CHAPTER XXIV.. National Conventions 1873, '74, '75.

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 1873, '74, '75.

Fifth Washington Convention--Mrs. Gage on Centralization--May Anniversary in New York--Washington Convention, 1874--Frances Ellen Burr's Report--Rev. O. B. Frothingham in New York Convention--Territory of Pembina--Discussion in the Senate--Conventions in Washington and New York, 1875--Hearings before Congressional Committees.

The fifth Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January 16th and 17th, 1873. The President, Miss Anthony, in opening, said:

There are three methods of extending suffrage to new classes. The first is for the Legislatures of the several States to submit the question to the vote of the people; that is to those already voters. Before the war this was the only way thought of, and during all those years we petitioned to strike the word "male" from the State Constitutions. The second method is for Congress to submit to the several legislatures a proposition for a XVI. Amendment that shall prohibit the States from depriving women citizens of their right to vote. The third plan is to take our rights under the XIV. Amendment of the Constitution which declares "that all persons are citizens," and "no State shall deny or abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens."

Again, there are two ways of securing the right of suffrage under the Constitution as it is; one by a declaratory act of Congress instructing the officers of election to receive the votes of women, the other in appeals to the courts by instituting suits as women have already done, in order to secure a judicial decision on the broad interpretation of the Constitution "that all persons are citizens, and all citizens voters." The vaults in yonder Capitol hold the petitions of many thousands of women for a Declaratory Act, and the calendars of our courts show that many are already testing their right to vote under the XIV. Amendment. I stand here under indictment for having exercised my right as a citizen to vote at the last election; and by a fiction of the law, I am now in custody, and not free on this platform.

A series of resolutions were reported, and discussed at great length.

After the appointment of committees, Matilda Joslyn Gage made the annual report. She said:

Though the casual observer might think but little progress had been made during the year, this is not the fact. There has been in many ways a marked advance, and although I do not claim to have a complete and exact record, I would mention points which have come under my notice.

Soon after the opening of the last session of Congress several important bills were introduced. The Hon. Mr. Hoar introduced a bill against Territorial disfranchisement, which, as women vote in two Territories, was a bill having an important bearing upon this question of suffrage. About the same time, the Hon. Mr. Butler introduced a bill for a Declaratory Law to protect women citizens in their right to vote. During the progress of our annual Convention in January last, a memorial was presented, and a hearing obtained before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The speeches made by women at that time have been printed in pamphlet form, and extensively circulated throughout the nation. Within a few days after this hearing, a petition, containing 35,000 names, was presented to the House by the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler. During his remarks upon this occasion his coadjutors left their seats and pressed around him, so anxious were they to hear, until, in order to give all an equal chance, the Speaker was forced to call to order.

The Hon. Matt. Carpenter made an elaborate argument before the Supreme Court, in the Myra Bradwell case. Mrs. Bradwell, as is well known, is the editor of a paper, entitled the Legal News, which is ably conducted, and accepted as authority by the profession. Mrs. Bradwell, upon applying for admission to the bar in Illinois, found her husband a "legal disability," and carried her case up to the Supreme Court. This argument was also published and circulated in pamphlet form.

The Hon. Mr. Munroe, member from Indiana, presented a petition from the women of that State, praying for the removal of political disabilities; and in the Senate Mr. Wilson introduced a bill to allow women to hold office in the Territories.

In February an argument was made before the Senate Military Committee in behalf of women who served in the army. Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren argued in person before a Congressional committee, in reference to moneys due her deceased husband.

* * * * *

Mrs. Lockwood and Mrs. Spencer both gave interesting statements in regard to women voting in the District of Columbia, and ably argued their right to do so under the National Constitution. Mrs. Lockwood introduced the following resolution:

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives, in Congress assembled:

We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, being deprived of some of the privileges and immunities of citizens, among which is the right to vote, beg leave to submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That we, the officers and members of the National Woman Suffrage Association, in convention assembled, respectfully ask Congress to enact appropriate legislation, during its present session, to protect women citizens in the several States of this Union in their right to vote.

FRANCIS MILLER, Esq. said that he had one reason for congratulation in being engaged in the suit with Mr. Riddle, as it gave him an opportunity to do something for the women of his country. Under the XIV. Amendment he contended that women had the right to vote, and no lawyer that read the amendment could decide in any other way.

It was not true that the cohorts of this issue had been defeated every time, but it was true that they had gained two victories. Chief-Justice Cartter had decided that woman was a full citizen, and had not the right to vote, simply because they had not passed a law necessary for the purpose. If the XIV. Amendment did not confer suffrage they must go through the States with a new amendment, and fight a battle in each. He thought that very obscure ideas prevailed on the subject. How could anyone that had no self-government enjoy any inalienable right? It was said that the ballot was a creature of legislation, consequently not natural. This was an absurdity. There was no way in the world for a man to govern himself except by the ballot. To deny any one the only means of exercising that right is a wrong before heaven and should be redressed. He did not propose to go into a legal argument; the best of his ability has been expended in the cause, and is before the public.

At the evening session Mrs. Gage gave the following address:

Mrs. GAGE said: We hear many fears expressed in regard to the danger of "centralized power," and the growing tendency of the nation toward it. The people have been told that through this tendency their liberties were endangered. The truth is just the contrary. "State rights" has from the very commencement of this Government been the rock on which the ship of the nation has many times nearly foundered, and from which it is to-day in great danger. The one question of the hour is, Is the United States a Nation with full and complete National powers, or is it a mere thread upon which States are strung as are the beads upon a necklace?

