With thanks to Kyle Jansson, the Commission members and staff and Commission chair, George Kramer, here is a copy of the proclamation:
Monday, March 14, 2011
Oregon Heritage Commission Proclamation: Statewide Celebration of Woman Suffrage for 2012
Last Tuesday night at the kickoff for the upcoming centennial of woman suffrage in Oregon for 2012 Kyle Jansson, Coordinator of the Oregon Heritage Commission, read the official document proclaiming 2012 a year of statewide celebration to commemorate the centennial.
With thanks to Kyle Jansson, the Commission members and staff and Commission chair, George Kramer, here is a copy of the proclamation:
With thanks to Kyle Jansson, the Commission members and staff and Commission chair, George Kramer, here is a copy of the proclamation:
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Century of Action and New Documents Projects
Last night at the official kickoff of the Oregon woman suffrage centennial commemoration at the state capitol Secretary of State Kate Brown hosted an event that did us all proud. Former Governor Barbara Roberts inspired everyone as she spoke, and Oregon Heritage Commission Coordinator Kyle Jansson read the official proclamation declaring the 2012 woman suffrage centennial a statewide event. Many thanks to everyone who attended to show their support and to the best co-conspirators possible, Jan Dilg, Project Director of Century of Action, and Eliza Canty-Jones, President of the Oregon Women's History Consortium and editor of the Oregon Historical Quarterly.
The Heritage Commission grant for the Century of Action website has helped us create a dynamic resource. Last night I was proud to introduce the work of Western Oregon University history and honors students on documents projects for the website. They started with articles from local newspapers from 1912 and with additional research created contextual essays introducing these newspaper articles on themes, people, organizations and events from the 1912 campaign. They also transcribed the articles, some 130 in all, and all are hyperlinked and posted to the website.
Two history students, Sarah Hardy and Jenn Newby, facilitated class discussion on using newspapers as primary sources and their essay is included in the documents project on the site. Visit the site and return often as we add new resources.
The Heritage Commission grant for the Century of Action website has helped us create a dynamic resource. Last night I was proud to introduce the work of Western Oregon University history and honors students on documents projects for the website. They started with articles from local newspapers from 1912 and with additional research created contextual essays introducing these newspaper articles on themes, people, organizations and events from the 1912 campaign. They also transcribed the articles, some 130 in all, and all are hyperlinked and posted to the website.
Two history students, Sarah Hardy and Jenn Newby, facilitated class discussion on using newspapers as primary sources and their essay is included in the documents project on the site. Visit the site and return often as we add new resources.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Suffragists and the Initiative Process as the 1911 Oregon Legislature Meets
As they approached the election of 1912 Oregon suffragists believed that the system of initiative petition, part of progressive reform legislation known as the Oregon System, held great promise for empowering the people to enact legislation of importance to them. Oregon voters passed the initiative in 1902. With enough signatures of registered voters equaling a percentage of votes from the last election, citizens could place a measure on the next statewide ballot.
Suffragists used the initiative process to place a votes for women measure on the ballot in 1906, 1908, and 1910. In December 1910 they had enough signatures for the next campaign, well in advance of the deadline for the November 5, 1912 election.
I've been blogging about the Oregon 1911 legislature and state legislators' vote of support for the votes for women measure already in place for the 1912 ballot. This editorial cartoon from the Oregonian in January 1911 reflects the view of progressive Oregonians that the initiative process empowered the people to enact legislation (like votes for women) in spite of a recalcitrant legislature.
Suffragists used the initiative process to place a votes for women measure on the ballot in 1906, 1908, and 1910. In December 1910 they had enough signatures for the next campaign, well in advance of the deadline for the November 5, 1912 election.
I've been blogging about the Oregon 1911 legislature and state legislators' vote of support for the votes for women measure already in place for the 1912 ballot. This editorial cartoon from the Oregonian in January 1911 reflects the view of progressive Oregonians that the initiative process empowered the people to enact legislation (like votes for women) in spite of a recalcitrant legislature.
 |
| "Reckon You Won't Find Much Left To Do In There, My Friend," Oregonian, January 10, 1911, 1. |
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Sarah Evans on Women, Lobbying and Voting and the Oregon Legislative Session of 1911
Clubwoman and Portland Market Inspector Sarah A. Evans wrote about Oregon women and the 1911 legislative session in her weekly Women's Clubs column for the Oregon Journal (February 26, 1911, 5:7). She assessed the political action of women and contrasted lobbying and attempts to influence the political process with the greater power of the vote. Washington women had achieved the vote in 1910 and were using it; Oregon women and their supporters had gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the 1912 ballot and the Oregon legislature had just endorsed it.
