NAWSA GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE Bowditch, William I. WILLIAM I. BOWDITCH, MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, 28 State Street, Room 65. Boston, Feb 4- 1903 Dear Alice, I will enclose one of 20 to contribute $100 yearly during my life to the woman's cause I cannot arrange about every check, altho other would - I [approached?] the seller open merchants Both would not recognize my signature Thanks for your letter Truly yr friend Wm L New [river?] [*Wm I Bowditch*] [*Boston*] WILLIAM. I. BOWDITCH. MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING, 28 State Street, Room 65. (USE THE ELEVATOR) [*Rec*] Boston, Mass., Feb 6 - 1890 Dear Mrs. Stone, I enclose copy of James Kelison's will for you to keep - unless indeed it should not be proved, in which case you can return it. Truly yours, William Bowditch [*Greene $400 Wheland $400 " $400 " $400*] Boston, Oct 9, 1893 Dear Friend, I am sorry that I made such an exhibition of myself yesterday. I intended to point out to you what a truly noble and useful life you have led, and how very nearly you had succeeded in obtaining your object, and that I valued that over-generous message which you sent to me by Alice more than words could tell. And I left without saying a word of my thought! You were the only one who could utter a syllable! I hope you will forgive my want of self control. Truly your friend Wm. J. Borditch Mrs. Lucy Stone THE FORGOTTEN WOMEN IN MASSACHUSETTS. BY WILLIAM I. BOWDITCH. I have recent read Prof. Summer's book entitled "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other". His sympathies are with the "forgotten man". He thinks that when society expends money to protect the good-for-nothing, the real sufferer is not the person who is helped, but the industrious laborer (p. 124), who is "the forgotten man," and he tells us that "the forgotten man is not infrequently a woman." (p.145.) Are there, however, any forgotten women in Massachusetts? Does not our constitution, do not our laws, secure the natural rights of women just as carefully as they do the natural rights of men? We are, however, immediately confronted with the question, What are the natural rights of women? In answering, we must bear in mind that we are not living in Turkey, where women may even now be bought and sold like cattle; nor are we living in Russia, where liberty is an unknown quantity, and women may be flogged, exiled or executed without having a decent opportunity for trial or defence. We are not considering the condition of women in Germany, where the best years of a young man's life must be spent in the army, and women are forced to do men's work. and may be seen harnessed to ploughs in the fields, and on the highways coupled with dogs or donkeys drawing carts! Nor are we living in England, where women rate-payers have not only enjoyed school suffrage for years, but where they exercise municipal suffrage also, although we are still seeking to obtain the latter right in Massachusetts. It is true that a prominent statesman of England is sometimes quoted as saying, "All the best women seem to be against suffrage"-but public sentiment in England, both among the best men and best women, is manifestly the other way because, after twelve years experience of the workings of municipal suffrage in England, Parliament has extended the same right to the women of Scotland, which they most certainly would not do if all the best women opposed it. Even Parliamentary suffrage for women is beginning to be favored. In 1879 the House of Commons defeated it by a majority of 114, but in 1883 the majority against it was only 16. In the recent great convention at Leeds, composed of representatives from over 500 liberal associations, and where 1,600 delegates took part, on the motion of the daughter of John Bright the convention voted in favor of Parliamentary suffrage, by an overwhelming majority, only about 30 voting against it. Nevertheless, with so many things to praise and admire about England, and with so much to hope in our behalf from her action on this special subject, we cannot possibly forget that the supreme outrage on women, the State regulation of vice, has apparently still a legal existence there, although the House of Commons has condemned the compulsory medical examination of women, and the government has suspended the operation of the act as applied to them. Nor can we forget that England has never yet learned the principle that the Government of Ireland to be just must of necessity rest on the consent of Irishmen, and not merely on that of Englishmen and Scotchmen. We are not, therefore, to define the natural rights of women as if we believed in the government of an autocrat, whether Mussulman or Greek Christian, nor as if we supported a military government, nor as if we believed in a constitutional monarchy, even though it be the best of its kind on earth, for we believe that our rulers should be chosen by the people governed, and not be born to office. In other words, we are to settle this question as Massachusetts men, as believers in a republican form of government, and as such, not only bound but also ready and willing to defend and to protect at all hazards, and with our last dollar, the natural rights of all citizens of the Commonwealth, whether male or female. We are professed believers in the doctrines of our bill of rights, that all men and women are born free and equal, and that alike they have the natural rights- (1) Of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. (2) Of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and (3) Of setting and obtaining their safety and happiness. (Declaration of Rights, Art. 1. Taxation of Women, p. 5,6.) As a chain cannot possibly be stronger than its weakest link, so the power and greatness of any government, our own [in?], is best shown in the protection [af?] by it to the industrious poor. If the poorest and weakest woman in the land is protected in her rights, all are safe, rich as well as poor, and men as well as women. Women of wealth can protect themselves in a thousand ways from the ills of life, but the woman who works every day for her [?ead] needs operation of just [?ore] she can be sure of any real [?] in life. [?] the laws of Massachusetts [pr?][?rest] and weakest woman in [he?] enjoy and protect her life [a?]. What do they do to secure [h?] happiness? [?] 60,000 of our women are [em?] various occupations. ( Census [?] p. 458.) Of these, more than [?d] fifteen and upwards, follow [?] and mechanical pursuits for a [?]., p. 597.) The very highest authority assures me that in round numbers there are 20,000 of the latter class in [b?], and that their average weekly wage will range from $4 to $5. (Carroll [?] right's letter.)