The Delegate Who Stalled the State’s Legal Progress
How a stubborn stand on woman suffrage paralyzed Washington Territory’s legislative agenda in the halls of D.C.
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.
The action of Delegate Voorhees in preventing the validation of the laws affected by the decision of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory cannot be too strongly condemned. The statement that he prevented the validation of those laws may be objected to, but, judging from the record of the proceedings in the House of Representatives last Thursday, that is precisely what he did.
The 'bill to cure defects in the titles of certain acts of the legislative assembly of Washington Territory' was introduced in the Senate and was reported favorably from the Committee on Territories by Senator Platt. It was passed at once and without discussion. On Thursday, it was called up in the House by Delegate Voorhees, who attempted to improve the occasion by making a speech in favor of woman suffrage. Daniel, of Virginia, objected to the consideration of the bill, but offered to withdraw his objection if Mr. Voorhees would agree to except the woman suffrage law. This Mr. Voorhees declined to do, whereupon several other objections were offered, the objectors, however, all assuring the Delegate that they would withdraw their objections if he would except the woman suffrage law from the action of the bill. The latter still declined to do this, however, and the bill went over.
The unreasonable nature of Mr. Voorhees' attitude will be better understood when it is remembered that the consideration of a bill so situated is prevented by one objection. There was no hope of securing the passage of the bill with the woman suffrage act included, for half a dozen objections had already been offered. There was, therefore, no excuse for Mr. Voorhees' attitude. Because he could not secure the validation of the woman suffrage act, he deliberately thwarted the validation of the numerous other acts with defective titles. It was an exhibition of either dogmatism or petulance.
“It was an exhibition of either dogmatism or petulance.”
This 1887 legislative deadlock in Washington Territory echoes the modern frustrations of partisan brinkmanship, where ideological purity tests often stall essential governance. Just as the territorial legal crisis remained unaddressed for the sake of a suffrage battle, contemporary legislative sessions frequently see vital infrastructure or civic functions held hostage for unrelated political gains.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.