Raising More Hell and Fewer Dahlias : The Public Life of Charlotte Smith, 1840-1917 [1 ed.] 9780845342916, 9780934223997

Citation preview

Raising More Hell and Fewer Dahlias

Raising More Hell and Fewer Dahlias The Public Life of Charlotte Smith, 1840–1917

Autumn Stanley

Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press

 2009 by Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the copyright owner, provided that a base fee of $10.00, plus eight cents per page, per copy is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923. [978-0-934223-99-7/09 $10.00 + 8¢ pp, pc.]

Associated University Presses 2010 Eastpark Boulevard Cranbury, NJ 08512

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1984. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stanley, Autumn, 1933– Raising more hell and fewer dahlias : the public life of Charlotte Smith, 1840–1917 / Autumn Stanley. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-934223-99-7 (alk. paper) 1. Smith, Charlotte, 1840–1917. 2. Women social reformers—United States—Biography. 3. Women—United States—Social conditions—19th century. 4. Social action—United States—History—19th century. I. Title. HQ1413.S63S73 2009 361.2′4092—dc22 [B] 2008038280

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

To my father, who might not have liked Charlotte Smith very much, but who gave me the priceless gift of thinking I was remarkable; and To David, who listened patiently, over the years, to a lot of this book, and puzzled with me over the many mysteries of Charlotte’s life.

Contents Preface: Mystery Woman

9

Acknowledgments

13

Abbreviations

17

Chronology

19

Introduction: The Energy of a Corliss Engine

23

1. Beginnings

31

2. A Divided Family in Occupied Memphis: Charlotte Smith’s Civil War

39

3. Carpetbagging and Marriage: The Postwar Years, 1865–1871

54

4. St. Louis Revisited: The Inland Monthly Years, 1872–1878

71

5. The Capital Years, Part I: Washington, DC, 1879–1885 101 6. The Capital Years, Part II: Baby Brother and the Bˆete Noire: Robert Odlum, Paul Boyton, and the Brooklyn Bridge, 1885

115

7. The Capital Years, Part III: Washington, DC, 1886–1892

127

8. The Boston Traveler: Final Years, 1892–1917

149

7

8

CONTENTS

Conclusion: A Woman Ahead of Her Time

177

Appendix 1: Testimony of Charlotte Smith

185

Appendix 2: Memorial of Woman’s National Industrial League

189

Notes

193

Bibliography

207

Index

231

Preface: Mystery Woman CHARLOTTE SMITH IS BY NOW AN OLD FRIEND. I MET HER EARLY IN my research on women inventors, and have been studying her as a minor project ever since. She is, however, a friend who has been extremely hard to get to know. She was an intensely private person who lived a public life and left only public records. Learning about her has always been more like trying to solve a cold case or find a long-missing person than like conventional research. For years I didn’t know her maiden name, and thought her husband had died in the 1870s, leaving her a widow. After decades of sleuthing, I still cannot document her exact date and place of birth (though I have her baptismal record). And although her Protestant marriage to Edward Smith is documented in his divorce petition, the marriage Charlotte recognized—her Catholic marriage—has proven elusive. I have the date but not the place of her parents’ marriage. Her mother’s maiden name is still in dispute. I know both parents were born in Ireland, but have found records only for her father, and have no idea when or where either of them came into this country, except that they were here by 1840. Nor can I find any Canadian record of her father’s death from cholera in the 1850s. All this is part of what it means to say that Charlotte Smith left no private papers. She was such an astonishingly prolific writer of speeches, memorials, articles, research reports, circulars, letters, books, and book ideas, and such a tireless collector of facts and statistics, that the loss of it all takes the breath away. Some idea of the magnitude of the loss can be gathered from a 1905 interview with Charlotte while she was working in Philadelphia. “A restless, white-haired, kindly-looking woman with a look of benevolent fanaticism in her eyes,” says the reporter, strode back and forth “in a tiny room over a carpenter shop in an out-of-theway section of the city. The room was so filled with papers, books, clippings, scrapbooks, pamphlets, and writing materials that 9

10

PREFACE: MYSTERY WOMAN

only a small aisle, scarcely large enough for a stove and a couple of chairs, remained. It was the workshop of Charlotte Smith. . . .” (“Like a Knight of Old,” Washington Post, May 7, 1905). This was not even her home base, but it was already crammed with paper treasure—and all of it gone today. For some years, in fact, it was easier to say who Charlotte was not, than who she was. She was not, for instance, the only Charlotte Smith usually found in library card catalogues in the 1970s —the British novelist and poet Charlotte Turner Smith (1749– 1806)—whom I came to dislike intensely for disappointing me so often with her reams of catalogue cards. Charlotte was also not a suffragist. Though an ardent feminist, she considered money more vital than the vote, and equal access to training and fairly paid work the likeliest route to social equity for women. She was not against woman suffrage. She merely believed the suffragists had hold of the wrong end of the stick. She also sometimes criticized them for being all talk and no action. I will call her an economic feminist. Charlotte Smith was not WASP, being Catholic and the daughter of Irish immigrants in a day when HELP WANTED notices often warned “No Irish need apply,” and when Irish people had to ride in separate cars on trains. She had no wealthy or aristocratic husband to give her financial security or social position. Indeed, except for a few years immediately after the Civil War, for all practical purposes she had no husband at all. Charlotte had to invent her role on the American political stage, and this we can see her always busy doing. She was never socially prominent, even after her publishing achievements and reform programs made her nationally famous. Nor did she come from that other potential source of a readymade role and a different kind of power, the working class. When she was born in 1840, her father Richard Odlum was a small farmer in upstate New York, near the Canadian border. After Richard faded from the scene, her mother, Catherine Odlum, kept boarders. Charlotte did not attend any of the prominent female academies that arose early in the nineteenth century in New England and in her own New York State, such as Emma Willard’s Troy Female Seminary. Indeed, her formal schooling ended with grade school. This does not mean, however, that she was not educated or well informed. Education is another way in which Charlotte was selfmade. Her writings, though often bearing the marks of haste, use

PREFACE: MYSTERY WOMAN

11

an impressive vocabulary, contain French phrases and classical allusions, and show a surprising knowledge of art, science, world history, politics, and economics. Like many dedicated reformers, Charlotte Smith was not always nice. She devoted her life from the late 1870s onward to the welfare and advancement of self-supporting women. In her single-minded devotion to this cause, she had no time for feminine wiles. She dressed severely, wore no cosmetics, batted no eyelashes. She believed in direct action, and could mow down, verbally or otherwise, anyone who got in the way. She never hesitated to call a spade a spade—or even a filthy shovel—no matter whether the person involved was a prominent senator or banker, a wealthy corporation owner, a society grande dame, or even the Pope himself. And she would do so in print. When she saw a “masher” annoying young working girls in the street, she would simply walk up and bash him over the head with one of her stout black umbrellas. She once claimed to have broken fully 5,000 umbrellas in this way. Her sharp tongue and uncompromising stands undoubtedly made her many enemies, some of them powerful. These may account—along with history’s usual neglect of women’s achievements, and the suffrage obsession of most students of nineteenthcentury U.S. history—for the fact that Charlotte Smith is omitted from all the standard biographical sources, including Notable American Women, and today lies buried in an unmarked grave. Why, then, not let her lie? Why dispute the verdict of three generations of American historians that Charlotte Smith is worthy of neglect? For starters, this self-made woman fascinates. Not only did she bash mashers, but she ran the federal blockade on the Ohio River during the Civil War. She became a lone crusader for women inventors before most people realized there were any. She ran what amounted to a Political Action Committee (PAC), in the 1880s, and became a formidable lobbyist who got dozens of bills passed in Congress. She advocated a form of unemployment and worker’s compensation insurance in the 1890s, and as early as 1889 warned Congress that tobacco caused cancer. Many of her ideas, in fact, were so far ahead of their time and her achievements so striking that, if she had been a man, she would certainly have appeared in the Dictionary of American Biography, the Cyclopedia of American Biography, and other standard biographical works. She might have run for Congress or

12

PREFACE: MYSTERY WOMAN

other high office. Even as a woman, had she had fewer enemies or bluer blood, or taken more trouble to be ingratiating, she would surely have appeared in Willard and Livermore’s biographical dictionary of women, Phebe Hanaford’s Daughter of America, and/or Mary Logan’s The Part Taken by Women in American History, to say nothing of Notable American Women. Moreover, history seems to have proven her right about the importance of money in women’s fight for equal rights and opportunity. If Charlotte Smith had done nothing more than edit and publish her first periodical, the Inland Monthly, in St. Louis in the 1870s, she would have been noteworthy. But this was not all she did. To mention only the most obvious examples of further achievement, she founded an all-female union of federal clerks, the Women’s National Industrial League (WNIL), in Washington, DC, in the early 1880s. With the WNIL as a platform, she attended early labor congresses, sometimes as the only female delegate, and called for equal pay for equal work in that forum as early as 1883. She also created two more periodicals, the Working Woman, which ran for several years in Washington, DC, in the mid-1880s to early 1890s, and the Woman Inventor, the only U.S. periodical ever to be devoted entirely to women inventors (early 1890s). She also persuaded the Patent Office to publish an official list of nineteenth-century U.S. women patentees. Charlotte Smith pulled herself out of obscurity, flared brightly in the public limelight from the late 1870s through the early twentieth century, and fell back into obscurity again. But she continued to fight for her causes even after her utterances were no longer reported, or replied to, in the New York Times. Now it is time to take another look at the woman who didn’t actually tell the clubwomen of American to raise more hell and fewer dahlias, but lived her own life by that principle, and who did say that America needed more women and fewer ladies.

Acknowledgments WHEN A BOOK TAKES SHAPE OVER A PERIOD OF NEARLY THIRTY years (beginning before the computer revolution), when its author lives on the opposite coast of a very large country from most of the sources for writing it, and is not blessed with either inherited wealth or large research grants, the number of librarians, researchers, friends, and colleagues who are called upon to help and therefore deserve heartfelt thanks becomes large indeed. The daunting part of trying to recognize them all would be not so much the work involved in scanning back over the decades, or even the space the list would take, but the fear of omitting someone. Thus I need to say from the start that the list will not be complete. Sad to say, too, so much time has passed that some of the women—and they are mostly women—have died. I think particularly of that paragon among librarians, Persis Boyesen of Ogdensburg, New York (recognized as such by an award from the state), who found and deciphered Charlotte Smith’s baptismal record, and thus solved a major mystery at the beginning of the story. There are two women without whom the book could never have been written; who were, in short, sine qua non. The first is Edith Axelson, a certified genealogical researcher—and much more. I met her by lucky accident one day when I was searching city directories in the Library of Congress. Struck by the completely focused and efficient way she was going about her own work, I knew at once that she was exactly the person I needed to pursue the many searches I would not be able to complete before returning to California (for at that time I was working on my massive book on women inventors as well as on Charlotte); so I gathered my courage to ask whether she did research for others, and if so, whether we could meet for lunch in the cafeteria downstairs. She said yes to both, and that was the beginning of a years-long 13

14

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

partnership, of tireless and brilliant help on her part—including finding the Odlum Pension Claim. It was also one of the luckiest days of my life, for if someone were to ask me to describe the ideal researcher, I would describe Edith Axelson. The other is Tanya Retan Smith, great-great-granddaughter of Charlotte Smith and a direct descendant of her amazing ancestress in more ways than one. I met her much later in the research process, but she has provided excellent help with the Smith Brothers Company, the relations among the three brothers, the death and burial sites of all three brothers, and Charles Smith’s will; has done important work on the Irish background of both Charlotte’s father and Edward’s parents and siblings, found vital census and city-directory entries on line—and compensated for my Luddism regarding computerized research in general. She found Enrique Parmer’s only published novel, reading much of it on microfilm, and searched microfilms of St. Louis newspapers of the 1870s for an elusive item having to do with Odlum finances. Her enthusiasm and encouragement for the project have also been priceless. Deborah Warner, Curator of the Physical Sciences Collection at the National Museum of American History (Smithsonian), provided an early boost to the project by sending me a copy of the first issue of the Woman Inventor, along with much-needed encouragement. I am also grateful to the Society for the History of Technology (of which Warner and I are both members) and to the Institute for Historical Study, for giving me the opportunity to present parts of this book as papers at their meetings. The IHS also gave me a small grant for research in St. Louis, and their Biographers’ Group, to which I belong, deserves particular thanks for reading and providing feedback on sections of the book over the past few years. Much earlier in the project, I belonged to another biographers’ group, this one associated with the Institute for Research on Women and Gender at Stanford University. This group was also helpful with advice by example, but at that time, Charlotte Smith was still such a mystery woman that their most frequent advice was to write my book as a novel. Anne Macdonald, historian and author of her own book on women inventors, recently retired, and the profession’s loss has been my gain; for she not only alerted me to the great resource of digitized nineteenth-century newspapers available on line, but has generously provided me with copies of many articles that would otherwise have been difficult for me to obtain. Luckily for

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

15

me, aside from a great nose for useful items, and lots of research experience, she also has a fascination with Charlotte Smith. The book-finder at Untamed Shrew, Joan Hyer, found me an important memorial by Smith early on in the project, as well as several books I needed, and furnished good cheer along the way. Anne Bassetti called my attention to Charlotte’s book on the Chicago Fire, and located a copy at the Detroit Public Library. A skilled researcher who undertook assignments both early and late, and performed beyond the call of duty, is Peggy T. Sinko of Chicago. Bryce Suderow, a Civil War scholar in Washington, DC, answered some important questions about dates and about General Grant’s correspondence. Prof. John Cimprich of Thomas More College was extremely collegial and helpful on the experience of black soldiers in the Civil War. Wayne Wegner, a Canadian researcher doing a book on Paul Boyton, read my pages on Boyton for possible errors. And then there are the librarians. If I were a poet, I would write an Ode to Librarians, for their quiet, enabling work is all too often unsung. Both my book on women inventors and this present biography would be far poorer things without them. Since I am more scholar than poet, however, I will say simply that I honor and celebrate them. Besides Persis Boyesen, who shed light on the upstate New York period of Charlotte’s life in the early years of my research, for recent generous and expert help I thank Irene Wainwright of New Orleans Public Library, Jean Gosebrink in Special Collections at St. Louis Public Library, Christina Hanks of the Missouri State Archives in St. Louis, Cynthia Harris of the Jersey City Library, and Mary Nelson of the Somerset County Library, Bound Brook, NJ, Branch, along with the local historian she consulted, Dorothy Stratford. Among those who worked directly with me as assistants from time to time, I am grateful to Vicki Thompson—who, among many other things, transformed the handwritten Pension Claim depositions into readable typescript—and to the late John Bourg, who worked long and hard at the eleventh hour to insert the many additions and corrections needed to create my revised manuscript and then to convert it to the preferred word-processing language and digital format for submission to the publisher. Thanks, too, to my Associated University Press editor, Christine Retz, for her kindness and competence, unfailing good cheer, patience, and encouragement. With further thanks, and apologies, to the many unnamed who also helped over the years.

Abbreviations A.F.L. CM CS DAB F.O.T.L.U. Globe HFW

– – – – – – –

IM L OED PC

– – – –

SHL

–

WASP WNIL WP WIPL WRL WW

– – – – – –

American Federation of Labor Central Magazine Charlotte Smith Dictionary of American Biography Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions the Boston Globe “Help for the Women,” Hornellsville (NY) Weekly Tribune, July 17, 1891 Inland Monthly Magazine (with date) – Letter of/from (research correspondence) Oxford English Dictionary Pension Claim (filed by Catherine Odlum in 1886); see United States Department of the Interior. . . . “The Story of Her Life,” Washington Post, July 4, 1892: 1–2 White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Women’s National Industrial League Washington Post Women’s Industrial and Patriotic League Women’s Rescue League the Working Woman

17

Chronology

1810–20 c. 1820 1824 1827 1838 1840

– – – – – –

c. 1843 1850

– –

1851 1853

– –

1853–56 1856–58 1858–59 1860

– – – –

1861

–

1865–7 1866 1867

– – – – – – – – – –

1868

–

1862 1864 1865

–

Richard Odlum born Catherine Odlum born Charles Smith (older brother of Edward) born Edward Smith born Catherine and Richard Odlum married (April 4) Charlotte Odlum (later Smith) born (baptized August 13) David Odlum (brother of Charlotte) born Northern RR completed (later the Ogdensburg & Lake Champlain RR) Robert Odlum (brother of Charlotte) born (August 31) George Worth Odlum (brother of Charlotte) born (February 28) Richard Odlum dies in Canada Odlum family odyssey through Northeast into Canada Odlum family to St. Louis David Odlum enrolled in Christian Brothers School, St. Louis Catherine, Charlotte, Robert, and George to New Orleans, then Havana, and back to New Orleans David Odlum enlists in Union Army (June 13) Odlum family pursues him to Paducah, KY (summer) Odlums follow David to Memphis; take a house David Odlum disappears (November 24) Odlums’ house destroyed Civil War ends Federal forces—and Odlums—enter Mobile Charlotte runs drygoods store in Mobile Charlotte marries Edward Smith in Pennsylvania Catholic ceremony for Charlotte and Edward in Mobile (Jan./Feb. 1867) Charles E. Smith, son of Charlotte and Edward, born February 7, Mobile; baptized March 16 Charlotte, Edward, and Odlums to Philadelphia

19

20 1869

1870–71 1871

CHRONOLOGY

– George Henry Smith, second son of Charlotte and Edward, born July 27 – Charlotte and Edward separate (August 10) – Charlotte, Catherine, and children to Newport, RI, for the season; Charlotte opens a bookstore – Charlotte to Chicago; opens a bookstore – Chicago Fire (October); Charlotte flees to St. Louis; publishes her book on the Fire

1872–78

– Inland Monthly years (St. Louis) 1872– starts Inland with Mary Nolan 1873– little George dies 1875– starts publishing Inland in Chicago as well as St. Louis 1878– Inland closes; Charlotte first lists self as widow in Chicago directory

1879–92

– Capital years 1879– Charlotte to Washington, DC Early 1880s– begins lobbying for working women, other causes 1882– Founds WNIL 1883– Edward files for divorce in New Jersey 1885– Robert Odlum jumps off Brooklyn Bridge 1886– Charlotte founds Working Woman 1888– List of US women patentees Charlotte had urged appears 1889– Charlotte begins agitating for working women’s recognition and representation at the Columbian Exposition 1890– Charles Smith, older brother of Edward, dies (Aug. 18, 1890) 1891– Charlotte founds Woman Inventor (April) 1891– Edward Smith dies in Ireland (Nov. 11)

1892

– Charlotte and Catherine to Boston; Charlotte continues work for causes – Catherine Odlum dies – Charlotte Smith dies (Dec. 3)

1895 1917

Raising More Hell and Fewer Dahlias

Introduction: The Energy of a Corliss Engine PERHAPS THE BEST INTRODUCTION TO THIS BIOGRAPHY IS AN INtroduction to Charlotte Smith, the woman. Most readers, after all, will be meeting her for the first time, and the core chapters of the book are focused on her ideas and accomplishments rather than on personal description, physical or psychological. She herself would doubtless prefer to be known by what she did. Certainly she never stopped or even slowed down long enough to analyze herself, or fuss with her appearance. Yet it seems useful to begin with a picture of the woman herself: what she looked like, some idea of her complex and often contradictory personality, and last but most—for it enabled what she did—some sense of her ferocious energy. A picture of Charlotte, however, turns out to be a problem. Her descendants seem to have no snapshots of her. The only two known photographs are small images, faint and fuzzy on the surviving microfilm, one published with a Washington Post article called “Like a Knight of Old” (May 7, 1905) and the other accompanying her Boston Globe obituary of December 4, 1917. The former shows a determined-looking face under an elaborate hairdo; the latter shows a rather sweet and sad-looking face under an elaborate hat and, since the hair is dark, was probably taken some years earlier. The Globe says the original is not in its archive. Otherwise, we must rely for visual images on engravings in newspapers. There are, however, several verbal portraits, beginning with a description of Charlotte in her early twenties, and continuing with reporters’ descriptions in some of the many newspaper articles devoted to Charlotte between 1879 and her death. Charlotte evidently made a vivid impression on Frederick T. Lee, who served with her brother David in the 8th Missouri Vol23

24

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

1. Charlotte Smith’s obituary photo from the Boston Globe, December 4, 1917.

unteers during the Civil War. Lee testified twenty years later (Pension Claim #337,612) that the family was remarkable in several ways. They were intensely Union in sentiment; and, the old lady, then a wiry little woman in the vigor of life, and Charlotte never tired in doing all they could, in nursing and caring for sick and wounded soldiers. Charlotte was a fine-looking, tall young woman; and, even then, gave evidence of her strong nature by going around among the soldiers and wherever she chose to go, without any fear or shrinking; and her independent way and intelligent appearance and conversation attracted general attention.

INTRODUCTION: THE ENERGY OF A CORLISS ENGINE

25

Charlotte also impressed Logan Reavis, the St. Louis visionary and promoter, in the 1870s. He included a biographical sketch of her in his book grandly titled St. Louis, the Future Great City of the World (C. R. Barns, St. Louis, 1876). After praising her Inland Monthly magazine, he says, In whatever relations of life we view this remarkable woman, we cannot but extend toward her our admiration for the happy manner in which she has, under no ordinary untoward circumstances, made life a success. Almost unaided, she has fought the battle of life to a successful issue. Mentally considered, she is a combination of contradiction and a personification of strength and weakness. (757)

Reavis then appends an analysis of Charlotte’s character by Professor O. S. Fowler of Boston,1 dated March 21, 1875, when Charlotte would have been in her mid-thirties. This lengthy piece, though based on the discredited “science” of phrenology, contains some strikingly perceptive observations, which suggest that Prof. Fowler may have had a good grasp of basic psychology, and finely tuned intuitions about people. For instance, speaking as if to Charlotte, Fowler says, “You are unique . . . and all your traits stand right out distinctly. . . . By all odds, your strongest sentiment is ambition to figure—determination to do something worthy—create a name and distinguish yourself.” But this ambition, he says, is not to be the richest-dressed lady, but the smartest. She is just, endeavoring to do what is exactly right, and most powerful in her anger against everything wrong. Again speaking directly to Charlotte he says, you have “more force in you than I find in one woman out of thousands.” He regards her sensitivity, energy, vim, “get-out-of-my-way snap,” determination, and drive as well-nigh marvelous. “What you can’t accomplish,” he adds, “there is no need to try.” Fowler accurately credits Smith with “a great many ideas,” says she argues “with singular ability,” and “should have been born masculine and been a lawyer” or “in some public position connected with the press,” and would certainly make her mark if she were. He sees that she “will do anything for those you love, but the Lord deliver your enemies from you.” After a less useful detour into what kind of wife she would make, Fowler calls her “really a remarkable woman throughout” (Reavis, 757–58). Reavis then sums up his own sketch: Possessed of a large amount of mental and physical magnetism, she is one of those rare combinations of character, which would make its

26

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

presence felt in any community in which she might reside. Charitable even to a fault, she ever takes pleasure in relieving the wants of the suffering portion of humanity; and no more frequent or more acceptable visitor crosses the thresholds of our prisons and poorhouses than Mrs. Charlotte Smith. (758)

In 1879 a Washington Post reporter called Charlotte Smith “a business woman of as much energy as a Corliss engine” (“Widow Oliver,” Oct. 23:1). In 1887 the Boston Globe interviewed Charlotte, then forty-seven, at length on the past accomplishments and future plans of her Women’s National Industrial League (“Charlotte Smith, The Champion of Working Women Interviewed,” Sept. 4, 1887:4): Picture a kindly-faced, matronly woman of medium height, one whose years yet linger within the further confines of middle age and whose genial smile and almost sprightly step tell of a sunshiny nature and a soul that is in harmony with all that is good and pure and progressive in the world of today. Her broad forehead, furrowed by occasional wrinkles, tells alike of mental energy and a rich accumulation of worldly experience, the latter being emphasized by the delicate shading of gray in the otherwise dark hair. The features, a trifle aquiline, perhaps, are yet of an unmistakably intellectual mould. . . . the keen, dark flashing eyes that twinkle and gleam and fade again in tell-tale sympathy with the varying moods of their possessor. The shadowy fullness just beneath them openly proclaims the gift of smoothly flowing, warm, impassioned language which later breaks upon the visitor’s ear. Picture all these details at a glance, and you have an accurate likeness of the outward personality of Mrs. Charlotte Smith of Washington, DC.

In 1892, a Pittsburgh Leader reporter described Charlotte in her early fifties, attending a lecture by the cosmetics entrepreneur and patentee Mme. Maude Yale, and being unexpectedly called to the platform (“Mrs. Potter Palmer,” March 18, 1892): Miss Smith is the picture of earnestness and strength. Her every thought and purpose has evidently been given to her noble life work, that of elevating the condition of the wage-earners of her sex and compelling from employers equal pay for [equal work]. But in becoming a fanatic in the great cause, she has, like all fanatics, let slip all the merely pretty feminine ways and graces, with which most of her sister women occupy themselves . . .; so as she stood beside the exponent of facial beauty she presented almost a startling contrast. She is large and rather stout. Her dress was of the plainest, a black wool

INTRODUCTION: THE ENERGY OF A CORLISS ENGINE

27

gown escaping the ground in extremely sensible fashion—that is by half a foot or more—a plain black bonnet pulled slightly awry in the excitement of the moment, a flushed, determined face.

A sympathetic and perceptive reporter who interviewed Smith on a working visit to Philadelphia in her mid-sixties (“Like a Knight of Old,” Washington Post, May 7, 1905) described her as “A restless, white-haired, kindly looking woman, with a look of benevolent fanaticism in her eyes, a homely attire that showed nothing of vanity for self,” striding back and forth as she talked. “Mrs. Smith is an enthusiast,” the reporter continued: “When she talks her thoughts run faster than her tongue, and it is a clipper, and her face glows with the intensity of her energy.” One of her obituaries in the Boston Globe (Dec. 4, 1917) called her “A short, active woman with bright, dancing, brown eyes and one of the quickest habits of speech imaginable, dressed always in black.” By no means all of the portraits of Charlotte Smith were as positive as the ones just cited, for her determination to find out truth and see justice done to working women, her hot temper, and her sharp tongue, which skewered hypocrisy and exposed corruption wherever she found it, made enemies who did not hesitate to strike back. Moreover, as Logan Reavis had pointed out in the 1870s, she was a “combination of contradiction, and a personification of strength and weakness.” She was, indeed, as he observed, charitable to a fault, especially where poor working girls and women, or the less fortunate in general, were concerned. This of course became known, and as Charlotte told one reporter, “There is hardly an hour in the day when I am not besieged by women urging me to help them in some manner or other” (“Threw the Cash Away,” Washington Post, July 28, 1899:9:1). “I have never refused shelter to a homeless woman, and I never shall,” she told an interviewer in 1905 (“Like a Knight of Old,” Washington Post, May 7, 1905). “I have spent thousands of dollars for unfortunates . . .,” she continued. On the other hand, she could become quite petty and unreasonable about money, going to court against an employee of hers in a dispute about wages and trespass, hitting him with a slipper and being fined $10 by the judge (“Charlotte Wields the Slipper,” Washington Post, Aug. 8, 1894:4). She also urged her mother to apply for a pension on the basis of her brother David’s Civil War service (Pension Claim #337,612, 1886–87), even though she had

28

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

been her mother’s main support for more than twenty years and, considering what she regularly spent for her charities and reform campaigns, they could scarcely have needed the money. She was fiercely against dishonesty and corruption of any kind, exposing scandals in federal departments, city governments, and police departments, and attacking hypocrisy among Christians at all levels of the church. At the same time there were allegations that some of the domestics finding jobs in wealthy households through her free employment offices provided her with information useful in persuading these employers to back her reforms or legislative campaigns (“Communism Bad for Them . . .,” Boston Globe, Dec. 25, 1887:5): I was told today that not a few of the returning statesmen sighed with relief when they heard that Mrs. Smith would not be with them this winter. This, however, was not because her address is disagreeable, but simply because she has found some very annoying methods with which to support her worthy purposes. . . . A fair illustration of these methods was . . . her manipulation of the employment bureau that she established here. This bureau found places for domestics without charge, but Mrs. Smith is said to have required of the beneficiaries a weekly or monthly report. These reports, which the faithful girls used to come to Mrs. Smith to make, would include all the information that the watchful domestics had been able to gather about the lives of their employers and their families. In this way Mrs. Smith gained a view of many a family skeleton and became possessed of not a few points on influential men. Information thus gathered often served the crafty reformer well when she wished to enlist the services of these men and women of high degree.

Whether these “reports” were really required by Charlotte or offered by grateful clients is unclear, but the girls’ willingness to report, even after they had the jobs safely in hand—at some peril to those jobs—and to use their scanty time off to do so, may be an indication. Otherwise, Charlotte had fallen into a familiar trap for reformers, especially those working against great odds: believing that the end justifies the means.2 With all of this seriousness, she also had a strong sense of humor. The bachelors’ auctions she organized in St. Louis in the 1870s, where unmarried men were “sold” to an eager audience of single females, were great fun, although also meant to make a point. She once sent a bouquet of onions and other unattractive items to a Congressman who had voted against a bill she favored. She also proposed herself as Chief of Police—both in Wash-

INTRODUCTION: THE ENERGY OF A CORLISS ENGINE

29

ington, DC, and in Boston—when she felt the police departments there were in need of reform. One of the major contradictions observable in Charlotte’s programs had to do with her feminism. She supported and worked unceasingly most of her adult life for women’s freedom to be trained for and work at any job for which they were fitted, and to receive equal pay for that work with any male worker. She praised the female reformers of the earlier nineteenth century as laying the basis for all that was achieved later. And yet she opposed bicycling for women—which gave them enormous new freedom—and at one point she advocated sending “new women” to fight in the Spanish-American War (Washington Post, Apr. 7, 1898:7:6). Through all the reports on Charlotte and her work, whether the writer is friend or foe, runs a consistent theme: her seemingly endless energy. This is all the more amazing if she really was, as Logan Reavis reports, a sickly child, only restored to health by a trip to Cuba in her teens. In St. Louis in the 1870s, after quickly publishing a book on her experience in the Great Chicago Fire, she wrote briefly for a newspaper and then founded a magazine with a woman business partner. This partner soon left, and thereafter, while at the same time a single mother, she handled on her own the crushing workload involved in producing this magazine. She wrote much of it, found contributors for the rest, edited it all,3 solicited the advertising, designed the covers, hired and supervised the printers, marketed the magazine—and even opened branch offices in Chicago and New Orleans. She dealt with drunken printers, at one point finding women to replace them, and mounted lawsuits when she felt it necessary. By the end of this period she was producing the magazine in Chicago as well as St. Louis, traveling between the two cities. Even though her mother helped with the children and housework, Charlotte’s claim of a twenty-hour workday is probably not much of an exaggeration. In Washington, DC, over the course of a dozen years or so, Smith started two more periodicals, founded several organizations (including her most prominent, a union of female federal clerks), successfully lobbied for the introduction and passage of a great many bills in Congress, mounted investigations of working conditions for women and girls in several cities, proposed and lobbied for intelligent reforms not only of working conditions but of policing, education, health, and prostitution, and not only in Congress but in the legislatures of Massachusetts and of New

30

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

York State, and with the District Commissioners. Realizing the importance for labor of political action, she became involved in political campaigns, traveling as far west as Ohio to work against an undesirable candidate, and calling upon the president himself to gain support for working women. Through it all, Charlotte Smith attended Congressional sessions and hearings so faithfully—even when she did not have a bill in play—that one commentator said she put the congressmen to shame. Moreover, she usually lived where she worked, so that even after the normal workday ended, there would often be meetings in her rooms, and the many who came to seek her help would arrive at all hours. After shifting her base of operations to Boston in 1892, she continued at this same pace, forming new organizations, attending hearings on her various causes (especially labor matters), traveling to New York City for a new crusade, and spending months in Philadelphia working against the white-slave traffic. As she told the Washington Post reporter who interviewed her there in 1905 (“Like a Knight of Old,” May 7, 1905:3) “I have been interested in every project from plans for the betterment of social conditions to the establishment of playgrounds for Mamie and Johnny.” There were snide remarks at times that some of her many organizations consisted largely of herself alone, but if that were true, what she managed to achieve would be all the more impressive. And the reporter who compared her to a Corliss engine just after her arrival in Washington would have to be recognized as even more of a prophet than he already seems (“Widow Oliver,” Washington Post, Oct. 23, 1879:1). Yet Charlotte’s ideas and plans outran even her amazing capacity. She spoke of many books and other writings that either never materialized or have since been lost, such as her Representative Men of the West and South, which she intended to compile from the biographical sketches in the Inland Monthly, her proposed publication on the Philadelphia Centennial, and her work on the Hayes Administration reportedly in press in 1881 (Zanesville [WI] Weekly Gazette, March 30:1). Impressive as her body of work undeniably was, Robert Browning’s famous words might have been meant for her: “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for?” (from Andrea del Sarto, 1855, line 97).

1 Beginnings IF CHARLOTTE SMITH’S LIFE WERE EVER SET TO MUSIC, SIR EDward Elgar’s “Enigma Variations” would be a natural choice for the score. It would form the entire overture—her childhood and early youth—and recur as a theme throughout, especially when her husband made his fleeting appearance on stage or anyone mentioned her finances. It would also be playing softly in her Boston hospital room as she lay dying of pneumonia, visited only by her priest. But that is getting far ahead of the story. Smith was born Charlotte Odlum in 1840. It is no thanks to Charlotte herself—or to most of the available sources—that we can fix her birth date as well as we can, for in many of these records her age is both an enigma and a variation. Whether from vanity or merry mischief, she (or someone) gave census takers and other officials age information pointing to birth dates varying as much as seven or eight years.1 Luckily for us, however, she is trapped by two records: the 1840 Federal Census for Madrid Township, St. Lawrence County, New York, and a baptismal record from St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Ogdensburg, New York, dated August 13, 1840.2 She is not yet present in the one; she is the occasion for the other. Thus, sometime between the census taking and August 13 in 1840, Charlotte Odlum was born. Logan Reavis’s biographical sketch shows August 10 as her birthday (albeit in 1843).3 Her birthplace also varies from source to source. Both Reavis and J. Thomas Scharf, who includes a biographical paragraph on “Mrs. Smith” in the section on the press in his History of Saint Louis” (1883, vol. 1: 951), unaccountably say that she was born in Tennessee. Most of the census records, by contrast, agree with the St. Mary’s record in giving her a New York birthplace, and thus with the Ogdensburg Journal, which specifies the village of Waddington, where her parents lived in the 1840 census. Charlotte herself, however, repeatedly says that she is a Southern 31

32

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

woman by birth. The most detailed autobiography she ever provided claims Louisiana as her native state, and both her death certificate and some other newspaper articles say she was born in New Orleans. Of course if she actually was born in New Orleans, she could scarcely have been born on August 10, as her mother could not have reached upstate New York by August 13 for the firmly recorded baptism. She was aggressively without a middle name or initial all her life, snapping at all who tried to give her one. Before her marriage she was Charlotte Odlum. After her marriage she became Charlotte Smith, as if she’d never had another name. Her younger brother Robert’s middle name was Emmet,4 and one source gives Charlotte also the middle initial E., but since she ridiculed that source, and no other source expands the E., her insistence on the unvarnished two names must stand. Both her parents were born in Ireland, as already mentioned, and as census records and other sources show. Although Odlums were most numerous in County Offaly, Charlotte’s father was almost certainly the Richard Odlum, son of John and Hester Fanning Odlum, christened in Rosecrea Parish, Church of Ireland, in nearby County Laois on October 2, 1808.5 Odlum is an extremely rare surname, and this record agrees closely enough with Richard’s reported age (between twenty and thirty) in the 1840 census just mentioned. Why Richard Odlum left Ireland and where he entered the U.S. are both enigmas as well, but since his leaving pre-dated the potato famine it was probably a straightforward search for economic opportunity. In upstate New York in 1840 he was “engaged in agriculture.” Charlotte’s mother, Catherine Odlum, has not been found in the Irish records, largely because her maiden name is unknown, given variously as Bergen, Burgoyne, and Gray.6 Bergen seems most likely because Bergen relatives figure in her pension claim testimony, and because Bergen appears as her maiden name on her death certificate. There are many Bergen (or Bergin) families in both Laois and Offaly in the early nineteenth century, but no Catherine Bergen of the right age. Catherine married Richard Odlum on April 4, 1838. Her pension claim testimony gives this exact date, but fails to tell where they married, or how old she was at the time. However, since she was listed as between fifteen and twenty in the 1840 census, and thirty years old in the 1850 census (Clayton, Jefferson County,

1 / BEGINNINGS

33

New York), she would have been born about 1820, and thus eighteen at her marriage. This agrees with Charlotte’s statement in 1894 that her mother was nearly seventy-five years old (Boston Globe, Aug. 4, 1894:5). Though we cannot say whether the marriage was made in Ireland, Canada, New Orleans, upstate New York, or New York City, local gossip in Upstate New York suggests it was not made in heaven:7 As the Ogdensburg Journal laconically put it decades later, “Dick” Odlum “was married and had some children. . . . He lived with his wife a few years and then died or disappeared” (Baxter, 1978, col. 3). And indeed, in the 1850 federal census Richard is absent, while Catherine and three children are boarding with another family— the Wrights—and their six children. Whether caused by marital difficulties or economic necessity, or something of both, this was apparently not a final separation, since Charlotte’s two youngest brothers were born after 1850.8 The crowded living conditions revealed by the census—eight Wrights and four Odlums in one house—certainly argue that money was tight. Richard could well have been lured northward by the high wages and bonuses offered canal and railroad workers in Canada at that time, returning to his family each winter or whenever possible, saving money for a new start. Sad to say, that new start was not to be, for Richard Odlum died in Canada a few summers after this census, struck down by cholera and buried near Kingston, Ontario. Catherine was never even notified directly of his death, but learned of it from a neighbor’s newspaper. Nor was this Catherine’s only sorrow. Three of the couple’s children died, which though not unusual in those days would have been a cruel loss to their mother. These three lost children are small shadows so far, their births, baptisms, and deaths undocumented. But Catherine says under oath that she bore seven children, and by 1860 only Charlotte and three brothers—David, Robert, and George—remained.9 Catherine may not have taken to farming. Or the relatively primitive conditions of that period in rural upstate New York may not have appealed. In any case it is true that after Richard died, she never lived in the country for any length of time by choice again. She made her home successively in St. Louis, Memphis, Mobile, Philadelphia, St. Louis again,10 Washington, DC, and finally Boston. Richard himself may have hated farming. Or, the couple may simply have been mismatched, as the Ogdensburg Journal (May 26, 1885) suggests, the flamboyant

34

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

“Kate” proving too much for the unremarkable “Dick,” described only as “a man of ordinary intelligence.” Charlotte preferred a slightly more romantic image of her father, allowing Logan Reavis to say in the 1870s that Richard was born in Madrid, Spain, came to America when still quite young, and later engaged in “mercantile pursuits” in New York City (Reavis, 756).11 However, the only Madrid in Richard Odlum’s life was probably Madrid Township, NY, and he may indeed have been fairly forgettable. Catherine, on the other hand, according to the Ogdensburg Journal, “was at that time regarded as a dangerous person and was once or twice put under arrest, charged with crimes.” The historian who reprised this 1880s article in 1969 and again in 1978 comments that Catherine’s book about her dead son “might have been more interesting, had she written about herself ” (Baxter, 1978, col. 5). The 1885 article says that Kate was unfaithful to her husband at Waddington, that she continued this affair while living at Lisbon (Red Mills) and at Ogdensburg, and that “her children born in Lisbon and in Ogdensburg” were the sons, not of Richard Odlum, but of her paramour (Baxter, 1978, col. 4). Not content with this, the writer reports speculation that Catherine and Richard were never even married (“Some think he was a myth or a makeshift for the convenience of Mrs. Odlum”). Such cruelty to a grieving family (the story appeared upon Robert Odlum’s highly public death in 1885) smacks of something more than a desire to sell papers. Revenge, perhaps? Did “dangerous” Kate reject the writer thirty-odd years before?12 Whatever truth may be hidden beneath the roiling malice in this story, sizeable incentives were being offered to workers by railroad and canal-building companies in the 1840s and early 1850s. The St. Lawrence Republican of Ogdensburg calls Kingston, Ontario, a “Sister City” (Aug. 5, 1851). In the Republican’s “Canadian News” for October 11, 1853 (p. 2),13 the Grand Trunk Railroad Company offers an advance of two pounds, ten shillings (plus one pound for each family member) to any mason, laborer, blacksmith, or carpenter who will come to Canada to work on the railroad, the advance to be repaid at a shilling per week. Laborers receive five shillings a day; the skilled categories more. Richard and Catherine may have decided such an offer sounded better than farming, even if it meant a separation. As the separation stretched on, however, one or both may have found other partners. The Ogdensburg Journal certainly had a candidate in mind for Catherine’s consolation—the tall and athletic John

1 / BEGINNINGS

35

Mills. According to the Journal, this handsome neighbor of hers was probably the father of one or more of her younger children, since he contributed to their support. An alternative but less sensational explanation would be that Mills had kindly befriended a needy mother and her children. Firm proof of either view is lacking, but the Boston Globe’s obituary photograph of Charlotte (the oldest child)14 bears a striking resemblance to a fine photograph of Robert (the second youngest) in the Library of Congress. In any case, when she moved to Ogdensburg—about 1850, according to the Journal15 —Catherine Odlum began to keep boarders, a practice she continued for most of her life. She was also accused by the Ogdensburg paper of keeping a house of ill repute. In that era, of course, such an accusation could be triggered by merely having boarders of both sexes in the same house. And what of Charlotte in these turbulent years? As oldest child and only daughter, she doubtless helped her mother with the boarders and her younger brothers from an early age. Logan Reavis’s 1870s biographical sketch says that she was a sickly child, so that her schooling was spotty at best: “A very delicate state of health in her early years compelled her to leave school twice, and finally to abandon all idea of study” (756). According to Reavis, she was restored to health by a trip to Cuba in 1858 (ibid.). Charlotte’s later whirlwind energy casts doubt on the supposed sickly childhood, but the Odlums did indeed move several times during Charlotte’s early school years, and the accusations against her mother must have been distressing. Considering all this, either Catherine Odlum, the elementary schools of upstate New York, or Charlotte herself as autodidact—perhaps all three—deserve some kind of prize, for she grew up to use words like invidious correctly, to sprinkle French phrases and classical allusions through her writings, and to found, edit, and mostly write three periodicals, showing knowledge of Darwinian biology and European social and economic theory in their pages. Beyond Reavis16 and Scharf, the dry census entries and the juicy Ogdensburg Journal article, we have few other reports on Charlotte’s childhood. Among these few are the depositions by her mother and herself in her mother’s 1880s’ pension claim. This claim for Catherine’s support, based on the Civil War service and alleged death of her son David Odlum, was filed nearly twenty-five years after the fact.17 Unfortunately for the claimants, but fortunately for us, it was also after Cleveland’s

36

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

campaign for pension reform. Since there was no concrete proof of David’s death, the claim was disputed, and lengthy depositions were required to be taken, not only from the family, but from David’s superiors and fellow soldiers, and indeed from anyone who could possibly have any knowledge or evidence of what happened in Tennessee so long ago. Of Charlotte’s childhood, however, neither Charlotte nor her mother has much to say in the depositions, beyond listing the places where the family lived and for how long, and the stark statement that Richard died of cholera in Canada about 1853 (or 1856). As already mentioned, Catherine was not notified directly of her husband’s death, but had to learn of it from a neighbor who saw it in a newspaper. His body was never brought home. Needless to say, this loss compounded by mystery would have been traumatic for the children as well as for Catherine, and perhaps more so for Charlotte than for the other children, as she would have known her father best. The lack of detail on these earlier years is quite proper in the pension claim, since the focus was on the time of David’s disappearance. Another possible source on Charlotte’s childhood might have been Catherine’s admiring biography of her son Robert, written after his death in 1885, but the passages on Robert’s childhood are written as if he were an only child. Robert was born in Ogdensburg on August 31, 1851, and thus more than ten years younger than Charlotte. The book paints a brief but idyllic picture of his childhood, with many days spent happily swimming in the river near his home. “He almost lived in the water,” says Catherine.18 One wonders whether Charlotte was free to swim for hours each day as well, or whether she was busy helping her mother with the boarders and youngest brother George. In any case, Charlotte’s father’s death signaled the end of her childhood, for as she says in the pension claim, her mother was not really able to take care of business at that time, partly because of ill health, so Charlotte came forward, though only in her teens, and became the “man of the house” (PC:B, July 27, 1887:32). Money would certainly have been limited if they had had to depend on Richard’s estate, which, according to Catherine’s original Deposition A of April 27, 1887, in the pension claim, contained no real property, but only some personal property that was sold for about $350. However, they left Columbia, New York, where they had been living at the time of Richard’s death, spent a year or so in Ogdensburg, and traveled from there to New Or-

1 / BEGINNINGS

37

leans, where Charlotte received what must have been a substantial sum of money from relatives. Both she and Catherine were tight-lipped about this money. Said Charlotte in her Deposition B (ibid.:32–33), “I decline to answer how much money I got in New Orleans. That is my private business. I got it from a distant relative on my father’s side. I decline to answer as to . . . the name of the party from whom received. It was cash, not real estate, bonds, stocks, etc., but money. It was not left me by will. It was simply money placed in my hands. I decline to give any particulars at all. It did not come through my mother and I will not say anything more about it.” Presumably it was this money that enabled them to leave on their long odyssey, partly in search of medical care for Catherine for what sounds like an abscess. As Charlotte testified (ibid.:33): When we left New Orleans we traveled about two years, going first to St. Louis, then to New York, then to various cities—Boston, Detroit, Cleveland, and anywhere we felt like going—winding up in Montreal, Canada. During this time my mother had a very bad face originating from a diseased tooth, and she was being treated for it by the best physicians in the country. I had ample money, and she lacked for nothing. She was treated in New York by a Dr. White, in Montreal by Dr. Howard and Dr. Jones who was head surgeon of the Queens Hospital, where she was cured.

