NAWSA General Correspondence Richardson, Dorothea 28 Mason Drive New Britain, Conn. February 14, 1950 My dear Miss Blackwell- Your beautiful thoughts at Christmas cheered me as do your timely cards at different seasons through the year. I have read your lovely poems at several Services of Worship before the Unitarian Women's Alliance in Hartford - Just a week ago our regular meeting was devoted to "Unitarian personalities" - the women who have been members of our Faith and contributed so much to our world - Your sainted mother was one whose life was sketched and then I was asked to speak about you, her noble daughter. It gave me great honor so to do. Enclosed you will find a clipping about famous Connecticut women who worked for Suffrage here while you worked in Boston - I know Miss Ludington - she is a staunch worker in the League of Women Voters- and for the United Nations. My son Robert has finished Harvard is working in Architectural field - my daughter Frances is teaching at Runahou School in Honolulu - My oldest son in the Navy Air service - I hope you keep well- and that you have many visitors I am sure - My relatives live in Cambridge & Watertown but when I go to see them they need a visit for they are not well - I think of your so often - Very sincerely yours Dorothea Whitney Richardson Connecticut State Federation American Association of University Women Branches and College Clubs President Mrs. Carlos A. Richardson 28 Mason Drive New Britain Vice-President Mrs. Charles P. Rodenbach 56 Terrace Avenue Naugatuck Secretary-Treasurer Miss Marie E. May 102 Prospect Street New Britain Committee Chairman Education Dr. May Hall James 70 Howe Street New Haven Fellowships Mrs. Chase Going Woodhouse 751 Williams Street New London International Relations Miss Elizabeth G. Kane 202 Woodlawn Terrace Waterbury Publicity Mrs. F. Erwin Tracy Durham Recent Graduate Mrs. Ralph C. Jones 425 Whitney Avenue New Haven Legislative Program Miss Eleanor H. Little Clapboard Hill Road Guilford Thursday Dear Miss Blackwell: The book of plays came sometime ago together with a recent Easter Card. Thank you for both. The plays I hoped our College Club would give, but they had already started on two others. The Dramatic Director of the High School thinks she can use them and they will be very educational for our young people. I think too the League of Women Voters if they get ambitious again might possibly be able to do these. They have never tried anything so well finished as these. Mostly extemperaneous. The article enclosed is a copy of the one Miss Edwina Whitney gave last fall at Connecticut [*see Edwina Whitney folder*] College. She is very glad to have you keep this, as it mentions your mother. We have reprinted most of this in the State Federation Bulletin which comes out in May and a copy of which I shall be glad to send you. I have just turned over to our Republican Selectman a list of 100 women which are suggestions for a Jury list. From a number of other clubs come addtional lists. We have just had jury service for about a year. I have not found many women who are anxious for the job. Last week Tuesday, the Republicans lost the mayoral campaign and a very fine mayor. As I am State Central Committeewoman I felt very badly that we could not keep three cities in Connecticut. However, the support of the CIO and the Communists and Labor's Non-Partisan League were the deciding factors in the victory by the Democratic candidate. It was quite a surprise to many of us. However, everyone expects to do his particular job as usual and try to keep the city finances within the budget. Our factories are of course badly affected by the lowered tariffs and trade treaties which permit the importation of hardware similar, but more cheaply made, to our products. Our textile industries of course have collapsed due to so many factors including the same treaties. Theoretically the ideas are good, but as they work out, they are harmful to our people. You were very kind to remember me. I shall cherish the little book, and let you know when and where we use it. Very sincerely yours Dorothea Richardson PART TWO Editorial-Jacqueline Pages 1 to 20 The Hartford Courant Classified-Theaters [*Jan 22, 1950*] HARTFORD 1, CONN., SUNDAY, JANUARY 22, 1950 Suffrage Party's Death Recalls Militant Era Once Bitter Partisans Find Time Has Tempered Fervor Opposition of Courant, Pioneers Smith Sisters And Assembly Struggles Now Ancient History BY RUTH RAY. Thirty years ago The Courant wasn't very popular with a good many women in Connecticut. The girls wanted the right to vote, and The Courant of that day was against it. The breach has since healed, but in 1916 the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Party raised $10 with which to bury the paper and another $15 to provide a funeral wreath. Things have been pretty quiet with the suffrage group since the Nineteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was ratified in 1920. So quiet that when the National Woman Suffrage Party finally passed out of existence this month, the news commanded almost no attention. Local women who once were fighting bitterly for the right to vote weren't even aware the Suffrage Party was still in existence as late as this year. "Good heavens, has that been going all these years? I thought it died long ago," was a typical comment when disbandment of the group was announced on January 9. The question of woman suffrage has