These developments gave her the context to emphasize the importance of the vote for women to achieve reform. "Women," Evans wrote, "have much to be thankful to the twenty-sixth legislative assembly, and a little to be resentful for, and a great deal to study over."
Evans counted several gains. One was legislation establishing the Oregon State Board of Nursing "which will put the profession on a dignified footing and insure to the state the most efficient service." Another was the end to Oregon's controversial whipping post law for men convicted of domestic violence. "Women of Oregon would sooner have seen the whipping post abolished than kept on the statute book," she wrote, "not that they object to the wife beater being whipped, but because it is a reflection on the women of the state that they would allow themselves--even a few--to be whipped for it isn't the stuff the real Oregon woman is made of, and the world should not think she had to be protected." (For more on the whipping post law, see David Peterson Del Mar, "His Face is Weak and Sensual": Portland and the Whipping Post Law," in Women in Pacific Northwest History ed. Karen J. Blair, rev. ed. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988): 59-89.)
The 1911 legislative session provided a strong lesson about the need for woman suffrage for Evans. The "strongest body of women lobbyists that ever went to the legislature," she wrote, failed to convince the Oregon legislature to pass a statewide pure milk law. Portland women, led by Esther Pohl, Evans and a coalition of activists, had passed several progressively stronger city ordinances for pure milk (my forthcoming biography of Esther Pohl Lovejoy explores this in detail). In 1911 they hoped to remove state Dairy and Food Commissioner J.W. Bailey and pass a statewide bill. Governor Oswald West asked the legislature to investigate and women testified before a joint house and senate committee. The failure of this bill, for Evans, proved that women without the vote, even though working actively in the political process through coalition building and lobbying, could not hope to effect political, social and economic change in a significant way.
"Influence," she wrote, "only reaches to the narrow confines of one home each, and sometimes not that far." Suffrage supporters like Esther Pohl Lovejoy joined Evans in calling for the vote to achieve what "influence" could not.
Evans also provided a perspective on what lobbying was like for women in 1911 before the achievement of woman suffrage. "No woman enjoys lobbying: she is met with cold indifference, distrust and often jeers and jokes; she feels herself out of place and she is as long as she holds an inferior place among those she is trying to influence, and it is only the brave and courageous who will dare this for a just cause." Oregon women, she wrote, were "wrestling with the legislature."
She contrasted this with the recent action by newly enfranchised Seattle women to recall Mayor Hiram Gill, whom they felt was not addressing gambling and prostitution in the city. (For more on this see Shanna Stevenson, Women's Votes, Women's Voices: The Campaign for Equal Rights in Washington (Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society, 2009) and John C. Putnam, Class and Gender Politics in Progressive-Era Seattle (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 2008).) Seattle women, she wrote, "did not have to rush to Olympia by an early train, remain away from their families several days, face a jibing crowd of political corruptionists, and plead their case before an unbelieving committee" as Oregon women had just done in Salem. They went to the polls and voted.
For Evans "this is the greatest lesson the legislature left the women of Oregon to ponder on."
These developments gave her the context to emphasize the importance of the vote for women to achieve reform. "Women," Evans wrote, "have much to be thankful to the twenty-sixth legislative assembly, and a little to be resentful for, and a great deal to study over."
Evans counted several gains. One was legislation establishing the Oregon State Board of Nursing "which will put the profession on a dignified footing and insure to the state the most efficient service." Another was the end to Oregon's controversial whipping post law for men convicted of domestic violence. "Women of Oregon would sooner have seen the whipping post abolished than kept on the statute book," she wrote, "not that they object to the wife beater being whipped, but because it is a reflection on the women of the state that they would allow themselves--even a few--to be whipped for it isn't the stuff the real Oregon woman is made of, and the world should not think she had to be protected." (For more on the whipping post law, see David Peterson Del Mar, "His Face is Weak and Sensual": Portland and the Whipping Post Law," in Women in Pacific Northwest History ed. Karen J. Blair, rev. ed. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988): 59-89.)