When Charlotte referred to the best physicians in the country, she was speaking no less than the truth, certainly about Dr. Robert Palmer Howard (1823–1889) of Montreal (though in this case the country was Canada). Trained first at McGill (M.D., 1848) and then abroad, he studied with Robert J. Graves and William Stokes. Back in Montreal, he joined the McGill medical faculty, and advanced rapidly to a professorship. He taught Dr. William Osler (one of the founders of Johns Hopkins Medical School). Later Dr. Howard became chairman of the medical board, secretary of the board of governors, and finally Dean of the McGill medical faculty, a position he held until his death. Among his many honors was serving as president of the Canadian Medical Association. Howard is considered one of the greatest physicians in Montreal and Canadian history. Although Dr. Howard had not reached the peak of his career when the Odlums consulted him and Dr. Jones, this episode presages Charlotte’s lifelong penchant for going straight to the top to get things done. When she wanted a Catholic marriage, she went to a bishop; when she wanted to express support for a local priest,

38

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

she wrote to a cardinal; she took policing problems to police commissioners; when she wanted to suggest admitting women to the Knights of Labor, she spoke to Terence Powderly himself; when she wanted a bill introduced into Congress she usually contacted senators; and on at least one issue she called upon the President of the United States himself.
Although this period ends on a high note, it was also a hard apprenticeship for Charlotte. Aside from the loss of her father, she could scarcely escape the lessons of her mother’s struggle to support the family alone, and society’s harsh treatment of her efforts. Though Charlotte probably could not have verbalized it at the time, she was learning firsthand the plight of the woman forced to provide for herself and her children without the aid and support of a husband. The seeds of her economic feminism were already being sown.

2 A Divided Family in Occupied Memphis: Charlotte Smith’s Civil War

THE VISIONARY LOGAN U. REAVIS SAW ST. LOUIS AS “THE FUTURE great city of the world” and rightful capital of the United States. “London is not fixed in history as the final great city of the world,” he said, but “heralds the one great city of the future, which all civilization is now hastening to build up on this continent.” (St. Louis, vi). Reavis was not alone in this view of the city’s potential, and the Odlums were certainly not alone in responding to it, as they did about 1858 (PC:A, Jul. 26, 1887: 14), settling in by 1860. Otherwise it is hard to imagine why they would choose St. Louis over several more illustrious stops on their recent odyssey. Of course, St. Louis had a large Catholic population—though the same could be said of some of the other cities they visited— and other Odlums already living there. Christopher Odlum, a carpenter, appears in the 1860 City Directory (p. 392), a Michael Odlum is in the 1860 census, and a Henry Odlum from Ireland was naturalized there on April 2, 1859 (St. Louis City Law Commissioner, 1851–1865; Second & Minors Papers, Naturalization Cards, St. Louis City Reel No. C 25816, Vol. J., 237). The surname is so rare that any or all of these other Odlums could have been relatives. Whatever the attraction, this was not the first and would not be the last time that Charlotte’s family was drawn to St. Louis. Just after the Odlums arrived there, things must have seemed to be going well for them. Restored to health by Montreal doctors (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:33), Catherine opened a boardinghouse. By summer 1860 she had five male boarders—at least two of them substantial fellows with real property of their own—and an Irish-born servant named Johanna Lynch. Charlotte, nineteen (almost twenty), was running a pattern emporium and dressmaking or millinery shop at 58 Market Street. Since her resi39

40

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

dence address is the same, it was probably a small business conducted on the ground floor of the boardinghouse.1 In 1857 or 1858, in New Orleans, Charlotte had received a direct gift of cash. As she stated in the 1880’s pension claim (B, Jul. 27, 1887: 31–2), [W]e were there to investigate some money matters of hers [Catherine’s]. . . . I got some money . . . from a distant relative on my father’s side. . . . It was cash, not real estate, bonds, stocks, etc., but money. It was not left me by will. It was simply money placed in my hands.

With money in hand,2 the family could now look to the future. They enrolled Charlotte’s brother David, the oldest surviving son, in the Christian Brothers school, paying the high fees ($150 a year for tuition and board) two years in advance. Charlotte later remembered them as even higher ($300 a year [PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:42]). Though Charlotte was the oldest child, no one seems to have considered that such a large sum might have been better spent on her than on this sixteen-year-old boy. Events would soon raise the question, even if tradition did not. Incidentally, Charlotte’s claim to have been the head of the family is supported both by the 1860 St. Louis City Directory, which lists Charlotte but not Catherine, and by the 1860 census entry just cited for the Odlums in St. Louis, which lists Charlotte first, in the traditional position for head of household. One would expect to find the widowed Catherine in that position, especially since she was only about forty years old, and had no son old enough to support her and take that place. Charlotte’s occupation is given in the census as milliner, with $3,000 in real estate and $1,000 in personal property. No occupation or property is listed for Catherine, who appears after all of her children.3 Though war between North and South seemed more and more likely, Catherine and Charlotte must have felt safe from direct involvement. Women, of course, would not be called to fight, Robert and George were still just children, and David was also too young to go. Volunteers were usually at least eighteen, whereas David is listed as sixteen in the 1860 St. Louis census. Things were going so well, in fact, that, a few months after the census taker’s visit, with David safely in school for another year, Charlotte and her mother felt free to respond to an ad in the St. Louis Republican offering a reward for information about Catherine Odlum or her heirs, regarding property in Cuba.4 Placing

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

41

their goods in storage in St. Louis and taking the two younger boys, they set out for New Orleans, and eventually for Cuba, arriving there in December (Dep. A, Jul. 26, 1887:14 –15; Dep. B, Jul. 27, 1887:33). Early in 1861 they returned to New Orleans, whether because of the war news or for business reasons is not clear. Charlotte and Catherine later stated that the family returned on the very day the Stars and Stripes were hauled down and replaced by the Confederate flag. And indeed, according to New Orleans Port Authority records, the manifest of the Steamship Cahawba, J. W. Smith, Master, shows the four Odlums as passengers, arriving at New Orleans from Havana on March 21, the day Louisiana ratified the Confederate Constitution (Bragg, 45).5 In either case, after some months in New Orleans, finding they needed certain papers that were stored in St. Louis,6 they wrote David at school, asking him to locate them and send them south. Imagine their shock and dismay when the reply came not from David, but from Brother Patrick at the school, saying that the boy had run off to be a soldier. David had “climbed the College wall and disappeared with 4 or 5 other young fellows” (Dep. B, Jul. 27, 1887:34), and the police had been unable to find him. In fact, as the military records show, this young ingrate had enlisted with Capt. Giles Smith’s Company C of the 8th Missouri Volunteers in mid-June, 1861, and left St. Louis for Cape Girardeau on July 29.7 Of course, in order to do so, he must have lied about his age, claiming to be eighteen when he was probably only seventeen at most.8 Worse yet, he enlisted under a false name so the Brothers could not trace him and bring him back. And he joined the Union Army, whereas the Odlums, with their strong New Orleans connections, might well have favored the South,9 or, like many Missourians, preferred to stay neutral.10 What was to be done? Charlotte and her mother would have held their own council of war in their New Orleans hotel or lodgings. Robert and George sent to bed early, the two women would confer urgently. Most mothers in Catherine’s situation would have written an angry or tearful letter to the boy’s recruiting officer or the regimental commander, and sent it upriver with the next boat. Some Catholic mothers like herself would have consulted a priest. Catherine may have consulted a priest, and she definitely wrote a letter—but she did not leave it at that. As she succinctly put it (PC:A, Jul. 26, 1887:16), “I had written about my son David and went North to look for him.” Leaving their goods in

42

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

storage in St. Louis—the fate of the shop and boardinghouse is unknown—they traveled northward into a zone of blockades and battles. The examining officer in the Odlum pension claim twenty-five years later asks how they got out of New Orleans. Says Charlotte, “That is what I would like to know” (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:34). They traveled, she says, first by boat and then by train, repeatedly detained along the way by various authorities. Catherine simply says she got a pass to go north to Cincinnati, but got off instead at Humboldt, Tennessee (PC:A, Jul. 26, 1887:16). If this was madness, there was some method in it. Charlotte and Catherine took the precaution of contacting General Grant when they reached Cairo, Illinois,11 offering him “valuable information” in return for an official query as to David’s whereabouts. Possibly they also received safe-conduct passes or some other kind of protection. Although this letter has not survived, there does exist an analogous letter from General Grant to Major General Halleck, dated just two months later, Dec. 12, 1861, granting a pass to a Mrs. Johnson of Memphis in return for “valuable information” (National Archives Record Group 393; U.S. Army, Continental Commands, 1821–1920, Dept. of the Tennessee 1862–1866). In any case, they now traveled rapidly from Cairo to Paducah, Kentucky, where they were given a house to live in by Grant’s orders, according to Charlotte’s testimony (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:35). At Paducah they finally found David, who had been there since September 8 (Adj. General’s Report, 128), and learned for the first time that he was serving under the name of Charles Rogers. The pension claim file gives no inkling what Charlotte and Catherine said to him at this initial reunion, but he might almost rather have faced the enemy guns than his mother and sister on that day. Apparently they made it up in the end, however, for the depositions speak of several visits. In early February 1862, David was ordered off to fight at Ft. Donelson, Shiloh, and other battles, but the family stayed in Paducah as long as he was stationed nearby—probably about a year. They then moved to Memphis when he wrote to say he would be stationed there. Memphis fell to the Union on June 6, 1862 (Robbins, 27ff ), and the 8th Missouri arrived there on July 21 (Adj. General’s Report, 129). Charlotte now ordered the family’s stored goods to be sent from St. Louis, found a house in Memphis, and moved the furniture in.

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

43

Only then did Catherine venture back downriver with her two younger boys and some cows she had bought in Paducah. These cows will be important later in the story. David visited the family in Memphis “several times,” the last on Nov. 23 or 24, 1862 (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:36); but then stopped coming. When Charlotte went to the Army camp to ask about him, she was told that he had failed to answer roll call one morning, but would probably turn up (ibid.: 38). She did not know it, but she would never see her brother again. When they realized David’s absence was not just a lark, or a brief escape from the awfulness of war, the family must have concluded he was either dead, captured, or a fugitive. A word should be said here about the battle experience of the 8th Missouri Volunteers, a trial by fire indeed for a teenaged boy. As the Adjutant General of Missouri recorded in 1866 (Adj. General’s Report, 128–29), [I]t was reserved for them to participate in a regular battle for the first time at Fort Donelson. Here their fighting qualities were put to a severe test. . . . On the morning of the 15th of February [1862], the enemy made a desperate attempt to cut their way out and . . . escape . . . About noon, General Lew Wallace [ordered] the 8th Missouri and 11th Indiana . . . to fill up the gap and drive the enemy back. How well this order was executed, is well known by all who have read the official reports. They had a very superior force to contend with, but moved steadily on through a murderous fire, up a steep hill, driving everything before them; nor did they halt until the enemy were driven inside of their breastworks, and their cannon rendered nearly useless by the murderous fire of the sharpshooters. Here they remained within easy musket range of the rebel works, until the next morning, when the white flag appeared and the fort was surrendered.

Then after heavy fighting below “the bloody field of Shiloh,” Their next battle was a desperate and almost hand-to-hand contest at Russell House, in front of Corinth, which occurred on the 17th day of May. Here they were largely outnumbered, and the rebels contested every inch of the ground. . . . Some idea of the desperate nature of this fight may be formed by reference to the list of killed and wounded, half of the entire number being either killed on the field or so badly wounded that they died within four or five days. The usual proportion . . . is five wounded to one killed.

Catherine and Charlotte must have heard about the ferocity of these battles. Doubtless hoping against hope that David would

44

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

nevertheless “turn up” as his commander suggested, they stayed on in Memphis. In any case, without word from David, and in the midst of a war, they had nowhere else to go. Eventually they bought the house the military had allocated them, at the corner of Tennessee and Talbot Streets (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:40), on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi (LaPointe, L-Oct. 17, 1990). Since it had been condemned because it stood in the firing path of some big guns, it was very cheap, about $1,600 according to Catherine (PC:A, Jul. 26, 1887:25). Now that they were in Memphis for the duration, the question became one of long-term survival, economic and otherwise. Their position was awkward in the extreme. They were the family of a Union soldier, living in a city occupied by Union soldiers, where most of the civilian residents were relatives of Confederate soldiers or Southern sympathizers—or both. In fact, Memphis was extremely strong for the Confederacy. With only 22,600 people, it sent a larger percentage (4,000 men) of its adult male population to war than any other city of its size. Nearly half of them were killed (Robbins: 28, 37). Among the Odlums’ neighbors were probably women who could have echoed the Nashville “SheRebel” who wrote to a Confederate soldier (Wiley, 25): John, as you are a prisoner, . . . I believe I will take your place and . . . kill live Yankees. . . . I wish I was a man. . . . I would tar their hearts out and cook them and make them eat them. . . . When they come [here] I will get some of their skelps and hang up in my room for you to look at.

During the Battle of Memphis thousands of residents watched from the bluffs above the river, expecting to enjoy a Confederate victory with their picnic lunch. But when the smoke cleared, the watchers looked down on wrecked and fleeing Confederate ships. Some went home in shock and sorrow, but others ran to the city and rushed the Yankees trying to haul down the “Bonnie Blue Flag” on Cotton Row, causing “quite a scuffle” before the Confederate standard fell amid curses against the invaders (Robbins, 27–29). As Union crews came ashore, Memphians closed all businesses and churches. Some churches later reopened, with federally appointed preachers, but no Memphians attended (ibid., 33). Citizens destroyed commodities before they could be confiscated, pouring barrels of molasses down the bluff into the river, burning cotton, and scattering bags of sugar over the ground (ibid., 29).

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

45

The Memphis Daily Appeal fled the city rather than be taken over, and published in exile (often on the run) throughout the rest of the war (ibid., 30). Smuggling of supplies to the Confederates was rampant, and General Sherman, the Union commander at Memphis in 1862, once said that no federal soldier could venture out of sight of the Union flagstaff without getting shot at. This was scarcely surprising since, as John Cimprich noted, “The Union army earned notoriety during the war for considerable theft and appropriation of goods from civilians” (337). Addison Sleeth, a Union soldier stationed at Ft. Pillow12 while the Odlums were in Memphis, participated in some of this “theft and appropriation.” He tells of raiding the countryside for horses, mules, and fat pigs. Cows, though more difficult to transport, were an even greater prize. On Christmas Day, 1862, three or four of our officers concluded to cross the river and take a hunt, some twenty-five or thirty of the boys going along. I was lucky enough to be one of the number. . . . Now we were not particular whether the game was wild or tame and as many cattle and hogs had been abandoned by the Rebels we had a jolly time killing a number of fat hogs and some other game. When we had sport enough for the day we took our game on board the boat and then concluded to drive about thirty head of fat cattle and take them over for beef.

All liquor confiscated from smugglers was supposed to be turned over to the hospital, but Sleeth and his comrades kept some for their own use. In fact, Sleeth states flatly that “there was no safety for life or property in Tennessee.” Certainly there was no safety for collaborators in the Memphis area. A patrol from Ft. Pillow reported finding a skeleton in a stream. The dead man, identified by boots and dental work, had been killed for telling the Federals about guerrilla movements (Sleeth, “Soldering,” 76, 88, 87). We might assume that slaves welcomed the Union soldiers, openly or secretly as circumstances allowed. However, the soldiers’ behavior sometimes soured what might otherwise have been a sympathetic reception. As Cimprich points out (337), Foraging expeditions at times took most or all of a plantation’s food supply. . . . Unscrupulous soldiers even robbed slaves of their blankets, cooking utensils, and clothes. Still worse, these scoundrels sometimes stole those treasured possessions that slaves held especially dear because they owned so little. One slave family suffered the

46

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

heart sickening loss of the husband’s Sunday hat and pants, the wife’s silk apron, and the daughter’s party dress. It is no wonder that when one planter captured a looting soldier his appreciative slaves severely beat the offender.

General Sherman had tried to control such behavior—and its repercussions—during his tenure as commanding officer at Memphis. Soon after arriving, he threatened to put all “unruly citizens” in straitjackets, and announced publicly that he would shoot any soldier convicted of robbing cornfields, orchards, or potato patches, or committing “any kind of pillage on the property of friend or foe in or near Memphis” (Robbins, 33). When a woman reported that soldiers had stolen $2,000 in gold from her, Sherman threatened to identify the offending party and shoot every soldier in it if the money was not in his tent within twenty-four hours. It was there in one hour (Robbins, 33). Relations between occupiers and occupied, already strained, grew worse after Major General Stephen Hurlbut replaced Sherman as commander of the occupying forces in December 1862. Peggy Robbins describes Hurlbut as “a man of little insight and no compassion,” who believed that military occupation was by nature hostile. Under his regime, trumped-up charges were used to seize citizens’ money and property. Buildings the Union Army wanted were declared abandoned whether they were or not, and the hapless occupants simply thrown out (ibid., 34). General Sherman had appropriated the home of a Miss Phoebe Fraser for his own family’s use during a visit. When he learned, however, that all the males in her family had gone to war, and her only means of support was the little school she taught in her house for $50 a month, Sherman had a check for that amount sent to her each month. When Hurlbut moved into the house, he not only paid Miss Fraser no rent—and stabled his horses in the parlor—but tried to get Sherman reprimanded for “rent payments to Rebels” (ibid., 34). Conditions in the notorious Irving Block prison, which Hurlbut kept crowded with both men and women, were so brutal that President Lincoln finally sent a commission to Memphis to investigate. This “Memphis Bastille” was abolished on the commission’s recommendation. Hurlbut’s tenure at Memphis was called “Hell-Under-Hurlbut” by those who lived through it. On May 29, 1864, the Memphis Daily Bulletin reported an attack on a store and home on Seventh Street, near Ft. Pickering, at 2 AM on May 27, “by a party of four or five Negro men.” After

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

47

trying to break a window, they attacked the door, and when the ladies inside cried out for help, the attackers opened fire on the house, narrowly missing some sleeping children. “The negroes were dressed in uniform, and returned toward the fort” after their assault on the house (p. 3, col. 2). Similar disturbances were reported on May 31 and on June 1, 1864 (Bulletin, p. 3, col. 2). In fact, things had gone so far wrong under Hurlbut that when General Cadwallader C. Washburn replaced him on July 2, 1864, he placed Memphis under martial law (Robbins, 35). Not surprisingly, when Nathan Bedford Forrest raided the occupied city at dawn on August 21, he was greeted by joyful Memphians waving handkerchiefs, pillowcases, and Confederate flags from their windows (Robbins, 36). In short, Memphis was not a comfortable, or safe, place to be a Union sympathizer, or even to be thought one. The Odlums seem to have coped by a constant balancing act. As their pension agent W. W. Jackson put it some years later, “They did everything they could to assist the Union soldiers, without specially attracting the attention of the disloyal people there” (PC:F, Apr. 27–30, 1887]. They tended their cows, selling butter to townsfolk (PC:A, Jun. 6, 1887:18), and furnishing milk to Union officers and to the Union hospitals at Memphis. Charlotte and her mother also kept Union officers and their wives as boarders, and did some nursing in one or more of these hospitals. A major difficulty in learning more about this hospital work is that there were twenty Union hospitals in and around the city of Memphis during the war years, and Charlotte and Catherine do not name the one(s) where they worked. We can probably eliminate the three hospitals at Fort Pickering, and the Gayosos Hospital where “Mother” Bickerdycke became matron in 1863 (Notable American Women, 145), for she was too outstanding to be ignored.13 This still leaves sixteen hospitals, most of which were closed after the war, if not earlier. Charlotte’s later claims for “relief ” based on these nursing services—at Paducah as well as Memphis—give some idea what was involved: HR 6290, introduced by Representative Houk on March 1, 1886, and parallel bills introduced by Senator Blair in May (S. 2558 and 2559) asked that the Treasury be empowered to pay to Mrs. Charlotte Smith the sum of five hundred dollars, for services rendered in the Federal hospitals of Paducah, Kentucky, and Memphis, Tennessee, as volunteer nurse to sick and wounded soldiers, and furnishing milk to same, from November first, eighteen

48

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

hundred and sixty-two, to April fourth, eighteen hundred and sixtyfour.

HR 6291, also introduced by Houk on that same date, asked for one thousand dollars, in full compensation for services rendered to seventy-five sick and wounded Union soldiers at Paducah, Kentucky, wounded in the battle of Shiloh or Pittsburgh Landing, April fourteenth and fifteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and feeding the same for three days, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, April twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixtytwo, and nursing the same from said 20th of April, 1862 to the first of November, 1862, and for furnishing milk to said sick and wounded during the same time at the rate of two gallons per day for the 180 days at 80 cents per gallon, and for luxuries, bandages, and so forth, furnished said sick and wounded soldiers.

On the other hand, Charlotte also ran the blockade with some frequency, though she later claimed she did it in order to get news of her vanished brother. In her own words. (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:40– 41): The money that I gave her [Catherine; to buy the Memphis house] came as follows: after David disappeared we did not know whether he had deserted or gone over into the Confederate lines, so I took a watch that David had sent by Express to Mother . . . at Paducah or Memphis. . . . I took the watch and chain to a jeweler . . . who valued it at $500. I took the watch then to a commercial man . . . and sold it for salt, cut feed, and groceries, tea, coffee, and quinine; put all in a boat, crossed the Mississippi River in the evening, one man with me, and went over to Arkansas, and sold them to parties within the Confederate lines, to parties that were waiting where we landed, to buy them. I got $1500 for that boat load and was back to Memphis the next day. I continued the business then. Oh, I don’t know how much I made. I made thousands of dollars [emphasis mine]. It was out of this money that I gave Mother the money to pay for the house.

If Charlotte actually made as much money running the blockade as she (and her mother, see Deposition A [Jul. 26, 1887], p. 190) claimed, they would certainly not have needed to sell butter or do nursing, which was poorly paid if paid at all.14 But perhaps they found it hard to sit idle and/or had some real compassion for the wounded. They could reasonably have hoped one of these battle survivors would have news of David Odlum/Charles Rogers. At the same time, Catherine and Charlotte may have felt

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

49

a need to ingratiate themselves alternately with their neighbors and with the powers-that-were—the occupying Union military— in hopes not only of news of David, but of lenient treatment for him if indeed he had run away. Moreover, they would not wish to reveal that they had money, for fear of marauding soldiers. This fear was well founded in general, as we have seen. Specifically, as early as 1862 soldiers had broken into the Odlums’ home, and the family had appealed to the military commander for protection (Jackson, Dep. F, Apr. 27–30, 1887:21). On several occasions the Odlums lost cows, killed or stolen by soldiers, and Robert had his horse stolen, or requisitioned. Charlotte pursued the matter of the horse after the war, and won a settlement of $145 in payment of the claim (Record Group 92, National Archives; Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, Claims Branch, 1861–1889, Box 10, Book B [1871], Claim #252), though the horse was originally valued at just $75. With such hostile relations between town and barracks, the Odlums must have felt caught in the middle, always on guard. Before the end of the Odlums’ sojourn in Memphis, they had something more serious to worry about: In April 1864 their house was razed—with insufficient warning, they claimed—to clear the firing path for the fort’s defensive artillery. They lost not only their home of two years, but all their private papers and a great deal of furniture and money. Furious, they protested strenuously to the military authorities at the time, but in the midst of a war— and with a commandant as unsympathetic as Hurlbut—their protests went unheard. The Odlums allegedly had particular difficulty with black (colored) soldiers, for some reason, and it was black soldiers who tore down their house. Two very different pictures of the long-term trouble and the razing of the house emerge in the pension claim documents, from Charlotte and Catherine’s statements on the one hand, and the military testimony on the other. Clearly there is a question about adequate warning to the Odlums, for a letter of April 3, 1864, from Colonel I. G. Kappner15 at Fort Pickering orders Captain Joseph Gates to destroy “the brick building in the re-entering angle between Batteries ‘L’ and ‘M’ the next day at 7 AM” [emphasis mine]. Catherine maintained in the pension claim (cited in Dep. O [Rodney Chipp], Aug. 10, 1887) that this eight-room brick house had been allowed to stand when others were destroyed in 1862, and that she had an order from General Ulysses S. Grant, dated

50

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

April 1862, “forbidding all persons to interfere with my property.” Nevertheless, On Monday the 4th of April 1864, Col. I.G. Kap[p]ner, commanding the 3rd U.S. C[olored] Troops, H[eavy] Art[illery], presented himself at my house with a body of about two hundred colored troops and about twenty army wagons and ordered said soldiers to begin immediately to tear down said house.

She asked him to wait till afternoon, or till her daughter returned from General Hurlbut’s headquarters, but he refused, alleging that Hurlbut had told her a week earlier that the house would have to go. Whether because the military had cried “Wolf!” too many times before, or because she thought Charlotte could persuade Hurlbut to intervene, Catherine had apparently made no preparations and stated (ibid.) that carpets, lace curtains, mirrors, fine paintings, glass, and china, and furniture of every description were ruined or demolished; a trunk containing a quantity of silver carried away, a fence surrounding an acre garden destroyed, a whole year’s wood, about ten cords, was also taken.

The Odlums’ pension agent, W. W. Jackson, stated (Dep. F, Apr. 27–30, 1887) that the family were given “only a few minutes” to vacate their house and, more seriously, that the demolition had more to do with revenge than with military necessity: Kepner [sic] was in command of the colored troops there and, as I understand, had been getting milk, butter, etc. from the family for nothing, and when this was withheld he viciously had their property destroyed because it was in his power.

Some twenty years later, the Odlums’ claim in Congress for compensation for this event stated that the “livestock, cows, hogs, poultry, horses, and household goods” amounted to $2,000, and the “houses and other property” were worth at least $20,000, but they would claim only $12,000 (Dep. O, Aug. 10, 1887 [Rodney Chipp]:79). And indeed, identical bills introduced into the House and the Senate (HR 7578; S. 2561) in April and May 1886, “For the relief of Mrs. Catharine Odlam [sic]” stated, Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

51

of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, empowered and directed, out of any money not otherwise appropriated by law, to pay to Mrs. Catharine Odlam [sic] the sum of twelve thousand dollars, in full compensation for houses, stock, household goods, and so forth, of hers, taken or destroyed by the military of the United States in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-four, near the city of Memphis, Tennessee.16

Colonel Kappner, when asked to investigate at the time, questioned whether the demolished house was even Catherine’s, suggesting it belonged to “the widow Horace,”17 and that Catherine had lived there for a year without paying any rent (Exhibit W, pp. 104 –5, citing Kappner to Gates, Dec. 27, 1864). He further claimed that Catherine had never furnished proof that the dead cows belonged to her—or that they were killed by soldiers at the Fort. Kappner’s parting shot was a shocker (ibid., p. 105): This family has made a business of it to annoy every General in command here, besides abusing in the most shameful manner in spite of their loyalty officers and men of colored Regiment and [using] language that would have brought other people to the Irving Block or out of the lines.

Documents from the Union provost marshal’s file of Papers Relating to Individual Civilians cover investigations done at the time (1864) on the lost cows. For example, the report of a Lieutenant Thompson to Lieutenant Joseph Copeland, an aide-de-camp at Fort Pickering, makes clear that between October 10 and November 27, Mrs. Odlum lost four cows (a brindle, a broom, a brown, and a white) plus a white calf, and that the family believed, not without some reason, that colored troops from Fort Pickering were responsible. The report gives all the grisly details of the blood and hides left behind where the cows were butchered, as well as one poignant statement that the white calf was “a kind of family pet.” Lieutenant Thompson also reports that Mrs. Odlum became very angry and abusive to him when he tried to get her corroborating testimony (after first talking with Charlotte and Robert), which is evidently part of what Kappner meant in his closing statement just cited. Considering the vital importance of cows and their milk, however, Catherine’s reaction becomes more understandable. Milk and eggs were the scarcest items in the wounded soldiers’ diet, and Mother Bickerdyke went all the way to Illinois to get cows and chickens for her patients (Chase, 50– 52; Notable American Women).

52

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

In the end, Lieutenant Thompson concluded that the four cows were “probably” killed and butchered by “persons living in Shiloh,” and that there was “no positive evidence of its having been done by colored soldiers belonging to the Fort.” If the Odlums felt even the slightest threat of being confined in the awful Irving Block, their balancing act takes on a new urgency. This alleged “abuse” of black soldiers that so outraged Kappner may even have been part of their camouflage. In any case, they were certainly not alone in this behavior. Women in the occupied South were notorious for insulting Union soldiers, as several soldier newspapers made clear (Wiley, 25). And Southerners were particularly hard on black soldiers. Not content with taunts and jeers, they accused them of plundering white homes and causing trouble among freed blacks. In occupied Memphis there was a “general harassment of black soldiers” that eventually caused “a tragic race riot” (Glatthaar, 214f ). Another part of the balancing act was doubtless Charlotte’s blockade-running. We have no other view of it except the one she and her mother give in the Odlum pension claim documents more than twenty years later—and this account cannot be taken at face value despite its being given under oath. Even if various parts of Charlotte’s testimony were not contradictory on this subject—which they are—she must have had conflicting motives as she testified about it. Charlotte is undoubtedly proud of her courage and enterprise as a female blockade-runner and, moreover, of her great financial success. At the same time, she must not raise any question in the examiners’ minds about (a) the family’s loyalty to the Union or (b) Catherine’s need for the pension. If Charlotte’s smuggling was once part of a strategy to suggest hidden Southern sympathies, she cannot now reveal these sympathies. So she backpedals from her initial testimony, stating that she needed some pretext to go into the Confederate lines to inquire about David/Charles Rogers, and that she actually had permission/passes from Union officers to do so. She also downplays her daring (and her offense, in Union eyes) by saying that she herself went across the river only once; thereafter she sent men across.
The Odlums survived the war—and apparently even prospered in its immediate aftermath. They moved to Mobile about the time of its capture by the Union on April 12, 1865, where-

2 / A DIVIDED FAMILY IN OCCUPIED MEMPHIS

53

upon Charlotte opened a store with $20,00018 worth of goods, and later put up her own building. Catherine ran two boardinghouses. Unless Charlotte indeed made “thousands of dollars” at her blockade-running, it is difficult to see how a twenty-fouryear-old single woman could have amassed such a fortune. Charlotte’s time in occupied Memphis, traumatic as it was, may have been the furnace that forged her iron will to fight for reform in later life, and possibly even provided part of the financial basis for her crusades and causes. Although she virtually never held a regular job,19 and got no support from her husband after their separation when her second child was only weeks old (1869), she was able to set up a bookstore in Newport, Rhode Island, immediately thereafter, and then stock another bookstore in Chicago. In later years, she always seemed to have enough money to acquire and furnish residences for poor working women, to travel from Washington, DC, up to Boston to testify before the Massachusetts legislature, or to New York City to participate in a strike—and, in the most spectacular instance, to get called a “bloated bond-holder” by an angry opponent in the power struggle over women’s role and representation in the Woman’s Building at the great Chicago Fair of 1892–93 (Weimann, 510). However, no riches could compensate for the loss of David, the oldest surviving son and thus the traditional hope of the family.

