AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. SPANN was warranted in the light of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana to affirm that the Legislature has the right to pass a bill similar to this. The Legislature is higher and greater and above and beyond the Constitution of the State of Indiana on this point. His physical condition not permitting a full argument as he could desire, he left the question, believing the argument could be destroyed in no other way than by appealing to prejudice. No argument based upon judgment or equity can be brought to bear against those people who are knocking atour door to be admitted to the privileges of the elective franchise. Not only believing it was constitutional and but equity he should cast his vote in favor of this measure. The unjust principle of taxation without representation was the very thing that brought about the revolution that severed this from the mother country. Other points he would like to present but his will was failing and his physical strength giving out.
Mr. MENZIES was not disposed to treat this matter in a frivolous way, but acknowledged its importance. This question has been agitated for some ten or fifteen years in the lecture room, in the press, the forum and the drawing room, but this is the first time it has been brought in this shape before a General Assembly of Indiana. If it be that the right does not exist in the Legislature to confer this privilege upon women, then all discussions should stop and the bill should be defeated. We are forced to go to the Constitution of the United States to find where the authority is conferred upon the Legislatures of the several States to grant the privilege of the elective franchise. All questions of expediency, policy or dangers have nothing to do in the power of debate if the power of extending this privilege is not here with the State of Indiana, and so believing it would be a useless trespassing upon the patience and time of the Senate to discuss the subject further.
If Mr. CHAPMAN could see his way to do so, it would afford him personal gratification to give this measure his indorsement. The proposition is revolutionary. Revolutions are brought about by various instrumentalities. Many of the most important have been brought about by the contest of thought, and in the hands of those altogether great the pen is mightier than the sword. This is a proposition to change the form of government. It is because of his devotion to the women of the land, and adhesion to the best interest of society, as marked out by women, that he has been unable to subscribe to the doctrine of female suffrage. In regard to the Constitutional question, if it is a great moral movement pregnant with the best conditions of society, he should do nothing that is at least doubtful, morally or legally, for its advancement. This bill is not an honest measure. It does not seek squarely for woman suffrage. It asks the privilege for women voting because the Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from putting this right in the hands of others than voters, and the Legislature may allow them to share in the appointment of Presidential Electors. It is seeking to accomplish something clandestinely, and this measure violates not only the Constitution of the State, but the Constitution of the United States.
Mr OWEN not assuming to be a constitutional lawyer, had only investigated the question far enough to satisfy his own conscience, and so addressed himself to the social part of this question. Why has not woman the right to the honor and distinction of man? Why should they not be open to women? Why shall not woman be granted sovereignty in a republican form of Government as well as in a monarchical form of Government? He hoped men would not monopolize the honors and distinctions of life simply because--because they can He believed women were capable of entertaining the noblest sentiments, and did not think men should crowd them out of places of honor and profit. Considered solely as a social question he did not believe any man can reason against this bill without swamping himself before taking many steps. In the sublime process of the accomplishment of reforms and noble achievements that have distinguished this age, he hoped before they shall pass to the historian that this reform shall not be conspicuous by its absence.
Mr. COMSTOCK regarded this as simply a question of right, of obligation and of duty under the laws of the State and of the United States. If woman has the right to vote at all, it is because of some provision in the Constitution of the United States, to which he referred, and from which he read. There is nowhere in that instrument a provision which authorizes women to vote. Where the Constitution of the United States is not in conflict with the Courts of a State, the Legislature is governed by the Constitution of the State. There is no conflict between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. It is not a question of politics, policy, expediency or equity. It is simply a question of duty under the law. There is no chance for misconstruction of the constitutional provisions, for the language is too plain.