* [?] it is unlawful to work women more than ten hours a day, or sixty hours a week (Pub. Stat., Chap. 74 , 4) these 20,- [?]0 women, more or less, by working ten hours are able to earn from 67 to 84 cents a day, or from $208 to $260 per annum. Out of these sums, their subsistence, clothing, rent and fuel (their bodily necessities) must be paid for first. If any money is left, it may be saved for use in times of sickness, or when work is slack, or wholly cut off; and from this possible surplus alone, can these women procure any of the numberless little things needed for the comfort and cheerfulness of their surroundings. Our Bureau of Statistics of Labor presents a table showing incomes varying from $300 to $1,200 and upwards, and giving the per cent. of such incomes expended for the bodily necessities of the laborer and his family (6th Annual Report, 1875, p. 441). We find from this table that out of incomes varying from $300 to $450 (either of which sums is more than one of these women can earn), ninety-seven per cent. of the amount earned is expended for the necessities of life, and only three per cent. will be left for "sundry expenses." It would seem, therefore, to be clear that these women will expend ninety-seven per cent. of their earnings, be they more or less, for their subsistence, clothing, rent and fuel, and will have as surplus the average sum of $7 02 a year. Some of these women undoubtedly live at home with their parents, and this conclusion would not be applicable to them. How many such there are I cannot say, but there can be no doubt of the fact that * COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Bureau of Statistics, Boston, Nov. 22, 1883. MY DEAR SIR,-. . . The number of working women employed in mercantile and mechanical pursuits in the city of Boston is 20,000 in round numbers. Their average weekly wages will range between $4 00 and $5 00. An investigation now going on will enable me in a few weeks to give the average weekly wages of working women in the various trades with exactness. What I say now is the result of the best calculations I am able to make. There is no document now which will give you the desired information ; our next report will supply the want. . . . Very truly yours, CARROLL D. WRIGHT. Wm. I. Bowditch, Esq. Edward Atkinson told me that in the early part of 1883 women (taking the State through) earned from $5 01 to $5 50 a week, but that a reduction in wages has since taken place, and the same is even now (1884) going on. Whatever any one may think about the present condition of working women, their chances for physical comfort are greater than they were. In 1828, by working thirteen hours they earned on an average $2 62; in 1829, $2 61; and in 1837, $3 20 a week ; now they work only ten hours, and earn from $4 00 to $5 00. Mr. Atkinson also refers to "one great factory." where in 1860 a woman by working eleven hours a day earned $3 26 a week, and in the same factory in 1878, with only ten hours work, she earned $4 34 a week. (Labor and Capital Allies, not Enemies, p. 36-7). (See also Land and its Rent, by Francis A. Walker, p. 168.) all the rest of these 20,000 women, after paying for the barest necessities of living, will have left less than $10 a year! This sum, less than $10, represents all that one of these working women can lay by for a rainy day when work is slack or wholly cut off. This is all that she can save to supply her wants when sick. This is all that she can have to expend for those numerous little articles needed by every human being to make life really worth living. Do you say that it is incredible that there are thousands of women working for their living in Boston under such pitiful circumstances? But the truth of the picture seems to be beyond dispute. These women earn an average of $234 a year. Now our Bureau of Statistics prove that in 1881 the average price of board for a woman was $156 a year (13 Ann. Rep. p. 429). A single room cost then apparently $24 a year (ib.), and estimating the yearly expense for clothing, including shoes, etc., at $40, and fuel at $10, which seem low, each of these women would have left on an average a surplus of only $4! Do you say that in the majority of cases the working men in this Commonwealth do not support their families by their individual earnings, but are forced to depend upon their children for from one-quarter to one-third of the entire family earnings (6th Rep. 1875, p. 442), and that the condition of these women, deplorable though it be, is therefore no worse than that of the men? That the condition of the working people of both sexes is merely the result of the laws of trade, of the fierce and merciless competition which exists everywhere and in all kinds of business, by force of which mercantile integrity is undermined and the laborer, whether man or woman, old or young, is compelled to work for as nearly the bare cost of subsistence as he or she can be forced to submit to; and that if women seem to be in any degree worse off than men, it is owing to the fact that there are 66,000 surplus women in the State, and that really the labor market for women's work is glutted. Women are, however, far worse off than men in many ways in this fearful struggle for existence. We have as yet no tables showing the comparative wages now paid in Boston to men and women. Judging, however, from the tables for 1881, when wages, taking the State through, were higher than they now are in Boston, several classes of girls received less than women now do in Boston. Thus, in cotton goods, girl frame-spinners averaged $2.95 a week, and in woollen goods girl spoolers averaged $3.09 a week (13 Rep. 1882, pp. 422, 425). The same tables also prove that the general condition of the women in 1881 was worse than that of the men. In the manufacture of boots and shoes the poorest- paid man earned $1.15 a week more than the best-paid woman. In cabinet-making, embracing upholstery, the poorest-paid man got $4.19 a week more than the best. paid woman. In the clothing business the highest wages paid to a woman was $4.22 a week less than the lowest sum paid to a man ; and so in the manufacture of metals and metallic goods (fine work), the highest-paid woman received $4.37 a week less than the lowest-paid man (pp. 420, 421, 424). Even when doing the same kind of work, and work which a woman plainly can do as well as a man, the woman invariably received less wages than the man. In the manufacture of cotton goods the men mule-spinners received $1.57 a week. men frame-spinners received $1 a week, and men ring-spinners (the third hands) received $3.66 a week more than women received who did precisely the same kind of work. Girls, as spare hands in reeling and warping, earned $5.11 a week less than men, though reckoned as second hands at the same work. In the cloth-room women were paid $2.49 a week less than the men. In the manufacture of musical instruments women action-makers earned $6.50 less per week than the men. In the manufacture of paper, girl finishers earned $4.73 less than the men, and less even than the boys engaged. Men proof-readers received $12.48 a week more than women proofreaders. Women press-feeders were paid $2.79 a week less than the men, and women book-compositors received $4 a week less than men. In the manufacture of 2 THE FORGOTTEN WOMAN IN MASSACHUSETTS. rubber goods, women rubber-workers received $3.45 and women spoolers received $2.58 a week less than the men doing the same kind of work. In the manufacture of woollen goods, women carders earned $2.73, and women spinners earned $2.87, and women weavers earned $1.08 less than the men doing the same kind of work (13th Ann. Rep., pp.422, 426); and so the story runs all through. It is impossible to believe that this uniform difference in wages paid to men and women can be owing to any similar uniform difference