become ancient history, and today it's difficult to piece together a full account of the local battle for women's voting rights. Not only are memories dim and newspaper files crumbling, but girls will be girls, you know, and a majority hate to admit being old enough to remember clearly the events of a generation ago. Many Pioneers Still Living. Still living in Connecticut, however, are several women who admit to having been active in suffrage work. They include Miss Katharine Ludington of Old Lyme, president of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association from 1917 to 1920; Mrs. Thomas N. Hepburn of West Hartford, who preceded Miss Ludington as president of the group; and Mrs. Ruth M. Dadourian of Hartford, executive secretary during its latter years. It is Mrs. Hepburn who recalls the incident of the funeral wreath for The Courant. The women, she says, had considerable difficulty in raising money, for in those days the husbands controlled the purse strings and they weren't eager to give funds for such a "frivolous" cause. One day, though, Mrs. Hepburn asked the women to give money in memory of enemies to the cause. "Of course it was just a gag," she recalls, "but the idea was a big hit." The women started pledging their egg money and household allowances. They gave $25 "to get the Hartford Times off the fence," money in honor of such opponents as the late United States Senator Frank Brandegee, the late Governor Marcus H. Holcomb, and the late Republican leader J. Henry Roraback. The women who gave the $15 for a funeral wreath for The Courant stipulated that the flowers should be purple, green, and white, the official Suffrage Association colors. 1910-20 Active Years. The years between 1910 and 1920 were the most active for the suffragists in Connecticut, although suffrage organizations had existed since the Civil War period and a bill to permit voting for women had been introduced at every General Assembly since 1879. Despite this early work in Connecticut, the state remained one of the hold-outs against women suffrage. It wasn't until September, 1920, a month after the Nineteenth Amendment had been declared ratified that a special session of the General Assembly finally approved women's suffrage. Isabella Beecher Hooker (sister of Harriett Beecher Stowe) was the one who founded the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association shortly after the Civil War. Mrs. Hooker, who worked with such national leaders as Susan B. Anthony, found it hard sledding in Connecticut and reported once that, compared to reception of the movement in New York and other cities, "Connecticut seems as though under a great black cloud." However, she managed to keep the group together until her death, after which the local movement pretty much subsided for a full generation, except for the isolated work of a few individuals. Some of these, such as the Smith sisters of Glastonbury, had started their work even before Mrs. Hooker and continued until their death. Smith Sisters Determined. The five Smith sisters were determined women and refused to pay their property taxes until given the right to vote, on the grounds that to pay would be to submit to "taxation without representation." They carried on a long fight with local tax officials and periodically the sheriff would arrive to take away their cows as payment. The sisters never got very far in their work, though, for well-meaning friends would always come forward when the going got tough and pay the back taxes. Refusal to pay taxes was a seldom- used weapon, even after the suffrage movement was revived in the early 1900s, for comparatively few women of the period owned property. Parades, conferences with legislators, and speeches were the main orders of the day. Among the speechmakers was Miss Katherine Seymour Day of Hartford, granddaughter of Mrs. Hooker, who remembers spending a summer riding horseback from farm to farm in Massachusetts. While the husbands were out in the fields working, Miss Day would ride up to the farm door to explain the cause to the farm women. These women often knew little about suffrage, says Miss Day, for they couldn't get to town unless their husbands took them, and never were taken when a suffrage meeting was being held. Even Suffragettes Disagreed. It's easy in reading the history books today to get the notion that all of a sudden every woman in the country rose up, waving a hatchet, to demand equal rights, but such is not the case. Even those who wanted suffrage disagreed as to how to get it, and at one time Hartford had four different suffragist organizations, all squabbling with each other over methods. The most militant of these was the Connecticut Women's Party, formed in 1917 by women who decided that ladylike tactics should be abandoned. Some members of this group, such as Dr. Emily Pierson of Cromwell, spent considerable time forcing their way into factories and department stores, exhorting the female workers to rise to the cause. Others, including Hartford residents Mrs. M. Toscan Bennett, Miss Catherine M. Flanagan, Mrs. Ruby Koenig and Miss Edna Purtell, made frequent trips to Washington to picket the White House and hold public bonfires of anti- suffragist publications. Arrested on charges of lighting bonfires without permits they served five to 15 days in jail, where they refused to eat. Miss Purtell, who at 18 is believed to have been the youngest woman to go on