BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
I.' 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. O. F. WHITNEY 
 
 IN SUPPORT Ol=> 
 
 WOMAN SUFFRAGE 
 
 DBUIiZERED IN THE 
 
 CONSTITDTIONAL CONVENTION OF UTAH 
 
 30TH, flPHlIi 21M), flflD flPRlh 5TH, 1895. 
 
 UTAH WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION 
 
Once, to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide, 
 
 In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side; 
 
 Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the bloom or 
 
 blight, 
 
 Parts the goats upon the left hand and the sheep upon the right, 
 And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light. 
 
 Lowell. 
 
m/.f n 
 
 HON. O. F. WHITNEY'S SPEECHES ON THE 
 SUFFRAGE QUESTION. 
 
 ON Saturday, March 30, 1895, the Convention assembled 
 at Salt Lake City for the purpose of framing a Constitution 
 for the State of Utah, was considering, in Committee of the 
 Whole, the article on Elections and Right ot Suffrage, which 
 it was proposed to incorporate in the fundamental law of the 
 State. Section One of the article read as follows: 
 
 "The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and 
 hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. 
 Both male and female citizens of this State shall equally enjoy 
 all civil, political and religious rights and privileges. " 
 
 The proposition to confer "equal suffrage" upon the 
 women of Utah a plank inserted b} 7 both the Republican and 
 Democratic parties in the platforms upon which the Delegates 
 to the Constitutional Convention were elected had been 
 debated for several days, and the merits of the question fully 
 discussed. The principal speeches against it had been made 
 by Hon. B. H. Roberts, of Davis County, and the principal 
 ones in its favor by Hon. S. R. Thurman, of Utah County, 
 Hon. F. S. Richards, of Salt Lake, and Hon. David Evans, 
 of Weber County. On the day mentioned, Mr. Whitney, of 
 Salt Lake, spoke to the question. He and Mr. Kearns, of 
 Summit County, arose almost simultaneously, and the latter 
 was recognized by the chair. Obtaining his leave to make a 
 remark, Mr. Whitney said: 
 
 "Mr. Chairman, In the beginning of this discussion I 
 thought I had a great deal to say; but one by one the arrows 
 have been drawn from my quiver and shot away by other 
 archers, until I have but one or two left, and I would like 
 the privilege of shooting these myself. (Laughter.) If the 
 gentleman from Summit County shall follow in the wake of 
 some who have preceded him first announcing that they 
 would speak ten minutes and then occupying an hour while 
 it will please me very well to hear him, in that event the time 
 
for adjournment will have arrived, and if he uses the rest of 
 the morning session, I ask the privilege of being recognized 
 first this afternoon. With this understanding I will give way 
 with pleasure." 
 
 Mr. Kearns then spoke for a few minutes, and after he 
 had concluded, Mr. Whitney took the floor and addressed the 
 assembly as follows: 
 
 MR. WHITNEY'S ORATION. 
 
 MR. PRESIDENT: 
 
 I have listened with no common interest to what I con- 
 sider one of the greatest debates which it has fallen to my lot 
 to hear; and I do not arise to contribute my quota of argument 
 because I deem it necessary that I should speak in order to 
 decide this question. It is not so much from a desire to be 
 heard, as it is to respect the wishes and respond to the 
 requests of certain of my friends, that I now take part in this 
 discussion. To me it is a battle of destiny that is in progress, 
 and the battles of destiny are won before they are fought. 
 The success of the movement for Woman Suffrage is a fore- 
 gone conclusion; and were it not that gentlemen may wish, 
 as I do, to respond to the requests of their friends and place 
 themselves on record in this connection, I opine that not 
 many more would impose on the patience of the Convention. 
 
 SEEKING FOR A COMPARISON. 
 
 I have listened enraptured to the eloquent periods that 
 have rolled forth from the lips of the gifted men who have 
 preceded me, and have spoken upon either side of this ques- 
 tion. I was particularly charmed with the eloquent remarks 
 of the gentleman from Davis County (Mr. Roberts), whom I 
 not only admire as a gifted man, but esteem as a personal 
 friend sincere, I believe, in the position he has assumed, 
 and anxious only to defend the right as he sees it. I could 
 not but admire the courage with which he faced a frowning 
 multitude, and withstood the onslaughts of a multitudinous 
 foe. While he was speaking my mind scanned the pages of 
 history in quest of some hero with whom to compare him. I 
 thought of Horatius at the Roman bridge, standing single- 
 handed and alone, beating back the Tuscan legions advancing 
 to attack the Eternal City; and I fain would have compared 
 
my friend to that hero of antiquity. But I could not; because 
 Horatius was fighting for freedom, and in my opinion my 
 eloquent but mistaken friend was fighting against it. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 I went back farther into the past. I thought of Leonidas 
 and his three hundred Spartans, defending the pass of Ther- 
 mopylae against the overwhelming hordes of Persians, sweep- 
 ing down like an avalanche upon his native land. I wanted 
 to compare him to that hero one of the noblest in history 
 but again I was met by the reflection that Lenoidas fought 
 and fell in a battle for liberty, and I was convinced that my 
 friend from Davis County was taking part in no such engage- 
 ment. (Applause.) 
 
