The San Francisco call., 1895-11-06
Anna Shaw Is Accused of En-
croaching on Them Surrep.
titiously.
GODS WOMEN" a PLAGIARISM
But Miss Shaw's Best Friend in San
Francisco Says 1t is MiSun.
derstanding.
Gods Women" or "Not Gods

Gods Women" or "Not Gods
Women" That the question.
Miss Phoebe w. Couzins of st. Louis,
No, at present in California, and Miss
Anna Shaw, who returned to her Eastern
home a few days ago, have raised the
point. Rather Miss Couzins has taken
that step. Whereat there has come to
pass wide difference of opinion as to
who is who. In fine Miss Couzins has
publicly, through the medium of an open
letter to THE CALL, accused Miss Shaw OF
Notwithstanding her review and using
1t as an original effort on the subject OF
Goods Women" and inferentially she
suggests falling worse than the 'injus-
tice of chivalry''-the injustice of one
woman encroaching on the laurels OF
another.
Miss Couzins says in her arraignment OF
Miss Shaw that it is with feelings OF
amaZement she views the appropriation OF
her legitimate effort by another without so
much as "by your leave" and reads again
in our San Francisco papers the plagiar-
ism of her review by one who has come to
our shores to instruct the men of Cali
fornia on The Injustice of Chivalry." She
refers 10 Miss Anna Shaw's lecture on
God Women"
hG IGN4CN III NiuCStlOll W Do VI q S411SdSO
Bishops lecture on mot Gods Women, "
delivered in 1891. Commenting upon
which, in view of certain favorite topic
OF Miss Shaw-"God's Women" Miss
Couzins says:
II there is one OF my efforts for which I have
lively affection and especial claim upon, it
is this review OF the reverend Bishop, and il is
therefore with peculiar feelings that read not
only OF the appropriation OF the title mot
Gods Women"-with the mot" 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
suffragists, appropriated this review for her
contribution 10 the Woman's Council in Wssh-
ington, d. 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.
Miss Shaw left this City Saturday.for the
East, Just 2 few days before the letter of
her co-worker appeared in print. She was
not here 10 make answer, but her friend,
Mrs. \. y. Sargent, in whose home she had
been staying while in San Francisco, de-
med firmly yesterday that there was any
plagiarism or even knowledge OF the dis
puted review in Miss Shaw's mind.
when Miss Shaw delivered her address
on Gods Women she did not even know
about Miss Couzins' review, which was de-
Ilvered only few days before" she said
There are only few women IN the Bible
20 De taken as ILLUSTRATIONS, ana you see
there is consequently very little choice of
subjects. So when two speakers happen
TO take up similar subjects with the same
figures, naturally there are many points
bearing strong resemblance in both re-
views, or lectures, or whatever they may
be. 1t so happened in this case. but in
every other feature there was no resem-
blance. Miss Shaw S language and thought
were not plagiarisms of Miss Couzins 1t
was simply that the coincidence made it
appear that it was.
- take it that these two women are
bright and witty and brainy and educated
enough to speak on these topics without
being compelled to take each others ideas
or language"
Miss Shaw will no doubt explain after
her return home.