3 Carpetbagging and Marriage: The Postwar Years, 1865–1871

THE

FIRST CARPETBAGGERS WERE WILDCAT BANKERS IN THE

early American West, who set up shop just long enough to bilk the locals and then fled, presumably with the money (and very little else) in carpetbags. Later, and more famously, the term was applied to Northerners who rushed to the South after the Civil War, seeking financial gain under the Reconstruction governments. Bernard Weisberger described them as mostly “young men winging into undeveloped territory in search of profitable opportunities, with a light load of moral as well as of personal baggage” (Eisenstadt, ed., 550). Historians have begun to re-evaluate this derogatory tag carpetbagger, along with Reconstruction history in general. Weisberger himself reminds us that the term was a cartoonist’s label (ibid., 545). Whether Charlotte and her family could actually carry all their possessions in carpetbags after their Memphis house was destroyed, they were certainly not alone in their southward journey, for the defeated Confederacy had suddenly become a land of opportunity. John Hope Franklin lists some of the groups—federal agents, Northern teachers, Union soldiers discharged after serving in the South—who were part of the migration. “The movement,” he says, “was also stimulated by the large number of industrialists and investors who saw in the underdeveloped South an important new economic frontier” (ibid., 559). His ensuing article discusses the diverse motives and varying success of these incomers. In any case, the Odlums—Catherine, Charlotte, Robert, and George—came to Mobile, Alabama, in April 1865, about the same time as the Federal forces entered the city. Financial gain was certainly one of their motives. Charlotte had apparently 54

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

55

managed to rescue her smuggling profits from the Memphis debacle, and intended opening a drygoods store. That a drygoods store should succeed beyond the wildest dreams of such a venture in the North is hardly surprising, given the desperate wartime shortages of cloth and clothing in the South. Before the war most cloth and ready-made clothing came from the North or from abroad. After the blockade, Southerners had to make not only their own clothing but their own cloth as well, for the few existing factories could scarcely keep up with orders for Army uniforms. Spinning and weaving became a constant task of the girls and women. Old clothes were brought out to be worn again, and when too shabby were unraveled so that the threads could be re-spun. Bed linen and curtains were cut up for clothing and replaced by homespun; carpets became blankets; and people even went to tanners for hair from horse- and cowhides, mixing it with cotton for winter-weight cloth. Buttons were made from pasteboard, pine bark, and other homey materials, and women learned or resurrected the old ways of making vegetable dyes from local plants. A calico dress smuggled through the blockade could cost as much as $600 in central Alabama (Fleming, 236ff ). After years of such conditions, it is easy to imagine what eager customers and handsome profits awaited Charlotte in her new and well-stocked store. Catherine Odlum initially opened a large boardinghouse on Dauphin Street in Mobile, but soon left that house to open two others. One was at the corner of Royal and Monroe Streets; the other, where she lived, was at 55 St. Emmanuel Street (Mobile City Directory, 1866). Enter, to swelling strains of Elgar, the mystery man who became Charlotte’s husband. Edward E. Smith is a figure almost as shadowy as Richard Odlum. At this time, just after the Civil War, he was a wholesale grocer and commission merchant, a partner in the firm of Smith & Doyle on North Water Street in Mobile (PC:A, July 1887:19); Mobile City Directories, 1866). In 1866 he may have been living in Catherine’s St. Emmanuel Street boardinghouse, for the Mobile directory for that year lists his residence as “cor st em & theatre st”—and 55 St. Emmanuel Street turns out to be on that corner. At the very least, he was living at the same intersection, which is doubtless how Charlotte met him. According to Charlotte’s testimony in the pension claim (Dep. B, July 27, 1887:31), she and Edward were married in Mobile in January or February of 1867. The priest she mentions as marry-

56

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

ing them, Father Quinlan, was in fact Bishop of Mobile at the time. We know they did marry. They also had two sons: the first, Charles Edward, born February 7, 1868, and baptized March 16, 1868, at the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Mobile; the second, George Henry, born in Philadelphia on July 27, 1869. But here the agreement ends and the conflicts, or seeming conflicts, begin. No documentation of this 1867 marriage has surfaced in or around Mobile, either in local government records or in Catholic Church archives. And Charlotte Smith, her mother Catherine Odlum, and Edward Smith tell dramatically different stories of the marriage—its date, its location, its length, its ending, and even its nature—which is strange, considering that all three parties were either under oath or being interviewed for publication at the times of telling. In fact, at least two of these three accounts of the marriage bear so little resemblance to one another that if all of the names and some of the dates and places did not coincide, one could be excused for thinking they referred to different couples. Two succinct accounts come from sworn testimony by Charlotte and her mother in Catherine’s pension claim of 1886–87. Appropriately enough, since the focus of this testimony was Charlotte’s brother David’s Civil War service and presumed death, the two women have little to say about their time in Mobile after the war, and even less to say about Charlotte’s marriage. Charlotte testifies, as already noted, that she married Edward Smith in Mobile in January or February of 1867, and that she made a great deal of money in her drygoods store. She doubled her original investment—in fact, made $60,000 (Dep. B, July 27, 1887:45). Catherine says her daughter put up a building and opened a drygoods store of her own, stocked with $40,000 worth of goods (A, July 26, 1887:19).1 Despite this great financial success, the Odlums and Smiths soon left Mobile for Philadelphia, where Edward had relatives. As little Charles Smith was only three months old at the time (ibid.:20), the move would have taken place in May 1868. Once again, Edward was a grocer, with a store on Market Street.2 This must have been an unsettled and rather lonely time for Charlotte. Catherine, who lived with the Smiths, testified that they boarded for a while at the Bingham House, and then moved to Pine Street. Charlotte would have been pregnant again

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

57

by fall, and Catherine says, “No one visited us, and we visited no one, had no acquaintances at all” (ibid.:19–20). A credit report filed on Edward soon after their arrival in Philadelphia (R. G. Dun, PA vol. 145:49, July 25, 1868) says that Smith has been in the same business (groceries and meats) for “a number of years,” but has been at the present location only “some months.” The investigator allows that the store is “wellmanaged and supplied, with a stock estimated at $5000,” but finds Edward less successful than his brother Charles, of New York. Charles, in Provisions and Meats, is “a man of responsibility & means” who supplies the capital. Edward would be “good” for credit “with his brother’s guaranty or endorsement,” but not on his own responsibility. On July 27, 1869, as already noted, Charlotte and Edward’s second son, George Henry, was born. Three weeks later, according to Catherine’s testimony in her pension claim (A, July 26, 1887:19), Charlotte and Edward separated, Charlotte taking both boys. No reason for the breakup is given here. Her reason for taking the boys, of course, is obvious: in the nineteenth century this was the only way she could be sure of retaining custody of them. Charlotte and Catherine and the boys then went to Newport, Rhode Island, the testimony continues, where Charlotte opened a book and stationery store, and Catherine took care of the children (ibid., 20). At the end of the season, Catherine went to Washington, DC (ibid., 21), and Charlotte headed for Chicago, where she opened another bookstore. According to Charlotte’s little book on surviving the Great Fire, which destroyed her store and all its stock just three days after its opening, she had her children with her. Charlotte’s brothers Robert and George went to Washington with Catherine, George finding work at the Government Printing Office (ibid., 20–21). The Odlums, Charlotte, and her sons were reunited in St. Louis after the Great Fire—but that is getting ahead of the story. A startling bit of evidence that seems to contradict everyone’s sworn testimony (not to mention other censuses and known facts) is an entry in the 1870 federal census for Philadelphia. This remarkable record shows Catherine Odlum as head of household, born in Ireland, and a grocer(!); Charlotte Odlum (not Smith!), age thirty, without occupation; Robert Odlum, age twenty, as a railroad conductor; George Odlum, age seventeen, as a market stallkeeper; the two little Smith boys, now two years and ten

58

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

months of age, respectively—and Edward not at all. Charles E. Smith, the older boy, clearly born in Mobile, is listed as born in “Penna” like his little brother, as is Charlotte’s youngest brother George Odlum, who of course was actually born in New York before the family left that state. What can explain this census entry? Did Catherine keep an apartment in Philadelphia, and return there from Newport before going to Washington? Did Charlotte return to Philadelphia before going to Chicago, perhaps even considering a reconciliation with her estranged husband? And if so, where is Edward? Had he already left town, unbeknownst to her? Certainly he does not appear in Philadelphia in this census, either with his family or anywhere else. Did Charlotte come just for a visit, or to leave her children briefly with Catherine while she scouted out a bookstore location in Chicago? And in either case did she arrive just in time for the census on June 3? And who gave the census taker such confused information? From the 1860 census onward, Charlotte is usually listed as head of household, confirming her statement at the time of the pension claim that she came forward to be the “man of the house” after her father died. To the best of my knowledge, Catherine Odlum was never a grocer, nor engaged in any business except keeping boarders—or sales of milk and butter. The Irish-born grocer of the family was Edward—who, though no longer part of the household, seems almost to make a ghostly appearance here, his data merging with Catherine’s. All in all, the entry is a warning against uncritical reliance on census information. Edward seems to drop from sight after he and Charlotte separated, not appearing, as noted, in the Philadelphia 1870 Census (either with Charlotte and family or on his own), or in the Philadelphia directories thereafter. R. G. Dun reports that by August 21, 1870, he is “out of business” at his former location in Philadelphia (PA vol. 145, p. 49). Indications are that he spent part of the year with his older brother Charles in New York City (e.g., SHL) or traveling for the company, and part with cousins in the Philadelphia suburb of Bustleton.3 He surfaces again in the 1880 census for Jersey City, listed as a retired merchant and living in a boardinghouse. He reappears in 1883, still in Jersey City, when he files for divorce from Charlotte. The marriage described in this divorce petition is scarcely recognizable as the one described by Charlotte and Catherine. Edward says in his sworn statement that he and Charlotte were married on July 28, 1866, by Rev. John F. Chaplain, at the par-

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

59

sonage of the Locust Street Methodist Episcopal Church in Harrisburg (Dauphin Co.), Pennsylvania. This is some six months earlier and several hundred miles farther north than Charlotte places it. Edward can present no marriage certificate because Charlotte “carried it off ” with her when she left. But he says that Rev. William J. Stevenson, successor of Rev. Chaplain, will provide a transcript of the record (Divorce Petition of Nov. 2, 1883:4 –5). This document evidently was presented to the court, becoming Plaintiff ’s Exhibit 1 (ibid., 7).4 The question whether Charlotte and Edward were married in 1866 or 1867, and in Pennsylvania or Alabama, turns out to have an easy answer: both. Edward persuaded Charlotte to marry him on a brief visit to Pennsylvania in 1866. But that was a Protestant ceremony, and she insisted on a second, Catholic ceremony when he returned to Mobile a few months later. Thus, two marriages. One remaining conflict is that Edward says they were married in Harrisburg whereas Charlotte says they were married between trains in Philadelphia. To add to the confusion, there is a Rev. J. F. Chaplain in Philadelphia at the pertinent time— though not connected with a Locust Street Church. As the two cities are over a hundred miles apart, however, and no one needs two Protestant marriages, both stories cannot be true. This time, though, it appears that Edward is telling the truth, for church records from Harrisburg confirm the Odlum/Smith marriage, performed at what was then the Locust Street Methodist Episcopal Church. Both Charlotte and Edward list their residences as Mobile, and Edward’s occupation, as usual, is Grocer.5 But questions still remain. Why Harrisburg in the first place, since neither of them lived there, and it was a long train journey away from Philadelphia? Perhaps Harrisburg was the Reno of nineteenth-century Pennsylvania—an easy place to get married in a hurry. And why would Charlotte prefer not to say she had married in Harrisburg? Why claim in her 1892 Washington Post life-story interview that after breaking off her engagement to Edward in Mobile, she was lured to Philadelphia (where he had gone on long-term business) by a tale that he was deathly ill, and persuaded to marry him that very day? That she waited at the parsonage of a Protestant clergyman while Edward got the license and the ring, and they were married that same afternoon? And that immediately thereafter, she rushed back to Mobile by train? The likeliest answer is that the journey to Harrisburg would

60

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

have involved an overnight (or in any case unacceptably long) time alone with a man who was not yet her husband, which she did not want to become public knowledge. Where the couple lived and the duration of the marriage are also in dispute. Charlotte and her mother mention only Mobile and Philadelphia for the couple’s residences, and make it clear (again in sworn testimony) that the parties separated in 1869. Edward’s divorce petition, by contrast, mentions a brief sojourn in Mobile and another in Philadelphia, but claims he and Charlotte resided mostly in New Jersey. He further says that they lived together—and he supported her—for some seven years, until about December 1873, “when she deserted him without any cause and left the State.” Thereafter she returned only once, very briefly, and refused to stay with him, though he asked her to do so. At the time of her alleged desertion he claims they were living, and he still lives, in Jersey City, where his petition is being filed. A careful check of all the Edward Smiths appearing in the Jersey City residential directories from 1870–71 through 1891 shows no Edward E. Smiths at all, and only a few doubtful other candidates6 for Charlotte’s husband’s presence in the city. In fact, the only certain listings are those of 1880–81 and 1884 –85, showing Edward Smith, no occupation, at 550 and 548 Summit Avenue, respectively. These two agree with the 1880 federal census and the 1885 New Jersey state census, both of which show Edward in Jersey City, living in a boardinghouse. Edward’s end date for the marriage is clearly wrong, for Charlotte is running a book and stationery store in Newport, Rhode Island, during the summer of 1869 (Dep B, Jul. 26, 1887:20), in Chicago in 1871 (see her book on the Fire), and in St. Louis (city directories) soon thereafter. By 1873, in fact, she was already in her second year of editing and publishing the Inland Monthly in that city. Moreover, she later claimed to have sent Edward regular copies of the Inland, and if that is true, he did, contrary to his sworn statement, know exactly where she was. Edward states that the two sons of his marriage, ages fourteen and twelve, are both living, and he asks for custody. Obviously he does not know, or cannot reveal that he knows, because he has claimed to be unaware of Charlotte’s whereabouts, that the younger child died as a toddler in the early 1870s. Edward’s initial divorce petition of April 27, 1883, says little more than this, and Charlotte says nothing at all, for she was never notified of the proceedings. But when the case comes to

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

61

Chancery Court in Jersey City, Edward is not content to allege desertion, but claims that he suffered verbal and even physical abuse, and that his wife sometimes drank too much. According to the Chancery Court master assigned to the case, “It also appears from the evidence that the defendant was of a very violent disposition, and that she frequently without any provocation whatever used towards her husband very abusive language, and also frequently struck him. She also indulged to excess, at times, in the use of intoxicating liquors.”7 Incidentally the only “evidence” is Edward’s own statement, plus a single post-separation incident allegedly observed by a landlady. The conflict between Edward’s allegations of abuse, drink, and desertion, and the dramatic story Charlotte told in her Washington Post interview of 1892, after learning simultaneously of the secret divorce and Edward’s death, cannot be resolved at all. Charlotte undeniably had a temper, but I suspect that Edward painted such a black picture of her because (a) she was not present to contradict him, and (b) it would make his getting the divorce more likely. This latter motivation could also help explain Edward’s claim of an extended New Jersey residence for the couple. Edward may indeed have lived in New Jersey for some time—at least intermittently in the 1880s—but his claim of longterm residence, from before 1873 until the date of his divorce petition is not supported by the directories. It is also undermined by the letter from Jane Sale (see note 3). And Charlotte certainly never lived there. Charlotte’s story of the marriage in the Post interview just mentioned (July 4, 1892:2; hereinafter cit. as SHL) deserves to be excerpted at length: I was living in Mobile, Ala., shortly after the war, and there I met Edward Smith, who was at the head of a large wholesale grocery firm, Smith & Doyle. After a courtship of something like a year I became engaged to Edward Smith, and subsequently, at his solicitation, my mother and I put some money, amounting to about $50,000, in the business in which Mr. Smith was engaged. The time approached for our wedding, when one day Mr. Smith and I were walking along the street and he pointed out a man . . . he had selected to marry us. The man was a Protestant clergyman, and I being a Catholic . . . said that I intended to be married in the church

62

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

and in no other way. He refused to hear it and we quarreled. As a result of that quarrel I broke off the engagement. Following our quarrel, Mr. Smith closed out the business, saying that the war being now over there was no money in it, and [ . . . went] North to Philadelphia, where his family had lived. . . . Three months after his departure I received a telegram saying that if I ever expect to see Edward Smith alive again I should take the first train . . . to Philadelphia. After consulting with my mother, I decided to go, and did take the next train out of Mobile for the North. When I arrived at the station in Philadelphia what was my astonishment to see awaiting me . . . the very man [who] I had been led to believe was on his death bed. I was naturally indignant at being put in such distress of mind as I had been while on my journey, and reproved him for his conduct. He said he had telegraphed me because he could not leave his business, and he was afraid if he sent any other kind of message I would not come to him. I told him I intended to take the next train home, but found that it did not leave the city until 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and I had arrived in the morning. Finally we took a walk through the quiet part of the city, and the result was that I yielded to his importunities and we were married that afternoon. . . . [W]e went to the parsonage of a Methodist minister, where I waited while he got a ring and the license. We returned at once to the station, I having told him that I would not recognize the marriage until he had had another ceremony performed by a Catholic clergyman. I took the 4 o’clock train for home. In the autumn, Mr. Smith returned to Mobile and remained there two months, insisting that I should live with him. I refused to do this until we had been married a second time by a priest and he had made a settlement for the money my mother and I had loaned him. The money matter was not settled, but we were married by Father Quinlan,8 and then went to Point Clear, where we spent the summer. In the fall of that same year, Mr. Smith went back to Philadelphia to establish a new business and opened a store on Market Street. In the following spring, with our three-months-old child and my mother, I joined him. At his solicitation my mother sold all her property and put the money into the business for the benefit of her two sons. [After some time Charlotte receives a note from a dying man asking her to come and see him. She finds him living “in a miserable hovel . . . in the midst of filth and vermin.” Telling her a shocking tale about Edward’s brother Charles, who has brought him to this condition, and ill-treated his daughters, the old man warns her against Charles.] And right here, Mrs. Smith continued, all my great troubles began. In about three weeks I wrote a severe letter to Charles Smith, in which I told him some pretty plain truths. I asked my husband for a settlement of the money matters, which he had promised should be

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

63

arranged, but could get nothing out of him, and was unable to learn anything of his standing or anything pertaining to the business. My youngest child was but three days old when Charles Smith came to see me accompanied by my husband. He asked me why I had written him such a letter, and I told him what I thought of a man who would do as he had done. His only reply was that he would show me what he would do, and with that threat he left the room with my husband. That afternoon a four-horse wagon drove up to the door and everything in the room but the mattress upon which I was sleeping, a rosewood set of furniture I had bought in Mobile [for] $700, and a china set, was taken from the house. Charles Smith came back and gave me $2, which he said was a settlement in full of the money that was coming to me. My husband did not come back. The store at 1910 Market Street was closed and the goods were sent to New York. Three weeks after[ward] I went to that city and found my husband at the office of Charles Smith, and asked for an explanation. He told me that I had put my foot in it by writing to his brother and that he was powerless, for he was entirely in the hands of his brother. He could do nothing for me. I consulted a lawyer and found that I was simply powerless, and that there was no law in this country except a suit for support. I determined if I had to sue to be supported I would not be supported. By turning all the jewelry and other possessions that I had into money, I succeeded in raising $700. My inclinations had always been of a literary turn, and I determined to go into the book business. . . .

Quite a different story from Edward’s self-serving tale for the New Jersey Chancery Court—but still leaving much of the mystery of Edward Smith unsolved. We know he had two brothers in this country, Charles and Thomas, with business connections to New Orleans and family connections to Philadelphia; in fact, the three brothers were partners in Smith Brothers Company, based in New Orleans and New York City. Despite some census entries to the contrary, all three brothers, as well as several other siblings, were born in Ireland. They were the children of John and Jane (or Mary Jane) Forsythe Smith of Carbury Parish, County Kildare, Ireland, married in 1811 (Castle Cadbury Church of Ireland Parish Records, MFCI, 66). The connection is established by the headstone put up in their memory by “their son Thomas Smith of New Orleans” (Edward’s younger brother). The family were evidently fairly prosperous and substantial people, and their graves and Edward’s lie within the shadow of Carbury Castle. Carbury Parish records indicate that Edward was born on Jan-

64

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

uary 7 and christened on February 10, 1827. Other indicators of his age correspond reasonably well with this firm record: the R. G. Dun report of 1868 in Philadelphia says Edward is “about 40.” His tombstone reads IN MEMORY OF EDWARD SMITH OF PHILADELPHIA U.S.A DIED 11 NOVEMBER 1891 AGED 66 YEARS thus placing his birth in 1825. His death notice from the Philadelphia Ledger for November 14, 1891, says that he died on November 11, “suddenly, of heart disease,” at the Queen’s Hotel in Queenstown, Ireland, and that he was “late of the 23rd Ward, Philadelphia.” This notice puts his age at sixty-seven, which gives an 1824 birthdate. And if he was the Edward Smith, age twentyone, who sailed from Ireland via Liverpool to America on the Sea King in 1847, then he was born in 1826. Such small differences are normal for nineteenth-century records. Only the 1880 federal census record showing him as forty in that year is wildly off. In any case he was at least thirteen years older than Charlotte. His religious background was Protestant (Church of Ireland). No one knows what his middle initial E. stood for, much less what he looked like or what his personality may have been, except that he was clearly dominated by his more forceful and successful brother Charles. Even in death Charles slighted Edward, leaving outright legacies to other siblings and to several friends, but leaving Edward only the “usufruct” of his legacy (See Charles Smith’s holographic will). What we have are glimpses—sightings through the mist, as it were, and thus often contradictory. We know from Charlotte’s and Catherine’s pension-claim depositions, the R. G. Dun reports, Edward’s divorce petition, and from city directories of both Mobile and Philadelphia that Edward Smith was a grocer or merchant. But we know nothing about his education, and his birthplace, which we now know was Ireland, is wildly disputed in census entries and elsewhere. Other glimpses: as noted, in 1866 Edward appears in (or very near) Catherine Odlum’s boardinghouse in Mobile; in 1868 he appears with Charlotte as father of little Charles E. in the baptismal records of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Mobile (baptism March 16, 1868). One of Charlotte’s obituaries (Boston Evening Globe, Dec. 4, 1917:5:3) calls Edward “a wealthy merchant of [New Orleans],” when she married him, but says that

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

65

his death in the late 1860s disclosed “an insolvent estate.” Since he did not die till the 1890s, this whole report is obviously suspect. If Charlotte’s death certificate is correct, Edward never served in the military. The item “If veteran, specify war,” is not just left blank but lined through. But whether he escaped serving because of some disability or paid another to serve in his stead does not appear in the available sources. Charlotte begins consistently calling herself a widow in public records around the mid-1880s, often thereafter appearing as “wid Edward” or “wid Edward E” in the Washington, DC, city directories, for example. Catherine testifies in her pension claim (1886– 87) that Charlotte does not know whether Edward is alive or dead; and indeed, Charlotte was deeply shocked to learn that he was not only alive until late 1891, but had filed for divorce in 1883 without notifying her (SHL). Of course, widowhood was the most respectable status for a woman alone in those years, and a logical choice for a woman much in the public eye.
The whole period of Charlotte’s marriage is shadowy as well as brief. One of the most tantalizing glimpses from those days is an item from the Mobile Daily Register for February 12, 1867. In the list of “Letters Remaining Unclaimed in the Post Office” for February 1 of that year is one for “Miss C. Odlum.” Either her correspondent did not yet know of her marriage, or the marriage had not yet occurred. But if not, it must have been just days away. It would be fascinating to read that lost letter today. A much larger mystery is the uncanny correspondence between Enrique Parmer’s story “Out of Cloud into Sunlight,” appearing in the Inland Monthly of June 1876 (825– 41), and Charlotte’s sad tale of her marriage and betrayal in the “Story of her Life” interview of 1892 (SHL). In fact, the echoes are so precise that readers might wonder whether life was imitating art, or vice versa. Parmer’s story opens as his beautiful young Southern heroine, Ellen Danforth, rejects the suit of a wealthy Cuban and leaves Havana for New Orleans. At the same time, the three McClure brothers leave Liverpool for New York: grave, quiet, and honest James; William, the eldest, tall and “not unhandsome,” but hard, cruel, and cunning; and the youngest, Henry, handsomest of the three, easy in manner and at making friends, but “irresolute” and looking to William for guidance. The three Smith brothers also

66

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

sailed from Ireland via Liverpool—though perhaps not all at the same time. Once here, the McClure brothers separate: William to Wall Street, James to New Orleans, and Henry (eventually) to Mobile, the younger two becoming merchants before the Civil War. All three are bent on making money. William favors the North; the younger two, the South. This closely parallels the careers of the Smith brothers: Charles (the New York money man), Thomas (the New Orleans company man), and Edward Smith, a grocer or merchant in Mobile, though Charlotte never mentions their loyalties in the Civil War. Ellen finds the Confederate flag flying over New Orleans on her return from Cuba, just as Charlotte and Catherine found it upon their return over the same route. Originally from an old Southern family, Ellen settles first on a plantation outside Mobile, but when it is laid waste she moves into the city. The McClures grow rich from their dealings during the war, and Henry is head of the Mobile business for his family. He begins to court Ellen, now eighteen. Her mother is opposed, so she marries Henry secretly at “an uptown parsonage” (like the one Edward Smith found in Harrisburg?). The wealthy young couple, happy at first, enjoys a round of parties and balls, but soon Henry begins to drink. As Parmer puts it, he “might have been foremost in the ranks of Southern merchants, had he not succumbed to the indiscreet use of wine.” Whether Edward’s real-life downfall was alcohol, a weak character in general, or just lack of business sense Charlotte does not say, but he is clearly under Charles’s thumb and ill-treated by him, just as Henry is by William. Between Henry McClure’s drinking and William’s manipulations, Ellen’s fortune is squandered, just as Charlotte and her mother are defrauded of the money they invest in the Smith Brothers operation. In Parmer’s story, much of Henry’s money disappears as well (Chap. VI): There are men on this planet of ours so thoroughly bent on growing rich, that nothing will be suffered to be in the way. . . . The better influences . . . are beaten down, stamped into the dust. . . . So it was not only the weakness of the husband that perplexed the wife—it was being confronted with a new enemy—cunning and heartless, whose schemes were pushed, under the semblance of brotherly affection. . . . He reaped gain at the expense of his brother’s total ruin. The wife, thoroughly comprehending the treachery of the brother, hid

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

67

her own deep sorrow, and encouraged . . . the irresolute husband to battle on. She grew stronger, as he grew weaker.

Finally, the McClure brothers establish a branch of their business in Philadelphia, and Ellen and Henry go there. Henry makes “a spasmodic effort to regain credit, and repair past losses. But it was vain. . . . Henry McClure was doomed.” Not even the death of their first child stops him more than momentarily. There is a suggestion that William McClure’s campaign of ruin may have been based partly on jealousy: “Was there ground for the long ago forgotten suspicion that Henry had supplanted William in the affections of the younger’s wife?” (Parmer, Chap. VII). This would certainly explain the humiliating scene in which William, having closed the Philadelphia store and sent the goods to auction, comes “with a smile and a sneer,” and offers Ellen a monthly stipend if she will stay with him. She spurns him indignantly (ibid., Chap. VIII). Just so did Charlotte spurn Edward’s older brother Charles in an eerily similar situation. Charles, in fact, approached Charlotte twice, once in St. Louis and once in New York City in 1881, offering to make her son his heir and provide handsomely for her if she would divorce Edward and marry him. She sent him packing both times. Ellen, like Charlotte, flees with her children, becoming a writer to support herself and them. She lives in New York, then Newport, and finally Long Branch (then a New Jersey resort town). William tries to drive her away by complaining to police that she is stalking him, but the truth about his persecution of Ellen and Henry begins to come out, and soon William leaves town instead of her. Ellen suffers one more tragedy—the loss of both her surviving children in a ship explosion. Henry, too far gone to react, dies soon thereafter. She then travels abroad, where she refuses a marriage offer from a duke, while continuing to write about her world travels. She sees William at a party in Paris but refuses to speak to him. That night he is stabbed to death. Suspicion falls briefly on her, but nothing is proven, and later an old servant confesses to the murder on his deathbed. On returning to New York, Ellen learns that she has inherited one-ninth of William’s estate by an old agreement between the brothers that had never been revoked. Financially free, she travels briefly westward, half-looking for “A brother, who had strayed away from the paternal roof many

68

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

years ago, had wandered in Cuba, Mexico, and up and down the Pacific Slope, and at last been lost sight of and given up for dead” (ibid., Chap. XV). Charlotte, too, had a missing brother. Was this what she and the Odlums thought had happened to David? The art-life parallels extend even to Ellen’s being in Chicago at the time of the Great Fire, and fleeing to St. Louis just as Charlotte did in real life. Finally, Ellen returns to Mobile, where she is invited to do a reading at the plantation house where she was born. Among the guests is Leonardo de Castro, the suitor she refused at the beginning of the story, when she was sixteen. Now handsomer than ever, high in the favor of the Cuban government, and “worth a million of doubloons,” he woos her again, this time with more success: “It was Winter, and the flowers in the garden were all dead, but she felt a joy, an unmixed peace . . . looking out upon the black landscape, that was sweeter, and grander, and deeper, than when, years before, she had looked upon a lovelier one in the bright June morning” (ibid., Chap. XVI).
Charlotte Smith was not born on a Southern plantation, and probably not even in the South, though she often claimed a Southern birth. Nor did she reunite with a wealthy Cuban suitor after losing Edward. She never traveled to Europe, or won much recognition for her writing as such, though these may have been dreams of hers, too. No one murdered her brother-in-law Charles, richly as he may have deserved it. But the correspondences between Charlotte’s life and Parmer’s story are otherwise uncanny. Who was Enrique Parmer,9 and how could he have known so much? The most logical answer is that he and Charlotte became friends in the early 1870s. She told him the tragic story of her marriage with its emotional and financial betrayal, the Irish origins of the Smith brothers and the Civil War dealings of their company, the malign influence of Charles Smith, and the loss of her brother David, and Parmer wove them all into his fiction. Indications of the friendship may be indirect, but they are not far to seek. Nor are they without force: “Everyone knew us when we came to St. Louis in 1871 or ’72,” says Charlotte in her pension claim testimony (PC:B, July 27, 1887:44), and “Enrique Parmer, 511 Olive Street, knew mother.” Parmer’s law office and the Inland’s office were always close

3 / CARPETBAGGING AND MARRIAGE

69

together in downtown St. Louis, and in 1878 both offices were at 511 Olive Street. Parmer was one of the original contributors to the Inland Monthly, his essay on music appearing in the inaugural issue. A certain camaraderie would be inevitable among that small group, especially those who continued, as Parmer did, to contribute over the years. Besides publishing his writings, Smith praised Parmer to her readers. In the January 1875 Inland (170) she says, Enrique Parmer, Esq., furnishes an article of curious and intense interest for this number of the Inland, Like all his effusions, it will be eagerly read. We, with pleasure, welcome him back to the pages of our magazine, and have his promise to contribute frequently. Mr. Parmer was one of the first, as well as one of the ablest and most popular of our contributors. Our readers will remember his famous “Emancipation of Western Literature,” which produced such a sensation several years ago. He is a lawyer of very considerable ability, as well as one of the best magazine writers in the West.

And again in January 1876 she calls his contribution to that issue “a masterpiece of literary elegance, reflecting credit upon the author, who, besides being a lawyer of considerable ability, has attained eminence as a prose-writer, second to no one in the West” (726). Charlotte and Enrique even shared some unusual turns of phrase. In 1872 (April through June), the Inland published his serial “Drifted on to Fortune.” Thereafter, drifted became one of Charlotte’s favorite verbs. In the September issue for that year, she says that after she had “drifted to the Lake City” to redeem past losses, the Chicago Fire laid everything in ashes, but she still hopes to “drift on to fortune.” In an editorial on William B. Ogden, she says he is “drifting toward sixty” (Inland Monthly, Jan. 1875:167). It should also be emphasized that Enrique Parmer liked to base his fiction on real people and events. This is clear from his macabre “Buried, But Alive,” which is both a report on measures taken by the French and others to prevent people from being buried alive, and a tragic love story in which such an event actually happens (Inland Monthly, Jan. 1875:119–29). It is also clear from Parmer’s Prologue to his novel, The Maple Hall Mystery (1880), which begins: “Much, at least, of ‘Maple Hall’ is founded on fact. It is a memory of the past, and still fresh in the recollection of some living witnesses.” The prologue goes on

70

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

to speak of “weaving the disjointed facts and invention into something like symmetry.” Charlotte Smith moved on to her reform career in Washington, DC, while Enrique Parmer stayed in St. Louis. Interestingly enough, however, Parmer was to cross the family’s path at least once more: In the 1880s he was the notary for a deposition given in St. Louis for the Odlum pension claim by one of David Odlum’s fellow soldiers.
The echoes from Charlotte Smith’s life sounding throughout Parmer’s story have been accounted for, or at least rendered plausible. But a mystery in some ways more puzzling remains: why, given Charlotte’s traumatic experience (and her mother’s) she remained a lifelong advocate of marriage.

4 St. Louis Revisited: The Inland Monthly Years, 1872–1878 FRESH FROM TWO TRIALS BY FIRE — A MARRIAGE THAT WENT UP IN flames when her second child was still an infant, and the literal holocaust of her bookstore1 in the Great Chicago Fire—Charlotte Smith fled to St. Louis in 1871. Her first move to put bread on the table after her Chicago losses was to write a little book about the fire, which was published by E. P. Gray of St. Louis before 1871 was out. Modest only in length (eighty-four pages), the book was titled The Past, Present, and Future of the City of Chicago . . . Authentic and detailed Account of the Conflagration, by C. Smith. Smith’s “Note to the Public” at the front of the book thanks the good people of St. Louis for welcoming her and her children “among the . . . destitute unfortunates that have found a refuge here.” In addition to her text, the book contains two advertisements for what she calls “first-class business firms in this city,” and a list of St. Louis donors to Chicago relief, titled “Charity’s Call.” In fact, thanks to Charlotte’s advertising and promotional efforts, the book made $4,000 (“Story of her life,” Washington Post, July 4, 1892:1–2). The appalling statistics and descriptions of the Great Chicago Fire are available elsewhere in more systematic form. The main interest of this work lies in what Smith experienced or saw with her own eyes (5): “The continuous alarm of the bells awoke them, and in their fright they arose, gathered their children together— the authoress of this little work among their number, bearing in her arms two children half-clad—[and] amid smoke and flying sparks, took their flight, chased by the advancing flames. . . .” She never reveals how she managed to bring her children to safety, or what they did during the first few terrible days, but the following are scenes from her flight, or from her return to the city as soon as the fire was out. Passing Randolph Street, she sees: “a 71

72

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

group, apparently all of one family, picturesque in their half-clad condition. As they [lie] and sit about they have but one look stamped on their blackened faces, down which the tears traced their course—of hope abandoned” (20). Scarcely a block is without such scenes, but no one stays to look (20). “The roar of the gale, upon whose bosom [are] borne dense masses of smoke, burning brands, and even pieces of stone, thrills you as with electric sparks, and you hasten on to newer and more awful sights.” One of the most pitiful of these, she says, “was a group of middle-aged women on State Street, loaded with bundles, struggling through the crowd singing . . . ‘Chickery, chickery, crany crow; I went to the well to wash my toe.’ There were hundreds of others likewise distracted. . . .” (13). Most people evidently fled the city altogether to escape the flames: From all quarters of the city one long stream of men, women and children poured on to the prairie, there to stand in silent submission until the worst had been done. At night the camp of these tens of thousands upon the prairie presented, through all the horror of their position, a brilliant scene. As the hour comes round for tea, to such of those as have been fortunate to save from the wreck a few household implements, the rattle of pans and kettles chimes with the wails and sobs of many, while others stretched upon the ground, and more jocular than circumstances allow, hum their favorite air. . . . (21)

Back in the city, there were signs of hope even amid the rubble, for bricklayers were starting to work as soon as the debris could be cleared—and while the bricks were still warm from the Fire (25). Like other refugees who fled to St. Louis, the Smiths were initially sheltered in the rink, but Charlotte used the money from her book to fit up a home for her children, and began to do some newspaper work (SHL). Catherine, who had been in Washington, DC, where her youngest son George was working in the Government Printing Office, now joined her daughter.2 Charlotte Smith’s second breadwinning move in St. Louis was the Inland Monthly Magazine. Only a few months after her arrival Charlotte joined with another enterprising Catholic woman, St. Louis inventor and businesswoman Mary Nolan, to found the publication. No record exists of their meeting, but in 1872 Nolan lived and ran a Catholic bookstore at 822 Washington

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

73

Avenue, near where Charlotte and her family lived on Olive Street, and from 1873 to 1876, Mary lived at 1023 Washington. The Nolans, Odlums, and Smiths may have attended the same church.3 Initially, the Inland Monthly was a joint venture, with Smith as publisher and Nolan as editor. Venture is the right word, for the first issue (Mar. 1872:46) states archly that although “no magazine has ever yet been published in the U.S. from any other motive than a purely philanthropic regard for the public welfare, we have the candor to acknowledge that an improvement of our financial condition, has been one of the motives which induced us to undertake this enterprise.” Consequently, all subscriptions are gratefully received. The subscription price listed in the second issue (95) is three dollars per annum, to be paid in advance.4 The June 1872 issue announces several subscription “club” schemes. Though a year’s single subscription is still $3, four subscriptions can be had for $11, six for $13, nine for $18 (with one extra copy for the “getter-[up]” of the club), etc. Whoever brings in twelve full-price subscribers may choose among several premiums ranging in value from $12 for a dozen silver-plated spoons or forks to $15 for “A splendid Chromo called ‘The Changed Crosses,’ ” to $20 for a silver-plated cake basket. And the enterprising finder of twenty-five full-price subscribers will receive “a first-class Sewing Machine [to be chosen] from those . . . advertised in this number of the Magazine.” If Charlotte Smith had never done anything else but found and edit her three periodicals, she would deserve a small place in American history. This earliest of the three, the Inland Monthly, was the longest-running and most substantial of them, and the only one to be mentioned in Mott’s History of American Magazines.5 Thus this second sojourn in St. Louis, during the 1870s, is one of the most important periods of Charlotte’s life: her debut on the public stage. What distinguishes Smith at once from many other female magazine founder-editors of the nineteenth century, and her magazine from theirs, is that she was not a suffragist, and the Inland was not a women’s magazine. Though it contained some content directed toward women, and at times even a small Women’s (or Housekeeping) Department, it scarcely mentioned suffrage, the constant refrain of such periodicals as the Woman’s Journal, the Revolution (1868–72) and the Ballot Box (1876–81). In just the first two months of 1875, for example, the weekly Woman’s Journal carried at least thirty-five articles wholly or

74

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

partly devoted to suffrage, along with nine pieces on temperance and six on dress reform. Nor was the Inland’s focus either fashion or the home. It was, as already noted, a general-interest, regional publication for the more intelligent readers of the St. Louis area, and indeed of the nation. As Charlotte herself put it in 1875 (IM Jan.:168), This is not a woman’s magazine. It will not be the exponent of any advanced ideas upon any impracticable reforms; it will be as heretofore the exponent, as far as possible, of the talent, progress, enterprise, and material wealth of the great Mississippi Valley; hence contributions will be sought for, and accepted, from the pens of good writers of both sexes, ably written and sharp.

Fashion was not to be ignored altogether, and the May 1872 issue did discuss spring fashions. The July issue also dealt with fashion, in the Editorial Department (278). But the Paris correspondent proposed in the inaugural issue (IM, Mar. 1872:47) never materialized, and the possible French fashion plates in color were never mentioned again. The R. G. Dun reporter sent to evaluate Charlotte’s creditworthiness in December 1872 called it a magazine devoted to “Art, fashion, etc.” (MO vol. 44, p. 66). If this man’s grasp of business was no better than his grasp of the Inland Monthly’s content, he may not have been much of an asset to R. G. Dun. In fairness to him, however, he was neither a literary critic nor a historian of magazines. Frank Luther Mott, on the other hand, should have known better. He included the Inland in his chapter “Women and Their Magazines” (History of American Magazines, 1865–1885), classing it with a group of publications he considered “less important for . . . advocacy of women’s rights, but peculiarly interesting because they were published, edited, and sometimes set in type and printed, by women for women” (95). If Mott equated women’s rights with suffrage, naturally he found less advocacy in the Inland than in the suffrage magazines; and the Inland was indeed both published and edited by women—and even typeset and printed by women at times. But as we will see, Charlotte Smith was already beginning to focus on women’s economic rights, and her publication was for all interested readers, not just for women. Mott was also wrong about the dates of the Inland, ending it in 1876, whereas it actually ran into 1878.

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

75

A slightly more useful description of the Inland Monthly appears in Hyde and Conard’s Encyclopedia of the History of St. Louis, under “Magazine Literature” (1345). Early on, say Hyde and Conard, when the magazine was jointly run by Charlotte Smith and Mary Nolan, each forty-eight-page number contained literary items (such as reprinted English stories), society gossip,6 “write ups” on business men and firms, local biographies, and lithographic portraits. The only two contributors named besides Smith and Nolan themselves were Logan U. Reavis and Enrique Parmer. But even this description ignores the decidedly moral/philosophical tone and content, as exemplified in the inaugural issue’s lead essay on the ideal rich man (an American version of noblesse oblige), and says nothing of the poetry (sometimes humorous), the music (sometimes with actual scores), or the articles on politics and education. It also misses what is perhaps the most unusual feature of the Inland: its pieces on science or natural history, and technology. This same first issue (March 1872:22) contains a “horticultural letter” reprinted from the Birmingham (AL) Mercury, and promises essays on science and invention. In fact, the best descriptions of the Inland Monthly occur in its own pages: literary subjects served with pepper (spice) and salt (wisdom), “articles salted with common sense; gems of poetry, sparkling with the scintillation of a salt cave, or steeped in the briny tears of sorrow” (ibid.:46). And the first of many Inland articles dealing with women and money discusses the question of women and life insurance. This article is interesting for two reasons: (a) it is coordinated with an advertisement in the issue, and (b) it shows Charlotte already awake to woman’s position as economic underdog.7 It warns any woman who plans to go to work that she will receive but one-third of a man’s pay, and that she should provide for her children in case of a husband’s death. The fourth issue (June 1872) says the magazine is “devoted to Literature, Science, Humorous Sketches, &C.” Putting science in second position is astonishing in this era. The same two-month period that saw more than thirty articles on suffrage in the Woman’s Journal, January and February 1875, showed only three articles on science, two of which were on botany, an “acceptable” pursuit for women. Logan Reavis, entrepreneur and tireless promoter of St. Louis as the future U.S. capital, said Smith intended to publish “a magazine worthy of the great Valley of the Mississippi,” and that she did produce (St. Louis . . ., 756–57):

76

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

a magazine which soon won a leading position in the best of literary publications of the West, and brought to its support some of the best talents of the country. The diversity and excellence of its articles, from some of the best contributors the West affords, have made it a success, while it is to-day looked upon as a peculiar feature in the literary world of the Great West and is eagerly looked for by the intelligence and reading masses of the Great Valley.

Of course, as already noted, Reavis was himself one of the magazine’s early contributors, at various times Charlotte’s admirer (in the sense at least of calling her a remarkable woman), business partner, and briefly an editorial partner, so his praise could be considered self-serving. However, as we shall see, by the time he wrote these words—or at least by the time they were published, in 1876—Charlotte had already sued him for nonfeasance as a business partner (1874) and ejected him from any editorial role with the Inland. Thus, it seems all the more significant that he still praised. The Inland’s second issue, April 1872, opens (49–55) with several portraits and biographical sketches of “prominent citizens of the South and West,” which promise to be a regular feature. These are followed by an editorial on “Truth, Love, Purity, and Fidelity” (55–56), and a piece on oyster farming. The objections to eating the oysters alive are less surprising than the material on oyster biology (59ff ). April’s fiction includes an Irish-immigrant story called “Whistle for It” (58); the opening chapter of “Drifted on to Fortune,” by Enrique Parmer (68–73); a pseudonymous story called “The Last Hours of a Single Gentleman,” and two other installments of serial fictions (65–67; 83–89). Music is represented by the words and music to “When the Corn is Waving, Annie, Dear,” and an anonymous historical sketch on the harp written specifically for the Inland. Two poems by “Marie” and “Mary” may be Mary Nolan’s work; the Memorial poem on p. 96 is definitely hers. An editorial on life insurance occupies pages 89 and 90. Social news (the only thing remotely describable as gossip in either of the first two issues), is a report on a recent masquerade ball (80–83). It describes the costumes in some detail.8 The “Editor’s Desk” promises that the magazine will discuss all subjects of interest to “the South and West” (95). The advertisements in this issue are of some interest, including, as they do, an ad for the Woman’s Journal and one for E.P. Gray, the publisher of Charlotte’s little book on the Chicago Fire.

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

77

The May 1872 issue opens as usual with ads, then continues with likenesses and biographical sketches of the St. Louis mayor (Hon. Joseph Brown), and of Mrs. F. O. Day under the heading “Our Western Beauties” (94 –102). These sketches are again promised as a regular feature. In addition to a “May Day” poem by Mary Nolan (103), chapter 2 of Enrique Parmer’s serial (104 –7), and essays on kindness (122), on the imagination by Oria (108–9), and on “The Mississippi Valley” by Logan Reavis (123–24), the issue contains an article on canaries (115–17), showing considerable knowledge of their care and history, and ending with a poem “To a Canary Bird,” by “Charlotte.” The Housekeeper’s Department (147ff ) gives advice on how to buy a chicken, a recipe in rhyme, and directions for making a star pincushion. There is also a science column by W. Twing (138–39), and the Editor’s Department promises readers future excerpts from Silas Bent’s Gateway to the Poles, “a work in which all scientific minds take a great interest.” The June 1872 issue opens as usual with advertisements (for the Weed Sewing Machine and for a local clothier), followed by some self-advertising in the form of “Opinions of the Press” on the Inland. Interestingly enough, one of these is from as far away as the Caribbean: the Nassau Guardian and Bahama Islands’ Advocate and Intelligencer. It is more a description than a review, but does report “several interesting articles” in the first number. The St. Louis Republican has seen the second number, and calls it an improvement on the first, specifically mentioning “portraits of citizens and other illustrations” embellishing the number, and “a piece of new music.”9 Moore’s Rural New Yorker calls the third number (May 1872) a “popular and deserving St. Louis publication,” containing portraits and “original and readable” articles. This notice concludes that the magazine is “worthy of a liberal support.” The Western Watchman mentions an essay on Homer, Logan Reavis’s tribute to the Mississippi River, the pen-and-ink and other illustrations, Mary Nolan’s poem to May—and in fact says the issue “so overflows with good things” that readers must see it for themselves. Of course Smith and Nolan would naturally select favorable notices for reprinting, but noteworthy here at the very least is the wide geographical distribution of the reviews. The biographical sketches for June 1872 feature Missouri Governor B. Gratz Brown, with portraits of him and his wife (149– 53), and of the Cleveland-born singer Mrs. Edwina Dean Lowe (154 –55).