 Then I remembered a little anecdote one that is doubt- 
 less trite and commonplace to you all. A bull was feeding in 
 a pasture through which a railway track extended, along 
 which an express train was advancing at lightning speed. 
 The bull got upon the track and tried to prevent the train 
 from passing. He did not seem to know what was coming, 
 and "preferring his free thought to a throne"* (laughter), 
 planted himself squarely in the way of the invicible power 
 that came rushing and roaring on. The bull, I say, did not 
 seem to know what was coming, but the farmer, his owner, did 
 (laughter), and with a gasp of astonishment, mingled with 
 surprise, he exclaimed: "Well, I admire your courage, but 
 d n your judgment." (Laughter and applause.) 
 
 But I did not like to compare my friend to a dumb 
 animal; he had given convincing proof that he was not 
 dumb; and though there was once an animal that spake 
 (laughter) the property of one Balaam (renewed laughter) 
 it spake by inspiration from on high, so that 1 could not 
 compare it to the gentleman from Davis County. (Uproarious 
 laughter and applause.) 
 
 A WATERLOO FOR ANTI- SUFFRAGISTS. 
 
 Finally my mind, coming down to modern times, rested 
 upon a scene made memorable in histor}', and I thought I had 
 at last found the object of my search a proper subject for 
 comparison. Imagination pictured that eventful day June 
 18, 1815 when the allied armies, the representatives of 
 
 * A remark made by Mr. Roberts. 
 
banded nations, stood facing upon the field of Waterloo, one 
 bold, independent, desperate man, embodying in his person 
 the imperial despotism from which Europe struggled to be 
 free. During the first day's discussion of this question, I 
 thought I saw enacted before my eyes the scenes of that 
 memorable occasion. I heard the thunder of the cannon, belch- 
 ing death and destruction across the narrow valley from 
 mountain to mountain. I saw the French march up the 
 slope and attack the English squares. There were charges 
 and counter-charges. I heard the Prussian trumpet blow, and 
 the patter of their bullets as they fell in the midst of the fray. 
 I saw the Old Guard make its last charge and "foam itself 
 away." Then the Wellingtons and Bluchers arose: the cry was, 
 "Up guards and at them!" and down the slopes pell-mell 
 rushed the overwhelming, irresistible force of victors flinging 
 themselves upon the vanquished. I had thought of taking 
 part in the action, but remembering what history has to say 
 of those who pursued the flying French, slaughtering for the 
 mere love of slaughter, I could not convince myself that it was 
 my duty to pursue, Blucher-like, with sword in hand, an already 
 defeated enemy. I supposed that the battle was over, that the 
 issue involved was decided; but it seems that I was mistaken. 
 I had not been witnessing Waterloo at all. It was the defeat 
 at Leipsic that I had beheld, and the fleeing Napoleon was 
 but banished to Elba, and not to St. Helena. He returned, 
 insisting that he had not been conquered, and entered upon 
 another campaign. Then we had a Waterloo indeed, and all 
 these scenes were re-enacted. 
 
 Standing here today, not as a participant in the strife, 
 but rather as some wandering Childe Harold, musing upon 
 the battlefield, treading "this place of skulls," the grave of 
 ambitious hopes and desires, I feel more like moralizing than 
 fighting the battle over again. 
 
 ANSWERING AN IMPUTATION. 
 
 There was one thing in the eloquent oration of the gen- 
 tleman from Davis County which I did not much admire. He 
 may not have meant it, and if he disclaims it, I shall accept 
 his disclaimer. But running all through his remarks was the 
 seeming imputation that all who opposed him and stood with 
 the majority upon this question, in favor of woman suffrage, 
 were actuated by motives less noble and honorable than his 
 
own. He alone stood for principle, towering like a colossus 
 in the midst of the debris surrounding him, while we who 
 differed from him were merely indulging in maudlin sentiment, 
 seeking for women's smiles, reaching after laurel wreaths 
 with which, it was intimated, fair hands were waiting to 
 bedeck our brows. I have seen no laurel wreaths distributed. 
 I saw a bouquet of roses yesterday (laughter) standing upon 
 the table at my left (Mr. Roberts' place). I presume it was 
 put there for Mr. Thurman (Mr. Roberts' near neighbor), 
 since he is one of those who have been reaching after such 
 things (laughter) but I noticed that it was Mr. Roberts who 
 walked away with it after adjournment. (Renewed laughter 
 and applause). 
 
 MAJORITIES SOMETIMES RIGHT. 
 
 I know not what reasons the gentleman has for thinking 
 that his opponents are actuated by selfish and sordid motives. 
 But I wish to say to him, and to all, that because a man 
 "stands alone," in the midst of "the wreck of matter and the 
 crash of worlds," that of itself is no sure sign that he is 
 right, or more sincere and honest than his fellows. I grant 
 you that in most of the great crises of history the minority 
 have been right and the majority wrong. The grandest heroes 
 are generally found among the few. One of our American 
 poets has said : 
 
 " Count me o'er earth's chosen heroes, 
 
 They were souls who stood alone, 
 While the men they agonized for 
 
 Hurled the contumelious stone, 
 Stood serene, and down the future 
 
 Saw the golden beam iriclme 
 To the side of perfect justice, 
 
 Mastered by their faith divine, 
 By one man's plain truth to manhood 
 
 And to God's supreme design." 
 
 But it is not always so. Majorities are sometimes right, 
 and their voice is then the voice of God. When Sumter 
 was fired on, and the shots discharged at that devoted fortress 
 echoed round the world, it was the minority that spoke, and 
 that minority was in the wrong. But when the great North 
 arose in its might, and buckling on its armor, burst like a 
 whirlwind of conquering wrath upon the advocates and sup- 
 porters of Secession, it was the voice of the majority the 
 
voice of Omnipotence that declared: "The Union must and 
 shall be preserved." (Applause). 
 
