# History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 4/Chapter 28

Contents
CHAPTER XXVIII.
CALIFORNIA.
The first woman suffrage meeting on the Pacific Coast was held in San Francisco in May, 1869, and a State association was formed in January, 1870. From that date meetings were held regularly and a committee of women did faithful work at the Legislature every session, securing many changes in the laws to the advantage of women.
At the annual meeting of the association in San Francisco in December, 1884, Mrs. Laura De Force Gordon succeeded Mrs. Clara S. Foltz as president and held the office for the next ten years. During this time she attended a number of national suffrage conventions in Washington and delivered addresses in many parts of the United States.
In the political campaign of 1888 Mrs. Gordon and Mrs. Foltz were employed as speakers by the Democratic Central Committee, and Miss Addie L. Ballou by the Republican. The Populist and the Labor parties selected women as delegates to their State conventions and placed them on their tickets for various offices. Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake of New York and Mrs. Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire visited the Pacific Coast and gave very acceptable lectures to the suffrage societies.
In 1889 Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent and Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich each subscribed $100 to send Mrs. Gordon to Washington Territory to aid the women there in securing the adoption of a suffrage amendment to the State constitution. She canvassed the State, contributing her services. The next year, through the efforts of these two ladies and their own contributions, over $1,000 were sent to South Dakota to assist the women in a similar attempt.
Suffrage meetings for various purposes were held in 1890, the largest being a grand rally at Metropolitan Temple, July 4. ​to celebrate the admission of Wyoming as a State with full suffrage for women, at which there were addresses by the Hon. T. V. Cator, the Rev. C. W. Wendte, James K. Barry, the Hon. P. Reddy, the Hon. Charles Summer, Mrs. Gordon and others. This year the State Grange and the Farmers' Alliance cordially indorsed woman suffrage at their conventions. The annual suffrage meeting was held in Washington Hall, San Francisco, September 26.. Mrs. Gordon was appointed a committee to select her own assistants and have full charge of the legislative work during the winter.
In 1891 practically every organization of either men or women seemed to be permeated with the agitation for woman suffrage. Among the most effective speakers and writers were Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson, Mrs. Sarah B. Cooper, Miss Agnes Manning, Miss Ina D. Coolbrith, Mme. A. L. Sorbier, Mrs. E. O. Smith and Mrs. Sara A. T. Lemmon.
Many informal business meetings were held during the next two years in Mrs. Gordon's law office. The adoption of equal suffrage by Colorado in 1893 inspired the California women to renewed effort. An Equal Rights League was formed of experienced suffrage workers. This was followed by the Young Woman's Suffrage Club, Miss Fannie Lemme, president, which became very popular. The Political Equality Club of Alameda County was organized in April. The Portia Law Club, Mrs. Foltz, dean, occupied a prominent place. The Woman's Federation also was an active society.
In 1893 the Trans-Mississippi Congress met in San Francisco with five regularly accredited women delegates in attendance. A woman suffrage resolution was presented for their indorsement and eloquently advocated by Mrs. Mary Lynde Craig. It was bitterly contested but finally passed by 251 yeas, 211 nays. amidst cheers and the waving of hats.
In 1894 was held the great Midwinter Fair, and the Woman's Congress Auxiliary became an intellectual focus for gifted women. It culminated in the brilliant convocation which was in session in Golden Gate Hall, San Francisco, for a week in ​May. Its promoters were Mrs. John Vance Cheney, Mrs. Horace Davis, Mrs. Cooper, Miss Hattie Cooper, Mrs. Mary S. Sperry, Mrs. Lovell White, Mrs. William A. Keith, Mrs. Tupper Wilkes, Mrs. Alice Moore McComas, Mrs. Gordon and others. Mrs. Irving M. Scott, president of Sorosis, received the Congress socially in her elegant home. A large reception was given also at the magnificent country residence of Mrs. Frank M. Smith in East Oakland.
The Congress was followed by a mass meeting under the auspices of the suffrage societies. The hall would scarcely hold the audiences, which were especially distinguished by the large number of men, and noted men were also among the speakers. The venerable Alfred Cridge of the Single Tax League created much interest by a practical illustration of proportional representation, the candidates for president and vice-president being Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the women doing the voting. Letters of regret at inability to be present but expressing sympathy with the object of the meeting were received from Gov. James H. Budd, President David Starr Jordan of Leland Stanford University, U. S. Senator Perkins, Supreme Judge McFarland, Judge James G. Maguire and others.
This year the State Association elected as its president Mrs. [ Nellie Holbrook Blinn, who had been an ardent worker in the cause for a number of years and a prominent speaker for the Republican party. Mrs. Annie K. Bidwell was made vice-president; Mrs. Hester A. Harland, recording secretary; Mrs. Emily Pitt Stevens, corresponding secretary; Mrs. Emma Gregory, treasurer. Meetings were held every fortnight in St. George's Hall. Ina short time General Warfield, proprietor of the California Hotel, offered the society the use of its parlors, which was gladly accepted.
In August a reception was given in honor of the National Press Association, then holding a convention in San Francisco, at which addresses were made by Mayor Adolph Sutro, the Hon. Samuel Shortridge and others. During the autumn a number of large and enthusiastic meetings were held.
In May, 1895, Miss Susan B. Anthony and the Rev. Anna Howard Shaw, president and vice-president of the National ​Association, arrived in San Francisco in response to a cordial invitation to assist in the Woman's Congress which opened on the 20th. No meetings ever held were more beautiful and inspiring than these, presided over by Mrs. Cooper. The best speakers in the State, men and women, participated and every possible honor, public and social, was conferred upon the two Eastern guests.
After the congress they accepted invitations to speak in San Jose, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Riverside, Pomona and San Diego. The audiences everywhere were large and cordial and their pathway was literally strewn with flowers. They returned to San Francisco and again addressed great audiences in that city and Oakland. Miss Shaw accepted the invitation of the executive committee to be one of the orators at the Fourth of July celebration in Woodward's Pavilion.
On July 2, 3, these ladies met with the State Suffrage Convention in Golden Gate Hall. Under their wise counsel a board of officers was elected which proved acceptable to all the members of the association, and a constitution was adopted which eliminated the causes of past contentions. The State was now thoroughly aroused over the submission by the Legislature the preceding winter of an amendment conferring Full Suffrage on women, which was to be voted on the next year. Auxiliary societies were reported from Oakland, San Jose, Stockton, Los Angeles, Fresno and other places and 300 new members were enrolled. The big hall was crowded at the evening meetings and addresses were made by Mrs. Sargent, the new president, Miss Anthony, Miss Shaw, Mrs. Cooper, Mrs. Craig, Mrs. Blinn and others.
The officers elected at this time continued through all the long and trying campaign of 1896, which is described further on. The amendment was defeated at the election of November 3. The State convention was called for November 5, 6, in order that the Eastern women might be present, as they were to leave ​on the 7th. A magnificent farewell meeting was held on the first evening in Metropolitan Temple, which was crowded from pit to dome. The "Call" declared, "It was more like the ratification of a victory than a rally after defeat;" and at the close of the convention said: "It furnished during its entire sessions an example of pluck and patience such as should forever quiet the calumny that women do not know how to govern themselves—that they become hysterical in the face of defeat."
The committee reported a set of strong, courageous resolutions which were adopted with cheers. The last one declared: "While we accept the verdict of the election we do not regard it as final, but believing that our cause is just and must prevail, we will enter at once on a vigorous campaign which will end only when the ballot is placed in the hands of California women."
