i?B.OG:REssz FREE THOUGHT 2 UNTBAMMELED LIVES! EUUMLKING IHI7TKAY FOR IUTTHHECEENEBMHTONW. VOL. 3.-No. 3. -WHOLli No. 55. SPEECH OF MRS. A. M. MIDDLEBROOK BEFORE THE National Woman’s Suffrage Convention, 0 AT Apollo Hall, May I2, l87I. I propose to look at the Woman’s Suffrage ‘luesfion in 3 legal point of view, and to examine those a_1'g'“mem35 that are based upon constitutional authority. It is Well for us to be told again and again, what rights 319 Possessed by women under the laws made by men. . . It seems to me that a crisis is ap.proaching,_ that the time has nearly arrived for some decisive measuresin this matter, and that with earnest purpose, and a full understanding or all its cl ims,we should go to the root of the subject, and each one of us do our work with a faithful zeal worthy of our cause. I present no new views, I ofler no theories that have not been before discussed. but to such as I have I ask your undivided attention. When a body of men, chosen as representatlives of the needs of a. great people, meet together calmly to deliberate, discuss, and legislate ior this people: thus oringing into a common interest the happiness, and protection; the rights and piivileges; ihe duties, _and re- spei sibilities of all classes who make np.the inhabitants of a country ; 1 am certainly right in assuming that their con- clusions ought to be accepted as of the utmost importance and authority. Then, when these conclusions, or the laws thus passed by the assembled wisdom of these statesmen, are sent out to the legislatures of the several states, there again to be discussed, criticised and finally accepted (if a three-fourths majority so decide) it must be generally ac cepted that Ly this time the result ought to bring a state of greater prosperity, justice, equality and peace, to all parties concerned therein. ~ A _ For, it must be evident to all, that these deliberations would not have been called for, but as the eii'ect of some grievance, some great wrong that had remained unseen by preceding legislators, a wrong that had necome too great for endurance, and therefore called ior redress. And there may have been also, in the making of some of these laws, a pro- phecy of the future—a certain grand and glorious spirit of liberty inherent with-in—bursting forth in divine utterance, so that our rulers became at such times “ wiser than they knew ;” for many of our laws thus made are tar-reaching, and their deepest meaning only becomes manifest after years of suffering and tyranny. Thus I believe it was with our famous Declaration of Independence, where it declares “ these truths to be self-evi- dent that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” etc.,—“ that to se- cure these rights, governments were instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” etc. This was not so much the utterance of themasses in those days, as ofthose who were enlightened, so as to feel the inspirations of freedom, and to breathe the inspiring breath of future generations, for even now, these “ rights” are not " secured” to all, probably because our government does not derive its just powers irom the consent of the gov- erned ; for, with these grand utterances a century old, half of the most cultured and refined people of our country are in a state of most deplorable political subjection ; and from this rostru v. to-day, we, in the name of the women of this land, insist upon those " unalienable rights” with which our “ Creator endowed us,” and which our revolutionary fathers held to be “ self-evident.” The meaning of this truth has increased in power and intensity, until its wail of pain from an unjustly oppressed class has reached, the brains of our nation. This, 1 believe to have been also the case with the Fourteenth Amendment to our National Constitution, as passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, June 16, 1866. lt is upon this and the following amendment that I shall base the greater portion of my argument to-(la . li- ii well known to all politicians at least, that when this amendment (the Fourteenth) had passed both houses of Congress, and had afterward been subjected to the deliber- ations of each separate State Legislature, and rat-ihed by - more than three-fourths of those States; and when the oflicial announcement had been made public by William Seward, Secretary of State, July 28, 1868, it then (to use Mr. NEW YORK, JUNE 3, 1871. PRICE FIVE CENTS. ULTIMATUM NAT [lNALWlllVlAN’S SUFFRABE ASSBE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL CITIZENS UNDER OUR PRESENT GOVERNMENT; 0R,A U tin grlirllinn ant a. firm @ni:rrii mi J WHICH SHALL SECURE ignnn. Seward’s own language) became “ valid ‘to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.” So that now this amendment is as much a law of the land as the original Constitution ; and the enforcement of this law is as binding upon our legislators and the officers of our government as any other. ‘ Article 