in the ability of the operative to do the work. Because many of these occupations are ones in which a woman would certainly do as good work, and might very naturally be expected to, and no doubt does, excel as a worker, and yet they always receive less than men. Here then in Boston, the capital city of the Commonwealth, abounding in wealth and charities of all sorts and kinds; dotted all over with churches of every shade of belief, in all of which we are taught that it is our duty to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; where we have public libraries, in which all may freely read and from which all may freely take out books; art museums, open at fit and convenient times to the public, gratuitously; public lectures going on about all the time on interesting topics, where the tickets of admission are either given away to all who ask, or to which admission is free; open-air concerts in summer, so that all can enjoy good music who have ears to hear; and yet in this favored city we have thousands of women to whom mere living is a constant struggle, and to whom all these sources of a higher and nobler life, spread out before others so bountifully, is a closed book. What, now, does the State do by its laws to help these women in their struggle? In what way does the law protect them in the enjoyment of their lives, or secure their natural rights to safety and happiness? It is painfully evident that the best and most careful of these women cannot help falling into distress at some time or other, and that the great majority of them must suffer frequently; for work cannot always be found, even by the best workman,-man or woman; but nevertheless the body has got to be fed and clothed and housed, work or no work. Sickness cannot always be avoided, but the expenses of care and medicine have got to be incurred, wages or no wages. There are various articles exempted by law from attachment or sale on execution for debt, but it is difficult to see how the large majority of these women can ever own anything more than their clothing which is thus exempt (Pub. Stat., Chap. 171, Sec. 34). Their "necessary wearing apparel" cannot be taken for debt, but their wages can be, and are constantly taken from them by what is called the trustee process. Suppose one of these women has been out of work for two or three months, and without any fault on her part, either because work has been shut down, or from sickness, or other good cause. During these two or three months her expenses for living have got to go on just the same as ever. When she again begins to receive wages, and as fast as she earns them, these wages may be attached in the hands of her employer by her creditor until these debts are paid in full. If she has been a self-respecting woman, and has not expended a single cent except for the actual necessities of life, the law nevertheless exempts from attachment only ten dollars of her wages ; so that if her creditor is as heartless as the law, and the lawyer as sharp as the law permits, from the day that she resumes work she can never receive at any one time more than ten dollars, no matter how much is due her, until the debts incurred for her two or three months' support have been paid in full! (Pub. Stat. Chap. 183, Sec. 30.) This does not show the whole extent of her suffering. The wages may be trusteed by each creditor, and every time they become payable, and every time that her wages are trusteed, she has got to pay the lawyer three dollars for drawing the writ against herself, and one dollar and sixteen cents for the officer's fees. Every time that a trustee writ is taken out, even if no proceedings are had in court, and the thing is settled by her in the cheapest possible way, she has got to pay four dollars and sixteen cents in addition to what she pays to reduce her debt! Such is the protection afforded by our laws to working women struggling for existence! The trustee process, as it may be legally applied to these poor women, is as great an outrage and as cruel a wrong as imprisonment for debt used to be in former days. At some future day, when women vote, this great wrong will be righted, and it will not be left by the law in the power of any creditor however hard, or in the power of any lawyer however sharp, to grind the faces of the poor by the trustee process applied to their wages. Suppose the employer of one of these women fails in business (as far the larger part of them do at least once in their lives), and throws her out of employment, it may be for months. During this time she may be unable to earn anything whatever, and must starve unless she can get credit. The employer is not seriously disturbed in mind. He goes into insolvency, gets a discharge from his debts and begins life over again, free and clear of all claims. During the proceedings, he is allowed by law, out of the estate, for the necessary support of himself and each member of his family, such sum not exceeding three dollars a week for each one, and for such time, not exceeding two months, as the judge may order; and if he is requested to attend on the judge, or the assignee, he receives one dollar a day in addition (Pub. Stat. Chap. 157, Sec. 99). That is to say, the law provides some adequate means of support for the debtor and his family for two months after his failure; but for the woman operative it makes no provision whatever; she may starve for all the law cares, unless she can obtain credit! It is true that she will ultimately get the wages due to her at the time of the failure (but not over $100) if the assets prove to be sufficient, and not otherwise; but she will be unable to realize a single cent until an assignee has been appointed,-and he cannot be appointed in less than ten days ; and even sixty days may elapse before one is qualified to act (ib. See. 17). So that during these ten or sixty days as the case may be, she is obliged to lay out of her money, and nothing is allowed her for her support in this interval. She cannot possibly avoid going into debt for the actual necessities of life. Why should not our laws say to the insolvent employer, "You shall not get a discharge from your debts unless you have assets sufficient not only to pay in full all the wages due to your operatives at the time of failure, with interest to the time of payment, but also enough to pay extra wages for not over two months, or until your operatives can have an opportunity again to get work"? Surely the law ought to provide as carefully for the good of the operatives as for the good of the employer and his family, during the time when neither is earning anything. Perhaps some one will ask why does not the woman follow the example of her employer, go into insolvency and get a discharge from the debts, and begin life over again? The law does not forbid her doing this. It only requires every petitioner in insolvency to do what it is impossible for one of these women to do: A petitioner has got to owe at least $200,-debts,-and before any action can be taken on his petition, a deposit of $40 in cash has got to be made to cover probable expenses (ib. Sec. 17 and 137). How many of these poor women could get trusted for $200? How many of them could pay out $40 in cash in one sum, even in best times? Though $40 seems a small sum, it really represents about