A systematic plan of work was adopted and, as Mrs. Sargent was about to leave for a year abroad, Mrs. Mary Wood Swift was elected president. Mrs. Goodrich and Mrs. Sargent were made honorary presidents. Twelve hundred dollars were raised to pay all outstanding campaign debts, and the convention closed with a good-bye reception to Miss Anthony, Miss Shaw, Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt and the other ladies from the East.
The annual State meeting of 1897 was held in San Francisco, October 5, 6, with able addresses by the Rev. E. S. Chapman, Albert H. Elliott, a San Francisco attorney, Doctors Beecher and Bushnell, representing the women in their profession, Mrs. E. O. Smith and many others. Mrs. Swift was re-elected president and continued to serve until 1900.
The convention of 1898 also was held in San Francisco, October 4-6, and was made a jubilee meeting to celebrate the calling of the First Woman's Rights Convention in 1848.
In 1899 the annual State meeting, held in San Francisco November 7, 8, was greatly stimulated by the presence of Mrs. Chapman Catt, chairman of the national organization committee, and Miss Mary G. Hay, its secretary. Active societies were reported in many counties and a large amount of work done
by the press committee of fourteen members, Mrs. Mary L. Wakeman Curtis, chairman. It was announced that the Susan ​B. Anthony Club would hold a public meeting in the audience room of the Century Club, February 15, to celebrate that lady's eightieth birthday, at which President Jordan and Albert H. Elliott would be the orators. Addresses were given by Miss Sarah Severance, Mrs. Julia S. Sanborn, Mrs. Mary McHenry (Wm. A.) Keith, Mrs. Smith, Miss Selina Solomons and Miss Clara M. Schlingheyde.
On the evening of November 9 the convention was transferred to Oakland and every seat in the large Unitarian church was filled. Mrs. Chapman Catt was the speaker, introduced by the Rev. J. K. McLean. Mrs. Baldwin, president of the Alameda County society, Mrs. Swift and other prominent women-occupied the beautifully decorated platform. During the afternoon a reception had been given in the artistic home of Mrs. Emma Shafter Howard.
The convention for 1900 was held in San Francisco as usual, December 14, 15. Mrs. Annie R. Wood was elected president. One of the largest auxiliary societies is that of Alameda County with a dozen branches. The presidents have been the Rev. J. K. McLean, Mrs. M. S. Haight, Mrs. Alice M. Stocker, Mrs. Isabel A. Baldwin, Mrs. H. J. D. Chapman and Mrs. Frances A. Williamson.
The San Jose Club was formed for campaign work, Nov. 14, 1895, with fifty-four charter members. It has continued to hold weekly meetings under the presidency of Dr. Alida C. Avery. There are a number of other efficient clubs in Northern California.
​Legislative Action: As early as 1868, and for many years afterwards, Mrs. Laura De Force Gordon addressed the Legislature in behalf of political rights for women, and from then until the present time there have been few sessions which have not had the question brought before them. A large number of legislators, lawyers and leading women have contended that the constitution of the State is so worded that it is within the power of the Legislature to confer the full franchise by statute, but bills for this purpose always have been defeated by a majority who hold that this can be done legally only by an amendment to the constitution adopted by the electors. Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn has spent many winters at Sacramento in the interest of suffrage bills, and Mrs. Clara S. Foltz has frequently made legal arguments before joint committees. Beginning with 1891 Mrs. Sturtevant Peet, president of the State Woman's Christian Temperance Union, has remained through every legislative session representing that organization, with bills for temperance measures, suffrage and other matters of especial interest to women. During all of these years the suffrage bills before the Legislature have been reinforced by great petitions and hundreds of personal letters from the women of Southern California.
In 1889 Miss Sarah M. Severance, State Superintendent of Franchise for the W. C. T. U., went to Sacramento with a large petition asking for School Suffrage. Mrs. Gordon, a practicing lawyer, already had prepared three bills asking for Municipal and School Suffrage including the right to hold every educational office. All were reported favorably from the Senate committee. The first was passed, reconsidered and although again receiving a majority vote, had not the constitutional two-thirds. The School Suffrage Bill passed by 24 ayes, 7 noes. In the Assembly it received 36 ayes, 22 noes, not the required majority.
In 1891 a bill was presented to enfranchise women by statute. It was championed by Senators McGowan, Dargie and Simpson of the northern, and Carpenter and McComas of the southern part of the State. On February 7 a hearing was granted by the Judiciary Committee, and Mrs. Gordon gave a strong legal argument which was presented to the members as a "brief;" and
​addresses were made by Miss Severance, Mrs. Addie L. Ballou and Mrs. Emily Pitt Stevens. Before the vote was taken in the Legislature Mrs. Sturtevant Peet presented the great petition of the W. C. T. U. containing 15,000 names, and many were offered by senators from various counties. Individual appeals were sent by Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent, Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich, Dr. Alida C. Avery, Mrs. E. O. Smith and many other well-known women. The bill passed the Senate by 21 ayes, 17 noes. It had been delayed so long, however, that it was too late to reach the Assembly.
In 1894 the State Republican Convention adopted a plank as follows: "Believing that taxation without representation is against the principles of the Government we favor the extension of the right of suffrage to all citizens of the United States, both men and women."
The Legislature of 1895 was strongly Republican and the time seemed to be highly propitious for securing woman suffrage. To this end a number of influential women visited Sacramento. The first bill presented called for enfranchisement by special Statute and was introduced and championed in the Assembly by Judge E. V. Spencer. On the afternoon of January 24 Mrs. Blinn and Mrs. Foltz addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in the evening a mass meeting took place in the Court House, which the Judiciary and Elections Committees of the Senate and House attended in a body, as did also a large number of the members. Mrs. Gordon made the leading address and Mrs. Foltz the closing speech. Another meeting, held in the Assembly Chamber February 8, was addressed by Mrs. E. V. Spencer, Mrs. Blinn, Miss Laura Tilden, a lawyer, Mrs. Gordon and Mrs. Peet. Great assistance also was rendered by Mrs. Annie K. Bidwell, Mme. A. L. Sorbier, Dr. Lillian Lomax and Mrs. Jennie Phelps Purvis.
The bill came to a vote in the Assembly February 11 and passed. A defect was then discovered in the title and it was voted on again February 19, receiving 46 ayes, 29 noes. In the Senate it met with many vicissitudes which need not be recounted, as it eventually failed to pass. This was largely because the members did not believe it would be constitutional.
​This question being settled, Senators McGowan of Eureka, and Bulla of Los Angeles, Assemblyman Spencer of Lassen, and others championed a resolution to amend the constitution by striking out the word "male" from the suffrage clause. This was adopted in March, 1895, by a two-thirds majority of both Houses, and signed by Gov. James H. Budd. The story of the campaign which was made to secure the adoption of this amendment is related hereafter. It was defeated by the voters.
Although the experienced national officers told the California women that it would be many years before they would be able to secure another bill they did not believe it, but went to the Legislature of 1897 full of hope that an amendment would be submitted again and they could make another campaign while their organizations were intact and public sentiment aroused. Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Mrs. Mary S. Sperry and Mme. A. L. Sorbier spent much of the winter in Sacramento, and enough members were pledged to pass the bill. When it was acted upon, however, while it received a majority in both Houses, it lacked seven votes in the Assembly and one in the Senate of the necessary two-thirds.
In 1899 Representative W. S. Mellick of Los Angeles introduced a bill giving women the right to vote for school trustees, and at elections for school bonds or tax levy. It passed the Assembly with only one dissenting vote, and the Senate by a majority of six. Gov. Henry T. Gage refused to sign it on the old ground of unconstitutionality.