Mr. BROWN had no conscientous scruples as to the constitutional right of the Legislature to confer upon her citizens complete and full authority to participate is hoosing Presidential Electors. If page: 230[View Page 230] man, woman or child vote, he or she shall vote by reason of the organic law of the State and not by reason of line or letter in the Constitution of United States. Senators are illogical when they say that the Constitution of the United States excludes the right of white women to vote, because there is not one line, letter or syllable in it that deprives them of the right. The only question in it is, is it proper or beneficial to exercise it? The bill is a misnomer, because it does not confer the elective franchise upon women. Under it they would not vote as those who posses the elective franchise. The bill would have been better if it had a title that would recite the facts. Under this bill women would possess none of the qualifications necessary to participate in elections. He opposed it because the time is not appropriate or opportune for the passage of such a bill as this, and for the reason if the Constitution does not plainly say so, it means that there should be a uniformity throughout the United States in the method of choosing Presidential Electors.
On motion by Mr. SHAFFER the bill was considered as engrossed, read the third t0me and put upon its passage.
The bill was rejected by yeas, 18; nays, 25, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bundy, Davis, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hostetter, Kahlo, Macartney, Owen, Poindexter, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Spann, Traylor, Van Vorhis, White and Yancey--18.
Nays--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Briscoe, Brown Chapman, Coffey, Compton, Comstock, Davidson, Foster, Hefron, Henry, Howard, Hutchinson, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Major, Marvin, Menizes, Shaffer, Urmston, Viehe and Voyles--25.
Absent--Messrs. Bischowsky, Hart, Keiser, Rahm, Wilson, Woods and Woollen--7.
Pending the roll-call--
Mr. BELL, when his name was called said: In view of the discussion this bill has already received I did not deem it proper to take a part; but I desire now briefly to explain my vote. I do not regard the right of suffrage as a natural right, but a right to be extended or withheld by the Government as it shall deem best. In the second place, there was no issue of this kind presented when the members of this body were chosen at the polls, and, in my judgment, this measure is not demanded by the people, nor is it demanded by a majority of the women of this State. In the third place, I regard this bill as a sham--nothing more and nothing less. It does not enfranchise women, while that seems to be its purport. I would cheerfully vote for a Constitutional Amendment, submitting this question fairly and squarely to the people of this State but I can not favor this bill. I also have great doubts of our right under the Constitution to pass this bill. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER, when his name was called, said: "I have not taken any part in this discussion. I do not think this is the time or place to make any explanation of my,vote. I vote 'no.'"
Mr. GARRIGUS, when his name was called, said: "As part of the reasons why I shall vote as I do, I will say that I believe the true test of qualification for a voter is intelligence, virtue and patriotism, and believing the women of the State of Indiana possess these qualifications in an equal degree with men, I vote 'aye.'"
Mr. GRAHAM, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: "I believe, under our Constitution, and by all rules of equity and right, the right to tax a citizen carries with it and should carry with it the right to confer upon that citizen the privilege to vote, and I therefore vote 'aye'"
Mr. HOSTETTER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote was understood to say: I have not occupied any time in the discussion of this question; and in relation to this matter I will only say that if it had come up a year or two ago I should have voted against it. Not having heretofore given much thought to the question, but recently having studied it considerably, I am now of the opinion that it would be right to pass this bill, and therefore I vote "aye."
Mr. HOWARD, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: For the reason that I do not now think it expedient to pass such a bill I vote "no."
Mr. KAULO, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: Believing this bill to be proposing a simple act of justice, and as I am decidedly in favor of doing justice to all humanity, and of doing justice to my family as well, I shall vote "aye."
Mr. MARVIN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: Being the representative of a large constituency, I don't think I have always the right to vote my own sentiments; therefore, I vote "no."
Mr. VIEHE, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I am not opposed to equal rights nor the giving of the ballot to females, but believing that this question belongs to the fundamental law of the State, and should be embodied in the Constitutional law of the State and not conferred by Legislative enactment, for that reason I vote "no." I was requested by the Senator from Vanderburgh (Mr. Rahm) to state that if he were present he would vote "no" on this question.
The vote was announced as above recorded, and so the bill was rejected.
APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR.
Pending the discussion on this bill--
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR laid before the Senate a communication from the Governor transmitting for the confirmation of the Senate his appointment of Mrs. Rhoda M. Coffin, of Wayne County, as a Trustee for the Reformatory for Women, to serve as such for four years from the 1st of April, 1881.
It was referred to the Committee on Executive Appointments.
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
