Suffragists -- United States; Women -- Suffrage -- United States
All incoming mail and telegrams were also censored by the
Superintendent and practically all of them denied the prisoners.
Superintendent Whittaker openly boasted of holding up the suffragists’
mail: “I am boss down here,” he said to visitors who asked to see the
prisoners, or to send in a note. “I consider the letters and telegrams
these prisoners get are treasonable. They cannot have them.” He
referred to messages commending the women for choosing prison to
silence, and bidding them stand steadfast to their program.
Of course all this was done in the hope of intimidating not only the
prisoners, but also those who came wanting to see them.
It was the intention of the women to abide as far as possible by the
routine of the institution, disagreeable and unreasonable as it was.
They performed the tasks assigned to them. They ate the prison food
without protest. They wore the coarse prison clothes. But at the end of
the first week of detention they became so weak from the shockingly bad
food that they began to wonder if they could endure such a system. The
petty tyrannies they could endure. But the inevitable result of a diet
of sour bread, half-cooked vegetables, rancid soup with worms in it,
was serious.
Finally the true condition of affairs trickled to the outside world
through the devious routes of prison messengers.
Senator J. Hamilton Lewis, of Illinois, Democratic whip in the Senate,
heard alarming reports of two of his constituents, Miss Lucy Ewing,
daughter of Judge Ewing, niece of Adlai Stevenson, Vice-President in
Cleveland’s Administration, niece of James Ewing, minister to Belgium
in the same Administration, and Mrs. William Upton Watson of Chicago.
He made a hurried trip to the workhouse to see them. The fastidious
Senator was shocked—shocked at the appearance of the prisoners, shocked
at the tale they told, shocked that “ladies” should be subjected to
such indignities. “In all my years of criminal practice,” said the
Senator to Gilson Gardner, who had accompanied him to the workhouse, “I
have never seen prisoners so badly treated, either before or after
conviction.” He is a gallant gentleman who would be expected to be
uncomfortable when he actually saw ladies suffer. It was more than
gallantry in this instance, however, for he spoke in frank condemnation
of the whole “shame and outrage” of the thing.
It is possible that he reported to other Administration officials what
he had learned during his visit to the workhouse for very soon
afterwards it was announced that an investigation of conditions in the
workhouse would be held. That was, of course, an admirable maneuver
which the Administration could make. “Is the President not a kind man?
He pardoned some women. Now he investigates the conditions under which
others are imprisoned. Even though they are lawless women, he wishes
them well treated.”
It would sound “noble” to thousands.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account