Chapter XXXVII · (continued 2)

In 1880 Mrs. Blake was sent by the New York society to the Republican and Democratic presidential conventions at Chicago and Cincinnati, and on her return a meeting was called in Republican Hall, July 9, to hear her report as to the comparative treatment received by the delegates in the two conventions. Soon afterwards a delegation of ladies[242] waited on Winfield S. Hancock, the Democratic nominee, who received them with much courtesy, saying he was quite willing to interpret, in its broadest sense, that clause of his letter of acceptance wherein he said: "It is only by a full vote and a fair count that the people can rule in fact, as required by the theory of our government." "I am willing, ladies," said the general, "to have you say that I believe in a free ballot for all the people of the United States, women as well as men."

Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Slocum and Mr. Wilcox made quite an extensive canvass through many counties of the State, to rouse the women to use their right to vote on all school matters.

The bill to prohibit disfranchisement was again introduced in the legislature of 1881, by Joseph M. Congdon, and ordered to a third reading May 3, by a vote of 60 to 40, and on May 11 came up for final action, when the ladies, by special courtesy, were admitted to the floor of the Assembly chamber to listen to the discussion. General Francis B. Spinola and General James W. Husted made earnest speeches in favor of the bill, and Hon. Erastus Brooks and General George A. Sharpe in opposition. The roll-call gave 57 ayes to 55 noes—a majority of those present, but not the majority (65) of all the members of the Assembly, which the constitution of New York requires for the final passage of a bill. The vote astonished the opponents, and placed the measure among the grave questions of the day. This substantial success inspired the friends to renewed efforts.[243]

The necessity of properly qualified women in the police stations again came up for consideration. The condition of unfortunate women nightly consigned to these places had long been set forth by the leaders of the suffrage movement. In New York there were thirty-two station-houses in which, from night to night, from five to forty women were lodged, some on criminal charges, some from extreme poverty. All there, young and old, were entirely in the hands of men, in sickness or distress. If search was to be made on charge of theft, it was always a male official who performed the duty. If the most delicate and refined lady were taken ill on the street, or injured in any way, she was liable to be taken to the nearest station, where the needful examinations to ascertain if life yet lingered must be made by men. In view of these facts, a resolution was again passed at the State convention, and request made to the police commissioners, to permit a delegation of ladies to meet with them in conference. The commissioners deigned no reply, but gave the letter to the press, whereupon ensued a storm of comment and ridicule.

On consultation with Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell, commissioner of the State Board of Charities, a bill was drawn up and sent to Albany, providing for the appointment of one or more police-matrons at every station-house in cities of 50,000 inhabitants and upwards, the salaries to be $600 each. Hon. J. C. Boyd presented the bill in the Senate, where it passed April 18. In the Assembly its passage was urged by Hon. Michael C. Murphy, chairman of the Committee on Cities. Meantime Mayor Grace and Comptroller Campbell entered their protest against the bill, declaring the measure ought to originate in the city departments, where there was full power to appoint police-matrons; also, that the proposed salaries would be a heavy drain upon the city treasury. The comptroller was at once informed of the previous application to the police commissioners, from whom no reply had been received, which virtually compelled appeal to the legislature. And as to salaries, it was suggested that there were now on the pay-roll of the police of New York 2,500 men whose salaries amounted to over $2,500,000, whereas the bill before the legislature asked for only sixty matrons, whose salaries would amount to but $36,000. This was certainly a most reasonable demand for the protection of one-half the people of the city, who paid fully half the indirect taxes as well as a fair proportion of the direct taxes. Finally, it was proposed to the comptroller that the bill should be withdrawn if he would recommend the appointment of police-matrons in the city departments. This was not accepted. The Committee on Cities gave a hearing to Mrs. Blake, and reported unanimously in favor of the bill. Public sentiment supported the measure, the press generally advocated it, and the Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 96 to 7; but it failed to receive the signature of the governor,—a most striking proof of the need of the ballot for women; since, friendly as he was to woman's enfranchisement, when he found the police department, with its thousands of attachés, all with votes in their hands, opposed, Governor Cornell was found wanting in courage and conscience to sign this bill for women who had no votes.[244] The next year application was again made to the city authorities for the appointment of matrons, but they refused to act. The bill was reïntroduced in the legislature, passed by a large majority in the Assembly, but defeated in the Senate by the adverse report of the Committee on Cities. A mass-meeting to discuss this question of police-matrons was held in Steinway Hall, March 1, at which the speakers[B] all urged such appointments.

