Mr. SPRINGER: I desire to call the attention of the Chair to Rule 10, which specifically provides for the appointment of the full number of committees this House is to have, and this is not one of them.

The SPEAKER: Not one of the standing committees, but a select committee.

Mr. SPRINGER: That rule provides there shall be a certain number of committees, the names of which are therein given.

Mr. REED: I sincerely hope this will not be made a matter of technical discussion or debate. It is a matter upon which members of this House must have opinions which they can express by voting, in a very short time, without taking up the attention of the House beyond what is really necessary for a bare discussion of the merits of the question.

Mr. MCMILLIN: Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?

Mr. REED: Certainly.

Mr. MCMILLIN: Would you not, as a parliamentarian, concede that this does change the existing rules of the House?

Mr. REED: By no manner of means, especially when the accomplished Speaker has decided the other way, and no gentleman has taken an appeal from his decision. [Laughter.]

Mr. MCMILLIN: Then you have no opinion beyond his decision?

The SPEAKER: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] that this resolution does not change any of the standing committees of the House which are provided for in Rule 10.

Mr. SPRINGER: It provides for a new committee.

The SPEAKER: It provides for a select committee. The subject was referred to the Committee on Rules by order of the House, and this is a report on the resolution so referred.

Mr. SPRINGER: The rule provides that no standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.

The SPEAKER: The Chair would decide that this does not propose any change or rescinding of any standing rule of the House.

Mr. SPRINGER: Does the Chair hold that the making of a new rule is not a change of the existing rules?

The SPEAKER: The Chair does not decide anything of the kind.

Mr. SPRINGER: What does the Chair decide?

The SPEAKER: The Chair does not undertake to decide any such question, for it is not now presented.

Mr. SPRINGER: Is this not a new rule?

The SPEAKER: It is not.

Mr. SPRINGER: It is not?

The SPEAKER: It is a provision for a select committee.

Mr. SPRINGER: Can you have a committee without a rule of the House providing for it?

The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the resolution reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. ATKINS: On that question I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and there were--yeas 115, nays 84, not voting 93; so the resolution was carried.[83]

Mr. REED moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

On Monday, March 13, 1882, the Chair announced the appointment of the following gentlemen as the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage authorized by the House: Mr. Camp of New York, Mr. White of Kentucky, Mr. Sherwin of Illinois, Mr. Stone of Ma.s.sachusetts, Mr. Hepburn of Iowa, Mr. Springer of Illinois, Mr. Vance of North Carolina, Mr. Muldrow of Mississippi and Mr. Stockslager of Indiana.

The Annual Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall as usual, January 18, 19, 20, 1882. The afternoon before the convention, at an executive session held at the Riggs House, forty delegates were present from fourteen different States.[84] Among these were five from Ma.s.sachusetts, and for the first time that State was represented on the platform of the National a.s.sociation. Mrs.

Stanton gave the opening address, and made some amusing criticisms on a recent debate on Senator h.o.a.r's proposition for a special committee on the rights and disabilities of women. Such a committee had been under debate for several years and it was during this convention that the bill pa.s.sed the Senate.

Invitations to attend the convention were sent to all the members of congress, and many were present during the various sessions.

Miss Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary, read the minutes of the last convention, and, instead of the usual dry skeleton of facts, she gave a glowing description of that eventful occasion. Clara B.

Colby gave an interesting narration of the progress of woman suffrage in Nebraska, and of the efforts being made to carry the proposition pending before the people, to strike the word "male"

from the const.i.tution in the coming November election.

Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley of Providence, R. I., spoke upon "Our Demand in the Light of Evolution." He said:

It is about a century since our forefathers declared that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and about a half century since woman began to see that she ought to be included in this declaration. At present the expressions of the Declaration of Independence are a "glittering generality," for only one-half of the people "consent." Modern science has demonstrated the truth of evolution--like causes produce like results--and this is seen in the progress of government and of woman. From the time when physical force ruled, up to the present, when _ostensibly_ in the United States every person is his own ruler, there have been many steps. The importance of the ma.s.ses has steadily taken the place of the importance of individuals. At first the idea was "You shall obey because I say so"; then, "You shall obey because I am your superior, and will protect you"; now it is "Everyone shall be his own protector." But we do not live up to this idea while only one-half instead of the whole of "everyone" is his own protector.

The phases of woman's advancement are fitly described by the four words--slave, subject, inferior, dependent; and no step in this advance has been accomplished without a hard struggle. The logic of evolution in government points to universal suffrage. The same logic points to unqualified individual freedom for woman.

Mrs. Blake in reporting from her State said:

Governor Cornell was the first New York Governor to mention woman in an inaugural address, and the bill allowing women to vote in school elections was pa.s.sed the same winter. There was a great deal of opposition in different parts of the State to the voting of women. In some country districts where the polls are in the school-houses, certain men went early and locked the doors, filled the room with smoke and even put tobacco on the stoves to make it as disagreeable for the women as possible. More respectable men had to ventilate and clean the rooms to make them decent for either man or woman. From this lowest cla.s.s of opponents up to those who say: "My dear, you'd better not make yourself conspicuous!" the spirit is the same. Believing that under our const.i.tution women are already ent.i.tled to the ballot, we do not ask for a const.i.tutional amendment, but for a bill extending the suffrage at once.

Mrs. COLBY in contrast to this stated that in Nebraska the greatest courtesy had always been shown to women who voted at school elections. There is only one organized effort against woman suffrage, and that is made by the "Sons of Liberty!" "O, Consistency, thou art a jewel!"