The 1911 legislative session provided a strong lesson about the need for woman suffrage for Evans. The "strongest body of women lobbyists that ever went to the legislature," she wrote, failed to convince the Oregon legislature to pass a statewide pure milk law. Portland women, led by Esther Pohl, Evans and a coalition of activists, had passed several progressively stronger city ordinances for pure milk (my forthcoming biography of Esther Pohl Lovejoy explores this in detail). In 1911 they hoped to remove state Dairy and Food Commissioner J.W. Bailey and pass a statewide bill. Governor Oswald West asked the legislature to investigate and women testified before a joint house and senate committee. The failure of this bill, for Evans, proved that women without the vote, even though working actively in the political process through coalition building and lobbying, could not hope to effect political, social and economic change in a significant way.
"Influence," she wrote, "only reaches to the narrow confines of one home each, and sometimes not that far." Suffrage supporters like Esther Pohl Lovejoy joined Evans in calling for the vote to achieve what "influence" could not.
Evans also provided a perspective on what lobbying was like for women in 1911 before the achievement of woman suffrage. "No woman enjoys lobbying: she is met with cold indifference, distrust and often jeers and jokes; she feels herself out of place and she is as long as she holds an inferior place among those she is trying to influence, and it is only the brave and courageous who will dare this for a just cause." Oregon women, she wrote, were "wrestling with the legislature."
She contrasted this with the recent action by newly enfranchised Seattle women to recall Mayor Hiram Gill, whom they felt was not addressing gambling and prostitution in the city. (For more on this see Shanna Stevenson, Women's Votes, Women's Voices: The Campaign for Equal Rights in Washington (Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society, 2009) and John C. Putnam, Class and Gender Politics in Progressive-Era Seattle (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 2008).) Seattle women, she wrote, "did not have to rush to Olympia by an early train, remain away from their families several days, face a jibing crowd of political corruptionists, and plead their case before an unbelieving committee" as Oregon women had just done in Salem. They went to the polls and voted.
For Evans "this is the greatest lesson the legislature left the women of Oregon to ponder on."
Sarah A. Evans, "Women's Clubs," Oregon Journal, February 26, 1911, 5:7.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Oregon Legislature Signs SJR12 Supporting Votes for Women February 17, 1911
On February 17, Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives John Rusk and President of the Oregon Senate Ben Selling signed Senate Joint Resolution 12:
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House concurring:
That we have carefully considered the Equal Suffrage Amendment, as submitted by initiative petition to the present legal voters of the State, for their adoption or rejection, and can see no reasonable objection to its adoption, and we cordially recommend its ratification at the November election of 1912.
Members of the Oregon State Equal Suffrage Association had collected enough signatures through initiative petition by December 1910 to place the measure on the November 5, 1912 ballot. Now by February 17, 1911 with SJR12 the Oregon state legislature lent its support to votes for women in the state.
I'll be blogging about subsequent events in the rich history of this campaign one hundred years ago here, among other Esther Lovejoy materials and Oregon women's history.
FEBRUARY 17, 1911
Friday, February 17, 1911, Morning Session, Oregon House of Representatives
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Salem, February 17, 1911
Mr. Speaker: I am directed by the President to transmit enrolled Senate Joint Resolution No. 12 for your signature.
E.H. Flagg, Chief Clerk
The Speaker [John P. Rusk] announced that he was about to sign Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, and subsequently announced that he had signed the same.
Journal of the House of the Twenty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, Regular Session, 1911 (Salem: Oregon State Printer, 1911), 774.
Friday, February 17, 1911, Afternoon Session, Oregon Senate
The President [Ben Selling] announced that he was about to sign Senate Joint Resolution No. 12…and subsequently that he had signed the same.
Journal of the Senate of the Twenty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, Regular Session 1911 (Salem: Oregon State Printer, 1911), 655.
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House concurring:
That we have carefully considered the Equal Suffrage Amendment, as submitted by initiative petition to the present legal voters of the State, for their adoption or rejection, and can see no reasonable objection to its adoption, and we cordially recommend its ratification at the November election of 1912.
