Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

At a meeting attended by at least 220 incumbents, held at the Holborn Town Hall in January, with the object of which a large number of others expressed sympathy, the reservation of the sacrament for the bona fide purpose of communicating the sick and the dying and the ceremonial use of incense were declared to be laudable practices of the whole Catholic Church of Christ, both included in the directions contained in the ornaments rubric, the right to which could not and must not be abandoned.

The Manifesto of the Church Union.—A meeting of the English Church Union was held in London, Feb. 28, and was largely attended by men prominent in every sphere of life, all active Churchmen. Lord Halifax, president, addressing the meeting, spoke of the agitation as one which necessitated the united action of their union. What would be indifferent to them if it only touched themselves, he said, ceased to be indifferent when it touched the Church of England, and for the sake of the Church and for the sake of the truth it behooved them to make some such reply as their countrymen should understand. He denied that they were lawless in regard to the authority of the Church, and of the bishops administering Church law on Church principles, but admitted that they pleaded guilty of lawlessness in regard to the authority of the Privy Council and of courts subject to its jurisdiction when they interfered in spiritual matters. The following memorial was unanimously adopted: "We, the clergy and laity of the English Church Union, have been publicly accused of lawlessness and disloyalty.

"We might have disregarded such accusations if they had been directed only against ourselves; we can not disregard them when we see them used to damage the Church of England, to the service of which we are pledged.

"It was open to the rulers of England in the sixteenth century to have thrown in their lot with the foreign Reformers, and to have established a new religious body in the place of the ancient English Church. They did not do so. With one voice they rejected all idea of separating themselves from the Catholic Church. They disclaimed all intention of dissociating themselves from the churches of Italy, France, Spain, and Germany,' except in such particular as these churches had themselves departed from primitive antiquity.

"They declared that nothing was to be taught except what could be collected from the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops. They justified their position by an appeal to Holy Scripture and primitive custom. In the sphere of government they claimed for the Crown only such power in respect to the Church as had always been claimed by the sovereigns of England-namely, to see legal justice administered in regard to all persons and causes, free from any foreign interference. In the sphere of doctrine and religious observance they rejected all changes which struck at any laudable custom of the whole Catholic Church of Christ.' The ordinal provided for the continuance and succession of the priesthood as it had hitherto been understood and received. Provision was made that the chancels should continue as in times past,' and the ancient vestments used by the clergy in all times of their ministrations' were enjoined.

"What have we said or done that is not in strictest harmony with these requirements? "We have asserted, and we assert again, that the Church of England can not consistently with her principles release herself from the obligations

imposed upon her by her relation to the rest of the Catholic Church.

"We have maintained, and we shall continue to maintain, that the doctrine, discipline, and ceremonial of the Church of England, as they have at any time during the course of her history been prescribed by her, remain in force and operation except in such specific instances as they have been changed by her own authority.

66

We have denied, and we deny again, that a new religious establishment was set up in England in the sixteenth century.

"We have denied, and we deny again, the right of the Crown or of Parliament to determine the doctrine, the discipline, and the ceremonial of the Church of England.

"We are content, if need be, to suffer for these things, and to suffer gladly. What we are not content to do is to sacrifice the rights and liberties of the Church of England to popular clamor and ignorant prejudice.

"If the nation, at a moment when the Church is doing more for souls, both at home and abroad, than at any previous time, is no longer prepared to recognize the Church of England on the lines which have always been hers, so it must be. We shall protest against the spoliation of the Church, but we are not prepared to barter the principles of the Church for the sake either of establishment or endowment.

"It is hateful to us even to seem to be in opposition to our bishops.

"We claim no right to introduce new ceremonies or novel doctrines at our own good pleasure, but we do claim that the rights of the Church of England shall be respected, and that matters which, in view of all the circumstances of the case, may rightly be subjects for regulation shall not be condemned on a principle of interpretation to which it is impossible we can assent.

"We can not admit, in view of the history of the Church of England, that any interpretation of the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer can be legitimate which relies on the principle that omission to prescribe is equivalent to prohibition to use. Neither can we admit that arguments founded on nonuser, however long and continuous, can be legitimately adduced as evidence of what the Church of England forbids or enjoins.

"A church which, prescribing a service for Ascension Day as full and as particular as that ordered for Christmas and Easter, has yet for long periods of time acquiesced in a general neglect of Ascension Day has no continuous tradition or practice which can be appealed to as evidence of what it enjoins or forbids.

