Annual legislative hearings on woman suffrage began in 1869. These were first secured through the efforts of the executive committee of the New England Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation. Eight thousand women had pet.i.tioned the legislature that suffrage might be allowed them on the same terms as men, and in answer, two hearings were held in the green room at the State House.[134] In 1870 a joint special committee on woman suffrage was formed, and since that time there have been one or more annual hearings on the question. To what extent legislative sentiment has been created will be shown later in the improvement of many laws with regard to the legal status of woman.
William Claflin was the first governor of Ma.s.sachusetts to present officially to the voters of the commonwealth the subject of woman"s rights as a citizen. In his address to the legislature of 1871, he strongly recommended a change in the laws regarding suffrage and the property rights of woman. His att.i.tude toward this reform made an era in the history of the executive department of the State.
Since that time nearly every governor of the State has, in his annual message, recommended the subject to respectful consideration. In 1879 Governor Thomas Talbot proposed a const.i.tutional amendment which should secure the ballot to women on the same terms as to men. In response to this portion of the governor"s message, and to the ninety-eight pet.i.tions presented on the subject, a general suffrage bill pa.s.sed the Senate by a two-thirds majority, and an act to "give women the right to vote for members of school committees," pa.s.sed both branches of the legislature and became a law of the State.[135] Governor John D.
Long, in his inaugural address before the legislature of 1880, expressed his opinion in favor of woman suffrage perhaps more decidedly than any who had preceded him in that high official position. He said:
I repeat my conviction of the right of woman suffrage. If the commonwealth is not ready to give it in full by a const.i.tutional amendment, I approve of testing it in munic.i.p.al elections.
The law allowing women to vote for school committees is one of the last results of the legislative agitations, though it is true that the pet.i.tion, the answer to which was the pa.s.sage of this act, did not emanate from any suffrage a.s.sociation. It was the outcome of a conference on the subject, held in the parlors of the New England Women"s Club.[136]
But the pet.i.tions of the suffragists had always been for general and unrestricted suffrage, and they opposed any scheme for securing the ballot on a cla.s.s or a restricted basis, holding that the true ground of principle is equality of rights with man. The practical result, so far, of voting for school committees has justified this position; for, as shown by the recent elections, the women of the State have not availed themselves to any extent of their new right to vote, and, therefore, the measure has not forwarded the cause of general suffrage. In fact, the school-committee question is not a vital one with either male or female voters, and it is impossible to get up any enthusiasm on the subject. As a test question upon which to try the desire of the women of the State to become voters, it is a palpable sham. Our Revolutionary fathers would not have fought, bled and died for such a figment of a right as this; and their daughters, or grand-daughters, inherit the same spirit, and if they vote at all, want something worth voting for. The result is, that the voting has been largely done by those women who have long been in favor of suffrage, and who have gone to the polls on election day from pure principle and a sense of duty.[137]
The law allowing women to vote for school committees was very elastic and capable of many interpretations. It reminded one of the old school exercise in transposing the famous line in Gray"s Elegy,
"The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,"
which has been found to be capable of over twenty different transpositions. The collectors and registrars in some towns and cities took advantage of this obscurity of expression, and interpreted the law according to their individual opinion on the woman suffrage question. In places where these officials were in sympathy, a broad construction was put upon the provisions of the law, the poll-tax payers were allowed to vote upon the payment of one dollar (under the divided tax law of 1879), and the women voters generally were given all necessary information, and treated courteously both by the a.s.sessors and registrars and at the polls.
In places where leading officials were opposed to women"s voting, the case was far different. Without regarding the clause in the law which said that a woman may vote upon paying either State or county poll-tax, such officials have threatened the women with arrest when they refused to pay both. In some towns they have been treated with great indignity, as if they were doing an unlawful act. In one town the women were actually required to pay a poll-tax the second year, in spite of the clause in the law that a female citizen who has paid a State or county tax within two years shall have the right to vote. The town a.s.sessor, whose duty it was to inform the women on this point of the law when asked concerning the matter, _willfully_ withheld the desired information, saying he "did not know," though he afterwards said that he _did_ know, but intended to let the women "find out for themselves." This a.s.sessor forgot that the women, as legal voters, had a right to ask for this information, and that by virtue of his official position he was legally obliged to answer. In another town two ladies who were property tax-payers were made to pay the two dollars poll-tax, and the record of this still stands on the town books. Some ladies were frightened and paid the tax under protest; others ran the risk. Here is a letter addressed to a lady 83 years of age:
MALDEN, Dec. 2, 1879.
