3': 
 5 
 
 m 
 
 
THE WINNING OF 
 NEVADA 
 
 FOR 
 
 WOMAN 
 SUFFRAGE 
 
 Including Oration of Hon. Curtis 
 
 J. Hilly er, Delivered Before a 
 
 Joint Session of the Nevada 
 
 Legislature in 1869. An 
 
 Unanswerable Argu- 
 
 ment for the Suf- 
 
 frage Cause. 
 
 Copyright, 1916 
 
 Published by 
 THE NEVADA PRINTING COMPANY 
 
 Caraon, Nevada 
 
 PRICE 10 CENTS 
 
THE WINNING OF 
 NEVADA 
 
 FOR 
 
 WOMAN 
 SUFFRAGE 
 
 Including Oration of Hon. Curtis 
 J. Hilly er, Delivered Before a 
 Joint Session of the Nevada 
 Legislature in 1869. An 
 Unanswerable Argu- 
 ment for the Suf- 
 frage Cause. 
 
 AT if 
 
 Copyright, 1916 
 
 Published by 
 THE NEVADA PRINTING COMPANY 
 
 Carson, Nevada 
 
 PRICE 1O CENTS 
 
\NNE MARTIN GIFT 
 ANCROFT LIBRARY 
 
 THE WINNING OF NEVADA 
 
 FOR 
 
 WOMAN SUFFRAGE 
 
 To secure to the women of Nevada the right to vote 
 was a long and hard-fought contest and covered a 
 period of forty-two years, but when achievement fin al- 
 ly came it was with cyclonic force both in legislative 
 phase and in the battle of ballots that followed, indi- 
 cating what a wonderful change of sentiment had 
 taken place in two generations' time. And, strange 
 as it may seem, in the final days of the struggle, Ne- 
 vada was known as a "wide-open" state, and much 
 of its electorate consisted of those who, by reason of 
 their vocation, were supposed to be against any meas- 
 ure giving women the voting power. But this element 
 offered no concerted opposition; on the other hand, 
 many individual members of the class were strongly 
 in favor of granting to women the right to be placed 
 on an equality with men. 
 
 But now that suffrage has come everybody, almost 
 without* exception, is pleased with it, and men who 
 opposed it in the earlier days of the struggle now 
 vie with the proponents in an endeavor to induce 
 women to take a more prominent place in politics, 
 even to accession to office, and no doubt this year's 
 elections will witness many elective positions in Ne- 
 vada occupied by women. 
 
 It was in the legislature of 1869, contemporaneous 
 with the passage of a suffrage measure by the legis- 
 
lature of Wyoming', that the question of equal suf- 
 frage was first presented to the people of Nevada, and 
 it came in the shape of a resolution, introduced by 
 Hon. Curtis J. Hillyer, in the assembly. It was first 
 decried, disparaged and ridiculed, and when finally 
 put to a vote it was "laid on the table." But a few 
 days later it was resurrected through the efforts of 
 Mr. Hillyer, and following an argument by him, de- 
 livered in the presence of the members of both houses, 
 and which for oratory and presentation of facts has 
 never been excelled, the resolution passed by a vote 
 of 25 to 11. It then went to the senate and passed 
 that body by a vote of 12 to 4. Passing through other 
 formalities it went to the governor and the secretary 
 of state. 
 
 At the next session of the legislature, 1871, no trace 
 of the bill, which had been received by the governor 
 two years before, could be found, and as the laws of 
 Nevada require that all constitutional amendments 
 shall be favorably passed upon by two consecutive 
 legislatures and that no substitute for a signed and 
 "lost" bill can avail, the measure died with this ses- 
 sion. Whatever became -of the signed resolution or 
 who was responsible for "losing" it, are matters that 
 have never been explained. 
 
 Further legislative action on suffrage remained 
 quiescent until 1895, though the people of the state, 
 however, had not lost interest in the question in the 
 intervening years. They agitated it continually and 
 this year 1895 they were strong enough to get it be- 
 fore the legislature ; and compel its passage, but the fol- 
 lowing legislature, which met in 1897, two years after, 
 defeated it by a tie vote. 
 
The next fourteen years saw a great agitation of 
 the suffrage cause throughout the state, but it was not 
 again made a legislative issue till 1911, when it passed 
 the assembly by a- vote of 31 to 13, and the senate by 
 a vote of 16 to 2. Coming up again at the legislative 
 session of 1913 it passed the assembly by a vote of 
 49 to 3, and the senate 19 to 3. Hon. Tasker L. Oddie, 
 who was then governor, signed the resolution and 
 transmitted it to Secretary of State Brodigan, who 
 placed it on the ballot for ratification or rejection at 
 the general elections of 1914. During the campaign, 
 which covered a period of four months, many promi- 
 nent anti-suffragists were brought to the state from 
 all parts of the Union to talk against the measure, but 
 despite their efforts, their eloquent and specious sup- 
 plications that women did not want the right of suf- 
 frage, the measure passed by a vote of 10,936 to 7,258. 
 At this election the highest vote cast was for the 
 candidates for United States senator and the total was 
 21,567, indicating that considerably more than one- 
 half of the men of the state who voted favored grant- 
 ing the right of suffrage to women, so it cannot be said 
 that the measure " slipped" through. 
 
 In the various stages through which the suffrage 
 agitation passed in Nevada between the years 1869 
 and 1911, it found supporters and was discussed from 
 all angles by men and women who have gained dis- 
 tinction and honor in all walks of life. Many of them 
 made national reputations in their calling. Among the 
 number may be mentioned United States Senators 
 Francis G. Newlands and Key Pittman, the late Dr. 
 J. E. Stubbs, president of the University of Nevada; 
 Hon. Frank IT. Norcross, present Chief Justice of the 
 
Supreme Court of Nevada ; Mrs. C. B. Noreross, mother 
 of Justice Noreross and one of the most brilliant 
 women of the West, and Mrs. J. R. Williamson. The 
 last two have passed to the Great Beyond departed 
 ere they saw the fruition of their hopes but the 
 thoughts and expressions which they left behind did 
 much in creating sentiment for the cause which their 
 lives had been devoted to. Mrs. Noreross was a writer 
 of more than ordinary ability and from an article 
 written by her and published in the Eeno Gazette in 
 December, 1897, we excerpt the following: 
 
 "The Creator never intended woman to take a sub- 
 ordinate place on this planet earth, for He gave to her 
 the power to decide the physical and mental capacity 
 of the human race in its pre-natal life. He endowed 
 her with the truest, the most unselfish and the most 
 enduring love the world has ever known for the pur- 
 pose of caring for and guarding humanity's young 
 life and helping to make good and useful laws for its 
 protection all through its mortal existence * * *. 
 