"We insist that it is for those who assert that certain usages formerly prevailing in the Church are not covered by the ornaments rubric to prove that they are forbidden, not for those who uphold those usages to show that they are explicitly ordered.

"We submit that when the use of the English Prayer Book was first enjoined it was used by a clergy accustomed to the traditional way of performing the services of which the Prayer Book was for the most part a translation and adaptation. Such clergy would inevitably be guided in the use of the new service book by their practice under the old. What was legitimate then can not be illegitimate now.

"These are the principles which the members of the union have maintained in the past; they are the principles they will continue to maintain in the future. Relying upon them, we earnestly beseech the rulers of the Church not to use their

spiritual power to curtail the glory and the splendor of the services of God's house on earth by imposing on the Church a narrow and disputed interpretation of the rubrics.

"We no less earnestly entreat the rulers of the state not to incur the risk of certain disaster by encouraging any legislation which should aim at enforcing upon the Church in England the decisions of secular courts in spiritual matters." Action of the House of Commons. This manifesto of the Church Union was the subject of debate in the House of Commons, April 11, when Mr. Balfour spoke in condemnation of the position assumed by the ritualists. A resolution was passed by a vote on division of 200 to 14 deploring the spirit of lawlessness shown by certain members of the Church of England, and advising that clergymen, before obtaining preferment from the Crown, be required to promise obedience to the bishops and the Prayer Book, and also to "the law as declared by the courts which have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical." Reply of the Church Association. In a reply to the manifesto of the English Church Union, issued in March, the National Protestant Church Association set forth that the points in dispute were not for the most part matters concerning which there had been mere "omission to prescribe," but matters "which were carefully and deliberately rejected, after mature consideration, by the Church at the revision of the Prayer Book, and are further condemned in the articles and other formularies." And it concluded: "It is vain to imagine establishment without at the same time being subject to a certain degree of state control. Nor can the state, having conceded to the Church very great privileges, on the condition that certain doctrines were to be taught and a particular form of Church government maintained, permit the clergy to contravene those doctrines and repudiate the contract with the state, by which alone they are secured in their offices and emoluments. This is really the question at issue."

Positions of the Queen and the Prime Minister. A statement was made in the Leeds Mercury in January, in connection with a visit made by the Bishop of Winchester to Sir William Harcourt, that her Majesty was much concerned about the dissensions in the Church, and strongly desired that before any legislation was attempted an understanding should be arrived at between the Government and the bishops, so that such changes as were considered necessary might be carried through with the least possible delay and friction. While she had always taken a deep interest in Church government and discipline, her Majesty was quite unaware until the present agitation of the extent to which the new doctrines and practices had been introduced into the national Church. She was distressed at the chaos revealed, and was prepared to do all in her power to restore peace to the Establishment.

While the controversy was at its height, April 29, Lord Salisbury wrote, in a letter expressing sympathy with the anxiety expressed by his correspondent, that “great dangers and evils are before us unless it shall be found possible to restore the discipline which has been so seriously impaired. The archbishops and bishops, with whom in this matter the primary responsibility lies, are doing their utmost to bring the Church back to a sound condition in this respect. Their efforts to effect this object and to restore a respect for the laws of the Church, which in some quarters has been forgotten, deserve the hearty support of all Churchmen."

Hearing before the Archbishops.-The archbishops announced, Jan. 20, in order, as they declared, to give more confidence to the clergy and laity that their views and opinions would be fully considered; that where doubt existed as to the interpretation of the law of the Church either archbishop would be prepared to hear cases arising within his own province argued by the party interested or by counsel. In order to guard against contradictory decisions in the two provinces, neither archbishop would pronounce his decision without consulting the other.

In accordance with this proposition the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Archbishop of York as adsessor, sat at Lambeth Palace, May 8 and the followings days, to hear cases that were submitted to him by the Bishops of Norwich and of London. The proceeding was of the nature of an informal reference, having no sanction of law, and it was not expected that the opinions, advice, or command of the primate would have the effect of a judicial decision. It was regarded rather as an informal effort to determine questions of ritual and to restrain irregularities without resorting to the secular courts, and the result was expected to have great influence as a disciplinary in distinction from a judicial pronouncement, coming from the highest ecclesiastical authority. Two cases were presented, involving questions of the use of incense and of processional lights. In the one case the Bishop of Norwich had prohibited the Rev. Edward Ram, of St. John's, Timber Hill, Norwich, and in the other the Bishop of London had prohibited the Rev. Henry Westall, of St. Cuthbert's, Philbeach Gardens. A printed brief of 173 pages had been prepared, common to the cases of both clergymen, full of historical and antiquarian matter. The cases were considered from the ecclesiastical point of view. The case of the Rev. Edward Ram was heard first.