HARRIET HANSON: There is a balance of ninety cents due on your poll-tax of 1879, duly a.s.sessed upon you. Payment of the same is hereby demanded, and if not paid within fourteen days from this date, with twenty cents for the summons, the collector is required to proceed forthwith to collect the same in manner provided by law.
THEODORE N. FOGUE, _Collector_.
Mrs. Hanson paid no attention to the summons, and that was the end of it.
In 1881, under the amended act the poll-tax was reduced to fifty cents, and the property tax-paying women (who are not required to pay a poll-tax) are no longer obliged to make a return of property exempt from taxation, as was required under the original statute.
Though some of the disabilities were removed, yet the privileges are no greater; and it is for members of school-committees and for nothing else, that the women of this State can vote. This is hardly worthy to be called "school suffrage"! It is to be regretted that a better test than that of school-committee suffrage, could not have been given to the women of the State, so that the issue of what under the circ.u.mstances cannot be called a fair trial of their desire to vote, might be more nearly what the friends of reform had desired.
The first pet.i.tion to the Ma.s.sachusetts legislature, asking that women might be allowed to serve on school-boards was presented in 1866 by Samuel E. Sewall of Boston. The same pet.i.tion was again presented in 1867. About this time Ashfield and Monroe, two of the smallest towns in the State, elected women as members of the school committee. Worcester and Lynn soon followed the good example, and in 1874, Boston, for the first time, chose six women to serve in this capacity.[138] There had hitherto been no open objection to this innovation, but the school committee of Boston not liking the idea of women co-workers, declared them ineligible to hold such office. Miss Peabody applied to the Supreme Court for its opinion upon the matter, but the judges refused to answer, and dismissed the pet.i.tion on the ground that the school committee itself had power to decide the question of the qualifications of members of the board. The subject was brought before the legislature of the same year, and that body, almost unanimously, pa.s.sed "An Act to Declare Women Eligible to Serve as Members of School Committees."
Thus the women members were renstated.[139]
This refusal on the part of the Supreme Judicial Court of Ma.s.sachusetts to answer a question relating to woman"s rights under the law, was received with a knowing smile by those who remembered the three adverse decisions relating to women which had been given by that august body. The first of these was on the case of Sarah E.
Wall of Worcester. The second was concerning a clause in the will of Francis Jackson of Boston, who left $5,000 and other property to the woman"s rights cause. Its third adverse decision was given in 1871. In that year, Julia Ward Howe and Mary E. Stevens were appointed by Governor Claflin as justices of the peace. Some member of the governor"s council having doubted whether women could legally hold the office, the opinion of the Supreme Court was asked and it decided substantially that because women were women, or because women were not _men_, they could _not_ be justices of the peace; and the appointment was not confirmed.
Changes in the common law began in 1845 with reference to the wife"s right to hold her own property. In 1846 she could legally sign a receipt for money earned or deposited by herself.[140]
Before 1855 a woman could not hold her own property, either earned or acquired by inheritance. If unmarried, she was obliged to place it in the hands of a trustee, to whose will she was subject. If she contemplated marriage, and desired to call her property her own, she was forced by law to make a contract with her intended husband, by which she gave up all t.i.tle or claim to it. A woman, either married or unmarried, could hold no office of trust or power. She was not a person. She was not recognized as a citizen. She was not a factor in the human family. She was not a unit; but a zero, a nothing, in the sum of civilization.