Constitutional Amendment Campaign: The action of the Legislature of 1895 in submitting an amendment to the voters, instead of conferring the franchise by statute, was somewhat of a disappointment to the women as it precipitated a campaign which would come at the same time as that for President of the United States, and for which there was not sufficient organization. They were very much at sea for a while but in the spring of 1895 Miss Susan B. Anthony and the Rev. Anna Howard Shaw, president and vice-president of the National Association, came to California to the Woman's Congress, ​and while here, having had much experience, helped them plan their work and gave every possible encouragement. In the autumn Miss Shaw returned and held meetings throughout the State, managed by Miss Harriet Cooper. The next year, at the
urgent request of the State Association, Miss Anthony and Miss Shaw came back and remained from the first of March until after the election in November, rendering all the assistance within their power in the longest and hardest campaign ever made for a woman suffrage amendment. An amendment committee had been appointed at the last annual convention and out of this and the State officers a Campaign Committee was formed and, in addition, a State Central Committee was organized. Mrs. Sargent opened her handsome home for headquarters the first three months, and for eight months she and her daughter, Dr. Elizabeth C. Sargent, gave every hour to this work, entertaining as guests Miss Anthony, Miss Shaw and other workers and contributing large sums of money. In February, Dr. Sargent and Miss Shaw's secretary, Lucy E. Anthony, arranged a series of two days' conventions in every county in the State.
Miss Harriet May Mills and Miss Mary G. Hay of New York, experienced organizers, were invited to California to manage. these conventions and remained throughout the campaign. The Rev. Miss Shaw and Miss Elizabeth Upham Yates of Maine were the speakers. The audiences were large and cordial, clubs were formed and the meetings more than paid expenses.
On Sunday, May 3, the San Francisco Call, the leading Republican paper, under the management of Charles M. Shortridge, came out with flaming headlines declaring for woman suffrage, and several hundred copies were sent to the State Republican convention which met in Sacramento the following Tuesday. A number of prominent women went to this convention, as it was considered very important that it should repeat its indorsement of the previous year. The delegation consisted of Miss Anthony, Miss Shaw, Mrs. Sargent, State president, Mrs. Mary ​Wood Swift, Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich, Mrs. Mary S. Sperry, Mrs. Ida Husted Harper and Miss Mary G. Hay, members of the campaign committee. Miss Anthony and Miss Shaw addressed the Committee on Resolutions, and the next day a plank declaring for the amendment was adopted by the big convention with only one dissenting voice.
On May 12 most of these ladies attended the Populist Convention in Sacramento. They were received with cheers, escorted to front seats, invited to address the convention and the plank was unanimously adopted. From here a part of them went to the Prohibition Convention in Stockton, meeting a most cordial reception and a similar result. The Socialist Labor and the National parties also indorsed the amendment.
There was little hope for the indorsement of the Democratic Convention, but the ladies, reinforced by Mrs. Sarah B. and Miss Harriet Cooper, Mrs. Henry Krebs, Jr., Mrs. Alice M. Stocker and Mrs. E. O. Smith attended it on June 16. They were permitted to address the Resolutions Committee and present a petition signed by about 40,000 men and women of the State asking for the amendment, but it was laid on the table almost before they had left the room.
A minority report was at once prepared by Charles Wesley Reed and signed by himself, William H. Alford, chairman of the committee, and two other members, but it was prevented from coming before the convention by order of its chairman, Frank Gould of San Joaquin County. After the platform had been adopted Miss Anthony and Miss Shaw were invited to address the convention, which they did to such effect that when they had finished the minority report was demanded. It was too late for this but, in spite of the efforts of John P. Irish and W. W. Foote of Alameda County, and others, the original resolution declaring for an amendment was brought to a vote, receiving 149 ayes, 420 noes, more than one-fourth the whole number.
​The women opened their campaign a few days later with an immense atification meeting in Metropolitan Temple. All of the political parties were represented by prominent men who made strong suffrage speeches, Congressman James G. Maguire speaking for the fraction of the Democratic party. Most of the ladies who had attended the conventions made addresses and there was the greatest enthusiasm. Miss Anthony was invited to speak at the ratification meeting of each of the political parties and was most cordially received. No suffrage campaign ever commenced so full of promise.
Headquarters were opened on Main Street in the fine new Parrott Building, five rooms being donated for the purpose by the manager of the Emporium, William Harper. The furnishings were contributed by different firms and individuals, and a handsome banner was swung across the street. Here a force of women worked day and night for five months, most of them donating their services.
The State Board and all the committees were 'composed of women of good position and especial ability. The counties formed their own organizations and all the important towns had active local clubs. The report from Southern California appears in another part of this chapter. In San Francisco Mrs. Sarah B. Cooper gave generously of her valuable time and powerful influence. Mrs. Mary Wood Swift and Mrs. Mary S. Sperry responded many times when the finances were at the lowest ebb. It would be impossible to name even a small fraction of those who freely and continuously gave labor and money.
Each of the eighteen assembly districts of San Francisco was organized by precincts, regular meetings were held, a personal canvass was made and an immense amount of literature was distributed. It is wholly impracticable in a limited space to mention the work done by the various counties, as in each where the amendment was carried it was due largely to the wise, faithful and unwearying efforts of its own women, and any distinction would be invidious.
​The work of the W. C. T. U. deserves a prominent place in the history of the struggle, as all the powers of its excellent organization and experienced workers were devoted to the success of the amendment, and the majority in several counties at least was due to its efforts.
For the usual necessary and legitimate campaign purposes a fund of about $19,000 was raised and sent to headquarters, almost wholly the contributions of women.
Miss Anthony remained in San Francisco addressing meetings in that city and making many short trips to neighboring towns, speaking once or more every day for eight months. During this time she made a tour of Central and Southern California, lecturing in halls, churches, wigwams, parlors, schoolhouses and the open air. In some places the train was stopped and she spoke from the rear platform which was then banked with flowers.
The Rev. Anna Howard Shaw spoke every night for seven months; Miss Yates made about one hundred speeches; Mrs. Chapman Catt spent the last two months in the State giving several addresses every day. Miss Sarah M. Severance spoke under the auspices of the W. C. T. U. throughout the campaign. Mrs. Naomi Anderson represented the colored people. Every California woman who could make a speech was pressed into service for clubs, ward meetings, etc. Many handsome homes were opened for parlor lectures. Miss Anthony herself addressed great political rallies of thousands of people; church conventions of every denomination; Spiritualist and Freethinkers' gatherings; Salvation Army meetings; African societies; Socialists; all kinds of labor organizations; granges; Army and Navy Leagues; Soldiers' Homes and military encampments; women's clubs and men's clubs; Y. M. C. A.'s and W. C. T. U.'s. She spoke at farmers' picnics on the mountain tops, and Bethel missions in the cellars of San Francisco; at parlor meetings in the most elegant homes; and in pool-rooms where there was printed on the blackboard, "Welcome to Susan B. Anthony." Her services during the entire time were a personal contribution.
The attitude of the press was one of the remarkable features. Mrs. Ida Husted Harper was made Chairman of the Press Committee which had local members in every community. In com​pany with Miss Anthony every editor in San Francisco was visited and assurances received that the amendment would have respectful treatment. The Call, the Record and the Post gave strong editorial indorsement, the latter maintaining a daily department, the responsibility being largely taken by Dr. Sargent. Mrs. Harper had a long article each week in the Sunday Call and many weeks one in the Chronicle also. The Examiner placed a column on the editorial page of its Sunday edition at the disposal of Miss Anthony and she filled it for seven months, but the paper gave no Official approval. The Report had a double column every Saturday edited by Miss Winnifred Harper. The Bulletin had one conducted by Miss Eliza D. Keith, but editorially it was not friendly. Mrs. Mary L. Wakeman Curtis rendered especially valuable service. The Populist press was universally favorable, as were the Star and other labor papers, the temperance, Socialist and A. P. A. organs, the leading Jewish papers, those of the colored people, several published in foreign languages and many in the interest of agriculture, insurance, etc.