hunger strike for the cause, remembers the prison where she was housed as "extremely filthy with a good number of rats running around." The hunger strikes were "no joke" says Miss Purtell, who asserts that several of the women became ill as a result. Anti-Suffragists Active. The older suffrage groups used quieter means of getting across their point. An enemy to the cause who called at headquarters of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association would be invited to have a cup of tea. If he accepted, he'd find himself drinking from a green and white cup emblazoned in purple with the words "Votes for Women." Some of this china still exists in the homes of Connecticut women, presumably to be used for husbands who'd like to go back to the old days. Despite the frenzied activities of the suffrage organizations, the women of Connecticut didn't all want to vote. Many were grouped into the state's Anti-Suffrage Association, which claimed to have more members than all the suffrage organizations. Anti-suffragists were fond of quoting Dr. Horace Bushnell, who called the move "a reform against nature," and of claiming that women's brains just weren't built to cope with worldly problems. To prove that some of their members a least did have brains, the suffragists used to spike their parades heavily with college gowns. At Hartford's first large suffragist parade in May 1914, the number of college graduates marching was so large that The Courant reported this fact to be "the most striking feature of the parade," and commented particularly on "the unusual group led by Miss Caroline Ruutz-Rees of Rosemary Hall whose caps bore the flowing tassel of gold bullion which only doctors are permitted to wear." Opponents Have Parades. The anti-suffragists mustered hundreds of members to appear at this and other parades wear- American beauty roses, symbol of their group. At the 1914 parade, though, the mass of red roses fell flat, for marching with the suffragists was a delegation from the Socialist Party, carrying a large banner which announced "Socialists wear the red rose." Anti-suffragists had other weapons, though. They predicted a break-down of the home with the coming of suffrage and a favorite joke among them said that "women have long been our superiors; now they're trying to be our equals." The remarks that rankled most though, were those depicting the suffragists as a group of ugly, masculine women, and one former suffragist still points out indignantly that "there were plenty of beautiful women belonging to our organization." That such is indeed a fact is admitted by a journalist of the battle period (obviously male) who condescended to write, "It's a pity so many women of refinement and beauty lavish their time, strength, and money on the hollow idol of suffrage." Statistics Prove Early Point. Today most women who were leaders in the anti-suffragist movement are shy about admitting the fact, and two tried to tell a reporter that "it must have been somebody else by the same name." One who was a member, though, still has a small enamel pin with the red rose on it, and recalls the frequent use of ox-carts in suffrage parades to symbolize the "anti's." "After all, though," she remarks, "as my sister used to say, oxen may be slow, but they get there all right." This member reports that by far the majority of the men were aligned against the idea of letting the weaker sex become exposed to worldly affairs. "Nearly all the sensible men were opposed," she says, "and they were really the most educated and charming men, too." She further asserts that many of those who fought most bitterly for the right to vote now do not exercise that right, which she points out "isn't just a right but a duty." There are no definite facts on the matter, but it's estimated that in the 1940 national election 61 out of every 100 eligible women voted, while 75 out of each 100 eligible men voted. Tsk, tsk, girls, what's happened to that old fighting spirit? State Women's Vote Crusaders Pause for Picture "Votes for women" said the sign above the window in 1918 when these members of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association posed for a picture at the organization's headquarters, 55 Pratt Street. Seated, left to right, are Mrs. Henry H. Townshend of New Haven, Miss Katharine Ludington of Lyme, Mrs. James Lees Ludlaw of New Haven, Mrs. F. U. Johnstone of Woodstock and Mrs. John Pettibone of New Milford. Standing are Mrs. Thomas S. McDermott of New Haven, Mrs. Herbert Benuce of Meriden, Mrs. F. C. Spencer of Guilford, Mrs. Fannie Dew of Torrington, Mrs. Daphne Selden of Hartford, Miss Mary Bulkeley of Hartford, Mrs. Bertha T. Voorhorst of New Haven, Mrs. Fannie Dixon Welch of Columbia, and Miss Rosamond Danielson of Putnam. THE HARTFORD COURANT Published at 66 State Street, Hartford 1, Connecticut - Sunday Morning, January 22, 1950 Established 1764 - The Oldest Newspaper of Continuous Publication in America Minimum Wages Aren't Always Desirable We hear a lot these days about minimum wage, usually one of seventy-five cents an hour. It sounds like the sort of humanitarian, progressive measure every red-blooded American citizen should favor. Nobody wants to go on record in support of slave labor. But when you begin to apply the happy theory of the minimum wage to a given industry, you promptly run into complications. It's a question, for instance, whether a minimum wage can