 "The mothers of the world should have all the liberty 
 that civilization can give, that they may develop every 
 faculty of their being, that the world may have as 
 royal a birthright as possible * * *. By dwarfing 
 the mother mind and denying her equal rights in the 
 government of nations the loss in physical and mental 
 power and in better government has been enormous. 
 This old belief in the divine right of kings to rule 
 nations and the divine right of men to rule women is 
 a relic of barbarism * * *. A house divided against 
 itself cannot stand, neither can the nation, which is 
 but a larger house, stand when it, likewise, is divided 
 against itself. That there may be no division, men and 
 
women together must make the laws under which 
 both are to be governed. For one-half of the nation 
 to make all the laws for the government of the whole 
 can never be just to the other half." 
 
 In all the discussions, spoken and written, that 
 have been made in favor of equal suffrage, it is not 
 likely that any have covered the ground more thor- 
 oughly, more in detail, than did the address that was 
 made by Hon. Curtis J. Hilly er before a joint session 
 of the state legislature in Carson City in 1869. It was 
 delivered at a time when the cause of woman suffrage 
 was practically new and had been agitated only in 
 small circles and communities. In no state in the 
 union had it become an issue except in Nevada and 
 Wyoming. When Mr. Hillyer presented the question 
 to the Nevada legislature it was in the face of violent 
 opposition, but given an opportunity to express his 
 sentiments he made an argument that was practically 
 invincible and to this day forty-seven years later 
 has not and cannot be answered, and his conclusions 
 are just as pertinent now as they were then. 
 
 Mr. Hillyer was a member of the legislature which 
 he addressed, representing Storey County, of which 
 Virginia City was and is now the county seat. He 
 was a native of Ohio, born of revolutionary stock, and 
 had had the advantages of splendid training and a 
 liberal education. Attracted to Nevada directly after 
 the Civil War, by the discoveries of gold and silver, 
 he came to the Comstock, as Virginia City was then 
 known, and engaged in the practice of law. His rise 
 was phenomenal almost, and in two or three years he 
 was known as one of the great thinkers and orators 
 of the West. He remained in Nevada till the subsi- 
 
dence of the Comstock boom, when he returned East, 
 settling in Washington City, where he died a few 
 years ago, respected and loved by all. His address, 
 which, by legislative action, has become a part of the 
 history of Nevada, follows: 
 
 The proposed amendment to the suffrage clause of the Consti- 
 tution of the State of Nevada, striking the word "male" there- 
 from, 'being under consideration, Mr. Hilly er said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I propose to take this occasion to express my 
 views upon this subject at such length as shall seem to me to be 
 necessary, and as its importance shall seem to deserve. 
 
 I will say, in the outset, that I hope the discussion upon it 
 will not be closed today. I am glad that it has commenced thus 
 early, for I believe it is necessary for its proper consideration. 
 And I hope that when that shall have been said upon it which 
 members shall desire to day, we shall have further time for its 
 discussion. 
 
 Sir, in a Kepublkan government, there is no question which 
 is so interesting as that of the suffrage. It is the base upon 
 which the whole superstructure rests, and upon the quality of 
 which depends its stability and its duration. Our fundamental 
 constitution, the laws which are passed in pursuance of those 
 constitutions, and the officers elected to execute those laws, are 
 all dependent for their character upon the ballot. I presume, 
 sir, that it does not need one word from me to any member on 
 this floor all of us the mere breath of the ballot to induce him 
 to give that attention to which it is entitled, to any discussion 
 which involves the character and composition of the constituent 
 body by whom that ballot is to be wielded. 
 
 The character of the amendment proposed would of itself 
 arrest attention independent of the vital importance of the gen- 
 eral subject. 
 
 The question as to the length of time which a limited num- 
 ber of foreigners should be compelled to reside in the United 
 States before this privilege should be conferred upon them has 
 
been sufficient to agitate the land throughout its length and 
 breadth, and to form the basis of national political organiza- 
 tions. 
 
 The question of whether a still smaller fraction less than 
 one-tenth the numiber of the whole people should have this 
 privilege conferred -upon them, has been the keynote of our 
 politics for the past four years; has been sufficient to cloud the 
 political horizon with the portents of the renewed civil war, only 
 to be dispelled, and now, happily dispelled, by that quiet and 
 all powerful voice which makes and unmakes constitutions 'and 
 laws, and, thank God, presidents. 
 
 While I do not deem that the importance of these questions 
 has (been in any degree overrated, they are yet dwarfed into in- 
 significance by the grander question whioh has now arisen upon 
 this progressive Republic. 
 
 This question, which now confronts the American people is 
 not whether a small numiber of foreigners 1 shall be made happy 
 by a vote, or whether rebels shall be made miserable by giving 
 that vote to a still smaller number of native born Americans 
 who have fought to sustain the government; but it is whether, 
 by a simiple constitutional declaration, the voting element of 
 this state, amd, by sequence of principle, of the United States, 
 shall be doubled; whether the political voice of this state shall 
 be uttered iby 30,000 or toy 15,000, and that of the nation by 
 12,000,000 instead of 6,000,000. 
 
 In the outset, I must be permitted to say that it seems to 
 me that the iburthen of argument is not upon those who main- 
 tain the right of women to vote. I think we are at liberty to 
 resit until we have heard a statement from some gentleman of 
 his reason why they should not vote. The women of our land 
 are human beings. They are, I presume, intelligent human be- 
 ings. Moreover, sir, they are citizens of the United States. They 
 are subject in every respect to the laws of the United States. 
 Their lives and their fortunes 1 are held and secured under the 
 conditions imposed by those laws. They are property owners, 
 and their property rights are regulated by the same constitu- 
 tional and statutory enactments, by the same broad principle of 
 the common law which regulates the property rights of other 
 
 9 
 
citizens. Their womanhood does not shield them from any of 
 the burthens which are imposed by those laws. Neither the 
 judicial tribunal which men have erected nor the tax gatherer 
 whom they have appointed are respecters of sex in the perform- 
 ance of their official functions. 
 
 Now, sir, when I have thus described a large portion of our 
 community, dwelling in our midst American citizens, subject 
 to our laws, bearing their proportions of the burdens imposed 
 by the government what is there lacking to the description of 
 a qualified voter, according to the acceptance and received defi- 
 nitions of the American people? Have I not a right to rest 
 upon this statement, and to demand why she is not as much a 
 citizen for the purpose of suffrage as for other purposes -to de- 
 mand to be shown some general principal of this government, 
 some fact in its past experience, some maxim of its founders 
 and defenders, to justify this visible inconsistency. 
 