6th of the Constitution says: “ This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made. or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall 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 coirrary notwithstanding.” When the Fourteenth Amendment became the law of the land, it found itself foretold, and the States prepared for it by Sec- tion 4 of the 4th Article, namely: “ The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government ;” and, thus heralded. the Fourteenth Amendment is ushered into existence as the legitimate of- spring of the necessities of a great people. Who can tell. but, that prophesied of, proclaimed, foretold, it is destined to become the political saviour of our nation. Yet the young child has been kept in solitude for three longycars, and even some of our State oflicers do not know its import, or hardly its existence. ~ We are indebted, in a great measure, to Victoria C. Wood- hull, for the graceful, yet persistent manner in which it was rescued from oblivion and introduced to public notice in Washington, on the 21st day of Drcember, 1870. All thanks and honor are due to her clear-sightedness in arous- ing anew the agitation of.’ the subject of woman’s siilfrage. A great and efficient work had been done by other noble women previously, but when she was most needed she came. - I will proceed now to analyze this one supreme law of our land. 1st. it tells us who are citizens. When slavcrycxisted at the South, and the negroes had no vote. and no voice in making the laws that shouldgovern them, they might well conclude that it was because they were not citizens, espe- cially after knowing of the existence of such a law as we find in Article IV., Sec. 2. “ The citizen of each State shall be en- titled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.” If that law gave them no vote. then there could bc_ no_ other reaon than because they were not cit- izens. But the Fourteenth Amendment rectifies this mis- take, and leaves no further room for doubt. “ All persons born or natiiralized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Could the English lan- guage be plainer than it is here? _ It would hardly be neces- sary to explain to a child that “ all persons” does not mean men alone, or white men. or white and black men, but that a person (according to Webster) is an individual human being, consisting of body and soul, and is aoplied‘ alike to man, woman and child.” Very Well. No further question here. Women are citizens. Congress says so. Our State legislators said so when they I‘a»t.lfi6(?l\tlllS amendment. Further than this Webster’s unabridged says: “ In the United States a citizen is a person, native or naturalized, Who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which may enable him to vote for rul- ers and to purchase and hold real estate.” Putting this and that together, or taking them separately, we cannot avoid the same conclusions, namely, that women are citizens; that as citizens they have the right to vote and to a free use of all privileges and immunities that are granted to the most honorable and the most dishonorable among men. Webster uses the terms “ right ” and “privilege" as sy- nonomous, or nearly so. “ Right is just claim, immunity privilege. All men,” he says, “ have a right to the St'CUI‘8 enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property.” Further than this Mr. Butler says, in reference to the citizenship of women: “None but citizens of the United States could register a ship at our ports, none others could pre-eiI.pt lands or receive passports; but from time imme- morial in this country women have registered shins, pre- empted lands and secured passports without question}? This opinion, coming from a gentleman so well versed in constitutional law, is. not by any means to be despised. But, on the contrary, it is worth a great deal as authority, because it is based upon legal poinrs and is the result of careful thought, which cannot always be said of opposing arguments. And Mr. Butler further said: “ The right of a citizen to vote for his rulers was a right outside of all Con- stitution and laws; it was an inherent I‘ig‘hY,” as he under. stood the principles of the government. VVhatever may be said about this inherent right of citizens to vote for their rulers, or whatever argument may be brought against it, we certainly have the matter clearly explained in the Four-' teenth Amendment. That is, understanding, as ldo, that na- tional governments are instituted by men (and I use the term in its largest sense), out of the great wisdom and power that belong to them naturally, or that is inherent within them, for the purpose of giving protection, safety, happiness, life, liberty, etc., to all persons that dwell. under the dominion thereof: therefore this amendment, aiming at the best and broadest republicanistn, says: “No State shall make or ell- force any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” ‘ Whatever power the States might have possessed previous to the passage of this act, could be pos- sessed no longer after its passage. If one of the greatest privileges of citizenship was the ballot, and this privilege (under the excuse of“ State rights”) had been denied to the negro, simply because he was black, though he pos- sessed all other qualifications, and-to women simply beciuse of sex, though she possessed all other qiialificttions, yet henceforth this right of the State was piohibited, and the full license of sheer prejudice was no longer allowed. At‘. er the ratification of this act and its pro alainatioo to the . neo- ple as oi_io'of the supreme laws of our land, “ No State shall make,” if it has not already made, or it’ any State within thejuiisdictioii of‘ the United States shall have pas=ed any law previousto this _ai_nendmeiit calciiiatcd to abridge the privileges or immunities of any of its eitiaens,it shall not p 2 if" . netball it dlsiiiws A uzkig. JUNE 3, 1871. -is “ enforce ”.such law. Oh! I hear some political fogy ex- claiming, “ VVhat have you done with our State rights ”— our right towsay who “shal1"vote’§ "I ‘answer-, given them‘ over to the United States, their lawful m‘aster——m‘a‘de the State laws subservient to the supreme laws of the land, as they certainly are, and no one can ‘deny it. Hear what the Tenth Amendment says : “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor probibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively .or to the people.” As the Constitution has prohibited the States from abridgiog the privileges of its citizens, therefore the State where I reside has no right to deny me the right to consent to those who a.re to govern me. And the sameuule will apply to all the women of our country. Besides this, wh at are the States whose rights we talk so much »about-?« Do we mean simply atract of land containing so many square miles ‘l Or do we mean the whole body of pe"ople“in a certain locality united under one government ‘l Certain- ly, in this sense we mean the latter, and no one, however prejudiced, would think of denying me the right of belong- ing to the State of Connecticut simply because I {am a woman. If, then, women are part of a State——natural-borncitizens thereof—subject to its jurisdiction, under the United States, how can there be such a thing as “ State rights” when all women (though counted in the representation) are denied the privilege of a voice in choosing those representatives; or in the making of State laws? Iassert that our.State rep- resentatives have held office and drawn money from the public treasury unlawfully, because they have never occu- pied their positions by a vote of a. majority of all the peo- ple; and, in the same sense, the qualifications of electors pretended to be made by the States, are not made by the States at all, but by an aristocracy composed of part of the people, who take it upon themselves to make laws for and rule over the other part. Therefore, the qualifications made for electors by this aristocracy, not being. in accordance With the representation of the whole State, but only a part, are no qualifications at all. Of course, lbase my premises upon the republican professions of our government. How can a government be republican unless all are represented and have a voice in the affairs of State? Let us reverse things and talk about “State rights” and “ State sove reignty” and “ State laws” with the White male left out in the cold. How our masculine rulers would laugh; but the only difference between then and now is that the laugh is in the other corner of the mouth. The States are in the same predicament that they would be in such a case with ‘a large portion of its loyal citizens proscribed, limited, muz- zled, by the other portion,-without any just,‘ constitutional or natural claim to precedence——a living illustration of the old adage that “ might makes right.” It seems to me that ‘whatever may have been right or just in this matter pre- vious to the passage of the Four»teenth,Amendment (and there can be no doubt that the right has always been the same as now), that since that law was enacted clearly setting forth that “ all persons born. or naturalized in the United States are citizens; and prohibiting the States - from abridging our privileges as citizens ; that no State‘of- ficer has any right to deny us the full and free expression of opinion by the ballot, and the judges in every State ought to sustain us in this, because it is in obedience to the ex- press wording of the above article of the Constitution. And as the President of the United States, the Senators and ‘Representatives in Congress, as well as both houses of our . State Legislatures, have sworn to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States, I do not see how any of these great men can fail in sustaining our measures without great remissness in duty, which should incur the just re- proach or every loyal person. Or, taking another view of this question of the State power to qualily, if we could have full representation—that is, admitting women as voters—— qualification cannot mean prohibition or disfranchisement. Women as a class are prohibited or denied a right that is as sacred, and would prove as beneficial to them as to men. And this prohibition in the face of our grand national prin- ciples becomes wholesale swindle, which is quite as degrad- ing to our rulers as it is humiliating to as. Another clause in the Fourteenth Amendment requires a little passing ob. servation. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, - liberty or property without due process of law, nor » deny to any person within its jurisdicti.on the equal protection of the laws. Now is it not plain that where one class is prohibited a voice in making the laws, and is compelled to be gov- erncd entirely by another class, and the laws thus made for them being, In regard to property and in the mariiage rela- tion, so shamefully unequal, is it not plain, I ask, that the ruled class are deprived in at great measure of their liberty of person and property, and denied that equality of protec- ‘ tion that is guaranteed them. A glance at the property laws of some or our States would bring confounding testimony in proof of the disloyalty of our State laws to our National Constitution. And, in the name of justice, what is. our Constitution worth if it avows these sublime principles and no action is taken upon them any more than if they did not exist. and our officers are not compelled to enforce them. Are women to be insulted by a sham law, that pretends to extend equal pm-tect.ion to every person and equal privi- leges, and yet allows every rum-drinking, tobaccochewing frequenter ofgambling houses and brothels to control and govern by their infamous laws such women as are repre. sented upon this rostrum -to-day‘! For shame! For shame: It is not our husbands, or our fathers, or brothers - or other good men alone who represent us at the ballot-box (if it were possible for one person to represent another) which I deny, but we become politically the common slaves of this common herd. Protected by men too vile for us to asso- ciate with a moment? .No .' Represented by men too ignorant to choose their own ‘candidates without the assist- ance of some tricky politician? N o ' And yet our dear lords—n1any of them remain in this enlighted age perfectly. satisfied to allow things to remain as they are. Were it not so, this would not be. Justice and right are on one side, but the power is in the hands of men. The Constitution is with us, as I have shown, andas I propose further to show. Hear what the Fifteenth Amendment says: The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This follows the previous article of amendments so directly that it is clear that the right to vote is understood as one of the privileges meant in the wording of that law. These tvs 0 articles evidently be- long together-——the one clearly defines the rights and priv. ileges of citizens, and states who are the citizens thaupos. sess these privileges, while the last lays special emphasis upon this one right of voting, and declares that it shall not be denied or abridged by either the States or the Un11-,ed_ States. . . It recognizes theriglit as something that already existed; and our National as well as _ our State Constitutions «ac- knowledge that all political power is inherent in the people. The Fourteenth Amendment is a sort of declaratory act; it defines the word citizens, and declares their power to make, use ‘of What is alreadyftheirs. “All persons native or natur- alized -'are*,,.¢itizens,” and then, in the Fifteenth Amendment, “their right to vote shall not be denied or abridged.” But, we are limited to race, color,-or previous conditions of s 2'rvi- tude; says our opponent. VVe1l, are not women included here? In fact, if itdoes not say men, or women, why does it mean men more than women ‘Q What proof is there that it means one more than the*oth'er ‘E ' It says citizens, and thereis proof rosrtivn that this word applies equally to *l)0.~El1.:. , . . There are wom‘en‘of“ race and color, as much as there are men of race and color, and if the word sex is not used, why ‘should we manufacture" an excuse for using it‘, ‘simply for the purpose of misrepresenting the plain rendering of this. article. ‘ ‘ C ‘ ‘ ‘ . And as for the “previous condition of servitude,” no one in their senses can pretend that‘ women do not belong to this class. And if thisarticle meant negroes, ‘as is claimed, it must have meant negro women as well I asmen. I For the service rendered by the black woman was oftentimes a thou- sand t'im“es‘“mor‘e ‘degrading,’ and called’ loude'r‘for‘“redress than that rendered by the black man. But in applying this to our-own race of women, I can do nothing -better than to give you Mr. A. G. Riddle’s argument upon the