Let us look back a hundred years. The War of the Revolution commenced merely as a rebellion of the Colonies against the Nation to which they belonged. Though all were located on the continent of America, each colony was under its own charter, separate and distinct from every other one. Each colony resisted what it deemed to be acts of oppression against itself. Therefore, the War of the Revolution began as the resistance of individual colonies, but with the progress of this resistance grew up a feeling of united interests, and in 1774 eleven of these colonies, and a portion of the twelfth, connected themselves under certain articles of association. The colonies still considered themselves as belonging to the British Empire, and in these articles avowed their allegiance to His Majesty, George the Third. Although we date the birth of our nation two years later, our nationality actually dates back to these articles of association, for the colonies bound themselves as one in regard to non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption; the first two pledges having National bearing as regarded commerce, and the last one regulating internal affairs in a National manner. This course of the colonies made them one, and has had a bearing on our every step since, even up to this day of grace, January 17, 1873. Resolutions of independence and freedom from all control of Great Britain were introduced into the Colonial Congress in June, 1776, and the committee which was then appointed to draft a declaration of independent government was required to base it upon the first resolution of the June declaration of rights, which said, "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent," etc. The veriest school-boy needs not to be told the date of this instrument, which we are fond of terming the "Great Charter of our Liberties;" yet even professed statesmen, from that day to this, have seemingly forgotten that this declaration was agreed to, and signed by the already United Colonies in their Congress assembled, and issued as the action of "one people." No new Congress met; the declaration was not the act of single colonies, or states, but the act of already united colonies, or states, and in this instrument we first find our National name of United States.

The members of Congress did not sign this declaration as New Yorkers, or Virginians, or New Englanders, but as Americans. Nor was it referred to different colonies for approbation, but on that very Fourth of July, 1776, Congress, with already National authority, flung to the world the announcement that these united colonies were a Nation, and ordered that copies of the declaration should be sent to the several colonial assemblies, conventions, councils of safety, and to each of the commanding officers of the Continental troops, and that it should be proclaimed in each of the United States, and at the head of the army. We see, therefore, that the Declaration of Independence, in being truly National, was wholly centralizing--and much more so than any act since, and is therefore the truest basis of our liberties.

Our age has annihilated space; danger lies in darkness and distance. With every newspaper, every railroad, every line of telegraph, danger from centralized National power grows less. With the newspaper, the railroad, the telegraph, the course of the government is constantly before our eyes The reporter penetrates everywhere, the lightning flashes everywhere, and before plans are scarcely formed here in Washington, the miner of California, the lumberman of Maine, and the cotton-grower of Carolina are passing opinions and interchanging views upon them with their neighbors. The increase of education in the common schools, and the vast private correspondence of the country, too, help to put the proceedings of the government under the cognizance of the whole people. Our danger lies elsewhere, and to clearly see it we must still look back to the early history of our Nation. For a few months after the Declaration of Independence, our new-born republic worked under a common sentiment, for a common interest; but ultimately self-interest prompted the claim of "State Rights." This doctrine was, by wise men, seen to be utterly destructive to the government, and in the second year of our independence it became necessary to fight this State-right doctrine, and the second step was taken in centralization, by the Articles of Confederation, which were declared to make the Union perpetual, and States were forbidden to coin money, establish their own weights and measures, their own post-offices, and forbidden to do many other things which, by right, belong to independent self-controlling States.

So anxious was the Nation to set its own power upon a firm basis, entirely over and above that of the States, that back in these articles of confederation we find the term "privileges and immunities," that vexed phrase in the present discussion. In the fourth article, the inhabitants of each State were declared to be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens of the several States, etc. These articles, unlike the declaration, were made dependent upon ratification by the Legislatures of the several States, which was not fully accomplished till 1781.

For awhile all went merry as a marriage bell. Power had been further centralized, and the Nation felt secure. But there had been left a little loophole, which was destined to create State claims in defiance of the general government. Congress soon found that under the articles of confederation the limitation of States was more theoretical than practical. It found that though, in a general way, the United States possessed national powers, as over boundaries, peace and war, the issue of money, the establishment of post-offices, etc., yet in the very necessary matter of revenue, and the regulation of trade and commerce, it was powerless against the States. The old form of the confederation was found insufficient to secure the full independence of the United States as a Nation, and in the very year that the articles were fully adopted, and before the last State had given its adherence (1781), a member of Congress from New Jersey moved a recommendation to the States to invest Congress with additional means of paying the public debt and prosecuting the war of the Revolution, by laying duties on imports and prize goods.

This proposition at once roused opposition, and it is well to remember that it did not first come from a Southern State. "State rights" is not a peculiar Southern doctrine. South Carolina was not the original nullifying State. It was Rhode Island, which then, as to-day, set at defiance national authority, and asserted her right to control her own internal affairs. The New England States, which claim to lead the Union in all that is grand and good, must be made to bear the shame of the evils into which they have also led. Even John C. Calhoun learned his first State rights lessons in Connecticut and Massachusetts of the most eminent men; of President Dwight when a student in Yale college, and Theophilus Parsons, with whom he read law in Massachusetts. When Rhode Island, in 1781, refused to comply with the recommendations of Congress in regard to levying duties on imports and prizes, she looked only at her own interests as a sea-board State. The address of her Assembly to Congress, through Hon. William Bradshaw, gave reasons of purely local self-interest for her refusal; but her State selfishness was seen by the patriots of the hour not to be even that of an enlightened State-interest, and Congress at once declared there "could be no general security, no confidence in the Nation, at home or abroad, if its actions were under the constant revisal of thirteen different deliberations."

It therefore became necessary to take another step in the centralization of power, and let it be remembered that every such successive step we have traced was taken in the interests of liberty, and for the benefit of the whole people. The Nation has acted in the defense of its citizens against the tyranny of States. We are not first citizens of Rhode Island, or South Carolina, but, if we belong to the Nation at all, we are first parts of that Nation. I am first a citizen of the United States, then a citizen of the State of New York, then a citizen of Onondaga county in that State, and then a citizen of the town of Manlius, and lastly, a citizen of the village of Fayetteville. That every person born or naturalized in the Nation, is first a citizen of the Nation, must be borne in mind, for upon that depend the liberties of every man, woman and child in the Nation, black or white, native or foreign. Although Rhode Island led in State rights, she had many followers, as only four States complied with the recommendation of Congress to invest that body with more powers for collecting the revenue and prosecuting the war. This non-compliance led to active debate. In regard to the public debt it was said, "That it must, once for all, be defined and established on the faith of the States, solemnly pledged to each other, and not revocable by any, without a breach of the general compact." If a feeling of insecurity existed in regard to the property interests of the Nation when but thirteen legislative bodies assumed their control, how much greater is the insecurity of our personal interests if they are, as is assumed, under the control of thirty-seven separate legislative bodies, and subject to their constant revision?