 Sir, if I do, I am at a loss to know from what class .of poli- 
 ticians I should attend the objection. 
 
 If it be made by a Kepublican, who professes to believe in 
 the doctrine of universal suffrage as a natural right, he must 
 tell me by what process of reasoning that system can justly be 
 called universal which excludes from its operations one-half of 
 the community. 
 
 If it be made by a Democrat, who professes- to believe, par 
 excellence, in a " white man's" government, I shall ask him to 
 tell one by what right he excludes from participation in that gov- 
 ernment the fairest and whitest of its citizens. 
 
 If there be gentlemen w r ho still cling to the tenets of native 
 Americanism, I shall ask of them to explain how it is that they 
 include in their ostracism, together with the foreigners to whom 
 the genius of our institutions is supposed to be a strange, hun- 
 dreds of thousands of native born who from the cradle to matur- 
 ity have sucked in republican ideas with their every breath, 
 and whose ears have never been polluted by the discordant tones 
 of any other tongue than the Anglo Saxon. 
 
 If it be by a gentleman who thinks that property has a 
 special claim to be represented in legislation, and that there- 
 fore its pos-session should be a qualification for the right of suf- 
 
 10 
 
he must explain by what process it is that the woman who 
 owns her farm, her mine, or her residence, is not permitted that 
 share in the government to which her property entitles her in 
 the same manner as other citizens. 
 
 And if there be those and I know there are many who 
 think that intelligence is the natural guardian of the suffrage, 
 and that it should be made a qualification of the right to vote, 
 I shall demand of them to tell me how it is that they are willing 
 to permit the tens of thousands who scarcely reach the qualifi- 
 cation of barely writing legibly their names and reading labor- 
 iously the constitution of the United States, and yet are willing 
 to exclude the other tens of thousands of women who write our 
 book si and teach, our schools. 
 
 Sir, I do not believe it will be possible for any member upon 
 this floor to oppose the adoption of this amendment without en- 
 countering full in the face some proposition of which he has 
 hitherto been the advocate, and which has been professedly the 
 guide of his political action. 
 
 But I am not disposed to be technical about where lies tho 
 onus probandi of this argument. The advocates of this measure 
 do not hesitate to assume the affirmative of the proposition, and 
 to charge themselves with the demonstration that it is both just 
 and expedient. We only ask that in the argument, fundamental 
 propositions in regard to popular government, which have been 
 everywhere recognized as true; general principles, which have 
 had the sanction of all our principal statesmen; maxims which 
 have never been heretofore controverted by any of our political 
 organizations, shall not now, for the first time, be questioned 
 but shall here as elsewhere be received* as true, and constitute 
 the basis of the argument. 
 
 Among the maxims which form the creed of American re- 
 publicanism there is none more venerable by its age, more 
 deeply cherished, more axiomatic, by reason of universal consent 
 than this: That taxation and representation should go hand in 
 hand. As an article of our political faith, it is fundamental. It 
 is intimately interwoven with the birth and history of our gov- 
 ernment. It was the keystone of the arch of the American Revo- 
 lution. " Taxation without representation is tyranny! " was the 
 
 11 
 
cry which Otis and Adams and Quincy roused to resistance the 
 Puritans of Massachusetts; and with the same cry Patrick 
 Henry and Washington lashed into rebellion the loyal colonists 
 of Virginia. All else would have been forgiven had this one de- 
 mand been conceded. It was the essence of the contest. It was 
 made sacred by the blood of a hundred battles. It was vindi- 
 cated' by the final triumph; and it has ever since been as in- 
 dellibly graven upon the minds of the citizens of that Republic 
 which was the fruit of the triumph as was the first command- 
 ment upon the tablet which Moses bore from the cloudy summit 
 of Mount Sinai. 
 
 Now, sir, in behalf of the women of America I invoke the 
 application of this doctrine; and I -say that unless gentlemen see 7 
 fit now, for the first time, to question its truth, the argument is 
 complete with the simple ascertainment of whether or not the 
 women of our land are taxed. Let the constitution of the 
 United States, the constitution of our own state, the acts of con- 
 gress, our own statutes, our judicial decisions, state and national, 
 answer the question. They answer with common consent in the 
 affirmative, and there is nothing left but for gentlemen to ab- 
 jure the doctrine or else adopt the amendment which embodies it. 
 
 ' ' Governments derive their just powers from the consent of 
 the governed. " 
 
 So says the Declaration of Independence; and so have echoed 
 the American people for the past ninety years. 
 
 Are not the women of America governed within the meaning 
 of the language of the Declaration? If we look into our own 
 constitution, we shall find there some few exceptions based upon 
 a distinction of sex; but we will find that those exceptions are, 
 save in the single matter of bearing arms, not where there are 
 duties to enjoin, 'but invariably where there are privileges to 
 confer. We have passed many statutes this session imposing 
 burdens, and I have yet to notice the first one of them in which 
 this word li male, " which we seek to drive from our constitution, 
 has been deemed necessary to be inserted. In the laws with 
 reference to the procedure in our courts, in our criminal statutes, 
 in our revenue laws, the woman is legislated for equally with the 
 man. She is, always and everywhere, one of the governed; and 
 
 12 
 
yet, in direct opposition to the maxim which I have quoted, she is 
 not allowed an opportunity to either consent or dissent from the 
 laws by which she is governed. We, a body of men, have been 
 willing to sit here this winter and make laws 'binding not merely 
 on our male constituents who send us here, 'but a body equal to 
 one-half of the community, who have had no voice in our elec- 
 tion; wiho are, therefore, unrepresented upon this floor, and who 
 are compelled to submit to whatever in the shape of statutes the 
 present dominating male authorities may see fit to impose upon 
 them. 
 
 In the days of the revolution this was called tyranny. The 
 author of the Declaration of Independence so declared it to be 
 in unmistakable terms, and I presume that it is still tyranny; 
 tyranny meaner and more contemptible than that of which our 
 fathers complained for theirs, at least, was a tyranny of men 
 over men, and this- is that cheaper and more cowardly experi- 
 ment of a tyranny of the physically strong over the physically 
 weak. 
 
 Sir, I might go on until you and this House were weary 
 enumerating the maxims and traditions handed down to us by 
 our fathers, which are violated by this unjust exclusion. But I 
 forbear for the reason that it is not here; it is not in the right, 
 perfect as is that right, of women to vote, that I desire to rest 
 this argument. I propose to go further, and say that, independ- 
 ent of all considerations of our duty, independent of all consid- 
 erations of political consistency, simply and solely as a measure 
 of political expediency, this amendment ought to 'be adopted. 
 I advocate it less as a boon to woman than as a need to society 
 and to man. 
 
