Copyright © 1988, Charles K. Wiggins
Introduction
John Philo Hoyt served nine years on the Washington Territorial Supreme Court and was elected to the State Supreme Court following statehood. Hoyt was selected by his fellow delegates to the Washington Constitutional Convention to serve as president, or chairman of the convention, a responsibility which he ably fulfilled.Hoyt found himself immersed in one of the spirited controversies of the day--women's suffrage. The territorial legislature gave women the vote in 1883. Hoyt, writing for the Territorial Supreme Court, upheld the statute in 1884, but the court in a later case invalidated the statute in 1887. Hoyt voted in the Constitutional Convention for a direct vote by the people on the issue of women's suffrage. The issue was submitted to the people as a separate proposition simultaneously with the constitution itself, and the voters (male) of the territory decisively rejected women's suffrage. Women did not win the right to vote in Washington until 1910 when the people approved the fifth amendment to the Washington Constitution.
Hoyt's Background: Legislator, Governor, and Judge
Judge Hoyt was born in Ohio in 1841. Like many of his generation, Hoyt served in the Union Army for the four years of the Civil War. After the Civil War, Hoyt returned to Ohio, enrolled in law school, and was admitted to the Bar one year later in 1867. He practiced in Michigan from 1868 to 1878, where he was elected to the State House of Representatives and served a term as Speaker of the House. Seeking a change in climate, Hoyt sought and was appointed to the position of Secretary of the Territory of Arizona. He became Governor of Arizona Territory in 1877, and in 1878 was named to succeed Governor Braymen of Idaho Territory. Gov. Brayman, the incumbent, had fallen from favor for his administration of affairs during the Nez-Perce war. Hoyt had opportunity to investigate the charges against Brayman before he took office. Hoyt concluded that Gov. Brayman had been unjustly removed, and through a sense of justice, wrote to the president to decline the appointment. The president responded that Brayman could serve out his term of office if Hoyt declined the appointment, and offered Hoyt as an alternative an appointment as associate justice of the supreme court of Washington Territory. Governor Brayman was returned to office, and Hoyt was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Washington Territory.Hoyt arrived in Olympia, February, 1878 and assumed his duties as territorial justice. Hoyt was apparently a well-respected judge. An earlier historian and close acquaintance of Judge Hoyt described Hoyt as "one of the kindliest and most courteous gentlemen who ever sat upon the judicial bench in Washington." When Hoyt's first term expired, every practicing attorney in each of the 12 counties that composed his judicial district petitioned President Arthur to reappoint him. In one such letter, W. L. Prosser, who also served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, described Judge Hoyt's character as "admirable in every respect" and called Judge Hoyt "upright, vigilant, competent and worthy". Judge Hoyt apparently had some detractors for he wrote to the United State Attorney General, in apparent defense of his temperance, that he had drunk neither "spiritous liquor" nor malted liquor in the past twenty years. President Arthur reappointed Hoyt to a second term.
Judge Hoyt survived a second challenge to his judgeship when a Democratic president, Grover Cleveland, was elected in 1884. In 1885, nearly every Republican office holder in Washington Territory was removed. Judge Hoyt's personal popularity apparently kept him on the bench until the end of his term in 1887. In that year Hoyt moved to Seattle and became manager of the banking house of Dexter, Horton & Company.
Judge Hoyt and Suffrage in Washington Territory
Suffrage advocates repeatedly pressed the territorial legislature to extend the franchise to women. A. A. Denny moved to grant women suffrage in the very first territorial legislature in 1854, but Denny's motion failed. The legislature revised the election statutes in 1867 in order to deny the franchise to former Confederate soldiers, granting the right to vote to "all white American citizens 21 years of age. . ." Edward Eldridge stated on the floor of the territorial legislature that this law granted to women the right to vote. Eldridge, a delegate to the 1889 convention, was perhaps the most vigorous advocate for placing women's suffrage in the Washington constitution. Eldridge was born in Scotland in 1828, coming to this country in 1849 for the California gold rush. Following the gold rush, he settled in Whatcom County in 1853 where he resided for the rest of his life. Eldridge fought in the Indian Wars and served in county and territorial offices almost continuously for 35 years.After 1867, women were inconsistently allowed to vote, until the legislature provided in 1871 that women had no right to vote except in school elections. In 1878, following approval by the voters at large and authorization by the territorial legislature, a convention of 15 elected delegates assembled at Walla Walla for the purpose of drafting a proposed constitution to be submitted to Congress as part of a petition for statehood. Edward Eldridge and Benjamin F. Dennison, both women's suffragists, were among the 15 delegates. The convention heard from Mrs. A. S. Duniway, a prominent Oregon suffragist, who urged them to grant women the vote as part of the proposed constitution. Eldridge moved to delete the word "male" from the qualifications for voters incorporated in the constitution, but the delegates rejected this effort. The delegates voted overwhelmingly, however, to submit women's suffrage as a separate proposition for a direct vote by the electorate. The voters ratified the constitution, but rejected women's suffrage by a margin of almost 3 to 1. The Walla Walla constitution never became effective because Congress declined to grant statehood in 1878.
