The Fight for Women’s Right to Serve on Juries
Prominent attorneys challenge the presence of female jurors in Washington territory, igniting a constitutional battle.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Before the grand jurors were sworn, H. O. Struve, J. W. Robinson (attorney for nine persons held to answer for various crimes), and O. C. Israel challenged Mrs. B. A. Elliot and Mrs. Agnes Prather, alleging they were not competent grand jurors because they were not 'householders' under the Code. They argued that as married women living with their husbands, these ladies could not be considered householders. They further challenged Mrs. Elliot, Mrs. Prather, and Mrs. L. Hackshaw (a widow) on the grounds that the United States Constitution’s provision regarding grand jury indictments contemplated only male citizens. They claimed the legislature had no right to extend citizenship to women in violation of organic law, and that women were not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Hoyt overruled the challenges, and the attorneys took exception; the matter will no doubt go to the Supreme Court.
“They also challenged Mrs. Elliot, Mrs. Prather and Mrs. L. Hackshaw (the last a widow), alleging as grounds therefor that the constitution of the United States... contemplated no other person than a male citizen.”
This 1884 legal clash over women's status as 'householders' and citizens reflects the intense pushback against Washington Territory's pioneering (but precarious) commitment to women's suffrage and civic participation during the 1880s.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.