Members of the Oregon State Equal Suffrage Association had collected enough signatures through initiative petition by December 1910 to place the measure on the November 5, 1912 ballot. Now by February 17, 1911 with SJR12 the Oregon state legislature lent its support to votes for women in the state.
I'll be blogging about subsequent events in the rich history of this campaign one hundred years ago here, among other Esther Lovejoy materials and Oregon women's history.
FEBRUARY 17, 1911
Friday, February 17, 1911, Morning Session, Oregon House of Representatives
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Salem, February 17, 1911
Mr. Speaker: I am directed by the President to transmit enrolled Senate Joint Resolution No. 12 for your signature.
E.H. Flagg, Chief Clerk
The Speaker [John P. Rusk] announced that he was about to sign Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, and subsequently announced that he had signed the same.
Journal of the House of the Twenty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, Regular Session, 1911 (Salem: Oregon State Printer, 1911), 774.
Friday, February 17, 1911, Afternoon Session, Oregon Senate
The President [Ben Selling] announced that he was about to sign Senate Joint Resolution No. 12…and subsequently that he had signed the same.
Journal of the Senate of the Twenty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, Regular Session 1911 (Salem: Oregon State Printer, 1911), 655.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Oregon House Divided on the Suffrage Resolution February 16, 1911
We’re following the course of Senate Joint Resolution 12 and House Concurrent Resolution 24 through the Oregon legislature one hundred years ago in February 1911. The Oregon State Equal Suffrage Association asked legislators to “cordially recommend” the ratification of the woman suffrage measure, already slated for the November 1912 ballot as a result of a successful initiative petition.
Representative Timothy Brownhill, who had introduced HCR 24, withdrew his resolution so that the senate’s identical resolution (SJR 12) might pass. “I believe that it should be adopted as a tribute to that splendid woman, Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway, who has devoted so many years of her life to the cause, and also because it paves the way toward giving the women of the state their rights,” Brownhill told the Oregon Journal (“To Vote Again on Woman Suffrage,” Oregon Journal, February 17, 1911, 4). The house, therefore, was to vote on SJR 12.
But not everyone in the house agreed with Brownhill. As you’ll see below, in addition to the majority report in support of SJR 12, Representatives Seneca Fouts and Linn E. Jones authored a minority report against the resolution. According to the Oregon Journal, Fouts’s “contention was that the voters had decided the question at the last election and that their opinion should be regarded as stable.” (“To Vote Again on Woman Suffrage,” Oregon Journal, February 17, 1911, 4). This was, in fact, the sixth time that the suffrage amendment was on the ballot. A third of the representatives joined him in opposing the resolution and six were absent.
But the majority prevailed -- leading to the signing of SJR 12 in both houses -- we'll see more about the signing on February 17 in the next post.
FEBRUARY 16, 1911
Thursday, February 16, 1911, Afternoon Session, Oregon House of Representatives
MAJORITY REPORT
Salem, February 15, 1911
Mr. Speaker: Your Committee on Resolutions, to whom was referred Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, beg leave to report that we have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report it back with the recommendation that it do pass.
J.A. Buchanan [Medford, Douglas, Jackson, Republican], Chairman
MINORITY REPORT
Salem, February 15, 1911
Mr. Speaker: Your Committee on Resolutions, to whom was referred Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, beg leave to report that we have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report it back with the recommendation that it do not pass.
Seneca Fouts [Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Linn E. Jones [Oregon City, Clackamas, Republican]
Mr. Fouts moved that the minority report be substituted for the majority report.
The motion was lost.
Mr. Buchanan moved that the majority report be adopted.