During the winter of 1882 an effort was made in New York city to secure the enforcement of the law enacted by the previous legislature, which provided that seats should be furnished for the "shop-girls." Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling caused the arrest of certain prominent shop-keepers on the charge of not complying with the law, but on coming to trial the suits were withdrawn on the promise of the delinquents to give seats to their employés.

During the winter of 1882 agitation for the higher education of women was renewed, and a society organized by some of the most influential ladies in the city. They rolled up a petition of 1,200, asking that Columbia College be opened to women. President Barnard had recommended this in his reports for three years. The agitation culminated in a grand meeting[245] in the new Union League Theater. Parke Godwin of the Evening Post presided. The audience was chiefly composed of fashionable ladies, whose equipages filled Thirty-eighth street blocks away, yet not a woman sat on the platform; not a woman's voice was heard; even the report of the society was read by a man, and every inspiration of the occasion was filtered through the brain of some man. Among other things, Mr. Godwin, son-in-law of the poet Bryant, said:

We speak of the higher education of women. Why not also of men? Because they already have the opportunity for obtaining it. The idea upon which our government is built is the idea of equal rights for all; and that means equal opportunities. Every society needs all the best intellect that it can get. We have many evil influences acting upon our society here, and we need the all-controlling influence of woman. We cannot fix a standard for her. History shows what she has done, in a Vespasia, Vittoria Colonna, De Staël, Bremer, Evans, Somerville and Maria Mitchell. She does not go out of her sphere when she is so highly educated. She can darn her stockings just as well if she does know the word in half-a-dozen languages. There is no longer novelty in this movement; it has been tried successfully here and abroad in the universities, and always with success.

Addresses were also made by Rev. Dr. Stowe, Dr. William Draper, Joseph Choate, and others eminent in one way or another. The meeting closed by circulating a petition for presentation to the trustees of Columbia College, asking that properly qualified women be admitted to lectures and examinations.

The bill to prohibit disfranchisement on account of sex was again introduced in the Assembly by Hon. J. Hampden Robb, and referred to the Committee on Grievances, of which Major James Haggerty was chairman, who gave to it his hearty approval and granted two hearings to the officers of the State society, on behalf of the large number of memorialists who had sent in their petitions from all parts of the State. The women of Albany were indefatigable in their personal appeals to the different members of the Assembly, urging them to vote for the bill, while Major Haggerty was untiring in his advocacy of the measure. On May 3 there was an animated discussion:[246] the bill passed to its third reading by an overwhelming vote, which alarmed the opponents into making a thorough canvass, that proved to them the necessity of some decisive action for the defeat of the bill. The Hon. Erastas Brooks presented a resolution, calling on the attorney-general for his opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed law, which was passed in a moment of confusion, and when many of our friends were absent. Following is the opinion elicited:

State of New York. Office of the Attorney-General, } Albany, May 10, 1882. }

To the Assembly:

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution of the Assembly requesting the attorney-general to report his opinion as to the constitutionality of Assembly bill No. 637, which provides that "every woman shall be free to vote under the qualifications required of men, or to refrain from voting, as she may choose; and no person shall be debarred by reason of sex from voting at any election, or at any town meeting, school meeting, or other choice of government functionaries whatsoever," and whether, without an amendment to the constitution, suffrage can be granted to any class of persons not named in the constitution. I reply:

First—It has been decided so often by the judicial tribunals of the various States of the Union, and by the Supreme Court of the United States, that suffrage is not a natural inherent right, but one governed by the law-making power and regulated by questions of availability and expediency, instead of absolute, inalienable right (1, 3), that the question is no longer open for discussion, either by the judicial forum or legislative assemblies (Burnham vs. Laning, 1 Legal Gazette Rep., 411, Supreme Court Penn.; Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162; Day vs. Jones, 31 California, 261; Anderson vs. Baker, 23 Maryland, 531; Abbott vs. Bayley, 6 Pickering, 92; 2 Dallas, 471-2; In re Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatchford, 200). At the common law women had no right to vote and no political status (2, 4) (Maine's Ancient Law, 140; Cooley's Const. Lim., 599; Blackstone's Comm., 171).