 And when it became necessary, after ninety years of 
 waiting, to make good the promise virtually pledged by the 
 patriot founders of the nation, and the edict went forth that 
 struck from the wrists of millions of slaves the fetters 
 which bound them, and which had not been removed, notwith- 
 standing the great Declaration of Freedom, it was the fiat of 
 the Almighty that blazed from the lips of Lincoln, and it was 
 the voice of the majority of the people that said "Amen." 
 
 The heroes of romance are always in the minority. The 
 hero of the great epic, "Paradise Lost," is not the Eternal 
 Father, sitting upon His throne surrounded by numberless 
 concourses of angels; not the Only Begotten of the Father, 
 full of grace and truth; not the arch-angel, Michael, invinci- 
 ble in battle, with two-thirds of the hosts of heaven at his 
 back. Neither of these is the hero of Paradise Lost. It is 
 Lucifer, the fallen, that bold, brave, independent spirit "who 
 dared look the omnipotent tyrant in his everlasting face and tell 
 him that his evil was not good." He is the hero of the poem, 
 the one toward whom the current of romantic sentiment 
 naturally tends. But was he right? Because he stood alone, 
 or with the minority because he dug his own grave and went 
 down into the depths with the heavens weeping over his fall, 
 was he right or any more sincere than those who opposed him? 
 Were Lee, Jackson and Beauregard right because they 
 fought upon the weaker side, and, in the eyes of the 
 romancist, are the heroes of our great civil strife? No; let 
 the current of generous sympathy go out to them as it will, 
 let the romancist choose his heroes where he may, the fact 
 remains that they were wrong, and that the Grants, Shermans 
 and Sheridans were the instruments of Providence to put 
 them down. It was the voice of the minority that spoke at 
 Sumter, but it was the voice of the majority that thundered 
 at Shiloh, Gettysburg and Appomattox. 
 
 Majorities, I repeat, are sometimes right, and I believe 
 the majority upon this floor are right when they say, we 
 will put woman suffrage in the Constitution; we will strike 
 the fetters from the wrists of our wives, mothers, sisters and 
 daughters; we will grant them the boon already granted to 
 the black man under the pledge of the declaration that "all 
 men are created equal" and that "governments derive their 
 
just powers from the consent of the governed;" we will take 
 one more step in the mighty march of human liberty, which 
 has been sweeping down the ages from the dawn of Time even 
 until now. 
 
 ANTI-SUFFRAGISM IS NON-PROGRESSION. 
 
 All the arguments against woman suffrage, however plaus- 
 ibe, however sincere they may be, are simply pleas for non-pro- 
 gression. The eloquent notes that have been sounded here, 
 while they please the ear and charm the senses, are not har- 
 monious with the morning stars. They are not in tune with 
 the march of human advancement. I stand for progress and 
 not for stagnation. I believe that politics can be and will be 
 something more than a filthy pool in which depraved men 
 love to wallow. It is a noble science the science of govern- 
 ment and it has a glorious future. And I believe in a future 
 for woman, commensurate with the progress thereby indi- 
 cated. I do not believe that she was made merely for a wife, 
 a mother, a cook, and a housekeeper. These callings, however 
 honorable and no one doubts that they are so are not the 
 sum of her capabilities. While I agree with all that is true 
 and beautiful in the portrayals that have been made of 
 woman's domestic virtues and the home sphere, and would be 
 as loth as anyone to have her lose that delicacy and refine- 
 ment, that femininity which has been so deservedly lauded, I 
 do not agree that this would necessarily follow, that she 
 could not engage in politics and still retain those lovable 
 traits which we all so much admire. I believe the day will 
 come when through that very refinement, the elevating and 
 ennobling influence which 'woman exerts, in conjunction 
 with other agencies that are at work for the betterment of 
 the world, all that is base and unclean in politics which 
 when properly understood and practiced is as high above the 
 chicanery of the political trickster as Heaven is above Hades 
 will be "burnt and purged away," and the great result will 
 justify woman's present participation in the cause of reform. 
 It is not a sufficient answer to sneeringly enquire, how all 
 this wonderful improvement is to be brought about? Even 
 folly may ask questions that wisdom cannot answer. Re- 
 formers always build better than they know. It is Providence 
 that directs their labors and guides them to their result. It 
 is woman's destiny to have a voice in the affairs of govern- 
 
10 
 
 ment. She was designed for it. She has a right to it. This 
 great social upheaval, this woman's movement that is making 
 itself heard and felt, means something more than that certain 
 women are ambitious to vote and hold office. I regard it as 
 one of the great levers by which the Almighty is lifting up 
 this fallen world, lifting it nearer to the throne of its Creator. 
 What matters it if in the process some corrupt institutions 
 perish, some antiquated errors are set aside, some narrow 
 notions destroyed that are held by those who assume to know 
 already what is the acme of woman's civilization and refine- 
 ment? Let the fittest survive. What have we to fear? Let 
 truth and falsehood grapple. We will crown the brows of the 
 victor and say: "You were worthy to survive." 
 
 CARRYING OUT A COMPARISON. 
 