The controversy soon based itself upon the security of human rights. It was said that it "had ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature," that "the citizens of the United States were responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society," and that it was for "the people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the Federal Government was instituted, to decide whether they would support their rank as a Nation." Virginia and New York ultimately led in the proceeding which caused the formation of the Constitution; New York, through her Legislature, declaring that the radical source of the government embarrassments lay in the want of sufficient power in Congress, and she suggested a convention for the purpose of establishing a firm National government. Out of this agitation grew the Constitution of the United States, which was the third great step in the centralization of power. The pride and the boast of this country has been more fully centered, if possible, on the Constitution than on the Declaration, and yet the Constitution was not framed until eleven years after our existence as a Nation--not ratified by the whole of the original States until about fourteen years after we had taken rank as a free and independent people--Rhode Island being the last State to give her adherence--and it was expressly framed and adopted in order to centralize power, and to destroy the State rights doctrine.

Washington himself, in transmitting, as President of the Convention, the Constitution to Congress, said: "It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all," and in the deliberations of the Convention upon the subject, they kept steadily in view that which appeared to them "the greatest of every true American--the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, safety, and, perhaps, our National existence." Thus we see not only the desire of the originators of the Constitution to strengthen the National power by that instrument, but we also have the views of Washington himself in regard to the necessity of consolidating power in the Nation.

The various amendments to the Constitution have been adopted with the intent of further defining and securing National power. The first ten, which were called the conciliatory amendments, were suggested in the conventions of a number of the States at the very time of adopting the Constitution. The first Congress which met thereafter proposed twelve amendments, of which ten were adopted in 1791, only two years after the full adoption of the Constitution. These ten amendments secured religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right of people to be secure in their houses, trials by jury, etc. All of them centralizing power in the National hands, and at the same time securing broader liberty to the people. These amendments were passed at the first session of the First Congress. An eleventh amendment was proposed by the Third National Congress in 1794, and declared ratified in 1798, thus making eleven amendments to the Constitution in the short space of seven years. In 1803 a twelfth amendment was proposed by the Eighth Congress, and ratified in 1804.

We pass now over quite a space of time, in which the National power and State power retained their relative positions to each other. Perhaps in no better place can I mention two constantly existing, yet diverse tendencies in the people of the United States, which are well-defined in the minds of but few persons. There are two kinds of centralized power, one dangerous to liberty, and the other fortifying and securing liberty. The dangerous is that which has grown to such dimensions in the various States, multiplying legislation and regulating each petty local concern within its borders, down to a village cemetery. This has led to that destruction of liberty--a multiplication of statutes which have scarcely been recorded ere a second legislative body has annulled them. Each State has, in fact, been an immense centralized power; and as bitter as has been the South against centralized National power, we have in it seen a most imperious, tyrannical exercise of centralized power under the specious name of State rights. The evil is such a constantly increasing one under the old constitutions, that they are being revised in many States with special intent to check this centralizing tendency. New York has now a commission sitting, and Pennsylvania a convention in session, for the purpose of revising their constitutions, and attention has been especially directed to this dangerous feature of State centralization. The new constitution of Illinois limits the passage of special laws by its legislature to certain specified subjects, leaving all local interests in the hands of local corporations. The need of the hour--and, in fact, I may say the new tendency of the hour--is toward diffused power within the limits of States in matters pertaining solely and entirely to their small or local interests.

The centralization that fortifies and secures liberty is National centralization, which we have traced through six steps since 1776, and which has, within the last ten years, received a new impetus by the XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments, and which, as they successively followed each other at short intervals, may be termed the seventh, eighth, and ninth steps in centralization. By and through these three amendments the Nation fortified and enlarged its powers in reference to personal rights. It defined citizenship; it secured the exercise of the ballot--and we can not fail to see that in these last three centralizing steps, it more broadly than ever before enlarged the bounds of liberty. The protection of citizens of the Nation, by the Nation, is the national duty.

This is the second tendency of which I spoke. Most persons who have been awake to the evils of State centralization, have applied the same rules of judgment to National centralization. The two are dissimilar as are darkness and light. State centralization is tyranny; National centralization is freedom. State centralization means special laws; National centralization means general laws. The continued habit of States to make laws for every part of their own boundaries brought to the surface the "State rights" theory which precipitated upon us our civil war. States had become so absolute in themselves that out of it grew the feeling of absoluteness in regard to the Nation. But is it not strange that after the late sad experience there can still be found people so stupid as not to see that the security of individual citizens of the Nation in matters pertaining to their personal political rights, does lie, and in the very fact of our Nationality must lie, in National power superior to State power? The corner-stone of our Nation is political equality. Our ancestors came here for civil and religious freedom. To secure political freedom they formed themselves into a Nation; if the United States has no power to protect its citizens it is not a Nation.

The eighth step in centralization, the XIV. Amendment, specifically declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States, and of the States in which they reside." Notwithstanding this plain language--notwithstanding the corner-stone of this Nation is political equality--notwithstanding the chief right of citizenship in this country is a right to share in making its laws--notwithstanding the Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, yet 10,000 naturalized citizens of the United States have, during this session of Congress, petitioned that body for protection of their rights as citizens of the United States against the State in which they live.

"State rights" is again rearing its head. Rhode Island is again raising her hand against National power. She again assumes to be superior to the United States. All foreign-born citizens of that State, not possessed of a freehold estate of $134 value, or property amounting to an annual rental of $7, are, by State law, forbidden to vote. These men were naturalized under a law of the United States, not under a law of Rhode Island. The United States not only made them citizens, but expressly in the XIV. Amendment declares them to be citizens, and yet little Rhode Island presumes to be stronger than the United States.

Here again arises what I have shown to be the question of the hour. Is the United States a Nation? If it does not possess powers to protect its own citizens it is not a Nation. Citizens of the United States are entitled to protection, whether they are robbed of their liberties in a Spanish dungeon, or in the States of Rhode Island or New York. The Judiciary Committee of Congress has reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island. Does Congress intend to sustain State Rights? What better is it for those 10,000 men that they became naturalized? If they are first citizens of the United States, as the XIV. Amendment declares, they should be protected in their rights of citizenship by the United States against the States, and their thirty-seven isolated methods of legislation. This adverse report of the Judiciary Committee in regard to the 10,000 disfranchised men of Rhode Island, foreshadows the course of Congress in regard to the great class of citizens now knocking at its door. Women claim National protection as citizens of the Nation.