satisfactorily be set for the restaurant business. The hearings at the State Capitol last week made clear the obvious fact that employers don't like the idea. There was a good deal of evidence that setting minimum pay at seventy-five cents might force several restaurants out of business, or at least embarrass them severely. There were indications, too, that restaurant employees are not exactly dancing behind the counters at the thought of a new minimum. From more than a score of restaurant and hotel operators around the State came testimony that business even now is not what it should be. The habit of eating out is falling off, said one. Food and material costs are rising, said others, and higher wages might prove the straw that would break the back of many an eating place, or at least force the laying off of some of the help. The redoubtable Willard B. Rogers said flatly that if a minimum wage were established, he would immediately cancel hospitalization and accident insurance policies on his 410 employees, and fire several of them. No waitress testified before the committee weighing the advisability of a minimum wage for eating places. But there was a good deal of second-hand testimony suggesting that waiters would not gain as much as their employers would lose by it. Mr. Rogers said that his help doesn't want a minimum wage set, and other restaurateurs reported a similar feeling among their employees. Waitresses and waiters would rather get less pay and depend on a steady flow of tips, it was suggested. One man from Bridgeport went so far as to say that in many restaurants [?] respects. Defense counsel, the bombastic [Floyd?] Stryker, was replaced by the more dignified [Claude??] B. Cross. The trial justice permitted testimony by the former wife of Gerhart Eisler, barred at the first trial, that she had seen Hiss attending Communist meetings. To offset this Judge Henry W. Goddard permitted the armchair diagnosis of Whittaker Chambers as a psychopathic personality by Dr. Carl Binger, and another psychologist. It is doubtful if Dr. Binger did much to help either the defendant or the cause of psychiatry. Entirely aside from the question of Mr. Hiss' innocence or guilt, this trial revealed how completely duped by Russia were many American intellectuals during the 1930s. There is no doubt that a Russian cult existed in high places then. Some have since thought better of it, and no doubt breathe thankfulness that they have thus far escaped the [ve?] passed on Alger Hiss by twelve of his peers, [?] women and four men. What Now in Foreign Policy? It begins to look as though our post-war [foreign?] policy were in danger. In Washington last [week?] House coalition of Republicans and Southern [Democrats?]— something new in foreign policy—beat [?] a bill for $60 million in economic aid for [K?]. This took place at a time when there were [?] of returning sanity in our policy of [diplomatic?] recognition of foreign countries. For [Secretary?] Acheson had indicated that this country would [?] a United Nations move to restore normal [relations?] with Spain. We would be wise always to regard [diplomatic?] recognition as a matter of practical business [?tions], rather than of relish or distaste for the [?tics] of the country recognized. The United [Nations?] withdrawal of ambassadors from Spain in [1940?] intended as a hint to the Spanish people to [g?] of Franco. It didn't work. But hitherto [there?] [?] been a risk that resuming relations with [F?] might hurt us in the cold war. It would be [?] Here Goes? [image] The People's Forum The Courant welcomes letters to the Editor, which must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer. The shorter the letter, which The Courant reserves the right to condense, the better its chance for publication. Please write or type on one side of paper only. [???] [Service?????] Act [?????] [restaurant???]: [?????] the part of [?????] Selective [Service?] [?????] importance of [?????] might well be [?????] [whose??] who [opposed??] [?????] act, we who [?????] [???ated] with the [?????] regardless of [?????] nevertheless [?????] [???d] of the [ex-???] [?????] will permit [???t] program to [?????] [???y] and [effec-???] [?????] [emergency???] has [?????]. [??esent] draft act, [?????] [has?] proven to be [?????] a period of [difficulty??] [establishment??] needs, [?????] [volunteers??] out of [?????] [keep?] enlistments [?????] [hands?]. [?????] [young?] men "[volun-??] [?????] [immediately?] after [?????] Act became [effective?] [?????] [??f] the need of the [?????] [???em] to "induce" [?????] [???ed] to materialize [?????] [???cted]. It has been [?????] [???al] memorable [oc-??] [?????] [???endary] spurs of [?????] love of country [?????] [???ce] enough [volun-??] [?????] army. Statistics [?????] enlistments today [?????] [at?] we still must [?????] our manpower if [?????] [??ately] prepared to [?????]