 Sir, our suffrage system, upon whioh, as I have before said, 
 rests the future of this Eepublic, is dangerously imperfect. 
 There is not an intelligent patriot in the land who has not at 
 times felt fear in his heart as he has witnessed the details of its 
 operation. For the past ninety years the evil has been felt 
 the existence of the disease has <been recognized and from time 
 to time spasmodic efforts have been made for its cure. To this 
 conviction-, to this well grounded aipprehension, are to be traced 
 all those movements, of which I have heretofore spoken, for a 
 
 13 
 
proper qualification, for an educational .qualification, for a 
 qualification by birth on the soil; and whatever of temporary 
 success any one of these or of similar movements has had, it has 
 owed to the fact that the fear which inspired it was well 
 grounded^ and they have failed because that the disease for 
 which they were proposed as remedies was not understood. 
 
 Sir, what is the great evil of our suffrage system? It is not 
 in our naturalization laws; for upon almost every important 
 question the foreign element has been divided, and it has always 
 been led and marshalled by the native born. It is not in the 
 want of a property qualification; for it is notorious that our 
 politics has been but too plastic material in the hands of prop- 
 erty and capital. Neither is it alone or principally in the want 
 of intelligence. The land is full of intelligence. Our literature 
 with a century of age ranks that of the nations whose roots are 
 in antiquity. Our daily journals are innumerable jets of intel- 
 lect, keeping the whole land in a blaze of light. Intellectual 
 talent crowds our deliberative assemblies, our congressional and 
 legislative halls, and is only cramped for room for development. 
 Few if any constitutions few if any laws, are bad because of a 
 lack of sufficient intelligence, either in the primary or repre- 
 sentative body, to make them good. 
 
 Sir, I wish to be understood on this point. There is no man 
 who can go beyond me in an earnest desire to secure, or in ap- 
 preciating the importance of, a more thorough diffusion of in- 
 telligence among the voters of our land. But that which I do 
 say is: That this alone is not sufficient; that it is not even, per- 
 haps, the most important; that behind this want, behind all these 
 alleged defects which I have mentioned, there is an evil more rad- 
 ical, more (potential, more dangerous than all and that may be 
 summed up in one word: its -immorality. The principal danger 
 to republican government today is not in the perception or the 
 reflection of its suffrage element, but in its sentiment and in its 
 feeling. 
 
 Examine the actual workings of the system from the lowest 
 grade of political organization up to the most august assem- 
 blage which consummates the national will. The primary of the 
 political party, the election, county, state and national who 
 
 14 
 
does not dread their recurrence? Who does not sicken at the 
 ever succeeding disgusting detail of their conduct and their 
 management 1 ? The convention, the state legislature, the con- 
 gress, even, of the United States who that has rights to lose 
 does not often fear their assemblage? When right and justice 
 range themselves! on the one side, and wrong, injustice and in- 
 dividual pro-fit on the other, who can say that he does not trem- 
 ble for the result? And why? Is it because it is feared that 
 the electors' may not comprehend the issues which are submitted 
 to them; that they may be deceived in the character of the men 
 proposed for position? Partially, perhaps; but not chiefly so. Is 
 it 'because it is feared that the deliberative body will not under- 
 stand sufficiently the nature of the questions which it may be 
 called upon to decide? So far from this, that most frequently 
 it is from those whose perceptions are keenest and quickest that 
 the most danger is apprehended. No, sir, it is not the want 01 
 mental capacity to see the right, but the want of the will to do 
 it when seen which today constitutes the weak point in popular 
 government; whicih we must find the means to fortify or consent 
 to see it fail. 
 
 The politics of the country is corrupt. Corruption in the 
 primary; corruption in the election; corruption in the deliber- 
 ative body; corruption by money; corruption by bargain and 
 sale of position; corruption by all the avenues which lead tp a 
 supposed self-interest. And the fact that this thus exists is even 
 loss dangerous than the fact that it is tolerated' condemned, 
 perhaps, by word, 'but practically recognized as a necessary and 
 unavoidable concomitant of the system. Politics is a filthy pool. 
 So says the press; so say the public orators; so says every man 
 in the frankness of private conversation. And yet, so saying 
 so admitting its filthine-S's, they neither propose the means to 
 cleanse it nor yet hesitate to bathe in it. Gfood men support bad 
 men for office without compunction. Otherwise moral men wit- 
 ness the corruption of a primary or an election with no other ap- 
 parent felling than of solicitude as to its success. Politics, the 
 noblest science to which the faculties of man can be devoted, 
 is thus degraded to the level of a game a tricking, swindling 
 game at that; and men play at it as if it were exempted from 
 
 15 
 
the code of morality, and as if its very dishonesty was licensed. 
 Sir, is not this dangerous? does it not menace not merely the 
 welfare but the existence of our popular government? All think- 
 ing men will admit it. , 
 
 Is it, then, irremediable? I am confident that it is not. But 
 the remedy which reaches it must be radical. It cannot be done 
 by teaching or preaehing. Exhortation has been tried in vain. 
 The press, the pulpit and the forum have thundered against it 
 in vain; and their efforts will continue to be in vain, for the rea- 
 son that they are warring against the natural nay, the neces- 
 sary, consequence of a defective and imperfect political system. 
 
 Sir, I believe that .popular government is something more 
 than one of several forms, which experience has shown to be the 
 best adapted for the protection of society. However favorably its 
 results may compare with those of other forms, I am unwilling to 
 rest its claim for supremacy solely upon such comparison. 1 1 elieve 
 that it is the natural form of government; that it is goo>d, be- 
 cause man is man 'because human nature is as it is; that it is 
 therefore theoretically the only true government, necessarily of 
 superior excellence because alone responsive to the conditions of 
 humanity. And, believing this, I believe that all other forms, 
 monarchical, imperial, aristocratic, or mixed, must yield; and 
 that popular government, that government which is the express- 
 ion, of the aggregated will of all the governed, must, by the in- 
 evitable laws of progress, become universal. 
 
 This belief, and the hope which this belief inspires, has the 
 same foundation as our faith in human destiny. I know that if 
 the world is to go forward, that its society is to advance instead 
 of retrograde, it is because that there is in all of its aggregated 
 elements more of good than of evil; because that if all of its 
 passions, good and evil, its vices and its virtues, are allowed free 
 combat, the victory will be with the right. To disbelieve this is 
 to impeach. Providence. And therefore, on like grounds, I am 
 confident that there is no sure guarantee of political success ex- 
 cept in making the government the representative of all the 
 social elements. In other words, politics must be made a social 
 institution. I repeat it, sir, as the central idea of all I think 
 and all I have to say upon this subject; that" which I would like 
 
 16 
 
to see written at the head of every one of our journals; which I 
 would like to see inscribed as the first line of every one of our 
 political platforms: POLITICS MUST BE MADE A SOCIAL 
 INSTITUTION. The intellect, the passions, the sentiments, 
 which, in all of their diversity and in all of their completeness, 
 characterize and actuate society, must be incorporated into and 
 made to operate the political system; and then, and then alone, 
 \vo shall have the same' pledge of its excellence, of its continued 
 advancement toward perfection, which now inspires the hope of 
 the philanthropist that the world will not relapse into barbarism. 
 