Second—Therefore the constitution of the State of New York, providing that every male citizen of the age of 21 years who shall have certain other qualifications, may vote, the determination of the organic law specifying who shall have the privilege of voting, excludes all other classes (5), such as women, persons under 21 years of age and aliens. The argument that, because women are not expressly prohibited, they may vote, fails to give the slightest force to the term "male" in the constitution; and by the same force of reasoning, the expression of the term "citizen" and the statement of the age of 21 years would not necessarily exclude aliens and those under 21 years of age from voting (6). Therefore, assuming that our organic law was properly adopted without the participation of women either in making or adopting it (7), that organic law controls.

Third—It follows, therefore, as a logical consequence that the proposed reform cannot be accomplished except by an amendment of the constitution ratified by two successive legislatures and the people, or by a constitutional convention, whose work shall be sanctioned by a vote of the people.

Leslie W. Russell, Attorney-General.[247]

Weak as was this document, and untenable as were its assertions, it had great weight with many of the members of the legislature coming as the opinion did from the attorney-general of the State. The friends of the bill resolved to call for the vote when the bill should be reached, and on May 16, the women were present in large numbers, listening with intense interest to the brief speeches of the members for and against, and watching and counting the vote as the roll-call proceeded, which resulted in 54 ayes and 59 noes, lacking three votes of a majority of those present and only eleven of the requisite number, sixty-five. In view of the official opinion against its constitutionality amounting to a legal decision, this was a most gratifying vote.[248]

The presence of Leslie W. Russell in Albany, as attorney-general, rendered it useless to reïntroduce the bill to prohibit disfranchisement on account of sex in the legislature of 1883, but in its stead, Dr. John G. Boyd of New York introduced a proposition to strike "male" from the suffrage clause of the constitution, which, however, received only fifteen votes.

To pass from the State to the Church, the winter of 1883 was notable for the delivery of a series of Lenten lectures on woman by the Rev. Morgan Dix, D. D., rector of Trinity Church, New York, afterwards published in book form under the title, "The Calling of a Christian Woman and her Training to Fulfill it." The lectures were delivered each Friday evening during Lent, in Trinity Chapel, and at once attracted attention from their conservative, reäctionary, almost monastic views of woman's position and duties.

After reading a report of one of these remarkable essays in which women were gravely told their highest happiness should be found in singing hymns, Mrs. Blake decided to reply to them. She secured a hall on Fourteenth street, and on successive Sunday evenings gave addresses in reply. Both courses of lectures were well attended. The moderate audiences of Trinity Chapel soon became a throng that more than filled the large building, while the hall in which Mrs. Blake spoke was packed to suffocation, hundreds going away unable to gain admittance. The press everywhere favored the broad and liberal views presented by Mrs. Blake, and denounced the old-time narrow theories of Dr. Dix. Mrs. Blake's lectures were also published in book form with the title of "Woman's Place To-day" and had a large circulation.

The Republicans again nominating Mr. Russell for attorney-general, an active campaign was organized against him and in favor of the Democratic nominee, Mr. Dennis O'Brien. Protests[249] against Russell were circulated throughout the State; Republican tickets were printed with the name of Denis O'Brien for attorney-general, and on election day women distributed these tickets, and made every possible effort to ensure the defeat of Russell; and he was defeated by 13,000 votes.

The legislature of 1884 showed a marked gain; Hon. Erastus Brooks, General George A. Sharpe, and other prominent opponents had been retired, and their seats filled by active friends. Our bill was introduced by Mr. William Howland of Cayuga, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Howland also secured the passage of a special act, granting women the right to vote at the charter elections of Union Springs, Cayuga county. Under similar enactments women have the right to vote for municipal officers in Dansville, Newport and other villages and towns in the State.

On March 11, 12, the annual meeting of the State society was held in the City Hall, Albany, with a good representation[250] from the National Convention at Washington, added to our own State speakers.[251] On the last evening there was an overflow meeting held in Geological Hall, presided over by Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage.

Governor Cleveland accorded the delegates a most courteous reception in his room in the capitol. A hearing was had before the Judiciary Committee March 13. The assembly-chamber was crowded. General Husted, chairman of the committee, presided, and Mrs. Blake, the president of the society, introduced the speakers.[252] A few days later the same committee gave a special hearing to Mrs. Gougar, who made the journey from Indiana to present the case. The committee reported adversely, but by the able tactics of General Husted, after an animated debate the bill was placed on the calendar by a vote of 66 to 62, and shortly after ordered to a third reading by a vote of 74 to 39. On May 8 the bill was reached for final action. Frederick B. Howe of New York was the principal opponent, trying to obstruct legislation by one and another pretext. General Husted took the floor in an able speech on the constitutionality of the bill, and the vote stood 57 ayes to 61 noes, lacking eight votes of the requisite 65.