subject, in his speech made at Washington. He says: “The condition of the married woman is that of servi- tude. . Tlielaw gives her to the man, not the man to her, or the two mutually to each other. They become one, and that one is the husband, such as he is. Her name “is blotted out from the living, or at best is appended to that of the hus- band. She belongs to her master; all that she has belongs to him. All that she earns is his, because she is his. Ifshe does anything that binds him, it is simply as his servant. If she makes a contract that is binding even upon herself, it is because he consents to it. She does not own anything; she does not own the children that are born to her. The husband exclusively controls them while living, and by his will he may, and often does, bequeath to somebody else the custody and care of them after his death.” “And,” he says further, "the law which we men make enforces all this to- day. if the wife of a man should suffer from an accident the company for injury to her person, the suit brought by the husband would be upon the ground that his wife was his servant, and he had lost her service.” “The wife,” he says, “is always the servant of the husband, she never grad- uates away from him; she never becomes of age, or arrives at years of discretion.” If there is any further doubt upon this subject, reference to the statute books of the various States will settle the matter at once. It is not the question whether he beats his wife (though I think that is done oftener than he beats his lured servant), but what is the legal relation between them? And it is answered above, and upon our statute books, that the law demands her en- tire subjection to him, and that _he often demands of her the duties of wife, and mother to his children, and the drudge of his household, and that, too, with only the com- pensation that he chooses to offer, which is too fre- quently very meagre indeed. It would not be borne in any other relation in life, the law would never up- hold it in other relations. Talk about cruelty to animals! And yet, as Mr. Riddle says, “ the laws which men make en- forces” this cruelty to women. Our opponents tell us that the word “ sex” is absolutely necessary in the Fifteenth Amendment to make it applicable to women, and without that word it cannot ‘be made to apply. Has not the word “race” a larger meaning-_—a broader and mightier significa- tion? Can you think of a race of men alone, and is any one so narrow and so unjust as to admit all other races to the exclusion of the daughters of this republic’! If a spe- cial word must be used _to define the particular sex meant, by what means of turning and twisting could all our gov- ernmental iuatters be given over to the masculine gender during the century past, when the word "male” does not occur once in the Constitution until we find it in the Four- teenth Amendment. It is true the words “he,” “his” and “ him” occur often, but may be taken in a general sense, as they are in law and within 0111' statute books. In many of our laws} the matter referred to embraces all persons as abso. lutely as if the specific word “she” had been used. Where the word “male” is incorporated into the the Fourteenth Amendment there is such a palpable display of the preju. dice and timidity of those who drew up this important doc- ument, that by the side of the noble words that were pre- viously written as a herald of promise, it sinks into misera. ble insignificance. There is evidently a prejudice against the woman question, and afear that this construction may be put upon this article, which might divert public attention from negro suifrage. We well know how jealous our Repub_ lican friends were of our cause at that time, and that many of them now are among our most able ad vocates, Ah 3 whip, “ waiting” for victory, as they told us we must——“ obedient” as it is a womau’s duty ('9) to be, we live to see the conver. sion of those great statesmen that were thought nearly per. feet before. And now even they admit that the two first paragraphs in the Fourteenth Amendment are broad enough and emphatic enough to embrace even our cause. 01117 16g‘iSl&t0I‘S, in laying down principles which they in- tended to apply to some particular case, should not regret that these principles take broader and deeper root than they intended, How often it is that under the control of some unseen and mighty power, words are brought forth from lips glowing with living lire, that are pregnant with high hopes and golden promises of future greatness, while those who are the instruments thereof remain unconscious of their deepest meaning. And how different are our dreams while sleeping from the reality when awake. For centuries the world has dreamed that woman’s fate was to be an inferior being—tlie toy and playthin g of man—to sit at his feet and mumble, parrot-like, the words. that fall from his lips- the tool and machine for his lust and avarice. Waking, it