 Much has been said of the subversion of the domestic 
 empire if woman takes part in politics. She cannot tamper 
 with its filth and not befoul herself she will not lift it up, 
 but it will drag her down, we are told. My eloquent friend, 
 in one of his most beautiful similes, spoke of two rivers, the 
 Mississippi and the Missouri, one clear and sparkling mingling 
 its pure waters with the turbid tide of the othei, and in 
 answer to the hypothetical argument that the muddy stream 
 was never so muddy afterwards, he replied: "No, but neither 
 was the clear and sparkling stream ever clear again." And 
 there he left it. He did not tell you that those streams, 
 those blended rivers were on their way to the ocean, where 
 all that was muddy and unclean would sink to the bottom 
 where it belongs, while all that was sparkling and clear would 
 mingle with the limpid tide of the "self-purifying, unpolluted 
 sea" "the image of eternity, the throne of the invisible." 
 (Applause.) Who pretends not I that man of himself, or 
 that woman of herself, is conducting this great march of 
 progress? There are some men who recognize an overruling 
 Providence, a divine plan and purpose, as broad and as pure 
 as the ocean, and into which all the rivers of human thought 
 and action run. Whatever they may be before, they ultimately 
 blend with and subserve that divine purpose, swelling the 
 success of the perfect plan into which they flow. Having 
 passed through that, rest assured they will be made pure. 
 
 When Stephenson built his first railroad, inaugurating 
 the great improvement that has since revolutionized the 
 
11 
 
 world, he was compelled to cross a miry marsh, an almost 
 bottomless pit, into which tons upon tons of solid matter 
 were thrown before the roadbed at that point could be con- 
 structed and the track laid thereon. But that roadbed today 
 is as solid as the eternal hills, and along that track, covering 
 that once miry marsh, now speed triumphantly the trains that 
 bear the commerce of a nation. So shall it be with the work 
 of political reform. Politics is down in the mire, where great 
 reforms are ofttimes obliged to begin their work, but the 
 future shall see arise upon the sunken foundations walls of 
 beauty and towers of splendor that shall glitter with the glory 
 of the skies. It is only by descending below all things that 
 we can hope to rise above all things. 
 
 A GOD-GIVEN AND INHERENT RIGHT. 
 
 I take the ground notwithstanding all that has been said 
 upon this floor and elsewhere that the elective franchise, or 
 the underlying principle thereof, is a right, an inherent, 
 God-given right. It existed before governments were formed, 
 before constitutions were heard of. It does not depend upon 
 ink and parchment. The doctrine that governments derive 
 their just powers from the consent of the governed, was true 
 before the immortal Jefferson blazoned it with pen of flame. 
 It was true ere the morning stars sang together, ere the sons 
 of God ay, and the daughters of God shouted for joy over 
 the birth of the infant world. "Men are more than constitu- 
 tions." "Before man made us citizens, great Nature made us 
 men" and women, with rights inherent, God-given, which 
 governments cannot confer, especially a government which 
 possesses no power but what it derives from the people. The 
 right to consent to be governed is such a right, and it is the 
 right embodied in the elective franchise. 
 
 It has been claimed that the declaration in Genesis con- 
 cerning woman, that her desire should be unto her husband, 
 and he should rule over her, is no part of the curse pro- 
 nounced upon her, but simply the divine arrangement respect- 
 ing the mutual relations of the sexes. Grant it; what then? 
 Man rules over woman, but it is her desire" that he should 
 do so. Hence she consents to the arrangement, and exercises 
 her inherent right in so doing. Is it unreasonable to suppose 
 that she was consulted before that arrangement was made? 
 
 She votes "yes" or "no" upon the proposition as to who 
 
12 
 
 shall rule her in the household, when she accepts or rejects 
 an offer of marriage. 
 
 The gentleman from Sanpete (Mr. Lund) would find that 
 a woman could say no, and mean it, if he were to take the 
 advice of the gentleman from Utah County (Mr. Boyer) and 
 propose, with all his anti-suffrage notions, to one of that 
 gentleman's daughters. (Laughter.) 
 
 Woman exercises this right in the family. Why should 
 she^not exercise it in the State? Is not the family the type 
 of the State? Man is truly the head of the woman, as Christ 
 is the head of the Church, but not without her consent. 
 Even the Church has the right to consent as to who shall 
 preside over it. 
 
 MORMON WOMEN AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 I am not sure but that the gentleman from Davis County 
 believes as much as I do in the right of women to vote under 
 certain circumstances. On the 6th of April, 1830, a little 
 band of disciples assembled at a farm house in Fayette, 
 Seneca County, New York, and organized the Church to which 
 many of the gentlemen surrounding me, and I myself, belong. 
 It is a popular idea that only six men were present when that 
 Church was organized. This is a mistake. The laws of the 
 State of New York required that at least six persons should 
 compose a religious society, and six men were known and 
 named in this organization; but they were not the only ones 
 who took part in the proceedings. Forty or fifty persons 
 were present, including a number of women, and before the 
 first thing was done, before the founder of the Church took 
 his place at its head, he asked that little congregation if they 
 were willing to accept him as their spiritual leader, and if 
 they were willing to be organized as a religious body. The 
 record says: "Unanimous consent being given, the purpose 
 of the meeting was effected." Women voted there as well 
 an men. 
 