 Entertaining these views I find the palpable cause the plain 
 explanation of these admitted defects of our political system, in 
 its incompleteness; in the lack of its natural constituent ele- 
 ments. 
 
 Its most glaring fault is, as we have seen, a gross immorality; 
 and yet we have studiously excluded from that system the dis- 
 tinctively moral element of society. That which we most want 
 is a political conscience; and we have carefully barred out from 
 the political domain the distinctively conscientious social ele- 
 ment. With the power given to us, with the material placed in 
 our hands, by the God of Nature, to have given to this system a 
 symmetrical form, we have undertaken to revise His decrees, we 
 have rejected the proportions which He had fixed; and it is net 
 strange that we have made it a deformed monster. 
 
 Sir, I shall not enter into any disquisition there to show that 
 woman is by nature more moral, more conscientious than man. 
 I appeal to the observation of each one who hears me; I appeal- 
 to the teachings of history in all time; I appeal to the received 
 opinions of every age and every people; to the declarations of 
 universal literature. He who contradicts it must contradict all 
 these witnesses. In mind as 1 in body, to man is given strength; 
 to woman, beauty; to man force, to woman delicacy; to man 
 grossness, to woman refinement. Let the father, the brother, the 
 husband, say whether the feminine sentiments are not more 
 virtuous, whether the feminine instincts are not more pure, than 
 his own. The romancer who should write it otherwise would not 
 be read; the actor who should dare to depict otherwise would be 
 hissed from the stage; the poet who would sing it otherwise 
 
 17 
 
would make discord in Nature's music; the painter who should 
 venture to portray it otherwise would make art hideous. 
 
 To this truth we owe our civilization. Just in proportion as 
 scope has been given to the nature of woman; jusit in proportion 
 as the -sphere of her action and influence has 'been enlarged, in 
 any country, in any clime, communities, states and nations have 
 mounted toward perfection. Her very presence is to vice and 
 pollution, the east wind which blasts its growth; and wherever 
 she goes, in her footsteps spring the roses of virtue and inno- 
 cence. Woman is the great social purifier. Why should she not 
 be the great political purifier? Politics- is a filthy pool; and 
 shall we let it fester and stagnate until the slime of its corrup- 
 tion becomes so offensive that even good men will shun its con- 
 tact, or shall we cleanse it by pouring into it and through it a 
 fresh and living stream of virtue? Shall we continue to live in 
 and breathe the foul vapors of this political dungeon, or shall we 
 open the portals and bid enter, with women, the sweet light and 
 
 pure air? 
 
 Sir, as it is theoretically correct that there can be no true 
 popular government without this element, so, practically, in the 
 light of a sad experience, the great want of our political system 
 is woman. We want her refinement; we want her taste; we want 
 her sentiment; we want her conscience; we want her warm heart 
 and her pure instinct. Let us have these, and the new political 
 form wihich it will create will be to that of the present day what 
 the church congregation is to the street mob; what the private 
 parlor is to the drinking saloon; what the theater is to the me- 
 lodeon; what the lecture room is to the co'ck-pit. 
 
 "Is there any gentleman who will say that -he does not believe 
 that if women voted we should have better officers than are now 
 elected to position? It is a shamefulfact that morality is con- 
 sidered scarcely a proper, much less a necessary qualification for 
 public life. There is not a gentleman in this room who 'cannot 
 within the limits of his own observation, aye, within the political 
 history of this yet young state, point to men wtyo have been ele- 
 vated to high positions, who, if women had had their voice, 
 would never have been able to crowd their names beyond the 
 threshold of a nominating convention. 
 
 18 
 
We want her, not merely to give us hotter officers, l;ut we 
 want her distinctive feminine influence in our legislation. Woman 
 is the educator of our children. Why should she not have a 
 voice in the making of the laws which regulate their education? 
 Who so well fitted as she to form, regulate, and foster the school 
 system of a people? And who does not believe that if women 
 had had the management, or even their share of the manage- 
 ment, there would not have been today more than thirty thou- 
 sand dollars in the school fund of the State of Nevada? She 
 is a parent; and why is she excluded from a voice in the legisla- 
 tion which regulates the parental relations? She is- a wife; and 
 by what right or with what probability of justice is it that it is 
 left to husbands alone to frame the laws of marriage and di- 
 vorce? The whole of our system of public charities; the care 
 of our orphans (and here I disclaim any wish to infringe on the 
 peculiar prerogatives of my colleague from Storey, Mr. Welch), 
 of the deaf, the dumb, the blind, the insane, and the poor, falls 
 naturally within the domain of female guardianship. Our crim- 
 inal statutes, which punisih alike the woman with the man, 
 should be made, without distinction of sex, by all of those who 
 are subject to their pains and their penalties; and, believe me, 
 they would be better today if in their making the tender heart 
 of the woman tempered with mercy the rough justice of man. 
 We need sometimes taste in our legislation, and I would like to 
 ask of my friends, the delegation from Ormslby, if they would 
 not prefer to leave to the women of this state to say whether we 
 should sit here and legislate in this inconvenient, dingy, uncouth 
 hall, or whether yonder plaza should be crowned by a stately 
 edifice whose graceful architecture should make it a fitting 
 temple for the beauty as well as the talent of the land. 
 
 I have now, sir, given some reasons, which to me seem to be 
 of weight why this amendment should be adopted, and it only 
 remains to notice some of the objections which are made. 
 
 First, it is said that woman is mentally inferior, and is there- 
 by disqualified from exercising this privilege. Even if this were 
 true, it would detract nothing from the weight of the argument 
 which has been made. Intellect is not the sole qualification of a 
 voter. It is doubtful even if it is the most important of those 
 
 19 
 
qualifications. We want, as I have said, in our suffrage element, 
 the whole of human nature. We want the sentiments as well as 
 the perceptions; the heart that feels as well as the intellect that 
 thinks. And, sir, as for me, I would prefer today to put the bal- 
 lot into the hand of that woman the most illiterate of the land, 
 whose conscience was quick and whose instincts were pure, than 
 in that of the man profoundest in wisdom, brightest in talent, 
 who never similes over a cradle and never weeps over a tomb. 
 