finds her his equal—an immortal soul endowed with mighty responsibilities and lofty aspirations! Sleep- ing in the intoxicated stupidity of custom, it has limited her sphere to the. narrowest and meanest latitudes. Wak- ing, lior range is the -wide universe, and within her grasp are all human possibilities! Shall we not accept as the les- son of the hour the reality rather than the dreams ‘i lAgain; we know how in law, there is oftentimes great stress laid upon parallel cases; and we know how words are made to apply in cases that they were not intended for, so that the intention is sometimes lost sight of entirely. Were I to say that the condition of the women of our country was parallel, or nearly so, to the condition of the negro, before he was admitted to the full rights of citizenship, it would I amjaware, bring down upon me alaughof derision from our opponents. I have tried it too often not to know this. But I maintain it, notwithstanding the derision, for I know it can only come from those who are too much prejudiced to see it; "words of i“Mr. Sumner.” on a railroad, and suit should be brought to recover against. or, from those who are too far removed, and. therefore, too ignorant of the suffering caused by this condition, to com- Hpreliend it. Itis difflcult for a person to feel the pain caused b3f.'the§boot that pinches someone else’s foot. 01'. for a man with anti—republican principles and finely-spun theories of “Dear woman’s trusting dependence and sweet reliance on pain suffered by a highly cultured, intelligent woman, who t’ully‘”realizes the deep humiliation of our present state of political-subjection. It is because of this pain and humilia- tion thatwe welcome the noble and authoritative words of Chas. Sumner and others; which, though intended to help th’e'cause of negro suffrage, are just as well fitted for our work, as to carry out the original intention. Hear the great “ Beyond all question the true rule quuder the National Constitution, especially since its addi- tional amendments, is that any thing for human rights is constitutional.” No learning in books, no skill acquired "in courts, no sharpness of forensic dialectics, no cunning in splitting hairs, can impair the vigor of the constitutional principle which I announce. Whatever you enact for hu- man rights is constitutional. There can be no State rights against human rights ; and this is the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution, or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Then he quotes from Franklin’_s works the following: “That liberty or -freedom consists in having an; actual share in the appointment of those who frame the laws, and who are to be the guardians of every man. That they who have no voice, nor vote in the electing of representatives, do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes, and to their representatives ; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our oWn to give consent in our behalf.” Another argument proving women’s condition of servitude. Is not this confounding testimony in our favor? And yet there is plenty more of it——iu fact it has been piled moun- tains high within a few years. Here is more, which Mr. Sumner takes from El1iot’s Debates: “ The right of suf- frageis certainly one of the fundamental articles of repub- lican government, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the Legislature. A gradual abridgement of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms.” It will doubtless be urged against these quotations that they refer to another subject. In reply I say, what of that? They are the fruits of our governmental tree—a tree whose branches are so far-reach- ing that it is expected to overshadow the whole nation, and its fruits, I believe, are for the healing of the nation. At any rate they suit our complaints exactly just now, and we propose to see if, by partaking of them, they will not prove a panacea for our unhappy political ailments. They are found good for native white men and for native black men, for naturalizedlrish, Dutch, French ; in short, all men who, tired of their own country, may chance to land on our shores. We cannot be treated longer as too many parents treat their children, who, while partaking of luxuries them- selves, tell the little ones that such luxuries are not good for them. We are not children, but part and parcel of this great republic. We work for our government; we pay taxes on our property for its support; we raise mechanics, farmers, lawyers, doctors, ministers——yes, statesmen, sol- diers and presidents. In fact our government only exists by our sufierance, and we do not intend it to exist without our suffrage. It seems to me that the great and important time has come for action, when we should concentrate all our efforts upon this one matter. We should let all religious preju- dices, all social distinctions, all questions of expediency and policy be laid aside, and