 Many years later, on the banks of the Mississippi, the 
 founder of this Church called together the women of his 
 people and said that the time had come for he had turned 
 the key when woman should take her place beside her 
 brother man and participate more fully in the affairs of the 
 Church government. The object of the meeting was to 
 organize the women of the Church. They were to have their 
 
13 
 
 presidents, secretaries, and separate though subordinate organi- 
 zations, over which women were to preside, as President 
 Smith and his counselors presided over the entire body. 
 From that time until the present, these institutions have 
 existed, and the doctrine of common consent has prevailed 
 among this people. Twice a year they meet in their con- 
 ferences and vote upon the various propositions laid before 
 them, vote with the uplifted hand, and the women vote as 
 well as the men. I bear in mind a certain occasion when I 
 held up my hand with peculiar pleasure to signify my assent 
 to the selection for a high ecclesiastical office of my esteemed 
 friend from Davis County, and I noticed, as I looked over the 
 vast sea of faces composing that congregation, that probably 
 two-thirds of them were women holding up their hands to 
 elect a man who, upon the floor of this Convention, says that 
 women ought not to be permitted to vote. He declares them 
 incapable of independent action, and thinks they ought to be 
 satisfied with being represented at the polls and in public 
 life by their husbands who vote and hold office. 
 
 WOMAN A FREE AGENT. 
 
 Our friend is not only an accomplished orator, he is a 
 talented author as well. He has written books, the object of 
 which was to show what I have also heard him thunder from 
 the pulpit with as much earnestness and eloquence as he has 
 here displayed that it is the right and privilege of every 
 soul, man or woman, to answer for itself before the Bar of 
 God. I never heard him proclaim, till now, that woman, be 
 she wife or maid, was not in a position to act independently, 
 ether in Church or in State. Why, the very genius of his 
 religion teaches to the contrary. Women are free, as they 
 ought to be, and no man by plunging into hell, can drag 
 down with him the faithful and pure wife who stands at his 
 side. She is a free moral agent, and can either ascend to 
 heights of glory or descend into abysses of despair, let him 
 take what course he may. 
 
 HOW THE CHURCH HAS TAUGHT THE STATE. 
 
 A word here in explanation, lest some one should say that 
 I am advocating a union of Church and State, the blending 
 of religious and political functions. I am not. I advocate 
 no such idea, though I believe that politics owes much to 
 
14 
 
 religion. What of the Mosaic Law, for instance, the founda- 
 tion of modern jurisprudence All down the ages the Church 
 has taught the State good and correct principles, and it has 
 adopted them. Whence came our idea of republican govern- 
 ment' 3 Was it not suggested, in part at least, by the Cal- 
 vinistic principle of church government the right of the 
 congregation to elect its own ministers, instead of having 
 them appointed by the Pope of Rome or by kings and 
 emperors? That idea sprang from Calvinism, permeated 
 Switzerland, France, Holland, Great Britain, and was brought 
 by the Pilgrim Fathers to the shores of the New World. 
 There is little doubt that it helped to give form and color to 
 the institutions of the American Republic. 
 
 My argument is that we can afford to follow a good 
 example, and accept truth from whatever source it comes. I* 
 the Church can afford to be liberal, and not only recognize 
 but permit the exercise of woman's inherent right to a voice 
 in the election of those who rule her, why cannot the State 
 afford to be equally liberal? Why deny to her in the State 
 what she enjoys in the family which, I repeat, is the type 
 of the State and what the Church, the elder sister of the 
 State, is willing she should enjoy? 
 
 AN APPEAL TO AMERICANS. 
 
 I am speaking, not to Democrats, not to Republicans; I 
 am not speaking as a partisan for party ends. I am speak- 
 ing as an American to Americans; not to that class who, it is 
 said, fled from the tyranny of the Old World that they might 
 worship God according to the dictates of their consciences 
 and compel everybody else to do likewise; but to descendants 
 of those who fought and bled for freedom and bequeathed it 
 as a sacred legacy to mankind; being willing that others 
 should enjoy the same rights that they secured for themselves. 
 I hope I am speaking to lovers of liberty, to champions of 
 progress, who comprehend and appreciate the divine mission 
 and destiny of their country America 
 
 A land of liberty, 
 
 A home of peace and human brotherhood, 
 Where men should equal stand, a sovereign host, 
 Nor owe to haughty birth their high degree ; 
 Where merit's star o'er mammon's might ascend, 
 Where brain and brawn should blood and birth outweigh, 
 Where law should liberty and life defend, 
 
15 
 
 And tyranny be traitor to the realm ; 
 
 Where right, not might, should monarch rise and reign 
 
 O'er all that breathed or blossomed 'nedth the sun ; 
 
 Where, linked in chain of loving unity 
 
 The only chain that Freedom's land could bind 
 
 A sisterhood of empires, hand in hand, 
 
 Timing their steps to truth's triumphal tread, 
 
 Might march to music of Millennial strains ; 
 
 Glad harbinger of still more glorious state 
 
 The welding of the nations, world- wide chain, 
 
 With Freedom's ensign waving over all. 
 
 This land, "which God gave to our forefathers, was, as I 
 believe, the predestined site of a government that was 
 expected to set an example to all the world; standing as a 
 goddess in the midst of the earth, holding aloft the torch of 
 truth to kindle and illumine the nations. It was founded for 
 the many, not merely for a few, and no class should have a 
 monopoly of its blessings. 
 
 " Is true freedom but to break 
 Fetters for our own dear sake, 
 And with leathern hearts forget 
 That we owe mankind a debt ? 
 No ; true freedom is to share 
 All the chains our brothers wear, 
 And with heart and hand to be 
 Earnest to make others free." 
 
