The San Francisco call., 1895-11-04
COUZINS VS.. SHAW.
HEALDsBURe, sonoma County, Cal,

V,
November l, 1S95.S
To the Editor of the San Francisco CdIt-SIR:
When one makes decided "hit" in transfxing
veritable Bishop OF the Methodist Episcopal
Church in his review OF what he thinks are
"not Gods women" according to his narrowed
Interpretation of Scripture, and the writer re-
ceives therefore the commendation of the press
of the city Chicago, wherein it made) for
the incisive discretion, wit and brilliancy
wherewith it was done, it can only be with
feelings of amaZement that the critic of this
reverend Bishop views the appropriation of
her legitimate effort by another without so
| much as ''by your leaye,' and reads again in
your San Francisco papers the plagiarism of her
review by one who has come to your shores TO
| instruct the men of California 1.-THE Injus-
tice OF Chivalry;" ! refer to Miss Anna Shaw's
| lecture on ''God's Women"
| 1t was my especial privilege to be in Chicago
| in January Of 1891, when Professor Harper of
the Chicago University opened what he styled
| "a Sacred College or Literature for the delec-
| tation OF the callow youth OF the period in the
literature of the Scriptures.
! To this gathering came Bishop John Vincent
with his lore to assist, and in his opening lee
! ture he took occasion TO tell these youths what
| women he regarded the lovely clinging
vines OF the Scripture, and VIII were thestrong
minded and not ''called" OF God.
In an article which / dubbed mot Gods
| Women impaled this reverend Bishop in a
metaphysical dissertation OF the Ruths, Rachels
and Marys-hiS cllnging vines-as contradis-
| tlngu1shed from the Deborahs, Huldabs and
! Miriams the strong minded which called
| forth not only the liveliest criticisms on the
| Bishop, but set the whole town agog with
| laughter at his expense, and the Chicago Post
| did me the honor to say "that Bishop Vincent
| had at last found feminine antagonist who
| was not only worthy OF his steel, but who
! could measure forensic swords with him, and
whose drubbing sayored largely of masculine
club"
| The press of the East copied the articles ex-
! tensively, and much merriment ensued at the
Bishops expense.
| If there is one of my efforts for which have
lively affection and especial claim upon, it is
| this review of the reverend Bishop, and it is
therefore with peculiar feelings that l read not
only OF the appropriation OF the title Not
| Gods Women"-with the "not' dropped out
| but the gist of the review embodied in Miss
Shaw's lecture in your City.
In March of 1891 this lady, who was then
but newcomer in the ranks of the National
| Sufragist, appropriated this review for her
! contribution TO the Woman's Council in Wash
1nston, ID. c., with merely dates and location
| changed to New York. In San Francisco she
swings the occurrence back to Chicago, where
had transfXed and routed the Bishop.
have no desire to detract one jot or little
| from the lady's reputation as an original wit,
| to woman. but think have the right, in view
of the cool plagiarism that has again been per-
petrated, TO say to your readers that there are
other forms of 'injustice' as well that might
! serve as an interesting subject for mans study,
| VIZ, the injustice OF one woman's encroach-
ment on the well-earned laurels OF another, for
| her own delectation, profit and advancement.
| Very truly yours,
PHGBE w. CoUZINs of st. Louis, Mo.