A hearing in the second case, that of the Rev. H. Westall, of St. Cuthbert's, Philbeach Gardens, was held June 7 and the following days. The case involved the question of the legality or illegality of the use of lights-not of lighted candles upon the altar, but of lighted candles in candlesticks-or of tapers in processions or on the credence table, or elsewhere than on the altar.

The judgment of the archbishops in both cases was pronounced July 31. It began by setting forth that with reference to the two questions before them-the lawfulness of the liturgical use of incense and the lawfulness of carrying lights in procession-there was no direction_in_the Prayer Book either enjoining or authorizing either of these two practices. Nothing, however, could be clearer than the words used in the act of 1559 prohibiting the use of any ceremony not ordered in the Prayer Book. Specifically, as to incense, there was nothing to prevent its use for fumigating or sweetening purposes in the Church. But this had no bearing on the liturgical use. The conclusion on this point was, then, that " 'the use of incense in the public worship and as a part of worship is not at present enjoined nor permitted by the law of the Church of England, and it is our duty to request the clergy who so use it to discontinue that use." As to lights in processions, there was no authority for such processions, and they were therefore neither enjoined nor permitted. They might light up a Church to add to its beauty, but the ceremony of carrying lights about was of a different character. "And in this case, as in that of incense, we are obliged to request the clergy to

discontinue what the law of the Church of England does not permit. . . . In conclusion, we think it our duty to press not only on the clergy who have appeared before us, but also on all the clergy alike, to submit to episcopal authority in all such matters as these. All alike have consented to the Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of Common Prayer requires all persons, not only if they doubt, but if they find that others disagree with them concerning the meaning of the directions contained in the book, to resort to the bishop of the diocese, who may, if he thinks fit, send the question to the archbishop for his decision. In order to give the fullest opportunity to any who diversely take any question of this kind to give reasons for their opinion, we have suspended our decision until we had heard the matter fully and learnedly argued before us, and we have now given our opinion as the Prayer Book requires us to do. We entreat the clergy, for the sake of the peace of the Church, which we all so much desire, to accept our decision thus conscientiously given in the name of our common Master, the Supreme Head of the Church, the Lord whose commission we bear." The bishops generally communicated the substance of the opinion of the archbishops to the clergy of their several dioceses, and advised those who used the practices aimed at in it to discontinue them. Among the bishops supposed to be in sympathy with the ritualists, the Bishop of Rochester, while he did not conceal his sympathy, pointed out in his epistle that "the only right and loyal course for the clergy and the congregations concerned is to obey, and to be forward to obey, the grave and deliberate ruling by the highest authorities in our Church, and the admonition or wish by which that ruling is accompanied. A considerable number of the ritualistic clergy made modifications in their services, indicating a respect for the letter of the advice given them by their bishops. A few refused to obey.

According to a statement made in the Record newspaper, there were at the time the opinion of the archbishops was pronounced 289 churches in English and Welsh dioceses where incense was used, and therefore vitally affected by the decision.

An expression made by Lord Halifax, president of the English Church Union, after the decision was made, deprecating it as 'the greatest misfortune that has fallen on the Church since the rise of the Oxford movement," provoked much comment. Advice given by him to laymen to obey their immediate clergy whatever their decision may be was interpreted as meaning that clergymen who refused to obey their bishops should be supported in doing so. This led to the withdrawal of several members from the Church Union, among them Dean S. Reynolds Hale, of Rochester, a very popular and influential clergyman.

The Church Congress.-The thirty-ninth annual meeting of the Church Congress was held in London-this being the first time in its history that the body has assembled in the metropolis-beginning Oct. 10. The civic welcome was given in St. Paul's Cathedral, with a sermon by the Archbishop of Canterbury on The Failure to achieve the Unity of the Church. Other sermons were preached at Westminster Abbey by the Dean of Christ Church on The Kingdom of Christ, and in St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, by the Bishop of Peterborough, on The Presence of Christ with his People. The presidential address was delivered at Albert Hall by the Bishop of London, and had for its subject the question,