The roll was called and the vote was:
YEAS—33
Abbott [James D., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Abrams [Carl, Salem, Marion, Republican]
Beals [A.G., Tillamook, Tillamook, Yamhill, Republican]
Belknap [H.P., Prineville, Crook, Grant, Klamath, Lake, Republican]
Belland [L.O., Astoria, Clatsop, Republican]
Bonebrake [P.O., Philomath, Benton, Republican]
Brownhill [Timothy, McMinnville, Yamhill, Independent]
Buchanan [J.A., Medford, Douglas, Jackson, Republican]
Buckley [C.A., Grass Valley, Gilliam, Sherman, Wheeler, Republican]
Carter [E.P., Gladstone, Clackamas, Republican]
Chapman [J.A., Middleton, Washington, Republican]
Church [William J., La Grande, Union, Republican]
Clemens [W.J., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Clyde [Ralph C., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Cottel [W.I., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Cushman [I.B., Acme, Lane, Republican]
Gill [F.M., Dufur, Hood River, Wasco, Republican]
Graves [Roy, Sheridan, Yamhill, Republican]
Hollis [W.H., Forest Grove, Washington, Republican]
Leinenweber [C.A., Astoria, Clatsop, Republican]
Libby [A.C., Jefferson, Marion, Republican]
Magone [M.A., Oregon City, Clackamas, Republican]
McKinney [Henry M., Baker, Baker, Republican]
Neuner [George Jr., Roseburg, Douglas, Republican]
Peirce [S.P., Port Orford, Coos, Curry, Republican]
Peterson [S.D., Milton, Umatilla, Republican]
Rackleff [Ed, Bandon, Coos, Republican]
Reynolds [L.T., Salem, Marion, Republican]
Smith [J.C., Grants Pass, Josephine, Republican]
Sutton [W.M., Springfield, Lane, Republican]
Thompson [W. Lair, Lakeview, Crook, Grant, Klamath, Lake, Republican]
Tigard [C.F., Tigardville, Washington, Republican]
Mr. Speaker [John P. Rusk, Joseph, Union, Wallowa, Republican]
NAYS—20
Ambrose [James M., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Amme [Edwin G., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Brooke [W.H., Ontario, Harney, Malheur, Republican]
Bryant [J.C., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Chambers [F.W., Toledo, Lincoln, Polk, Republican]
Chatten [W.H., Oswego, Clackamas, Multnomah, Republican]
Cole [James, Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Collins [Stephen, Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Fouts [Seneca, Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Johnson [George W., Salem, Marion, Republican]
Jones [Linn E., Oregon City, Clackamas, Republican]
Mahoney [T.J., Heppner, Morrow, Umatilla, Republican]
Mann [L.L., Pendleton, Umatilla, Republican]
Mariner [W.J., Blalock, Gilliam, Sherman, Wheeler, Republican]
Miller, M.E. [St. Helens, Columbia, Republican]
Miller, J.W. [Albany, Linn, Republican]
Powell [Ira C., Monmouth, Polk, Republican]
Simpson [M.J., Lebanon, Linn, Republican]
Steelhammer [A.G., Silverton, Marion, Republican]
Westerlund [J.A., Medford, Jackson, Republican]
ABSENT—6
Bigelow [C.A., Portland, Multnomah, Republican]
Derby [A.J., Hood River, Hood River, Wasco, Democrat]
Eaton [Allen H., Eugene, Lane, Republican]
Eggleston [M.F., Ashland, Jackson, Republican]
Huntington [Ben Jr., Drain, Douglas, Republican]
Shaw [C.L., Albany, Linn, Democrat]
So the resolution was adopted.
Journal of the House of the Twenty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, Regular Session, 1911 (Salem: Oregon State Printer, 1911), 700.
Thursday, February 16, 1911, Afternoon Session, Oregon Senate
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Salem, February 16, 1911
Mr. President. Your Committee on Enrolled Bills, to whom was referred Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, beg leave to report back the same as having been correctly enrolled.
Hal D. Patton, Chairman
Journal of the Senate of the Twenty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, Regular Session 1911 (Salem: Oregon State Printer, 1911), 594, 614.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Oregon State Equal Suffrage Association Presents an Open Letter to the Oregon Legislature February 1911
I'm blogging the February 1911 Oregon legislature's actions in support of the successful initiative petition as it happened one hundred years ago with some additional sources to help us get a fuller picture of these centennial events.
As we saw for February 9, Representative Timothy Brownhill introduced House Concurrent Resolution 24 and it contained information about the Executive Committee meeting of the Oregon State Equal Suffrage Association in which members decided to ask the legislature for a vote of support for their initiative petition. The petition, completed in December 1910, placed the woman suffrage measure on the ballot for the 6th time.