 This was written for the black man; but why not apply it to 
 the white woman, and the black woman? (Applause). 
 
 America, the champion and exemplar of freedom! How 
 can she go forth to evangelize the nations, to liberate the 
 world, with gyves upon her wrists, with half of her own 
 children in chains? 
 
 A DEFENSE OF WOMAN. 
 
 And now a word, which I do not mean to be offensive, in 
 relation to a remark made by my friend which I was some- 
 what shocked to hear. It shows to what desperate straits he 
 was reduced, that he must use an argument which he himself 
 was compelled to discredit and cast into the waste-basket. He 
 only gave it time to be noted down in the hearts and minds 
 of those whom he wished to convert, and then he discarded 
 it, for he felt ashamed of it; and I must add that his shame 
 did him more credit than his argument. He said, in 
 reference to what he termed an "invasion" of ladies, who 
 came into the Convention in response to the hearty and whole- 
 
16 
 
 souled invitation of its members, extending to them that 
 courtesy, that if they could have heard the gibes and jeers 
 that he had heard concerning them, they would have hung 
 their heads in shame. Some one had said to him, quoting: 
 
 " They are neither man nor woman, 
 They are neither brute nor human, 
 They are ghouls." 
 
 Let me emphasize what I have already stated, that the 
 gentleman only repeated what had been quoted and applied 
 by another, and that he himself discredited the application. 
 He avowed and I believe him that he has the highest 
 respect for these same ladies. But it seems to me that he 
 could have shown his respect for them far better by refraining 
 from the repetition of the slanderous saying, than by giving 
 it public utterance upon this floor. 
 
 Who are these ladies that have presented their petitions 
 here, who have listened with the greatest respect to the 
 remarks made by the honorable gentleman and by others 
 who have spoken? They are intelligent, high-minded women, 
 Mormon and Gentile, among the purest, noblest and best of 
 the land. (Applause). They are here to listen to this debate 
 because it affects them to tht heart's core. They are interested 
 in the discussion of a question fraught with so much for 
 woman and her cause. 
 
 I do not ask for their smiles, their laurel wreaths, their 
 bouquets of roses. I ask only to be considered sincere. I 
 speak from a heart where the conviction of truth sits 
 enthroned as regards this question, and I thank you for bear- 
 ing with me so long and permitting me to voice the sentiments 
 of my soul. 
 
 VICTORY INEVITABLE. 
 
 I believe in woman suffrage. I have always believed in 
 it. I look upon it as another step, another impulse of 
 humanity toward perfection. Its success is assured. Victory, 
 anticipating the inevitable, has already perched upon its ban- 
 ners. Its course cannot be staid. As well try to check the 
 mountain torrent, or the mighty waters of the Mississippi, 
 thundering onward to the sea. Its triumph is decreed. Its 
 destiny is fixed. It is the march of human liberty, the 
 pageant of eternal progress, and those who will not join it 
 must stand aside and see the great procession sweep on with- 
 
17 
 
 out them. (Applause.) And if this Convention fails to act 
 favorably upon this proposition, some future Convention will 
 so act, and gazing upon our record with reproach, will crown 
 her brows with the glory we have denied. (Loud and pro- 
 longed applause.) 
 
 Mr. Whitney spoke for just one hour from 11:45 a. m. 
 to 12:45 p. m. 
 
 The Anti-Suffragists, in and out of the Convention, were 
 now thoroughly aroused, and began to agitate with a view to 
 killing the pending proposition. Mr. Roberts became their 
 champion, and he, by courtesy of the Convention a majority 
 of whom favored woman suffrage was given, at his request, 
 the privilege of closing the debate. The privilege wa s 
 granted because of his statement that it would probably be his 
 last speech on the floor of the Convention, since, owing to his 
 attitude against woman suffrage, he had been asked by his 
 constituents to resign. 
 
 An unfair use having been made of a portion of Mr. Whit- 
 ney's remarks, he, on the morning of April 2nd, just before 
 Mr. Roberts began his speech, arose to a question of personal 
 privilege and asked permission to make an explanation. He 
 stated that he was not present the evening before, when it was 
 agreed that the discussion should end, with the understanding 
 that Mr. Roberts would make the first and final speech next 
 morning. Had he been present he would have preferred his 
 request at that time. He only wanted five or ten minutes, 
 and this only to set himself right in relation to some of his 
 previous remarks, which had not only been misunderstood, 
 but grossly misrepresented. 
 
 "Give him half an hour!" "Give him all the time he 
 wants!" came from various parts of the crowded hall. The 
 chairman rapped for order, recognized Mr. Whitney, and the 
 latter thus addressed the assembly: 
 
 MR. WHITNEY S SECOND SPEECH. 
 
 "I do not deem it an unreasonable request that I have 
 made. It was I who seconded the motion giving to the gen- 
 tleman from Davis County the privilege of closing the debate 
 upon this question; he having requested that privilege in view 
 of the fact that as he had been asked by his constituents to 
 
18 
 
 resign, it would probably be his last speech on the floor of 
 this Convention. As this is probably the last speech I 
 shall make on earth (Laughter) for there is no telling what 
 or where I shall be when the gentleman from Davis County 
 gets through with me I think it only right that I should be 
 given a few minutes now. 
 