 But this accusation of mental disqualification is a vile slan- 
 der. I would ask no heavier punishment for the member on this 
 floor who shall dare to make it, than to put the pen in the hand 
 of some one of the thousand American women whom he traduces, 
 that his ignorant vanity might receive from her the word la?hing 
 which it merits. Can the gentleman who makes this objection 
 write a,s good a book of poems as Mrs. Hannah More? Can he 
 give us as good a series of romances as Mrs. Southworth? Will 
 he measure art and .genius with Rachel? Will he attempt to 
 compete in the field of literature with Madame De Stal, or Mrs. 
 Sigourney, or with the hundreds of others whose articles fill our 
 magazines and whose books crowd our libraries? Would he even 
 like to suibmit to an examination upon the rudiments of elemen- 
 tary science before one of the ten thousand American school 
 mistresses who today are training future legislators to express 
 in proper English their contempt for their teachers? Sir, against 
 this charge the women of America are abundantly able to defend 
 themselves!. 
 
 Then it is said and this is the objection most often repeated 
 that in entering politics- woman is passing out of her sphere. 
 The remark is somewhat vague, and probably for that reason 
 sierves fully as well the purpose of the objector. If I am to 
 hear it repeated on this floor, I shall at least ask of the gentle- 
 man who does so to define for us what is woman's sphere. 
 
 So far as I have heard it elaborated in private discussion, I 
 should take their idea of woman's sphere to be something like 
 this: If the woman be poor, it is her sphere to do the man's 
 cooking, to mend the man's clothes, and to bear the man's chil- 
 dren. 
 
 If she be rich, it is her sphere to dress elaborately, to shop 
 
 20 
 
expensively, and to talk trifles voluminously. In the one case a 
 slave; in the other a toy. 
 
 By what warrant does any gentleman thus attempt to fix the 
 limit of the range of activity within which the capacity of any 
 class of society is to be limited? By virtue of her descent from 
 Adam, 'by virtue of her human nature, by virtue of her citizen- 
 ship in a free Republic, she is entitled to do, and it is proper for 
 her to do, all that which it pleases her to do; all that which her 
 God^given faculties enalble her to do, restricted only by those in- 
 exorable limits of right and wrong which restrain man equally 
 with herself. 
 
 The idea of these gentlemen seems to be that a person's 
 sphere is to continue to do that which they are chiefly engaged 
 in doing at present. With equal logic might spheres be fixed to 
 other classes of society upon this principle; and it might be said 
 that the sphere of the Irishman was to build railroads, the sphere 
 of the German to keep lager beer saloons, the sphere of the 
 Yankee to peddle clocks, and the sphere of Governors to send 
 veto messages to refractory and unprincipled Legislatures (mer- 
 riment). 
 
 Sir, if this formula means anything, it is this: That there is 
 something in the nature of woman incompatible with the exer- 
 cise of this privilege. Let us examine it. 
 
 I know of but two conditions essential to the easting of a 
 vote; one, the physical act of walking to the polls and deposit- 
 ing the ballot; the other, the previous preparation necessary to 
 enable one to deposit it wisely. 
 
 Now as to the physical act: No gentleman who has retired 
 fatigued with pleasure at 2 o 'clock in the morning from a Oarson 
 ball will dou<bt that the ladies have the physical strength of limb 
 which is necessary to enable them to walk to the polling places, 
 situate however remotely within the limits of a township, and 
 there deposit a ballot. And if it were a question of the conven- 
 tion, or the legislature, no gentleman, unless he believes that en- 
 tering into public life will impair the voice, will doubt their 
 physical capacity to say yea and nay, and very much more, either 
 in a deliberative body or anywhere else. That difficulty there- 
 fore is not in the way. She is by nature physically fitted to do 
 
 21 
 
these acts. The disqualification then, is> for the mental operation. 
 To cast a vote wisely it is necessary that she should examine, 
 weigh, and decide the question of policy on which she is called 
 to act; and if this is unfeminine, then the objection is good. 
 
 It is admitted, I believe, that it is not unfeminine for women 
 to read, to think, to study, and even to discuss. Why then un- 
 feminine for them to read, think upon, study, and discuss politi- 
 cal subjects? The science of human government, the highest 
 and! noblest as it is the most complex and difficult of all 
 sciences, what is there in its character to offend the delicacy, 
 to taint the refinement, or to debauch the morals of a woman? 
 Sir, politics has not been in the past by any means a distinc- 
 tively male institution. Where shall we find more world re- 
 nowned politicians aye, more eminent statesman, than Elizabeth 
 of England, Catherine of Russia, Maria Theresa of Austria, and 
 Isabella of Spain? And yet I have never heard that any one of 
 those distinguished sovereigns sacrificed to success in public life 
 any of their womanly qualities 1 . In the reign of Louis XV and 
 Louis XVI, it is notorious that the women of France controlled 
 its politics; and yet, if we are to believe the court history of its 
 times, they did not thereby lose any of their feminine attrac- 
 tions. The virgin queen who ruled England with a singleness 
 of will which no other monarch before or after her has dared 
 to djsiiplay, at whose word Eurorpe tremlbled, was no less the high- 
 born lady in the drawing-room of the palace; no less the tender- 
 hearted woman when receiving with haughty carriage, but heav- 
 ing bosom, the homage, half of a subject, half of a lover, of the 
 knightly Hastings. Her successor, the present monarch of Eng- 
 land, does not hesitate to enter Parliament and address, on the 
 gravest political subjects, the lords and gentlemen of her realm. 
 And yet she will go down to history she will live in the hearts 
 of the English people, less as a queen, than as a model wife and 
 mother. Sir, we have in our own time in our own country, an exam- 
 ple more illustrious still. Next to William H. Seward, the most far- 
 seeing political philosopher of this age; next to Abraham Lincoln, 
 the great administrator in whose 'sympathetic nature the Nation 
 seemed to unfold and develop itself, the person who has exer- 
 cised the largest influence in the grand political revolution of 
 