An entry in suffragist and clubwoman Sarah Evans's "Women's Clubs" column in the Sunday Oregon Journal for February 19, 1911 gives us more information and context about the meeting. (Evans's column was an ongoing weekly feature and she reported on news of women's clubs, organizations, and activism throughout the state -- she was a blogger before her time . . . )
The first part of the entry is the same as that noted in the Journal of the Oregon House of Representatives that I reprinted for the February 9 blog here. The OSESA asks the legislators to vote their approval for the measure, a vote of confidence and support.
But here we learn more of the details -- and the article copy in full is below.
Evans writes: "The foregoing open letter was presented to every member of the legislative assembly on the 8th inst. [February 8, 1911] accompanied by a concurrent resolution cordially recommending its ratification by the legislature, and by the votes of men at the general election in November 1912."
As we've seen, the Senate voted on its Senate Joint Resolution 12 on February 10. We'll see what the House did in a future post for February 16.
At the end of this entry in Evans's column we find "The resolution passed the Senate on the eighth instant, with little doubt of its ratification by the house in due order of procedure." The Senate Journal says February 10 -- so I'm privileging that date as the more accurate one.
It's not clear who presented the open letter to the members of the Oregon legislature. The report Evans reprinted in her column, most probably authored by Abigail Scott Duniway or a close associate in the OSESA, puts things in the passive voice -- the "foregoing open letter was presented . . ." I could find no news article that indicated Duniway had presented it "in person" as the executive committee meeting request suggested. I strongly suspect that if Duniway, never one to shy away from publicity of any kind, had been there in person she would have noted it. Duniway does not include any mention of this in her 1914 autobiography Path breaking: An Autobiographical History of the Equal Suffrage Movement in Pacific Coast States. But the OSESA put her there in the open letter as the "mother of the equal suffrage movement in Oregon."
Come back for more on the progress of the resolutions and the vote in the House. As you might guess, there was some heated debate about this 6th try for Oregon woman suffrage in November 1912.
As we saw for February 9, Representative Timothy Brownhill introduced House Concurrent Resolution 24 and it contained information about the Executive Committee meeting of the Oregon State Equal Suffrage Association in which members decided to ask the legislature for a vote of support for their initiative petition. The petition, completed in December 1910, placed the woman suffrage measure on the ballot for the 6th time.
An entry in suffragist and clubwoman Sarah Evans's "Women's Clubs" column in the Sunday Oregon Journal for February 19, 1911 gives us more information and context about the meeting. (Evans's column was an ongoing weekly feature and she reported on news of women's clubs, organizations, and activism throughout the state -- she was a blogger before her time . . . )
The first part of the entry is the same as that noted in the Journal of the Oregon House of Representatives that I reprinted for the February 9 blog here. The OSESA asks the legislators to vote their approval for the measure, a vote of confidence and support.
But here we learn more of the details -- and the article copy in full is below.
Evans writes: "The foregoing open letter was presented to every member of the legislative assembly on the 8th inst. [February 8, 1911] accompanied by a concurrent resolution cordially recommending its ratification by the legislature, and by the votes of men at the general election in November 1912."
As we've seen, the Senate voted on its Senate Joint Resolution 12 on February 10. We'll see what the House did in a future post for February 16.
At the end of this entry in Evans's column we find "The resolution passed the Senate on the eighth instant, with little doubt of its ratification by the house in due order of procedure." The Senate Journal says February 10 -- so I'm privileging that date as the more accurate one.
It's not clear who presented the open letter to the members of the Oregon legislature. The report Evans reprinted in her column, most probably authored by Abigail Scott Duniway or a close associate in the OSESA, puts things in the passive voice -- the "foregoing open letter was presented . . ." I could find no news article that indicated Duniway had presented it "in person" as the executive committee meeting request suggested. I strongly suspect that if Duniway, never one to shy away from publicity of any kind, had been there in person she would have noted it. Duniway does not include any mention of this in her 1914 autobiography Path breaking: An Autobiographical History of the Equal Suffrage Movement in Pacific Coast States. But the OSESA put her there in the open letter as the "mother of the equal suffrage movement in Oregon."
Come back for more on the progress of the resolutions and the vote in the House. As you might guess, there was some heated debate about this 6th try for Oregon woman suffrage in November 1912.
Sarah Evans, "Women's Clubs," Oregon Journal, February 19, 1911, 5:7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