all that a careful woman can save from her wages in four years! How many men are there who would be able to go into insolvency and get a discharge from their debts if, before doing anything, they had to deposit in cash the possible savings of four careful years? A corporation which is judiciously managed constantly aims not to pay out in dividends its whole net earnings, but tries to reserve something from which dividends may be paid in dull times, when nothing can be earned. Banks constantly do this, railroads do it, factories do it also; only in the case of railroads and factories the savings are frequently afterwards diverted into new cars or machinery, or increase in some way of the working capital. But for a corporation to be considered as successful, dividends must be regularly paid. Are, however, dividends regularly paid to stockholders more important to the welfare of the community than wages regularly paid to its operatives? If it be considered as a proof of good management that a portion of the yearly earnings of a corporation should be laid aside, if possible, in order to secure payment of dividends, why should not the law say to all corporations (corporations being mere creatures of the law), and in the interest of their good management as well as the good of the State, "You must lay by every year a certain portion of your earnings to prevent, if possible, the cutting down or cutting off of wages. It is as much your duty to do all in your power to secure wages to your operatives, as it is to try and secure dividends to your stockholders." I am not aware of any corporation that now does this. I have no doubt, however, that many corporations and private establishments are frequently run at a loss in order to save the operatives; but I do not know of a single instance where a corporation every year endeavors to lay by a portion of its earnings as a fund to secure wages, as it tries to lay by something to secure dividends. Why should not this be done? I recently read in a newspaper about some cotton mills in Rouen, France, where, in addition to the regular wages, there is annually set apart a proportion of the profits of the concern, which is divided among all employees who have completed a period of five years' service. The profits are said to range from twelve to seventeen per cent. of the amount of regular wages, half of which is paid in cash and half applied to a fund for the relief of deserving poor among the operatives and their families. When women can vote, something of this kind will be done here; and this increase of wages as a reward for and incitement to thrift and carefulness will be a great boon to our working women. It is plain, however, that so far as the enjoyment and defence of their lives depends on money, so far as the chance for securing their safety and happiness depends upon the regular receipt of wages, the State does nothing by its laws to help these thousands of struggling women. It allows their creditors to treat them mercilessly, though their distress may be caused by sickness, or without any fault on their part, and when they are thrown out of employment by the failure of their employer, though the law secures to him and his family adequate means for temporary support, it does nothing of the kind for the women operatives. For them there is no legal way of escape from their debts except payment in full, principal and interest and costs, or death ! As if this cruel want of protection afforded by the laws was not enough to deprive the majority of these women of all reasonable hope of enjoyment or happiness in life, the State actually tempts them to their destruction ! There are more than 2,700 licensed liquor saloons in Boston, and about 1,300 unlicensed places where liquor may be procured. That is, more than 4,000 places, scattered over the city, inviting these unfortunate women, in want, it may be, of food itself, to come in and drink forgetfulness of their cares, at least for a season ! Ought we to wonder that during the year ending Sept. 30, 1882, 2,066 women were committed to the Boston House of Industry for drunkenness (Pub. Doc. 13, 1883; Rep. Coms. Prisons, p. 45). The police cannot, of course, interfere with licensed places, so long as the terms of the license are complied with, but they can legally break up at any moment the unlicensed places; nevertheless, they do nothing. Do you say that the State ought not to be blamed for the inefficiency of the Boston police? But the State cannot avoid blame, for the Boston police can be reached by State law, if inefficient or corrupt, and the force wholly reorganized on a different basis, and under boards of commissioners appointed by State authority. Where, however, is the District Police appointed by the governor and paid directly by the State, with head-quarters in Boston? Each one of the State policemen receives a salary of $1,200,-and travelling expenses when on duty,-and the Chief may receive as high as $1,700 a year salary. These,-the State Police,-like the Boston force, have, however, done nothing to suppress such unlicensed places of temptation ! Do you say that whether licenses shall be granted or not, depends on the vote of the respective cities and towns, and that the existence of 2,700 licensed liquor-shops in Boston is owing to the fact that Boston has voted in favor of license, and that the State ought not to be held responsible? But the State is and ought to be held responsible ! It has not merely passed the law under which Boston has voted in favor of license, but one-fourth part of the amounts derived from licenses granted THE FORGOTTEN WOMAN IN MASSACHUSETS. 3 through the State for the sale of liquor is paid into the State Treasury, Hundreds of thousands of dollars, I am told by a late clerk in the State Treasury, have been paid into the State Treasury drawn entirely from this source! Think of the disgrace and humiliation of this thing! Here is an educated and wealthy commonwealth raking into its coffers hundreds of thousands of dollars, each and every dollar of which is blasted with the groans and tears of women, the enjoyment and happiness of whose lives have been destroyed by drink, sold to them with the consent of the Commonwealth ! But this is not the worst temptation put by our laws in the paths of these poor women! Here are thousands of women aged fifteen and upwards, living toilsome lives, always in near view of suffering and frequently actually in want of wholesome and sufficient food. Now the statistics in relation to the social evil prove that a great proportion of its victims have been driven to it by extreme distress, frequently starvation. (2 Lecky's History of Morals, p. 303.) Parent Duchatelet tells us that out of 3,000 of these poor creatures in Paris, only 35 had enough to live upon, whilst 1,400 had been driven to it by want and misery, one of them having actually gone without food for three days before surrender! In treating of this most repulsive subject, men almost universally declare the evil to be remediless, and talk about the "necessity of the vice." Some of them even go so far in despair of change for the better as to assert that it is a useful vice -that this unfortunate class "is ultimately the most efficient guardian of virtue. But for her, they say, the unchallenged purity of countless