To-day, a married woman can hold her own property, if it is held or bought in her own name, and can make a will disposing of it. A man is no longer the sole heir of his wife"s property. A married woman can make contracts, enter into co-partnerships, carry on business, invest her own earnings for her own use and behoof,--and she is also responsible for her own debts. She can be executor, administrator, guardian or trustee. She can testify in the courts for or against her husband. She can release, transfer, or convey, any interest she may have in real estate, subject only to the life interest which the husband may have at her death. Thirty years ago, when the woman"s rights movement began, the status of a married woman was little better than that of a domestic servant. By the English common law, her husband was her lord and master. He had the sole custody of her person, and of her minor children. He could "punish her with a stick no bigger than his thumb," and she could not complain against him.[141] But the real "thumb" story seems to have originated with a certain Judge Buller of England, who lived about one hundred years ago. In his ruling on one of those cases of wife-beating, now so common in our police courts, he said that a man had a right to punish his wife, "with a stick no bigger than his thumb." That was his opinion. Shortly after this some ladies sent the judge a letter in which they prayed him to give the size of his thumb! We are not told whether he complied with their request.]
The common law of this State held man and wife to be one person, but that person was the husband. He could by will deprive her of every part of his property, and also of what had been her own before marriage. He was the owner of all her real estate and of her earnings. The wife could make no contract and no will, nor, without her husband"s consent, dispose of the legal interest of her real estate. He had the income of her real estate till she died, and if they ever had a living child his ownership of the real estate continued to his death. He could forbid her to buy a loaf of bread or a pound of sugar, or contract for a load of wood to keep the family warm. She did not own a rag of her own clothing. She had no personal rights, and could hardly call her soul her own.
Her husband could steal her children, rob her of her clothing, and her earnings, neglect to support the family; and she had no legal redress. If a wife earned money by her labor, the husband could claim the pay as his share of the proceeds. There is a clause sometimes found in old wills, to the effect that if a widow marry again, she shall forfeit all right to her husband"s property. The most conservative judge in the commonwealth would now rule that a widow cannot be kept from her fair share of the property, by any such unjust restriction. In a husband"s eyes of a hundred and fifty years ago, a woman"s mission was accomplished after she had been _his_ wife and borne _his_ children. What more could be desired of her, he argued, but a corner somewhere in which, respectably dressed as his _relict_, she could sit down and mourn for him, for the rest of her life.[142]
The law no longer sanctions such a will, but provides that the widow shall have a fair share of all personal property. If a widow permits herself to-day to be defrauded of her legal rights in the division of property, it is her own fault, and because she does not study and understand for herself the general statutes of Ma.s.sachusetts, and the laws concerning the rights of married women.
The result of thirty years of property legislation for women is well stated by Mr. Sewall in his admirable pamphlet, in which he says, "the last thirty years have done more to improve the law for married women than the four hundred preceding." The legislature has, during this time, enacted laws allowing women to vote in parishes and religious societies, declaring that women _must_ become members of the board of trustees of the three State primary and reform schools, of the State workhouse, of the State almshouse at Tewksbury, and of the board of prison commissioners; also, that certain officers and managers of the reformatory prison for women at Sherborn "shall be women." Without legislation, women now are school supervisors, overseers of the poor, trustees of public libraries and members of the State Board of Education and of the State Board of Health, Lunacy and Charity.[143]
These great changes in legislation for the women of Ma.s.sachusetts are the result of their own labors. By conventions and doc.u.ments they have informed the people and enlightened public sentiment. By continued agitation the question has been kept prominently before their representatives in the legislature. And, though so much has been gained, they are still hard at work, nor will they rest until, woman"s equality with man before the law is firmly established.
Among the most important acts pa.s.sed recently is one of 1879, by which a married woman is the owner of her own clothing to the value of $2,000, although the act granting this calls such apparel the "gifts of her husband," not recognizing the fact that most married women earn or help to earn their own clothes. A law was pa.s.sed, in 1881, to "mitigate the evils of divorce." Two important acts were pa.s.sed by the legislature of 1882, one allowing women to become practising attorneys, and the other providing, that in case of the death of a married woman intestate and leaving children, one-half only of her personal estate shall go to her husband, instead of the whole, as in previous years. In 1883, a wife was given the right of burial in any lot or tomb belonging to her husband. In 1884, the only measures were a bill providing for the appointment of women on the board of State lunatic hospitals, and another providing for the appointment of women a.s.sistant physicians in the same hospitals, and an act giving women the power to dispose of their separate estates by will or deed. In 1885, very little was done to improve the legal status of women.
