drunkenness. The majority, nine

commissioners, found that the present stringent restrictions and

costliness of divorce are productive of immorality and illicit

relations, particularly among the poorer classes. The majority report

was opposed by the three minority members, the Archbishop of York, Sir

William Anson, and Sir Lewis Dibdin, representing the Established

Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Thus far, Parliament

has not yet acted and the old law is still in force.

On the Continent, with the exception of a few places like Finland, the

movement for equal suffrage, while earnestly pressed by a few, is not

yet concentrated. Women have won their rights to higher education and

are admitted to the universities. They can usually enter business and

most of the professions. Inequities of civil rights are gradually being

swept away. For example, in Germany a married woman has complete control

of her property, but only if she specifically provided for it in the

marriage contract; many German women are ignorant that they possess such

a right. The Germans may be divided into two classes: the caste which

rules, largely Prussian, militaristic, and bureaucratic; and that which,

although desirous of more republican institutions and potentially

capable of liberal views, is constrained to obey the first or ruling

class. This upper class is not friendly to the modern women's-rights

movement. Perhaps it has read too much Schopenhauer.

This amiable

philosopher, whose own mother could not endure living with him, has this

to say of women[431]:

"A woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble, is perhaps an

impossibility. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty

of perjury than men.... Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses

and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they

themselves are childish, foolish, and shortsighted....

Women are and

remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable Philistines;

and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to

share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant

stimulus to his ignoble ambitions.... Where are there any real

monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us

always, in polygamy.... It is men who make the money, and not women;

therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional possession

of it nor capable of administering it.... That woman is by nature

intended to obey, is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in

the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself

to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; that is

because she requires a master. If she is young, the man is a lover; if

she is old, a priest."

Essentially the opinion of Schopenhauer is that of the Prussian ruling

class to-day. It is indisputable that in Germany, as elsewhere on the

Continent, chastity in men outside of marriage is not expected, nor is

the wife allowed to inquire into her husband's past. The bureaucratic

German expects his wife to attend to his domestic comforts; he does not

consult her in politics. The natural result when the masculine element

has not counterchecks is bullying and coarseness. To find the

coarseness, the reader can consult the stories in papers like the

_Berliner Tageblatt_ and much of the current drama; to observe the

bullying, he will have to see it for himself, if he doubts it. This is

not an indictment of the whole German people; it is an indictment of the

militaristic-bureaucratic ruling class, which, persuaded of its divine

inspiration and intolerant of criticism,[432] has plunged the country