The Olivia Letters: Being Some History of Washington City for Forty Years as Told by the Letters of a Newspaper CorrespondentBriggs, Emily Edson
History
The Olivia Letters: Being Some History of Washington City for Forty Years as Told by the Letters of a Newspaper Correspondent
Briggs, Emily Edson
United States -- Politics and government -- 1865-1933; Washington (D.C.) -- History
Senator Hamlin, who sat at the head of the Senate committee, and
consequently at the speaker’s right hand, turned his ear in a calm
and patient attitude, with a suppressed merry twinkling of the eye
altogether incompatible with the hour. Senator Pratt, of Indiana,
laid his head on the back of his chair, rolled his eyes heavenward,
and looked as if he felt his genuine modesty more than ever. Mr.
Rice, of Arkansas, sat holding his chin, apparently fearful that
unless taken just the right kind of care of it might drop down,
leaving the floor open with all sorts of consequences. Judge Cook,
of Illinois, folded his hands over his breast, seemingly as resigned
as if for the last time, whilst Judge Welker, of Ohio, looked just
as if he wanted to say “boo to a goose.” Just before Mrs. Stanton
began Senator Hamlin read two petitions--the first signed by some
of the women of the District, praying that suffrage be extended to
them, and another from Massachusetts, of the same purport. After he
had finished he calmly sat down, and told the women he was prepared,
with the other gentlemen, to hear what they had to say. Mrs. Stanton
came to time as usual, and began the story which all thoughtful
persons have by heart who have heard her three times. She read it,
however, and one sitting by her side could see slips of paper cut
from newspapers pasted between portions of the manuscript, and it
was said these slips were taken from the time of the Revolution.
The essay began about eternal principles. That it was best to do
right, and leave the rest to God. That Congress should legislate
for equality. The Republican party had put the word “male” into the
Federal Constitution. The States had the right to regulate, but not
to prohibit suffrage. It is despotism of the most odious kind to
prevent woman from the exercise of those powers which God has given
her. She said there was a proposition before Congress to change the
whole code of laws which govern the District of Columbia; and when
this was done the only way to regenerate and purify the spot was to
remove disabilities, and let all vote--male and female, black and
white. She wanted this mooted question of suffrage ended. She went
over the ground of the late war, and said that woman had not been
a disinterested observer for the last hundred years; that she came
over in the Mayflower, side by side with man in the old Revolution;
and can woman now stand silent and see the selling of her birthright
of liberty? The emancipated serfs of Russia were clamoring for more
liberty, and they would get it, too. Do you intend to stand by these
old landmarks, instead of advancing with a newer civilization?
Mrs. Stanton then proposed for the committee to ask any questions
which they might think proper to do. An ominous silence followed.
Mrs. Stanton then said she did not choose to be represented by John
Morrissey and two men in the New York legislature who could neither
read nor write.
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