stand truly united in this work. No one can deny that our interests are in common with those of men ; that our necessities are the same; that our loyalty cannot be questioned more than theirs; that every argument that favors their right to vote favors ours. Then can it, with any degree of consistency, be said, that the same means by which they seek a redress for their grievances will not also bring the same result to us. The great , principles of republicanism that were sent down the long years from our immortal Declaration of Independence, for a century, live as an eternal monument of glory, when fulfilled; but as a blasting shame Lefore all nations, while half of its children sit and wall for their en- franchisement. The noble love of freedom that burned within the blood of our ancestors who framed that docu- menthas gathered tribute with every advance, until, an impetuous torrent, it threatensto overthrow and inund ate your present miserable system oisham repu blicanism. The spirit of our Constitution is all right, its letter is all right; enforce both-—make them practical instead of theoretical, and we shall have a grand lulfillment of a glorious promise. We want the aid of both political parties, if we can have it; but, if the power in the hands of men will not bring us justice, we must create a new party and work against both, or carry our cause to the courts. We have sought to con- ciliate these parties long enough; we have gone down on to our knees before them, praying to be heard; we have spent our time, our strength and our money in speeches, in tracts and in con ventions to educate the public up to this work, at the same time that our sons have gone out from our homes to join the common enemy against us; we have sent petitions to our State Legislatures, which have re- mained unnoticed, so far as any practical result is attained; we have besought Congress in petitions miles in length, and all to no purpose as yet; and it is time we took other meas- uies and sought other means for the accomplishment of the great end to be gained. Our_cause has very materially changed within a_iew years; it has grown from babyhood into giant proportions since the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. We have seen other parties similarly situated walking into the full enjoyments of the most sacredrights, with all benefits to be derived therefrom, while we and the cause in which our lives are most earn- estly absorbed are treated with cold contempt and our grievances find no redress. We have been tauntingly asked. bysome of our leading politicians why we do not take our rights; and probably there never was so great an attempt to do this as there has been this present year. The Enforcement act passed by Congress in May, 1870, together with the- Ku-Klux bill, and the proclamation just issued by the President to enforce this bill and the Four- teenth Amendment, are teaching the public that our repub- lican principles are as broad as the country and must protect all citizens,land teach all States that their laws must be sub- ject to the United States. nor, of Detroit, Mich., on the 4th of ‘April, cast her first vote. I think at that moment, could our eyes have been‘ open to see and our ‘ears to hear, sweetly solemn sights and ‘sounds would have greeted our longing -senses from those halls u tlie‘pro’tectingarm of man,” to feel for one moment the ’ Under the provisions of these acts Mrs. Nannette B. f}ard-- JUNE 3, 1871. where justiceholds her courts. Buta question arises.-zllow are the men of Michigan difl'erent from the men in other States? For other women attempted to vote iuidifferent States, but were denied the privilege. In Hammonton, N. J, fifteen women oflered their votes at a late town elec- tion, but were refused. In other States—in Ohio and Wash- ington—this attempt was made with the same‘ result. In Connecticut, several women—myself included—made appli- cation to be registered at the time and place required by law, and our names were taken ; but when we presented ourselves before the Board of Registration “to be made” voters, we were denied the right." One woman besides my- self then made affidavitbefore a “justice of the peace” that we had been wrongfully prevented from performing the nec- essary pre-requisite or qualification of a voter, and with this affidavit we presented ourselves at the Town Hall on elec- tion day and asked permission to deposit our votes. After a delay and argument of half an hour we were denied the right. ‘ We took this course under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and the provisions of the “ Enforcement Act” of May, 1870. I stated to the Board ofRegistration and to the Moderator that we did not apply under our State laws, but under the United State laws ; that as the word “ white” in our State Constitution became null and void under the Fifteenth Amendment; so the word “ male” became null and void under the Fourteenth. These