Kate Newell Doggett, Laura Giddings Julian, Bishop Matthew Simpson, Mrs. L. B. Barrett, Emily J. Leonard and Jane Gray Swisshelm.
Speaking to the memorial resolution Mrs. Cutler said: "Some years ago I paid a visit to an old and valued friend who had long been an invalid, though never so absorbed in her own suffering as to forget the great needs of her human brothers and sisters. Said she, 'If you outlive me, I hope you will say for me that I tried honestly and earnestly to do my duty.' The promise then given I now attempt to fulfil in behalf of Mrs. Frances Dana Gage, our beloved 'Aunt Fanny,' who entered upon her rest Nov. 10, 1884." Mrs. Cutler gave a full and appreciative review of Mrs. Gage's life. Dr. Mary F. Thomas spoke feelingly of her, of Mrs. Julian and Mr. Phillips; and Mrs. Livermore paid a warm tribute to Mr. Phillips and Mrs. Doggett.
The plan of work adopted was in part as follows:
1. That the officers of this association memorialize Congress in behalf of a sixteenth constitutional amendment prohibiting all political distinctions on account of sex.
2. That while we do not undervalue any form of agitation, State or national, we hold that practical woman suffrage can at present be best promoted by urging legislative as well as constitutional changes, and by appealing to State as well as national authority; therefore we urge the establishment of active State societies, with their working centers in the State capitals and their corresponding committees in every representative district.
3. That in every State, at each session of its Legislature, petitions should be presented by its own citizens asking for woman suffrage by statute in all elections and for all officers not expressly limited by the word "male" in the State constitution.
4. That School Suffrage having been secured for women by statute in twelve States, our next demand should be for Municipal Suffrage by statute; also for Presidential Suffrage by statute, under Article 2, Section 1, par. 2, of the United States Constitution.
5. And, whereas, in three Territories, viz., Wyoming, Utah and Washington, our cause is already won by statutes, therefore a special effort should be made to secure similar statutory action in the remaining Territories, viz.: Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Arizona and New Mexico.
Addresses were made by the Rev. S. S. Hunting, Mrs. Margaret W. Campbell of Iowa and Dr. Thomas. Mr. Foulke, Mrs. Mary E. Haggart of Indiana, Mrs. Livermore and Lucy Stone addressed the evening meeting, and the singing of the Doxology closed a memorable convention.
1885.—The Seventeenth annual meeting was held in Minneapolis, October 13-15, in the Church of the Redeemer (Universalist), the finest in the city, which was given without charge. Here, as the daily papers said, "the most brilliant audiences that ever assembled in Minneapolis" gathered evening after evening until the last when crowds of people went away unable to find even standing room. The pulpit steps were occupied, extra seats were brought in, the aisles were crowded, and as far as one could see over the throng that filled the doorway, was another assembly eager to hear what it could. The earnest, interested, assenting faces of the vast audience and their hearty applause attested their sympathy with the ideas and principles expressed.
Every evening several of the speakers addressed large audiences in St. Paul, thus carrying on two series of meetings contemporaneously. The Hon. Wm. Dudley Foulke occupied the chair. Mayor George A. Pillsbury, of Minneapolis, gave the address of welcome, which he closed by saying: "Our citizens may not all agree with you, yet we recognize the fact that some of the greatest and best minds in the country are engaged in this work. I have never identified myself with your organization but wish you Godspeed, and hope to see the time when the women shall stand with the men at the polls."
Mrs. Julia Ward Howe in responding said: "We are glad to be welcomed for ourselves; we are still more gratified by the welcome extended to our cause. We do not live altogether in our magnificent cities and houses; we all live in houses not made with hands. We have with us some who have devoted their lives to this noble work. They have been building up, stone by stone, a mighty structure, and it is to lay a few more stones that we have gathered here."
It had been persistently asserted that Mrs. Howe and Louisa M. Alcott had renounced their belief in equal suffrage. Mrs. Howe was present to speak for herself. Miss Alcott wrote from Concord, Mass.:
I should think it was hardly necessary for me to say that it is impossible for me ever to "go back" on woman suffrage. I earnestly desire to go forward on that line as far and as fast as the prejudices, selfishness and blindness of the world will let us, and it is a great cross to me that ill-health and home duties prevent my devoting heart, pen and time to this most vital question of the age. After a fifty years' acquaintance with the noble men and women of the anti-slavery cause and the sight of the glorious end to their faithful work, I should be a traitor to all I most love, honor and desire to imitate if I did not covet a place among those who are giving their lives to the emancipation of the white slaves of America.
If I can do no more, let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.
Most heartily yours for woman suffrage and all other reforms.
Elizabeth Stuart Phelps wrote: "With all my head and with all my heart I believe in womanhood suffrage; can I say more for your convention?" and from the Rev. James Freeman Clarke, of Boston, "Every word spoken for or against our cause helps it forward. I feel that there is a current of conviction sweeping us on toward the day when there shall be neither male nor female, in Church or State, but equal rights for all, and the tools to those who can use them."
Chief-Justice Greene, of Washington Territory, sent a careful statistical computation in regard to the women's votes, and said: "My sober judgment, from the best light I have succeeded in getting, is that at our last general election the women cast as full or a fuller vote than the men in proportion to their numbers." Mrs. Livermore wrote:
Whatever may be the apparent direction of the ripples on the surface, facts which accumulate daily show us that the cause of woman's enfranchisement progresses with a deep and steady undercurrent. The long, weary, faithful work of the past, covering almost half a century, has resulted in a radical change of public opinion. It has opened to woman the doors of colleges, universities and professional schools; it has increased her opportunities for self-support till the United States census enumerates nearly 300 employments in which women are working and earning livelihoods; it has repealed many of the unjust laws which discriminate against woman; it has given her partial suffrage in twelve States and full suffrage in three Territories.
Courage, then, for the end draws near! A few more years of persistent, faithful work and the women of the United States will be recognized as the legal equals of men; for the goal towards which we toil is the enfranchisement of women, since the ballot is the only symbol of legal equality that is known in a republic.
Chancellor Wm. G. Eliot, of Washington University, St. Louis, wrote:
Considered as a right, suffrage belongs equally to man and woman. They are equally citizens and taxpayers. They share equally in the advantages of good government and suffer equally from bad legislation. They equally need the right of self-protection which the ballot alone can give. In average good, practical sense, wherever fair opportunity is permitted women are equal to men. In moral perception and practice women are at least equal—generally the superiors, if such comparison must be made. There is, therefore, no justification in saying that the right of suffrage, on whatever founded, belongs to man rather than to woman.
Considered as a privilege, little needs to be said on either side.... Every citizen is under moral obligation to take part in the social interests and welfare of the community, whether national or municipal. Woman equally with man is under that moral law. In a republic she can not rightly be deprived of the opportunity to do her full share as a citizen in all that concerns good government.
This seems to be the whole story. I have read with astonishment the arguments (so called) of Francis Parkman, the Rev. Brooke Herford and Mrs. Kate Gannett Wells. They scarcely touch the real merits of the case.
Dr. Mary F. Thomas, of Indiana, wrote:
As I see pictured before me all of you