When any vote on the Suffrage bill is taken, it is enough to make the women who sit in the gallery weep to hear the "O"s" and the "Mc"s," almost to a man, thunder forth the emphatic "_No!_"; and to think that these men (some of whom a few years ago were walking over their native bogs, with hardly the right to live and breathe) should vote away so thoughtlessly the rights of the women of the country in which they have found a shelter and a home. When they came to this country, poor, and with no inheritance but the "shillalah," the ballot was freely given to them, as the poor man"s weapon for defence. Why cannot men, who have been political serfs in their own country, see the incongruity of voting against the enfranchis.e.m.e.nt of over one-half of the inhabitants of the State which has made free human beings of them? It is not long since one of these adopted citizens, in a discussion, said:
When the women show that they want to vote, I am willing to give them all the rights they want.
Give! I thought. Where did you get the right to _give_ Ma.s.sachusetts women the right to vote? You did not inherit it. In what consists your prerogative over the women whose ancestors fought to secure the very right of suffrage of which you so glibly talk, and which neither you, nor your father before you, did aught to establish or maintain?
The improvement in the social or general condition of woman has been even greater than that in legislation. Previous to 1840, women were employed only as teachers of summer schools, to "spell the men" during the haying season; and this only occasionally. They held no responsible position in any public school in the State.
To-day there are eight women to one man employed in all grades of this profession, and there are numerous instances where women are head-teachers of departments, or princ.i.p.als of high, normal and grammar schools. Previous to 1825, girls could attend only the primary schools of Boston. Through the influence of Rev. John Pierpont, the first high-school for girls was opened in that city.
There was a great outcry against this innovation; and, because of the excitement on the subject, and the _great number of girls_ who applied for admission, the scheme was abandoned. The public-school system, as it is now called, was established in Boston in 1789; boys were admitted the whole year round; girls, from April to October. This inequality in the opportunities for education roused John Pierpont"s indignation, and moved him to make strenuous efforts to secure justice for girls. Now there are 6,246 schools, seventy-two academies, six normal schools, two colleges, Boston University and the "Harvard Annex" all open to girls. In the town of Plymouth, where the Pilgrim fathers and mothers first landed, when the question whether girls should receive any public instruction first came up in town-meeting, there was great opposition to it. However, the majority showed a liberal spirit, and voted to give the girls one hour of instruction daily. This was in 1793. In 1853 a normal school for girls was established in Boston; in 1855 its name was changed to the Girls" High and Normal School. In 1878 the Girls" Latin School in Boston was founded. The establishment of this successful inst.i.tution was the result of discussions on the subject first brought before the public by ladies of Boston. High schools in almost all the towns and cities of the State have long been established, in which the boys and girls are educated together. In 1880 the pupils in the high and normal schools of Boston were about 2,000 girls to 1,000 boys. In 1867 the Lowell Inst.i.tute and the Ma.s.sachusetts Inst.i.tute of Technology advertised cla.s.ses free to both s.e.xes in French, mathematics and in practical science.[144] Since that time Chauncy Hall School and Boston University have been opened to women, with the equal privileges of male students. It might be explained here that the "Harvard Annex," or "Private Collegiate Instruction for Women," is not an organic part of the University itself. Under a certain arrangement, a limited number of young women are allowed a few of the privileges of the young men. They are also permitted to use all the books belonging to the library and to attend many of the lectures. No college-building is appropriated for this purpose, but recitation-rooms are provided in private houses. A witty Cambridge lady called this mythical college the "Harvard Annex"; the public adopted the name, and many people suppose that there is such a building. From the last annual report of the "Private Collegiate Instruction for Women," it appears that in 1885 sixty-five women availed themselves of the privilege of attending this course of instruction.[145] Three-fourths of this number are Ma.s.sachusetts girls. Some of the professors say that the average of scholarship there is higher than in the University. Fifty courses of studies are open to women students. Miss Brown of Concord, a graduate of 1884, astonished the faculty by her high per cent. in the cla.s.sics. Her average was higher than that reached by any young man. These students go unattended to the lectures and to the library of the college. A great change indeed, since the time when women began to attend the Lowell Inst.i.tute lectures! Then it was thought almost disgraceful to go to a public meeting without male protection, and they went with veiled faces, as if ashamed to be seen of men. The "Annex" has some advantages, but they cannot compare with Girton and Newnham of Cambridge, England.
