Maryland women's news. [volume], March 25, 1922, Page 404, Image 2

About Maryland women's news. [volume] ([Baltimore, Md.]) 1920-19??

Image provided by: University of Maryland, College Park, MD

                
404
SENATE DEFEATS EQUAL RIGHTS BILL
THROUGH the active opposition of the League of Women Voters,
the Equal Rights Bill, introduced in the Senate by William I. Norris
and sponsored by the Just Government League of Maryland, was defeated
on Wednesday by a vote of 17 to 9. A week ago seventeen Senators were
pledged to the passage of the bill, and had it been voted upon at that time
victory would undoubtedly have been won. By sending letters throughout
the State asking women to write their delegates to oppose “Bill No. 9,”
and by openly lobbying against the measure, Mrs. William M. Maloy, as
legislative chairman of the League of Women Voters, was instrumental
in securing its defeat.
The Just Government League, although pledged to the passage of the
Equal Rights Bill, and in direct opposition to the tactics of the League of
Women Voters, has co-operated in every possible way with the campaign
being waged in behalf of all women’s organizations. Its members have
not lobbied against any measure affecting the welfare of women, but have
stood ready at all times to explain the provisions of the bills relating to
women and children, and have laid special stress on the fact that the Just
Government League, at its annual meeting a year ago, declared unquali
fiedly for the removal of all the legal disabilities of women in State and'
nation; raising the age of consent for minors of both sexes to 21 years; a
fornication law; the endorsement of a specific program for better county
and city schools; equal pay for equal work in all positions under the, gov
ernment; mothers' pensions, and facilities for the care of dependent infants
and young children under the direct supervision of the State.
The attitude of the League of Women Voters in opposing equal rights
for women has aroused a great deal of misapprehension in the minds of
the county women, many of whom have been working indefatigably for
its passage. The ambiguous wording of the letter asking them to oppose
House Bill No. 9, without explaining the provisions of the bill, clouded
the issue in their minds, as it was evidently intended to do in the minds of
the legislators. The Constitutional League, formerly the old Anti-Suffrage
Association, and the League of Women Voters, became almost synonymous
organizations to those interested in the passage of the bill.
When the lobbying against the bill became unusually active, many of
the Senators failed to distinguish between the Equal Rights Bill and the
administration measures which the League of Women Voters was backing.
As one Senator asked one of the equal rights lobbyist: “Do you want
equal rights or do you want to hold office ?” the idea in his mind being that
those who were opposed to the Equal Rights Bill were working merely to
gain offices for women.
It is interesting to note that George Arnold Frick and David J. Mc-
Intosh, two of the bitterest foes of woman suffrage, were allied with Mrs.
Maloy in her fight against the granting of equal rights to the women of
Maryland.
EQUAL RIGHTS BILL OF 1848
DESPITE the efforts of a certain group of Maryland women to dis
parage the Equal Rights Bill, introduced in the Legislature by the
Just Government League of Maryland by stating that the bill is too radical
and will interfere with the protection of women in industry, it will be inter
esting to note that a similar bill of rights was drawn up over seventy-five
years ago at Seneca Falls, N. Y. The original bill is far more drastic
than the present-day measure, and was presented at the first Woman Rights
Convention, held July 19 and 20, 1848.
The resolutions were discussed by Lucretia Mott, Thomas and Mary
Ann McClintock, Amy Post, Catharine A. F. Stebbins and others, and
were adopted as followed:
Whereas the great precept of nature is conceded to be that “man shall
pursue his own true and substantial happiness.” Blackstone in his Com
mentaries remarks that this law of nature being coeval with mankind, and
dcitated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human
laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid
derive all their force and all their validity; and all their authority, medi
ately and immediately, from this original, therefore:
“Resolved, That such laws as conflict in any way with the true and sub
stantial happiness of women are contrary to the great precept of nature,
and of no validity, for this is ‘superior in obligation to any other.’
“Resolved, That all laws which prevent women from occupying such a
station in society as her conscience dictate, or which place her in a position
MARYLAND WOMEN'S NEWS
Mention th« Maryland Women’s News Wta Patronizing Onr Adrerttien*.
inferior to that of man, are contrary to the great precept of nature, and
therefore of no force or authority.
Resolved, lhat woman is man’s equal—was intended to be so by the
Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be
recognized as such.
“Resolved, That the women of this country ought to be enlightened in
regard to the laws under which they live, THAT THEY MAY NO
LONGER PUBLISH THEIR DEGRADATION BY DECLARING
THEMSELVES SATISFIED WITH THEIR PRESENT POSI
TION, NOR THEIR IGNORANCE BY ASSERTING THAT THEY
HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS THEY WANT.
“Resolved, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intel
lectual superiority, does accord to women moral superiority, it is pre-emi
nently his duty to encourage her to speak and teach, as she has an oppor
tunity, in all religious assemblies.
“ Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy and refinement of
behavior that is required of women in the social state should also be re
quired of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal
severity on both man and woman.
“Resolved, That the objection of indelicacy and impropriety, which is
so often brought against woman when she addresses a public audience,
comes with a very ill grace from those who encourage, by their attendance,
her appearance on the stage, in the concert or in feats of the circus.
“Resolved, That woman has too long rested satisfied in the circum
scribed limits which corrupt customs and a perverted application of the
Scriptures have marked out for her, and that it is time she should move in
the enlarged sphere which her great Creator has assigned her.
“ Resolved, That it is the duty of the women of this country to secure
to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.
“Resolved, That the equality of human rights results necessarily from
the fact of the identity of the race in capabilities and responsibilities.
“Resolved therefore, That being invested by the Creator with the same
capabilities and the same consciousness of responsibility for their exercise,
it is demonstrably the right and duty of woman, equally with man, to pro
mote every righteous cause by every righteous means, and especially in
regard to the great subjects of morals and religion; it is self-evidently her
right to participate with her brother in teaching them, both in private and
in public, by writing and by speaking, by any instrumentalities proper to be
used, and in any assemblies proper to be held; and this being a self-evident
truth growing out of the divinely implanted principles of human nature,
any custom or authority adverse to it, jvhether modern or wearing the
hoary sanction of antiquity, is to be regarded as a self-evident falsehood,
and at war with mankind.”
Lucretia Mott offered and spoke to the following resolution:
“Resolved, That the speedy success of our cause depends upon the
zealous and untiring efforts of both men and women for the overthrow of
the monopoly of the pulpit and for the securing to woman an equal par
ticipation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.”
EQUAL RIGHTS
THOSE who were opposed to the Equal Rights Blanket Bill indulged
in a vast amount of sob stuff with regard to the poor working woman
and claimed that her freedom of contract should be defined by law as differ
ent from that of men, but it would be more to the point if they would save
a few of their tears for the abject woman of the streets who is constantly
discriminated against in the absence of equal rights.
During the war in this State alone over 600 women were locked up
for having a venereal disease, while their male partners in prostitution who
must have been responsible for their infection were given prophylaxis or
were permitted to go scot free.
Today in nearly every State of the Union women are discriminated
against in sex offenses, for the uplift agencies made up of men and the
State boards of health consistently regard the dissolute woman as a more
important “focus of infection” than her patron.
In point of fact it is the man and not the woman who ordinarily trans
mits venereal disease in wedlock, hence from a social point of view the
man is the more important factor in the dissemination of disease, yet until
equal rights prevails the unavailing persecution of the scarlet woman will
continue, while the man who pays her for living in prostitution will go
free.
Reasoning with one’s emotions is at best a dangerous pastime, espe
cially where so fundamental a principle as equal rights is involved.