While the right of suffrage is still denied, gains in personal and property rights have been granted:

In 1880, the law requiring the private acknowledgment by a married woman of her execution of deeds, or other written instruments, without the "fear or compulsion" of her husband, was abolished, leaving the wife to make, take and certify in the same manner as if she were a feme sole.

March 21, 1884, the penal code of the State was amended, raising the age of consent from ten to sixteen years, and also providing penalties[253] for inveigling or enticing any unmarried woman, under the age of twenty-five years, into a house of ill-fame or assignation.

Under the act of May 28, 1884, a married woman may contract to the same extent, with like effect and in the same form as if unmarried, and she and her separate estate shall be liable thereon, whether such contract relates to her separate business or estate, or otherwise, and in no case shall a charge upon her separate estate be necessary.

It is by court decisions that we most readily learn the legal status of married women, under the favorable legislation of the period covered by this History. While referring the reader to Abbott's Digest of New York Laws for full knowledge upon this point, we give a few of the more recent decisions as illustrating general legal opinion:

Troy, March 23, 1882.—The Court of Appeals decided that married women are the rightful owners of articles of personal adornment or convenience coming from husbands, and can bequeath them to their heirs. The court held that separate and personal possession by a wife of articles specially fitted for and adapted to her personal use, and differing in that respect from household goods kept for the common use of husband and wife, would draw after it a presumption of the executed gift if the property came from the husband, and of the wife's ownership, but for disabilities of the marital relations. Now that these disabilities are removed the separate existence and separate property of the wife are recognized, and her capacity to take and hold as her own the gift in good faith and fairly made to her by her husband established, it seemed to the court time to clothe her right with natural and proper attributes, and apply to the gift to her, although made by her husband, the general rules of law unmodified and unimpaired by the old disabilities of the marriage relations.

This decision was important as further destroying the old common-law theory of the husband's absolute ownership of his wife's person, property, services and earnings. The same year (1882) the Supreme Court, at its general term, rendered a decision that a married woman could sue her husband for damages for assault and battery; that by the act of 1860 the legislature intended to, and did, change the common-law rule, that a wife could not sue her husband. Judge Brady rendered the opinion, Judge Daniels concurring; Presiding Judge Noah Davis dissenting. Judge Brady said:

To allow the right (to sue) in an action of this character, in accordance with the language of the statute, would be to promote greater harmony by enlarging the rights of married women and increasing the obligations of husbands, by affording greater protection to the former, and by enforcing greater restraint upon the latter in the indulgence of their evil passions. The declaration of such a rule is not against the policy of the law. It is in harmony with it, and calculated to preserve peace and, in a great measure, prevent barbarous acts, acts of cruelty, regarded by mankind as inexcusable, contemptible, detestable. It is neither too early nor too late to promulgate the doctrine that if a husband commits an assault and battery upon his wife he may be held responsible civilly and criminally for the act, which is not only committed in violation of the laws of God and man, but in direct antagonism to the contract of marriage, its obligations, duties, responsibilities, and the very basis on which it rests. The rules of the common law on this subject have been dispelled, routed, and justly so, by the acts of 1860 and 1862. They are things of the past which have succumbed to more liberal and just views, like many other doctrines of the common law which could not stand the scrutiny and analysis of modern civilization.

The utter insecurity of woman without the ballot is shown in the reversal of this decision within a few months, by the Court of Appeals, on the ground that it would be "contrary to the policy of the law, and destructive to the conjugal union and tranquility which it had always been the object of the law to guard and protect." Could satire go farther? We record with satisfaction the fact that Judge Danforth uttered a strong dissenting opinion.

The friends of woman suffrage in the legislature of 1884 secured the passage of a bill empowering women to vote on all questions of taxation submitted to a popular vote in the village of Union Springs. Governor Cleveland was urged to veto it; but after hearing all the objections he signed the bill and it became a law.

