Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 3.djvu/728

Rh his gift. With the assistance of this grand man (occupying the highest position in our territory), and many others equally efficient, it is not to be supposed that our most intelligent women will be obliged to wait for the education of the most ignorant men to consent to their enfranchisement.

In the last legislature (1885) Major John A. Pickler introduced a bill enfranchising the women of the territory, which, after full discussion, passed the House by 29 to 18, and the Council by 14 to 10. The hopes of the friends were soon disappointed by the governor's veto:

, D. T., March 13, 1885. To the Speaker of the House of Representatives: I herewith return House file No. 71, with my objections to its becoming a law. A measure of this kind demands careful and candid consideration, both because of its importance and because of the acknowledged sincerity and high character of those who favor it. There are certain reasons, however, why I cannot approve such a measure at this time, and other reasons why I cannot approve this particular bill. It is desirable, in my judgment, that we act, so far as possible, as if we were governed, restrained and guided by a constitution adopted by ourselves. If we had a constitution modeled after those of the States, an extraordinary proposition like this would be submitted to the people. If congress thinks woman suffrage wise, it has the power to establish it. It is unfair to shift the responsibility on the territory and then hold it responsible for alleged imprudent legislation. I am assured the enactment of this law will delay our claims to statehood, and in so critical a period it is better that no pretext whatever be given for such postponement. It is doubted by many if a majority of the women of Dakota want the franchise. The point is made, and a very good one, that the fact that one woman does not want a right is not a justifiable reason for refusing it to another who does, yet it must not be forgotten that the enfranchisement of women confers not only a privilege but a grave burden and responsibility. We condemn the man who neglects to vote as recreant to his duty. If women are enfranchised, the right conferred becomes an obligation as imperious to them as to men; on those opposed as on those who favor the act. I think the women of Dakota should have a voice in determining whether they should assume this burden or not. So much for the general proposition. There are two other features of this bill which I can scarcely think satisfactory to the advocates of woman suffrage themselves. I am satisfied that they should appear in a measure claiming to advance the rights of women. If the vote of a woman is needed anywhere, it is in our cities. In many existing city charters a distinct clause appears, providing that males alone shall possess the qualifications of electors. In this bill the word "male" is only stricken out of one chapter of the code, leaving the disability still standing against hundreds of women equally entitled to recognition. The women of Sioux Falls, the women of Mitchell, the women of Brookings, the women of Chamberlain, of Watertown and a great many of the more important cities in southern Dakota, would be disqualified from voting under these special enactments, even though this bill became a law at this very session. Charters have been created with that provision retained, and they would make this bill abortive and largely inoperative. A still more objectionable feature, and one deliberately inserted, is the clause debarring women from the right to hold office. If the word