WOMEN VOTING.
Mr. YANCEY called up the special order, being his bill [S. 186] to extend the elective franchise in page: 228[View Page 228] the election for choice of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States to certain classes of women--the question being "shall it be recommitted amended or ordered engrossed?"
Mr. Hefron said: I listened the other day with a great deal of pleasure deep interest to the very eloquent and forcible addresses delivered by the ladies who addressed us [see pages 91 and 92 of these reports] in favor of passage of this bill, and, sir, whilst I am forced to disagree with them on the main proposition involved, I confess it is a matter of extreme embarrassment to me to find myself surrounded here by such an array of the fair advocates of this measure, and confronted in the arena of public discussion by such able and distinguished debaters. I shall, however, proceed to give my reasons for my opposition to this measure with freedom and candor, but with a most profound respect and high regard for the opinions of those who have so ably, and, I have no doubt, sincerely, advocated its enactment.
Briefly stated, the purpose of this bill is to allow women the right to vote for Presidential Electors, and the very first question with which we are met at the threshold of the case is--has the General Assembly the constitutional power to confer the elective franchise upon women? The Legislative Department of the State Government is the supreme power of the State. Its powers are absolute and supreme, subject only to the restraints and limitations placed upon it by the terms of the Constitution; and if it oversteps those limitations its acts will be declared void, and set aside by the Judicial Department. We must then look to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, for our authority to act.
The right of suffrage is not a natural right; it is on one of the incidents and appliances of civil govrnment, and is only created and conferred by authority of law. The framers our Constitution, in the exercise of their wisdom and sound discretion, saw proper to confer the right to vote upon the male population alone, under certain conditions and restrictions.
Section 1, Article 2, of the Constitution of the United States provides: "Each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a number of Electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which such State may be entitled in the Congress, etc."
Now it is contended, and very ably too, that the National Constitution, being the paramount law of the land, and of course where State Constitutions come in conflict with it the State must yield, that this power conferred by the National Constitution--each State shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, etc.--authorizes the State Legislature to fix the qualifications of voters at an election for Presidential Electors, regardless of the restrictions or limitations of the State Constitutions. To this doctrine I can not subscribe. The Contitution of the Ufited Stes as I have shown, confers upon the State the right to appoint the Electors in the manner directed by the Legislature. Unquestionably, under this authority the Legislature would have the right to appoint the Electors directly by its own body, as many of the States have done in the past; or it could delegate that power to some other tribunal to appoint them; but when it relegates tat power back to the people to be exercised at the ballot-box at a general election, then sir, the Electors are selected by election and not by appointment and the qualifications of the voters at such election must be determined in accordance with the requirements of the State Constitution. It seems to me clear, from the language used by the framers of the National Constiution that they never contemplated the appointment of Electors by a general election; and in support of this view I call attention to the opinion of Justice Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States. When considering this section of the Constitution as a member of the Electoral Commission, he said: "I doubt whether they (the framers of the National Constitution) had in mind at all (in adopting this section) the idea of a popular election as a mode of appointing State Electors. They used the word appoint, doubtless thinking that the Legislatures of the States would themselves select the Electors or empower the Governor or some other State officer to select them."
Section 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Indiana provides, "In all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution, every white male citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or upward who shall have resided, etc., * * * shall be entitled to vote, etc." Here is a plain, clear and decisive constitutional limitation restricting the elective franchise to the male citizens alone, in all elections. Therefore, if electing Presidential Electors in the usual way, by a general election, is an election, it falls within the constitutional limitation, and the ballot must be restricted to the males.
The power conferred upon the State Legislature by the National Constitution is directory, is unrestricted and general in its terms, and it can not be urged with ahy degree of seriousness that that power can be exercised by the Legislature in defiance of the constitutional limitations of the State. The plain and obvious meaning of that National authority is that the Legislature may appoint or provide for the election of Presidential Electors in such manner as it may direct, subject only to the constitutional requirements of the State.
But let this power or authority be as it may, if we had the clear and undoubted right to pass this bill, I would still be opposed to it upon other and equally as grave considerations. I am opposed to conferring the right of suffrage upon women under any political form, and I trust, sir, that I shall be able to maintain this branch of my opposition to this bill without plucking a single laurel from the wreath that now encircles the fair brow of woman. I do not oppose giving suffrage to woman because I believe in her lack of capacity for its proper exercise, for I entertain no such humiliating opinion of one-half, and I may say the better half, of the inhabitants of the State. I believe that the women would use the ballot equally as intelligently and a great deal more honestly than the men, I repel, sir, as unworthy of manhood, the assertion that she is incapable of the proper exercise of this or any other right exercised by man.
When or where in all the past has she proved herself unequal to the station to which fate may have assigned her? Was it in Elizabeth of England, when she swayed the scepter of the mightiest Nation on the earth? Was it in the hero girl of France, whose single arm struck down Murat when a Nation trembled at his nod? Was it in the brave women of our own Revolution, whose fair hands wrought the banners that waved over every field from Lexington to Yorktown? Or was it in the brave Spartan mothers, who bade their sons go forth to the conflict and return with their shields or upon them? No, sir! No sir! She has ever been equal tO her destiny. In everythingh but brute force she is your equal. In all the higher and holier feelings of the heart she is your superior--immeasurably your superior--and because I want her to maintain that superiority, because of my admiration for her redeeming virtues and queenly graces, I oppose this bill.
Political power will degrade, not elevate, woman. Do not drag her down from the exalted sphere that she now occupies to a level with man in the coarse and vulgar affairs of life.
The field of politics is now so corrupt, debauched and debasing that thousands of good men turn from it with disgust and aversion, and ahall we make woman-the stay of society, the page: 229[View Page 229] hope of the world--shall we make her a factor in this cesspool of political corruption?
Shall we place her in a posion to vote and be voted for, to electioneer and be electioneered with, to influence and be influenced, to bribe and be bribed--in short, to be subjected to all the debasing influences and practices of politics? If we do sir, in my judgment we will destroy the dearest domestic relations, reverse the natural order of society, and commit a crime against humanity.
Let us leave her where nature and nature's God has placed her--at the hearthstone of the family circle, the rearer and educator of our children and the mistress of our homes. Let us not destroy the softening and refining influences which nature has planted in her bosom by bringing her in contact with the coarser affairs of public life.
I am willing to give to woman all the legal rights enjoyed by man, plaing her upon an equal footing with him before the law in respect to her person and property, but I wish to save her, and thereby save the purity and morality of society, by excluding her from the evil tendencies and debasing influences of political strife.
To the honor and credit of our people be it said, that in no Nation under the sun is the respect and deference paid to woman that she receives in this our own country. It is the highest evidence of our Christian civilization. She is not treated as an equal, but as a superior in an eminent degree. Her presence everywhere is the signal for order, decorum and decent respectfulness; the veriest ruffian on the street corner bows his head in silence as she passes by. Let us not endanger this good influence by changing her status in society.
She is to-day the sovereign power of the land, the mother of mankind; the queen of that miniature heaven--home; the educator of youth, the guide of manhood and the stay and comfort of declining age. Let us not destroy her power and usefulness in these heaven-appointed departments by contaminating her with the evil influences of political strife.