The Territorial Legislature finally granted the vote to women in November 1883. This statute not only permitted women to vote, but by implication permitted them to sit on grand juries since another code section made all qualified electors and householders competent to sit on grand juries. One Mollie Rosencrantz appealed her conviction for keeping a house of ill fame on the ground that a married woman had served on the grand jury which had indicted her. Rosencrantz v. Territory, 2 Wash. Terr. 267 (1884). Judge Hoyt, writing for himself and concurring Judge Wingard, upheld the conviction on the ground that the law was valid and women were therefore eligible to sit on grand juries.
Two years later a similar challenge was brought by one Harland who was convicted of conducting a swindling game called "21, or top-and-bottom dice." Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Terr. 131 (1887). Hoyt was disqualified from sitting on the appeal because he had presided over Harland's trial. (Each of the four judges of the Territorial Supreme Court sat as a trial judge in one of the four judicial districts, and was disqualified from hearing any appeals from his own cases, which were heard by the remaining three judges.) Judge Wingard, who had joined Hoyt in the Rosencrantz decision, had resigned from the court, and Judge Turner had vigorously dissented in the Rosencrantz decision. This time Turner carried the day and overturned the law extending the franchise to women. Turner held that the Franchise Act violated the provision of the Organic Act of the territory which stated that, "Every law shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in its title" (a requirement which survives in Article II, § 19 of the Washington Constitution). Turner reasoned that the title of the act, "An act to amend § 3050, Chapter 238, of the Code of Washington Territory," did not adequately express the subject of the legislation.
The Territorial Legislature of 1887-1888 had been elected by both male and female voters, and determined to reinstate women's suffrage. The issue was brought again to the Territorial Supreme Court by Mrs. Nevada Bloomer, who had been denied the right to vote in a regular municipal election in the city of Spokane Falls. Bloomer v. Todd, 3 Wash. Terr. 599 (1888). The case appears to have been contrived by saloon owners and suppliers to invalidate the women's franchise out of fear that women would vote for prohibition. Mrs. Bloomer's husband owned a saloon, and John Todd, one of the defendant election judges, was a beer bottler who supplied Bloomer. This time both Hoyt and Turner had resigned from the court, and Turner was retained to oppose the statute. Congress had provided in the Organic Act that only male inhabitants would be permitted to vote in the first territorial election, and that the first legislative assembly would decide upon the qualifications of voters at all subsequent elections. The court struck down the statute, holding that Congress must have intended to limit the franchise to male citizens, and that the territorial legislature had no power to enfranchise women. Thus ended women's suffrage in Washington Territory.
Hoyt, Suffrage, And The Constitutional Convention
The battleground for women's suffrage now shifted to the Constitutional Convention. The delegates considered three basic options: limit the franchise to men; extend the franchise to men and women alike; or, separately submit to the voters the issue of women's suffrage. Hoyt and George Turner, who had adopted opposite views during their tenure on the Washington Supreme Court, were pitted against one another as the leading contenders for the presidency, or chairmanship, of the Constitutional Convention. Both Republicans, they were divided on women's suffrage. Another contender for the presidency, Ralph O. Dunbar, was even a stronger advocate of women's suffrage than Hoyt. The Seattle Times commented that, "Hoyt is objected to by the anti-suffragists, but his views upon the subject are mild, compared with those of Dunbar, consequently Dunbar's chances for the coveted honor have melted away like snow in the sunshine."The fight for the presidency of the convention was largely resolved when Turner withdrew in favor of Hoyt. Hoyt's eventual election was all but assured by the substantial majority of Republicans in the convention. It was reported that Hoyt's election was secured by a pledge that he would not place women suffragists in prominent committee positions.
Women's suffrage became entangled with another hotly debated issue of the day--prohibition. Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway, the prominent Oregon suffragist who had addressed the Walla Walla convention in 1878, blamed the prohibitionists for resistance to women's suffrage. Mrs. Duniway believed that the liquor industry successfully stirred up men against women's suffrage with the argument that women would surely vote for prohibition. Mrs. Duniway urged Washington suffragists to avoid the prohibition controversy at all costs.