How can the Church best do its Work for the World? The first topic for stated discussion was The Church in London in this Century: Its Progress and its Needs, as bearing upon which the Archdeacon of London gave a review of the history and characteristics of The Diocese of London: The West and the City, and the Bishop of Stepney spoke of the Church in East London. The subject of The Church and the Laity: The Place and Work of the Laity in (a) Church Services and Parochial Organization, (b) the General Government of the Church, was spoken on by Mr. G. W. E. Russell and Mr. T. Cheney Garfitt on the first head, and the Dean of Norwich and Canon Gore on the second. The subject of The Church and her Services was discussed under the heads of The Principles of Ritual, The Question of maintaining a Type of Anglican Service, and the Limits of Possible Variations. In this discussion, after a paper on The Principles of Ritual, by the Rev. Principal Robertson, of King's College, London, Lord Halifax, Presiof the English Church Union, and cne of the foremost representatives of the ritualistic party, made a presentation of their case as that of conscientious worshipers, asking for a generous and hearty indulgence in efforts to enrich the service of God with an appropriate ritual derived from the early Middle Ages (approximately the thirteenth century), when the art of ritual culminated and before it degenerated into overelaboration. He was followed, after a paper by the Venerable B. Cheetham, Archbishop of Gloucester, by an address on the opposite side by Prebendary WebbPeploe, Secretary of the National Protestant Church Association, an equally prominent representative of the antiritualists, who took the position that whatever was foreign or repugnant to the national instincts should, so far as possible, be avoided, and that whatsoever accorded with or developed those instincts might be encouraged by those in authority, provided always that limits of charity, decorum, and general utility be observed; and applied this principle to the various aspects of the ritualistic question. On the subject of The Church and the Divisions of English Christianity-(a) the History of Nonconformity in this Century and its Influence on the Life and Work of the Church, and (b) the Possibilities of a Better Understanding in the Future, papers were read or addresses made by Prebendary Wace, Canon Overton, the Rev. W. H. Hutton, the Dean of Canterbury, the Archdeacon of London, the Dean of Ripon, the Rev. C. L. Engstrom, and the president.

Other subjects discussed were: The Evangelization of the World, Within the Empire and Beyond the Empire, The Church and Modern Society (including Speculation and Gambling, Certain Needful and Needless Sunday Employments, and Sunday Amusements), The Working Women in the Church, Purity and Temperance, Impoverishment of the Clergy and its Remedies, The Church and Education, The Church in Wales, Experimental Religion: Its Doctrinal Character and Foundation (a) as set forth in Holy Scripture and (b) as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer; and The Church and Social Questions-(a) Relations of Economic Knowledge to Christian Charity, (b) Conciliation to Labor Disputes, (c) Old-age Pensions, and (d) Housing of the Poor. An evening mass meeting of men was addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The closing service of the conference was held in St. Paul's Cathedral, Oct. 13, when a sermon was preached by the Bishop of London. After the formal closing of the congress proper, affiliated

meetings were held, Oct. 14, for young people and for choirs and choral societies.

ANTI-WOMAN - SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT, THE. Theories advanced in the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau gave the first inspiration to the idea of woman as a voter. He held that only the savage is free, and if there needs must be society the individual, not the family, is its unit. During the French Revolution Condorcet and Sieyes proposed that the ballot be given to woman, and their theories influenced Mary Wollstonecraft. Her Vindication of the Rights of Woman was at once admired and condemned. Sympathy with the Revolution took her to Paris, where she was deserted by her American lover. Freedom from the marriage tie was considered a necessary part of the scheme for equal rights, as it was thus proclaimed; but society opposed it and compelled Godwin to wed Mary Wollstonecraft and Shelley to wed her daughter. About 1820 Frances Wright, who is called "the pioneer woman in the cause of woman suffrage," came to the United States from Scotland. She lectured throughout the country, and established in New York city, in connection with Robert Dale Owen, a newspaper called The Free Inquirer. It was devoted to the promulgation of communism, materialism, and state socialism. She attacked state and church as the enemies of woman, and state and church took instant alarm. A party arose, calling itself "The Christian Party in Politics," to oppose her doctrines. In 1836 Ernestine L. Rose, an exiled Pole, came to this country to lecture. She was an extreme communist, and had presided in Europe over a body called “ An Association of All Classes of All Nations, without Distinction of Sect, Sex, Party, Condition, or Color." She also was a pioneer advocate of woman suffrage, and opposition to her teachings was strongly felt and openly manifested.