Before the close of the campaign the press chairman was in communication with 250 papers in the State which declared editorially for woman suffrage. Only 27 spoke openly against it, prominent among these being the San Francisco Chronicle, Argonaut, Sacramento Record-Union and Los Angeles Times. From California papers alone 9,000 clippings were received on this subject.
Had it not been the year of a presidential election it is probable that the amendment might have carried, but the bitter competition of politics soon produced many complications and, although the suffrage question was kept absolutely non-partisan, it could not escape their serious effects. The demand for free silver had made such inroads on the Republican party that it was threatened with the loss of the State, and it was soon made to understand by the liquor element that its continued advocacy of the suffrage amendment would mean a great loss of money and votes. It was found that the chairman of the State Central Committee, Major Frank M’Laughlin, was notifying the county chairmen not to permit the women to speak at the Republican meetings, and it became very difficult to persuade the speakers ​of that party to refer to the amendment, although an indorsement of it was the first plank in their platform.
The Populists and Democrats found themselves in accord on financial questions and in most localities a fusion was effected. While the former, for the most part, were loyal to the amendment they could not fully control the speakers or platforms at the rallies and it was kept out of sight as much as possible. The A. P. A. was strongly organized in California and was waging a bitter war against the Catholic Church, and both feared the effect of the enfranchisement of women, although at the beginning the former seemed wholly in favor.
The women made a brave fight but these political conditions, added to insufficient organization, too small a number of workers, lack of necessary funds, the immense amount of territory to be covered, the large foreign population in San Francisco and the strong prejudices in general against the movement, which must be overcome everywhere, made defeat inevitable. The final blow was struck when, ten days before election, the wholesale Liquor Dealers' League, which had been making its influence felt all during the campaign, met in San Francisco and resolved "to take such steps as are necessary to protect our interests." One of these steps was to send to the saloon-keepers, hotel proprietors, druggists and grocers throughout the State the following:
It is to your interest and ours to vote against this amendment. We request and urge you to vote and work against it and do all you can to defeat it.
Although the women had the written promise of the Secretary of State saying, "The amendment shall be third in order on the ballot, as certified to me by the various county clerks," it was placed last, which made it the easy target for the mass of voters who could not read. Hundreds of tickets were cast in San Francisco On which the only cross was against this amendment, not even the presidential electors voted for.
There were 247,454 votes cast on the suffrage amendment; ​110,355 for; 137,099 against; defeated by 26,744. The majority against in San Francisco County was 23,772; in Alameda County, comprising Oakland, Alameda and Berkeley, 3,627; total 27,399—665 votes more than the whole majority cast against the amendment. Berkeley gave a majority in favor, so in reality it was defeated by the vote of San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda. Alameda is the banner Republican County and gave a good majority for the' Republican ticket. There never had been a hope of carrying San Francisco for the amendment, but the result in Alameda County was a most unpleasant surprise, as the voters were principally Republicans and Populists, both of whom were pledged in the strongest possible manner in their county conventions to support the amendment, and every newspaper in the county had declared in favor of it. The fact remains, however, that a change of 13,400 votes in the entire State would have carried the amendment; and proves beyond question that, if sufficient organization work had been done, this might have been accomplished in spite of the combined efforts of the liquor dealers and the political "bosses."
As it is almost universally insisted that woman suffrage amendments are defeated by the ballots of the ignorant, the Vicious and the foreign born, an analysis of the vote of San Francisco, which contains more of these elements than all the rest of California, is of interest. Not one of the eighteen Assembly Districts was carried for the amendment and but one precinct in the whole city. It is not practicable to draw an exact dividing line between the best and the worst localities in any city, but possibly the 28th, or water front, district in San Francisco may come under the latter head and the 4oth under the former. The vote on the amendment in the 28th was 355 ayes, 1,188 noes; in the 40th, 890 ayes, 2,681 noes, a larger percentage of opposition in the district containing the so-called best people. Districts 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 would probably be designated the most aristocratic of the city. Their vote on the amendment was 5,189 ayes, 13,615 noes, an opposing majority of 8,426, or about 1,400 to the district. This left the remainder to be distributed ​among the other eighteen districts, including the ignorant, the vicious and the foreign born, with an average of less than 1.300 adverse votes in each district.
The proportion of this vote was duplicated in Oakland, the most aristocratic ward giving as large a negative majority as the one commonly designated "the slums."
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
In the spring of 1885 the first woman suffrage association of Southern California was organized in Los Angeles at the home of Mrs. Elizabeth A. Kingsbury, a lecturer and writer of ability and a co-worker with the Eastern suffragists in pioneer days. This small band of men and women held weekly meetings from this time until the opening of the Amendment Campaign in 1896, when it adjourned — subject to the call of its president — and its members became a part of the Los Angeles Campaign Committee.
The principal work of this early suffrage society was educational. Once a month meetings were held to which the public was invited, addresses were given by able men and women, good music was furnished and suffrage literature distributed. For five years Mrs. Kingsbury continued its efficient president and then returned to her Eastern home. She was succeeded by Mrs. Margaret V. Longley, another pioneer worker from the East, who served acceptably for the same length of time, when Mrs. Alice Moore McComas was elected. Under her regime was called the first county suffrage convention ever held in the State.
All other organizations of women wholly ignored the suffrage association during these years. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union had its franchise department, but it was by no means so popular as the other thirty-nine. Discouragement was met on every hand, but the faithful few, adhering to the principles of political liberty, saw year by year a slow but certain growth of sentiment in favor of the ballot for women.
In the winter of 1887, an effort was made to secure a bill from the Legislature conferring Municipal Suffrage upon women. ​Hundreds of letters were written and a large petition was sent but no action was taken. Every year afterward a bill asking for some form of suffrage was presented to the Legislature, accompanied by great petitions signed by representative people, and an unremitting agitation was kept up throughout Southern California, until a strong sentiment was created in favor of the enfranchisement of women. Among those who championed the cause in the Legislature in those days were R. N. Bulla, R. B. Carpenter, Edward Denio and W. S. Mellick. U. S. Senators George C. Perkins and Stephen M. White also gave their influence in its favor.
In the autumn of 1892 the Southern California Woman's Parliament was organized. While the fact was emphasized that it was "not a woman's rights society," the suffragists saw here an opportunity for good work. The whole membership of their various organizations went into this parliament and were active promoters of all the enterprises taken up, fully realizing that, sooner or later, in a body where all phases of woman's work—in the home, the church, the school and society—were discussed, woman's political limitations could not fail to receive attention. They were not mistaken for in a short time its sessions might properly have been called "woman's rights meetings," but none were more careful not to mention this fact than the "strong-minded"? members. The women who were afraid to be seen at suffrage meetings were being so quietly converted that they had no idea of it. The sentiment grew and grew—and so did the suffrage association—until, after consultation with various members of the Legislature, it was decided to ask for an amendment to the State constitution which would enfranchise women.
Meanwhile the Los Angeles Suffrage Association called a convention of delegates from the southern counties in April, 1894, and a central committee was organized consisting of one representative woman from each voting precinct. This was productive of systematic work, and when the Legislature the following winter submitted an amendment, workers in every city, town, hamlet and school district were ready for the campaign.