The newspapers reported early in the convention that straw polls of the delegates strongly suggested that the constitution would limit the vote to men and that the women's suffrage issue would be separately submitted to the voters. A vigorous women's suffrage lobby labored without success to persuade the delegates to include suffrage in the constitution. Although Mrs. Duniway was unable to attend the Washington convention, the prominent Massachusetts suffragist Henry B. Blackwell traveled west and lobbied the constitutional conventions of North Dakota, Montana and Washington. Blackwell was quite discouraged by the anti-suffrage sentiments among the Washington delegates, and like Mrs. Duniway blamed the prohibition movement for part of this antipathy. Blackwell wrote to his wife from Olympia:
Here I am fighting against odds--both the party conventions & leaders having dropped woman suffrage in order to conciliate the whiskey interest & the very general opposition which the men have manifested since the judges have overthrown the women's right of suffrage. It is a most discouraging & perplexing condition of things.Blackwell concluded that there was no chance that the constitution would incorporate women's suffrage, and that the best strategy was to ask for separate submission, coupled with a constitutional provision that the legislature could extend suffrage to women at any future date regardless of the outcome of separate submission. A lengthy debate ensued when delegate P. C. Sullivan of Pierce County moved to invite Blackwell to address the convention. Sullivan at length withdrew his motion and Blackwell gave a public address attended by a few delegates and members of the public at large. Blackwell relied on the Declaration of Independence and traced gradual expansion of the franchise to all classes of citizens.The suffrage question came before the convention on August 12, 13 and 15. The delegates reviewed and voted upon each issue several times: in "committee of the whole," when the entire convention of 75 delegates freely debated and amended the proposed elections article; on first, second and third readings of the article; and, after the article was defeated on its final reading, on reconsideration of the article. The same issues arose each time the article came before the delegates.
The first issue was whether to include women's suffrage in the constitution. When the convention went into the committee of the whole to consider the proposed elections article thirty-nine delegates left the hall to avoid listening to any suffrage speeches. Delegate Edward Eldridge moved to strike the word "male" from the qualifications of voters in Section 1 of the proposed article. Eldridge spoke for over an hour, reviewing the history of women's suffrage in Washington at some length, and urging the delegates to extend equal rights to women:
The consent of the governed is necessary to form just government and woman is an essential part of the governed. It follows as a natural sequence that woman is entitled to the right of suffrage. The conditions that man has ordained they should occupy was not the position the creator intended them to occupy. The women of Washington for the last quarter of a century have been petitioning for their rights.No one else spoke on the motion, which was defeated. (The votes were not counted in the committee of the whole, but only in formal convention.) Eldridge again brought this motion before the convention on the first reading, but it was defeated by a vote of 8 to 50, Hoyt voting against the motion.The second issue was whether the legislature should be authorized to grant women the right to vote. Here Delegate Dunbar led the battle, which occasioned lengthy debate. The Territorial Supreme Court was criticized for its decisions striking down the suffrage legislation, Turner being the apparent object of much of the criticism. This effort failed by a vote of 18 to 38 on the first reading, Hoyt again voting "no."
The third issue concerned the details of separate submission of the suffrage issue to the public. Eldridge, supported by Hoyt, repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to authorize women to participate in the vote on separate submission. Eldridge, again supported by Hoyt, unsuccessfully moved to permit the legislature to again submit women's suffrage to the voters at some future time even if the public failed to approve suffrage on the initial separate submission. Finally, the delegates debated whether suffrage should be separately submitted to public vote in 1889 or 1890. The suffragists felt that their chances of success were best at a special election limited to the suffrage issue, at which the only voters would be those most concerned with suffrage. They also wished to avoid submitting suffrage simultaneously with prohibition, which the delegates had also decided to submit separately. The delegates initially agreed on 1890, but finally voted to submit suffrage to the voters in 1889.
Hoyt's voting pattern reveals a strong conviction that women's suffrage should not be included in the constitution, but should be separately submitted. Hoyt did vote in favor of the suffrage movement by supporting the move to allow women to vote on separate submission, and by voting to authorize submission to popular vote on later occasions. Did Hoyt make a deal with anti-suffragists to limit his suffrage views in exchange for his selection as president of the convention? Turner's withdrawal from contention for the presidency supports this hypothesis, but any "deal" seems inconsistent with Hoyt's past record, his support for the accused Gov. Brayman and the support and admiration Hoyt enjoyed from the practicing bar during his tenure on the bench. It seems more likely that Hoyt concluded, as did Blackwell, that separate submission was the optimum strategy.
Epilogue
The constitution was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 40,152 to 11,879. Women's suffrage was defeated on separate submission by a vote of 16,527 to 34,513. Women were not to receive the vote in Washington for another 20 years.Judge Hoyt was elected to the Washington Supreme Court in 1889, and served on the court until 1897. Following his tenure on the court, he became a lecturer at the University of Washington Law School, and was also a United States referee in Bankruptcy at Seattle from the early part of the twentieth century until 1912. Hoyt died in Seattle on August 25, 1926, at the age of 85.
NOTE ON SOURCES
The best accounts of the convention are found in the newspapers of the day (I have drawn on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Spokane Falls Review) and on the Journal of the Washington State Constitutional Convention (B. Rosenow ed., 1962). See also J. Fitts, The Washington Constitutional Convention of 1889 (MA Thesis 1951, at U. of W. Library). The U. of W. Law School Library Washington Lawyer file contains information on Hoyt. Sources on suffrage include A. Duniway, Path Breaking: An Autobiographical History (2d ed. 1971); Pearce, Suffrage in the Pacific Northwest, 3 Wash. Hist. Q. 106 (1912); L. Wheeler, ed., Loving Warriors: Selected Letters of Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell (1981).