WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

Looking back to 1917 . . .
House, Senate split on suffrage question


Former Minneapolis Star reporter Charles Chaney once asked, "If
any considerable number of women want to vote, why should they be
refused that right?"

Today's Legislature would be hard pressed to say anything but
"why not?"

But when the question of equal suffrage came knocking at the
Capitol door in the early 1900s, several Minnesota lawmakers and
even some women rose to defend all-male voting, which, one member
argued, was "designed by our forefathers."

Debate on the issue peaked in 1917 when the Minnesota Equal
Suffrage Association decided to push for women's rights to vote
in presidential elections. Several states, including North
Dakota, had already approved such measures. 

Clara Ueland, then president of the association, convinced Rep.
A.M. Peterson of Coleraine to introduce a bill on the matter. 

And the sparks began to fly on Feb. 21 when the proposal was
debated on the House floor.

Rep. Thomas Girling of Robbinsdale stood first, arguing that
"women shouldn't be dragged into the dirty pool of politics."
Approving such a measure would "cause irreparable damage at great
expense to the state," he said.

Despite Girling's impassioned plea, the bill to "submit to the
men of the state whether women shall be given the full right to
vote, just the same as the men," passed on an 85-41 vote.

But according to a St. Paul historian, when the Senate took up
the bill only days later, it was a large group of women who came
out strongly against the measure.

C.J. Buell, a political watchdog and author of several books on
the Minnesota Legislature, noted, "The anti-suffrage women were
out in full force -- talking much and saying nothing. They begged
and pleaded that the awful burden of putting a piece of paper
into the ballot box once in awhile be not imposed on them. Well,
there was nothing in the law to compel them to vote if they did
not want to."

But their testimony gave senators the political cover to defeat
the measure. Leading the charge to squelch the female vote was
Sen. F.A. Duxbury of Caledonia. He rose to argue that "disaster
and ruin would overtake the nation." 

A woman voter would only too soon lead to "government by females"
because "men could never resist the blandishments of women," he
argued.

Instead, he counseled women to "attach themselves to some man who
will represent them in public affairs."

Duxbury's colleagues in the Senate may have taken his words to
heart. They defeated the proposal on a 31-35 vote. 

But the universal suffrage question returned two years later
during the 1919 session. The debate in Minnesota took place after
both its U.S. senators voted in Washington to give women the
right to vote. 

With little opposition, and Ueland's members "arguing
everywhere," both Minnesota legislative bodies passed resolutions
ratifying the federal equal suffrage decision that took effect
Aug. 27, 1920, Buell noted. 

Duxbury was no longer a member of the state Senate when the vote
was taken. His successor, Sen. John Hopp of Preston, voted in
favor of the measure. The final vote was 49-7 in the Senate and
100-28 in the House.

Sen. Duxbury's sentiments now seem as dated as the thick cigar
smoke that once filled the Senate chamber. Both have since
disappeared, but not without a fight.

"These are relics of a bygone day," wrote the Star's Chaney. 

It wasn't long before women came to the Capitol, not pleading for
voting rights, but as elected representatives. In 1923, four
women were sworn in as members of the House. Today, there are 29
women in the House -- more than 20 percent of the membership.

And there is little evidence to suggest "disaster and ruin" have
rained on Minnesota politics.

-- John Tschida



Originally published in 1991 in the Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***