The treasurer of the "Harvard Annex" declares the great need that exists for funds to provide a suitable building, etc., for the numerous women who continue to apply there for admission; and he appeals to the generosity of the public for contributions of money to be used for this purpose. The casual observer might suggest that those women who will hereafter become the benefactors of this university should remember the needs of their own s.e.x, and leave their donations or bequests so that they can be used for the benefit of the "Harvard Annex," which is a wholly private enterprise, conducted by the University instructors and supervised by a committee of ladies.
Colleges for women have also been founded. Wellesley and Smith have long been doing good university work. Thirty years ago there was no college in the country, except Oberlin, to which women were admitted. To-day, even conservative Harvard begins to melt a little under this regenerating influence, and invites women, through the doors of its "Annex," to come and enjoy some of the privileges found within its sacred halls of learning. This was a late act of grace from a college whose inception was in the mind of a woman[146] longing for a better opportunity than the new colony could give to educate her afterward ungrateful son.
The number of young men educated by the individual efforts of women cannot be estimated. T. W. Higginson, in the _Woman"s Journal_, says:
The late President Walker once told me that, in his judgment, one-quarter of the young men in Harvard College were being carried through by the special self-denial and sacrifices of women. I cannot answer for the ratio, but I can testify to having been an instance of this, myself; and to having known a never-ending series of such cases of self-devotion.
Some of these men, educated by the labor and self-sacrifice of others, look down upon the social position in which their women friends are still forced to remain. The result to the recipient has often been of doubtful value, so far as the development of the affections is concerned. Sometimes the great obligation has been forgotten. Only in rare instances, to either party did the life-long sacrifice on the part of the women of the family become of permanent and spiritual value!
The average woman of forty years ago was very humble in her notions of the sphere of woman. What if she did hunger and thirst after knowledge? She could do nothing with it, even if she could get it.
So she made a _fetich_ of some male relative, and gave him the mental food for which she herself was starving, and devoted all her energies towards helping him to become what she felt, under better conditions, she herself might have been. It was enough in those early days to be the _mother_ or _sister_ of somebody. Women were almost as abject in this particular as the Thracian woman of old, who said:
"I am not of the n.o.ble Grecian race, I"m poor Abrotonon, and born in Thrace; Let the Greek women scorn me, if they please, I was the mother of Themistocles."
There are women still left who believe their husbands, sons, or male friends can study, read and _vote_ for them. They are like some frugal house-mothers, who think their is no need of a dinner if the good-man of the family is not coming home to share it. Just as if the man-half of the human family can "eat, learn and inwardly digest," to make either physical or mental strength for the other half!
Maria Mitch.e.l.l of Ma.s.sachusetts became Professor of Astronomy and Mathematics at Va.s.sar, in 1866, the first woman in the country to hold such a position. Since that time women have become members of the faculty in several of the large colleges in the country.
In the early days of the commonwealth women practiced midwifery, and were very successful. Mrs. John Eliot, Anne Hutchinson, Mrs.
Fuller and Sarah Alc.o.c.k were the first in the State. Janet Alexander, a Scotchwoman, was a well-trained midwife.[147] She lived in Boston, and was always recognized as a good pract.i.tioner in her line by the leading doctors in that city. Dr. John C. Warren of Boston invited this lady to come to this country. His biography, recently published, contains a short record of the matter, in which he says: "We determined to recommend Mrs. Alexander. She was a Scotchwoman, regularly educated, and having Dr. Hamilton"s diploma." Quite a storm was raised among the younger physicians of Boston by this attempted innovation, because they thought Dr.