At Clinton, Oneida county, twenty-two women voted on June 21, 1884, at an election on the question of establishing water-works. Eight voted for the tax, fourteen against it. Fifteen other women appeared at the polls, but were excluded from voting because, though they were real-estate tax-payers, the assessor had left their names off the tax-roll. Judge Theodore W. Dwight, president of the Columbia Law School, pronounced women tax-payers entitled to vote under the general water-works act, and therefore that the election-officials violated the law in refusing to accept the votes of the women whose names were omitted from the assessors' tax-list.

In 1879, there was a report of the committee to allow widows an active voice in the settlement of the family estate and to have the sole guardianship of minor children. A petition in favor of the bill had upon it the names of such well-known men as Peter Cooper, George William Curtis, Henry Bergh and J. W. Simonton.

September 13, 1879, Mrs. MacDonald of Boston argued her own case before the United States Circuit Court in New York city, in a patent suit. It was a marked event in court circles, she being the first lady pleader that ever appeared in that court, and the second woman who ever argued a case in this State. Anne Bradstreet was for years a marked character in Albany courts, but her claims for justice were regarded as an amusing lunacy.

In 1880, Governor Cornell appointed Miss Carpenter on the State Board of Charities.

In the suit of Mr. Edward Jones to recover $860 which he alleged he had loaned to the Rev. Anna Oliver for the Willoughby Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, Brooklyn, of which she was pastor, a verdict for the defendant was rendered. Miss Oliver addressed the following letter to the court:

To his Honor, the Judge, the Intelligent Jury, the Lawyers and all who are engaged in the case of Jones vs. Oliver:

Gentlemen:—Thanking you for the politeness, the courtesy, the chivalry even, that has been shown me to-day, allow me to make of you the following request: Please sit down at your earliest leisure, and endeavor to realize in imagination how you would feel if you were sued by a woman, and the case was brought before a court composed entirely of women; the judge a woman; every member of the jury a woman; women to read the oath to you, and hold the Bible, and every lawyer a woman. Further, your case to be tried under laws framed entirely by women, in which neither you nor any man had ever been allowed a voice. Somewhat as you would feel under such circumstances, you may be assured, on reading this, I have felt during the trial to-day. Perhaps the women would be lenient to you (the sexes do favor each other), but would you be satisfied? Would you feel that such an arrangement was exactly the just and fair thing? If you would not, I ask you on the principle of the Golden Rule, to use your influence for the enfranchisement of women.

New York, 1881.

Mrs. Roebling, wife of the engineer in charge of the construction of the marvelous Brooklyn bridge, made the patterns for various necessary shapes of iron and steel such as no mills were making, after her husband and other engineers had for weeks puzzled their brains over the difficulties.

When Frank Leslie died, his printing-house was involved, and Mrs. Leslie undertook to redeem it, which she did, and in a very short time. Speaking of it she says:

"I had the property in reach, and the assignees were ready to turn it over to me, but to get it, it was necessary for me to raise $50,000, I borrowed it from a woman. How happy I was when she signed the check, and how beautiful it seemed to me to see one woman helping another. I borrowed the money in June, and was to make the first payment of $5,000, on the 1st of November. On the 29th of October I paid the $50,000 with interest. From June to the 29th of October, I made $50,000 clear. I had also to pay $30,000 to the creditors who did not come under the contract. While I was paying this $80,000 of my husband's debts, I spent but $30 for myself, except for my board. I lived in a little attic room, without a carpet, and the window was so high that I could not get a glimpse of the sky unless I stood on a chair and looked out. When I had paid the debts and raised a monument to my husband, then I said to myself, 'now for a great big pair of diamond earrings,' and away I went to Europe, and here are the diamonds." The diamonds are perfect matches, twenty-seven carats in weight, and are nearly as large as nickles.

In Lansingburgh the women tax-payers offered their ballots and were repulsed, as follows:

September 2, 1885, the special election of the taxable inhabitants of the village of Lansingburgh took place, to vote upon a proposition to raise by tax the sum of $15,000 for water-works purposes. The measure was voted by 102 for it to 46 against. But a small amount of interest was manifested in the election. Several women tax-payers offered their votes, but the inspectors would not receive them, and the matter will be contested in the courts. The call for the election asked for an expression from "the taxable inhabitants," and women tax-payers in the 'burgh claim under the law their rights must be recognized. Lansingburgh inspectors have on numerous occasions refused to receive the ballots thus tendered, and the women have lost patience. They are to employ the best of counsel and settle the question at as early a day as possible. Women pay tax upon $367,394 of the property within the village boundaries, and they believe that they, to the number of 317 at least, are entitled to votes on all questions involving a monetary expenditure. In Saratoga, Clinton, and a number of other places in this State, where elections in relation to water-works have taken place, it has been held by legal authority that women property owners have a right to vote, and they have voted accordingly the same as other tax-payers.