The following resolution introduced into the Senate, January 11, by Mr. Morgan of Alabama, was finally referred to the Committee on Woman Suffrage. This was the first subject brought before them for action.

_Resolved_, That the committee on "The extension of suffrage to women, or the removal of their disabilities," be directed to examine into the state of the law regulating the right of suffrage in the territory of Utah, and report a bill to set aside and annul any law or laws enacted by the legislature of said territory conferring upon women the right of suffrage.

Miss Couzins made an admirable speech on the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That Senator Morgan's bill to deprive the _women_ of Utah of the right of suffrage because of the social inst.i.tutions and religious faith originated and maintained by the _men_ of the territory, is a travesty on common justice. While the wife has not absolute possession of even one husband, and the husband has many wives, surely the men and not the women, if either, should be deprived of the suffrage.

Miss COUZINS said: The task of dealing fairly and justly with this territorial complication should never be committed to the blundering legislation of man alone. His success as a legislator and executive for woman in the past does not inspire a confidence that in this most serious problem he will be any the less an unbiased judge and law-giver. This government of men permitted the establishment of a religious colony, so called, whose basis of faith was the complete humiliation of women; recognized the system by appointing its chief, Brigham Young, governor of the territory, under whose fostering care polygamy grew to its present proportions.

That woman has not thrown off the yoke of religious despotism can be readily appreciated when we recognize the fact that man, from time immemorial, has played upon her religious faith to exalt his own attributes and degrade hers; that through this teaching her abiding belief in his superior capacity to interpret scriptural truths for her has been the means of sacrificing her power of mind, her tender affections, her delicate sensibilities, on the altar of his base selfishness throughout the ages. Orthodoxy recognizes no "inspiration" for woman to-day. She is not "called"

save to serve man. Under its teaching her thought has been padlocked in the name of Divinity, and her lips sealed in sacrilegious pretense of authority from heaven; and nothing so clearly bespeaks the degenerating influence of the ages of this masculine teaching as the absolute faith manifested by the women of Utah in this _ipse dixit_ of man's religious doctrine. Their emanc.i.p.ation must necessarily be slow.

The paternal government allowed polygamy to be planted, take root, and grow in a wilderness where the attraction of n.o.bler minds and freer thoughts was not known. The victims came from the political despotisms of the old world to be shackled in a land of freedom with a still darker despotism, and under the aegis of the American flag they have borne children as a religious duty they owed to G.o.d and man; and surely it can not be expected, even with that grand emanc.i.p.ator, from king and priestcraft rule, the ballot, that at once they will vote themselves outcast and their children illegitimate.

It took the white men of this nation one hundred years to put away that relic of barbarism, slavery; the removal of the twin relic will come through liberty for woman, higher education for children, and the incoming tide of Gentile immigration. The fitting act of justice is not disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of woman, as Senator Morgan proposes, and the reenactment of that old Adamic cry: "The woman whom thou gavest," but the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of man, who is the only polygamist, and the stepping down and out of the s.e.x as a legislator under whose fostering care this evil has grown. Retire to your sylvan groves and academic shades, gentlemen, as Mrs. Stanton suggests, and let the Deborahs, the Huldahs, and the Vashtis come to the front, and let us see what we can do toward the remedy of your wretched legislation. But suffrage for women in Utah has accomplished great good. I spent one week there in close observation. Outside of their religious convictions, the women are emphatic in condemnation of wrong.

Their votes banished the liquor saloon. I saw no drunkenness anywhere; the poison of tobacco smoke is not allowed to vitiate the air of heaven, either on the streets or in public a.s.semblies.

Their court-room was a model of neatness and good order. Plants were in the windows and handsome carpets graced the floor. During my stay, the daughter of a Mormon, the then advocate-general of the territory, was admitted to the bar by Chief-Justice McKean of the United States Court, who, in fitting and beautiful language, welcomed her to the profession as a woman whose knowledge of the law fitted her to be the peer of any man in his court. She told me that she detested polygamy, but felt that she could render greater service to the emanc.i.p.ation of her s.e.x inside of Utah than out. At midnight I wandered, with one of my own s.e.x, about the streets to test the a.s.sertion that it was as safe for women then as at mid-day. No baccha.n.a.lian shout rent the air; no man was seen reeling in maudlin imbecility to his home. No guardians put in an appearance, save the stars above our heads; no sound awoke the stillness but the purling of the mountain brooks which washed the streets in cleanliness and beauty. What other city on this continent can present such a showing? With murder for man and rapine for woman where man alone is maker and guardian of the laws, it behooves him to pause ere he launches invectives at the one result of woman's votes.

Mrs. Gougar, on our Washington platform for the first time, delighted the audience with her readiness and wit. She has a good voice, fine presence, and speaks fluently, without notes.

She spoke of the reformatory prison for women in her State, and said that the statistics showed that eighty-two per cent. of the women confined there were sent out reformed. Speaking of the gallantry of men, she cited a case of a man who came to an Indiana lawyer and desired him to make a will. The following conversation ensued: "I want you to make this will so that my wife will have $400 a year; that's enough for any woman." "Is she the only wife you ever had?" "Yes." "How long have you been married?" "Forty-two years." "How many children have you had?"

"Eleven." "Did you have all your property before marriage?" "No; didn't have a cent; I've earned it all." "Has your wife helped you in any way to earn it?" "Why, yes, I suppose she has; but then I want to fix my will so she can only have $400 a year; it's enough." "Well, sir, you will have to move out of the State of Indiana then, for the law provides for the wife better than that, and you will have to get another lawyer." It is needless to say that this lawyer is a staunch champion of woman suffrage, and it is pleasant to know that there are more such men being educated by this agitation.