happy homes would be polluted, and not a few who . . . . think of her with an indignant shudder would have known the agony of remorse and despair. On that one degraded and ignoble form are concentrated the passions that might have filled the world with shame. She remains while creeds and civilizations rise and fall, the eternal priestess of humanity blasted for the sins of the people!" (2 Lecky 299, 300.) Can anything more truly horrible be written? Is it not the very essence of despair? At the International Congress held at the Hague in September last, it appeared that a regular established business had been discovered in Brussels, and elsewhere, for furnishing young girls for this market, luring them from their homes by promises of good wages, and then entrapping them. (The American Bureau No. 5. Dec., 1883.) But although most men seem to consider the evil to be a necessary one, and some even consider it to be an useful one, women suffragists will by-and-by teach the community a doctrine of purification, based not on any such supposed necessity or usefulness of vice, but on the real possibilities of virtue. How does the State guard the honor of these thousands of women? How does it try to save them from falling into this lower depth of misery? There are 119 bad houses in Boston, all well known to the police, yet in the year ending Sept. 30, 1882, only eighteen persons were committed to all the prisons in the State for keeping such places (12th Rep. Com. Prisons, p. 48), and only eleven of these were in Boston (ib., pp. 38-45). It was no easy matter to obtain the number of these places. It is impossible for me to give any reliable estimate either as to the number of occupants, though no doubt there are hundreds, or of visitors to these places, though no doubt they may be reckoned by thousands. An officer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice has, however, written me (Oct. 29, 1883) that it is perfectly safe to say that the number of these objectionable places "has not so much increased of late years as another less conspicuous evil is replacing it. I refer (he says) to the custom of shop-girls, sewing-women, etc., taking a room, and while they retain their usual calling, receiving at this room some one man whose mistress they become. I am told (he says) that there are localities largely occupied by such apparently respectable lodgers." It is evident, therefore, that this evil is tolerated in Boston. The police may remain passive under positive orders from their superiors not to interfere unless the house is kept with great disorder, on the assumed ground that the evil must exist somewhere; or it may be that the houses of those who pay liberal hush-money are not disturbed. Whatever may be the reason, it is evident, however, that something over one hundred of these houses are allowed to go on day after day taking in and destroying their victims, without the slightest interference on the part of the police. One of our prison commissioners told me a short time since that a young woman discharged from Sherborn Prison [where she had been confined for some petty offence, larceny, I think. ] was almost immediately enticed into one of these houses, and when he sought to rescue her-found it to be impossible to induce the police to take any steps to break up the house. Nor has the State police done anything to abate any of these 100 semi-officially tolerated dens of infamy. The State does not, therefore, really seem to care to suppress them! This may very well be the truth, for it is no offence under our laws for any "employer, superintendent, overseer, contractor or hirer" of any one of these women, to make insulting proposals to her whereby her food and clothing, or her lodging may be improved. A law on this subject was thought to be needed, and accordingly one was reported to our last Legislature from the Judiciary Committee, (Senate Doc. No. 21,) but it was defeated in the House, and it is not as yet unlawful for the employer of a woman to attempt to corrupt her.* It is no offence under our laws for an employer of one of these women to seduce her, because our Supreme Court in construing the law against abduction embodied in Pub. Stat. C. 207, Sec. 2, decides in 12 Metcalf Reports, p. 93, that the law was not intended to punish "cases of mere seduction or illicit intercourse with the individual enticing." Even if an employer of an unmarried woman of chaste life and conversation shall fraudulently and deceitfully entice and take her away for the purpose of prostitution to one of these 100 houses, or elsewhere, our laws consider his act a far less offence than if he had stolen a cow worth any trifle over $100! To steal a cow of that value subjects a man to imprisonment in the State Prison for five years, whereas a man who merely ruins the life of a pure woman by fraud and deceit for the gratification of his beastly appetite, cannot be punished by more than three years in the State Prison. Or to steal a cow of that value, a man may be sent to the common jail for two years and be fined not over $600, but if he steal the good name of a woman, he cannot be put in jail more than one year though he may be fined $1,000 instead of $600. (Pub. Stat. ch. 207, Sec. 2; ch. 203, Sec. 20.) In other words, Massachusetts declares by her laws that it is of less consequence to the welfare of the community to protect the honor of a pure woman from ruin by fraud and deceit, than it is to protect property in a horse, a cow or a dog, worth any trifle over $100. Even this statement does not show the full extent of the degradation of woman effected by this law against abduction. To * Women suffragists are continually pointing out the impossibility of men acting alone, even though having a real desire to act fairly, to legislate justly in regard to matters which vitally affect the welfare of both sexes. I will illustrate our idea by considering the different punishment prescribed by men for fornication and adultery. A woman who commits either offence, as a general thing, is practically and socially ruined for life. But the former offence, though its commission may thus ruin a woman's life, has no such effect on the standing of a man. Thousands of men commit the offence every year, but only a few of them are ever punished, and fewer still consider the evil effect on themselves. In point of fact, only forty-three men were committed to all the penal institutions in the State for this offence during the year ending Sept. 30, 1882 (12 Rep. Com of Prisons, p. 46, 1883.) The law considers the offence as almost trivial. For committing it a man may be fined not over $30, or imprisoned in jail not over three months (Pub. Stat. c. 207, sec. 8), whilst merely for over-working a horse a man may be sent to jail for not over one year, or be fined not over $250, or be punished by both fine and imprisonment. In the one case the crime is against a woman, and mainly affects her life and happiness, whereas in the other case it is against property, and will, no doubt, affect man as the owner of property. So in the case of adultery, as the rights of the husband are invaded, or the descent of his property may be called in question by the commission of this crime, the law affixes a higher punishment, and a man who commits this offence may be sent to