County campaign committees were organized of which that ​of Los Angeles was the leader, and from its headquarters the main work was carried on. These, consisting of four large rooms on the second floor of the Muskegon block, a fine stone building in the business center of Los Angeles, were donated by T. D. Stimson. They were handsomely furnished by friends with every requirement for office work and semi-public meetings. Leo Alexander and William D. Hayward contributed the typewriters. Their arrangement was in the hands of Mesdames J. H. Braly, A. M. Davidson, R. L. Craig and Laura B. Fay. All through that ever-to-be-remembered hot summer of 1896 these dainty, artistic rooms, constantly supplied with fresh flowers, afforded a cool retreat for the busy suffragists, as well as a resting place for their less active sisters who were invited to visit them, even if not in sympathy, and none left without some of the literature and a gentle hint as to their obvious duty.
In San Diego the work was led by the president, Mrs. Flora M. Kimball. Mrs. Kimball was the first woman ever elected Master of a Grange, and was for eight years a member of the San Diego school board. She was a most efficient manager and the beautiful grounds around her home were the scene of many gatherings. A gifted writer also, her satires during this campaign, over the signature "Betty Snow, an anti-suffragist," made many converts.
Prominent among the workers were Mrs. Annie Bristol Sloan, president of the San Diego County W. S. A., the Rev. Amanda Deyo, Dr. Lelia Latta and Mrs. Laura Riddell; Mrs. Helen Joslin Le Boeuf (Tustin), organizer of Orange County; Mrs. Lizzie H. Mills, secretary of the Southern California W. C. T. U., and its president, Mrs. N. P. J. Button, who kept the question prominently before the people of Riverside County. Mrs. Ida K. Spears led the work in Ventura County with pen and voice. Kern County though less densely settled had in its little clusters of humanity staunch friends of the cause under the leadership of Mrs. McLeod, and gave also its majority for the amendment. San Bernardino was ably marshaled by Mrs. Ella Wilson Merchant, the county president. In Santa Barbara County Mrs. Emily Wright had stood sponsor for the cause for many years, and Mrs. S. E. A. Higgins assisted with her facile pen. This ​county in its favorable vote ranked next to Los Angeles. The work was tremendous but the result was compensating.
The key-note of the campaign was to reach every voter without regard to race or rank. Therefore, women of all castes and conditions were set to work where their direct influence would be most effective. Hundreds of precinct meetings were held during the whole summer. Each precinct had its own organization officered by: its own people—men and women—a vice-president being appointed from each of its churches, and this was called Campaign Committee Precinct No., pledged to work only until election. The meetings numbered from five to eighteen a day, and one day in August twenty-two were held in a single county. In the city of Los Angeles the highest number in any one day was nine precinct meetings and one public rally in the evening, near the close of the campaign. Mrs. McComas addressed four of these meetings and spoke at the rally—which was not unusual work for the speakers in the field. From the afternoon meetings, held generally in the largest homes in the precinct, hundreds of leaflets were sent out and every effort was made to increase the interest among women, for it was believed that if these did their duty the votes could be secured. The evening meetings were held principally in halls or churches, though frequently the larger homes and hotel parlors were thrown open for a reception where men were the honored guests.
The churches of all Protestant denominations were offered for debates and entertainments. In several the Rev. Mila Tupper Maynard—the salaried campaign speaker—preached Sunday evenings on texts pertinent to the subject, and many pastors delivered special sermons on equal rights. Leading hotels gave their parlors for precinct meetings and many of the halls used for public gatherings were donated by the owners. Noontide meetings were held in workshops, factories and railroad stations, and while the men ate their lunch a short suffrage talk was given or some good leaflet read aloud. The wives of these men were invited to take part, or to have full charge, and many earnest, competent workers were found among them who influenced these voters as no one else could do. The large proportion of foreign
Citizens were thus reached in a quiet, educational manner.
​Another most effective method of work was carried on by the public meeting committee. Every political organization had in its ranks some father, husband, son or brother who was pledged to watch the suffrage interests and report to this committee—composed of men from these organizations and women from the campaign committees—when and where a wedge could be put in for the amendment. Its main duty was to present at political meetings, through the most distinguished speaker on the program, a resolution favoring the amendment. In this way it was treated as one of the general issues and, being brought before the voters by one of their own speakers, did not give the annoyance that is sometimes felt when a lady is introduced for this purpose. In every instance, the speaker would call upon the voters to "honor themselves in honoring the women." This method became very popular and won many votes where, otherwise, a hearing could not have been secured.
Another popular plan was that of utilizing the young people, who proved effective helpers. Every boy and girl who could sing, play, declaim, write an essay or in any other way entertain was enlisted for oratorical debates, prize essays and public meetings. Through their work many a young man cast his first vote for his mother.
Hearings were secured before clubs and organizations, when short addresses were made and resolutions adopted.
The W. C. T. U. was throughout the campaign, active, efficient and helpful, while its members were found on all the suffrage committees. Valued assistance was given also by the Woman's Parliament, the church auxiliaries, labor unions, Christian Endeavor Societies, Epworth Leagues, theosophical societies and the ​California Federation of Woman's Clubs—which devoted a whole session of its annual meeting to the question.
The Afro-American Congress, convening in Los Angeles, gave up an afternoon session to listen to Mrs. Naomi Anderson, the salaried organizer. This was followed up with faithful work by the Colored Woman's Club, its president, Dr. Mary T. Longley, assisted by Mesdames Washington, White, Jackson, Knott, Campbell, Clarkson and others, being instrumental in converting many of the colored men to a belief in suffrage for women. <A number of them indeed became active workers, the most prominent being the Rev. John Albright. Mrs. McComas addressed the Los Angeles County Republican Convention, which put in its platform a resolution in favor of the amendment.
Literature in small, concise leaflets was hung up in the street cars, railroad offices, hotels, theaters and post-offices; wrapped in dry-goods and grocery parcels and placed in profusion in the public libraries, many of these being compiled especially to suit certain localities. This required unceasing labor and watchfulness on the part of the press committee. Much original matter was used to show the people that the women of their community were fully capable of expressing their ideas and giving their reasons for desiring the ballot.
Fourteen of the papers published in Los Angeles were friendly to the amendment and gave it more or less editorial support, while three used their influence against it. The Los Angeles Times was unyielding in its opposition throughout the campaign, although it published fair reports of the meetings. The Sunday World kept pace with the Liquor Dealer in its coarse hostility, while the Pasadena Town Talk was a good second to both. The majority of the newspapers in Southern California were favorable to the proposed measure and were largely responsible for its success in this section of the State.
The most harmonious spirit existed at headquarters and among all the workers. Enough money was raised to pay salaries to county presidents, organizers, corresponding secretary and one speaker. All others donated their services. Among the series of county conventions called by the State board, Los ​Angeles not only-paid its own expenses but contributed $67 to the general State fund. This money was freely given by friends and workers, no special assessments being levied and no collections taken at public meetings. Those who could not give largely worked the harder to secure contributions from those who could. Great credit is due to the excellent management of the financial secretary, Mrs. Almeda B. Gray, who labored constantly at headquarters from May to November, besides contributing a monthly instalment to the county fund. Much of it was also due to the wise and conservative policy of the president of the campaign committee, Mrs. Elizabeth H. Meserve.
It would be impossible to give even the names of all who assisted in this long and arduous campaign. The work was far-reaching, and many were modest home-keepers who gave effective service in their own immediate neighborhood.
