The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-05
ANOTHER SUFFRAGE MEETING,

The reference of Mr.. Driver and Mr..
Evans to the meeting held in this city
on Tuesday night. in their remarks
made in the constitutional convention
Wednesday,. stirred up the people in
this city to the extent that another
meeting has been called for this eve
ming.
a petition or call for a meeting at
Thomas hall this evening was circula-
ted yesterday afternoon and was gen.
orally signed by every one to whom it
was presented.
When The Herald representative
saw it there were Is signatures attach
ed. and 1t had only been circulated on
the west side of WASHINGTON avenue
between Twenty-third and Twenty
fifth streets.
The object Of the meeting is to pc
tition the constitutional convention to
submit the woman suffrage article to
separate vote of the people.
If the gentlemen who said that the
meeting Tuesday night which passed
the resolutions asking for separate
article was not a representative one
could see the names on this petition.
they would come to the conclusion
that it did represent something. be-
cause this call is not only signed by
many who were present Tuesday night.
but others have signed who were not
present, and they are representative
citizens beyond the question Of a
doubt
1t is to be hoped that this meeting
will be conducted in an orderly man
her. and that sober thought and sound
Judgment will prevail. The trouble
Tt11aSdoU nj T11aoffnO WAS fh2
It was not conducted properly. Judge
Foreman made a mistake when, as
chairman of the non-partisan meeting,
he said Democrats never kept their
party pledges. while Republicans al
ways did.
And then Judge Rhodes. who spoke in
favor Of woman suffrage. offered a
gratuitous insult to the men and wo-
men present who were not in favor
of woman suffrage by CHASING them
as buns dominated by the whisky ele-
ment. The result of this statement was
that personalities were INDUCED in and
what should have been a dignified as
sembly was turned into farce COM
edy, each side cheering when their
respective champions scored the other
fellow. The excitement ran so high
that a gentleman. who is employed
in Mr.. Evans law Office. made
motion to condemn the
action of the constitutional con-
vention in passing suffrage. This sug-
gestion aroused Mr.. Evans and he
made a speech defytng the meeting,
which only added fuel to the fame;
and on top of this a motion was made
10 adjourn which was voted down 8
to 1, yet Judge Foreman declared it
carried.
Only a part Of those who were in
favor of woman suffrage left the hall
Another meeting was called. order
prevailed and the resolutions asking
that suffrage for women be in a sepa-
rate article were passed. Not all
who took part in the second meeting
were opposed to woman suffrage, sew
eral voted for the resolutions because
they thought it was a reasonable re-
quest.
This statement is given in relation
to the meeting Tuesday night because
a wrong impression has gone out in
regard to it, It is not claimed that
it was an orderly affair; far from it.
1t was not disorderly because it was
composed of the bum element, because
the vast majority of the ladies and
gentlemen present belonged to what
may be termed the conservative class
of citizens, but they allowed them
selves to become excited more or less
and while the best of humor prevailed
in the audience such was not the case
with al the speakers, some Of whom
allowed their temper to get the best
of them. It was only nlomentarily.
however.
In no sense was the meeting dis
graceful affair. 1t was simply case
Of a lot of highly respectable ladies
and gentlemen becoming highly ex-
aited over a very heated discussion.