State Prison for not over three years, or to jail not over two years, or be fined not over $500 (Pub. Stat. c. 207, sec. 31). But this increase of punishment is caused principally by this invasion of the husband's rights of person and property, and not because of any increased evil effect of the commission of this crime on woman-beyond what the commission of the lesser offence will cause to her. bring a man within its operation, the woman ruined must be unmarried and of chaste life and conversation. Now if a man is indicted under this law, and the abduction with fraud and deceit is fully proved, and there is no evidence whatever introduced to prove bad character on the part of the woman, the law nevertheless makes no presumption in favor of her being chaste, but allows the man to escape punishment unless direct evidence is furnished of her being chaste. (131 Mass. Rep. 224, 1881.) Yet the law presumes every man to conduct his business honorably until the contrary is proved, and constantly requires more evidence to prove fraud against a man than it does to prove a debt against him (12 Cushing 31). If a woman is on trial for an offence involving a breach of chastity on her part, she is presumed by law to be chaste until the contrary is proved; but if she is only the victim of some scoundrel, and he is on trial, no unmarried woman can be found in the State who will be presumed by law to be chaste enough to permit his conviction under this law. She must be proved to be chaste in every instance! Such are the laws by which Massachusetts protects the honor of her poor women! Not one of these disgraceful laws would be in existence to-day if women had been able to vote. It seems almost absurd to ask how our laws protect women in the natural right "of acquiring, possessing and protecting property." Will a State that allows the lives of women to be crushed so easily trouble itself much to protect their property? I might recall again to your attention the two rules of law (1.) that husbands and wives cannot contract with each other and (II.) that they cannot testify as to private conversations with each other,-under one or both of which rules it is perfectly easy for a husband to swindle his wife out of her property, and I might again cite you instances from our Supreme Court Reports where this fraud has been legally successful. We have tried every year for many years to get the first of these rules changed, but without success. These rules, however, affect married women exclusively.* I will therefore confine myself to considering the robbery of women, whether married or single, under the forms of law, by taxation. Our Declaration of Rights reads well enough. (Art. 23.) It says "no subsidy, charge, tax, impost or duties ought to be established, fixed, laid or levied under any pretext whatsoever without the consent of the People or their representatives in the Legislature." Our women have never consented to be taxed. They have never had representatives chosen by themselves who can consent for them, and yet we tax them every year just as if they were legal voters and represented. Pitt and Burke declared that our fathers would be slaves if they did not resist taxation without representation. Camden said that all such taxation was mere robbery. Our fathers declared, that the Stamp Act even though passed to raise money for the protection of the Colonies if unresisted "would establish the melancholy truth that the inhabitants of the * As examples of the effect of the first of these rules, I would say that Mrs. Ward Jackson lost $900 which she had lent her husband (10 Cush. 550, 1852). The indorsee of a wife lost the amount of two notes ($1,198 76) given to the wife by her husband (4 Allen, 412, 1862). Mrs. Daniel P. Nye lost $5.285, which she had loaned to her husband, and for which he had given her notes, and on which he had paid her interest during his life (7 Allen, 176, 1863). Mr. James Gay indorsed over to his wife Kingsley's note for $889 as a present, and afterwards went into insolvency, and the assignee was decided to be owner of the note (11 Allen 345, 1865). Mrs. Wm. Frye was cheated out of $3,000, which at her husband's request she had applied to the payment of his debts, and for which in order to secure her he had executed a mortgage to a trustee for her benefit (14 Allen, 36, 1867). Under the second of these rules, I refer to only one case : Emily Jacobs placed in her husband's hands $918 11, the same being her sole and separate property, to be invested in U. S. bonds, and he promised so to do; but nevertheless used the money in his business, and died insolvent, though leaving several thousand dollars. As the deposit of the money with the husband, and his agreement to invest, could only be proved by testifying as to a private conversation between husband and wife, the Supreme Court rejected the testimony, and refused to interfere in her behalf. Finally, however, the administrator of her husband's estate was authorized by the Probate Court to compromise her claim, by paying to her of $225, and to the attorneys $200! That is, these rules of law devised by men alone, and to which no woman ever consented. cheated these women out of their property ; and these laws may be used to effect the same result to-day. 4 THE FORGOTTEN WOMAN IN MASSACHUSETTS. Colonies were the slaves of the Britons from whom they are descended." (See 3 Lecky's History of England 321-337, Burke's Speech on American Taxation.) Our fathers could not be induced to pay even a petty tax of 3d. a pound on tea, although they knew that by so doing they could get tea a shilling a pound cheaper. It no doubt seems to many of their degenerate descendants to have been a very small matter to quarrel about, but to our fathers there was a principle involved, and the recognition of this principle was considered by them to be vital for the preservation of their liberties. Now this principle is the very one which is embodied in this clause of our Declaration of Rights, not, be it remembered, a declaration of the rights of men or male voters, but a declaration of the rights of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth, i.e.: the rights of men and women. The Judges of our Supreme Court have given an opinion to the effect that by reason of this clause no power legally exists to tax a male voter a single $1 unless he can cast a ballot either for Representative or Senator (3 Mass. Rep. 569, 570. Taxation of Women, p. 38, 39). So far, therefore, as men are concerned we still hold to the principle of our fathers, and declare that taxation without representation is tyranny,--that taxation without representation is mere robbery, and that to be able to tax a male voter, and at the same time to deprive him of the right to vote, is virtually to make him a slave. Where then do we find the right to tax women, and at the same time deny to them representation? So long as we continue to deprive them of suffrage, we should at least have the grace to relieve them from taxation. If taxation without representation be robbery, according to the reasoning of Lord Camden, it cannot be denied that we rob our women of about two million dollars every year of our lives. (Taxation of Women.) The Stamp Act which made our fathers feel like slaves was calculated to produce £100,000, and we