officers coolly told me that they were “ acting under State Ia ws, and not under the authority of the United States : and that the United States, had no right to“'take away their liberties as State officers.” I They did not care that my liberty as a citizen was entirely gone, under their assumed State rights. What we want now is the power to teach the States, and their officers, submission to the United State’s Constitution as the supreme law of the land. If this is done ‘every right will be given us, and I think it can be done by following the example of the ladies of Washington, and the ladies of Hemmon ton ; that is, pros- ecuting the dflicers of elections and carrying the case even to the supreme court or the land, if necessary. It seems to me disgraceful that we are obliged to do this, but we have the advice and counsel of able lawyers and statesmen. For the benefit of those women who are earnest, and ready to work in this cause, but Who may not know what authority we may have besides the last two amendments (and. those ought to be suflicient), I would advise them to procure copies of the Enforcement Act of 1870, and the Ku-Klux bill, which is entitled “ An act to enforce the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. and for other purposes. With this high authority sustaining us, let every woman take the matter into her own hand and present herself for registration at the time appointed in her respective State, and, nothing daunted itrefused, let her with affi davit force her way to the polls, remembering that in doing this she is not merely securing the rights of citizenship to herself, but she is aiding in that political revolution which will cause the establishment of equity and justice all over our land. I advise this unless Congress will immediately pass a decla- ratory act enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment in our favor all over our land. Let us remember, too, that in tak- ing this cours9——in making this demand we are encroaching e upon the rights of no otherc lass, nor rebelling against any acknowledged power. The glorious Sumner—though like the Constituton he leaves out the special word women—3-has said it all for us when he declares the following: “ What I especially ask is impartial suffrage, which is, of course, embraced in uni- versal suifrage. For the present, I simply insist that all , shall be equal before the law, so that in the enjoyment of i this right there shall be no restriction which is not equally applied to all. I have no hesitation in saying that univer- sal sutfrage is a universal right, subject only to such regula. tions as the safety of society mgy require. These may con. cern age, residence, character, registration. These iempo- ra.ry restrictions do not in any way interfere with the right of suffrage, for they leave it absolutely accessible to all, N o matter under what depression of poverty, in what depth of obscurity or with what diversity of complexion you have been born, you are nevertheless a citizen-—the peer of every other citizen, and the ballot is your inalienable right.” In a late excellent editorial article in the Golden Age, we are told that " many of the representative men and women who have charge of the woman’s movement, speak and write and print as if the elective franchise were the sum-total of woman’s demand.” “Important,” he says, “ as we believe the political aspect of the woman question to be, we believe that other aspects of the question are still more important.” The woman’s movement, in- stead of being all summed up in the claim for the “ elective franchise is the whole broad question of woman’s rights.” As thankful as we should all be for every word spoken or written in aid of our cause, yet I hardly think we can forget that it is not the square inch of white paper that we call the ballot that we are, after all, caring so much for; but it is the» equality. thejustice, the educational advan- tages, the reformation in social matters, and all that may result from the ballot, And without the ballot we cannot have these matters properly adjusted. There are not men enough in the United States or the world to represent the necessities of women. We can only represent ourselves. Shall we be humble inendicants at the feet of men for all these blessings that can only come to us through the ballot, or an equal share with them in governmental matters. We want the ballot as a means to accomplish a great and ; and for this reason I have presented to you the political phase of this question, because if woman’s share in politics is not of the greatest and last importance, the elective franchise is certainly of the first importance, as the instrument for the accomplishment of that greater and mightier social and moral reform, which is needed as much for man as for we- man. And with aspirations like the swift eagle, ready to mount upward ‘and cleave the air in our progress when the prison-doors shall be unbarre