The original Constitution in its fourth article touches upon State control, for it declares that the Constitution shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government. The "shall" is imperative. It shall! Even as long ago as 1787 it was declared that the people of the States should no longer be dependent upon State caprice for their rights, but the general government took upon itself the authority and the duty of enforcing in each State a republican form of government. Either this article is a mere sounding phrase, or the Constitution has such power, although until the XIV. Amendment the real status of citizenship had not been settled. People thought of themselves as first citizens of the States, then of the United States, but now such a position can not be taken. The eighth step in centralization settled that point; "every person," not every male person--but "every person born or naturalized in the United States"--"is a citizen of the United States, and of the State in which he resides." First, entitled to national protection, and through the Nation to State protection. Moreover,

The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are by article sixth of the Constitution, declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Is the Constitution supreme in the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, whose petition the honorable judiciary reported adversely upon, the 12th of December?

The naturalized citizens of our country should rise en masse against his attack upon their liberties. If Rhode Island can say that a naturalized citizen shall not vote unless possessed of a certain amount of property, any State can, with equal justice, enact a law declaring that only those naturalized citizens who live in brick houses shall vote; a law, equally as binding as the present property qualification in Rhode Island, can be enacted, that only those foreign-born citizens who come over in a Cunarder shall vote. Why not? If a State has a right to deprive one class of citizens of its vote for one cause, it has a right to deprive any other class of its vote for any reason.

The power and the mischief do not stop here. If a State has power over the political rights of a naturalized citizen of the United States, it has like power over the native-born citizen. If a State has power over the franchise of the women citizens of the United States, it also has power over the men citizens. Unjust laws, like curses, go home to roost; they can always be made to plague their enactors. When the rights of any one class of citizens are assailed, a blow is struck against the rights of all. The danger to individual liberty lies in special laws. If States are powerful enough to weaken the National constitution, then are we weak indeed. The safety of the citizen lies in a strong National constitution: it lies in a National centralization of power that shall override the States in their attempt to destroy individual rights.

If the National government has not power over the ballot in the several States, where did the United States Commissioner get his authority to institute proceedings against Miss Anthony for voting in the State of New York? If the ballot is in the control of the States, then is the United States guilty of a high-handed outrage against New York, in the case of the fourteen women who are now bound over for trial in Rochester for voting at the last election. If the control of the franchise is the right of each State as sovereign, then the National law of 1870 in regard to frauds in voting was an unauthorized interference of the United States in a matter belonging solely to the respective States. On the contrary, if the question as to who may vote in any State--exclusive of black men, over whom it is conceded the nation has thrown its ægis of protection--is one of National control, how does it happen that the Judiciary Committee of the present Congress reported adversely upon the petition of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island? If, then, voting is a matter of State control alone, what authority had the United States to prosecute Susan B. Anthony? One of two things is plainly true. Either the United States authorities had no right to prosecute Miss Anthony in the State of New York, or, if they had, then they had the right to regulate suffrage in Rhode Island. If the general government could not extend suffrage to Irishmen in Rhode Island, it could not abolish it for women in New York.

The time has passed when men can take their choice between "State sovereignty" and "centralized power." What State of the thirty-seven has power to make a treaty, to form an alliance, to declare war? Not one, because not one of them is a sovereign State. An attempt would be treason against the Nation. If the general government can not be secure with a diversity of laws in regard to war, or the tariff, in regard to questions of property, how much less secure is it with diverse laws in regard to personal rights; in regard to the elective franchise, the vital principle of our government.

This government does not stand to-day on free trade, or tariff, or the war-power, or its right to manage post-offices, or to coin money, or to make treaties. Not one of these singly, nor all collectively, form the ground-plan of this Nation. This Nation stands upon the ballot, the self-governing power; it stands upon the right of every person governed by the Nation to share in the election of its rulers.

How can statesmen believe the Nation secure unless personal rights are held inviolable? The National government has control over money, currency, and national banks. It will not trust its question of finance to individual States; shall it trust the personal political rights of its citizens where it can not its money? Is it not an anomaly that the lesser rights shall be held by the Nation, the greater by the States?

In the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, and that of Susan B. Anthony and other women of New York and elsewhere, who try to vote, there is one great dissimilarity. The suffrage of the 10,000 is only regulated. As soon as each one secures real estate to the small value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars, he votes; but there women can never vote, simply because they are women. Property amounts to nothing; education amounts to nothing; even native-born citizenship amounts to nothing; the ballot for them is not regulated but prohibited because they were born women instead of men. Congress would quickly waken up to an appreciation of its power over the ballot, if under pretense of "regulating" suffrage, all the male citizens of a State were denied the ballot simply because they were men. The Nation would lose no time in deciding that a regulation of a character not possible to overcome was not a regulation, but a prohibition destructive of every natural right. The word "deny" would be elucidated by able lawyers and lexicographers. We should then be told that to deny pre-supposes an existing right; that only positive rights can be denied, and force of arms would be invoked to maintain the existence of those rights.

The battle for suffrage is narrowed down to the meaning of "privileges and immunities." Those who believe the consent of the governed to be the fundamental principle of the Nation, define "privileges and immunities" as the right of voting, which is the only "consent." Thaddeus Stevens went so far as to affirm that "inalienable rights" in the Declaration meant the ballot. Persons who thus define "inherent rights" belong to the true national, patriotic class. But others, deeply tinctured with belief in the supreme right of States, declare "privileges and immunities" to comprehend anything and everything except the ballot. Even some good Republicans, contrary to the principles indorsed and sustained by them in the war amendments, led by their prejudices against acknowledging woman's right to self-government; have declared that "privileges and immunities" merely signify civil and legal rights, but not political. Such was the groundwork of the argument of the Hon. Matt. Carpenter in the Myra Bradwell case. What a farce! It declared at an early day that the United States possessed the greatest trust ever confided to a "political society." "Political society" is the foundation of our nation, and our political trust is the ballot.