. [?????] the act on the [?????] [??erely] another [at-???] [??y] forces to drive [?????] [??imately] militarize [?????] stop and reflect [?????] military [person-??] [??pping] the [induc-??] [?????] sufficient [num-??] [?????] filled our armed [?????] students, who are, because the location of the University gives the Administration a monopoly as employer, being so shamefully exploited, these students will be denied the American ideal of equal education. Many of us here at UConn, as citizens of this State, have written to the legislative leaders of both parties to request a special appropriation to allow a decent salary at UConn. On their behalf, I urge other like-minded people in our State to join us. Student Storrs Possible Source of Food For the Unemployed To the Editor of the Courant: Perhaps I am risking my very life's blood, which is one of my most precious treasures, by writing this suggestion to you for publication. Even now, before I become notorious for making the proposal, I can envision the Friends of Our Feathered Friends as they take their quills in hand and flock to the attack on me and my ornithic project. However, I will be brave. I am brave. I defy the few in behalf of the many. I speak as a native-born citizen and life-long resident of my beloved City of Hartford, the municipality so sorely pressed for funds and personnel with which to support our Department of Public Welfare and other equally worthy charities. Because every project of this type should be backed by accurate and reliable facts, I performed extensive research on the subject before writing to you. Accompanied by my secretary, I recently wandered all over this city and through its parks to ascertain that at least 56,917 pigeons reside with and among our citizenry. There is ample ornithic evidence of my findings. Here, at last, proposal: Ease the current unemployment situation by hiring several men and women to catch these pigeons. Hire other men and women to prepare the birds for eating. Hire others to distribute the dressed birds as a stable food item among the welfare recipients. In other words, let them eat pigeons! Louis Rizzo Hartford Day Care Center's Budget Deserves Approval To the Editor of The Courant: It is my sincere hope that the budget for the Day Care Center at Brown School will be approved by the City Council for the following reasons. 1. Welfare costs in the city are mounting. Closing the Center would mean some of the families going on relief. It would not mean a saving to the city of the amount budgeted. 2. Parents pay one-half of the cost, so that the cost to the city is approximately $300 per child per year. 3. The families using the service come from all sections of the city, and are screened for eligibility. 4. The Union Settlement Day Care Center has a waiting list, and cannot assume this. 5. The [Wo?] [?] waiting list. It is my [belief??] [?????] of Hartford [?????] limited [number?] [?????] airly need [this?] [?????] the interests [?????] served by [ma??] [?????]. Hartford Junior's Going [P?] By Joseph and Stewart [Als?] Whatever agony it may cause in some quarters, there is now no blinking the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., [?????] [???siasm]. Yet [?????] mellowed to [?????] row. And it [?????] From a Yankee Hearth By G. Stephen [Potwin?] Connecticut's Government Coming to the front After lunch Friday I dropped into Al Magnell's office. That usually affable person is officially known as A. E. Mangell, financial editor of The Courant. Looking over his glasses at this scrivener he said: "I suppose you are in favor of Connecticut's rotten boroughs." To which I replied, "Yes, if you are speaking of our Connecticut system of representation in the General Assembly. And I don't defend it because I live in one of the the alleged rotten boroughs." "Well," Al continued, "you may see a helluva fight over that question." I then observed that it might be that kind of fight, but I could pick the winner right now. The so-called rotten boroughs won't abolish themselves. Their representatives must twice pass such a constitutional provision, once by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives. From this brief exchange with my colleague it occurred to me that the public debate on the expected report by the Commission on State Government Organization has already begun. It is untimely. Let's have the report first, then debate its provisions. Rather strangely it was one member of the Commission who touched off the premature fireworks. James Gamble Rodgers, Jr., whom Governor Bowles insisted on putting on the Commission although he lives and votes in New York, started it in a luncheon address last week. The head of the particular agency he attacked hit back, and right behind him came Willard Rogers with a partisan-tainted outburst against the Commission and all its undisclosed works, about which Mr. Rogers inevitably knows as a little as anybody else. Paralleling the national committee to back the Hoover Commission on reforms in the Federal Government, we have a Citizens Committee on State Government, headed by John A. North of the Phoenix Insurance Company. He entered the verbal fray with a slam at Willard Rogers. There the first inning ended; no runs, no hits, and a lot of errors, of which the most inexcusable was James G. Rodgers' jumping the gun. After the recommendations of the [Comm??] [?????] [Gove??] [?????] as [th??] [?????] from [?????] [??tunit??] [?????] [??mont??] [?????] is [u???] [?????] [minis???] [?????] [throu???] [?????] [Rodg??] [?????] [Bowles?] [?????] [Th??] [?????] [publi??] [?????] [??ject??] [?????] [miss??] [?????] this [?????] [ann??] [?????] [gosp??] [?????] [video?] [?????] [mak??] [?????] first [?????] told [?????] [Const??] [?????] "the [?????] voters [?????] [amend??] [?????] does The [G??] [?????] [??ments??] [?????] those [?????] called [?????] [??ment] shall [?????] as a [?????] that, [?????] the [re??] Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.