The amendment was defeated—for many reasons. Among the most conspicuous were ignorance of the real merits of the issue; indifference—for thousands of voters failed to vote either way; a secret but systematic opposition to woman's voice in legislative affairs from the only organization against it—the Liquor Dealers' Association; and, most potent of all, a political combination which would not have occurred except at the time of a presidential election. Every county in Southern California gave a majority for the amendment, Los Angeles County leading with 4,600. Miss Anthony, who spent the summer in California aiding and encouraging the women with her wisdom, cheerfulness and hope, said on leaving: "The campaign was a magnificent ​one, and it has developed many splendid workers who will be ready for the next which is sure to come."
After the disappointing result the Campaign Committee held a meeting, passed resolutions of fealty to the cause and adjourned sine die. But in order to perpetuate the work already done and be ready for "new business" at any time, the Los Angeles County Woman Suffrage League was organized the following week, Mrs. Elmira T. Stephens, president; Mrs. Gray, chairman of advisory board; Mrs. Craig, secretary. The natural reaction after defeat followed and no work was done for several years.
In November, 1900, the State president, Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, came to Los Angeles and gave a parlor talk at the home of her hostess, Mrs. I. G. Chandler, and later an address at a public meeting in the Woman's Club House, of which Mrs. Caroline M. Severance was chairman. Practically all were in favor of reviving the old Woman Suffrage League and an executive committee was appointed, Mrs. Sarah Burger Stearns (formerly of Minnesota), chairman.
At its call a meeting was held December 1, and the league reorganized: President, Mrs. Severance; vice-president, Mrs. Shelley Tolhurst; secretary, Mrs. Carl Schutz; treasurer, Mrs. Amelia Griffith; chairman of executive committee, Mrs. Stearns. A leaflet announcing the formation of the league, its plan of work, etc., was largely circulated. A committee was appointed who went before the Legislative Conference, which was held later in the Chamber of Commerce, and expressed the thanks of the league for the efforts of the Southern California members who had worked and voted for the School Suffrage Bill at the previous session of 1899.
The executive committee meets once a month and special sessions are called whenever necessary. The plan of work, as outlined by Mrs. Stearns, was sent to the State convention at San Francisco and cordially approved.
In February half of a show window on Broadway was secured, with ample floor space back of it. With the donation of $100 by a Los Angeles woman both were made attractive with flags, engravings and furnishings. Above a handsome desk the suffrage flag with its four stars is draped and photographs of prom​inent women adorn the walls. The suffrage papers are kept on file and quantities of fresh literature are ready for distribution. Stationery, photographs, medallions, etc., are for sale, a register is open for the enrollment of friends and a member of the league is always in attendance. When another amendment campaign is to be made Southern California will be found ready for work and will declare in its favor by a largely increased majority.
Laws: The original property law of California is an inheritance from the Mexicans, which it incorporated in its own code, and it is quite as unjust as those which still exist on the statute books of some States as a remnant of the barbarous old English Common Law. Community property includes all which is accumulated by the joint labors of husband and wife after marriage. This is in the absolute control of the husband. Previous to 1891 he could dispose of all of it as if he had no wife, could will, sell, mortgage, pledge or give it away. That year the. Legislature enacted that he could not make a gift of it or convey it without a valuable consideration, unless the wife consented in writing, although he could still dispose of it in ordinary business transactions without her knowledge or consent. The decision in the Spreckles case apparently nullified this law, as the gift was made in 1893 and the Supreme Court in 1897 declared it legal.
In 1895 it was provided that at the husband's death the wife 1s entitled to one-half of what remains, subject to one-half of the debts. At the death of the wife the whole belongs absolutely to the husband without administration. If some portion of it may have been set apart for her support by judicial decree, this ​is subject to her testamentary disposition, or, if she makes none, it passes to her heirs.
A homestead to the value of $5,000, which must continuously be occupied by the family, may be selected from the community property, or from the husband's separate estate, or from the wife's with her consent. If from the first-named it belongs to the survivor, if from the separate property it descends to his or her heirs, subject to the power of the court to assign it to the family for a limited period. During marriage it can not be mortgaged or conveyed without the signature of both. In case of divorce, if it has been selected from community property, it may be assigned to the innocent party absolutely or for a limited time, or it may be sold and the proceeds divided, according to decree. If selected from separate property it shall be returned to the former owner, but the court may assign it for a limited time to the innocent party.
In 1897 a law was passed that if the estate is less than $1,500 it shall be assigned to the widow, subject to incumbrances, funeral charges and expenses of settlement.
Separate property consists in what was possessed before marriage or is received by gift or inheritance afterwards. If the deceased leave wife or husband and only one child, or the lawful issue of one, the separate estate is divided in equal shares. If there be more than one child or the issue of one, the widow or widower is entitled to one-third. If there is no issue the survivor takes one-half and the other half goes to the father, mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased. If none exists, the survivor is entitled to the whole estate.
Either husband or wife may dispose of separate property without the consent of the other. Until 1894 it rested upon the wife to prove that property was her separate possession, but now the proof rests upon the contestants. Until 1897 she was compelled to prove that it was not paid for with community earnings. Neither of these recent laws applies to property acquired previous to May 19, 1880.
A married woman may be administrator or executor. (1891.)
The wife may engage in business as sole trader and her husband is not liable for her contracts, but her earnings, and also ​any wages she may make by her labor, are community property and belong absolutely to him, and suit for them must be brought by him. By becoming a sole trader she makes herself liable for the support of the family.
A married woman may sue and be sued and make contracts in regard to her separate property, but in torts of a personal nature she must be sued jointly with her husband, although the wife may defend in her own right.
Until 1899 common law marriage was legal, and this consisted merely in a promise and the mutual assumption of marital rights, duties and obligations. That year a law was passed requiring a license and a civil or religious ceremony. The law declares specifically that "the husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him."
The wife may sue for separate maintenance without divorce.
The father is the guardian of the minor children and entitled to their custody, services and earnings. At his death, or if he has abandoned his family, the guardianship belongs to the mother, if suitable.
The husband is expected to give his family proper maintenance. There is no penalty for not supporting a wife but he can be arrested for failure to support the children. If he have no property or is disabled from any cause, then the wife must support him and the family out of her property or her earnings. The husband decides what are necessaries and may take even her personal belongings to pay for them.
In 1887 the W. C. T. U. asked to have the "age of protection" for girls raised from 10 to 18 years, but secured only 14. In 1895 they succeeded in having a bill passed for 18 years but it was vetoed by Gov. James H. Budd. In 1897 they obtained one for 16 years which he signed and it is now the law. The penalty is imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than five years.
Suffrage: Women possess no form of suffrage.
In 1900, to make a test case, Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent brought suit before Judge M. C. Sloss, of the Supreme Court of San Francisco, to recover her taxes for that year, about $500. The city through its attorney filed a demurrer which was argued March 29 by George C. Sargent, son of the plaintiff and a mem​ber of the bar. He based his masterly argument on the ground that a constitution which declares that "all political power is inherent in the people" has no right to exclude one-half of the people from the exercise of this inherent power. He quoted the most eminent authorities to prove that taxation and representation are inseparable; that the people of the United States would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed the constitutional right of granting or withholding their own money; that it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people that no taxes can be imposed upon them except with their consent given personally or by their representatives. He said in closing:
The court decided that the case required a mandamus before the Registrar. Application was then made for a writ of mandate against the Registrar of Elections to compel him to place Mrs. Sargent's name upon the list of voters. Should this be denied she asked to have her taxes returned. Both demands were refused by Judge Sloss in the Superior Court. He took the ground that if Mr. Sargent's argument should be carried to its logical conclusion it would enfranchise idiots, lunatics and criminals; that if there is a conflict between the two sections of the constitution cited it should be settled in favor of limiting the suffrage to males, as where a general and a particular provision are inconsistent the latter is paramount to the former. He quoted various State Supreme Court decisions and declared that he decided the case according to the law.