78

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

There are editorials on “Gentle Words” (153), on “Grumbling” (198), and on “True Friendship” (208); articles on Shaw’s Botanical Garden (St. Louis), a bachelor’s auction (local eligible males are humorously offered to the highest female bidders), the “American Vesuvius” (Mt. Hood in Oregon, 179), and “Productions of California” (183); as well as many poems, including one by Mary Nolan on the month of June (173). The longest feature is scientific, the promised report on Silas Bent’s lecture “Gateway to the Poles” (202–7). Technology is represented by “Setting Type by Electricity,” reprinted from the American Artisan (194). This issue has a decidedly cosmopolitan flavor, with poems reprinted from the Nassau Guardian and the San Francisco Morning Call (184ff ), a travel letter from the Bahamas by “Victorine” (195), a sketch of Cordova, Spain (155), and news from “our foreign correspondent” in St. Petersburg that the Inland’s account of the ball given for the Grand Duke was eagerly read and reprinted in Russia (199). The Editor’s Department mentions correspondents in Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, London, the Falkland Islands, and Brazil (211). A full page (214) is devoted to a report reprinted from the New York Sunday News, on the Chicago Fire Relief Committee’s purchases of sewing machines for the victims, tabulating them by brand, and comparing these purchases with the 1871 sales of the leading brands. Singer was both the leading seller in the United States in 1871 (181,250 machines), and the leading brand bought for the fire survivors (2,427 machines, as compared with 232 for the next-ranking brand, Wheeler & Wilson). The Inland’s June fiction consists primarily of the third chapters of three serials, Parmer’s “Drifted on to Fortune,” “The Old House by the River,” and Cousin Sally Ann’s “Betrothed on the Cross of the Sword.” Praised in the Editor’s Department (214), and thus of course advertised, are “a very elegant assortment of new jewelry at the establishment of D.C. Jaccard & Co.” (a local store); and A.A. Constantine’s patented Persian Healing and Pine Tar Soap (manufactured in New York). This issue also marks the first advertisement (220) for corsetmaker and patentee Mrs. E. J. Harding, a neighbor of Charlotte’s in St. Louis. With the July issue of 1872, Charlotte Smith became the sole proprietor and editor of the Inland. As Charlotte put it in the pages of the magazine for that month (280), “With the June number of the INLAND, Miss Mary Nolan ceased to have any further

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

79

connection with its publication in any capacity. And although her name previously appeared on the cover page, she was only incidentally connected with its publication.” These matter-of-fact lines reveal nothing of the causes or pain of the conflict, though the brief duration of the partnership suggests that two such strong-willed women found it impossible to collaborate. And the parting was probably not without rancor, since Charlotte feels compelled to belittle Mary’s contribution to the Inland in the second sentence of her announcement. Mary Nolan gives further hints about the nature of the clash in the first issue of her Central Magazine, which she founded with scarcely a break in stride.10 Says Nolan (August 1872, Editorial), the partnership heretofore existing between Mrs. Charlotte Smith and Miss Mary Nolan is dissolved by mutual disagreement. We wish it distinctly understood that articles tinctured with free-love doctrine, blasphemy, or infidelity will not be accepted from any contributor to this magazine. The sanctity of Christian marriage law shall be upheld, the veneration due to Almighty God from his creatures shall be promulgated, and all the old-fashioned virtues which gave to woman the halo of her highest glory, and to man, that wisdom of the soul surpassing the greatest height of material philosophy ever reached by modern solons, as the brightness of the sun surpasses the light from a farthing candle. The INLAND MONTHLY [sic] is not intended as an exponent of sectarian religious doctrines, yet its contents will be of a strictly Christian morality.

My scan of the Inland issues predating Nolan’s departure does not reveal what she found so objectionable. Clearly, Mary had a strictly traditional view of woman’s role—despite not following it herself—and Charlotte’s developing feminism may have become a problem. Moreover, part of Nolan’s quarrel may have been with the marketing of the magazine (for her own new venture she now asks “the support of the merchants of St. Louis and its cultivated citizens, not as a matter of charity to a St. Louis publication, but because we design making the publication a credit to the city”) and/or with Logan Reavis—who soon became Charlotte’s partner in the Inland—rather than with Charlotte herself. Nolan continues: “We are not of those who believe any publication foisted upon the public must receive support because the writer has chosen the future great capitol [sic] as a stepping stone by which the easy rolling carriage of fame may be entered; we prefer treading the hard cobble-stones of criticism—the test of true merit.”

80

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

The July 1872 issue of the Inland—the first under Charlotte’s sole control—expands to sixty-eight pages. Logan Reavis’s “The Future of American Civilization” (217ff.) is the lead essay. Poetry is still prominently represented, including “The Blue and the Gray” by F. M. Finch (242) and “The Heart’s Confessional,” by Mrs. S. E. Sells, one of the new contributors replacing Mary Nolan. “There will be other ladies of ability and earnestness of purpose,” says Charlotte, who will “aid in rendering the Inland a magazine well worthy of an honorable and respected place” in St. Louis and in the nation (280). First among these, in addition to Mrs. Sells (“one of the most talented and easy writers in the country”), is Mrs. Brained Barron, a well-known teacher and “a lady of great force of character as well as vigorous thought and ability.” The issue contains two unattributed book reviews, one ranking Reavis’s Life of Horace Greeley above Parton’s,11 and another praising Olive Logan’s Get Thee Behind Me, Satan as “a keen, sharp thrust at the radically progressive ideas [of ] a certain class of strong-minded women. . . . She has flung an arrow in the midst of those . . . conspiring to degrade woman” (281). Both this Olive Logan review and the piece called “Women’s Rites” (269– 70) sound decidedly antifeminist today, and were probably not written by Charlotte. The major essays are “The Last of the Republics” by J. Henry Shaw (a Fourth of July retrospective, 229– 42) and “Statesmanship” by Hon. Henry S. Foote (243–56).12 Other more or less regular features are a biographical sketch (“The Struggles and Triumphs of a Young Girl,” on Emma Abbott [226–28]); installments of the ongoing serial fictions (including the conclusion of “Drifted on to Fortune” [258–62]); the Housekeepers’ Department (277), where readers are advised “How to Cook a Husband”; some jokes (282); another “Bachelors’ Auction” (271–75); and, of course, the Editor’s Department (278ff.), which includes fashion notes. Some material is translated from French and German, but there is no science and no music in this issue. The August issue, Charlotte boasts, completes volume 1 of the Inland, contrary to the predictions of many, who thought it would not last so long. It had no great capital to start with, “only merit,” but “now circulates and is read in every state of the Union.” Further, the magazine is out of debt, and “its future existence assured beyond a peradventure.” She reports receiving “most flattering notices from abroad,” and vows to go on improving

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

81

until the Inland “will rank equal with any of the Eastern magazines . . .” (344). The issue opens with an essay by Reavis on the “Commercial Destiny of the Mississippi Valley” (295ff.), followed by an admiring piece on Horace Greeley, quoting him on injustice to working people (306ff.), and a piece on croquet by someone who has obviously traveled to France (328ff.). In this issue also appear a poem by Charlotte called “Twilight” (329) and two rare glimpses into her personal life, doubly valuable in the absence of surviving letters or personal papers. In a piece called “May Sunbeams” (342) she speaks of her “sunny, blue-eyed, flaxen-haired baby boy” named George, three years old. In the Editor’s Department (344), Charlotte announces that “our name is not Miss Charlotte Smith, but . . . we are the mother of two fine boys (we intend to make printers of them!), and if it was not for said boys, we would not be working twenty hours out of twenty four.” With the September issue the Inland returns to the illustrated biographical sketches promised in the beginning, with a group portrait and brief lives of the five Garrison brothers, successful businessmen and entrepreneurs in steel, gasworks, and railroads (348–51). All were born in New York State, but three now live in St. Louis, including the youngest, Isaac, president of the Home Mutual Insurance Company of that city. The tone of this piece, presumably written by Charlotte herself, is admiring: “And we know not which most to admire . . . the intelligent wisdom displayed in their choice of a life pursuit, or, having chosen, the indomitable energy and well-directed skill with which they carried their plans to a richly earned and exemplary success” (350–51). Early in the issue as always are the notices on the Inland from other newspapers and magazines. One of these is removed to the Editorial Department for response (411). After commenting favorably on the July Inland: “If this is a specimen brick, no doubt the sanctum will turn out good productions. The table of contents is varied, and contains some very well written articles, some that it were well to read and ponder[,]” the Lawrence, (MA), Daily Eagle makes a strange remark: “We think, on the whole, that the ghost of the lost cause flutters around the sanctum, but with so gentle a spiriting, that we feel inclined to go more than half way to welcome this candidate for literary fame and wealth, and heartily wish it success.”

82

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Charlotte’s reply gives another glimpse into her personal life: In response to the foregoing flattering encomium, we plead guilty of having been, in person and spirit[,] identified with the lost cause. Further, that we clung to it until every dollar’s worth of property was swept away by grim[-]visaged war, and our house left unto us desolate. And further, that having subsequently drifted to the Lake City in order to redeem the losses of the terrible past, a flame of fire enveloped the accumulation of several years of toil, and laid it in ashes; and then, that having pilgrimaged to the great central city of the West, we are once again ‘paddling our own canoe,’ and with the ‘God speed’ of good men and women, here and elsewhere, hope yet to drift on to fortune.

Elgar’s music swells loudly again, as we ponder how much drama and how much truth are mixed in this account of Charlotte’s finances, but clear enough are her allusions to the Southern cause in the Civil War and to the title of Enrique Parmer’s serial, “Drifted on to Fortune,” just ended in the July issue. One of the two major essays for September is by Henry S. Foote, “History Is Philosophy Teaching by Example” (352ff.). It may have been written for the Inland, as it carries no reprint line. The other is the first installment of a previously unpublished lecture by Horace Greeley, “Education As It Shall Be” (363–70). How Smith became acquainted with Greeley is not clear—perhaps through Logan Reavis—but there are several references to him in the pages of the Inland. This is scarcely surprising, since Greeley was the Democratic candidate for president in 1872. In any case, his opinion of her and her magazine must have been favorable, or he would not have entrusted this work, about which he obviously cares passionately, to her. Equally obviously, she has a high regard for him, calling him the “Hon. Horace Greeley,” and characterizing his lecture subjects as “of vital interest to the welfare of the people” (410). With regard to Charlotte’s developing thought, the following passage from Greeley’s lecture is notewothy (366:1): My experience tells me that poverty is inimical to the development of humanity’s noblest attibutes. . . .When Christ said, ‘Blessed are they who suffer,’ he did not speak of those who suffer from want and hunger, and who always see the Bastille looming up and blotting out the sky of their future. Such suffering brutalizes. True natures ripen and strengthen in suffering; but it is . . . not the anxiety lest work should fail, and the want of daily bread. The beauty of suffering is not to be read in the face of hunger.

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

83

The piece titled “Women” by L. B. P. (otherwise unidentified) is full of platitudes. The author draws a distinction between “true woman,” who fulfills her real role of inspiring and elevating both men and society, and “false woman,” who wants to come down off the pedestal (372): “For we find her now in the pulpit, at the bar, in the medical halls, in the jury-box and magistrate’s chair, in assemblies and conventions, and ranting about her rights, complaining of her bondage and subordination; forgetting that her dependence is her protection. . . .” For L. B. P., whoever s/he may be, the old order is divinely ordained: “False” woman forgets that her chains, as she calls them, were forged and placed upon her by the hand of the Creator, to bind her to her home and family. And her bondage should be one of love, forcing her to recognize these holy duties and sacred responsibilities that nature has imposed upon her; and only in the performance of them is she fulfilling the design of her creation.

And further, In no age or country has woman attained the high social position, or does she wield so great an influence, as in this. And yet with her own hand she would tear this chaplet from her brow; she would descend from this high position to which she has been elevated; let the scepter pass from her hand that she wields with so much potency.

Charlotte Smith was of course a Catholic, and always a strong proponent of marriage—despite her mother’s experience, and her own—and her attitudes toward woman’s role may have been ambivalent. Nevertheless it is hard to see her publishing this piece without gnashing her teeth. Logan Reavis’s critique of American journalism (376ff ) refers to newspaper editors, not magazine editors. Reavis finds the American press in “lamentable condition.” Though “almost allpowerful in its ability to do evil or good,” journalism lacks great guides and critics, and its practitioners are not educated for their task. Even a boy destined for business, says Reavis, must attend “some good commercial school preparatory to his advent in the mercantile business,” but “men engage heedlessly and precipitately in Journalism, without one moment of special preparation for the business.” Nor, he complains, do schools and colleges “make any effort to make Journalism a profession” (378). Curiously modern is his complaint that “Rarely does any man or

84

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

woman go before the public to advocate any cause, but he or she is falsely represented and belittled by the newspapers from one end of the country to the other” (379). Besides professionalization and education, Reavis proposes (380) a better moral tone and a higher order of intellect among newspaper men; more brains among the editors; and editors who own their papers. A new serial, “Mrs. Drummond’s Carriage” by Miss M. R. Housekeeper, opens in this September issue (386ff.). Perhaps the most interesting item in the issue—recalling Mary Nolan’s tirade upon leaving the Inland—is the hilarious “My Idees About Free Love” (401– 4), by Josiah Allen’s Wife (Marietta Holley).13 Prof. Theron Gusher (much-married lecturer on free love) comes to see Mrs. Allen, expecting to find a kindred soul, but finding instead a worthy opponent. When he asks whether she believes in “wimmin’s havin’ a right,” she says, “Just as many rights as she can get hold of[;] rights never hurt nobody yet.” But when he then asks whether she believes in free love, she says sternly, “I believe in rights, but I don’t believe in wrongs, and of all the miserable doctrines that was ever let loose on the world, the doctrine of free love is the miserablist. Free love . . . it ought to be called free deviltry, that is the right name for it.” Appealing to common sense, she points out to him that espousing free love is like wanting to stand up and sit down at the same time (403): “Each situation has its advantages, but you can’t be in both places at once, and this tryin’ to, is what makes so much trouble amongst men and women.” When he asks what should happen when a ‘soaring’ soul finds herself married to ‘mere lumps of clay,’ she replies, “I never see a man yet that wasn’t more or less clay, and to tell you the truth I think jest as much of these clay men as I do of these soarers[;] I never had any opinion of soarers at all.” Finally when he tries to talk again about “affinity,” and the idea that both men and women should be free to divorce if they do not find that magic in their marriage, she simply demolishes him: “[Y]ou ‘affinity’ here in my house again, young man, I will holler for Josiah” (404). It is difficult to imagine how Mary Nolan could object to this. The Editorial Department welcomes Miss Belle Bush as a new contributor, and then goes on to discuss the Presbyterian churches of St. Louis as the first installment of a regular feature (411). A piece on life insurance and material on “INLAND AD-

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

85

VERTISERS” follow (413ff.), including wholesale druggists, the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company, and the Belcher Well. The final section, “Wit and Wisdom” (420), mentions Charlotte’s more enduringly famous fellow journalist Kate Field, who has St. Louis connections. Thus the Inland soon settled into a fairly consistent format. Each issue opened with a steel engraving and brief biography of a prominent business or professional figure of St. Louis or the “inland” region, and contained what Charlotte called in her prospectus for 1875 “an unusually attractive list of TALES, SHORT STORIES, NARRATIVES, DESCRIPTIVE SKETCHES, PAPERS ON SCIENCE AND ART, POEMS, POPULAR ESSAYS, LITERARY CRITICISMS, ETC., by talented and well-known writers; together with a variety of able and interesting articles on the important questions of the day.” The Inland’s cover did change, however, first in May 1873. Charlotte designed this new cover herself, and described it as follows (335): The INLAND is presented in a new dress, and with an entire new face. The cut is our own conception, and we like it, believing it to be the very thing. That it is Western and Southern in its tendencies, can be seen at a glance, as the names of the States in this section on the border of the cover indicate. The female figure in the centre symbolizes the interest woman has manifested in the literature and progress of the West and South, while the artisan is prominently represented in the permanent progress of the great West, and the man of letters now looming up in the galaxy of American literature, stands on the left with a roll of manuscript, extending it to the central figure, whose fair hand bears a torch, indicative of light, progress, and wisdom, and typical of woman’s interest and labor in literature, the good, true, and substantial. In the distance rises up the great city, and in front the bridge spanning the great Father of Waters—this grand enterprise indeed being a monument of the energy, zeal and wisdom of Capt. Eads14 and others.

2. The Inland Monthly, May 1873. New cover designed by Charlotte Smith.

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

87

The cover changes again with the first issue of 1875, which is also the first issue published in Chicago as well as in St. Louis. In her Editorial section, Charlotte tells readers (168): We appear this month in a new outside and inside dress at great expense. We flatter ourselves that we look pretty well. We selected, as a figure to represent the progressive spirit of the great Mississippi Valley, the late work of Vinnie Ream15 entitled the “West”. We intended by this, not only to treat the INLAND with an appropriate figure, typifying a leading idea of which the INLAND is an earnest advocate, but also to compliment Miss Ream, who has labored industriously for years to win fame and excellence.

Looking ahead to a “controlling influence” by the Great Valley and its people, she foresees the development of a “Western literature, which must spring from the very bosom of its people.” Achieving this great end will be one of the leading purposes of the Inland. Thus, “Preference and encouragement will be given to Western talent, both male and female” (IM, Jan. 1875). But if the format and contents of the Inland became more settled, the same could not be said of the magazine’s business affairs—or of Charlotte’s own life. For example, in addition to starting joint publication of the Inland in Chicago, Charlotte and her family evidently moved to Chicago in 1875, living in the same building with the magazine’s offices at 145 Clark Street (PC:A, Jul, 26, 1887:22; Chicago Directories, 1876–1878). Whether this was a true change of residence or a kind of dual residence as well as a joint publication in the two cities is not clear, for Charlotte does not mention the move in her parallel deposition in the Pension Claim. However, she does call Chicago “our city” in an Inland Monthly article of that year (March 1875). The most traumatic event of this period was the loss of little George, Charlotte’s younger son, about whom she had written so charmingly in 1872. In the front of the Inland Monthly for May 1873, under the heading “Death in the Household,” she writes: Our readers will expect no apology for the late appearance of the magazine when we state that a darling child has gone from us. . . . Some ten days ago we were ready to send the magazine to press; then death, in the midst of other griefs, came, and took away one of our jewels, leaving us penetrated with a sorrow mothers only can feel in the loss of a dear, dear child. But we can write no more.

In 1877 she returns to this sorrow (May issue: 1278):

88

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Again, in the dreamiest days of the new spring, we watched a little tender life go swiftly downward to the river of death—a beautiful human life, whose going our poor hands could not stay. We remember all their vain outreaching. We remember how our lips, like his, were too cold for crying, too palsied for prayer. We remember how we strove, but vainly, to catch the faintest glimpse of the waves that caught and carried from us the life that was all life to us . . .

And Smith did have other griefs. Aside from this tragedy, and the earlier breach with Mary Nolan, there were repeated troubles with printers, a competitor trying to drive her out of business (“A Literary Attila,” IM, Jan. 1876: 726), and money problems that ultimately led to two lawsuits. Charlotte took on a business partner and then dumped him (1873–74), then sued the partner (1874); she also sued one of her own advertisers for nonpayment of a bill (1875). If the poem “’Tis Past, and Forever,” by C. S., is autobiographical, Charlotte may also have suffered a failed love affair in these busy St. Louis years. The poem mourns a lost love who has deceived and betrayed the poet (IM, July 1976: 967). The printing problems, plus a desire to give women employment—and training and good wages—led Charlotte as early as 1873 to propose a “Printing, Publishing, and Engraving house, where females are to be employed, and . . . to receive the pay of males” for the same amount of labor. She planned a stock company with shares at $25 each, and invited those who liked to talk about reform to do something about it instead, by buying the stock. Most of the city’s newspapers, she said, had already printed brief synopses of her plan, giving her “ample endorsement and a hearty ‘God speed’ ” (IM, May 1873:336). The plan was widely reported during the following year, not only in St. Louis, but as far away as Reno, Nevada (Nevada State Journal, Dec. 26, 1874). In late fall, the Missouri Republican reported a pleasant little reunion yesterday afternoon at the residence of Charlotte Smith, No. 1004 Olive Street., to celebrate the formation of the Women’s Printing company. This has long been a favorite project with Mrs. Smith, and with her usual pluck she resolved to constitute herself a nucleus around whom should gather all the competent, able-minded, and able-bodied printeresses who felt disposed to unite in the enterprise. She has about a half dozen associated with her who precisely fill the specification in the preceding sentence, and they are all busily at work setting out the December number of the Inland Monthly. . . . (Nov. 27, 1874:8).

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

89

Not till January 1875, however, did Charlotte announce, “This month’s Inland is the first fruits of our long-ago conceived plan of letting the mechanical part of the Inland be done exclusively by female compositors.” The venture fulfilled a long-cherished dream of Charlotte’s, and garnered considerable publicity for the Inland, but did not prove to be a permanent solution to the magazine’s production problems. For example, the January 1876 Inland was delayed, according to Smith’s editorial (726), “through the drunkenness and worthlessness of sundry printers.” Nevertheless, she persisted in her faith in the women, saying that in future “we hope to get a steady and reliable corps of women to . . . redeem our character for promptness and accuracy, which has sadly suffered of late.” Repeated references in newspapers and books to the Inland as a periodical edited, typeset, and produced entirely by women suggest that her faith was at least intermittently justified. Anna Dickinson16 was invited to join one of the incarnations of the Women’s Printing Company. Dickinson’s lecture career had faltered, and Smith urged her to invest in this business instead of going on the stage. But negotiations broke down when Charlotte missed a promised meeting because of illness, and the chance was lost (“A Woman’s Talk,” Freeborn County Standard, Albert Lea, MN, May 16, 1878:1). The money problems led Charlotte to take on a business partner, Logan Reavis, in March 1873. Obviously, she needed capital, and he was willing to invest. They certainly agreed on the bright prospects for St. Louis, and there may have been a brief romantic interest as well. Charlotte was in her early thirties and had been separated from Edward since 1869. She and her mother at one point moved out to Reavis’s suburban house, renting lodgings there (PC:A, July 26, 1887:21). Charlotte’s contribution to the partnership was the Inland. In return, Reavis was to put in $2,000 worth of type and printing material, and give Smith a half-interest in it. Further, he was to cover all outstanding debts against the magazine, and pay her a salary of $50 per month. Whether the arrangement was purely economic or partly romantic, it ended badly—in court. By March 1874 she was suing to dissolve the partnership, claiming, according to the Missouri Republican, that Reavis never paid the debts or the promised salary, and that the type he put in was not his (Mar. 29, 1874:10). As often happens, the newspaper account has a few things wrong. Reavis was to sell, not give, the half-interest in the type;

90

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

and he was obligated to pay the $50 monthly salary for only one year. Several provisions of the agreement were also omitted in the newspaper’s brief account: Reavis was to get half the profits of the magazine, his book on St. Louis was to be mentioned,17 and most important, he was gaining an editorial role in the Inland: “exclusive control of three pages of the editorial department, biographical sketches, and plates. . . . In fact, however, he may have tried to take over more than this allotted role. At least, this was the impression in some quarters, for the Galveston Daily News says it has received the Inland Monthly, a “boldly conceived and promising” periodical, “L. N. [sic] Reavis, editor” (Feb. 15, 1874:1). Countering Smith’s claim that he failed to uphold his end of the bargain, Reavis claimed that she and another party18 had tried to cheat and defraud him. In the end, the case was dismissed because Charlotte could not produce a written agreement to support her allegations, even though she claimed that Reavis had stolen her copy of the said agreement. It is of course not surprising that the newspaper account presents only a brief summary of the case (St. Louis Circuit Court Case No. 19221, June term 1874: Dissolution of Partnership), omitting the many complex claims and counterclaims. What does seem surprising is that it fails to mention Reavis’s objection to the suit on the grounds that Smith is “a married woman and is incapacitated to sue or be sued in the courts of this state . . .” The fact that her suit was nevertheless allowed to proceed should have set a precedent for overturning this aspect of the common law of coverture. This lawsuit against Logan Reavis broke new ground in another important way as well: Charlotte chose a woman lawyer, Phoebe Couzins, to represent her.19 Neither the important Reavis lawsuit nor her demanding work on the Inland could keep Charlotte Smith from rushing to the defense of an underdog. In 1874, as she would often do in analogous cases later in life, she took up the cause of the widow of Captain Joseph Fry, murdered in Cuba by the Spaniards (Jennie Mort Walker, 506ff.). The St. Louis Globe had started a fund for Mrs. Fry, aiming to raise a thousand dollars, and by midDecember of 1873 the fund was less than fifty dollars short of the goal. In a letter to the St. Louis Democrat, dated February 28, 1874, Smith says that she visited the widow in New Orleans and found her household “in very straitened circumstances indeed.” She also found that Mrs. Fry had received only half of the sum raised

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

91

by the Globe. Smith posits no explanation for the disappearance of the money, but asks on behalf of “a stricken wife and seven helpless children” that “the great heart of St. Louis,” and that of New Orleans, “rear a home for the widow and orphans of the hero and patriot.” In response to this appeal, “a Main Street Bookkeeper” offered in the Democrat of March 4, 1874, to contribute $100 to buying a home for Mrs. Fry, provided that a hundred other gentlemen do the same. Smith replied in turn (ibid., Mar. 5) with more details about the family’s troubles: Mrs. Fry is ill and unable to go out. She makes wax flowers, but cannot sell many because New Orleans abounds in natural blooms. The oldest daughter has been offered a teaching post, but finds no vacancy when she tries to take it up. The family’s only support is a crippled son who works for a newspaper at a meager salary. “God bless the ‘Main Street bookkeeper’!” says Charlotte. As a result of Charlotte’s “agitation,” a second draft for $500 was sent to Mrs. Fry on March 11, 1874, with an explanation for the delay (Walker, 512). “Had other large cities responded as generously as St. Louis, Charlotte concludes, “Captain Fry’s family would have been placed beyond the reach of want” (ibid., 513). Charlotte’s 1875 lawsuit against the Collier White Lead Company also tested the right of a married woman to sue or be sued, and in this case the newspaper not only mentioned the fact, but put it into the headline: “Question Whether Married Woman Can Sue Or Be Sued, Tried,” (Missouri Republican, Nov. 2, 1875: 5). Despite the headline, and despite the Collier lawyers’ specifically raising the Coverture question in court, however, the suit, asking $180 for an unpaid advertising bill, did proceed. At first it was partly successful, the Justice of the Peace ordering Collier to pay $75 plus costs. The company appealed, however, and the Circuit Court awarded Charlotte only $50 (Smith v. Collier, jacket summary). Thus, again, a precedent was set, whether widely recognized or not. By January 1875, Smith had taken on the complications of publishing the Inland in Chicago as well as St. Louis. As early as 1873 she had already opened a branch office in New Orleans (IM, Mar. 1873; IM Jan. 1875, Editorial). Another disruption to ordinary schedules in the mid-1870s was the U.S. Centennial celebration of 1876 in Philadelphia. Charlotte evidently did attend (IM July 1877:93), and advised others how to get there (by rail) in the June 1876 issue (892–94). Well in

92

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

advance she had tartly noted that the women of Concord, New Hampshire, were being taxed for the celebration without representation (i.e., without being able to vote for their representatives) (IM May 1875). However, given Charlotte’s keen interest in everything that went on, her scanty references in the Inland to this great event are puzzling—until we learn that she intended to put out a “grand illustrated Centennial number of the Magazine” in 100,000 copies, to sell for $3.50 (IM, June 1876:899). I have been unable to locate any such work, and a year later (IM, July 1877:93), she wrote, without any reference to the special edition: One year ago this month, we were all shouting over the hundredth birthday of our government. . . . The war was over, and we assembled at Philadelphia to bury the hatchet and smoke the pipe of peace. The South was to come North and take a few lessons in go-aheadiveness, and the North was to receive the South with cordiality, admire its pluck, pat it on the back, and say, “You did wrong; but you won’t do so again.” Out West we strained a point and scraped up enough to “go to the Centennial. . . .” Some of us pinched for months before, and some of us for months after the trip, and it was worth some self-denial— worth a good deal, in fact—for it was part of our education as a nation, and our self-conceit was alternately flattered and taken down by comparison with other nations in arts and manufactures. A very improving process this. . . .

These years also awakened Charlotte to the woes of the poor, and specifically to the hardships of working women. Her education would have been jump-started by the Panic of 1873. In her Editorial for September of that year (417), she says: “And the orphan’s lament also reminded us that winter brings with it many griefs and a vast amount of suffering. Thousands of motherless and fatherless ones drift up and down our streets, and are hid away in comfortless homes. Let us remember the suffering of this great city. . . .” Later, Smith refers specifically to the Panic “causing losses and disasters to business men, and throwing thousands of working men out of employment, bringing due distress and suffering upon the laboring population” (IM, Jan. 1875:152). In March 1877 she writes a full-length piece titled “Winter and Want,” which is worth excerpting at some length (1163ff.): It is Christmas, and toward the resorts of pleasure and darker haunts of dissipation, the feet of thousands on thousands are tend-

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

93

ing, in eager pursuit of the enjoyments in which their hearts delight. . . . If we were to look no further, earth would, indeed, seem a paradise. But there is a darker side. . . . [F]or at the moment when the affluent crowd the festal board, the destitute are sitting amid the circle of their famishing children, brooding over a hopeless fate. Let us look at one of these, and we can find them . . . often in the shadow of our own dwellings. This man has seen better days, but the present is misery and the future is torture. It matters little . . . the cause of his downfall. The fact of his sufferings . . . ought to be sufficient. The winter has interfered with the sources [of his] scanty sustenance, and now he can no longer find employment. Winter has doubled his necessities; also, bereft him of his only means of supplying them. He gazes vacantly at the ashes of what was once a fire; he runs again over the possible resources by which starvation may be avoided. Employment is beyond hope. He has been at every place where there was a hope of getting work. Even the friends that he has at times helped, are destitute. . . . What are the joys of Christmas to him? He only knows that the coming New Year is the first of another month, when a further pittance of rent must be promptly paid, or his family thrust into the street. . . . Now, while he ponders, a strain of music floats in through the broken window. . . . [The cost of that] wild revelry would have given his children bread till . . . spring, when he could earn bread again. Shall we wonder if he rushes madly forth to take what the seeming injustice of fate, or his fellows, [has] denied him? Should we wonder if the morning find him the inmate of a station house or dungeon, or even with the stain of murder upon him?

Charlotte continues with a parallel picture of an impoverished needlewoman on this same holiday night: See the dancers, floating sylph-like, in festivity and joy; then glance into the next garret, in which the lone widow plies her busy needle. It is midnight. Toil has surrendered the waking world to revelry, and yet she plies her needle until daylight breaks in upon her. Incessant application has made her frame rigid. She would fall if she were to attempt to rise. She has no choice, however. She toils on even after the sun’s rays play upon the bare floor. . . . Her children look to her for bread; the father sleeps in the grave . . .; the wretched, meager reward for her daily and nightly exertions is the one frail plank between all she has left to love and starvation, and for them she struggles on. But what, when her health fails, as it must? Reader, do you think these pictures are rare? Alas, no! there are thousands of families in our single city, who, during the winter, are situated as deplorably as I have stated. . . .

94

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

After touching on some of the causes of the problem (“the four thousand nurseries of drunkenness, idleness and crime,” for example), she admits that lamentation is of less avail than even the egg shell of private benevolence to drain this ocean of human anguish.” She likewise dismisses public charity, which has “sometimes, prevented starvation [but] never pretended to stay the tide of calamity or dry the tears of the fatherless.” She acknowledges that we all need to help when we see want, but beyond that, she maintains, “We need plans which would diminish, infinitely, the stupendous aggregate of crime and misery.” Two disadvantaged groups that particularly aroused her pity and anger were women inventors and prostitutes. Though not published until the first issue of her Woman Inventor periodical in the early 1890s, the story “Why I Became Interested in Woman Inventors” belongs to these St. Louis years. In 1875, says Charlotte, a young woman came to her after reading an Inland Monthly article on “practical occupations for women and their position as inventors at that period.” This young woman, named only as Mary S. by Charlotte, was desperately poor. Her inventor father, prolific in ideas but lacking in capital or business sense to develop them, had always been forced to sell his inventions cheaply to unscrupulous lawyers and agents. Eventually the family became so impoverished that at the mother’s death Mary’s younger sister had to go to a “charitable institution,” while Mary herself lived in an attic room and worked in a drygoods store for $3 a week. Mary had obviously inherited her father’s inventive talent, for she had fifty-three inventions to her credit—thirty-seven begun by her father and completed by her, plus sixteen of her own. But she fared no better than he in money matters. Despite selling all sixteen of her own inventions to agents, she had no tools except what Charlotte gave her, all her inventions had been patented by others, and she died a pauper before she was thirty. “She implored me before she died to see that in the future justice was done to women inventors,” says Charlotte, and this was exactly what she determined to do. However, the original spark for interest in women inventors may have come from Mary Nolan. Nolan was herself an inventor, holding two patents on a new building material called Nolanum. Although the patents were not granted until 1877, Nolanum was shown at Philadelphia in 1876, where it won a Centennial Award. Nolan may already have been working on it when she

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

95

and Charlotte were partners. And of course, as noted, Mary S. contacted Charlotte on the strength of an article that mentioned invention as one kind of women’s work. Thus perhaps the Mary S. story explains not so much how Charlotte became interested in women inventors as why their cause became a crusade with her. At first there seems to be no obvious trigger for Charlotte Smith’s sympathy with and eventual crusade on behalf of prostitutes, though of course prostitutes are working women too; and anyone who traveled and did business as widely as she did in the nation’s major cities, could scarcely help confronting the socalled social evil. Moreover, in 1870, St. Louis had put in place an amazingly advanced program for dealing with prostitution, combining regulation and licensing, health inspection and health care, with a reform/retraining program (Sneddeker, 21ff.).20 Charlotte would have been in the city with an excellent opportunity to observe the experiment in operation before its demise in 1874. Strange to say, considering her later crusade, she does not comment on this experiment in the Inland. National comment and publicity were not lacking, however. For example, in April 1873 the celebrated Lyceum lecturer Anna Dickinson, mentioned earlier in this chapter, came to St. Louis to lecture on “the social evil” (Sneddeker, note 86). This may have been when Charlotte met her, though there is no mention of Dickinson’s visit in the Inland issues that spring. As early as 1873 (IM, Sept.:207), Charlotte notes with approval that St. Louis’s police chief has been punished for ill-treating a former prostitute who is now married and living a respectable life. “The principle of making a person suffer for the sins of the past, when those sins have been repented of,” she says, “is most infamous.” In 1875, in the January issue of the Inland, Charlotte quotes a sermon from a Rev. Peck of Chicago, asking women readers to look kindly on “fallen women,” and angrily at “the men who ruined them”—but to pity and help both if they reform (173–74). Well aware of the economic roots of prostitution, she asks in this same passage whether men have ever uttered one word of sympathy “for an unfortunate girl who had fallen by reason of her poverty” (174). And in the May 1877 issue, her “Woman’s Rights” essay says, “she who . . . snatches one poor, despairing girl from ruin, builds a temple more precious than Solomon’s or St. Peter’s” (1278). In

96

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

the same passage she reminds her readers that “no human being is lost until she or he is buried in a hopeless grave.” As for working women in general, Charlotte knew firsthand about women who needed to earn their own living. As already noted, her mother, Catherine Odlum, had supported the family by keeping boarders from the early 1850s onward. Charlotte herself was running a small shop before she was twenty (1860 St. Louis Directory). During the Civil War in occupied Memphis, Catherine and Charlotte worked as nurses in a Union Army hospital and sold milk and butter to Union officers. Though these were not wage or factory jobs, by the 1870s many thoughtful people were aware that women workers were being paid starvation wages. In the January 1875 Inland, a section called “Winter” in the Editorial Department (169) shows Charlotte’s awareness of poverty and unemployment. When a railway line advertised for ten drivers, she notes, three hundred men responded. By 1876 Charlotte was advocating, in an essay called “Women’s Work” (IM, July issue: 962ff ), that women “become economically independent, as far as possible, partly by practicing economy till it becomes a habit.” But, she adds, “The fact is, every true woman ought to be sufficiently skilled in some trade or profession to make a living, no matter how affluent a husband or parent may be” (962). Writing of workers’ problems when labor is too plentiful, Smith recognizes that women workers are worse off than men in this situation (IM May 1877:1247): “The cry for help comes up to us,” she says, “from every city.” She also calls upon women to help other women (1276) and notes the significance of the Married Women’s Property Act just passed by Connecticut, which she calls the forerunner of equal pay for women (1329). In the important May 1877 issue, Charlotte’s “Woman’s Rights” essay (1273ff.), laid out a kind of reform platform—what she called “some of the prominent outlines of a reform that have been foremost in our thought the past year.” Striking here—mentioned not once but twice—was a call for equal pay for equal work. Instead of sending missionaries to the heathens, “Let us give [Man] a grand lesson in the business of humanizing and Christianizing our fellow-beings. Let us begin by demanding for our sex compensation for labor equal to that of a man” (p. 1276). On page 1278 she says, “We need not go to India or Africa to find objects of charity, of pity—objects of the gravest and most solemn consideration.”

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

97

Let us pursue, she continues, among other things, “a vigorous, persistent effort to compel employers to give, for the same amount of work, the same compensation, regardless of sex or condition.” By the July 1876 issue of the Inland mentioned above, Charlotte Smith was showing an increasing interest in politics. “In fact, she says, “Some ink-slinger in Southern Illinois thinks we have too much politics in the magazine . . .” Smith claims not to belong to either major party—though she clearly backs Tilden (just chosen by Democrats as their presidential candidate at the St. Louis convention). She also claims not to publish a political magazine as a general thing. But, she says, “when we choose to make any remark about a prominent man, we make it, and don’t care a rush who likes it” (994). Further on the Tilden slate, she says, “for once we have the prospect of a president and vice-president who might exchange places without detriment to the public service” (978). Her editorial endorses Tilden (992). In the earliest Inland issues, Charlotte had seemed to admire wealthy and successful men almost uncritically. Now (May 1877:1326ff.), she begins to differentiate between those—like Astor, Stewart, and Vanderbilt—who, in her view, leave the world no better than they found it, and those who, like Farmer John Conant of New Hampshire and the creators of the Peabody Foundation, leave large sums to charity and the poor. In short, during the 1870s in St. Louis, Charlotte Smith awakened to some unpleasant economic realities in society at large, and began to consider what might be done about them. She was already becoming a reformer. Advanced as Charlotte’s thinking undeniably was, these reform impulses did not arise in a vacuum. The winds of change were already stirring in this country, blowing outward from Seneca Falls after 1848, and from Lynn, Massachusetts, and the Daughters of St. Crispin after 1869. Charlotte Woodward describes the scene as women converged on Seneca Falls that summer morning (cited in Wertheimer, 104): “we dropped all our allotted tasks and climbed into the family wagon. . . . At first we traveled quite alone, under the overhanging tree branches and wild vines, but before we had gone many miles we came on other wagonloads of women bound in the same direction. As we reached different crossroads, we saw wagons coming from every

98

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

part of the country, and long before we reached Seneca Falls we were a procession.