 In my remarks on Saturday I made mention of the fact 
 that in the church to which the gentleman and myself belong, 
 women are allowed to vote, and incidentally I stated that 
 Mr. Roberts had been elected to a high ecclesiastical office by 
 a congregation, two-thirds of whom were women. Because of 
 this I have been accused of bringing into this discussion 
 matters which should have been left outside. Some have gone 
 so far as to say that I advocated the idea that the State of 
 Utah should model its institutions after those of the Mormon 
 Church. I am not afraid that my eloquent friend, in replying 
 to me for in his intelligence and fairness I have confidence- 
 will revamp such an absurd and ridiculous idea. But I wish 
 him to understand me clearly in every respect, so that he may 
 answer, not what 1 have been falsely represented as saying, 
 but what I actually did say. 
 
 My friend argued, you will remember, that suffrage is a 
 privilege and not a right; that it ought not to be extended 
 to any class incapable of independent action, meaning that 
 married women were not thus capable, and that they ought to 
 be satisfied with the fact that at the polls and in public life 
 they were represented by their husbands. By the way, I tried 
 to convince my wife the other night that this was correct 
 philosophy. I had stepped into the theatre on my way home 
 and witnessed an act or two of the play in progress, and on 
 reaching home, I endeavored to persuade ^Mrs. W. that she 
 had witnessed the performance as well as myself, because, 
 forsooth, in accordance with the philosophy of my admired 
 friend, I represented her at the play. But it wouldn't work. 
 And now passing on. I have stated Mr. Roberts' posi- 
 tion. Let me now state what I said, or meant to say, in 
 answer to him. I held that the right of consent the under- 
 lying principle of the elective franchise is an inherent right, 
 possessed by every human being; that it existed before gov- 
 ernments were formed, before constitutions were heard of; that 
 it is a right which woman enjoys and exercises when she 
 accepts or rejects an offer of marriage. She says yes or no, 
 
19 
 
 and thus votes upon the proposition as to who shall rule her 
 in the household. The family, I averred, was the type of the 
 state, and 1 contended that woman in the state was entitled to 
 the exercise of the same right that she exercises in the 
 family the right to consent as to who shall or shall not rule 
 over her. 
 
 In connection with this matter I mentioned that in 
 in the church to which Mr. Roberts and myself belong, this 
 right is recognized and exercised, for the women of the church 
 vote as well as the men, and vote independently and of their 
 own volition. And I added that if a church which is gen- 
 erally though mistakenly supposed to be illiberal, especially to 
 women, could afford to recognize that right, the State of Utah 
 could afford to be equally liberal. 
 
 That is what I said and what I meant. I did not say, or 
 mean, or intimate, that the State, of Utah should model its 
 institutions after those of the Mormon Church. 
 
 I meant no disrespect to Mr. Roberts in stating that he 
 had been elected by women's votes to a high ecclesiastical 
 office. I referred to that incident simply to remind him in a 
 mild way of the inconsistency of his present position. 
 
 So far as the charge of bringing into this discussion 
 matters that should have been left outside is concerned, I have 
 this to say, that while I do not see anything improper in what 
 I said, I should sit down quite comfortably under a vote to 
 the contrary if carried by a non-partisan majority of this 
 Committee. But granting, for argument's sake, that what I 
 said was improper, it seems to me that the last person to cast 
 a stone should have been the gentleman from Salt Lake 
 (Mr. Mackintosh) who called me to account for it upon this 
 floor; he being the first signer of the minority report im- 
 pugning the sincerity of the Mormon people in dividing on 
 national party lines the cause of all the acrimony exhibited 
 during this debate. 
 
 The gentleman, in commenting upon my statement that 
 probably six thousand women voted for Mr. Roberts on the 
 occasion in question, declared that that was just what he was 
 afraid of that forty thousand women would so vote. He was 
 answered by Mr. Wells, and I answer him now, that he, being 
 a Republican, probably feared that the forty thousand women 
 would be Democrats." 
 
 Mr. Whitney having closed, Mr. Raleigh briefly addressed 
 
20 
 
 the Committee, and was followed by Mr. Roberts, who spoke 
 for two hours. From a remark made by him the impression 
 went abroad that Mr. Whitney, in his first speech, had loaded 
 him with coarse and offensive epithets. Nothing could be 
 farther from the truth, as the speech itself will show. Mr. 
 Roberts did not assert it though that inference might be 
 drawn from his language nor would the Convention have 
 permitted one member to abuse another even had there been 
 any disposition in that direction. Mr. Roberts was one of 
 the first to congratulate Mr. Whitney on his oration, a cour- 
 tesy which the latter reciprocated. During his speech Mr. 
 Roberts ironically referred to his leading opponents as 
 "mountain peaks," and observed, in relation to Mr. Whitney, 
 that he was a poet, but not a philosopher. The latter replied 
 to these strictures, on the 5th of April, when the woman 
 suffrage question again came up, not upon its merits, but 
 upon a motion by Mr. Varian, of Salt Lake, to recommit the 
 article under consideration, with a view to having another 
 article on the same subject reported, to be submitted to the 
 people as a separate proposition, instead of being included in 
 the Constitution. 
 
 MR. WHITNEY'S THIRD SPEECH. 
 
 In what few remarks I make I shall endeavor to respect 
 the wise admonition of the Chair and avoid all personal 
 allusions. I certainly have no desire to use any acrimonious 
 language. There has been too much bitterness indulged in 
 already, and I shall say nothing to augment the stream of gall 
 and wormwood. I would prefer to say to these troubled waves 
 of thought and feeling, "Peace; be still." I disclaim all bit- 
 terness, so far as my remarks during these debates are 
 concerned. What raillery or sarcasm I have used has 
 been in the spirit of pleasantry. It was good-natured irony, 
 and it was very far from my purpose to wound the feelings of 
 anyone. 
 
 I am in favor of woman suffrage, and in favor of its 
 being placed in the Constitution. That is where it properly 
 belongs. It is a fundamental principle, and should have its 
 place in the fundamental law of the State. It should not be 
 left to be battle-doored and shuttle-cocked by succeeding 
 
legislatures. It should be a fixed star, not a comet, in the 
 'firmament of the commonwealth. 
 
 I am opposed to the motion to recommit. It means delay 
 and is not necessary. The current agitation against woman 
 suffrage is merely local. Whether it originated on the floor 
 of this Convention or outside, does not matter. The women 
 of Utah understand what suffrage means. They are not as 
 ignorant of the subject as some suppose. They enjoyed the 
 elective franchise for seventeen years, and voted again and 
 again. Can it be conceived that this could be and the ques- 
 tion of woman suffrage not be discussed upon its merits in 
 their homes? Moreover, there is a woman's paper published 
 in this city, one of the first of its kind established west of 
 the Missouri River. For many years it has permeated the 
 homes of most of the women of Utah. It keeps them in touch 
 with the leading women of the nation with the thoughts, 
 acts and aspirations of the champions of woman suffrage the 
 world over. 
 
 My experience in politics is limited, but I took an active 
 part in the campaign which resulted in the election of you 
 gentlemen and myself to this Convention. Woman suffrage 
 was mentioned repeatedly by speakers, and it was approved 
 and applauded when mentioned. I know that men are sincere 
 when they arise here and say they feel bound by the pledges 
 embodied in the platforms upon which they were elected. It 
 is wrong to question their integrity, to accuse them of 
 cowardice and impute to them improper motives. 
 
 1 call in question the motives of no man. That is not 
 my style of argument. I am not in favor of the motion of 
 Mr. Varian, but I would not impute to him an improper motive 
 in making it. I do not say that the object in view is to work 
 unnecessary delay, but I do say that in fmy opinion that 
 would be the effect of it. It would mean that this Conven- 
 tion must wait here, bound hand and foot, until a few agita- 
 tors had had time to get out among the people, work up an 
 excitement in their particular locality and bring such a pres- 
 sure to bear upon wavering members that the Anti-Suffragists 
 would gain a majority. It seems to me that these agitators 
 are not half so anxious to hear from the people as they are to 
 have the people hear from them. 
 
 The vote taken at a matinee at the Grand Opera House 
 in this city has been referred to as indicative of the popular 
 
22 
 
 feeling among the women of Utah upon this question. A 
 majority of those present voted against woman suffrage. But 
 what was the character of that majority? I have a little 
 daughter ten years old who attended that matinee. She 
 came home and told me she had voted against woman 
 suffrage. I asked her why she had done so. She replied, 
 naively, "Because a woman told me to." (Laughter) That 
 is how they obtained the majority. Some lady anti-suffragist 
 acted as a steering committee for these little, innocent chil- 
 dren> who did not know what they were doing. It reminded 
 me of the school boy who was asked: "Which is the largest 
 city in the world.''" "Chicago," he answered, and when asked 
 for his authority, said a Chicago man told him so. (Laughter.) 
 
 But I realize that I have no right to argue. I am lacking 
 in "the logical sense;" I am not a philosopher, but only a 
 poet, I am told. I do not claim to be even a poet. I am 
 only a lover of poetry, but one, I trust, who has a proper 
 appreciation of the poetic faculty. Poets, gentlemen, are not 
 mere rhymesters, not mere sentimentalists. A poet is one who 
 sees into the heart of things, and is capable of leaping by 
 intuition to a correct conclusion, while the philosopher, 
 or mere orator, is groping in the mazes of his own fallacy. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Again, I am compared to a mountain peak, "the proudest 
 of them all." I disclaim that honor also. I am only a 
 humble foot-hill. But there are mountain peaks, towering 
 intellects, in this Convention, to whom I defer and with 
 whom I fraternize. For them 1 accept the comparison. 
 And let me remind you that it is the mountain peaks that 
 catch the first glimpses of the rising sun, while the valleys 
 (where stand the Anti-Suffragists) are still shrouded in dark- 
 ness. (Applause.) 
 
 They tell us that woman suffrage in the Constitution 
 will imperil Statehood. I don't believe it. But if it should, 
 what of it? There are some things higher and dearer even 
 than Statehood. I would rather stand by my honor, by my 
 principles, than to have Statehood, if I must sacrifice my 
 honor and my principles to obtain it. If Utah is to be 
 immolated for standing by her principles, for enlarging the 
 borders of liberty, let the sacrifice be made, let her be bound 
 upon the altar, let the high priest of tyranny come forth and 
 plunge the knife into her breast. She cannot perish in a 
 
23 
 
 nobler cause than that of freedom and equal rights. But 
 the dagger that strikes at her heart shall be fashioned into 
 a scepter for her hands, and the blood of her martyrdom shall 
 rise as an offering to offended Justice and become the seed 
 of her future glory. " 
 
 The result of the contest is well known. The Convention 
 refused to recommit the article on Elections and Right of 
 Suffrage, and decided by an overwhelming majority to place 
 the equal suffrage clause in the State Constitution.