As Mrs. Sargent had every assurance that this judgment would be sustained by the Supreme Court she did not carry the case further. It attracted attention and comment in all parts of the country and she received encouragement and wishes for her success from all classes of society.
​Office Holding: The Legislature of 1873 made women eligible to all School offices. None ever has been elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction but there is scarcely a county where women have not served as superintendents. At present seventeen are acting in this capacity. They have frequently been elected School Trustees and a woman is now president of the San Francisco school board at a salary of $3,000 per annum.
The constitution is interpreted to prohibit women from holding any other office. It is claimed by some that this does not include the boards of State institutions, but out of twenty-six such boards and commissions only one ever has had a woman member—Mrs. Phoebe A. Hearst, who is on the Board of Regents of the State University.
There are women on local library boards. A woman has been assistant State Librarian, and there have been women deputies and clerks in county and city offices. At present in the offices of the Attorney-General, Board of Examiners, State Department of Highways and Debris Committee women hold positions as clerks at salaries of from $1,200 to $1,800. They may serve as notaries public.
In the autumn of 1899 the California Woman's Club resurrected an old law which never had been enforced, providing for the appointment of assistant women physicians at the hospitals for the insane "provided there are already three assistant male physicians." They petitioned the proper authorities and the matter was presented to the State Lunacy Commission by Gov. Henry T. Gage with his earnest indorsement. From highly qualified candidates, whom the club had in readiness, two were appointed, and the promise was made that others should be at an early date. In a short time the superintendent of one hospital wrote that he did not see how they ever had managed without a woman physician.
A woman physician is on the Board of Health in Oakland.
In 1891 a law was passed providing for jail matrons in cities of 100,000 and over. This included only San Francisco and was not mandatory. In 1901 a law was secured requiring all cities of over 15,000 to have a matron at jails and city prisons, to be ​appointed for two years at a salary of $50, $65 or $75 a month, according to the size of the city.
Occupations: After the hard struggle to obtain a law admitting women to the bar in 1877, a long contest followed to secure their admission to the Hastings College of Law, a branch of the State University, which ended in a favorable decision of the Supreme Court. As a result of these efforts the constitutional convention of 1879 incorporated a provision that "No person shall, on account of sex, be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful business, vocation or profession." This does not, however, include appointive or elective offices.
Education: This same constitution of 1879 provided also that "No person shall be debarred admission to any of the collegiate departments of the State University on account of sex." Most of the smaller colleges are co-educational.
The assertion will hardly be questioned that the gifts of women for educational purposes in all parts of the Union, in all time, do not equal those made by the women of California within the last decade. As a memorial to their son, U. S. Senator and Mrs. Leland Stanford erected the Leland Stanford, Jr., University at Palo Alto in 1890 and endowed it with many millions of dollars. Mr. Stanford's death before it was fully completed threw the estate into litigation for a number of years, the legality of even some portion of the university endowment being in doubt. He left the bulk of his great fortune to his wife, and, after the estate was settled and free from all encumbrances, she reaffirmed the titles of all previous gifts and added the largest part of her Own property. The endowment is now about $30,000,000, all but $4,000,000 of this having been given by Mrs. Jane Lathrop Stanford. This is the largest endowment ever made by any one person for one institution, and places Stanford at the head of the endowed universities of the world. It has been co-educational in all departments from the beginning and the tuition is practically free.
In 1894 Mrs. Miranda Lux of San Francisco left a bequest of $750,000 for a school of manual training for both sexes. In 1898 Miss Cora Jane Flood of San Francisco conveyed to the Univer​sity of California her magnificent estate at Menlo Park and 4,000 shares of stocks, valued at not far from $1,000,000. The request was made that the income should be devoted to some branch of commercial education. Mrs. Jane Krom Sather of Oakland has given about $200,000 to the University. The donations of Mrs, Phoebe A. Hearst have been thus far about $300,000, but this is merely preliminary to the great endowment of millions for which she has arranged. It is exclusive also of $30,000 a year for several archæological expeditions. Liberal gifts have been made by other women.
In the public schools there are 1,722 men and 6,425 women teachers. The average monthly salary of the men is $81.08; of the women $64.76. As a law of 1873 requires equal pay of teachers for equal work, these figures show that the highly salaried positions are largely occupied by men.
Women's clubs play a very prominent part in the social life. Of these, 111 with a membership of over 7,000 belong to the State Federation. The oldest in the State is the Ebell of Oakland, organized over twenty-five years ago, and having now a handsome club house and a membership of 500. It raised $20,000 to purchase a site for the new Carnegie Library. The Century Club of San Francisco with 275 members is one of the oldest and most influential; the California Club has an active membership of 400; and there are a number of other flourishing clubs in that city, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda and Sacramento, of from 175 to 250 members. The Friday Morning Club of Los Angeles, with a membership of 500, owns a beautiful club house. The Ebell of that city has 300 members, and clubs of from 150 to 200 are found in various places in Southern California.
* ↑ The History is indebted for most of the material in this chapter to Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent of San Francisco, honorary president, and Miss Carrie A. Whelan of Oakland, corresponding secretary, of the State Woman Suffrage Association.
* ↑ See History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, Chap. LIII.
* ↑ Other names which appear in the scant records are Dr. Cora Morse, Mesdames William A. Keith, A. W. Manning, Helen Moore, Emily Pitt Stevens, Julia Schlessinger, Gertrude Smythe—of San Francisco and the towns around the bay; E. L. Collins of the Stockton Daily Mail, Mrs. D. P. Burr and Mrs. James Gillis of Stockton.
* ↑ For full description see Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLV.
* ↑ President, Mrs. Ellen Clark (Aaron A.) Sargent; first vice-president, Mrs. Annie K. (General John) Bidwell; second vice-president, Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn; third vice-president, Mrs. John Spalding; corresponding secretary, Mrs. George Oulton; recording secretary, Mrs. Hester A. Harland; treasurer, Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich; auditors, Mrs. Mary Wood (John F.) Swift and Mrs. Isabel A. Baldwin.
* ↑ Ida Husted Harper, the Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Mary Wood Swift, Dr. Ida V. Stambach, Harriet E. Cotton, Ada H. Van Pelt.
* ↑ The others who have held office in the State association since 1896 are—first vice-Presidents, Mesdames Frank M. Smith, C. R. Randolph, H. J. D. Chapman, Mary Wood Swift; second vice-presidents, Mrs. Annie K. Bidwell, Mrs. E. O. Smith; third vice-presidents, Mrs. Elmira T. Stevens, Mrs. R. H. Pratt, Mrs. A. K. Bidwell; corresponding secretaries, Mrs. Harriet E. Cotton, Miss Mary E. Donnelly, Dr. Amy G. Bowen, Miss Carrie A. Whelan; recording secretaries, Mrs. Nellie Holbrook Blinn, Miss Mary G. Gorham, Mrs. Henry Krebs, Jr., Mrs. Dorothy Harnden; treasurers, Mrs. Mary S. Sperry (six years), Miss Clara M. Schlingheyde; auditors, Mrs. Lovell White, Mrs. George Oulton, Miss Mary S. Keene, Dr. Alida C. Avery, Mrs. Mary Mc. H. Keith, Mrs. Anna K. Spero.