Woodward, incidentally, was the only woman at Seneca Falls who lived to see suffrage ratified, and vote in an election (ibid., 103). The Daughters of St. Crispin were the first national union of women workers, and themselves called for equal pay for women, though unlike Smith they tended to soften the absolutism of that call. In the early days of women’s entry into the workforce, employers often only hired women because they could pay them less, and if they had had to pay them as much as men, would not have hired them at all (Wertheimer, 169–70). By 1875 Smith mentions a successful lecture tour by Phoebe Couzins, through Western as well as Eastern states, and a women’s congress held in Chicago, attended by “some of the most talented women in the country” (IM, Jan. 1875).
The impact of the Inland Monthly is hard to judge. Circulation would be a major clue, but Mott points out that “A discussion of circulations . . . before the period of circulation auditing must be prefaced by the statement that there is no more than a relative significance in the available figures” (6). The only sources would be the editors’ own statements and inferences from numbers of advertisers. As early as August 1872, Charlotte says the Inland circulates and is read in every state in the Union (344). A year later, she claims 5,000 subscribers for the Inland, says again that it circulates in all the states of the Union—and declares she wants 50,000 subscribers before the Centennial (IM Aug. 1873:135). The stature of its contributors would be another indication. Except for Horace Greeley, virtually none of the Inland’s writers survived in literary memory into the twentieth century. However, by May 1873 the roll of contributors has expanded significantly beyond its beginnings just two years before. In this issue (336) Charlotte lists the following writers: Hon. Samuel T. Glover, Prof. Wm. T. Harris, Prof. A. J. Conant, Prof. D. J. Snider, Peter E. Bland, Esq., “D. A. J.,” Thos. E. Garrett of the Missouri Republican, Frank Fitz Randolph, Henry Cobb, Esq., Alexander N. De Menil, Esq., Logan U. Reavis, Esq., all of St. Louis; Ex-Governor Henry S. Foote of Tenn.; J. Henry Shaw, Esq. of Ill.; Dr. J. H. Blue of Nebraska; Gen. G. P. F. Beauregard of Louisiana; M. U. Bur-

4 / ST. LOUIS REVISITED

99

well, Editor of De Bow’s Review, New Orleans; Edgar Fawcett and Wm. E. Tinney of Tenn.; Mrs. S. E. Sells of St. Louis; M. R. Housekeeper of Ill.; Belle Bush, Marie S. Ladd, Mabel Wallace, and Clara Wilburn, among others. Certainly the magazine was well known in its day. Charlotte notes that the Inland was “the first periodical in the Northwest conducted by a woman, in which there were women compositors, a woman foreman, so to speak, an entire editorial staff of women.” It has been both a literary and a financial success, Charlotte continues—which goes to show that women are fitted for the profession of journalism. Consequently she and some other women formed the Inland Club, “for the purpose of supporting and carrying on the Inland School of Journalism.” Among the “lady Journalists” present at the formation of the Inland Club were Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, editor of the Woman’s Kingdom of the Inter-Ocean; Mrs. Virginia Fitzgerald, news editor, and Miss Alice Hobbins, reporter of the same paper; Miss Annie Kerr, literary critic of the Times; Mrs. Dedrich, news editor of the Post; Mrs. Cynthia Leonard, formerly editor of Sorosis; and Mrs. Charlotte Smith, Miss Harriet Dolsen, and Miss Ella Giles of the Inland Magazine. Other ladies have since joined. Men can become life members and have the social privileges of the club, but its business meetings are always behind closed doors, with lady members only. This may be the first school of journalism in the United States, and if so, worthy of note. It was almost certainly the first such school for women. Its purpose was to train women “not only for the profession, but also as printers, proof readers, wood engravers, and stenographers” (IM, Sept. 1877:182–83). With regard to the Inland Monthly’s financial success, Charlotte speaks of gaining subscribers from several other magazines (IM, Sept. 1877:182): “While other periodicals have been falling like grain before the sickle, the Inland has stood firm, and absorbed, one after another, the subscribers to the St. Louis Lady’s, Chicago Lady’s, Southern, Kansas, Chicago,21 Milwaukee, LakeSide, Overland, Busy West, and New Orleans Magazines.” Looking at the thriving Chicago branch, she was now hoping to establish another in Milwaukee. It is worth emphasizing once again that Charlotte’s magazine was rare among magazines edited by women, in that it was neither a suffragist organ nor a ‘woman’s magazine’ focused on domestic matters, fashions, society news, etc. In fact, in addition to essays, fiction, poetry, and editorials, its content continued to

100

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

include science, clearly because of the editor’s own interest, as the book reviews for July 1876 show (996). Among other new works, Charlotte recommends the Annual Record of Science and Industry, edited by Spencer F. Baird, as “interesting to students and persons of scientific tastes” and also for reference. She calls A Brief History of the Microscope not only necessary for scientists and physicians, but “a pleasant companion and the means of almost endless pleasure and profitable study.” Charlotte also mentions spending time in Thomas F. Nelson’s Chicago store, examining microscopes there amid “the largest stock west of Philadelphia or New York City” of mathematical, philosophical, and optical apparatus, and recommends that her readers do the same. Although the Inland may not have been founded quite so consciously and precisely for the purpose, as Charlotte claimed in 1877 (IM, Sept.: 182), “of advocating—not woman’s suffrage, but woman’s right to earn her living, when competent to do so, in any avocation she chose to engage in,” it did evolve in that direction. And when she eventually closed the Inland, after the January issue of 1878—because her health had collapsed under the strain, as she said in the Washington Post interview of 1892 (SHL)—she sold it for $75,000, an enormous sum in those days. Elsewhere she suggested that she wanted to move to Washington, DC, to be closer to the centers of power. Once there, she certainly took full advantage of that location.

5 The Capital Years, Part I: Washington, DC, 1879–1885 WHEN CHARLOTTE SMITH CAME TO WASHINGTON SHE FELT READY for center stage. No longer content to wait for Logan Reavis’s Future Great Capital City to materialize in St. Louis, she proposed to advocate her reforms in the existing capital. Her arrival in the Capital was at first difficult to date precisely. The last issue of the Inland Monthly was January 1878, but Charlotte does not appear in the District directories till 1882. If, as she says, her health had broken under the strain of producing the Inland, she may have gone to upstate New York to recuperate, while her mother took young Charles and brother Robert ahead to rejoin Charlotte’s youngest brother George in the Capital. George had been there since 1875, working as a federal clerk. An 1879 Washington Post story supports the recuperation scenario, or at any rate the detour by way of New York: “Mrs. Smith was the originator and for many years the editor of the Inland Monthly, a magazine of Western fame and flavor, and is now residing in New York” (“The Widow Oliver,” Oct. 23). In a 1905 interview Charlotte herself refers to working in New York before coming to Washington (“Knight of Old,” WP, May 7, 1905, n.p.). On the other hand, Charlotte says in the first issue of her Woman Inventor periodical (1891) that she came to Washington in 1879, and comments in 1899 that she has been “making the fight” at the Capital for twenty years (WP, July 28, 1899:9:1). The “Widow Oliver” story itself shows her active in the mid-Atlantic area by that date, albeit locating her residence in New York. Of course both scenarios could be true if she arrived in Washington just before year’s end in 1879, and that indeed seems the likeliest explanation. Certainly the 1880 Washington, DC, census lists Charlotte with her mother, two brothers, and son. In any case, the “Widow Oliver” story is worth a closer look. Not only is it Charlotte’s first appearance in the Post, but it reports 101

102

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

the first individual cause, or at least the first newsworthy one, she takes up after moving east. It also shows her direct approach to charity.1 Mrs. Oliver was suing an ex-Senator (Cameron).2 After losing initially, she was trying to appeal, but could not afford to get a transcript printed. When she applied to sue as a pauper to get that requirement waived, the Senator’s lawyers disputed her pauperhood, pointing, among other things, to the clothes she wore. Charlotte Smith tartly replied that these were cast-off clothes she herself had collected from friends, and that Mrs. Oliver was indeed a pauper. “I found her starving and gave her food to eat,” she said, “and if anybody says she isn’t poor, I just want to say that the next step towards poverty with Mrs. Oliver will take her to the poor-house or the gutter.” Over the next twenty-two years, the Post would publish more than 120 articles on or letters from Charlotte Smith, the latest appearing long after she had moved her base of operations to Boston. Noteworthy is not only the sheer number of these pieces, but the geographical distribution of reprints from them, as well as independent articles in other papers ranging from the New York Times and the Boston Globe to the Butte (MT) Miner, and the Hawaiian Gazette. Also worth noticing is how often Charlotte’s news made the front page: more than fifteen percent of the time. By the mid- to late 1880s, Charlotte Smith was a name known nationwide. The articles furnish a kind of outline of Charlotte’s causes and projects—and they were many. These Washington years are so full, in fact, that the dominant impression we get is one of almost incredible energy—the energy of a Corliss engine, indeed. Even a quick introductory sample of her causes and crusades is grounds for wonder: She fought against hypocrisy in religion, corruption and immorality in high places, the McKinley tariff, Chinese immigration (and all immigration for immoral purposes), Grover Cleveland’s presidential candidacy, sex discrimination in hiring and wages, tobacco (especially smoking by the young), harmful cosmetics and adulterated food, the economic causes of prostitution (and its mishandling by cities)—to name just a few of her battles. Besides the Widow Oliver, Charlotte took up the cudgels for many other individual underdogs, anyone she felt was being unfairly treated by the rich and powerful or by society in general. For example, seeing a Capitol policeman about to eject an appleseller named Mary O’Neal from her usual spot in the building,

5 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I

103

Charlotte rushed over and demanded, in the name of the working women of America, that Mrs. O’Neal be allowed to stand there and sell apples if she wished. She grabbed the apple basket Capt. Albaugh had confiscated, and handed it back to Mary. He threatened to arrest Charlotte if she did not move on, but, as the Washington Post put it, “she didn’t, and he didn’t” (Aug. 23, 1890:2:6). She then told Albaugh off and swept away to report the incident to the Speaker of the House. In that same year she took up the cause of a blind newsdealer named Fetterman in a letter to the Post (“Aid for a Deserving Man,” Dec. 1, 1890:8:4). He had lost his sight in the Civil War and was now destitute, with a wife and several children to support. Charlotte personally helped him with money and even called upon the president on his behalf, but his pension was still denied. Two weeks later (WP, Dec. 15, 1890:5:4) she writes to say that an impostor is collecting money in Fetterman’s name at government offices. Charlotte’s original letter had brought the desired publicity, but with mixed results. She also championed Mary Ann Dougherty in her failed pension claim (WP, Sept. 11, 1888:2; Sept. 12:4) and a Civil War deserter named Bainbridge in his clemency plea (“An Old-Time Deserter Forgiven,” ibid., May 9, 1889:6), to name just two other individual cases that made the papers during her years in Washington. The Dougherty case became a bitter battle and a cause c´el`ebre, with Senator Blair joining the fray, and a distraught Dougherty herself trying to address Congress (WP, Oct. 9, 1888; Newark [OH] Daily Advocate, May 7, 1889). Charlotte Smith fought for the poor and underprivileged in general as well, calling for city funds for the burial of paupers in the District of Columbia (WP, Jun. 2, 1888:5:1), and State provision for the “Johnstown waifs” (orphans left homeless by the catastrophic Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Flood (ibid., Jun. 11, 1889:8), for example. In the matter of the paupers’ burial aid, Charlotte drafted the bill, and Senator Farwell introduced it. In all these cases she wanted official reforms (and funding), but she never hesitated to take direct action herself when she felt it was warranted. For instance, few things made her angrier than “mashers” annoying young working girls in the streets. Whenever she saw this happening, she would rush up and bash the offender over the head with her umbrella. She once claimed to have broken fully 5,000 stout black umbrellas in this way (“Charlotte Smith, Reformer, Dead,” Boston Globe, Dec. 4, 1917). Her central crusade, of course, was the welfare and advancement of working women, and when we look closely at many of her

104

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

causes and battles, we find they are part and parcel of or related to this major fight of hers. For example, Charlotte Smith mounted repeated campaigns against bachelors. As early as the St. Louis years, she was humorously auctioning them off to eager crowds of single women. In Washington a few years later she proposed to tax them, advocated laws forcing them to marry, and opposed their candidacy for any public office. She took a great deal of criticism, not to say ridicule, for these ideas, but a closer reading of the stories reveals the method in her apparent madness. Charlotte knew that when labor is too plentiful, wages go down. And when women workers are in surplus, as they were after the Civil War, women’s wages will inevitably be depressed. Her attack on bachelors was an attempt by its very outrageousness to call attention to the problem—and at the same time to help solve it by reducing the number of women forced to work for a living. It could also be seen, of course, as a contradiction in her otherwise strong feminism, and to her calls for women to learn (and be allowed) to support themselves in any work for which they were fitted. However, she was realistic enough to know that the support of a good husband would still be many women’s first choice; and whether because of this realization, certain hard economic truths, her Catholic upbringing, or all three, she would remain a lifelong advocate of marriage. In any case, as can be seen from the dates of some of Charlotte’s battles just described, they belong to her later years in Washington. Early on in her sojourn there, she focused more closely on her central crusade. Before looking in more detail at her major reform efforts, however, let us look at one vital step she took to achieve her goals: gaining access to Congress. This was no mean feat for a lone woman with little education and no powerful friends, arriving in the Capital with nothing but her achievement on the Inland Monthly behind her. As usual, she preferred the direct approach. Lobbying—the practice, if not the term3 —is probably almost as old as legislatures themselves, and there certainly were Congressional lobbyists, even female lobbyists, in Washington before Charlotte arrived. A Mrs. Olive Hechtman, for example, had been lobbying representatives on behalf of “friendless and unaided” pension claimants since before the end of the Civil War. Indeed, the awful death toll of that war, leaving so many women and children without support, and the resulting waves of pension claims, were doubtless a major impetus to lobbying at the United

5 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I

105

States Congress. As early as 1869, in fact, the Senate had begun trying to curb the practice by clearing its lobby when it was in session (“The Senate on Its Rights,” New York Herald, Dec. 20, 1869). Dr. Mary Walker was a lobbyist for dress reform and woman suffrage among other causes (“Capitol Sirens,” Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1890:1), but she was better known as a writer and lecturer, for her Civil War service as a physician, and of course for her insistence, after returning from the war, on dressing in men’s clothing.4 By the time Charlotte arrived on the scene, lobbyists were such a familiar fixture at the Capitol that they had a special anteroom for waiting, complete with pages for sending messages to their target representatives (ibid.). Mrs. Hechtman spoke out for various “reforms of the general laws looking toward the relief of oppressed classes” (ibid.), but if indeed she achieved her astonishing reported total of 10,000 successful pension claims,5 she must have lobbied mainly for individuals. Charlotte Smith, on the other hand, had her sights set mainly on larger issues. And even when she did take up an individual’s cause (as we have seen), she was as likely to seek newspaper coverage or (later) write about the case in her own periodical as to buttonhole representatives about it. Charlotte certainly did lobby in favor of her causes and crusades, including passage of specific bills. A line drawing in a newspaper of the time shows her earnestly approaching a legislator, carrying documents or pamphlets to hand him (“Help for the Women,” Hornellsville (NY) Weekly Tribune [HFW], Jul. 17, 1891). And she was proud of her record and her methods. Asked to comment on a report that Government Printing Office employees, represented by the powerful Typographical Union, had spent $25,000 to secure a wage increase during the last congress, she told the Washington Post (“Threw the Cash Away,” Jul. 28, 1899:9:1) that she had secured a significant raise for a thousand Capitol charwomen without spending a penny. “Of course,” she said, “it was a tremendous struggle, and I did it single-handed and alone.” The charwomen were helpless, without a single friend in either house of Congress, unable to vote and having no influence that might be either desired or feared. Yet she got their wages increased by a third, “by merely putting the matter in the proper light to the legislators.” She also admits to some “hard work” and “many sleepless nights.” Unfortunately, she never really gets specific about her methods, except to say that she has made some friends over the past twenty years in

106

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Washington, but does not have to go to them “and make the passage of a bill a matter of bargain and sale.” She does add that “There have been times when I have had to use force, but that has not been often” (ibid.).6 She thought the GPO figure was probably an exaggeration, but said, “If $25,000 was used to secure favorable action it was a waste of money. The same results could have been accomplished by means of good management with practically no expenditure at all” (ibid). So Charlotte Smith was a lobbyist, and though not the first of her sex, was arguably the most ambitious and, in her heyday, the most far-reaching in her scope. She was also, with the exception of Dr. Walker, the best known. Willis Hawkins lists her as prominent among the women lobbyists of the Capitol, “who devote themselves to various reforms, and work for glory much more zealously than some of the male lobbyists labor for gold (“Capitol Sirens,” Los Angles Times, Jun. 29 1890:1). But lobbying was not all she did. In an era when most women shied away from speaking in public at all, she testified before Congress on numerous occasions. Even when neither lobbying nor testifying, she was regularly present. As the Oshkosh reporter noted, Charlotte Smith “puts congressional absentees to shame by her attendance on the sessions. Rain or shine, Mrs. Smith appears. . . .” (ibid.). She clearly had the ear of Senator Henry Blair, chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor.7 How she managed this is not clear, though her position as head of an all-female union (after 1882), and her pioneering work in gathering statistics on women’s employment and working conditions undoubtedly had much to do with it. In fact, one of Smith’s strengths, as well as one of the ways in which she was ahead of her time, was her penchant for gathering statistics and firsthand evidence before speaking out on any problem. She did a fair amount of what would today be called investigative reporting. In 1884 and 1885, for example, “Mrs. Smith traveled disguised, paying her own expenses, in order to investigate the indignities to which industrial women were everywhere subjected, and in many places and many ways effected real reforms” (HFW). Elsewhere this same article says Several years ago, Mrs. Smith, perceiving that many of the charity associations were failing to extend protection to industrial women, applied in disguise for work in several factories in New York and

5 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I

107

Boston, now as a vestmaker, cloakmaker or shirtmaker, and again as seamstress. Thus she was able to investigate for herself the injustice done to women and to girls.

The importance of this strategy is that when women known to be connected with unions tried openly to enter factories and other workplaces to investigate conditions, they were refused access. For example, when Leona Barry, General Investigator for the Knights of Labor after 1886, tried to do her job, many employers barred her from entering their premises (Wertheimer, 187). Apparently Smith gained such a reputation for research prowess and specific knowledge that Senator Blair asked her to investigate working conditions for women and girls, and to compile statistics for “his great report on education and labor which was published by the senate, and which contains exhaustive researches on the relations existing between capital and labor” (HFW). In one session of his hearings, he used her statistics so often that some members asked whether Mrs. Smith was one of his committee’s employees (“Mrs. Smith’s Memorial,” WP, Sept. 24, 1890:7:1). In any case, by 1891 a newspaper (HFW) reported that “Today Mrs. Smith is the recognized authority in Washington on all questions pertaining to labor, and she has been repeatedly cited on the floor of both the senate and the house during the last ten years.” This article continues, “the learned librarian of congress, Mr. Spofford, has admitted that until Mrs. Smith began work, the shelves of the national library were almost wholly destitute of books in which the industrial interests of women were discussed or touched upon.” In view of this reputation, Charlotte Smith’s frequent statements about the number of bills she had managed to get introduced into Congress and successfully passed (e.g., “Threw the Cash Away,” WP, Jul. 28, 1899:9:1) seem more credible. Her access to Senator Blair also becomes more understandable. Indeed, Charlotte’s energy and zeal may have had something to do with Blair’s own high-powered reputation, inspiring the Harper’s Weekly statement (Oct. 10, 1891) that “during his sixteen years in Congress [Blair] was the busiest of all the members. He is said to have introduced more bills, and to have occupied with speeches, reports, and preambles more pages of the official record than any other Senator.” Other congressmen who were possible points of access for Charlotte were Wilson of West Virginia,8 McAdam of New Jersey, Jerry Simpson9 of Kansas, Wilkinson Call, William A. Leach of

108

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Alabama, and John W. Candler of Massachusetts (WP, Mar. 2, 1891:2:7). In 1888, as noted, Sen. Farwell of Illinois10 said that if Charlotte would draft the bill providing burial funds for paupers, he would present it to Congress and get it referred to the Appropriations Committee (WP, “The District in Congress,” Jun. 12, 1888:5:1). Charlotte Smith’s other major step in her central crusade was the founding of her all-female union, or league, which was both a result of what one source called her first fight in the Capital,11 and the vehicle for most of her campaigns during the Washington years. Although Charlotte never speaks of having worked for the government,12 her occupation is listed as “clerk” in the 1882 directory for Washington, DC, and she obviously had considerable inside information about government departments. Part of this could have come from her brother George, who worked for the Government Printing Office and then for the Pension Office. One of her mother’s boarders worked for the Treasury Department (PC:A, Jul. 26, 1887:23). It is still hard to imagine how she could form a union of female federal clerks if she were not working as such a clerk herself. As we shall see, however, many of the original members of the League were recruited from among rejected applicants for federal employment. In any case, this Women’s National Industrial League (WNIL) was one of her most important achievements of the whole Washington period. It became her platform for speaking out on many issues of the day, some only tangentially related to the original purpose of the organization. In fact, the League evolved into something we would today call a Political Action Committee, or PAC—just one of the many ways in which Charlotte Smith was far ahead of her time. Later organizations she founded were often branches or permutations of the WNIL. In the late summer of 1882, both the Interior Department under Secretary Teller and the War Department under Secretary Lincoln announced that they would no longer be hiring women as clerks. On learning of this blatant discrimination, Charlotte Smith called an “indignation meeting” for August 10 at the Corcoran Building. About a hundred rejected applicants answered her call, and the gathering was reported at length by the Washington Post (“The Women’s Meeting,” Aug. 11, 1882:4). These women ranged, according to the Post reporter, from “the young, fresh-looking girl to the aged, care-worn matron, whose hair had grown gray with trouble and toil.”

5 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I

109

Speaking first, as newly elected chairman of the meeting, Charlotte Smith said their object was to take “practical cognizance” of the exclusion of women from these two departments. In other words, to take action. She quoted congressmen whom she named13 (but regrettably the Post did not), as revealing to her that Secretary Teller thought women “corrupted the departments,” and were less efficient than men.14 Smith expressed doubt that a woman alone, without the assistance of men, could do much corrupting, and stated that it was “incumbent on every woman to protest the exclusion of women from the Government service on the sole ground of sex.” Several of the women had sad stories to tell, and were now given the floor. Many were widows of Civil War soldiers. One woman had lost not only her husband, but her father, several brothers, and all of her sons in the Union cause. Many others had waited in Washington for months for an appointment that never came, only to be told at last that “no women need apply.” After what the Post calls “a long and harmonious discussion,” the women adopted several resolutions reviewing these facts, protesting the discrimination, and vowing to “use every honorable effort to influence the industrial classes against any party which upholds such an administration.” A permanent organization was then formed, with an executive committee of five: Charlotte Smith as president, and Mrs. Marie Barton Greene, Mrs. J. A. Roberts, Mrs. Callahan, and Mrs. Bodie as the other four officers. In its early days there seemed to be some confusion about the name of the organization. It was called the Women’s National Labor Organization in the original report of its formation (ibid.); then the National Women’s League, the Women’s Industrial League, and the Women’s National Labor League in Post articles in the ensuing months, before everyone settled on the Women’s National Industrial League (WNIL). There was no confusion, however, about the need to start work immediately, and the Washington Post cooperated with good coverage. Only two days after the indignation meeting that led to the League’s founding, the Post reported that a delegation of District girls presented Charlotte Smith with a “very handsome floral tribute” in appreciation of her efforts on their behalf (Aug. 13, 1882:4:1). At a League meeting the following month, Dr. Mary Walker tried to defend Secretary Teller, and thus provoked an “excited discussion” with Charlotte Smith (WP, Sept. 8, 1882:4).

110

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Later that month, Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines spoke to the League on conditions for Southern women, and was elected an honorary member. Mrs. Edmonton of the Federation of Labor urged cooperation with working men, and Mrs. Greene reminded members to support candidates who favored the woman’s national league movement. Communications were read from leaders of cooperating societies. “The meeting,” concluded the Post reporter, was “enthusiastic and largely attended” (“Women in the South,” Sept. 29, 1882:4). At the League’s October meeting, Smith reported being approached for help daily by women lacking the bare necessities, and proposed to start a labor bureau (“The Woman’s National Labor League,” WP, Oct. 6, 1882:4). No details are reported in this brief article, but she evidently had in mind a federal bureau that would not only gather and provide to the Labor Department up-to-date statistics and other information on wages, working conditions, labor supply, and needs for labor by region, but also function in some way to help find jobs for people who needed work, or at least to guide the Department in formulating policies beneficial to working people. Her idea, followed up by inquiries to the Labor Department, was taken seriously enough to warrant a reply from Hon. Joseph Nimmo, Jr.15 Evidently by the next spring (whether due in any part to Charlotte’s suggestion and the League’s efforts or not) a bill to establish a Bureau of Labor Statistics passed in the House of Representatives. Nimmo’s letter to Charlotte, which refers both to her inquiries and to this House bill, was published in full by the Post (“The Proposed Labor Bureau,” May 4, 1884: 5). The letter would be much clearer with Charlotte’s inquiries, the text of the House bill, and Nimmo’s job title at the time all in hand, but obviously Nimmo agrees with her on the need for such a bureau. In fact, it has been “a source of wonderment” to him that the government does not already supply exact information on the wages, working hours, and general condition of the laboring men and women of the country. “Such information is, in fact, the first requisite of governmental action . . . toward that class.” Thus he hopes the House bill establishing the Bureau of Labor Statistics will become law. He has also, in the past, advocated “a separate bureau or department of labor industry,” to be charged, among other things, with collecting and publishing just such statistical and other information as Charlotte seeks on working women.

5 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I

111

Our form of government, he continues, depends on the intelligence of the laboring classes, and “an essential condition to that intelligence is their ability to live comfortable lives.” It is easy for employers to get information that advances their interests, but not so for the employed. Unless governments collect the information for them, Nimmo says, it will not be collected at all, “and the laboring classes will be denied the very ground work of an intelligent discussion of their rights and interests.” He specifically recommends that the government should collect information “tending to show clearly the true relations of capital and labor.” In other words, he says, it should establish a bureau or department dedicated to collecting information “which would tend to secure justice as between the employer and the employed.” He closes by wishing Charlotte success in her movement. Charlotte Smith read the founding document of the WNIL into the Congressional Record while testifying before Senate hearings on relations between labor and capital held in New York City on August 20, 1883. After retelling the story of the organization’s founding in response to Interior Secretary Teller’s refusal to hire women in his department,16 she reported that the women assembled at her “indignation meeting” a year earlier had issued an address to all the women of America, part of which follows:17 For the last thirty years the women of the United States have struggled . . . to become independent and self-sustaining. They have honorably and successfully filled those positions which are adapted to their powers and natures. They have demonstrated fully their capacity and fitness for the situations of superintendents, forewomen, clerks, saleswomen, and various other industrial avocations. It may now be confidently affirmed, and especially in the city of Washington, that wherever women have been entrusted with positions in the public Departments they have shown ability and capacity equal to the opposite sex. In the course of the past twenty years there is not one case of the discharge of a woman for incapacity or dishonesty. We are therefore at a loss to understand why the Cabinet officers of this administration should undertake to discharge the women clerks from their respective Departments, simply because they were women, and to refuse to receive applications from women who had successfully established their ability and fitness for the places they had honorably filled. These unwarranted acts must be set down to the lasting disgrace of such officers as Secretary Teller, of the Interior, and Secretary Lincoln, of the War Department. . . . The aim of the present organization at the capital of the nation is to induce the working-women of America to form similar organizations

112

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

in the great commercial and manufacturing centers and communicate with the parent league in this city to the end that a network of leagues may take place in every State and Territory in our broad land. We appeal, therefore, to the mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and sweethearts of the industrial classes and to the workingmen of the country to join with us in carrying out the intentions herein set forth; that is to say, the freedom, right and privilege of women to compete for public situations and to participate in the profits of their own industry.

This testimony before Senator Blair’s committee was a significant event, and the hearings were reported at length in the Washington Post (“Enlightening Senators,” Aug. 21, 1883:1:5–6). Smith, identified as president of the Women’s National Industrial League, was the first witness called. She stated that the League’s membership now included women “in every branch of industry throughout the country.” Regarding the telegraphers’ strike, which was on everybody’s mind at the time, Smith said that many of the female operators were “in a condition of want,” which had forced them to give up in the late strike. She promised to furnish the committee with statistics on the country’s women workers. Far more significant than the rhetoric of the founding statement, however, were the practical help and services the WNIL provided for working women. After restating the League’s aims of mutual cooperation and sympathy among women, Charlotte announced the following remarkable menu of benefits (Working Woman, Oct. 15, 1889: 3:4): The Rooms, at 1112 F. Street, are open day and evening to all women. Here may be found a Library and Reading-room, with daily papers and magazines. An Agency of Direction gives information in regard to localities, lectures, schools, places of entertainment, boarding-places for women, etc. A Temporary Home for Women who are friendless, and without money, can be found at No. 1112 F. Street, Northwest, Headquarters of the Woman’s National Industrial League.18 The Educational Department has a Committee which provides Lectures and Classes; also an Art and Literature Committee. . . . The Employment Department registers names of Bookkeepers, Stenographers, Telegraphers, Teachers of Languages and Music, Copyists, Governesses, Matrons, Nurses, Seamstresses, etc. The Protective Committee investigates [complaints] of dues unjustly withheld from working women. If the complaints are found to

5 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I

113

be just and the money is still refused, it provides lawyers’ services free of charge. Complaints are received every day. The Befriending Committee strives to make known to all women, especially those having no homes of their own, the advantages offered them by the League, where may be found women with ready sympathy to befriend and guide in all possible helpful ways. A branch of this committee has charge of visiting the sick. The social advantages of the League invite attention. Our rooms offer a place to which all women may come for mutual acquaintance, exchange of thoughts and social intercourse, which ignores class [boundaries?], whether of wealth, culture, or position. Our social gatherings are on Thursday evenings. To them all women are free to come and invite their gentlemen friends.

A year’s membership is $1. In addition to the committees already listed, there are committees on laundry work, organizing colored women, wages, and organizing the District, with members from the Treasury Department, the Navy Department, and the Government Printing Office. Interestingly enough, the Committee to Organize Colored Women is to be chaired by Ellen F. Eglin, a black inventor whom Charlotte later featured in her third periodical, the Woman Inventor. Smith brought the WNIL into the Knights of Labor, and attended the national congress of the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (F.O.T.L.U.) as early as 1882. In that year, arguably because of her presence, and her reminder to union officials that there were 2.5 million working women in America, Samuel Gompers assured women that their organizations would be accepted on an equal footing with men’s (Wertheimer, 198–99). By 1884 she had a delegate’s seat. Smith also attended the Knights’ annual conventions. In 1883, the only woman present, she addressed the assembly, and in the course of her speech called explicitly for equal pay for equal work. This idea was not new for her, as she had advocated it since the mid-1870s in the pages of the Inland Monthly; and indeed the Knights were more favorable to the idea than unions later became. But it would have been startling to much of the newspaper audience who read about her speech in the coverage of the convention. Once the WNIL was well established, Charlotte began to feel the need for a way to bring its message and its doings before the public, as well as to advocate reforms, discuss ideas dear to her heart, and comment on the issues of the day.

114

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

The answer to this need would be her second periodical, the Working Woman. But before she could create it, tragedy intervened in the form of the death of her brother Robert, a blow so severe that it would become a kind of breaking point in the emotional life of the whole family, and arguably in Charlotte’s career as well. The story will form the next chapter.

6 The Capital Years, Part II: Baby Brother and the Bˆete Noire: Robert Odlum, Paul Boyton, and the Brooklyn Bridge, 1885 YOU CAN LOCATE ROBERT EASILY IN THE ODLUM FAMILY LANDscape: he’s the one with the tombstone. Though all nine Odlums certainly died, and one of them (his mother, Catherine) is buried in the same plot with him, Robert’s is the only grave marked. His three anonymous siblings who died in infancy seem to have eluded Catholic record-keepers; his father may lie in a mass grave for cholera victims in Kingston, Ontario; and his older brother David vanished into the maw of the Civil War, never to be seen again. How and where—or even whether—David was buried are secrets he took to that grave with him. If he has a marker, it probably says CHARLES ROGERS. Robert’s younger brother George, who escaped the family orbit for Minneapolis in the 1880s, lies in Lakewood Cemetery there, but the two markers and one monument on the Odlums’ Lakewood lot all belonged to others as of 1988. Even Robert’s once-famous sister Charlotte lies in an unmarked grave in a Catholic cemetery in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Robert Odlum, on the other hand, has not only an impressive obelisk in the Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Washington, DC, but a barrage of newspaper publicity from the 1880s, more than one fine likeness in the Library of Congress photograph collection, a brief published biography, and a small but enduring place in American history. And all because he jumped off a bridge and died. Of course he did not intend to die, and thereby hangs a tale. Also, he could not have done it alone, because the bridge was heavily 115

116

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

guarded against just such attempts, and thereby hangs another tale. The two will be woven together here. Robert Emmet Odlum was born in or near Ogdensburg, New York, on August 31, 1851, according to the obelisk.1 He was the son of Irish immigrants, and was named after the Irish patriot Robert Emmet (1778–1803). One could say there were problems with Robert from the first, beginning with the question of whether or not he was Richard Odlum’s son. After Robert’s fatal leap in 1885, the Ogdensburg Journal published a story worthy of the National Enquirer today. Not content with reporting the sensational death of a native son, the paper went on to attack and ridicule his family. The article dismissed Robert’s father as “Dick” Odlum, “a man of ordinary intelligence” who “lived with his wife a few years and then died or disappeared”—if, indeed, he ever existed;2 called Robert’s mother, “Kate” Odlum, a “dangerous person” who had been arrested for “crimes”; and suggested that “her children born in Lisbon [a nearby village] and in Ogdensburg”—presumably Robert and George—were fathered not by her husband but by her dashing and athletic neighbor John Mills.3 The venom of this attack is puzzling, since its subject and ostensible target, Robert Odlum, left Ogdensburg as a young child, and was dead when it appeared. The cruelty of its timing suggests that its true target was Catherine Odlum. Perhaps the presumed author of the story,4 Journal editor Nathaniel Lytle, had been rejected in his youth by the fiery Kate. As Elizabeth Baxter, Ogdensburg town historian in the 1970s, comments,5 Catherine Odlum’s book (an admiring biography of Robert) might have been more interesting if she had written about herself! Robert Odlum, then, had a turbulent early childhood. Even if Kate’s alleged “crimes” and the Mills affair were both slanders, Richard Odlum left home temporarily or permanently before Robert was born,6 and in any case died before he was six. As we have seen, after Richard’s death the family spent much of the late 1850s on the move, visiting relatives, seeking medical treatment for Catherine, and also just seeing the country. According to one of Charlotte’s depositions in Catherine’s later pension claim, in two years they visited St. Louis, New York City, Boston, Detroit, and Cleveland, ending up in Montreal. If they kept Ogdensburg as a home base for those travels, they left it permanently before the Civil War broke out. They must have intended to settle in St. Louis, where they arrived about 1858, for

6 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART II

117

Charlotte opened a shop, and David, the oldest of Charlotte’s three younger brothers, was enrolled in the expensive Christian Brothers School there. Unfortunately, when David ran away from school to join the Union Army, and Catherine and Charlotte set out to look for him, Robert was dragged along willy-nilly. Their search took them into the war zone, and from Paducah, Kentucky, to Tennessee where they were trapped by the federal campaign for the upper South, and spent the rest of the war in occupied Memphis. These years, ages ten or eleven to fourteen for Robert, were also stressful, not only because of the ongoing bloody war and the loss of his brother David, but because, at least according to the Army version of the story, his mother and sister clashed repeatedly with the military authorities, who were also a major source of income. (See, e.g., Rodney Chipp’s transmittal letter for the Odlums’ 1880s pension claim, to John C. Black, Aug. 18, 1887:8, and Chapter 7, below). It began with name-calling, escalated to the theft of cows and Robert’s horse, and ended with a troop of black Union soldiers razing the Odlum house to the ground. Robert’s role in all this is silent (except that he located one of their stolen cows), but it can scarcely have been an easy adolescence. After the war the family turns up in Mobile, Alabama—yet another move for Robert. Charlotte marries Edward E. Smith, a man almost as shadowy as Richard Odlum, but considerably older than Charlotte and in the grocery business. Robert, now fifteen, lives with his mother, who soon runs two boardinghouses, and his younger brother George. Robert seems to have had a difficult time striking out on his own. He first appears independently in Philadelphia (the family’s next location) in 1869, listed in the city directory as “R.E. Odlum & Bro., Teas.” By 1870 the directory entry says “Robert E. Odlum, Varieties” (at a different address). However, the 1870 federal census for Philadelphia shows Robert as a railroad conductor, living with Catherine, Charlotte, George, and Charlotte’s two children, so perhaps he didn’t quit his day job upon starting his new businesses. Soon thereafter he goes with the family to St. Louis, where he sometimes works for Charlotte on the Inland Monthly,7 back again to Chicago, and finally to Washington, DC. He never marries, and in fact lives with his mother and sister intermittently until the day of his death. Robert Odlum never found financial success, but he did eventually find his work, by returning to his first love: the water. According to his mother, he took to it while still an infant, swim-

118

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

ming in the St. Lawrence near Ogdensburg (Baxter), and later spending many happy hours in the Mississippi. As a young man, he started diving off bridges near Washington, DC, at first for a stunt, but later at least partly to demonstrate his theory about jumping safely from great heights, as from burning buildings. In 1880, for example, he jumped from an aqueduct one hundred feet above the Potomac. About this time, calling himself Professor Odlum, he started a swimming school, or “Natatorium,” at E Street between 6th and 7th, in Washington, DC.8 Partly because of his stunt-diving exploits, he attracted such prominent students as the daughters of General Sherman, Judge Horner, and ex-President Hayes, and the sons of President Garfield, Senator James G. Blaine, and General Sherman. The Natatorium’s season opening in April 1881 was called “an event in the social life of the Capital” by the Washington Post. It was attended by Mrs. Garfield and the families of several Cabinet members and prominent senators. Entertainment was provided by Odlum himself and twenty of his best pupils. He was already planning to dive 110 feet from the St. Louis Bridge into the Mississippi—but that is getting ahead of my story. Whether Charlotte and Catherine actually lost money in the Natatorium (as Baxter says), or not, as testified in the Pension Claim, or whether after an initial great success it closed because the building’s owners wanted to sell, is uncertain. Even Catherine admits that it eventually failed financially, and that only weeks after the gala opening of 1881, her son was restless. As she put it in her biography of Robert (17), “His ambition yearned for something greater than the proprietorship of the National Natatorium. He desired a broader, deeper stream. . . . He wished to buffet the waves of Old Ocean, ride like Neptune upon the angry billows, and laugh at the sound of the sea.” On May 5, 1881, in the New York Clipper, Robert Odlum challenged all comers to compete with him in a half-hour water exhibition for $100 to $500 (Odlum, 18). On July 18, he challenged any man in the United States to swim against him for $250 to $500. There were no takers. That summer, Robert’s exploits were the hit of the Potomac boating and excursion season. Just before one boat race,9 he swam over the whole course. On another occasion, at Marshall Hall, a popular excursion destination, he stayed under water for three minutes and ten seconds, for which feat he won a gold medal. He also continued his high dives. On July 4 at Occoquan

6 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART II

119

Falls he jumped into the Potomac from the top of the wooden bridge there, a height of 90 feet, “without the slightest trepidation and in the most graceful manner” (Odlum, 19). Though he was recognized as a great swimmer (perhaps the greatest in the country after the death of Capt. Webb [Odlum, 24]) and was hired soon after the Natatorium closed as lifeguard and swimming instructor at the Hygeia Hotel at Fortress Monroe, and though according to his mother he numbered his friends in the thousands, Robert Odlum continued to dream of something greater. Meanwhile, many miles to the north, the great Brooklyn Bridge was slowly rising above the East River, and perhaps his dream of that one great jump—the one that would ensure his fame and establish his theory once and for all— was already forming in his mind. Enter, about this time, the bˆete noire of the story, otherwise known as Capt. Paul Boyton. Boyton, born in 1848, was a dashing and charismatic man who had managed to cram more adventures into his thirty-odd years than ten ordinary men might experience in a lifetime. He had saved a little boy’s life while still a young schoolboy himself, helped pilot coal barges on the Allegheny River at ten or eleven, and tried to enlist in the Civil War as a drummer boy at thirteen, only to be packed off to boarding school by his long-suffering mother. He successfully enlisted in the Navy at fifteen, and stayed till the war’s end. When the fighting ended, Paul’s father, an importer of seashells and curios, outfitted his son for a collecting voyage, with a diver, diving apparatus, and money to charter a boat. Soon Paul was sailing the Caribbean and the South Seas in search of exotic shells and corals. When the hired diver fell ill, Paul took his place. For a while he joined forces with a treasure hunter, until that adventure ended in shipwreck. In 1868 Paul spent the summer at Cape May, New Jersey, where he saved fourteen people from drowning, receiving many testimonials for bravery. In 1869 he tried running a curio store in Philadelphia as well as at Cape May, but didn’t like it. By fall he was trying to join the Mexican rebels, but the ship didn’t sail. Not long thereafter, he departed instead for the Franco-Prussian War, where he saw plenty of action. On his return he became a diver for a submarine company, but resigned to go to the South African diamond fields, taking off without the least idea that these fields were some seven hundred miles inland from Cape Town. Returning to Philadelphia about 1872, no richer than when he .