Warren was trying to deprive them of profitable practice. But Mrs.
Alexander, supported by Dr. Warren, and perhaps other physicians, continued her occupation and educated her daughter in the same profession. Dr. Harriot K. Hunt practiced in Boston as early as 1835. She sought admission to the Harvard Medical School, and was many times refused. She was not what is called a "regular physician." In her day there existed no schools or colleges for the medical education of women, but she studied by herself, and acquired some knowledge of diseases peculiar to women. Her success was so great in her line of practice that she proved the need existing for physicians of her own s.e.x.
Dr. Hunt"s tussle with the medical faculty will long be remembered.
She was the first woman in the State who dared a.s.sert her right to recognition in this profession. For this, and for her persistent efforts to secure for them a higher education, she deserves the grat.i.tude of every woman who has since followed her footsteps into a profession over which the men had long held undisputed control.
In 1853 the degree of M. D. was conferred on her by the Woman"s Medical College of Pennsylvania. The first medical college for women, organized by Dr. Samuel Gregory of Boston, was chartered in 1856, under the name of the New England Female Medical College, and in 1874, by an act of the legislature, united with the Boston University School of Medicine. In 1868 it had graduated seventy-two women, among whom were Dr. Lucy E. Sewall and Dr. Helen Morton (who afterwards went to Paris and studied obstetrics at Madame Aillot"s Hospital of Maternity) and Dr. Mercy B. Jackson.[148] There are now 205 regular pract.i.tioners in the State.
In 1863, Dr. Zakrzewska, in cooperation with Lucy G.o.ddard and Ednah D. Cheney, established the New England Hospital for Women and Children. Its avowed objects were: (1) to provide women the medical aid of competent physicians of their own s.e.x; (2) to a.s.sist educated women in the practical study of medicine; (3) to train nurses for the care of the sick. This was the first hospital in New England over which women have had entire control, both as physicians and surgeons. Boston University is open to both s.e.xes, with equal studies, duties and privileges. This inst.i.tution was incorporated in 1869, and includes, among other schools and colleges, schools of theology, law and medicine. The faculty consists of many distinguished men and women. Boston University School of Medicine (homeopathic) was organized in 1873. Of the thirty-two lecturers and professors who const.i.tute the faculty, five are women. In 1884 the three highest of the four prizes for the best medical thesis were won by women. Of the 610 pupils in 1884, 155 were women; sixty of these were in the school of medicine. There are women in all departments, except agriculture and theology. They do not study theology because they cannot be ordained to preach in any of the leading churches.
The Ma.s.sachusetts Medical Society in 1884, on motion of Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, voted to admit women to membership. Dr. Emma L. Call and Dr. Harriet L. Harrington were the first two women admitted.
January 11, 1882, at the monthly meeting of Harvard overseers, the question of admitting women to the Medical School came before the board. An individual desiring to contribute a fund for the medical education of women in Harvard University asked the president and fellows whether such a fund would be accepted and used as designed.
Majority and minority reports were submitted by the committee in charge, and after a long discussion it was voted, 11 to 6, to accept the fund, the income to be ultimately used for the medical education of women. At the April meeting, the Committee on the Medical Education of Women presented a report, which was adopted by a vote of 13 to 12:
That, in the opinion of the board, it is not advisable for the University to hold out any encouragement that it will undertake the medical education of women.
The Harvard Divinity School at Cambridge sometimes admits women, but does not recognize them publicly, nor grant them degrees; but there are other theological schools in the State where a complete preparation for the ministerial profession can be obtained. The att.i.tude of the churches toward women has changed greatly within thirty years. As early as 1869, women began to serve on committees, and to be ordained deaconesses of churches. They also hold important offices connected with the different church organizations. They serve on the boards of State and national religious a.s.sociations. There are also missionary a.s.sociations, both home and foreign, and Christian unions, all officered and managed exclusively by women. Even the treasurers of these large bodies are women, and their husbands or trustees are no longer required to give bonds for them.[149] At the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the word "male" was stricken from the discipline, and the word "person" inserted in its place, in all cases save those that concerned the ordination of clergy.