In 1840 the Antislavery Association was broken up by the determined effort of a few radical women to be heard publicly in its councils. In that wing of the abolition party which established "communities," which held that all human government is sinful because it is founded on force, the woman-suffrage theory found lodgment and open advocacy. It attacked the home and the state, as well as the church, in the supposed cause of woman. The state and the home looked upon these radicals as sincere but misguided enemies, and the community life was frowned out of existence.

In 1848 a convention was called to meet in Seneca Falls, N. Y., to discuss "the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman,' and the teachings of fifty years had culminated in the inauguration of a movement in which possession of the ballot by women was the main thing to be struggled for. Strong disapproval was expressed by women of the land who were foremost in education and philanthropy by Catherine Sedgwick, Hannah F. Gould, Catherine Beecher, Sara Josepha Hale, Dorothea Dix, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emma Willard, Lydia H. Sigourney, and Mary Lyon-but the first formulated protest against woman suffrage was sent to the Massachusetts Legislature, in 1860, by 200 women of Lancaster. They prayed the Legislature to refrain from forcing the vote upon women, because "it would diminish the purity, the dignity, and the moral influence of woman, and bring into the family circle a dangerous element of discord."

In 1868 and following years frequent protests were sent from women to the Illinois Legislature. In 1870 a protest was sent to the Ohio Legisla

ture from Oberlin College. Mrs. Henry O. Houghton, of Cambridge, Mass., for years conducted an organization that confined itself to issuing protests to the Legislature and to an occasional printed appeal. In 1871 a movement, largely inspired by Emma Willard, was inaugurated by Mrs. Dahlgren, widow of Admiral John A. DahĬgren. Associated with her as officers were Mrs. William T. Sherman and Mrs. Almira Lincoln Phelps. These ladies presented a protest to Congress, signed by 15,000 women, many of them notable, representing every walk in American life. The protest gave the following reasons:

66

Because Holy Scripture inculcates a different, and for us higher, sphere apart from public life. "Because as women we find a full measure of duties, cares, and responsibilities devolving upon us, and we are therefore unwilling to bear other and heavier burdens, and those unsuited to our physical organization.

"Because we hold that an extension of the suffrage would be adverse to the interests of the working women of the country, with whom we heartily sympathize.

"Because these changes must introduce a fruitful element of discord in the existing marriage relation, which would tend to the infinite detriment of children, and increase the already alarming prevalence of divorce throughout the land. Because no general law, affecting the condition of all women, should be framed to meet exceptional discontent."

[ocr errors]

These ladies conducted a journal of protest for several years. Individual States had thus made quiet resistance, but it was not until 1894 that organized effort to combat the suffrage movement was begun.

By that time the situation had become confused. Many of the claims of suffrage advocates had apparently blended themselves with the progress of a century that has been notable for women's advancement. First Mormonism, and then the rise of the Populist party, had carried constitutional suffrage for woman into three States of the Union. In May, 1894, the Constitutional Convention of New York met in Albany. The suffragists asked that an amendment, striking the word "male from Article II, section 1, of the State Constitution, be submitted to the people at the next election. A woman in Brooklyn, in the midst of the cares of a young family, began to call the attention of her friends to what seemed to her a grave danger, and she stirred sentiment so deeply that a meeting was called and action was decided upon. New York women were also interested, and a committee of six were placed in charge of a petition of protest. In less than three weeks this was forwarded to the convention with 7,000 names appended, nearly 3,000 of which were wage-earners. The protest said:

"The signatures attached are those of women who have given serious and intelligent thought to the subject, and who have become convinced that the movement for unlimited suffrage, if successful, would undo much of the good which earnest effort and untiring philanthropy have achieved for their sex in the past twenty years. We have held no public meetings, have made no speeches, conducted no campaign, have made no effort to impress the convention by mere number of names. We have accepted the signatures of no men, of no women under twenty-one years of age, of no aliens or nonresidents of the State. The signatures are confined to no class, and represent only those women who are so seriously concerned at the mere possibility of what they consider a most alarming proposition that they have come for

ward voluntarily to record their dissent. We respectfully submit that, notwithstanding the vigorous agitation of the question and the attempt by suffragists to arouse public opinion through the press and otherwise, there is among the women of this State a profound indifference on the subject, and that until a practically unanimous expression of opinion in its favor is given the convention will not be justified in considering the radical change demanded by a small number of women who regard themselves as the special advocates of the rights of their sex."

This statement was signed by Mrs. Francis M. Scott, Mrs. Clarence E. Beebe, Mrs. David H. Greer, Miss Eleanor G. Hewitt, Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge, Mrs. George White Field, Mrs. Richard Watson Gilder, and Miss Florence Lockwood. The convention decided not to submit the amendment.