 22 
 
the past fifteen years, by which slavery, that living lie upon 
 popular government, has been blotted out from the list of Amer- 
 ican institutions, is a woman. With her pen in hand in her study 
 at Cincinnati, surrounded by* the family circle which she adorned, 
 Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe told the story of Uncle Tom, of Eva, 
 of Legree and Sinclair; and as it went to every corner of the Na- 
 tion, as it was perused and pondered over by every fireside, as 
 the indignation mounted, the cheek flushed or the tear fell from 
 each individual of ten thousand theatrical audiences who wit- 
 ness its representation in dramatic form upon the stage, a mil- 
 lion prejudices were loosened, a million hearts were touched with 
 conviction, and the eyes of the Nation were open to see, and 
 their consciences to accept, the great political truth which in- 
 volved the destiny of the Republic. Gentlemen may sneer at this 
 woman politician; they may call her strong minded an accusa- 
 tion which they may <be very sure she will never make against 
 them in return; they may pompously declare her to have been 
 out of her sphere; they may arrogantly deny her the vote which 
 they give to thousands too ignorant to read her book; but as for 
 me, I feel that I would be honored to go before her on my bended 
 knees and be permitted to kiss the hem of her robe in grateful 
 reverence for her genius and her service to my country. fis^e^ 
 
 It is next objected that woman will be contaminated by poli- 
 tics. I hope I have been able to show that if this is true it has 
 no natural cause; that this effect does not flow from anything 
 either in the nature of woman or in the nature of political ques- 
 tions. It is therefore, if true at all, accidental and superficial. 
 The objector points to our primaries, to our conventions, to our 
 street political gatherings', to our elections, and triumphantly 
 asks: "Are these fit scenes for female participation?" Sir, I 
 admit that they are not. No man shall go beyond me in charac- 
 terizing and execrating these disgusting scenes which annually 
 disgrace the community, the state and the nation. And if tlte 
 political field is always to remain the dirtiest slough of vulgar- 
 ity and immorality which it now is, then I agree that it neither 
 is nor e>ver will be fit for the presence of woman. I will go far- 
 ther: It neither is nor ever will be fit for the presence of re- 
 spectable men. The difference between these gentlemen and my- 
 
 23 
 
self is, that they accept this condition of things as irremediable. 
 They are willing to continue to wallow in this filthy slough. 
 I propose to give it a carpet of green herbage and flowers, so 
 that neither gentleman nor lady may fear to set their foot 
 upon it. 
 
 The real question upon this point is: Will women lift up poli- 
 tics, or will politics drag down women! They profess to fear, 
 and I believe they do fear, that woman will be made a victim. 
 I hail her as a savior. And uipon this issue I appeal to the record 
 of experience. I shall not attempt to descend into details at this 
 stage of the discussion, but I will content myself with this 
 broad assertion: That wherever, in any age or country, among 
 any people, the sphere of female influence and action has been 
 enlarged wherever virtuous woman has been permitted to enter 
 into any new walk of life, whether in the domain of business or 
 of amusement, of religion, of art, or of science, her womanly 
 nature has not been modified, her distinctively feminine quali- 
 ties have not been impaired by the new conditions into which 
 she has been introduced; but on the contrary, she has been the 
 agent, sihe has always been the moving power, by which thoso 
 conditions have been elevated to the level of her womanhood. I 
 defy gentlemen upon this floor to point to the exception; and 
 until the exception is found nay, until they are sufficiently 
 numerous to control the general rule, I have a right to say logi- 
 cally that as it has /been in the past so it will be in the future, as 
 it has been with other subjects so it will be with politics; its 
 grossness and immorality will not stain her poire vestments, 'but 
 like the virgin snow on yonder mountain, the mantle of her 
 womanhood will cover up its uncouth features and bury from 
 view its ugly deformity. 
 
 Sir, I have an ideal of an election day in which woman should 
 take a part. The morning sun which rose upon it would not 
 shine upon barricades erected in every ward of our cities and 
 towns. An army of sipecial policemen would not be stationed at 
 every corner of our streets. The good citizen, as he left his 
 home, would not feel it necessary, for the first time in the year, 
 to bind his pistol to Ms waist. Each of the polling places would 
 not be surrounded by a howling mob. The voter who desires to 
 
 24 
 
exercise liis privilege would not be compelled to run a gauntlet; 
 to be stared at by lines of brutal menacing' faces; to have his 
 oars insulted by the clink of the circulating medium which af- 
 fects the exchange between an elector's vote and his so-called 
 political principles, and every finer feeling of nature outraged 
 by the coarse vulgarity of that vile horde of human vermin who 
 seem to spawn on every election day, as if there were something 
 in its very atmosphere fitted to vitalize and warm them into life. 
 No, sir. The day of which I am speaking should in its gen- 
 eral features be a mixture of the national holiday and the Sab- 
 bath of resit; a day wearing the external apparel fitted for one 
 on which .an agreeable privilege was to be exercised as well as 
 a solemn duty to be performed. It should be ushered in by the 
 peal of bells from every tower and steeple the streets should 
 don their gayest attire, and the air be sonorous with swelling 
 notes of the national anthem. Over each of the polling places 
 should float the national emblem, and the steps which lead up to 
 the portals through which the votes were to be received should 
 be as broad, as free of access, and as inviting as are those which 
 now lead to the entrances of our theaters and our churches. 
 Thither should flock not a mob, but society. Thither the young 
 man, just turned his majority, should conduct the mother who 
 from his infancy had trained as well his- political ideas as his 
 moral sentiments. Thither the husband should conduct his wife, 
 proud of her independence and her equality. Thither the maiden 
 should be led by her lover the loving bond between them tied 
 more tightly by the consecrating thought that they were to- 
 gether performing a responsible duty. There would be discus- 
 sion, but no brawlsi for gallantry is instinctive in the American 
 breast, and, whatever may be his condition in life, in the pres- 
 ence of a lady he is a gentleman. She would pass without insult 
 or annoyance to and from the polls as she now passes without in- 
 sult or annoyance through our streets where she daily comes in 
 contact with every class and element which she would encounter 
 in the performance of this duty. In the atmosphere of refine- 
 ment with which woman's presence would surround the circum- 
 stances of the day, the shameless vulgarity, the brazen corrup- 
 tion, which now claim it as their carnival, could not live at her 
 
 25 
 
approach, and their votaries would slink away as beasts of prey 
 skulk to their lairs before the morning light; and when the sun 
 went down it would set upon a state, a nation, rejoicing in the 
 certainty of the triumph, of the right, because the decision pro- 
 nounced would have been the utterance of a universal humanity. 
 Who, sir, would not pray for the dawn of an election day resem- 
 bling this! 
 
 Lastly, sir, it is said that woman does* not want to vote. To 
 speak more correctly it should be said that some women do not 
 want to vote. And if there be one who desires to exercise this 
 privilege, what right has man, what right has a sister woman, to 
 object to its exercise? 
 
 But this is no proposition to compel woman to vote. There 
 is nothing in the amendment proposed which forces upon any 
 woman the exercise of this privilege. It simiply proposes to mal<e 
 her a free agent; that which she is not at present. Is it possi- 
 ble that before a Republican audience I have still to expose the 
 fallacy of the stale Democratic argument that when liberty of 
 personal action is given it necessarily follows that all sorts of 
 actions will be performed without reference to their justness or 
 propriety? Have I again to refute the miserable proposition 
 howled for the past four years from every Democratic stump 
 that unless there were constitutions and statutes interdicting the 
 intermixtures of races and colors, all the ladies in the land would 
 engage in indiscriminate misceigination 1 Sir, I hope we have 
 had enough of that kind of argument. Political freedom does 
 not constrain to do any act which is either wrong, indecent, or 
 revolting to the taste. That man insults the sex who says that 
 it is necessary that woman, should ibe restrained by constitutional 
 inhibition to prevent her from violating her womanly nature and 
 from unsexing herself. That woman should be ashamed of her- 
 self who would tolerate in her presence the assertion, that if we 
 should remove this constitutional prohibition, and leave her free 
 as we are free free to exercise or to refrain from exercising 
 this privilge free as to the extent, the time and manner of its 
 exercise she would exercise it any otherwise than as the Cir- 
 cumstances by which she was surrounded, her relations to other 
 
 26 
 
persons and other duties, her own good judgment, her refined and 
 feminine taste, would permit and dictate to 'her to do. 
 
 But I am inclined to think the fact in relation to the wishes 
 of our women on this subject, is much misrepresented. They are 
 very chary of their expressions, for they are under bondage to 
 the opinion of their fathers, husbands, and brothers, who consti- 
 tute at present their guardians of mind as well as of body. Sir, 
 if she has this alleged repugnance, it is a false idea; and for her 
 sake, as well as ours, I hope it will speedily be abandoned. I 
 wish my voice were loud enough to reach the ear of every 
 woman, particularly of every wife in the land, that I might tell 
 her that to a delusive prejudice, miscalled delicacy, she is sacri- 
 ficing the highest realization of 'her womanhood. I would bid 
 her to cease to be the petted toy, the flattered idol of her hus- 
 band, and to become his partner and associate; to cease to be 
 satisfied with being the consolation of an idle hour, and aspire 
 to 'become the partaker of those earnest thoughts and actions 
 which constitute his real life to sihare his joys and sorrows, not 
 by a simile or a tear, but by comprehending and becoming a part 
 of them. I would tell her that there is no love, no admiration, 
 like the love and admiration which equal bestows on equal; that 
 her highest happiness is in the exhaustion of all her capacities; 
 that the most solid joys come not except with the acceptance of 
 the highest responsibilities. And I would bid her, as she aspires 
 to the full development of her womanly nature, to break down 
 this barrier to enter this field of earnest thought and action, to 
 pass fearlessly with man into this broad and stirring domain of 
 practical human government, to fijght with him its stormy bat- 
 tles, to s"hare with him its intoxicating triumphs, and thus crown- 
 ing 'her beauty 'with usefulness, her purity with wisdom, to be 
 worshipped by a man no longer as an idol, but as an angel. 
 
 Now, sir, a few words and I am done; and those words shall 
 be of advice to my friends who surround me. 
 
 To -my Democratic friends I would say: You ought without 
 hesitation to accept this proposition, for it is novel, and your 
 great political want is something new. It has a tendency, how- 
 ever remote, to break up present political parties; and your most 
 pressing necessity, if you wish to count for anything in politics, 
 
 27 
 
is that present political parties should be broken up. You have 
 been a lonig time excluded from the flesh pots. You have trod 
 for many weary years the thorny, tedious 1 , barren path of a 
 hopeless minority. You will continue to tread it just as long as 
 the present issues which now divide Republicans and Democrats 
 shall constitute the basis of political organization. You are in 
 the dungeon of despair. Here is opened a. door of escape; a 
 hope nay, I may s>ay, I think, a certainty, of indulging in that 
 long untasted luxury: Success. Abandon the African whom you 
 say you do not like and accept the woman against whom, I am 
 sure, none of your tastes revolt. Forsake those ancient relics, 
 your devotion to which has ruined you, and accept an article of 
 modern manufacture which has the merit of utility. Come up out 
 of the valley of dry bones and enter the field where men live and 
 act. Cut loose from your dead issues those putrid corpses to 
 which you 'have been bound for the past ten years, and accept 
 the embrace of a vital, living form, and I promise you, in addi- 
 tion to that greatest of all Democratic blessings, political power, 
 that other boon, which you ought most to crave from the Ameri- 
 can people forgetfulness of the past. 
 
 To my Republican friends I say: Look to your laurels. They 
 are green and fresh, and magnificently abundant, but they may 
 wither and fade, and your brow yet go uncrowned, unless fresh 
 garlands are gathered. With us the past at least is secure. I 
 would not barter for the highest political preferment which this 
 nation can bestow, the satisfaction of the thought that I have a 
 part, however insignificant that I share, however humbly, the 
 rich glories which cluster around the history of our yet youthful 
 party. But we must rememiber that we have succeeded, not be- 
 cause we were the Republican party, ibut because we were right. 
 We have won because, in a progressive age, we have been t>he 
 party of progress; because when the Nation was marching we 
 have marched in the van; because we had the courage to pluck 
 out, from the overwhelming mass of prejudice in which it was 
 buried, a principle of eternal truth -dared boldly to inscribe it 
 on our banners and to march to battle with the watchword of 
 universal freedom. 
 
 Remember Lot's wife, and look not back. Beware of a halt. 
 
 28 
 
If we stop, the world, the nation, will not stop. The inexorable 
 law of progress will not modify itself to suit our movements; it 
 will not stay its operation through respect either for our party 
 name or our past achievements, but will as relentlessly consign 
 us to defeat and oblivion as it has for the same cause there con- 
 signed our Democratic predecessors. 
 
 Here is the great question of the hour. I beseech you to lay 
 aside your prejudices for its consideration. Be not appalled 
 either by its novelty or its magnitude. Let your intellects weigh 
 it; let your sentiments appreciate it; let your reason judge it; 
 and if you find it to .be, as I believe you will find it to be, right, 
 then spring again to the call; nerve yourselves for a new ad- 
 vance; gird your loins to scale another height; write another 
 great truth on your banner; let the thrilling cry of " Onward M 
 ring again through your ranks/ and plant another bright star in 
 'the already growing firmament where shine your past triumphs. 
 
 If you fail, if you have found already a resting place, those 
 of us whose judgment and conscience bid us still to go forward 
 will be compelled, sorrowfully and tearfully, but still compelled 
 to say farewell, and grieved at your desertion; but confident of 
 ultimate success, we will bide our time. 
 
 (At the conclusion of his speech, Mr. Hillyer was greeted 
 with round after round of applause.) 
 
Stockton, Calif. 
 
 PAT. JAN 21, 1908