It has been said by a member of the present Congress that no man in that body doubts that the Constitution authorizes women to vote, precisely as it authorizes trial by jury and many other rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, but that in order to give them practical force there must be legislation; that these guaranteed rights are not self-executing. This is a fine legal quibble, stated for a purpose; but since legal minds disagree upon this point, a caviller might say no law is self-executing; all laws require enforcement. It may be said that the Ten Commandments are not self-executing; yet though given to Moses, not only as the underlying constitution of the Jewish nation and all nations, they contain self-executing provisions, bearing the penalties of their infraction within themselves. By their simple statement they carry within themselves the authority for their enforcement. The provision that the sun shall each day rise and run its accustomed rounds is a self-executing provision, until some Joshua vetoes this divine right of the sun.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no difficulty should be found in executing its provisions. But while, as aimed against the exercise of arbitrary power, we have no objection to the passage of a declaratory law which shall make plain to every United States judge, and to the most obtuse inspector of election, that women are voters, we still claim that the recent "Act for enforcing the XIV. Amendment" should protect woman in the exercise of her rights of self-government.

Although the States ratified the XIII., XIV. and XV. Amendments by the requisite two-thirds vote, they still find it difficult to realize the fact that these amendments have actually strengthened the National power. The Enforcement Act, and the previous law in regard to frauds in voting, may be called definitions of these last centralizing steps, but as yet neither amendments nor definitions are fully comprehended. A Rhode Island lawyer astutely said: "The people of the United States have not yet awakened to a sense of the vast centralizing power hidden in the XIV. Amendment." Opposition and struggles have already come, and will continue to arise, but legislators may beat their brains as they will, the fact of new National centralization still remains. Though State power dies never so hard, die it must, as only through reorganized National power can the political rights of citizens of the United States be protected.

"Citizen suffrage" is to-day the battle-ground of "State Rights," and the denial of woman's constitutional right to vote, and of National protection in voting, is the weapon it uses against the Nation. This question of citizen suffrage is not a woman question alone, but it is a question of the rights of citizenship affecting every man in this wide land. Let us, then, have the centralization which shall recognize the United States as the supreme political power of the land, which shall no longer allow the political rights of citizens of the United States to be the plaything of thirty-seven petty legislatures, of thirty thousand ambitious demagogues. Without this, our National experiment is a failure; without this, we are not freemen, but slaves; without this, we are neither protected nor self-protecting; without this, centralized State power, under the specious name of "State rights," will continue to be a many-headed monster, impossible to overcome. Elect the President direct by the people, and for a single term, if you will; take from him his immense official patronage; base senatorship upon population, not upon State sovereignty through legislative gift; limit the power of the judiciary: these steps must come; make of the people in reality what they now are in theory--sovereigns, not first of States, or the Nation, but of themselves, possessing in themselves all rights, all powers, whose exercise is only delegated to the Nation as their servant.

The call for the annual May Convention in New York announced the interesting fact that it was the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Woman Suffrage movement. The speakers represented many of the far Western States. Among the letters of interest was one from Madam Mathilde Francisca Anneke, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who accompanied her letter with a beautiful laurel wreath to be presented to the founder of the Woman's Rights movement, the venerable Lucretia Mott. The resolutions embody the substance of the various speeches made at that Convention. The following letters were read:

MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--Being detained from attending this very important Convention, which celebrates twenty-five years of as honest and glorious work as ever was done by man or woman upon the face of the earth, permit me through yourself, as president of the National Society, to address a few words to my fellow-workers in the cause of political equality.

At first, let me beg you, my friends, one and all, to read the report of the first Convention held at Seneca Falls, twenty-five years ago, as I have just been doing for the third time, that you may join me in heartfelt admiration of the distinguished women who there enunciated a "declaration of sentiments" equal to the old Declaration of Independence, and founded on a similar list of grievances as those which provoked and justified the Revolutionary war. Especially will you note the speech of a woman there, hardly thirty years of age, which for philosophic comprehension of the great truths of liberty and responsibility, for patriotism and eloquence, has not been surpassed in the history of our country. This alone should be sufficient to send the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, side by side with the grandest of our revolutionary statesmen, down to the latest posterity.

The moving spirit of the occasion, however, we are told, was Lucretia Mott, who spoke with her usual eloquence to a large and intelligent audience on the subject of "Reform in General," and, from time to time, during the numerous sessions of the Convention, swayed the assembly by her beautiful and spiritual appeals, and was the first to affix her name to this prophetic and inspired "Declaration of sentiments"--an act which she will tell you to-day, I trust, has brought to her more joy than, perhaps, any other act of her life.

Had I the means, the printed report of this Convention should be placed in the hands of every woman in the United States capable of reading it and understanding its high import. And, my friends, if this could be done, our labors would be well nigh ended, and those women who so desire might approach the polls unmolested, leaving their sisters "who have all the rights they want" in the comfortable security of homes made twice secure in that they are guarded by the watchful care of the mothers as well as by the courage of the fathers of the republic. That these noble women, so intensely in earnest to secure the blessings of liberty to all their posterity, and so deeply conscious of the heavy responsibilities of such a trust, should have suspended their claims during the season of our civil war, and have thrown themselves into the contest for the rights of enslaved black men, is only new proof, where none was wanting, of the unselfishness of their nature, and the purity of their motive. But the war being over, and a new million of black males being added to the many million white males as rulers of the land, what do we find to-day? Susan B. Anthony, the Garrison of the woman's rights movement, not dragged by a rope round her neck, through the streets of Rochester, precisely, but indicted for the crime of attempting to vote for her rulers, she being an honest citizen of the United States, and a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the State of New York! Nevertheless, permit me, dear friend, to congratulate you upon the immense progress in our work which this indicates. It is but a little time since you and your illustrious compeers were counted only worthy of jests and sneers or contemptuous neglect. That you are called to-day to answer for the crime of loving liberty too well, declares to us who are watching your career, that the beginning of the end is close at hand, that slavery is soon to cease, and reconstruction to begin under the auspices of noble women not a few, and of the noble men who have acted as a body-guard through all these years of struggle.