120

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

had left, Paul then took an official lifesaving position at Atlantic City. During the summers of 1873 and 1874 with Boyton as lifeguard, not a single life was lost, and he saved seventy-one lives. It was at this point of intense interest in water safety that he learned of the lifesaving rubber suit invented by C. S. Merriman of Iowa. It was a forerunner of the modern “dry” or survival suit, made in two pieces, with a tight-fitting hood, and the special feature of five air-filled chambers: at the back of the head, on the chest and back, and on each leg between thigh and knee. These air sacs allowed the wearer to float either horizontally or vertically (immersed to the chest) in the water. Using the paddle that was part of the outfit, one could travel considerable distances to rescue swimmers in trouble. Boyton was convinced that this suit would save thousands of lives if properly introduced to the world, and he set out to do just that. His exploits were as wild as before, but now at least partly in the good cause of publicizing the Merriman suit. Beginning by paddling some twenty sea miles in a lashing gale to land safely on the Irish coast, he had a triumph in Ireland and then in London, including trips down the Thames in the suit and a performance before Queen Victoria on the royal yacht.10 Before his worldwide promotional tour was over, Boyton was twice knighted, and had paddled solo down the Rhine, the Rhone, the Seine, the Danube, the Po, and the Tagus; across Naples Bay and the English Channel, down several wild South American rivers, and down the Ohio. He had fought with rebels in Peru, and even visited North Africa. Finally, in a voyage of well over three thousand miles, he journeyed down the Yellowstone and Missouri to the Mississippi. Boyton was also an inventor in his own right, patenting buoyant water shoes and an amusement park ride (1899) that was actually built at Coney Island, as well as a modification to the Merriman suit. The last chapter of his autobiography describes his basement workshop as a wondrous place, half tinker’s paradise and half zoo, where his three little boys, not mentioned before, spent happy hours. His wife (also unsung, outside the dedication) intrudes only to do a clear-out when things become hopeless.11 It is not certain exactly how or when Robert Odlum and Paul Boyton met, but they were obviously kindred souls. Both were water babies. Robert already knew in upstate New York that water was his natural element, and Paul opens his autobiography with this story:

6 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART II

121

One bright day in July . . ., two women carrying well-filled market baskets were crossing the old Hand Street bridge that spans the Allegheny River between Pittsburgh and Allegheny City, Penn. “Oh, Mrs. Boyton, do look at that child in the middle of the river paddling around on a board.” “Well,” said . . . Mrs. Boyton, “I’m glad it is none of mine. My son Paul loves the water dearly, but I took the precaution to lock him up before I started for market.” After observing the child, who was evidently enjoying his aquatic sport, for some time, the two women proceeded on their way. On reaching home, Mrs. Boyton, with a feeling of remorse for keeping her young son so long in captivity, went upstairs to release him, and to her consternation found that he had escaped. Three minutes later an excited woman stood on the bank of the Allegheny, vigorously . . . hailing the youthful navigator. . . . The forward end of the . . . board was reluctantly headed for shore . . . As the child reached land, he was grasped by the angry and anxious mother, who beat a merry tattoo on a tender portion of his body with a shingle.

This, in fact, was the story of Paul Boyton’s young life in a nutshell: he was always escaping whatever he was supposed to be doing or wherever he was supposed to be, for the water, and being punished for it without apparent effect. Both water babies grew up (or refused to do so) to exploit their love of the water for their livelihood. Both were restless risk takers; and though Boyton had ranged much farther than Odlum—thousands of miles in his rubber suit alone—the impulse was the same. On the serious side, both became obsessed with water safety and lifesaving. Odlum urged everyone to learn to swim, opened his swimming school with that program, and was planning a book on learning to swim (Odlum, 138ff ). Boyton advocated that all ships and all lifesaving facilities should stock the Merriman suit and paddle. They could have met in Philadelphia as early as 1869, for Boyton was running a curio shop there at the same time Robert Odlum was selling teas (Philadelphia City directories). Or they might have met at the Centennial in 1876, where Boyton was scheduled to test and demonstrate Hannah B. Mountain’s lifesaving mattress, exhibited in the Woman’s Building (Warner, 115; New Century for Women, No. 3, May 27, 1876:1).12 Apparently, however, they met around 1880, as Boyton says in an 1885 interview (New York Times, May 20:1). If they had not met by 1882, they would have done so then, for both were scheduled to exhibit their swimming skills on an ex-

122

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

cursion to Marshall Hall in June of that year. Among his other exploits that day, according to his mother (Odlum, 19), Robert Odlum jumped 110 feet to the Potomac from the top of a 90-foot ladder on the excursion steamer—a jump that nearly ended in disaster. Catherine says nothing about Capt. Boyton’s show, for reasons that will become clear later. Paul Boyton was a natural leader, and a kind of Peter Pan. What more natural than that Robert Odlum should turn to him for help in organizing his own greatest adventure, the leap he planned from the Brooklyn Bridge? Catherine Odlum had a much more sinister view of Boyton’s role in her son’s life—and especially in his death. In chapter VII of her biography of Robert, she says (36–37): The Bible tells us that a guardian angel is appointed for each one of us. Dealings with mankind show that each mortal has an evil genius. . . . Paul Boyton was the evil genius of Professor Odlum. . . . [B]ut for the entrance of this advertising humbug, how different would have been the life of Professor Odlum! With his boasts of coming wealth, an easy life, and . . . fame and gold in the future, he easily induced Professor Odlum to leave the “even tenor of his way.” To follow the unprincipled adventurer was now [Odlum’s] ambition, and to recover his lost means he made desperate resolves—to achieve notoriety by big jumps such as most men would have shrank [sic] from in horror. Boyton’s great schemes soon came to an end—there was no merit in them. . . . He was jealous of Professor Odlum and sought to make use of his attainments to enrich himself. He found ready allies in the sports of New York, . . . ever on the alert for some chance to . . . live fancy and dissolute lives at the expense of the industry of others. . . . The Professor was ambitious, enthusiastic withal; and by their blandishments . . . [they] induced him to conceive that wealth and fame would attend him in a grand leap from the Brooklyn Bridge. . . . [T]he idea grew upon him, and fastened upon his imagination like a clamp of steel; it became the dream of his life, and the “sports,” headed by Boyton, chuckled with delight as they anticipated the harvest of gold that would flow into their pockets on the success or failure of . . . a brave young man, who unwisely termed these bloodthirsty sports his friends.

Catherine Odlum was a mother who had just lost her son. Judging by the depth of her grief—and the height of Robert’s obelisk gravestone—he may have been her favorite. The wild intensity of her initial emotion, and Charlotte’s, is clear from the newspaper accounts. Charlotte actually attacked the unfortunate policeman who brought them the news of Robert’s death,

6 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART II

123

3. Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, May 30, 1885. The cover shows Robert Emmet Odlum’s fatal leap from the Brooklyn Bridge.

because the police had not succeeded as promised in preventing the jump. Catherine was looking for someone to blame for her terrible loss. In her rage, she wanted to show Boyton as instigator rather than enabler. Was Boyton really the bˆete noire or evil genius here? There is no smoking gun, but indications do exist. His autobiography shows a boyhood tendency to let others go first in risky situations, though he takes so many risks himself, and is so often in the lead, that these occasions may mean nothing. More serious, as a boy he is definitely inclined to use guile to get others to take blame and punishment for him.

124

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

The newspaper accounts of Odlum’s fatal leap on May 19, 1885, make clear that Boyton played a prominent part. Among other things, he was in the boat waiting to pull Robert out of the water after the jump. And since the bridge was so heavily guarded against stunts of this sort, there had to be a decoy maneuver to draw the guards away long enough for Robert to prepare himself and jump. This was a coach that drove across and let out someone who went to the rails and pretended to be preparing to jump. Boyton, being from New York, was the logical one to arrange all this, or to know who could. Significantly, Boyton’s autobiography is totally silent on this episode. It was certainly one of his more notable U.S. adventures, and his book covers some years beyond 1885, appearing in 1892. Boyton explains his own position only in a letter addressed to Catherine Odlum, but published in several newspapers as well as in a broadsheet (Odlum, 178–80). Here he pulls out all the stops: he professes himself broken-hearted—and his own mother cut to the quick—by Catherine’s accusations, claims that he did all he could to dissuade her son from his plan, tries to comfort her with the knowledge that Robert went to confession and received Communion immediately before the jump, and doubtless thought of her in his last moments, says he and his wife—and his mother—are praying for Robert every night, and will continue to do so. “Mrs. Odlum,” he says, “I wish I could go to you and, kneeling at your feet, tell you all I did to turn him away from his determination, and to convince you that I am not his murderer in deed or thought.” This might have persuaded almost anyone—although his claim of being bedridden with a heavy cold on May 19 is belied by all the newspaper accounts of the tragedy. Catherine herself was almost inclined to forgive him. But when she went to New York and tried to see Boyton at his bar, “The Ship,” he sent word down that he was still in bed, but would call upon her at her hotel. He never came. Instead, he sent two men, posing as a lawyer and a judge, to try to intimidate her into silence by pointing out the severity of New York’s laws against slander. Catherine spotted the two men as fakes, was not amused—or intimidated—and skewers them marvelously in her book (181–82). After this, she has no more forgiving feelings toward Paul Boyton. In addition to the evil-genius opener of chapter VII in her book, she is at pains to show that Boyton lied when he told a newspaper he’d never written Professor Odlum ten lines in his life. On the contrary, she says (38), the two had corresponded “for

6 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART II

125

years.” In chapter XI, she publishes some of Boyton’s letters to Robert, which begin in 1880, meanwhile pointing out that Robert’s letters to Boyton have mysteriously disappeared. In a letter of April 10, 1882, Boyton is clearly responding to a query from Robert about the Brooklyn Bridge leap: “The man to work a jump from the East River bridge,” he says, “is Richard K. Fox; write him. I will see him again and will speak to him about it.” Catherine demands, “Does this look like an attempt to prevent the jump?” (Odlum, 185). Incidentally, Boyton’s letter of May 26, 1884, is addressed to Odlum at the Natatorium, Washington, DC, so perhaps the school was revived again after a period of closure. “A word to the police from Boyton would have prevented the leap,” says Catherine, “if he was so opposed to it as he would have the relations of Professor Odlum believe” (Odlum, 188). Instead, he chartered a tug, filled it with “the sporting element” and reporters from all the great dailies of New York, and anchored it in the East River near the bridge. “The public asks, ‘Was Paul Boyton an accessory to the death of Robert Emmet Odlum?’ and the evidence and facts of the case plainly answer, ‘Yes’ ” (Odlum, 189). He did what he did because, not for the first time, he was “on the rocks” financially, and looked to Robert Odlum to rescue him. “Thousands of dollars changed hands,” cries Catherine, and “the sports of New York were the winners” on the day of the fatal leap, but when Robert Odlum’s body was laid out, his pockets contained ninety cents! “Paul Boyton and the sports have a fearful deed to answer for. Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and to his judgment we submit the affair with all its horrid details” (Odlum, 189). Catherine Odlum’s own thoughts, of course, were not entirely free of money. That she grudges the “New York sports” their bloodstained winnings is natural, and who can blame her for being angry about the disappearance of a fund supposedly raised for her relief? But publishing Robert’s biography with a view toward raising money for her declining years as well as commemorating his life, slightly undermines the righteousness of her anger. Nor was Catherine really content to leave vengeance to the Lord, for in this same chapter she publishes her letter to one of the people whose life Robert had saved, soliciting his subscription for the biographical volume; notes that he never replied; and then publishes a letter to the young man’s mother, trying to bring

126

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

pressure on him indirectly, retelling the litany of her financial reverses and the government’s failure to provide deserved relief. All of this would have been far more convincing had it not been her daughter Charlotte, as opposed to any of her sons, who had mainly supported the family for the past twenty-five years. Since the Odlum family papers have all disappeared; the question remains whether Paul Boyton was a friend who helped Robert Odlum achieve a dream that, however foolish, was his own, or not a friend at all, but a user, exploiting this generous young man for his own aggrandizement and gain; whether he was a true bˆete noire, or just an opportunist tempted more sorely than he could resist. My own instinct is that the idea was probably Robert’s, but once Paul had heard it, whether he delighted more in the thrill or in the money, the die was cast.

7 The Capital Years, Part III: Washington, DC, 1886–1892 LIFE

AFTER ROBERT WOULD NEVER BE THE SAME FOR EITHER Charlotte or her mother, but it had to go on, as did Charlotte’s campaigns on behalf of working women and other disadvantaged groups. Work, in fact, was Charlotte’s refuge from her grief. Less than a year after her brother’s fatal leap, Charlotte founded the Working Woman. Catherine dealt with her grief in part by writing a book in praise of her son, The Life and Adventures of Prof. Robert Emmet Odlum, Containing an Account of his Splendid Natatorium at the National Capital. . . . (Gray & Clarkson, Washington, DC, 1885), and in part by joining Charlotte in verbal attacks on Paul Boyton. Very few issues of the Working Woman survive today, and not in the Library of Congress, as might be expected, but (mostly) on microfilm at the Wisconsin Historical Society. The first issue is among the lost, but Charlotte later speaks of the periodical’s purpose—in addition, of course, to serving as the organ of the WNIL (WW, Feb. 2, 1889:1:4): “Many persons do not give wage women any credit for their honor and integrity, in fact do not admit that they are in possession of such qualities. To combat this error is the mission of the Working Woman—as well as to elevate wage women socially, and to dignify labor.” Though the Working Woman first appears in the DC directories in 1889, it obviously began earlier, as the October 15, 1887, issue is vol. 1, no. 23. In fact, it began as a weekly on February 2, 1886 (WW, Feb. 2, 1889:2:1: “three years old today”), appeared irregularly, and changed to a monthly before it closed in 1892. It was more newspaper than magazine, with its large pages in several columns, which probably explains why Frank Luther Mott omits it from his history of American magazines. In view of such rarity, it seems worth giving some idea of the content and flavor of this very individual, and aptly named, pub-

127

128

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

lication. The earliest surviving issue, Oct. 15, 1887, shows that “wage-women” are encouraged to write in if they have been “cheated, swindled, and otherwise badly treated by their employers.” The Editor has been out of town, but “Large numbers of these complaints have been received, and she will promptly attend to them on her return” (2:2). As so often, Charlotte uses humor to make her points. It soon becomes apparent, however, that there is a sharper edge to her sallies than in earlier years. For instance, the lead article in this same issue, “How Women Are Treated” (1:1) begins, “Among savages, they are beasts of burden; among Mohammedans they are toys and slaves. Here, we grant the working woman many privileges—among them the right to starve.” On the same page, Christians in particular are upbraided for their treatment of women: “On this American continent, even in this city of glittery domes, working girls are paid starvation wages by Christian gentlemen, who kindly inform them that they are not expected to live from [the wages] alone, but must do as others” (col. 3, para. 2). To put it bluntly, they may have to sell their bodies in order to survive. At the same time, (col. 2, same page) Charlotte addresses the founding meeting of the Boston branch of the WNIL, speaking enthusiastically and hopefully of the benefits of organizing: “I most cordially greet you and hail this convention as the first beacon light to point the way to the grand future of the wagewomen of our country. All we need for complete success is organization and cooperation, and the dark days of the seamstress in the attic will be dispelled.” Further, “Thanks to the persistence of the Women’s National Industrial League, an interest has been awakened in the public mind, and from a local issue, a great controversy has arisen as to the best means of elevating labor and dignifying the wage-women.” Charlotte’s greatest venom, usually not even lightened by humor, was reserved for the Chinese.1 She had worked against their immigration because she believed, rationally enough, that they would threaten American jobs. Charlotte was certainly not alone in this. Many labor leaders and other thinkers agreed with her. As early as mid-century the Workingman’s Party had arisen with the stated aim of keeping out the Chinese. In 1882 Senator Blair sponsored and Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, whose provisions were extended for another ten years by the Geary Act of 1892. Specifically excluded were “both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” And when

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

129

the question of a further extension came up in 1902, not only Charlotte Smith (who claimed in one hearing to have had more to do with the Geary Act than almost anyone else in the room), but Samuel Gompers of the A.F.L. and Terence Powderly (now an immigration commissioner) spoke out in favor (e.g., “In Favor of Exclusion,” Washington Evening Star, Feb. 3, 1902:2:5). In the large cities of the Eastern seaboard Chinese immigrants rapidly developed a specialty in the laundry business, which threatened an important occupation available to uneducated and homebound women. In the same issue (October 15, 1887) of the Working Woman Charlotte reports on her research into this threat: “It is a fact, patent to every observer, that the Chinese are starving out our wage-women. Two years ago there were but six Chinese laundries at the Capital of the Nation. Last January there were 63.” Buckland’s Business Directory of Washington, DC, for 1889 shows only 30 Chinese laundries, but the total would not have dropped, much less dropped by half, in those two years, so there must be another explanation. Buckland’s may have been a private venture with substantial fees for listings, thus excluding many small businesses. In that case, the City residential directory with its back-of-the-book business directory would have shown more listings. Or Charlotte may have done her own door-to-door survey in 1887, which would likely have uncovered a larger total. She claims (WW, Oct. 15, 1887:2) that the Chinese Minister wooed “Newspaper Row” and “snob society” to the cause of the Chinese laundries by brilliant entertainments. She promises to “send out committees to look up and investigate and publish to the world the names of the men and women who patronize these lepers, particularly those who pretend to represent organized labor.” Meanwhile, (ibid., col. 3) Charlotte appeals for help to the U.S. Laundrymen’s convention meeting just then, warning them that it will be but a short time till the Chinese control the entire laundry business of the nation. And indeed, though the loss is more serious for women, as they have fewer other choices, male non-Chinese laundry owners are also disappearing. Charlotte Smith is clearly right about the explosion of Chinese names among the listings of laundries in large Eastern cities. In Boston, for example, in 1863 there were only five laundries listed in the business directory, none of which was Chinese. By 1876, forty-one laundries were listed, and already eighteen of these were Chinese.2 Of the twenty-three non-Chinese businesses, six

130

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

were run by women, ten by men, and seven had no gender indication. The 1880 Boston Directory listed ninety laundries, of which forty-three were Chinese. Of the forty-seven non-Chinese businesses, twenty-six were run by women, fifteen by men, and six had no gender indication. By 1890, two hundred twenty-five laundries were listed, and an entire separate section was devoted to the Chinese laundries, which numbered one hundred seventy-nine.3 Of the forty-six non-Chinese businesses, nineteen were run by women, eleven by men, and sixteen had no gender indication. Another feature of the Working Woman was a section of brief news notes on women’s “firsts” and other achievements, worldwide. In the October 15, 1887, issue, for example, Charlotte reports a woman admitted to the Typographical Union in Canada; an all-female orchestra “creating a sensation” at Dresden; a professional woman lecturer; a successful strike by women workers in Chicago; a women’s cooperative established to make clothing; a notable woman beekeeper; seats provided for female workers in Paterson, New Jersey, etc. With the WNIL as her platform, and the Working Woman to spread the word, Charlotte Smith set out to make her voice heard on an amazing variety of issues. A brief sample of these issues has already been given, including several individuals she tried to help. What soon becomes clear is that virtually everything she did and said had a single underlying goal: the advancement and welfare of working women. In this group she included all women who had to support themselves, their children, and/or aged parents, by whatever occupation. A good example of these related causes is education. Charlotte Smith had shown an interest in education as early as the 1870s, when she published Horace Greeley on the subject in the Inland Monthly, and helped establish an early school of journalism for women. She worked to educate the public and Congress by gathering statistics on women’s working conditions even before the important Blair hearings of 1883 (“Women in the South,” WP, Sept. 29, 1882:4). She also consistently advocated better education for all working people, and more access to education and useful training for girls and women in particular. Smith saw quite clearly that education and training were the tickets to better jobs and decent wages, especially for women. The WNIL had an educational department, with a committee that provided lectures and classes.

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

131

She proposed a federal Labor Bureau to gather and supply to the government useful information on working conditions here and abroad. She herself was surprisingly well informed about conditions in other countries as well as in the United States. For example, in calling for her proposed Labor Bureau, she specifically referred to conditions in English mines (WP, Oct. 6, 1882:4). In the first surviving issue of the Working Woman (Oct. 15, 1887: 3), Charlotte published Terence Powderly4 on education. In this article, “Educate the Youth,” Powderly maintains that “One dollar spent for school books is worth more to a republic than a million dollars invested in armor plate. Her proposals for the child survivors of the Johnstown Flood of 1889 included a practical industrial education until “the age of discretion” at state expense (WP, Jun. 11, 1889:8). Senator Blair prepared his bill proposing a Woman’s Industrial University at the request of the WNIL, and says that Mrs. Charlotte Smith was particularly active in securing the names of incorporators (WP, Jun. 25, 1890:7). Another cause related to Charlotte’s central crusade, albeit less obviously so, was her campaign for better policing. Less than a year after the WNIL’s founding Charlotte proposed women appointees to the District of Columbia Police Department (WP, Apr. 16, 1883:4:5). Later in 1883 she suggested a separate holding room at police headquarters for those arrested on suspicion only, or for minor offenses, rather than putting them in cells like felons, with more serious offenders (WP, Jul. 29, 1883:5:7). The commissioners took her seriously enough to investigate the idea. They rejected such a room for courthouses, but said that at police courts the presiding judge could decide (WP, Aug. 9, 1883:4:3).5 In 1886, as she often did, Charlotte attacked this subject with humor, proposing herself as chief of police in the District. Interestingly enough, this seems not to have been reported by the Washington Post, but was on the front page of a neighboring Maryland paper (the Frederick [MD] Daily News, Dec. 7, 1886:1). Although the policing reforms just mentioned were for the benefit of all, a significant part of her concern about policing had to do with the problem of prostitution and better ways of handling it. Charlotte Smith had it always in mind that prostitutes were working women, too. In this early article, after getting readers’ attention by her “candidacy” for police chief, she proposed building “Chinese walls around questionable neighborhoods to employ the idle men” (ibid.). She consistently showed a clear understand-

132

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

ing of a major cause of prostitution, at least on the supply side: the starvation wages paid to young working women and girls. And though she was joking about wanting to be chief of police, she was deadly serious both about her campaign for better pay for working women, and about better ways to handle prostitution. Specifically, she wanted recognition that since the “social evil” could not be eradicated, it should instead be regulated and contained, so as to reduce the harm suffered both by the prostitutes themselves and by society. Though working women were her central focus, Charlotte Smith fought for the benefit of all workers. In 1883 she was one of three women at a trades union meeting calling for a boycott of firms that had treated tailors badly (WP, Mar. 20, 1883:1:2). She often investigated working conditions for children as well as women, and called attention to abuses of child labor. A notable example was her 1890 memorial to Congress alleging illtreatment of women and children in the mills and factories of Massachusetts and Connecticut. In Massachusetts, she said, birth records in family Bibles were being altered so that very young children could be sent to work. Senator Plumb responded with a resolution to investigate her charges. After a spirited and often acrimonious discussion lasting most of the day on the Senate floor, the matter was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor (WP, Sept. 24, 1890: 7:1). Health, of course, is both more essential for working-class people, and less well attended to among them, than for the wealthy or leisured classes. Early in her Washington years Charlotte recommended to the District commissioners that they appoint two women physicians to the poor (WP, Mar. 22, 1883:1, and Apr. 16, 1883:4:5). The matter was referred to the health office, but the Post carries no further report on the outcome. In 1889–90, Charlotte Smith testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means hearings on tariff revisions. She focused on the tobacco tariff.6 After testimony by others in favor of abolishing the tariff altogether, and on behalf of tobacco farmers, Charlotte testified as a representative of the WNIL that “the daily increasing consumption of cigarettes is the direct cause for the increase of epilepsy, imbecility, and insanity.” She had the particular harmful effects wrong here, but was dead right—and well ahead of her time—in seeing smoking as deadly. Later in the same testimony, she attributes an increase in the death rate from cancer directly to the use of cigarettes and cigars (1017). She was also right about one of her strongest concerns: the special peril

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

133

and increasing addiction of youthful smokers. Smith approached the problem in her characteristic way: “In 1888,” she says, “I wrote to every superintendent of public schools and private educational institutions in the State of Massachusetts to ascertain, if possible, the number of youths under fifteen years of age who were addicted to the use of tobacco. In some of the public schools the returns were as high as 70 percent, and the general average was 60 percent.”

Smith also maintained that women cigarette makers suffered serious health effects from their jobs, and that the papers used to wrap cigarettes were harmful to smokers, citing a case of arsenic poisoning. She said that she had been working on this problem for the past seven years, doing her best “to call the attention of the parents, guardians, and legislators to the injurious habit of the use of tobacco,” and also to plead with the youths themselves, warning that smoking not only stunts their growth, but impairs their intellect. Early in 1892, Charlotte testified on cosmetics before the Senate Agriculture Committee (“Mrs. Potter Palmer,” Pittsburgh Leader, 18). She was generally opposed to cosmetics, but particularly concerned in this testimony with products containing harmful substances. Ensuring pure food and other products by preventing adulteration soon became one of her causes, under the general rubric of public health. Testifying in favor of cosmetics that day was the beautiful cosmetics entrepreneur and inventor Maude Yale. Mme. Yale later told a Pittsburgh audience that the Senate Committee had been preparing to adjourn without hearing them, but she and Charlotte Smith pushed their way into the room, telling the members, “It is warm, Gentlemen, you had better remove your overcoats,” and so at last had their say. Though the connection to a concern for working people and the poor can be seen in all of the issues just listed, Charlotte Smith was, as she often reminded us, focused above all else on the advancement, welfare, and recognition of working women, and most specifically on their jobs, wages, and working conditions. Let us now look at some of her tireless work, and some of her battles, as revealed in the newspapers of the day, in the Congressional Record, and elsewhere, on this central crusade of hers. In 1889 Charlotte and a WNIL delegation called upon (Treasury) Secretary Windom7 on behalf of charwomen discharged for attending organized labor meetings. The delegation demanded

134

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

fair play for women as breadwinners, and the Secretary promised to give it (WP, Mar. 16, 1889:6). In 1890 Charlotte Smith spoke at a conference of the Woman’s National Liberal Union chaired by the prominent suffrage leader Matilda J. Gage (1826–98). The purpose of this very interesting organization was, in brief, “to assist woman’s natural right to self-government, to preserve the secular nature of the government and the principles of civil and religious liberty incorporated in the Constitution, and to show that the real foundation of the church is the doctrine of woman’s inferiority.” Smith, invited to speak “from the labor standpoint,” noted that “There are millions spent in churches, statues, fine public buildings, but not one refuge for Magdalens.” She then made “one of her characteristic pleas for legislation in favor of the wage women. Her remarks, which were earnest and forcible, were attentively listened to” (WP, Feb. 26, 1890:6:2).8 During Charlotte’s appearance before Senator Blair’s Committee on Education and Labor in New York City in 1883, she not only read into the record the founding statement of the WNIL, but called the Senate’s attention to the plight of embattled women employees of the Western Union Telegraph Company. These woman had been told that very morning that they could not come back to work “because,” as Charlotte puts it, “they have had the principle to stand by their brethren, their fellow workers.” In other words, these women supported the strike of their male coworkers. Charlotte intends to gather statistics and make a “true report.” She continues: Pardon me if I am somewhat excited this morning. I speak in behalf of these noble women who are told by this monopoly that they cannot go back to work. Some of them have aged parents dependent upon them for support, yet they are ostracized because they have acted upon principle. But we will black-ball Mr. Jay Gould, and I shall appeal to the workingmen of the nation not to travel over his roads or send telegrams over his lines. These working women . . . proscribed by this great monopoly are, many of them, entirely dependent on their labor for their own support and the support of their friends; but I hope that during your sessions here these ladies will come in a body and state their cases themselves.

Upon sympathetic questioning from the Committee, Charlotte says there is indeed real want and distress among these women. At the F.O.T.L.U. Congress meeting that same week, Charlotte makes clear that she not only spoke for these women in Congress,

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

135

but walked the streets with some of them in an effort to help them find other work: Mrs. Charlotte Smith, of Washington, President of the Women’s National Industrial League, said she understood that the Western Union Telegraph Company had ‘decided to blackball’ 50 of the best female operators formerly in its employ. She had walked the streets all the morning with three female operators, and had visited 20 different places looking for work for them, but with no success. These women, she said, were looking for bread. . . . (New York Times, Aug. 22, 1883:8)

At this same labor congress, Charlotte spoke of forming a Women’s Protective Society (WP, Aug. 22, 1883) and called for equal pay for equal work. In late April 1892, a delegation of thirty women led by Charlotte Smith appeared before the House Post Office Committee to protest being discharged for asking for a raise. These hardworking women had been seamstresses in the Railway Mailbag Repair Shop, earning just $15 per week. The women said they could not live on this and asked for $20. The superintendent told them there was no money for a raise, but the women maintained that the full appropriation had been received. The Post Office Committee promised to look into the matter (New York Times, Apr. 30, 1892:1). In addition to appearing before Congressional committees in person, at her request or by invitation, Charlotte sent letters or “Memorials” to committees working on issues important to her, and got them introduced by representatives or senators sympathetic to or persuaded by her arguments. One such was the MEMORIAL OF MRS. CHARLOTTE SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE WOMAN’S NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL LEAGUE, PRAYING CONGRESS TO PROTECT BY LEGISLATION THE WORKING WOMEN OF THE COUNTRY. This was introduced into the Senate for her by Mr. Call on July 14, 1892, and referred to the Committee on Finance. After two months of research among 3,000 dressmakers, milliners, and sewing women, and five hundred merchants, Charlotte and the WNIL were petitioning the Senate to pass H.R. Bill 8535. Without this protection, customers could import fabric and apparel duty-free, while the apparel makers had to pay a high duty on their materials. Regularly losing trade because of the prices they therefore had to charge for finished clothing, these businesswomen were joining Charlotte’s petition for tariff protection. Some

136

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

merchants forced to discharge their women employees early for the same reason were also signing on. H.R. Bill 8535 added wearing apparel and personal effects to the list of dutiable goods. Smith’s Memorial gives an incidental glimpse of upper-crust life in the 1890s: Said another society dressmaker: ‘Only a few days since, the wife and daughter of — — called upon me to [estimate] prices for dresses for the season, these dresses to be all imported. I stated my prices, whereupon the mother demurred at what she called “fearfully extravagant” [terms]. I explained that I was compelled to charge in proportion to the duties imposed upon my goods. She then said, “Daughter, we will go abroad, for we can defray the expenses of our European trip by purchasing all our wardrobes abroad, and then you will have real Parisian dresses, for we can bring them free of duty. . . . We can also bring over those of Miss — —, who is to be married in the fall.” They went abroad, and I lost three customers.’

When plans began to emerge in the late 1880s and early 1890s for a grand celebration of the four hundreth anniversary of Columbus’s discovery of America, Charlotte mounted a campaign to win appropriate participation for women in the Fair. Though this may sound like a side issue (and the Fair controversy will be discussed in more detail below), recognition for working women was an integral part of Charlotte’s central crusade. The foregoing gives some idea of Charlotte Smith’s amazing energy, and of the variety of her causes and crusades. Most useful, however, at this remove, will be some more specific idea of her actual achievements: reforms she accomplished or set in motion, and legislation she initiated in the U.S. Congress. Fortunately for us, a reporter named Robert Graves compiled a listing of these achievements in 1891. His informative article, titled “Help for the Women,” appears under the dateline of Washington, July 7, in the Hornellsville (NY) Weekly Tribune for July 17, 1891 (usu. cited herein as HFW).9 Graves calls Charlotte one of the best-known women in America, and says “There is not a senator or member of the house or public man of any station whatever who does not know her.” Moreover, “A great majority of the prominent men of the country, whether they have been in Washington or not, have met her.” He continues, “She is in many respects one of the most remarkable women of her time—of phenomenal mental and physical vigor,

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

137

strong in individuality, persistent in purpose, adroit, skillful and untiring in action.” He then goes on to give a surprisingly comprehensive summary of her work since coming to the capital. The first item he mentions is that she won reinstatement for two hundred fifty women unjustly discharged from the Interior Department. About 1881 (HFW: “ten years ago”) she exposed the “Treasury Girls” scandal, in which “Women bought employment with their reputations.” Even Senators and Representatives “quartered their favorites on the public pay rolls” at Treasury. These “Treasury girls” were famous for their beauty, their laziness, and their fine clothing. On the other hand, one Treasury Secretary was “dominated and almost terrorized by a woman who held his reputation and his domestic peace in her hands.” This woman sold places in the Treasury to women and girls who refused to pay “the other price.” Charlotte Smith attacked this system and destroyed it. She got jobs as charwomen at the Capitol for about a thousand poor widows and other women. These jobs were especially suited to women with children, for the workday began at four in the afternoon. Their original wage was $15 per month, but Charlotte got legislation introduced giving them an increase to $20, plus thirty days’ leave with full pay each year (cf. “Threw the Cash Away,” WP, Jul. 28, 1899:9:1). In several states around the country she influenced legislatures to provide for the appointment of matrons in jails and workhouses, and also secured work for women in state labor bureaus. One of the first women admitted into the Knights of Labor, she has always, says Graves, wielded there “a great influence, being a recognized authority on every question pertaining to woman’s labor.” She was also the first woman delegate to the National Federation of Labor, convening in New York in 1883. She addressed working women on behalf of the federation, and “obtained for women the same rights and privileges enjoyed by men in that organization.” Through Charlotte Smith’s exertions, women were appointed to the medical staffs of workhouses. She also saw to it that women employed in drygoods and other retail stores had seats provided for them to use during working hours. She it was who persuaded landlords and hotel proprietors to organize their staffs so as to protect chambermaids from

138

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

“the insults of men under the influence of liquor or naturally depraved.” The consular reports on labor in America, and in foreign countries, published in 1885 were undertaken at her suggestion, and often under her supervision. As already indicated, Charlotte Smith also compiled statistics for Senator Henry Blair’s “great report on education and labor” published by the Senate. This report contains “exhaustive researches on the relations existing between capital and labor.” By the time “Help for the Women” appeared in 1891, Charlotte was “the recognized authority in Washington on all questions pertaining to labor,” and for a decade “repeatedly cited” on the floor of both the Senate and the House. Her undercover work in the needle trades and her travel in disguise have already been mentioned. Graves notes that “on her appeal to the public[,] searching inquiry was made by the authorities in Massachusetts. So-called intelligence offices from which girls had been sold at two dollars a head to dens of infamy were broken up and stringent laws against these and other abuses enacted.” In Richmond (VA) she took legal action against “the perpetrators of cruelties and abuses” in cigarette factories, and succeeded in stopping the publication of indecent literature and “photographs of pretty cigarette girls in immodest costumes.” In Washington, continues Graves, “the number of good laws which her efforts have induced Congress to enact is very great.” For example: a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to minors in the District of Columbia, the famous anti-opium bill introduced by Senator Blair, the bill promoting silk culture in the United States (year after year giving employment to greater numbers of women)—framed by her and passed by Congress as a result of her efforts—the Oleomargarine bill, the pure food bill, the Lard Bill, and an amendment to the World’s Fair (Columbian Exposition) Bill giving women a voice in the Fair’s management. The Isabella Monument (part of an effort to win more recognition for women’s contributions at the Fair) was first suggested by Charlotte Smith, according to Graves. She insisted that women should be appointed Commissioners of Immigration (See also Sandusky [OH], Daily Register, Jun. 12, 1891:1). Graves confirms that Senator Plumb’s resolution, in response to the WNIL memorial exposing the starvation wages paid to

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

139

many female factory workers, and debated so vigorously in the Senate, was actually drawn up by Smith. In Massachusetts Charlotte Smith revolutionized the factory system, and it was at her suggestion that women factory inspectors were appointed. New York followed Massachusetts’ lead on this, and “the working women of these two states owe a debt of gratitude to Charlotte Smith.” She also introduced a bill to pension Army nurses. Graves concludes by saying that “Mrs. Smith has not always been in accord with certain organizations of women. Several of them have refused to hear her speak. But while some of these societies have expended their strength in talking, she has gone out and accomplished something.” While Charlotte Smith focused her ferocious energy on the problems she saw for working women, her own life was stressful at best and turbulent at worst. She had no visible source of income except for whatever small amounts the Working Woman may have brought in, and Catherine, for the first time in many years, may not have kept any boarders. At any rate, she did not run a boardinghouse listed as such in the city directories. Charlotte might have had interest income if she bought bonds with an early inheritance she mentions in her pension claim testimony, and/or with the proceeds from the sale of the Inland Monthly, but her philanthropic expenses were heavy.10 Charlotte and her mother moved often because landlords or neighbors objected to the many meetings taking place in their rooms. This seems to have been a source of friction between mother and daughter.11 It was probably no fun for Charlotte’s son Charles or her younger brothers, either. Born in 1868, young Charles would have been about eleven when Charlotte arrived in Washington, DC. Charlotte’s brother Robert had tried several business ventures before opening his swimming school or “natatorium” in 1879. This, too, was evidently a shaky proposition. Her brother George, perhaps the least remarkable and most stable Odlum, left the family for Minnesota in 1882–83, never to return. And nothing was ever heard again from Charlotte’s lost brother David (a.k.a Charles Rogers), who disappeared during the Civil War. Meanwhile, in Jersey City, unbeknownst to her, Charlotte’s estranged husband Edward was preparing to sue for divorce (filed in 1883). He alleged desertion, violence, and drinking against her, all the while maintaining he didn’t know where she

140

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

was. The divorce was granted in 1884 without any chance for Charlotte to respond or protest. Soon after Robert’s tragic death in 1885 Catherine Odlum applied for a federal pension based on the Civil War service of her vanished son David. It is curious that she waited till then (1886) to apply, since David had been missing (and presumably dead) for more than twenty years, during much of which Charlotte had been Catherine’s primary support. Or at least it seems curious, until you know that in 1886 Senator Henry Blair introduced the Dependent Pension Bill into Congress. This would have made a pension for Catherine automatic, if the black mark of desertion could be expunged from David’s record. Charlotte and Catherine hired a pension lawyer named William Lee to do just that. Congress passed Senator Blair’s bill, and the moment seemed right. Unfortunately for Catherine—and for Charlotte, who joined her in the application12 —President Grover Cleveland vetoed the bill. He had recently been elected on a platform of pension reform, as pensions had become scandalously easy to get. Now the Odlums’ claim was first recommended for rejection, then made “special,” which meant the claim would be examined in depth. This in turn meant that Catherine and Charlotte had to go back and tell their whole life story, get affidavits from David’s fellow soldiers, etc. In the end the claim was denied in spite of all the affidavits and new information, leaving Charlotte a bitter enemy of Cleveland and an even stronger partisan of Senator Blair than before.

THE COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, 1892–93 As important in its decade as the Centennial had been in the 1870s was the great Chicago Fair and Columbian Exposition, commemorating the four hundreth anniversary of Columbus’s discovery of the New World. Preparations began, of course, long before opening day, and so did the battle over women’s role in the celebration. The first big fight, however, was over the location of the Fair. New York, Philadelphia, and Washington in the east, and Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Chicago in the Midwest were all contenders as early as 1886, with intense campaigns beginning in 1889. The battle over women’s participation was also shaping up early. Unfortunately, the women were fighting not only the male establishment, but each other. A group of Chicago women with

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

141

fund-raising and philanthropic experience gained the inside track by consulting in 1889 with the Chicago-based Fair Committee of “representative men,” and by raising large sums of money. Emma Wallace of the Chicago Women’s Club, and a member of this women’s group, was one of the first to suggest an official Women’s Department for the Fair (Weimann, 27). These women became the “Chicago Women’s Department,” or Women’s Auxiliary, and most of them were later appointed to the Board of Lady Managers of the Fair (ibid.), with Bertha Palmer at their head. A second group focused on women’s participation at the Fair was also founded in Chicago, in August 1889. These women, however, were mostly professionals—doctors, lawyers, and the like— and more interested in suffrage and equal rights for women than in philanthropy. They called themselves the Queen Isabella Association, and became known as the “Isabellas,” because of their initial focus on recognition for Queen Isabella’s role in Columbus’s achievements. Charlotte Smith and Phoebe Couzins were both members of this group. Sad to say, these two factions came into conflict—the Isabellas standing for equal rights and competition with men on an equal basis; the Auxiliary women wishing rather to show women’s philanthropic accomplishments, and their handiwork. As time went on, the Isabellas so infuriated Mrs. Palmer that she refused to contribute to the Isabella Statue Fund, and tried to cut all mention of the group from the first history of the Board of Lady Managers. The author of the history, however, protested that “without their exertions, we should have had no Women’s Department” (Weimann, 70). Whole books have been written on women’s role at the Columbian Exposition, such as Jeanne M. Weimann’s The Fair Women, but only a brief idea of the struggle—focusing on the battles Charlotte fought—can be given here. Smith got involved early in the preparations for the great Exposition. Her suggestion that a statue of Queen Isabella be erected in the grounds of the Fair, and unveiled with suitable ceremony, may not have been the first as Robert Graves maintains (HFW; cf. Weimann, 28). But it was an early and practical one, coming as it did just a month after the formation of the Isabellas, and taking the form of a WNIL resolution calling on Congress to appropriate money for the statue (Weimann, 30). The statue, incidentally, was eventually created, and by the woman sculptor Harriet Hosmer.12 It stood in all its plaster grandeur before the Pampas Palace at the Fair. Its later history was

142

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

curious: a bronze replica was sold to the Pope, and the plaster original traveled to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, where it disappeared. As early as the spring of 1890, Charlotte was lobbying Congress for women at the Fair. She got Rep. Morse of Massachusetts to present a WNIL petition that two women be appointed to the World’s Fair Committee of 1892. The request was referred to committee (Washington Evening Star, Mar. 6, 1890:1). If Graves is correct (HFW) this measure, or something like it, must have been passed. Beyond the symbolic controversy over whether Queen Isabella would receive due credit for her part in Columbus’s achievement, another sharp and more practical controversy arose over appointments to the Board of Lady Managers, who would effectively run the Woman’s Building, and determine the nature of women’s participation in the Fair. As a crucial example, they would choose the exhibits for the building, including which inventions were to be shown. Charlotte did succeed in getting the World’s Fair Bill amended to give women a voice in its management; but she and other feminists were appalled when Mrs. Potter Palmer (wife of the wealthy owner of the Palmer House in Chicago) was chosen to head the Lady Managers, all or most of whom were from similarly elite social circles.13 The Isabellas called repeatedly, though in vain, for proper representation for working women. Charlotte did have one signal success in the run-up to the Columbian Exposition: she badgered the Patent Commissioner into creating a list of all the women who had received U.S. Patents from the beginning of the Office in 1790 up until just before the Fair. This is still the only such list in existence, and a valuable document, despite some errors and omissions. She also defended an American cosmetics inventor, Madame Yale, in a battle with Mrs. Palmer for allegedly favoring a French cosmetics firm for exhibit over Yale’s cosmetics and her patented facial steaming machine. This was a slightly awkward position for Charlotte, for she disapproved of cosmetics in general; but if any cosmetics were to be exhibited in the Woman’s Building, she wanted the American woman inventor favored (Pittsburgh Leader, Mar. 18, 1892). The Exposition inspired Charlotte to try to create a permanent exhibit of women’s work. This campaign will be discussed in the next chapter, but it should be mentioned here that Susan B.