plunder our women every year about four times that amount. Less than £300 was collected from our unrepresented fathers out of the tax on tea in one year, and our fathers fought to the death to resist even this, and every year of our lives we collect from our unrepresented women more than 1,300 times as much. If Pitt and Burke were right in saying that taxation without representation virtually made our fathers slaves, and if our fathers were right in saying the same thing, how can we avoid the conclusion that when we extract about two millions a year from our women, we do it solely because we feel ourselves to be virtually their masters, and able therefore to act just as other masters do. Whatever they may please to call themselves, and however distasteful the expression may be, the property-holding women of Massachusetts are virtually the slaves of the legal voters. This is not the worst. The laws of the United States join hands with the State in helping to strip of their property even these poor working-women. Prof. Sumner says (page 145), "I have before me a newspaper which contains five letters from corset-stitchers who complain that they cannot earn more than seventy-five cents a day with a machine, and that they have to provide the thread. The tax on the grade of thread used by them is prohibitory as to all importation, and it is the corset- stitchers who have to pay day by day out of their time and labor the total enhancement of price due to the tax. Women who earn their own living probably earn on an average seventy-five cents per day of ten hours; twenty-four minutes work ought to buy a spool of thread at the retail price, if the American workwoman were allowed to exchange her labor for thread on the best terms that the art and commerce of to-day would allow; but after she has done twenty-four minutes work for the thread, she is forced by the laws of her country to go back and work sixteen minutes longer to pay the tax." These sixteen minutes a day make eight days' work a year! So that each of these poor corset-stitchers is compelled by a law to which she never consented, to give eight days' work solely to support a thread- mill! I am thankful that I own no stock in any such mill, otherwise I should dream of those poor women and of their forced contribution of six dollars a year to help make up my dividends. There are, therefore, beyond all question tens of thousands of forgotten women in Massachusetts--tens of thousands of women whose natural rights are every day either trampled under foot or left wholly unprotected by the laws--and it is safe to say that not one single one of these laws to which we have referred would be in existence to-day if women had had the ballot. About forty years ago an eloquent Doctor of Divinity thanked God in his prayer that he lived in a country where all men and women could worship God freely according to the dictates of their own consciences. A friend who heard him, Mrs. Eliza L. Follen, waited for him in the porch of the church and when he appeared, said to him, "Doctor, how could you make such a prayer when you knew there were millions of slaves in this country?" The doctor replied, "My dear madam, believe me, I entirely forgot them!" Less than one-quarter of the People of the State have just chosen a Governor. In his Inaugural Address he says, "It is always wise and salutary to devise legislation of such a character as will reach the humblest and the poorest citizen, who has no voice but his own to present his needs --no power in combination with others to emphasize his opinions." Does he, however, suggest any legislation whatever in behalf of those poor and humble citizens--women--who have neither voice nor vote to use in their behalf? Does he suggest any law for securing their wages from the operation of the trustee- process? Does he suggest any law for securing to women-operatives similar means of support for two months after the failure of their employer that the employer himself possesses for every member of his family? Does he suggest the passage of a law to prevent employers from attempting to corrupt the women they employ? Does he propose the passage of a law to punish seduction? Does he point out the gross inadequacy of the punishment for the abduction of a pure woman accompanied by fraud and deceit when compared with the laws punishing larceny? Has he a word to say in condemnation of the monstrous rule of law that when an abductor is on trial and the abduction with fraud and deceit has been fully proved, no unmarried woman in the Commonwealth, not even the daughter of a governor, can be presumed by law to be chaste enough to secure his conviction, and the man must escape all punishment, unless positive evidence of her good character is produced? No! He has not a word to say about any of these wicked and unjust laws. He has a deal to say about the finances of the Commonwealth and taxation, but makes no objection to the continued taxation of women, and has nothing to say about our most gigantic theft from them of about $2,000,000 a year. He assures us, however, that "in Massachusetts the laws are intended to be equal and just to all, irrespective of social condition, and whenever wrong comes under legal authority upon any class of the people, amendment and relief should speedily follow." He does not, of course, really believe that the laws we have been considering were intended to be equal and just irrespective of social conditions. How happens it then that he makes no reference to them, and proposes no amendment and suggests no mode of relief? How does this happen unless it be the fact that his Excellency has overlooked the pitiable condition of these tens of thousands of working-women, and that to him they are the forgotten women of the Commonwealth? Can an intelligent woman be found in the Commonwealth who does not sympathize with these working-women and who is not ready to do all in her power to help them? I will not believe that one such can be found. What, however, can women now do to help? The only mode in which they can do anything at present is to speak or write about the condition of these women, and endeavor in various indirect ways to create such a public sentiment among the men as shall induce men to correct these evils. This is all that even intelligent women can now do. They cannot do anything directly to amend or alter these cruel and degrading laws. But the laws as they now stand represent the best work on this subject that men legislating by themselves alone have been able to accomplish. Even the wicked law against abduction has been revised twice since 1845, when it was first enacted, first in 1860 and again in 1882, and no improvement was thought of by men either time. If this be so, what hope is there that men alone will or can ever legislate properly on this subject of the very greatest interest and importance to the welfare of both sexes? There is far more reason to fear that men acting alone will try to pass some law for the regulation of the vice they so generally consider to be necessary or even useful, than that they will do anything to really remove the evil. Even the cool and dispassionate writer whom I have quoted is in favor of regulation. Why then should any intelligent woman hesitate to ask for the right to emphasize her voice in behalf