I have heard that with your accustomed indomitableness you have been attempting to instruct your possible jurors of the county upon the just principles of personal liberty and a republican form of government. But have you considered in doing this to what an incompetent jury you are possibly consigning your case, and with it the hopes of multitudes of your sisters, who, less favored than yourself, in not actually having been allowed to enter the sacred precincts of the polls, have put their trust in you as in one who should not fail, sooner or later, to achieve a victory for herself and for us all? Have you considered the result of white male legislation for nearly one hundred years, in elaborating a jury that must inevitably consist of fools or knaves, and twelve of these to declare in unison upon a case of which they have formed no previous opinion, though the papers have rung with it, and you have lectured every night for more than a month to crowded houses upon it? But even this difficulty you are able to meet, and we leave our destiny in your hands with unfaltering hope and faith, saying only, as many a time before, God bless Susan B. Anthony.... In conclusion, let me urge upon you, dear friends, one and all, that each man and woman of you shall work for impartial suffrage as though the welfare of our beloved country depended upon the devotion of each single life, and the day is ours. I am now and always yours for liberty,

ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER.

WASHINGTON, May 5, 1873.

MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY:--Your favor requesting my opinion of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the New Orleans and Bradwell cases, was received yesterday. I had not then seen those decisions, indeed they were not ready for distribution until to-day. I have very hastily run over them and only feel prepared to say that there is nothing in them necessarily conclusive of the suffrage cases. The opinion of the Court in the New Orleans cases is given by a bare majority, four out of the nine justices dissenting, and the majority expressly say: "We hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which no State can abridge until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so." This language leaves us entirely at liberty to present the question whether suffrage is one of these "privileges" to their consideration.

There are expressions in the dissenting opinions that upon the rules of interpretation applied to any other subject than the rights of women would indicate that the minority were fully prepared to admit that the recent amendments to the Constitution--the new magna charta as one of the justices styles them--recognized the right of suffrage in women. Justice Field says: "That only is a free government, in the American sense of the term, under which the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue his happiness is unrestrained, except by just, equal, and impartial laws."

Justice Bradley says: "The States have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons. A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen, and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right. He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens."

Such language on any other subject would be conclusive, but the crust of custom and prejudice is hard and thick and strong, and the heat of the lava of regeneration may not yet have weakened it sufficiently to allow of its destruction and removal.

We will try to have our cases fully prepared for argument when reached in the call of the calendar, which will be about next January, and after doing our best in them will have to trust for success if not in this in some other effort.

Very truly yours, FRANCIS MILLER.

Miss Anthony gave the incidents of her arrest and trial to an immense audience in the evening, moving them alternately to laughter and indignation. At the close of this convention a large reception was given to the friends of woman suffrage by Dr. Clemence Lozier at her hospitable home in 34th street, New York. Her spacious parlors were crowded until a late hour. The occasion was enlivened with music, readings, and short, spicy speeches.

The National Woman Suffrage Association held its fifth convention at Washington in January, 1874. Before the arrival of the principal actors, the hall was filled with spectators. Soon after 11 o'clock the President, accompanied by a large number of speakers and friends, came on the stage. Many interesting letters were received and a series of resolutions reported.

Mrs. Gage occupied the evening with an address on Judge and Jury. The following brief sketch of the convention by Frances Ellen Burr is as good a summary of the proceedings as we find.

(Correspondence Hartford Times,) WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 1874.

The National Woman Suffrage Convention opened in Lincoln Hall this morning with a full house.

Miss Anthony opened the meeting by reading the call, and then briefly stated its purposes, which were to bring influences to bear upon Congress that will secure National protection for women in their right to vote. Black men are the only ones guaranteed by the National Constitution in their right to vote. Women ask for the same security. A letter from the Hon. E. G. Lapham, of New York, puts a point in the closing paragraph to the effect that the most degraded elector, who would sell his vote for a dollar, or for a dram, couldn't be induced by the offer of a kingdom to sell his right to vote.

Miss Anthony stated that the two articles of the woman suffrage creed were: First, That every woman should get her vote into the ballot box whenever she could get a judge of election to take it; and wherever refused, should go just the same again next time. Second, That all women owning property should refuse to pay taxes. She read a memorial to Congress for "no taxation without representation," the closing paragraph running as follows:

Therefore, We pray your honorable bodies to pass a law during the present session of Congress, that shall exempt women from taxation for national purposes so long as they are unrepresented in national councils.

Mrs. Spencer has a case now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. She carried a suit for herself and seventy-two other women who applied to be made voters and were refused. She has prepared a petition for woman suffrage for the women of the District of Columbia, on the ground, as Miss Anthony stated it, that as "this little ten-mile square belongs to us all, if the women here are enfranchised, those of the rest of the nation can not long be shut out." As Congress has absolute control over the District, no one can dispute its right to enfranchise the women here, even though they dispute its control of this matter in other parts of the nation. Miss Spencer submitted the following petition for woman suffrage by the women of the district of Columbia:

Whereas, The Supreme Court or the District or Columbia in the ease of Spencer against the Board of Registration has decided that by the operation of the first section of the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, "Women have been advanced to full citizenship and clothed with the capacity to become voters," and

Whereas, The same court further decided that the said first section of the XIV. Amendment does not execute itself, but requires the supervention of legislative power in the exercise of legislative discretion to give it effect. And

Whereas, The Congress of the United States is the legislative body having exclusive jurisdiction over this District,

Therefore, We respectfully pray your honorable bodies for the passage of an act amending an act entitled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," approved Feb. 21, 1871, by striking the word "male" from the seventh section of said act, thus placing the constitutional rights of the women of this District, as declared by the highest judicial tribunal, under the protection of the legislative power.

She said it might surprise and encourage many, as it did her, to learn that neither the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution, nor legislative enactment, general or local, has ever forbidden women to vote. They have simply permitted certain male citizens to vote, and have said nothing about women whatever. It is one thing to forbid women to vote; it is quite another thing to simply fail to expressly declare that they may. Some people think the Bible forbids women to vote because it doesn't say anything about it from beginning to end. True, it does not give any authority for it. Neither does it give any authority for using sewing-machines or clothes-wringers. The zeal of the people who search the Scriptures in the interest of bigotry and intolerance, assumes that all that is not commanded to women is strictly forbidden. Judge Cartter says the general Constitution interposes not a single obstacle to woman suffrage, and there is therefore no need of a new amendment; while the State constitutions simply leave her right in abeyance by omitting to declare it. That this view of the general constitution largely prevails is shown by so many women bringing suits against those who have rejected their votes, under the constitution as it is. Mrs. Spencer's manner is very pleasing, and her speech was pungent and to the point. She closed with the following pithy illustration of the need of woman's influence in legislative matters:

I wanted a loaf of bread one day in a great hurry, and found six dram-shops on one square and only one bakery, and that was shut.