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

143

Anthony was also calling for a permanent Women’s Building and exhibit if the Fair site were New York City (Weimann, 30). The battles over women inventors may also have inspired Charlotte’s third and last periodical, the short-lived Woman Inventor. Despite running for only two issues (April and June, 1891), it is noteworthy as the first and only publication of its sort in U.S. history. It is also noteworthy for telling the story of a black woman inventor, Ellen Eglin, a member and committee chairwoman of the WNIL. Eglin had sold her patent for a clothes wringer that became “a great financial success” to an agent for $18. When asked why she sold the invention so cheaply after all her months of work, she said, “You know I am black and if it was known that a negro woman patented the invention, white ladies would not buy the wringer . . . and that is the only reason” (WI, No. 1:3:2). Other women inventors have sold inventions cheaply out of a similar fear of discrimination against them as women. In fact, the young woman who sparked Charlotte’s interest in women inventors, Mary S. of St. Louis, sold an invention for only $5 that later proved a great success without even getting a patent because, as she told Charlotte, “if it had been known the invention of a woman, it would have been regarded as a failure” (WI, No.1:2:3). The first issue opens with a half-page line drawing of a group of formally dressed women, presumably led by Charlotte Smith herself, confronting a group of formally dressed men. The women carry a banner reading “We ask for recognition in the industrial and inventive world.” The drawing’s caption explains: “WOMEN AS INDUSTRIAL AND INVENTIVE FACTORS PLEAD FOR RECOGNITION AT THE CONVENTION OF THE PATENT CENTENNIAL, APRIL 8th, 9th, AND 10th, 1891.”14 The first article on the front page details the “aims and objects” of the Woman Inventor: to aid, elevate, and dignify the industrial and inventive women of the United States.” Further, the publication urges more just and equitable laws to protect inventors, reduced fees for obtaining patents and, in view of a large Patent Office surplus, that the Government encourage inventors by granting them not only patents, but “medals, premiums, and monetary aid to perfect their inventions.” One of Charlotte’s more striking proposals here is that “a spacious hall” be set aside in the present Patent Office to exhibit women’s inventions exclusively, with descriptive catalogues available for the asking. Moreover, she asks that only women be employed in that department.

144

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

4. Cover of the first issue of The Woman Inventor, April 1890.

Concerned to have explicit recognition of her role in persuading the Patent Office to compile the first-ever list of U.S. women patentees, Charlotte publishes the story of her efforts in the inaugural Woman Inventor (2:3– 4) along with pertinent correspondence. This little-known tale is worth citing at some length, as even those who know of her campaign think it began in connection with the Columbian Exposition.15 “When I came to Washington in 1879,” says Charlotte, “I commenced to investigate the progress of Women’s Inventions. After many trials for want of information from the Patent Office, I finally appealed to the then Commissioner of Patents, Mr. Marble. He gave orders to have lists . . . kept of the inventions by women, at my solicitation.” She was told, however, that it was hard to obtain the names of women inventors, because they generally gave only their initials on their applications, and because the office lacked clerical help. Marble’s successor, Commissioner Butterworth, cited the same difficulties. When Commissioner Montgomery took office, Charlotte renewed her efforts and the compilation was at last begun, but he soon resigned, and the work was neglected again.

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

145

“I called upon his successor, Mr. Hall, seventeen times,” urging the compilation, she says, but again was told there were not enough clerks. Finally, she appealed to Congress, appearing before the Committees on Appropriations, and at last obtained the necessary assistance. According to the chief draftsman of the Patent Office, in the end the work of compiling Women Inventors to Whom Patents Have Been Granted by the United States Government, 1790 to July 1, 1888, occupied four clerks about ten days and cost about three hundred dollars for the five hundred copies printed. In order to remove all doubt as to where the credit for this compilation belonged, Charlotte reproduces brief letters from both Montgomery and Marble, confirming her role. Montgomery’s, dated March 30, 1891, says in part, I remember very well the visits which you made for that purpose, and how earnest and persistent you were in urging the Compilation. I could not state in detail what was done, because my recollection is that I was obliged to commit it almost (or quite) wholly to assistants. I do not recall that “any other woman ever called upon me for such information.” Very truly, M. Montgomery

Marble says: WASHINGTON, D.C. April 1, 1891 DEAR MADAM: In reply to your letter, I beg to state that you are correct, it was during my administration as Commissioner of Patents, that you suggested to me the necessity of a compilation of the Women Inventors. I wish also to state that it was done at your suggestion. You were the first woman, who during my administration asked me for that compilation, and I therefore appointed a clerk to compile the same. Yours respectfully, E. M. MARBLE

Charlotte also thanks Commissioner Mitchell for his help with a supplemental compilation of U.S. women patentees from July 1, 1888, to March 1, 1891, and reports that they number five hundred thirty-seven. Charlotte had a secret weapon in creating this last periodical of hers: her son Charles was a clerk in the Patent Office at the time.

146

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

He may even have worked on the much-desired list of women patentees, though Charlotte does not say so. In fact, she never refers to her son in this connection, but the Washington city directories show “clk pat o” as Charles’s occupation (1887–89, 1891–92). The columns of this periodical are so full of rare and interesting information, including mentions of little-known nineteenthcentury women inventors, intriguing inventions both ancient and modern, comparisons between the United States and Britain in patent output, names and brief profiles of women in the Patent Office ranks, and ideas for bettering the condition of U.S. women inventors, that it is frustrating not to be able to reproduce them in full. Two further examples must suffice: a keen analysis of women inventors’ disadvantages, and a concrete proposal for rendering aid to these inventors. Though many of the world’s most important inventions have been due to women (p. 2, col. 2), women’s patents are far fewer than men’s. The reasons are several: women have less opportunity for industrial education than men; women are deprived of political power and have many obstacles thrown in their way. Women inventors face the scorn of other women, while men look on them as intruders into a male domain. As if this were not enough to hamper woman’s inventive genius, Charlotte asks, “How does the law recognize women?” If a woman is married, Charlotte answers, “her husband can take out the patent in his own name and sell her invention for his sole benefit, give it away or [restrain] her from using it, and she has no remedy before the law.” It has only been twenty-five years since “the first State in this Union protected a married woman in the use of her own brain property. Is it any wonder, then, that woman is not equal with man as an inventor?” On page 3 of the inaugural issue, Charlotte announces “Our Patent Agency Department.” Organized under the auspices of the WNIL, this Woman’s National Patent Agency proposes “to promote and encourage the interest of female inventors of the world, many of whom possess the genius and capability of our best male inventors, but who lack . . . encouragement. . . . It needs but this lively interest to develop in the women, especially of America, the tact, the skill, the genius, the capability, and the interest in mechanical and other arts, from which they have been heretofore practically ostracized.” The second issue of the periodical (June 1891) relates a success for women inventors: they will be admitted into the Inventors’

7 / THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III

147

and Manufacturers’ Association on the same terms as men (1). The half-page illustration at the top shows the same group of formally garbed men and women as in the first issue, but they have moved together now, and Charlotte Smith is being introduced to Dr. J. Gatling, inventor of the Gatling gun and president of the Association. Sen. Daniel of Virginia is shown on his way to deliver his “now-famous speech paying tribute to industrial women” (ibid.) In earnest pleas for help from women inventors sent to Smith as editor of the magazine (p. 3), this issue also shows how sorely needed the proposed patent agency was. The issue presents several interesting recent inventions by American women—including artificial marble (by Harriet Hosmer)16 and rubber horseshoes—and statistics on patents granted to women by state (New York is in first place) and by marital status (2). Again, one is tempted to reproduce the entire issue, but the most significant passage is probably the one describing the formation and goals of the Women Inventors Mutual Aid and Protective Association, with Charlotte Smith as president and Martha J. Coston, herself a distinguished inventor, as vice president.17 The following committees were set up to take action in various fields: the Committee on Woman’s Inventions, chaired by Coston and including Charlotte; the Committee on Woman’s Industrial Advancement (World’s Fair, the Inventors’ Department), chaired by Charlotte and including not only Coston but Mrs. Jerry Simpson of Kansas (the congressman’s wife), and Matilda J. Gage among others; the Committee on Literature; the Committee on Arts and Sciences (chaired by the artist Marion Foster); and the Committee on National and International Copyrights and Trade Marks. The object of the Association is to provide mutual aid and protection to women inventors, including the services of competent attorneys, able draftsmen, and “correct model workers.” For five dollars per year members are entitled to one copy of the Woman Inventor, free information on how to obtain a patent, drawings, specifications and models at the lowest possible rates, an advance to pay the Patent Office fees for approved inventions, and free legal advice as to foreign countries’ procedures regarding American patents. Further, Charlotte and the Association advocate that the U.S. Government, once the patent fees are paid and the patent granted, will defend it against infringement and the patentees in their inalienable rights—and that convicted infringers of U.S.

148

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

patents will suffer fines or imprisonment, or both. The Association will negotiate patent sales for its members, arrange for the manufacture of patented articles, and put these on the market when they are ready for sale—for all of which a moderate royalty will be charged when the negotiations or sales are complete. It will also urge the reduction of patent fees. Eventually it will provide suitable rooms in Washington, DC, where patent models can be exhibited, information furnished on the subject of women inventors, and literature and advice given free to the members. These proposed reforms and benefits were so far ahead of their time that they are still not available to inventors today. However, they would have delighted the hearts of all inventors, and would have been particularly beneficial to women. No explanation is given for the demise of this fascinating paper, but it seems likely that Charlotte Smith became increasingly caught up in the battles surrounding the Woman’s Building at the Chicago Fair. She was, of course, still trying to run the Working Woman, and lobby Congress and otherwise advocate for her various other causes. Within months, too, she learned that her husband Edward was dead, and that he had divorced her behind her back some years before, thus depriving her of any rights to his estate. In the newspaper interview revealing these sorrows (SHL), she spoke of an even greater sorrow—estrangement from her only son. Perhaps the personal intruded too brutally at about this time for her to concentrate fully on this new enterprise. Whatever may have happened, it would not be long after the demise of the Woman Inventor before Charlotte Smith abandoned the national capital as her main home.

8 The Boston Traveler: Final Years, 1892–1917 CHARLOTTE

SMITH HAD ALWAYS BEEN A TRAVELER. UPON HER father’s death in the 1850s her whole family embarked on an odyssey around the Northeastern United States and southern Canada. After arriving in St. Louis just before 1860, they journeyed to New Orleans and on to Cuba. Then, though evidently intending to settle in St. Louis for a time, they instead found themselves pursuing David up the Mississippi as the Civil War began. In the 1870s, Charlotte traveled on behalf of the Inland Monthly—to its branch offices, for example; to the Centennial in Philadelphia; and on various other trips for business or pleasure, as a result of which she recommended certain rail lines and resorts in the Inland. After she began publishing the magazine in Chicago as well as St. Louis in 1875, she must have traveled regularly between those two cities. In the 1880s, though clearly based in Washington, DC, she traveled to New York, Boston, Albany, Philadelphia, and indeed all the large Eastern cities, as well as Chicago and parts of Ohio, to research working conditions for women, to establish, and then visit, branches of the WNIL, to propose legislation and advocate her reforms, to make her voice heard about the Columbian Exposition, and even to support or oppose political candidates. From this perspective, Charlotte’s extended reform campaign in Washington, DC, looks almost like an anomaly. In any case, at some point Charlotte apparently began to identify less with Washington alone than with the whole urban Eastern seaboard, including New York City and the Albany Legislature; Boston and the Massachusetts Legislature; Philadelphia; and, to a lesser extent, Maryland and Virginia with their legislatures at Annapolis and Richmond. Even if it is not strictly true (as she told Cardinal Gibbons in 1901) that she had become a “tramp” with no fixed abode,1 something seems to have changed 149

150

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

for Charlotte in the early 1890s. Washington was still important to her work—headquarters of some of her organizations even into the twentieth century, target of many of her legislative and reform efforts, and a frequent destination of hers. But it was no longer home. When she visited Washington in later years, she stayed at the Arlington Hotel. One Boston Globe article suggests that Charlotte left Washington as early as 1887, but this was wishful thinking on the part of the reporter’s sources: “I was told today that not a few of the returning statesmen sighed with relief when they heard that Mrs. Smith would not be with them this winter” (“Communism Bad for Them,” Dec. 25, 1887:5). She did spend some months in Boston that year, however, as the first surviving issue of the Working Woman makes clear (Oct. 15, 1887). The 1892 Directory is the last to show Charlotte Smith with a “fixed abode” in Washington, DC. She is at the same address (1305 F, NW) as for 1891. After this, she seems to have begun to shift her base of operations northward, so that Boston, known in those days as “the Hub,” became, if not Charlotte’s home, at least her hub, and more her home than anywhere else. In 1897 she told a Boston Globe reporter, “I shall continue to . . . make Boston my home and headquarters, as I have done during the past five years” (“Resting from Crusade,” Globe, June 30, 1897:10). Charlotte’s mother and lifelong companion, Catherine Odlum, now followed her daughter to Boston, where she died just three years later, on April 12, 1895 (WP death notice, Apr. 16, 1895:10). Charlotte brought her remains back to the capital, and she was buried in Mt. Olivet Cemetery, with her son Robert.2 Charlotte first appears by name in the Boston Directories in 1894. There were four Charlotte Smiths that year, but the 22 Eliot Street address, location of a home for working girls, identifies “our” Charlotte. Of course Charlotte Smith was not unknown in Boston before that date. In 1887–88, she spent months there, which doubtless accounts for the story that she had left Washington. As early as 1887 there was a Boston branch of the WNIL (Globe, Nov. 30, 1887). The League was involved in trying to organize the working women of Boston, and in efforts to better their condition. At a meeting of the Central Trades Union in November 1887 Charlotte headed a women’s delegation consisting of a sewing girl, a laundress, two domestic servants, and an artist, who reported the abuses suffered by workers in their various trades. Charlotte spoke of her work, but regrettably the Globe did not report this

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

151

speech, focusing instead on the artist’s admittedly eloquent plea for the women she called “prisoners of poverty” (“Central Trades Union,” Globe, Nov. 28, 1887). Just two days later, however, the paper noted (“Labor Matters,” Nov. 30, 1887:5), “The publication in Monday’s Globe of the story of the efforts of the Boston branch of the Women’s National Industrial League to raise the condition of the working women of Boston has had the [predictable] effect of bringing a great many poor women to the headquarters of the league, 106 Eliot Street. Each has had her grievance to relate, and they have been listened to carefully and the details taken by the ‘grievance bureau,’ which is one of the features of the league.” Charlotte and her League provided women poll workers for the Labor Party at the elections of November 1887, and Chairman C. S. Griffin of the party’s City Committee said “The women did good service at the polls, and I think them better than men for that business. Many of the police, several citizens, and the Boston Globe all spoke of the good effect it had on the men at the polls to have women among them” (Globe, Nov. 19, 1887:2). Indeed, Charlotte was already a member of the executive committee of the Labor Party in Boston by that year (Globe, Nov. 11, 1887). She was also evidently involved with Central Labor Union plans to find work for unemployed women, since the committee charged with this task met at the rooms of the WNIL. Two of the committee’s ideas were a cooperative laundry to put otherwise unskilled women to work, and a cooperative shirt factory similar to successful ventures of the kind in New York and Chicago— both to be patronized by union members (“Labor Matters,” Globe, Nov. 30, 1887: 5). Because of the “low moral tone”3 and high fees of employment offices Charlotte also proposed to start a free employment office. This project would be supported by taking a house at 1239 Washington Street and starting a laundry, mending bureau, and other small industries there. The special committee appointed to consider the problem recommended that “the workingmen do all in their power to make this undertaking a success” (Globe, Dec. 12, 1887:5). As noted, the best date for Charlotte’s shift of operations to Boston is probably about 1892. She adhered as strongly after the move as before to her most important causes and crusades: public health, education, morality, and, above all, the welfare and advancement of working women. Health: Her seven-year campaign against smoking by youths,

152

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

begun in the early 1880s, was focused on Massachusetts. In fact, she claimed before Congress to have written to the superintendent of every public and private school in the state, gathering statistics and spreading her warning of dangers to health from smoking (Smith’s testimony, House Committee on Ways and Means, 1889–90). During this same Congressional appearance, Charlotte proposed a tax of $1 per pack on cigarettes (WP Jan. 19, 1890:4:6). Considering the wages of working men and women at that time, this would have been a truly draconian measure. In 1896 the Women’s Rescue League (WRL) of Washington met at the Arlington Hotel. After electing officers and appointing a finance committee, they decided to issue a “manifesto to the women of the United States on the alarming increase of infectious diseases” and to send 100,000 circulars to “prominent and influential women,” asking their cooperation and support in establishing both state and national hospitals for victims of infectious diseases, “in order that society may be protected.” It was also decided to make Washington the national headquarters of the WRL (“New Plan for Reform,” WP, June 15, 1896:4). In 1897 Charlotte introduced a bill into the Albany Legislature that paid rare attention to the health of prostitutes. It resembled a bill introduced into the Massachusetts Legislature in 1896, she said, except that it would have taxed “those engaged in the traffic” for “the maintenance of wards and hospitals in which the sick would have to be treated.” Unfortunately, it was introduced so late that it was held over for the next session. This bill, if enacted, she said, “would have been for the benefit of outcast women as well as for the protection of society in general” (“Resting from Crusade,” Globe, June 30, 1897:10). In January and February of 1902, Charlotte testified before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry hearings on oleomargarine and other imitation dairy products. She helped to shape the Oleomargarine Bill that eventually passed Congress (orig. H.R. 9206; U.S. Congressional Committee Hearings Index, Pt 1, 23d-64th Congress; Dec. 1833–Mar. 1917:568–69). Protecting the people from adulterated food and cosmetics had been a focus of hers for at least ten years, since she testified before the Agriculture Committee with Mme. Yale in 1892 (WP, Mar. 10, 1892:1:2). As early as 1891, the WNIL sent to the Senate a detailed memorial outlining the various types of adulterants being used in food, drink, candy, cosmetics, and even medicines (see Appendix 2). During the 1902 hearings, Charlotte Smith

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

153

proposed an amendment to the Pure Food Bill, requiring manufacturers to list the ingredients of their products on their labels, and penalizing violators (ibid.). In 1903 the Women’s Rescue League of Washington recommended to the District Commissioners that all or substantial numbers of sanitary inspectors should be women. After inspecting 248 homes, alleys, and cellars, the League told a “frightful story,” and declared that “men are failures so far as enforcing cleanliness in the homes of the District is concerned” (New York Times, July 9, 1903:6). Education: In March 1892, Charlotte appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations to oppose the bill establishing a reformatory for women in the District of Columbia. She maintained that the government should spend more money on “an industrial institution” (by which she meant one that provided training) “for the benefit of workers, and less on criminals” (WP, Mar. 22, 1892). If that were done, she maintained, no reformatory would be needed. In 1899 Charlotte was still working toward the permanent exhibit of women’s inventive and industrial achievement that she had first proposed in connection with the Columbian Exposition, primarily to showcase women’s inventive achievement. She had even founded a new organization, the Women’s Industrial and Patriotic League, for the purpose. Her plans were quite detailed, including securing land in the capital and getting annual appropriations from state legislatures. A long article on the project appearing in the Ft. Wayne (IN) News (Sept. 19, 1899) reproduces letters of support from and lists of names of interested people, including important military leaders, congressmen, and state governors. The number of military leaders listed is surprising— though Admiral Schley’s presence among them is not. The ranks of present and former congressmen, senators, and other eminent people are also extensive, familiar among them Senator Henry W. Blair (NH) and Hon. Jerry Simpson (KS). One G. A. Armes of 1405 F Street, NW, offers to donate “10,000 feet of ground” for a permanent building, and to reserve 50,000 more for any needed extension “at whatever compensation can be agreed upon.” T. E. Roessle, owner of the District’s Arlington Hotel, writes that he has admired Charlotte’s work on behalf of women for twenty years, and numbers himself among the friends of the proposed exhibit. He endorses the enterprise “not only with my name and good wishes, but to help to perfect the exhibit, I will contribute the sum of $1,000, which is subject to your draft,” and

154

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

closes by wishing her success (ibid.). Charlotte says she herself has contributed $10,000. In 1900 the Washington branch of the Woman’s Industrial and Patriotic League resolved to ask Charlotte (their national president) to return to the capital and use her influence with Congress on behalf of a pending appropriations bill for putting up a suitable exhibit building. The League was planning its annual concert in May, with all the proceeds to be used for the exhibit project (WP, Apr. 5, 1900:7:4). In 1902 the newly formed Industrial Women’s International Exposition Association met at the Arlington Hotel and elected Roessle as its President (Washington Evening Star, Jan. 16, 1902:6:6–7). Charlotte, listed as founder and acting president, said that she willingly turned over the office, as she had formerly borne the cost of the organization herself to a total of $15,000, and it was now time for financial aid from outside. Paul J. Pelz, one of the architects of the Congressional Library, submitted plans for a building to house the Exposition, and promised “material aid” to President Roessle and Director General Smith to make next year’s display a success (ibid.). The very next day, Charlotte Smith appeared before the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, with a request for permission to use a public reservation to put up a building for a sixty-day exposition of woman’s handiwork. She pointed out that the government had given $16 million to expositions that had never exhibited “woman’s industrial progress.” When Chairman Mercer pointed out that there had been Women’s Buildings in all those expositions, Charlotte tartly replied, “Too many ornamental women, Mr. Chairman. They did nothing for the cause of the working woman. What have the ornamental and society women of Washington done for their sisters? We do not even have a refuge in this city for fallen women who desire to reform.” The chairman maintained that her request was contrary to Congressional policy, and suggested approaching owners of private property. When Charlotte mentioned that T. E. Roessle was president of the Exposition organization, Mercer noted that “Mr. Roessle has a fine lot on New Hampshire Avenue, which would furnish a most desirable site for your exposition.” The Committee did not act on Charlotte’s request (Washington Evening Star, Jan. 17, 1902). Years later we find Charlotte appearing before the Ways and Means Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, requesting the kind of state appropriation she had long ago proposed for the

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

155

support of the exhibit (“To Aid Working Women,” Globe, Apr. 27, 1910). Despite so many years of work, such detailed plans and so many prominent participants in the beginning, it appears that the exhibit never materialized. This must have been a major disappointment for Charlotte Smith. The project would have had the dual benefit of educating the public about the achievements of working women, particularly women inventors, and raising the self-esteem of these women themselves. It was, as she described it in 1902, something she held “close at heart” (Washington Evening Star, Jan. 16, 1902:6:6,7). Working women: The move to Boston obviously caused no break in her devotion to her central crusade for working women and girls. Not only was her first recorded Boston residence (22 Eliot Street) a lodging house she had established for working girls,4 but a later address on Washington Street was a larger establishment offering employment as well as lodging. In January 1893, Charlotte Smith and one F. W. Jacques spoke out at an “agitation meeting” against both the sweating system (sweatshops) and the contract (prison labor) system (“Garment Workers Reply,” Globe, Jan. 27, 1893:2). In the fall of that year the WNIL and the Women’s Rescue League, meeting together on Thanksgiving eve, spoke out against prison contract labor. Concluding that the women of Massachusetts have little to be thankful for at this holiday season, because “the commonwealth is . . . allowing . . . convicts . . . to do work which might busy the thousands of honest women who are seeking employment but cannot get it . . .,” the women drafted the following joint resolution to be presented to Governor-Elect Greenhalge: Resolved, That the [WNIL and WRL] in joint convention, do earnestly protest against the present policy . . . which permits the State of Massachusetts to enter into direct competition with honest labor by letting out the male convicts of . . . Charlestown state prison to contractors.

The women resolved further that a joint committee would “wait upon the Governor-elect and report to him the action of this joint convention.” The resolutions were signed by Charlotte Smith, president of the WNIL, and by Martha Adams and Ellen McCarthy for the WRL. Charlotte also wrote a very cogent and persuasive transmittal letter for the resolutions, referring to the new governor’s forthcoming initial address to the legislature,

156

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

“which, according to the custom of the past and the wisdom of your excellency, will embody timely suggestions as to the legislative needs of the commonwealth” (“Cry Against Convict Labor,” Globe, Nov. 30, 1893:10). In January 1894, Charlotte took up the cause of the “Superba” girls, dancers thrown out of work when fire destroyed the Globe Theater (Boston Globe, Jan. 14, 1894:24). Contrary to the claims of the theater’s manager, Mr. Hanlon, who tried to portray the girls as highly paid performers who should still have funds, “Let any one talk with Maud McDonald,” said Charlotte, “and he can find out whether or not they are in destitute circumstances. The truth is the girls are getting their meals from here [the WRL] . . ., trying to live in rooms at $2 a week and cook their own food over an oil stove.” Hanlon also claimed he had offered to pay the girls’ fares to anywhere they wished to go, but the girls told Charlotte that all he was willing to do was to send them to New York, whereas one girl lived in Chicago and another in Toronto. Charlotte further pointed out that though one girl may have drawn a salary of $50 a week, she usually sent most of it and (never less than half ) to support her mother and four young children. Because the fire occurred at holiday time, she had sent $40, so that when disaster struck she had only $6 left. This was not enough to replace her burnt clothes and costumes so that she could look for other work. Charlotte wanted no newspaper notoriety for herself, she said, but only to safeguard the hapless girls from the temptations “cast in the way of young women by a great many of the old bald heads who infest the streets of Boston.” Though several of the girls were staying at the WRL headquarters, Charlotte claimed to have received only one $10 donation, and nothing from the city Relief Committee, so that the girls are “thrown back on what little help it is in my power to give them.” In addition to speaking out through the Working Woman and in the halls of Congress, Charlotte continued to take her crusade for working women directly to the people. In spring 1894, when Coxey’s Army headed for Washington, Charlotte planned to lead a contingent of women from Boston to the capital between May 1 and May 16. Their purpose would be to influence Congress to pass legislation for women similar to what Coxey was urging for the benefit of men. The thirty women, from ten states, would travel by train and, as Charlotte put it, “Neither pose as a collection of cranks, nor endeavor to present a beauty show . . .,” but try to impress

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

157

upon Congressmen and Senators the necessity of passing legislation to provide both safety and ample employment for women. Specifically, she wished to “do away with the prison contract labor system, which puts convicts in competition with honest men and women,” as in laundry work, for example, and to “try by every means in our power to prevent poor girls from being reduced to a state bordering on starvation, when they become an easy prey to designing persons . . . ” (“Army of Women,” Globe, Apr. 21, 1894:3). Her delegation also petitioned for “legislation against this most damnable foreign invasion, the sweat shop.” Not craving hardship for her group, however, she intended to stay as usual at the Arlington (“Caught Napping,” Apr. 26, Globe, 1894:1ff ). If the approach to Congress failed, Charlotte had more direct action in mind (ibid.): If we fail to make an impression on the representatives of the people, or on the state legislatures, then we shall appeal directly to the people themselves, and ask them to relegate these [representatives] to private life. I shall start on a crusade of that character and take the other women with me at once on my return from Washington, and I am now negotiating for the wagons in which I propose to make a tour of the country and call the attention of the people to the action of their representatives.

I have found no record of this cross-country trip, so perhaps she found neither wagons nor women strong enough to undertake it with her. In May 1894 Charlotte and the WNIL became involved in the strike of silk-mill workers at Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts. On May 22, a WNIL delegation went to Newton Upper Falls to investigate the condition of the girls, who had struck when their wages were reduced from $4.50 a week to $3.10, leaving them just ten cents a week after paying for board. Gathered in a vacant lot, as no hall could be found, they formed a permanent organization and decided to come to Boston the next day to lay their grievance before Governor Greenhalge personally. They planned to rendezvous at the WNIL headquarters; then at ten o’clock, with a brass band, signs, and banners, to march through the streets to the State House (Globe, May 23, 1894:2). Sad to say, when Charlotte and the thirty striking workers reached the State House, the governor was unavailable. They had to turn back, but the marchers had a success of another kind:

158

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

of the seventeen men and eighteen women who were at work the day before, only three women came to work the day after the march, practically closing the mills. As the Globe report said, “This has greatly encouraged the strikers, and they are jubilant at this unexpected acquisition to their ranks” (“Marched up the Hill,” May 25, 1894:2). In the fall of 1894 Charlotte was busy creating a boardinghouse for working girls in the run-down Wendell Phillips house at 812 Washington Street (“Home for Girls,” Globe, Sept. 28, 1894: 3). The aim of the enterprise, a branch of the WNIL, was to provide “artistic and homelike” rooms for the girls while reducing their living expenses to a minimum. Rooms were to cost just $1.50 or $2 per week, with heat and light furnished, and meals just five cents each. Thus a girl could live for about $2 a week, or even less by sharing a room. At the time of the Globe article just cited, the WNIL had rented the two upper floors of the house, and expected to add a third soon. The walls had all been papered and painted and every room newly furnished, not in a makeshift fashion but “tastefully and attractively.” To that point, Charlotte Smith had paid for everything from her own pocket, but was now hoping for donations from the public. Interestingly enough, as the Globe put it, “Mrs. Smith will depart from the ‘institutional’ management, common to most girls’ boardinghouses. There will be no scheduled hours for rising or retiring and no compulsory prayer meetings.” The main living room will have newspapers and magazines and, “it is hoped,” a piano. There will be free lectures and entertainments for the boarders. Girls out of work will help in the dining room. Though Charlotte took her reforms very seriously, her life was full of hilarious episodes, some of her devising and some directed against her. In December of 1894, to dramatize the role of low wages in driving girls into prostitution, Charlotte hired a “handsome, black-haired, solemn-featured colored man named Archie” to carry a placard around Boston showing a beautiful girl and the caption “Girls Cannot be Angels on a Salary of $3 a Week.” She then went off to police headquarters to attend a hearing on the Sunday Observance League and “similar societies.” She was called out in the middle of that hearing with the news that Archie had been arrested on one of the main streets. “Either the policeman did not like the looks of Archie,” said the Globe, “or he didn’t approve the sentiments inscribed beneath the paste-

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

159

board angel.” Charlotte had to go to Station 2 and bail out both her placard and its carrier (Globe, Dec. 6, 1894:9). At the American Federation of Labor convention in 1895, Charlotte Smith made a plea for higher wages for women. She was listed as President of the Women’s Rescue League of Boston (New York Times, Dec. 17, 1895:3). In 1898, in a memorial to Congress, she proposed a far-sighted program of insurance for soldiers, entailing the establishment of a national military-naval insurance bureau in Washington, presumably on the model of the industrial insurance already shown to be a success. The rates must be nominal and the insurance compulsory; otherwise, she left the details of the program to the wisdom of Congress (“Insurance for Soldiers,” WP, June 18, 1898:9). Such insurance would obviously be of great benefit to working women and their families in disasters like the Civil War not long past and the Spanish-American War just begun. One of Smith’s strengths, as well as one of the ways in which she was ahead of her time, was her penchant for gathering statistics and firsthand evidence before speaking out on any problem. She did a fair amount of what would today be called investigative reporting. In 1905, as she had done almost twenty years earlier with the shop girls,5 Charlotte tried living on a factory girl’s wage. The city was Philadelphia; the wage, $5 a week. She found that her expenses, including rent and little else but rolls and coffee for food each day, were $5.65 a week. Even had this not exceeded her wages, it allowed nothing at all for medicine or clothing. Her point had been to demonstrate firsthand how such girls could fall into prostitution from financial desperation, or suffer breakdowns. She herself lost twenty pounds in three weeks. Unlike the anonymous factory girls, however, Charlotte Smith could at least get newspaper publicity for their plight (“Like a Knight of Old,” WP, May 7, 1905). She never lost sight of the crucial role of affordable lodging for ill-paid working women. Charlotte’s undercover research made clear, as Barbara Ehrenreich would find nearly a century later, that the cost of rent usually determined whether workers could survive on their wages or not.6 In 1907 she campaigned for a Boston hotel for working women similar to the Mills Hotel in New York City (“Hotel for Women,” Globe, Nov. 19, 1907:5; Newark [OH] Daily Advocate, Nov. 20, 1907). In 1907 Smith joined with other businesswomen to found the

160

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Women’s Board of Trade in Boston. The object of the organization was “to provide an industrial and commercial exchange for the business women of the State of Massachusetts and to promote commercial relations between women.” Charlotte Smith was elected chairman. The group supported Charlotte’s pet project of a permanent women’s industrial exhibit, endorsing the Massachusetts permanent industrial exhibit association, and voting to cooperate with it in a temporary exhibit for the coming fall (Globe, Aug. 15, 1907:2).7 In 1909 Charlotte took another tack on the longstanding problem of the surplus of women so inimical to women’s wages: homesteading. She formed the Women’s Homestead Association, and proposed a bill to the Massachusetts Legislature’s Committee on Ways and Means, providing for homestead bonds. These bonds would be used to buy small farms for women, the loans to be paid off by the homesteaders at an interest rate giving the state a two percent profit on the cost of the money. She cited experience from New Zealand and Australia indicating the feasibility of her plan. In fact, the New Zealand scheme had proved so profitable that the interest rates were reduced. Aside from the likely profit to the state, children growing up on these farms would be healthier, and the mothers better able to support their children (Globe, June 2, 1909:7). Morality: Charlotte Smith had been concerned with morality, especially in high places, throughout her reform career. This concern appeared in demands for probity among public officials (and fearless attacks when she saw lapses or outright corruption); campaigns for better policing in the cities; and an enlightened approach to prostitution: preventing girls from being imported for it, forced into it by starvation wages, or tricked into it by the deceptive practices of “intelligence offices”; helping prostitutes who wished to leave the trade; and regulating the trade itself to reduce its harm to the women involved as well as to the larger community. Her move to Boston did not change any of this. She even returned to Washington some years later to join other women in community action against assaults on young women and girls in the District, and to suggest severe penalties for the perpetrators (WP, Aug. 16, 1899:2:1). In Boston she spoke in outrage against police corruption related to prostitution, not hesitating to name names (Globe, Aug. 23, 1894:2):

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

161

We demand that the officers of Station 4, Sergt Sheehan and all the other bluecoated monstrosities, shall enforce the laws, instead of compelling the poor girls of the street to divide with them their miserable pittance which they make . . .

Not surprisingly, Charlotte’s outspokenness brought her trouble with the police. When her mother, nearly seventy-five years old and “very feeble,” was beaten while tending her little roof garden in early August 1894, Charlotte rushed to Station 4 for help. The sergeant in charge not only refused to call a doctor, but ordered Charlotte out of the station. This, she says, was all because “I am making war on these disreputable bullies of police who force unfortunate girls on the street to give up $2 a month or go to jail.” The Globe reporter summoned to verify Catherine Odlum’s condition said, “The old lady was in bed, and certainly looked more like a ghost than a human being” (Globe, Aug. 4, 1894:5). In 1896 Charlotte spoke out against what she considered shocking immorality on the stage, a vaudeville performance by the Barrison Sisters:8 “I witnessed the performance of the Barrison Sisters and never saw an exhibition in any theatre more suggestive, lewd and indecent. It was disgraceful. The whole aim of these women seemed to be to excite the base emotions of the audience. Their dresses had been constructed with this one object in view, and all their motions were simply vicious and libidinous. Before the curtain went up, the 10 legs of these Barrisons could be seen by the audience under the edge of the curtain, indecently twisting and wriggling, as they sat upon the floor. This was designed to whet the appetite of the spectators. Then they came out and turned their backs to the audience, lifting up their dresses in a vulgar and indecent manner. Their underclothes had been specially made to excite the spectators, with many parts plain to the feminine eye. . . . The Barrisons exert an immoral influence. A law ought to be passed putting a stop to such exhibitions, and I will make a recommendation of this kind to the Legislature this winter.

Alan Dale, a critic who saw the same performance, wrote as follows: As Miss Lona Barrison appeared I began to sniff around for a little evil. (Evil is generally sniffable, don’t you think?) Where was her beauty? That was the first question I asked myself. A complexion like boiled veal and a figure that had neither symmetry nor grace of any sort. . . .

162

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

After she had left the stage, without any attempt on the part of the defrauded audience to cheer her by applause, she returned with [her sisters]. They showed us their legs first, for they sat with them poked out under the curtain. I like a leg or two occasionally, but it must be a leg in the true sense of the word. The spindle shanks that the Barrisons betrayed were so screamingly funny and so bewilderingly emaciated that I had hard work to keep in my seat. In fact, I don’t mind saying that the only things immoral about the Barrisons are their legs. They are an affront to symmetry. They should be sewn up in masses of petticoats and kept from an unfortunate public. Amputation would be justifiable. . . . And then the poor little Barrisons began to do what they had been taught to do for the delectation of imbeciles. They sat on the stage looking hopelessly ill at ease, and ridiculously cheap, and sang a vulgar but stupid song dealing with the physiology of generation. There was no tune to it, no metre to it, no rhythm to it, nothing latent, nothing chic, nothing clever. . . . The applause, like the letter, never came. Not a gleam of intelligence gleamed in their eyes. Not a wicked look was cast in any direction. Five little frumps tugging away at a cheap concert hall cha[n]son was all we saw. It was really too bad. Such utter inanity made you feel that you might as well have left your brains at home.

Dale attacks by ridicule; Smith wants to pass a law. Incidentally, Dr. Charles Parkhurst,9 a third voice in the critics’ chorus, agrees with Charlotte that the Barrisons’ act should be banned. Some years later, charging that “every man who has held the office of Police Commissioner here has been a failure,” Charlotte Smith and a committee of Boston women petitioned Governor Foss of Massachusetts for a woman police commissioner in Boston or, if that was impossible, for women police inspectors. She and the committee also wanted the police force increased, reformed, and regulated—or, failing that, the militia called out to suppress what they called “wickedness in Boston.” Charlotte was identified as president of the Women’s Homestead Association, which she claimed represented 50,000 women (New York Times, May 4, 1911:6). She was endorsed by one of her organizations for the office of police commissioner of Boston (as she had previously done for herself in Washington), but the candidacy “went little further” (Globe, Dec. 4, 1917:9), and there was almost certainly no expectation of its being taken seriously. However, at some point during the Boston years, her strong moralistic concern began to verge on obsession.