of virtue by her vote against laws sustaining vice? Having tried indirect means alone for so many centuries without success how happens it that even a single woman can be found willing to ask that she may be denied the power to use the only method hitherto untried and the only one which promises relief? viz.: the ballot? Why should any woman remonstrate against the extension of suffrage? Even a law granting full suffrage will not impose any duties on women which they will be obliged to perform unless they please so to do. Women have school-suffrage now --do many women, therefore, feel it a duty to vote on that subject? No! Only a mere handful feel it to be a duty to vote and act accordingly. Probably not one of the remonstrants against suffrage ever voted for School Committee. They do not feel it to be a duty to go through the ordeal of being taxed and registered, etc., and therefore do nothing about the matter. And they will do just the same, i.e., nothing, if municipal or even complete suffrage is granted to women. No law which men can frame will compel the women of Massachusetts to vote if they don't wish to, or to do anything which they consider to be unwomanly. The best women in England and Scotland vote in municipal and school matters. The best women in Wyoming vote on all matters. The best women in Washington Territory will do the same. Some of the best women in Massachusetts vote in School Suffrage and some of the least intelligent refuse to vote. We ought not to feel surprised at the Governor's forgetfulness, for he is a politician, and women have no votes. But how any educated woman in the Commonwealth, who knows about these laws, and feels in her own heart that her own daughter may be subjected to their operation, can be found willing to place any obstacle in the way of other women's voting to remove these wrongs, passes my comprehension. I believe it will be found that most, perhaps all, of the remonstrants against suffrage know nothing about these laws. I believe most fully that if the women of the Commonwealth really knew the outrages which may be legally perpetrated upon thousands of their sex under laws framed by men alone, not one thousand women could be found in the Commonwealth hard-hearted or selfish enough in their own physical comfort to do anything whatever to prevent the righting of these wrongs both by the voice and votes of women. How can any true-hearted woman have what some women call a "soft" place so long as these laws exist? And these remonstrants should always bear in mind, what we have over and over again proved, that as it is not actual voting alone which protects a man in his rights, but only the ability to vote when he pleases, so in case of women it will be the ability on their part to vote, if they wish, and not actually voting, which will be sufficient for their protection. No matter how complete a suffrage law may be passed, a large body of women will never or very rarely vote, just as a large body of men never or very rarely vote, but in both cases the ability to vote if they wish will serve as a protection. Is it not plain, however, that the only adequate remedy for these legal wrongs on women is to extend suffrage to them? And when men and women shall meet together as legislators, as they most surely will, by-and-by, then will begin a higher and nobler form of civilization than any the world has yet seen. Then as the poet- prophet sings, we shall have "Nobler modes of life With sweeter manners, purer laws." Then men will no longer subject women by law or social custom, but women will help men by law and social custom to lead more truly noble lives. Office "Women's Journal," 5 Park Street, Boston. A weekly paper devoted to the rights and interests of women. Price $2.50 a year. American Woman Suffrage Association. COPY PRESIDENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION (prepared in 1919 by Alice Stone Blackwell) 1870 . . . . . . . . . . .Mrs. Julia Ward Howe 1871 to 1877, inclusive - Rev. James Freeman Clarke, D.D. 1878 to 1890, inclusive - Hon. William I. Bowditch 1891 to 1892, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe 1893 to 1904, inclusive - Mrs. Mary A. Livermore 1905 to 1909, inclusive - Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead 1910 - Miss Alice Stone Blackwell 1911 - Mrs. Mary Schlesinger 1912 - 1919 - Alice Stone Blackwell [*Wm I Bowditch*] Boston, Oct. 9. 1893. Dear Friend:- I am sorry I made such an exhibition of myself yesterday. I intended to point out to you what a truly noble and useful life you had and led, and how very nearly you had succeeded in obtaining your object, and that I valued the over generous message which you sent to me by Alice more than words could tell. And I left without saying a word of my thought! You were the only one who could utter a syllable! I hope you will forgive my want of self control. Truly your friend, Wm I Bowditch Mrs. Lucy Stone. Wm. I Bowditch 1893 (COPY) Pres. Patrick H. Traverse. Vice Pres. George Rosnosky Sec. Patrick J. Shrine. Treas. Dennis F. Reardon. MASS. VOTERS ANTI SUFFRAGE LEAGUE. Campaign Committee. Oscar Lefevre. John. J. Kenney. Cornelius J. Sullivan. Michael A. Spillane. John P. Reardon. John Kilroy. Frank P. Shea. Cornelius J. Bowen. William Scanlon. Thomas J. Masey. Milton Stone. Edward F. Clark. Frank E. Sullivan. Roger F. Scanlon. Edward B. Creed. William Walsh. Timothy J. Coughlin. John L. Gifford. Alexander P. Murphy Dear Sir:- For the purpose of procuring funds to assist us in sending speakers to every city and town in the Commonwealth to advance the Anti-Suffrage Cause, a Grand Picnic and Outing will be held at Caledonian Grove, West Roxbury, Wednesday, August 25th, 1915. The Project has the endorsement of the Massachusetts Liquor League, and a copy of their endorsement signed by Edward H. Pinkham, Secretary, is herewith enclosed. Enclosed also, is ten tickets to the Picnic, which you are asked to purchase. As this is a matter in which we are all vitally interested, it is hoped you will make immediate remittance for the tickets. Make checks payable to D. F. Reardon, Treasurer of Mass. Voters Anti Suffrage League. Thanking you in advance for the anticipated assistance, we remain, Very truly yours, M.V.A.S.L. By D. F. Reardon, Treas. [*Printing of original letter in Antisuffrage & Liquor folder*] [*Mass ? of this material filed under Liquor office*] (COPY) State President, Treasurer. Thomas J. Burke, Springfield. Victor Brusendorff, Boston. General Secretary. Vice Presidents (At Large) Edward H. Pinkham, Boston. William W. Murphy, Lowell. Sergeant at Arms. Edward J. Erwin, Boston. Andrew F. Pendergast, Boston. E. J. Delehanty, Fall River. Guard. E. P. Duffy, New Bedford. John Bulman, Greenfield. James Masterson, Northampton. MASSACHUSETTS LIQUOR LEAGUE. 27 Haymarket Sq., Rooms 41, 42, 43. Tel. 1100 Haymarket. To Whom It May Concern: This note will serve to introduce Representative Dennis F. Reardon of the 19th Suffolk District who has been a good friend of our cause in the legislature with voice and vote. He will personally explain his mission. Anything you can do to make our cause a success will be appreciated by Yours truly, (Signed) Edward H. Pinkham. [*Printing of original in Antisuffrage & Liquor folder*] Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.