Mrs. Spencer was followed by Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Black, and Mr. Davis, of Philadelphia, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott. Committees on resolutions and finance were appointed, and the meeting adjourned till afternoon.

F. E. B.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17.

This convention, of which I sent you some account in my last letter, adjourned last night, sine die. Lincoln Hall has been crowded at all the sessions except one, when an admission fee was charged. And the admission fee worked up a little unpleasantness in another direction, for in such a case a license has to be bought of the city authorities. So on Thursday evening before the meeting opened, word was sent to Miss Anthony in the ante-room, that a police officer was after her. "Well, let him come then," she replied; "I shan't go after him, that's sure." In due time the policeman walked in, brass buttons and all. Miss Anthony had a pleasant little conversation with him for a few minutes. The policeman was very mild and amiable, and so was Miss A. Having had considerable experience with officers of justice(?), she has gotten a little used to them--in fact, rather indifferent. Hard knocks and rubs conduce to philosophy, and Miss Anthony has acquired a philosophy akin to that of Diogenes in his tub. She told the policeman she had no intention of paying this government for the poor privilege of coming here to demand justice at its hands. While Miss Anthony was as calm as a June morning, and wholly indifferent in the matter, Mrs. Belva Lockwood, a practicing attorney in this city, raised such a din about the policeman's ears that he took to his heels, and didn't darken the ante-room doors of Lincoln Hall again while the convention was in session. That license remains in statu quo.

Mrs. Stanton said that people were always saying women didn't want to vote, but the fact that the word "male" was in all the statute books showed that men knew all the time that they would vote if they had a chance. But whether they want to or not is a matter, she claimed, that had nothing to do with the question. It is time woman had a civil rights bill. No woman can enter Columbia College, Princeton, Harvard, or Yale. During the century we have spent $16,000,000 for the boys of New York, and $1,500,000 for the girls. Are you willing to believe, women, that your girls are sixteen times less valuable than the boys? What is the reason of this low valuation of woman? Because she is never to have anything to do with the State. It is a humiliating thing to ask, but I insist that the white women of this country be placed on the same civil and political footing with the colored men from the plantations of the South. If a woman traveling alone is belated at night, the hotels slam their doors in her face and turn her into the street. We want a civil rights bill that shall make every white woman just as respectable as a negro or a white man.

Mrs. Blake followed with an anecdote of a girl who applied for admission to Ann Arbor University. One of the sentences she had to translate from the Greek was this one from Antigone: "Seeing then that we are women, ought we not to be modest and not try to compete with men?" She took the highest honors in Greek, and was ahead of every man in the class. She prepared a Greek composition and introduced this sentence: "Seeing then that we are men, ought we not to be ashamed that we have been vanquished by women?"

Mrs. Stanton thought if girls could come out of colleges and schools ahead of the boys in their studies, it was pretty clear proof that they could accomplish almost anything within the power of human capacity, for girls have to study under all sorts of disadvantages that boys do not have to contend with. Hang a hoop-skirt on a boy's hips; lace him up in a corset; hang pounds of clothing and trailing skirts upon him; puff him out with humps and bunches behind; pinch his waist into a compass that will allow his lungs only half their breathing capacity; load his head down with superfluous hair--rats, mice, chignons, etc., and stick it full of hair-pins; and then set him to translating Greek and competing for prizes in a first-class university. What sort of a chance would he stand in running that race or any other!! Mrs. Stanton read a civil rights bill for women, to be presented to Congress. This bill is to secure to them, equally with colored men, all the advantages and opportunities of life; open to them all colleges of learning; secure to them the right to sit on juries; to sue and be sued; to practice in all our courts on the same terms with colored men; to be tried by a jury of their peers; to be admitted to theaters and hotels alone; to walk the streets by night and by day, to ramble in the forest, or beside the lakes and rivers, as do colored men, without fear of molestation or insult from any white man whatsoever, to secure equal place and pay in this world of work.

She also presented a series of resolutions, nine in number. The first five are for freedom generally, and no taxation without representation. The sixth and seventh denounce the bills of Senators Frelinghuysen and Logan, the former being designed to deprive the women of the Territories of jury trial, and the latter to restore the common law in the Territories. The eighth recognizes the importance of the organization of the Grangers; and the ninth opposes the granting of general amnesty to former rebels. This resolution Mrs. Stanton denounced, speaking in favor of universal amnesty. Quite a spicy discussion ensued on this resolution, which was drawn up by Mrs. Joslyn Gage. Mrs. Stanton in her remarks in opposition, said it was hardly worth while for women in their conventions to throw any stigma on Jefferson Davis. The institution of slavery was sustained by the North as well as the South; the North got out expurgated editions of books for the Southern market. It was in bad taste for the North to denounce the South, and it was in particularly bad taste for woman suffragists who are clamoring for representation and for the ballot, to call for its denial to any part of the nation.

Col. R. J. Hinton, of Washington, also denounced the resolution, saying that it violated one of the fundamental principles of the woman suffrage platform, which is that the limitation of suffrage is a gross outrage. Miss Anthony very pertinently said: "All the trouble on this platform is that we haven't the right to vote. If we had it we shouldn't complain of anybody else voting." The resolution was voted down by a large majority.