In April, 1895, the Association Opposed to the Extension of the Suffrage to Women came into being in New York city. The reason therefor is set forth in its first annual report, which

says:

[ocr errors]

It is just two years since the energetic labors of the woman suffragists to induce the Constitutional Convention to pass favorably upon a suffrage amendment first roused the women of this State into active protest. When the deliberations of that body resulted in a decision to abide by the existing suffrage regulations the storm and stress of violent discussion which had wearied the minds and ears of the community was followed by a sudden quiet. The fact that a constitutional convention is held only every twenty years led to the mistaken statement, made in newspapers and elsewhere, that this vexed question of woman suffrage would not again be presented for legislative action for that period of time.

"In spite of the decision of the Constitutional Convention, the work of the woman suffragists upon the Legislature was begun early last year. Very little attention was paid to their quiet prosecution of their work, either by the general public or by those women who only a few months before had emphatically put themselves on record as against the false idea of progress indicated by the course of these same woman suffragists. It was not until the fact that the suffrage amendment, or concurrent resolution, as it is called, had passed the Assembly and reached the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, with every prospect of passing there, was brought to the attention of the original Executive Committee who had charge of the protest sent to the Constitutional Convention, that it was realized that our work was not finished, but only just begun. A meeting of the disbanded Executive Committee was hastily called, and it was determined to oppose the contemplated action of the Legislature. After advising with a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was considered best to send one of our number to appear before them. This was in response to the statement that no woman had ever been heard in opposition to the proposed amendment in all the years it had been before the Legislature, leaving us to infer that the Legislators could not be blamed if they believed those who did appear when they asserted that they spoke for all intelligent and educated women. "At the meeting of the original Executive Committee referred to the necessity of organization was appreciated, and the determination reached to form a permanent association to take charge of the work which again pressed upon us, and thereby to create a channel into which should

flow naturally that gathering flood of strong feeling, opinion, and judgment which demands that woman should be left free to develop along the lines indicated by Nature and its logic; free to exercise the qualities specially hers; free to supplement or lead the work of her brothers in all the ways from which Nature and its logic have shut them out.

"Twenty out of the 45 States have already written, asking information, expressing sympathy and encouragement. The interest aroused in our own State was so immediate and so great that it was found that some system of organization was necessary in order that our association should grow symmetrically. The simplest, and so the best, that was suggested was to take the already defined eight judicial districts of the State as a first form of division. Each one of these judicial districts is formed of a number of counties, excepting the First, which comprises only the city and county of New York. This plan was adopted. In each one of these districts a prominent city has been selected, and there the association formed is called an auxiliary, and is numbered according to its district. The other associations formed in cities and towns are called branches. "We have subdivided this First Judicial District into a number of branches, eight of which have been successfully formed, and more are preparing to take up the work in the near future. The result of this general organization, which was begun in January, has been a great increase of interest and membership. On Jan. 1 we had 532 city members; we now number 1,406.

"This encouraging result makes it plain that when the women are reached quietly and systematically they are glad to record themselves on our side, and have heretofore only lacked the opportunity. In the nature of the case the women who feel with us are not an aggressive sisterhood. They are not clamoring for anything; their every instinct is against loud and public demands. But once approached, and the need of concerted action made plain, there has been generally found a willing, and sometimes an eager desire to give us the weight of their names and the encouragement of their sympathy. The interest, as expressed both by letters and interviews, is very great, and in an emergency there are large numbers of women who, while now preferring simply to register themselves as members of the general association, are ready to take up the active work necessary to defeat legislation should an emergency occur. This association has as a reason for its existence the determination to make such emergencies impossible. It is our desire never again to let it happen that a small proportion-a bare 10 per cent. by the largest claim the woman suffragists ever made of the women of this State shall assume to speak for all, or even a majority. We believe, and might almost say we know, that this association is the voice of the majority of the intelligent and thinking women of this State, and as such is prepared to stand between the unwise, socialistic, and illogical demands of the woman suffragists and the unwise, hasty, and inexpedient action of the Legislature.

[ocr errors]

During the year we have received 500 letters from 200 different people; we have sold 360 sets of pamphlets and given away 41 more, each set containing 9 different pamphlets; of single pamphlets, 5,412 have passed from the hands of our secretary into those of eager readers. Since our appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last spring this matter has finally begun to be recognized as not a joke or a bit of harmless

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »