The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-06-03

III. EDIFoRa | was very much SUR
Drised at the tone and tenor cf an 7,
article in The last Organ under the
canton of s'W oman 4 Rights" Ia
sDeaking Of the proceedings Of the
Committee which met at New Y ork for
tbg purpose Of making arrangements
ior the proposed Worlds TEMP mPerance
Convention, you do great injustice to
one of the parties, and also to the
facts as they tIahspired, 1 have no
desire nor intention to introduce, or
to discuss after you have introduced,
the subject Of woman'a rights in your
columns, but inasmuch as your article
conveys some very erroneous impress
sions, you %ill, Of coarse, not refuse
me the privilege Of correcting them.
In doing SO, I will use the New York
Tribuue's Report, which is full, and
no doubt correct. ssa "a
First, then, you say ga number Of
ladies presented their credentials, and
proposed to take part in the dsIi6erq-
tions and discussions Of the meeting"
This, from your account, would ap-
pear to be the beginning Of the diff
Guilty, the very first thing after the
opening Of the meeting with prayer,
was a amotion BY the Rev. John Marsh,
''that all gentlemen present, who were
friends of temperance, be admitted as
delegates" Thus cutting off those
women who had been sent as delegates
before any one had said any thing
about what they proposed" to do.
But the committee admitted the f'la-
dies" as delegates, and after the roll
had been made out comprising men
and women, and a business. commit
tee appointed, Rev. 7. w. Higginson
arose and asked to be excused from
servins on tina committee, and moved
that Lucy Stone be substituted in his
place. Upon this motion a discussion
arose, Rev. DIR. Hewitt going ''into a
set speech on the general question Of
women's rights" followed by Rev,
Mr.. Chambers, E. w. jackson and
others, on the same side Of the
subject, and no one replying to them
on that subject, apd yet in the face Of
these facts, you say cit seems to us
passing stFange,sthaS persons Of so
much intelligence as these above
named, Lucy Stone and others) can
not attend atemperance meeting with
out bringing in woman's rights, sla-
very and every other ism that has
taken possession of their minds" It
would indeed be strange, if true, but
it is not true. Neither did the women
nor their advocates introduce the sub
iect. 1t was introduced by the other
side, and discussed by them alone.
You say further, that 'tMiss Clark
and Miss Stone were delivered Of very
tine speeches, full OF Indignation, ac-
cusation and villifcation.'' ~ Will you
please point out the "villifcation?"
You appear to have overlooked the
''villi6cation" of the Rev. DR.. Hewitt,
or Rev. Mr.. Chambers, who called
the women present "the scam of the
convention" or Mr.. E. w. Jackson,
or Mr.. Barstow, who talked about
"women in breeches, as disgrace to
their SEX" and very politely and deli
cately insisted that "he believed they
were never productive in anything but
mischief" To .all this, the women
were not permitted to say word, and
when they had met in another place,
their speeches certainly do not meriI
the vithperation you pour out upon
them. They had been treated with
indignity and contempt, and deserve
greatcredit for their mildness. They
were sent there as delegates, and were
admitted as such, and thrust out with
to add to the injury, you now hunt
scornfnl and opprobious epithets. And