At the evening session the Hall was literally packed. Mrs. Dundore of Baltimore, and Miss Taintor of California were the first speakers. Then the fascinating St. Louis lawyer, Miss Phoebe Couzins, whose logic is as sound as her wit is sparkling, was introduced, and delivered an address on "Woman as Lawyer," a subject which, in most hands, would have put the audience to sleep, but in hers, kept them wide awake with laughter and applause at her brilliant sallies. At the conclusion of her speech the Hutchinsons sang a stirring song, and then Miss Anthony introduced the colored member of Congress from South Carolina, Mr. A. J. Ransier, who spoke unqualifiedly in favor of woman suffrage. Mr. Ransier is president of a woman suffrage association in South Carolina. He was a little inclined to repeat himself, and after having returned several times to the statement that he had "no speech to make," an old lady in the audience popped up on the bench and said: "Well, if you haven't got a speech to make, I have," and immediately started out at the rate of twenty-five knots an hour, utterly oblivious of the rights of Mr. Ransier, who already had the floor, and who was very politely waiting for her to subside. Miss Anthony, after patiently waiting some time, said she should have to call the lady to order, but she paid no attention to the call. After a while the ludicrous situation set the audience to smiling audibly, and the louder they smiled, and the greater the excitement grew, the swifter flew the old lady's tongue. After consultation among the managers of the meeting, it was finally decided to send a policeman to quietly remove this garrulous disturber of the peace. A policeman was accordingly summoned, but his entreaties had no effect on the old lady, who stoutly maintained her perch, and declared she would not go with him. Then Miss Couzins descended from the platform, and accomplished with her winning ways what the policeman couldn't. She calmed the troubled waters--got the old lady to sit down by her side and keep the peace the rest of the evening. Who wouldn't maintain the peace when entreated from such a quarter? Mr. Ransier was enabled to finish his speech--a really good one--Miss Anthony remarking at its close that she wished she could have had him for her judge instead of Mr. Hunt. She then made a wide awake and telling speech, which, if this letter were not already too long, I should like to give. At its close she introduced Mrs. Guthrie, a daughter of Frances Wright, that woman of rare mind and original thought, who came from England to this country some forty or more years ago; and who, with Robert Owen and some others, tried to start a colony on the community system. To the surprise of all, Mrs. Guthrie declared herself opposed to woman suffrage. At the close of her remarks the Doxology was sung, and the convention adjourned sine die.

F. E. B.

The correspondent of the Boston Commonwealth, after giving a pen-picture of the ladies on the platform, said:

The Convention laid out some very practical work for the consideration and action of Congress. It circulated a petition and obtained six hundred names of citizens, both men and women of the District, asking that the word male be stricken from the organic act of the District government. This was presented by Mr. Dawes, for Mr. Butler, to the House, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, before the members of which the ladies to-day had a hearing. Their case was presented and briefly argued by Mr. Miller, a lawyer of some promise and reputation, a resident of the District. Mrs. Sarah Spencer, of Washington, addressed the Committee on the legal points involved. She said that the petitioners did not conceal the point that the XIV. Amendment did not give them the right to vote, but since Congress had referred them to the State legislatures, they came now to ask that the women of the District be allowed to vote. Mrs. Spencer answered the argument so often made, that all of the bad women would vote and the good ones would stay at home. She said in reply to this oft-repeated objection, that she had found in talking with that class they made the same objection to woman suffrage that the fashionable women make, and were quite as averse to its adoption. Again, she said statistics show the lamentable fact that only one-fifth of this class live to be eighteen years of age; their average length of life being only five years, no real danger was to be apprehended from giving woman the ballot. Mrs. Spencer spoke with feeling, and evidently made a favorable impression upon the Committee. Mrs. Lockwood made a few pertinent remarks. As this lady has lately been admitted to the bar in this city, she can speak from experience upon many points of law and fact. Miss Burr, of Hartford, asked simply for full justice, eschewing law and legal lore upon the subject, willing to be numbered with Plato and John Stuart Mill on this question. Miss Couzins appealed to the heart; as so many knock-down arguments had been hurled at their heads she preferred to attack the heart. She said she felt great delicacy in appearing before so much learning and wisdom, but the veteran commander-in-chief of the forces, Miss Anthony, had ordered her to the front, and when she told her she must spike a gun, like a good soldier, although a raw recruit, she obeyed. Miss Anthony introduced the speakers, and closed the meeting with a few well-chosen words.

It was a picture worthy the brush of an old master. Eleven lawyers seated around a table, with Benjamin F. Butler at the head, listening to women pleading for the right of self-government. Their faces, as they listened, every one of them with respectful attention, was a study worthy the most thoughtful student of human nature. Some of them listened, no doubt, for the first time to an argument in favor of this innovation, but the most unbelieving were evidently impressed with the earnestness and strong feeling displayed in the advocacy of the cause. The room was well filled with spectators, drawn together, some from sympathy, others from idle curiosity, but all were compelled to respectful consideration by the ease, dignity, and ability displayed by the ladies in presenting their cause. Only upon the faces of a few newspaper reporters just emerging from adolescence into manhood, rested the traditional sneer at the strong-minded; and when the hour for adjournment arrived, one of the members of the Committee remarked he regretted that a longer time could not have been given to the ladies. To those who think the cause of woman suffrage has gone backwards, we commend the proceedings of this meeting of the Judiciary Committee.

In addition to the petition for suffrage in the District, another one has also been drawn, which Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa, will present at an early day, asking for the remission of the fine imposed upon Miss Anthony for voting at the last Presidential election.

By the way, an incident showing the singular independence of Gen. Grant happened on Saturday. When the President was taking his afternoon stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue, he met Miss Anthony and Miss Couzins. Instead of bowing and passing on, as most any one of the high dignitaries occupying official position would have done, he stopped, shook hands, and entered into conversation with them. The chief justiceship being the absorbing subject of interest, Miss Couzins suggested the name of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, since he seemed to have so much trouble in getting a man to suit. The President pleasantly replied he would not subject any woman to the ordeal of such an examination as she would be subjected to over Sunday, if the announcement of the nomination to that office were made. Miss Anthony said if he would only nominate Henry R. Selden, her counsel, the man who had brains and courage enough to defend her for voting for him, the country would at once recognize it as the best possible thing that could be done. The group, as they stood there on the avenue, the President of the United States with a pleased and animated face, and Miss Anthony, whom everybody knows and respects, even although they don't believe in suffrage for women, and the strikingly handsome young lawyer from St. Louis, in animated conversation over the Chief Justiceship, was the object of attraction of all passing by. If some fortunate photographer could have taken the picture his fortune would have been secured beyond doubt.

The May Anniversary of 1874 was held in Irving Hall, with the usual list of speakers. The attendance was large throughout. Martha C. Wright, one of the most judicious and clear-sighted women in the movement, was elected president. A large number of letters was received from nearly every State in the Union.

On May 28th, 1874, while the bill to establish the Territory of Pembina was pending in the Senate, Mr. Sargent, of California, moved to add "sex" to line 10 of section 5, which would make the clause read:

Resolved, That the Legislative Assembly shall not, at any time, abridge the right of suffrage, or to hold office, on account of sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude of any resident of the Territory.

Mr. SARGENT.--In the same connection I move in the first line of