In regard to recent efforts to secure legislation favorable to women, Mr. Wilcox writes:

The impression that the School Act, passed in 1880, did not apply to cities, led to the introduction by the Hon. Charles S. Baker of Rochester, of a bill covering cities. A test vote showed the Assembly practically unanimous for it, but it was referred to the Judiciary Committee to examine its constitutionality. The chairman, Hon. Geo. L. Ferry, and other members, asked me to look up the point and inform the committee, supposing a constitutional amendment needful. When the point was made on this bill, I for the first time closely examined the constitution, and finding there was nought to prevent the legislature enfranchising anyone, promptly apprised the committee of the discovery. The acting-chairman, Major Wm. D. Brennan, requested me to furnish the committee a legal brief on the matter. This (Feb. 19, 1880) I did, and arranged a public hearing before them in the assembly-chamber, which was attended by Governor Cornell, Lieutenant-Governor Hoskins, many senators, assemblymen, and State officers; at which Mrs. Blake, the sainted Helen M. Slocum and Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon were the speakers. From that year to the present there has been a "Bill to Prohibit Disfranchisement" before each legislature. In 1881, it was carried to a majority vote in the Assembly. In 1883, two-thirds of the Assembly were ready to pass the bill when the attorney-general declared it unconstitutional. In 1884, Governor Cleveland had approved two suffrage acts, and promised to sign all the friends could carry. In 1885, growing tired of the senseless clamor of "unconstitutionality," I resolved to show how little law the clamorers knew. To the knowledge gained by five years' discussion, I added that obtained by several months' research in the State Library at Albany, that of the New York Bar Association, those of the New York Law Institute and Columbia College, and elsewhere. The result was the publication of "Cases of the Legislature's Power over Suffrage," wherein it was shown, condensed from a great number of authorities, that all classes have received suffrage, not from the constitution but from the legislature, and that the latter has exercised the power of extending suffrage in hundreds of cases. This document received high praise from General James W. Husted and Major James Haggerty, who have manfully championed our bills in the Assembly, General Husted reading from it in his speech and it was signally sanctioned by the Assembly which, after being supplied with copies, voted down by more than three to one a motion to substitute a constitutional amendment.

But while working at this document, I was fortunate enough to make a still greater discovery—that portions of statute law which formerly prevented women's voting were repealed long since; that the constitution and statutes in their present shape secure women the legal right to vote.

February 19, 1885, a hearing was granted to Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Rogers and Mrs. Blake in the assembly-chamber before the Committee on Grievances, on the "Bill to Prohibit Disfranchisement." The splendid auditorium was crowded for two hours, and members of the committee lingered a long time after the audience had dispersed to discuss the whole question still further with the speakers. On the next day Mrs. Mary Seymour Howell and Governor John W. Hoyt of Wyoming Territory had a second hearing. The committee reported for consideration. When the bill came up for a third reading, General Martin L. Curtis of St. Lawrence moved that it be sent to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to substitute a constitutional amendment; lost, ayes 25, noes 75; carried to a third reading by viva voce vote. The vote on the final passage was, ayes 57, noes 56; the constitutional majority in this State being 65 of the 128 members, it was lost by eight votes. Of the 73 Republicans, 29 voted for the bill; of the 55 Democrats, 28 voted for the bill, showing that more than half the Democratic vote was in favor, and only two-fifths of the Republican; thus our defeat was due to the Republican party.

Thus stands the question of woman suffrage in the Empire State to-day, where women are in the majority.[254] After long years of unremitting efforts who can read this chapter of woman's faith and patience, under such oft-repeated disappointments, but with pity for her humiliations and admiration for her courage and persistence. For nearly half a century the petitions, the appeals, the arguments of the women of New York have been before the legislature for consideration, and the trivial concessions of justice thus far wrung from our rulers bear no proportion to the prolonged labors we have gone through to achieve them.

FOOTNOTES: