In the Senate Judiciary committee, arguments will be heard on a bill, introduced by the committee May 19, which provides:

"Women shall have the same rights and privileges under the law as men in the exercise of suffrage, freedom of contract, choice of residence, jury service, holding office, holding and conveying property, care and custody of children and in all other respects. The various courts, executive and administrative officers shall construe the statutes, where the masculine gender is used, to include the feminine gender, unless such construction will deny to females the special protection and privileges which they now enjoy for the general welfare. The courts, executive and administrative officers shall make all necessary rules and provisions to carry out the intent and purposes of this statute."

Representatives of the Federation of Women's Clubs, the League of Women Voters, the Wisconsin Women's Progressive Association, the National Woman's Party and other organizations, with women lawyers and others, will oppose the Assembly bill and advocate passage of the Senate bill.

CHAPTER X.

Limiting Women's Choice of Residence.

The day of the hearing, May 24, four of us went to Madison from Milwaukee: Mrs. Max Rotter, a member of the state board of the National Woman's Party; Miss Alma Barry, an attorney and chairman of the Wisconsin Federation of Business and Professional Women; Mrs. Jackowsky-Peterson, an able lawyer of twenty years' experience, representing the Polish Housewives, and myself. We all spoke before the Senate Judiciary committee in favor of the equal rights bill. Madison women speaking for the bill were: Mrs. Willard Bleyer, representing the Dane County League of Women Voters; Mrs. L. A. Kahlenberg, legislative chairman of the Wisconsin League of

Women Voters; Mrs. John Hazelwood, representing the Federation of Woman's Clubs; Mrs. Joseph Jastrow, representing the Consumers' League; Mrs. Louis E. Reber, chairman of the Madison board of the Young Women's Christian Association; Miss Gena Thompson, representing the Wisconsin Women's Progressive Association.

Such a different minded group of women gathered together in common support of one bill; women representing organizations, some of them, which were even working for causes in opposition! But women who all put the emancipation of women above every other cause. Other differences did not count, in the face of the tremendous importance of winning full citizenship for women.

We all urged the committee to report the bill out favorably, with only one amendment, which was agreed to by the majority of women speaking, because the majority felt the committee would not report the bill out except with that amendment. A few of us did not agree, but in a moment of weakness we submitted. I have ever since been sorry that we did submit, but we, who wanted to stand for it, against the committee, were in a minority. I am confident if all the women had stood together, solidly, without any wavering, for the bill without any amendment, we could have won our point. That amendment was to limit women's equal right to "choice of residence," adding "for voting purposes," so that it would read: "choice of residence for voting purposes."

The men's argument was that without the amendment the homes of the state might be wrecked if women were permitted equally with men to choose their legal residence. They said: "Why, a woman could establish her residence separate and apart from that of her husband, and continue to live away from him forever, while he would have to support her and could never divorce her."

There were several lawyers on the committee and they insisted such would be the case in spite of our contention that

the law would have no such result. We continued to differ with them, because we had been advised on this point by good legal authority, before we ventured our opinion. One of the committee even said: "Such a law would tend to destroy the home, and would be unfair to children; if husband and wife both had a legal right to choose a residence, the wife would often use that right to live away from her husband, when for the sake of the children, she should live with him. There must be one head to a family," implying that of course that head must be the husband.

As if a law to give a woman freedom to choose her legal residence, would ever take a woman away from her husband! Such an argument is absurd! And the proof of that absurdity is that there is no law now to force a woman to live with her husband if she wishes to leave him, and we all know that the majority of women do live with their husbands. It is also true that many women have lived with uncongenial, unkind or brutal husbands for the sake of their children, when they would have done so for no other reason. It is nearly always the mother who makes such sacrifices for her children, seldom the father.

Moreover, a married woman often needs the legal right to choose her own residence as a protection for herself and children, as a protection for the home and schooling of her children. Lawyers have told me that many migratory husbands, some who follow the line of least resistance and others, ne'erdo-wells, who wish to desert their families, go from one place to another, find work and establish a sort of a home to which the wife must follow with the children. Finally, after many such moves, when disheartened and discouraged the wife refuses to follow any longer, the husband divorces her on the ground of abandonment. Morally it is he who is guilty of desertion, and it is an outrage that any woman should be subjected to such a legal insult. To quote one of our legal advisors: "It is a relic of barbarism that leads some to believe that a husband, no matter how great a tramp he may be, should

start out on a vague quest and call upon his wife like a squaw to pack her papoose on her back and follow."

Historically, a man who is not free to choose his own residence is a slave; the same applies to woman. Our desire was to give to woman the same legal freedom that man enjoys, in every respect, so that she might be a free human being. Slavery in any form is a detriment to civilization, and to the progress of the race. No man has a right to impose his will upon a woman without her consent. Woman must have freedom equal to that of man before human beings can advance any further.

But we submitted to stand for that amendment in committee. And, as is always the case, when we yielded our judgment once, we were asked to yield again. Regardless of our reasons, which we had stated to them, for including in our Bill of Rights a few rights which we already possessed, such as suffrage and care and custody of children, different members of the committee began to urge us to omit those phrases. And they began to find fault with the bill in other ways, saying a law providing for women jurors without providing for the taking care of women jurors was not a proper law. In vain did I repeat to them that this bill, in the last sentence of the first section, required the courts, executive and administrative officers to make proper provision for women serving on juries, because it specifically instructed the courts, executive and administrative officers, "to make all necessary provisions to carry out the intent and purposes of this statute." They did not want to believe or be convinced. They thought that since they had made us surrender once, they could continue to do so. And worse still, many of the woman were beginning to weaken; they thought that these men, being more experienced in politics, ought to know more than the women.

The situation was growing desperate, when in walked Mr. Crownhart; I asked him to please explain to the committee what the last sentence of the first section really meant. I

hastily told him of their objections to different parts of the bill, and that they were arguing with us in legal phraseology which it was impossible for us to answer successfully. So he saved the day he explained to them so convincingly every part of the bill, and why he had drawn it that way, that they appeared satisfied, and ceased asking questions and offering suggestions.

From that hearing all the women, and there were many present in addition to those who spoke, hurried over to the Assembly Judiciary committee to speak against the bill providing that all citizens shall serve on juries except women. So many women were present there, and so many women spoke against that bill, that at the close we rather felt the committee would not dare to report it out favorably. And, when it was voted on in the Assembly the following week, it was defeated by a large majority.

CHAPTER XI.

The More Haste the Less Speed.

From the Assembly committee meeting Mrs. Rotter and I hastened back to the Senate Judiciary committee room to learn what they had decided in executive session to do with our bill. We learned from Chairman Conant that the committee would report it out favorably on the following day, with the one. amendment, "for voting purposes" added to "choice of residence."

Mr. Conant advised us to secure our votes in the Senate as early as possible, so that the bill could be rushed over to the Assembly, since it was near the closing days of the session. He felt sure the Senate would pass it, but that we needed to put in a great deal of hard work in the Assembly. He said if we