* ↑ Among those who have been officially connected with the work are Co. P. T. Dickingon, Col. George and Mrs. Olive E. Babcock, Drs. Alice Bush, Susan J. Fenton, Kellogg Lane, Carra B. Schofield, Rev. C. W. Wendte, Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Mr. and Mrs. John L. Howard, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Woodhams, Mesdames A. E. S. Banks, S. C. Borland, J. C. Campbell, Ella E. Greenman, L. G. Judd, Mary McHenry Keith, A. A. Moore, M. B. Pelton, Emily M. Vrooman, C. L. Wood, J. A. Waymire, John Yule; Misses Mollie E. Connors, Mary S. Keene, Mary Snell, Winifred Warner, Carrie AS Whelan.
* ↑ Among the most active members are Mesdames M. B. Braley, Fred L. Foster, Sarah Knox Goodrich, J. H. Henry, H. Jennie James, A. K. de Jarnette (Spero), E. O. Smith, Laura J. Watkins, Alice B. Wilson.
* ↑ Immediately afterwards the ladies said to one of the members, "Why did you break your pledge to us and vote against the bill?" Without a moment's hesitation he answered, "Because I had a telegram this morning from the Liquor Dealers' Association telling me to do so."
* ↑ Chairman, Ellen Clark Sargent; vice-chairman, Sarah B. Cooper; corresponding secretary, Ida Husted Harper; recording secretary, Harriet Cooper; treasurer, Mary S. Sperry; auditors, Mary Wood Swift and Sarah Knox Goodrich.   State Central Committee: Mrs. Sargent, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Swift, Mrs. Sperry, Mrs. Blinn, with Mary G. Hay, chairman.
* ↑ Later Mrs. Ida Crouch Hazlitt of Colorado, Mrs. Laura M. Riddell of San Diego and other State women were added te the organizing force.
* ↑ Dr. Elizabeth Sargent was chairman of the Committee on Petitions for Northern and Mrs. Alice Moore McComas for Southern California. As the names had to be collected in the winter months preceding the spring campaign, the distances to be covered were long and the labor was the free offering of busy women, it is surprising that the list was so large. It by no means represented the suffrage sentiment in the State.
* ↑ Alameda had sent in the largest petition for woman suffrage of any county in the State, and San Joaquin afterwards gave a big majority vote for the amendment.
* ↑ A number of young women who were engaged the greater part of every day in teaching, stenography, bookkeeping, etc., gave every hour that could be spared to the work at headquarters, a free will offering. Among those who deserve special mention are Misses Mary, Louise and Sarah Donnelly, Mary Gorham, Clara Schlingheyde, Effie Scott Vance, Evelyn Grove, Mrs. N. W. Palmer, Winifred and Marguerite Warner and Carrie A. Whelan. Mrs. Lelia S. Martin also contributed five months' time.
* ↑ Los Angeles County gave a majority of 4,600 in favor of the amendment.
* ↑ Many personal incidents and anecdotes of this campaign will be found in the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, Chap. XLVII.
* ↑ This portion of the chapter was prepared by Mrs. Alice Moore McComas, former president of the Los Angeles Woman Suffrage Association and chairman of the Southern California press committee during the amendment campaign of 1896. A considerable amount of space is given because it presents so admirable an example of the manner in which the work in such a campaign should be done.
* ↑ The first paper to establish a Suffrage Column was the Los Angeles Express, in 1887, H. Z. Osborne, editor. This was conducted by Mrs. McComas for three years.
* ↑ Among the many were Gertrude Foster, the young California actress, who added attraction to many programs with her brilliant readings, and Jessie, daughter of Superior Judge Waldo York, who won the prize of $75 offered by Dr. Ella Whipple Marsh, superintendent of franchise of the Southern California W. C. T. U., for the best essay on woman suffrage, one hundred young people of both sexes competing. An oratorical contest for young college men—original orations on woman suffrage—resulted in a $20 prize to Edwin Hahn of Pomona College, five young men participating. Clare, daughter of Judge C. C. McComas, gave highly-appreciated recitations on the woman question, and Miss Nina Cuthbert, the young teacher of elocution, delighted many audiences with her readings and wonderful imitations.
* ↑ Prominent among these were the Single Tax Club, Royal Arcanum, Foresters, Native Daughters of the Golden West, Socialist League, Y. M. C. A., Carpenters' Union, Woman's Relief Corps, Y. W. C. A., Friday Morning Woman's Club and the Fraternal Brotherhood.
* ↑ It is regretted that the carefully compiled list of these papers, sent by Mrs. McComas, is too long to be used. [Eds.
* ↑ In addition to men and women already mentioned the following is a partial list of those who aided in various ways: Annie B. Andrews, Alice Armor, Prof. W. C. and i Sarah A. Bowman, Mary M. Bowman, Mrs. (Dr.) B. W. Beacher, Mary E. Benson, Mary E. Bucknell, Alice E. Broadwell, Rollo K. Bryan, James G. Clark, Mary L. Crawford, Lucy E. Cook, Mary Lynde Craig, Pauline Curram, Gen. A. B. Campbell, Edith Cross, Adelaide Comstock, Prof. G. A. Dobinson, the Hon. C. H. Dillon, Florence Dunham, Virginia W. Davis, Sallie Markham Davis, Ella H. Enderline, Katheryne Phillips Edson, Dr. and Mrs. Eli Fay, Ada C. Ferriss, Mary E. Fisher, Miss M. M. Fette, Kate; Tupper Galpin, Mary E. Garbutt, Prof. Burt Estees Howard, Emma Hardacre, Mary L. Alutchinson, Rachel Handby, Mrs. C. E. Haines, Georgia Hodgeman, Judge and Mrs. Ivan, Mrs. Mary E. and Miss Kinney, Mrs. E. A. and Miss Lawrence, Alice Beach McComas, Ben S. May, Susie Munn, Mattie Day Murphy, Dr. Mary Nixon, Mrs. C. W. Parker, Delia C. Percival, Ursula M. Poats, Mary Rankin, Rachel Reid, Aglea Rothery, Mr. and Mrs. W. C. B. Randolph, Caroline M. Severance, Mrs. Fred Smith, Dora G. Smith, Drusilla E. Steele, Annie B. Smith, Gabrella Stickney, Mrs. A. Tichenor, Mrs. R. H. F. Variel, Dr. Theoda Wilkins, Mrs. (Dr.) Wills, Fanny Wills, Attorney Sarah Wild, Judge Waldo York, Jessie York.
* ↑ Claus Spreckles gave his son Rudolph a large amount of sugar stock which was community property, and Mrs. Spreckles did not join. Afterwards he sued to recover and the Supreme Court, all the Judges concurring, decided the gift was legal. Justice Temple rendered the decision as follows:   "All these differences point to the fact that the husband is absolute owner of the community property. The marital community was not acquired for the purpose of accumulating property, and the husband owes no duty to the community or to the wife, either to labor or accumulate money, or to save or to practice economy to that end. He owes his wife and children suitable maintenance, and if he has sufficient income from his separate estate he need not engage in business, or so live that there can be community property. If he earns more than is sufficient for such maintenance, he violates no legal obligation if he spends the surplus in extravagance or gives it away. The community property may be lost in visionary schemes or in mere whims. Within the law he may live his life, although the community property is dissipated. Of course I am not now speaking of moral obligations."
* ↑ During this trial Mrs. Sargent and her friends in attendance were caricatured in the most shameless manner by the San Francisco Call, which had passed under a new management
* ↑ See History of Woman Suffrage, Vol. III, p. 757.