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

163

In fairness to Charlotte, there may have been triggers or precipitating events. The first of the two I will cite here was a deeply shocking example of injustice and police abuse of prostitutes. In June 1894 an “army” of ten to fifteen thousand “fallen women” were turned adrift in Boston, “made outcasts in the streets by the persecution of the police, who should by right protect the weak and the helpless” (Globe, Aug. 23, 1894:2 and Aug. 12, 1895:7; WP, Jun. 8, 1896). Evidently an anti-vice crackdown by police had closed hundreds of brothels, turning thousands of women out on the streets with nowhere to go. Certainly Charlotte seemed distraught when she spoke about the scandal at the Bijou Theater some weeks later (“She Had A Small Audience,” Globe, Aug. 23, 1894:2). Meanwhile, the clergymen who should have helped in such a crisis seemed more concerned with their vacation plans than with the plight of the homeless women. Smith skewered these callous men: “The clergymen merely look at them, say ‘Come to Jesus,’ and then go to Europe for a vacation” (Globe, ibid., and Aug. 12, 1895:7). By contrast, Charlotte Smith soon had a practical plan in place to help. As an annex to her boardinghouse for working girls at 812 Washington Street, and under the auspices of the Women’s Rescue League, she proposed what the Boston Globe called “a new departure for Boston”—both a temporary home and a hospital for “outcasts” (Sept. 28, 1894:3). As Charlotte pointed out, the need for such a haven had never been more urgent in Boston. Many of the women displaced in June were still roaming the streets and now in a pitiable condition. The entrance to the annex was near the city dispensary, and her hospital was to be in the charge of the dispensary physicians. Women not needing medical care would be given shelter free of charge. Charlotte had borne all the costs of renovation and furnishing up to that point, but the public was now invited to contribute. The object, the Globe reported, was “not only to relieve, but to reform.” An effort would be made to start the girls in legitimate occupations, and they would live at the home until they could support themselves (ibid.). Considerably later and in some ways even more shocking, the sensational Berthe Claiche case of 1905–6 would have been a further spur to Charlotte Smith’s concern with morality. It proved her spectacularly right about the syndicates she had so long accused of importing girls for prostitution and sex slavery, and focused national attention on them. Smith did not hesitate to

164

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

get directly involved in the campaign to put them out of business, despite threatening letters and other attempts to intimidate her. Claiche’s story was unfortunately all too common: she was a poor French girl seduced by promises of well-paid employment, only to find herself the prisoner and sex slave of a cruel man named Emile Gerdron. Worse yet, he forced her to prostitute herself on the streets, first in Paris and then in New York, and appropriated all her earnings. He took her clothes away to keep her from escaping, and eventually began to beat her. Just as most people today ignore the seamier aspects of our current immigration problem, Americans in the early twentieth century turned a blind eye to this widespread practice. This girl burst upon public notice only because, after enduring years of abuse, she finally killed her “master.” Despite the extreme provocation leading to this act, Berthe Claiche was arrested, held in the “Tombs” in New York City, and scheduled to be tried in October 1905. The Fort Wayne News reported Berthe’s story in her own words (“White Slave Girl Dictates Story of Monstrous Captivity,” August 17, 1905), with a photograph. “You will say to all the good people,” she dictated from her cell, “that this prison is better, far, far better than the awful life I have led. . . . You women who have good fathers, husbands, and brothers to protect you know nothing of the misery and suffering of the life such as I and thousands of other girls like me in New York are made to lead.” Of her crime, she said, “He took my life as much as I have now taken his. He killed everything in me. I was only 16 years old.” Charlotte Smith was outraged, not only by the syndicates’ operations in general, but by Berthe’s story in particular, and by the charges filed against her. She knew that Berthe spoke English imperfectly and had no money for her defense. The WRL began raising money for Claiche’s legal fees, and Charlotte appealed directly to the French and German embassies, requesting that they not only subscribe to the legal-defense fund, and help find Berthe a French lawyer, but begin to take action “to crush such bands of slave masters as that headed by the murdered man, Gerdron” (“Aiding Claiche Girl,” WP, August 28, 1905: 10). Moreover, says Smith, Emile Gerdron was only one of “20,000 men banded together” in New York alone, “infamous and shameless men” belonging to a “pernicious band practicing in the large cities with Philadelphia as the headquarters.” The WRL will see that Berthe Claiche gets justice, Smith continues, but “our work reaches further.” The organization was formulating plans for

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

165

stopping the brutal trade, including sending out thousands of circulars and appealing to the clergy and the press (ibid.).10 In the end, Berthe Claiche pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter. She was sentenced to not more than five years in prison, and was released after two years (“Girl Slayer is Free,” WP, September 9, 1908: 1). Charlotte had founded the Women’s Rescue League, a branch of the WNIL, after moving to Boston in 1892. It was originally intended to discover why so many women drifted into immorality (Brooklyn Eagle, Aug. 20, 1896:2). As its president she made a four-year study of prostitution and its causes to determine “how far industrial conditions are responsible for the degradation of the women.” Her investigations led her to believe that “50 per cent of fallen women are forced to lives of immorality because of the low wages they receive for their work” (“Higher Pay, Less Vice,” WP, Jun. 8, 1896:3:4). Two years after the scandal of the 15,000 women flooding the streets of Boston, Charlotte presented a memorial to the governor and the Massachusetts Legislature, which “created a profound sensation, owing to its broad treatment of the question,” and her efforts resulted in the adoption of “certain desirable legislation” (ibid.). Regrettably, the Post did not specify the wording of this legislation, but Charlotte had repeatedly outlined her plan for the reform and social control of prostitution, which sounds entirely rational and modern even today: Since the so-called social evil cannot be eliminated, the more sensible course is not to waste money and energy in a hopeless war, but rather to take steps to regulate and control it. She would restrict the houses to certain areas of the city, and place them under police restriction. At the same time, the women would be under police protection, and the officers forbidden to demand part of their earnings. Medical care would be provided for the women and, in her most radical proposal, those profiting from the trade would be taxed to provide hospital wards where the women would be treated (“New Plan for Reform,” WP, Jun. 15, 1896:4). In an interview with New York Police Commissioner Grant, Charlotte had proposed homes as well as hospitals for the care of “Scarlet Women” (WP, Aug. 12, 1895:3:2). Charlotte’s plan received strong support from Rev. C. J. Freeman, a clergyman who had served on a British government commission charged with investigating prostitution (“Has Had Experience,” Globe, Nov. 13, 1894:3). Charlotte maintained that many

166

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

prominent people endorsed her idea but refused to allow use of their names. Rev. Freeman, however, had no such hesitation. “The argument . . . whether or not this is a necessary evil has been settled in my mind by the fact that within the past three weeks two married women of my acquaintance walked leisurely down Washington St from Dover to Court as an experiment, and were accosted by no less than 24 men,” he said. Moreover, “if there are enough men in Boston to support 15,000 prostitutes it is sufficient proof that prostitutes are a necessary evil.” Then, Freeman continues, “of course the question arises . . . what shall be done to lessen the evil.” It seems to him that “an evil . . . concentrated and controlled, is half conquered.” He cites the case of Hamburg, Germany, where the houses are licensed, with every landlady made responsible to the authorities for “the good order, under the special circumstances, of these houses.” Further, “all these girls are under medical control, and no man is allowed to see them unless he satisfies the authorities that he is free from contaminating influences.” Rev. Freeman believed that “had the authorities in Boston controlled [all] of these houses of ill-fame, put them under police control and supervision and provided means of rescue and opened up ways for reform, no more than 25 percent of the women of illfame would of their own free choice [have] remained in their nefarious calling.” In 1896 Charlotte received open support from the Landladies’ Union of New York and Boston, who wrote to women in Washington urging them to call upon her. Through the cooperation of Major Moore and Lieutenant Amiss of the District Police, a meeting was arranged between officers of the Women’s Rescue League and several keepers of “houses of ill-repute” in both New York and Washington. She proposed to print thousands of circulars setting forth her plan for control of the houses, and the women readily agreed to help her distribute them. They spent the rest of the day visiting other brothelkeepers and enlisting their help in the scheme (WP, Jun. 15, 1896). Interested in facts and statistics as always, Charlotte hoped to use these women not only to advance her reforms, but to research such questions as whether immorality was on the increase or decrease at that time, whether recruits to prostitution came mainly from large cities and towns or from the country, and from which nationalities; what causes young girls to enter “lives of shame,” the educational levels of women who enter the houses willingly, and how many leave the trade and reform their lives.

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

167

The women promised to do “all in their power” to assist the WRL in gathering these statistics, but were extremely pessimistic on the subject of women reforming their lives (ibid.). Regrettably, only about two years later, Major Moore died. He was eulogized by Charlotte Smith and the WRL: Whereas we have heard with unfeigned regret of the death of Maj. William G. Moore, late Superintendent of our Metropolitan police, whose kindness, urbanity, and considerate bearing proved his friendship and sympathy for unfortunate women and his readiness to assist them in his official capacity; therefore Be it resolved: that in the death of Maj. Moore we recognize the loss of a friend to the cause of rescuing the unfortunate women from the evil of their ways, and a man whose demeanor of character in office, whose kindness and willingness to do all in his power to rectify wrong and establish the right; whose honest discharge of public duty made him a model [for] the Superintendents of Police of other cities. . . .

The women decided to send a copy of both eulogy and resolutions to Moore’s family, to the police chiefs of all large American cities (to be read at the next convention of police superintendents), and to the Washington Press for publication (“Friend to Unfortunate Women,” WP, Jul. 17, 1898:12). Later in 1896 Smith went to Washington to seek pledges from Major McKinley and all the other presidential candidates that they would favor legislation on behalf of women wage earners and a more equitable wage system. “I can prove,” she told them, “that 50 per cent of the women who lead immoral lives are driven to it by the small wages they receive, and that in the United States today there is an army of 600,000 professional prostitutes.” The Post reporter commented, “Mrs. Smith is intensely in earnest on the subject, and . . . presents her case so forcibly as to demand recognition” (ibid.). This first project of the WRL was completed most effectively, as just described. Unfortunately, the League was soon embroiled in a crusade against bicycling for women that seems bizarre today, and was often ridiculed even then. Contrary to what “Gossip of the Cyclers” tried to suggest in the New York Times (Jul. 5, 1896:12), Charlotte was not alone in her belief that the design of the bicycle seat led to sexual excitement in women, and thus to temptation or actual immorality. Some medical and religious authorities of the day took the same position. In Atlanta, for example, the Reverend Dr. J. B. Hawthorne of the First Baptist Church claimed that no one “who understands the physiology of

168

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

woman doubts that the most serious physical injuries will result from her use of the bicycle. . . . But the physical mischiefs of this abomination should not be mentioned in comparison with its moral effects upon the women of the world” (cit. in Roth and Shaw, 31). But Smith was in a minority, stridently defending what most people saw as an irrational position, and her reputation suffered accordingly. As the Washington Post noted in 1896 (untitled, Jul. 20:7:5). When Charlotte Smith, of the Woman’s Rescue League in the city, made her first attack upon the wheel as the evil cause which undermines the morality of women, she little thought of the great sensation she was brewing. Now everyone over the country is speaking of the moral crusade in Washington, and very properly resenting such statements about the morality of the thousands of women who ride the wheel. Charlotte Smith has stirred up a great movement, as she desired, but it is reacting upon her. No one favors her view of the situation as set forth in her circular.

Undaunted, Charlotte went to New York City that fall, and founded a branch of the Women’s Rescue League, as the Boston Globe put it (Jan. 7, 1897:6), “to divorce women from the bicycle.” In one of her more reasonable pronouncements on the subject, Charlotte told the Globe on Aug. 31, 1896, “I do not say that every woman who rides a bicycle is immoral. I don’t say bicycling is immoral. What I do say is that it has a tendency to lure young girls into paths that lead directly to sin.” She added, “I am a good fighter, and I don’t know what failure means.” Unfortunately for Charlotte’s plans “to make all respectable women ashamed . . . to ride bicycles,” and “to transform New York into a model city,” she soon got a lesson in failure. She had reckoned, as the Globe noted, “without numberless hosts arrayed on the side of the wheel.” She was forced to close the WRL office and withdraw. Indeed, the headline of this article is “REFORMER FLEES” (Jan. 7, 1897:6). She might have left one battlefield, but she had not surrendered. In print, at least, as the Chicago Tribune reported the next day, “Charlotte Smith Is Still Defiant.” With a shocked expression she maintains, “I’m not missing, have not disappeared, and have not abandoned my work” (Dateline Boston, Jan. 7; Tribune, Jan. 8, 1897:9). Soon thereafter, the Washington Post reported that many Washington clergymen willingly accommodated “wheels” during

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

169

services, providing bicycle racks at church doors with attendants to watch them. Of course, the report added, “no ladies rode up to the church in either bloomers or short skirts,” and even these churches had once considered it a sin to bicycle on Sunday (“Wheels Checked at Church,” Dec. 14, 1896:4:2). Charlotte, however, was not mollified by this clerical acceptance. As late as 1898, she half-seriously advocated sending women bicyclists to Cuba to fight against Spain (WP, Apr. 7, 1898:7:6). It was this crusade that led to Charlotte’s receiving an entry in Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:11 SMITHEREEN, n. A fragment, a decomponent part, a remain. The word is used variously, but in the following verses on a noted female reformer who opposed bicycle riding by women because it “led them to the devil” it is seen at its best: The wheels go round without a sound— The maidens hold high revel; In sinful mood, insanely gay, True spinsters spin adown the way From duty to the devil! They laugh, they sing, and—ting-a-ling! Their bells go all the morning; Their lanterns bright bestar the night[,] Pedestrians a-warning. With lifted hands Miss Charlotte stands, Good-Lording and O-mying, Her rheumatism forgotten quite, Her fat with anger frying. She blocks the path that leads to wrath, Jack Satan’s power defying. The wheels go round without a sound[;] The lights burn red and blue and green. What’s this that’s found upon the ground? Poor Charlotte Smith’s a smithareen! John William Yope

Another long-running campaign of Charlotte’s—to induce bachelors to marry—came in for its share of ridicule as well. This campaign was sometimes just great fun, or a means of getting attention. On the other hand, it had defensible roots in the serious desire to reduce a surplus of female labor and thus make possible better wages for working women. However, Charlotte could become outrageous on the subject, and it was in any case an easy target for opponents.

170

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

In the late 1890s, and again in 1911, the campaign took the form of opposition to unmarried candidates for office. In accord with Charlotte’s manifesto against bachelor politicians, the Women’s Rescue League resolved in 1897 that “The American bachelor politician shirks his duty to the human family when he fails to provide a home for some good woman before [entering] politics,” and thereafter is not to be trusted in an arena where “temptations surround him on all sides.” The League judged bachelors ineligible for any public office from the Presidency down to councilman” (Globe, Sept. 6, 1897:7). In 1911 the Women’s Homestead Association opposed Lieutenant-Governor Frothingham’s candidacy for governor of Massachusetts, not because he was a Republican but because he was “a bachelor and therefore not eligible to the position of Chief Executive of the Commonwealth” (Globe, Oct. 31, 1911:10). The resolutions, drawn up by Charlotte Smith, president of the Association, were passed unanimously. Sad to say, some people used the anti-bachelor campaign to undermine far more important and valid reforms she was advocating, such as her campaign for pure foods. In this snide (and nonsensical) letter, under the heading “The Passing of the Dairy Maid,” to the Washington Evening Star (Jan, 25, 1902:17:4), one Thomas Gilmer claims that Smith “has appeared before a Congressional committee to advocate pure butter as conducive to matrimony.” Gilmer closes with some verses of his own: “Where are you going, my pretty maid?” “I am going milking, Sir,” she said. “I’ll make your butter and we will wed, As Charlotte Smith has wisely said.”

Saddest of all, perhaps, it was her anti-bachelor and antibicycling crusades that were mostly remembered at her death in 1917. Both are given much more space in her major obituary than they deserve, overshadowing or crowding out her far more important campaigns and her substantial legislative and editorial achievements. But that is getting ahead of the story. For many more years after announcing her reform plan on prostitution in 1896, she continued to speak out on issues that concerned her, such as the further incursion of Chinese laundries (WP, Jan. 24, 1898:6:3), and to work for the advancement of women inventors, working women in general, and businesswomen. She also opposed the Spanish-American War, and spoke out for the freedom of the Philippines. Her support was recognized in a

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

171

letter from Senor ˜ Sexto Lopez of the Philippine junta in London, dated September 1, 1899, and addressed to Charlotte at the Arlington Hotel in Washington, DC. He said, in part, “Were it not for the sympathy of the many Americans who have written me expressing their good wishes, . . . I should become tired with hope deferred.” One could almost imagine, Lopez continued, “that, in the President’s opinion, liberty and honor could be bartered for prosperity and gold.” But “Put yourself in our position. What would you accept in exchange for liberty?” The issue, then, is clear: “If the American people prize liberty more than the morbid advantage which prosperity may give, . . . then how could they look God in the face if they took from the Filipinos that which they themselves refuse to part with?” (WP, Oct. 10, 1899:3:4). Unfortunately, Sr. Lopez’s faith proved ill-founded: the independence he sought for his homeland was nearly fifty years away. Once war was declared, Charlotte joined others concerned for the welfare of the soldiers encamped near Washington, proposing to provide “mothers” for the various regiments at nearby Camp Alger (WP, May 25, 1898: 1:2). It was also at this time, as we have seen, that she proposed her soldiers’ insurance scheme (Post, Jun. 18, 1898:9:3). When the war was over, Charlotte took up the cudgels for Admiral Schley,12 controversial commander at the Battle of Santiago. Like much of the American public, she considered him unfairly deprived of credit for the victory in that battle. Under the aegis of the WNIL, she mounted a campaign in 1899 to provide Schley with a house in the capital in appreciation for his service to the nation. This campaign inspired considerable newspaper publicity (e.g. WP, Oct. 12, 1899:2:3, Oct. 27, 1899:2:3; Mar. 24, 1901:2:3; Mar. 26, 1901:2:2; and Mar. 30, 1901:6:6), evoked a gracious response from Schley himself (urging the committee not to fund-raise as winter’s hard times approached [WP, Oct. 14, 1899:2:6]), and even inspired a fiery poem by the poet John A. Joyce, with closing verses as follows (WP, Oct. 26, 1899: 2:3): When honors are divided And Uncle Sam has funds, He surely must remember The men behind the guns. And Schley shall have great honors When official Goths and Huns Are buried with the cowards That fell before his guns!

5. Engraving of Charlotte Smith from “A Home for Schley,” North Adams (MA) Transcript, October 27, 1899, p.2.

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

173

Smith appeared before the Maryland Legislature on behalf of the Schley campaign, saying it may have been the first time a woman ever addressed that body (WP, Mar. 30, 1901:6:6). She talked of compiling a history of Schley’s life, and promised to contribute the proceeds from its sale, after printing expenses, to the campaign. Several prominent people became involved, a bank was formally designated to receive contributions, and by early 1901 a Committee of One Hundred had raised at least $6,000 from, among other sources, the Knights Templar and Miss Edna McClellan of New York. The Committee resolved to try to raise $10,000 by Admiral Schley’s return the following month, to buy the suburban home that Schley preferred (WP, Mar. 24, 1901:2:3). Presumably the plan went forward. At any rate, when Schley died his address was listed as Washington. Also in 1899, Charlotte Smith and her Women’s National Industrial and Patriotic League criticized Commissioner General Peck for refusing to employ any women in connection with the United States Exhibit at the Paris Exposition. The League resolved to ask American women to boycott the Exhibit, and to call upon manufacturers and businessmen to “resent this insult to American women” who, despite their genius, talent, and industry, cannot get State and national appropriations [enabling them to participate]), “though taxed . . . to establish such expositions” (WP, Mar. 21, 1899:9:2). This same article referred to a woman’s industrial exhibit to be held in Washington in May 1900, under the auspices of the WNIPL—“to which,” as the League spokeswoman (probably Smith) put it, “the women of every country have been invited to contribute and participate, and where no ‘Commissioner Peck will be in command’ ” (ibid.). Though the permanent exposition of women’s industrial and inventive work never materialized, this more limited exhibit may have occurred. Until just before her death Charlotte Smith remained active in her causes and crusades. In 1915 she appeared at the Massachusetts Legislature to protest a proposal to tax the property of single women. She objected on the grounds that it was usually the daughters who stayed home and took care of aged parents, while the sons spent their money on someone else. She also favored exempting the homesteads of working people up to $2,000 (Globe, Sept. 17, 1915:2). In the fall of 1917, Charlotte asked Mayor Curley’s permission to put a large sign for women on Boston Common—so big, in fact

174

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

that even the nearsighted couldn’t miss it. The sign would read as follows: “One hundred thousand women of Boston have nothing to waste, no legal providers, no pensions and none to provide for them.” She asked for the space on behalf of the Women’s Homestead Cooperative Association, “which demands aid from State and Federal Governments to cultivate the land, so that the women of Massachusetts and the Nations of the world may be fed” (Globe, Oct. 16, 1917:11). Less than two months later, on December 3, 1917, Charlotte Smith was dead. She died of pneumonia in the City Hospital, visited during her stay there only by her priest, Father Philip O’Donnell of St. James’s Church. Although her son, Charles E. Smith, was a patent attorney in New York, and she herself had once been considered wealthy, spending untold thousands of dollars on her many reforms and projects for the benefit of women, she was buried by the Catholic Church in an unmarked grave in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Father O’Donnell did locate Charlotte’s son in time for him to attend her funeral on December 7 (Globe, Dec. 7, 1917), if not to heal the estrangement that broke her heart. Smith’s first obituary, in the Boston Globe (Dec. 4, 1917), bears one of only two known photographs of her (see page 24). It gives a flawed and sketchy summary of her life and career (wrong age, questionable birthplace, false statements about her husband, etc.). In truth it might take a genius to compress such a complex and perennially active career as hers into a few newspaper columns, but the focus of this important obituary on Charlotte’s late-life crusades against bachelors and bicycling is truly appalling. It completely misrepresents the thrust of her significant work in Washington and other cities as “doing reform work among girls,” and calls her life before she appeared there “now largely legendary,” noting only that she reportedly once lived in St. Louis. Worst of all, this obituary fails entirely to mention the Inland Monthly and Smith’s two other periodicals, as well as the many bills, some of them important, that she managed to get introduced into Congress and passed. It lists some of the organizations she founded, but not the first and most important, the Woman’s National Industrial League (WNIL). Its only saving grace is that it tells a story she might have liked to be remembered: “She was wont to declare that the city was infested with ‘mashers’,” and boasted of having broken fully 5000 umbrellas over the heads of males annoying young women.”

8 / THE BOSTON TRAVELER

175

The obituary concludes, “The enigmatic little woman, who for more than 20 years kept Boston fairly alive with her activities, interviews, and schemes, who was known, by reputation at least, to thousands, who in her long life had undoubtedly given kindly aid to many, passed away quietly, alone, almost forgotten.” Much better is the Boston Evening Globe’s obituary on the same day (Dec. 4, 1917), titled “Charlotte Smith’s Son Sought For.” Though it also has Charlotte’s age (and probably her birthplace) wrong, and calls her husband Edward a wealthy merchant who died in the 1860s, it gives a much fairer overview of her career, mentioning her book on the Chicago Fire, her editing and publishing the Inland in St. Louis, and her effective lobbying in Washington “for all National legislation for the protection of women workers and the home.” It also credits her with opening the country’s first clubroom for businesswomen in 1876 and even (wrongly) says that she was put in charge of the Women’s Building and exhibit at the Chicago World’s Fair. “Wherever she lived,” says the Evening Globe, “she agitated, for her mind was fecund in ideas, and she founded organization after organization to promote them.” She claimed to have been the first woman member of the Knights of Labor and of the American Federation of Labor. She worked for seventeen years for a National Pure Food Law, spending $20,000 on the campaign. When she came to Boston in the early 1890s, the obituary continues, she opened lodging houses for working girls and rescued women of the streets. Not forgotten are two of her Boston organizations, the Women’s Board of Trade and the Women’s Homestead Association. The Homestead organization, it says, latterly became her principal interest, and only here is there any mention of her campaign for a tax on bachelors, “which once every year she fought for at the State House.” The fact that the New York Times gave Charlotte Smith’s death only a single brief paragraph, not a real obituary, is eloquent testimony to how far her fame had declined from her heydey. How much better Charlotte would have liked to be remembered as the Washington Post portrayed her in “Like a Knight of Old” (May 7, 1905)! She had just finished a new round of firsthand research into the lives of Philadelphia shop girls who earned $4 a week but whose minimum expenses were $5.65 a week. The reporter who interviewed her was definitely impressed. After describing her as “A restless, white-haired, kindly looking woman, with a look of benevolent fanaticism in her eyes,”

176

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

striding back and forth in a tiny room above a carpenter shop, he continued: Mrs. Smith is an enthusiast. When she talks her thoughts run faster than her tongue, and it is a clipper, and her face glows with the intensity of her energy. She will tell you that she originated the socalled woman’s movement in the United States, while her experiences gained in a quarter of a century of endeavor for outcast and friendless girls would fill volumes. She has the recklessness of desperate courage and has bearded more than one lion in his den—and has come off victorious. “I have had more than fifty bills passed by Congress,” she said, “and I have been interested in every project from plans for the betterment of social conditions to the establishment of playgrounds for Mamie and Johnny. I know more about women than anybody else in this country, and my sympathies are with them. I love the girls.”

This reporter mentions Charlotte’s presidency of both the WNIL and the WRL, and quotes her on her work in the large cities of the Northeast: “No one else will take the work,” she says, “so I have filled the office for the past twenty-five years. This is my work, and I have done my duty, and made myself felt in every city in the East. . . .” “How have I managed to do what I have done? I don’t know. I have simply kept on, and somehow I have succeeded.” She says she is “doing the work that the professional Christians leave undone—the Christians who work for revenue, and establish cat and dog hospitals.” (As often before, Smith says it is easier to get money for pets than for people, and specifically for the “heartsick women” whose advocate she became.) Asked about her religion, she says, “I don’t know. I belong to the church of humanity.” Asked about the industrial future of women, she threw aside a bundle of pamphlets and said, “That’s a serious question. . . . Industrial women will be forced to take a more active interest in politics, for laws are being enacted by Congress and in many States which affect their industrial life. While I have never been identified with woman’s suffrage, I am convinced that women will have to take a more active interest in political affairs.” Charlotte Smith, said this reporter, would have been another Henry George13 if she had been a man. No “enigmatic little woman” here, but a fierce and effective fighter for her causes. This is how she would have liked to leave the stage.

Conclusion: A Woman Ahead of Her Time IS THERE ANY ONE WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHO CHARLOTTE SMITH IS and what she has done?” asked Pauline Periwinkle of the Galveston (TX) Daily News in 1905. Clearly expecting a negative answer, she continues her front-page story of May 22: “If so, it is a case for enlightenment on an influence which in a quiet way may have done more for the cause of women who really need help than any other.” If that question were posed in a newspaper today, the response would be a blank stare, or a resounding “yes.” The better question would be, “Is there anyone who does know who Charlotte Smith is and what she has done?” A case for enlightenment, indeed. How is it possible that a woman who did so much and helped so many for so many years could be omitted from all the standard United States biographical works, including Notable American Women? How could a woman so well known and so newsworthy that her utterances were reported—and replied to—in newspapers from the New York Times to the Hawaiian Gazette, drop so thoroughly into obscurity? Even some of her descendants know almost nothing about her, and she lies buried in an unmarked grave. In other words, what are the roots of Charlotte Smith’s obscurity?1 Some answers to this question were fairly obvious. First and foremost, she was a woman. Though much has changed since the second wave of the feminist movement, women are still paid, rewarded, and recognized less than men from academia to corporate America and the halls of Congress—not to mention the annals of history. Second—and almost equally important—she was not a suffragist. For unknown reasons, the gatekeepers of nineteenthcentury United States history seems to have decided at some point to focus on the fight for woman suffrage above all else. As a result, most of the women who got included in their books 177

178

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

were suffragists. It was almost as if these historians had concluded that if you were not a suffragist, you were not worth remembering. Charlotte Smith was not opposed to suffrage for women, as we’ve seen, but she knew, and did not hesitate to say, that money was more important than the vote. She also thought, early on, and again did not hesitate to say, that too many of the Suffragists were all talk and no action. She saw clearly that if a woman had no access to useful education or training for earning her own living, and no means of self-support if she never married or her husband died, deserted her, or proved feckless, all the voting in the world would not help her. Smith may have been, in fact, the first economic feminist—just one of the many ways in which she was ahead of her time.2 As Pauline Periwinkle put it in 1905, “Charlotte Smith did not identify herself with those who were working for the enfranchisement of women; instead, she began a series of investigations into the lives of all those women who are classed outside the term ‘domestic.’ She became the champion of the industrial rights of women in the same sense that Miss Anthony became the champion of [their] political rights . . .” (ibid.). Charlotte did eventually find some validity in the suffragists’ view, even though she never actually joined their campaign. Pauline Periwinkle considered, in fact, that despite working “wholly independently from opposite ends of the woman problem, Mrs. Smith and Miss Anthony had arrived at the same point after all.” Periwinkle compared it to “the feat of engineering when, working from either side the Alps, the forces engaged on the Simplon Tunnel concluded their task at a common center.” In Charlotte’s own words, “Women can no longer afford to neglect politics, for laws are being enacted by Congress and in many States which affect their industrial life. While I have never been identified with woman’s suffrage, I am now convinced that women will have to take a more active interest in political affairs.” (ibid.).3 Certain other familiar categories of women besides the suffragists made their way into the history of the nineteenth-century United States: wives (or mistresses) of prominent men, popular actresses and entertainers, notable criminals, an inventor or two, enormously successful businesswomen or entrepreneurs; religious leaders, philanthropists, labor leaders, magazine editors, and even a few nonsuffragist reformers—but not Charlotte Smith (who was all three of the last).

CONCLUSION: A WOMAN AHEAD OF HER TIME

179

Some other roots of Smith’s obscurity were also obvious: She was of Irish extraction when that was a severe handicap. Her wealth, such as it was—both its extent and its origins were always mysterious—was not Old Money, even though some of it was inherited. It resulted mainly from her own efforts at blockade-running and enterprises she started in post-Civil War Mobile and St. Louis. She had no powerful backers or high social status to help her, and her formal education stopped with grade school, so she had no academic mentors or patrons. She also had no wealthy or powerful husband. In fact, except for a couple of years in the late 1860s, in effect she had no husband at all. The only evidence of Edward Smith’s presence after 1869 was that her name had changed from Odlum to Smith, and she had two small children to support. It must be admitted that Charlotte also had a hot temper and an acid tongue that made her compelling as a speaker, but probably worked against her in getting a movement started and sustaining it. She was an activist—a doer—not a contemplative thinker or writer, and she left no scholarly or purely literary writings. Her book on the Chicago fire survives, as do her three magazines. However, she wrote only parts of the Inland Monthly. The Working Woman, in which she wrote most pungently and freely, survives in just a few scattered issues. There are also a few “memorials” to legislatures, letters to newspapers, and isolated letters to public figures. These productions, though often vivid and effective in making her points, were mostly written under pressure and in some haste, and could not have won her a lasting literary reputation. These are all good reasons why Smith vanished from United States history. But recently I’ve begun to think that another factor is even more important: Charlotte Smith was, as my title suggests, a woman ahead of her time. It is a truism, but also true, that if you are too far ahead of your time, your ideas (such as advocating gay marriage in the 1950s) will not take hold. Let me count some of the ways in which Charlotte Smith was ahead of her time: In the mid-1850s, upon the death of her father, she became the “man of the house.” At that time she would have been just fifteen or sixteen years old. Her mother had three younger children and no trade or training except running a boardinghouse. Many might have suggested breaking up the family and sending the boys to relatives, but Charlotte and her mother, Catherine

180

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

Odlum, seem never to have considered this. After an extended period of travels, the family settled in St. Louis, where Charlotte opened a pattern emporium and sewing notions store, Catherine opened a boardinghouse, and the oldest boy went off to an expensive Catholic school. In the early 1860s, as the Civil War began, Charlotte ran the blockade on the Ohio River. Though she claimed to the pension examiners that she did it partly (or mostly) to obtain news of her missing brother, she evidently made thousands of dollars. This fortune served to finance her later foray into postwar Mobile, where she seems to have made further thousands. In the early 1870s, having fled the Chicago fire to St. Louis, she founded her first magazine, the Inland Monthly. In this she was also ahead of her time, for the Inland was not a women’s magazine, but a regional, general-interest periodical she intended for broad appeal to intelligent readers. As an example of its unusual content, she published articles on science and technology, including a piece on Darwin’s views and findings. While editing the Inland she defied the strictures against a married woman’s suing on her own behalf, and mounted two lawsuits, hiring a woman lawyer to represent her in one of them. She also formed and hired the Woman’s Printing Company to produce the magazine for part of its life. In the late 1870s, when most women hesitated to speak in public at all, Charlotte Smith moved to Washington, DC, for the avowed purpose of being closer to the centers of power. There, she repeatedly appeared before congressional committees to testify for working women and her other causes, and to speak for or against proposed legislation, most often in the areas of labor relations, health and education. In these appearances, in her magazines, and in other speeches and interviews, she spoke out loud and clear. She not only testified but worked directly with individual senators and representatives to get bills she favored introduced into Congress and passed. Exact numbers are elusive because of the nature of lobbying and the multiple influences on legislators. However, no one has come forward to dispute her claim to success with more than fifty bills. That count, incidentally, dates to 1891, and should have been considerably higher before her death. Indeed, Charlotte Smith may have been our first important female lobbyist. Without denigrating the work of Olive Hechtman, Dr. Mary Walker, and others, Smith’s work was broader in

CONCLUSION: A WOMAN AHEAD OF HER TIME

181

scope and had a greater national impact than theirs. Unfortunately for Charlotte’s lasting fame, lobbying is by its very nature a hidden activity, and the greatest success may be the least reported. How many of us, even in this Information Age, can name the best lobbyists in Washington today? In 1882, in Washington, Charlotte Smith founded an all-female union of federal clerks, which she then brought into the Knights of Labor. She began attending F.O.T.L.U. conventions in 1882, only a year after the organization was founded, sometimes as the only woman present, and it may have been her influence that led Samuel Gompers to assure women that their organizations would be accepted on an equal footing with men’s (Werthheimer, 199). Likewise, her urging may have caused the 1883 convention to go on record in favor of unions for women and to invite women to join them in supporting equal pay for equal work (ibid.). She definitely pricked the leaders’ consciences by reminding them that there were 2.5 million working women in the country. By 1884 she had a seat at the convention. Her union, the Women’s National Industrial League (WNIL), evolved into something very like a modern PAC, becoming Charlotte’s springboard for many of her strike interventions and congressional appearances. In 1883 (August 20) Smith testified in New York City before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor hearings on relations between labor and capital. She read into the record the founding statement of the WNIL (see Appendix 1), inspired by a Cabinet member’s refusal to employ women in his department because they were not voters(!). At the same time she notified the committee of her ongoing investigation into wages and conditions for working women in the United States, on which she promised a report to come. This investigation of hers, incidentally, was the basis for legislation later proposed by Senator Henry Blair, whose ear she always seemed to have. Her approach sounds like the forerunner of the modern investigations by senate and other congressional committees. Smith’s work was also the clear if unacknowledged forerunner of the investigations urged by the Women’s Trades Union League founded by Ellen Henrotin, Jane Addams, and “other foremost leaders” in 1905. The difference here was that instead of undertaking on their own to investigate “conditions surrounding women and children in industry,” as Charlotte had done, they

182

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

asked the United States Bureau of Labor to do it. Thanks in part to the earlier efforts of Charlotte Smith, there was a Bureau of Labor statistics, and the Labor Department was “willing and anxious to undertake the work,” if these ladies could pressure Congress into appropriating the money for it (“Pioneer of Industry,” Galveston (TX) Daily News, May 22, 1905:1). Early in 1886, Charlotte Smith founded her second periodical, the Working Woman. In its pages she became an ever more vocal and strident advocate for working women and critic of their enemies, never hesitating to call a spade a dirty shovel, and sparing not even Senators, Cabinet members, or the Pope himself, if she thought they deserved censure. In this periodical she advocated an early form of unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation insurance that was not even dreamt of by most American workers, and would not be enacted for decades. She had apparently read about it in the writings of German labor leaders, which is interesting in itself in view of her grade-school education. In 1889–90 Smith testified before Congress on the dangers of tobacco (both in its use and in its processing into cigarettes), and specifically on the dangers of cigarette smoking. She stated that she had been speaking about this danger for at least seven years, traveling to several states to do so, and in 1888 had written to every school superintendent in Massachusetts asking for statistics on youths under fifteen who were addicted to tobacco. She was dead right about the health threat from cigarettes, and the special gravity of the addiction for youths. In the earlier part of her testimony she was wrong about several of the actual diseases involved, but in the later part of this appearance she was already talking about smoking-related deaths from cancer. She was also an early and vocal opponent of adulteration in tobacco, cosmetics, medicines, and foods. Her 1891 demands for labels with all ingredients listed sound curiously modern. In the late 1880s and early 1890s, as planning began for the great Columbian Exposition and Chicago World’s Fair of 1892– 93, Charlotte Smith began to push for more recognition of Queen Isabella’s crucial role in Columbus’s voyages, and more representation of working women’s achievements and interests in the administration of the Woman’s Building. She wanted working women represented on the Board of Lady Managers, and exhibits in the women’s building that showed the importance of working women in the national life. She successfully urged the Patent Office to publish a list of all

CONCLUSION: A WOMAN AHEAD OF HER TIME

183

the women who had received United States patents in the century to date. This was another first. And in 1891 she started her third periodical, the Woman Inventor, which was then and still is the only periodical ever devoted entirely to women inventors. Sad to say, it ran for only two issues, but Smith had access to inside information, in that her surviving son Charles was working as a Patent Office clerk. The periodical contains inventors’ stories and other material found nowhere else. As president of the WNIL in 1892 she presented a Memorial to the United States Senate urging congress to legislate tariff protection for American working- and businesswomen. What was happening just then was that milliners and dressmakers were laying off their women workers because America’s society women were buying their wardrobes abroad. According to Smith, who had interviewed the employers on behalf of her laid-off WNIL members, this was because of the high United States import tariff on materials they used, whereas their female customers could bring things in duty-free, making it cheaper to have their dresses and hats made abroad. She asked that an import duty be placed on the individual tourists’ imports as well. The list goes on, but the foregoing chapters and this recap should convey some sense of the advanced character of Charlotte Smith’s ideas. Claiming “firsts” is always chancy, and documenting them too often involves proving a negative. Any fair evaluation of her achievement at all is made doubly difficult by the absence of Smith’s papers and by more than a century of scholarly silence. However, there is no doubt in the case of the Patent Office list of nineteenth-century women patentees, for example, her presence at early labor union congresses, or her pioneering achievement in getting the facts on working conditions for women and girls. The Librarian of Congress himself (Spofford) acknowledged that “until Mrs. Smith began work, the shelves of the national library were almost wholly destitute of books in which the industrial interests of women were discussed or touched upon” (HFW). I myself like to think of her first as an economic feminist, and second as an artist in reform. By the latter I mean that although she was, as she herself said, “interested in every project from plans for the betterment of social conditions to the establishment of playgrounds for Mamie and Johnny” (“Like a Knight of Old,” WP, May 7, 1905), virtually all of the seemingly diverse projects or campaigns turn out to have some relation to the welfare or advancement of working women. Even her campaigns for pure

184

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

food and patent medicines can be seen in that light, for she was convinced that the “industrial classes” were most at risk from adulterated products. Unity within variety, in short. Charlotte Smith herself, therefore, might most like to be remembered as in Robert Graves’s accolade on one of her early successes in Washington: “The 250 women were reinstated, and with victory perching on her banners, the indomitable woman began to assume that unique position which she has held ever since—a woman feared by men in authority and loved by poor women dependent on their labor for a livelihood” (HFW). And if she had been able to write her own epitaph, she might have chosen CHAMPION OF WORKING WOMEN
The puzzle of why there is no epitaph, or even any headstone, for this dynamic reformer—the puzzle of Charlotte Smith’s fall into obscurity—is perhaps in the end insoluble; for luck, charisma, and factors such as whether certain figures do or do not appeal to influential historians, operate independently of merit or fairness, and indeed in utterly mysterious fashion. However, there can be no doubt that the deck was stacked against her in some important ways.

Appendix 1: Testimony of Charlotte Smith, Senate Hearings on Relations Between Labor and Capital New York City, August 20, 1883 MRS. CHARLOTTE SMITH sworn and examined By the CHAIRMAN: Question. If you would like to make a statement to the committee we shall be glad to hear it. Please state first where you reside.—Answer. I reside in Washington. Q. If you are connected with the labor movement in any way, please state in what capacity.—A. I am president of the Women’s National Industrial League. Q. You may proceed with the statement which you desire to make. —A. I am not prepared to do more at this time than to make a few informal remarks; but as to the object of the Women’s Industrial League, I will state that it was formed one year ago the 10th of August last. Mr. Sec. Teller had refused to employ women in the Department of the Interior; he wanted to have only voters; and I called an indignation meeting, and on the 10th of August, 1882, the Women’s National Industrial League was formed. We issued an address, which I will read as part of my statement here: TO THE WOMEN OF AMERICA: Cruelty and injustice toward women are evidences of barbarism, while kindness and justice are proofs of civilization and enlightenment, whether it be by individuals, States, or nations. There never was a time when the majority of the American people were not willing to accord to women all the rights and privileges which they were entitled to. When the opportunity occurs the voters of this nation will so express themselves at the ballot-box. The time is approaching, if it has not already arrived, when the industrial classes and bread-winners of America must organize in defense of their rights to earn an honest living by the work of their

185

186

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

hands and brains. Capitalists, aristocrats, manufacturers, and property owners, who add nothing to the wealth of the nation, are well organized; their power—money banks, insurance offices, railroads, monopolies, and political influence—is growing every day, and becoming more alarming and dangerous to the working classes and producers; the rich are growing richer, and the poor poorer. Legislatures are being purchased in nearly every state in the union; corruption is a familiar word in the halls of Congress, and even the bench is not free from suspicion and bribery. The great civil war is over—its issues are dead—but the eternal and irrepressible war of capital against labor, still goes on, and it is a thousand times more dangerous to the working classes than a devastating war of sword and musket. It is the purse of the land owner against the stomach of the worker. It is the money of the capitalist against the muscles and brains of the producers. For the last thirty years the women of the United States have struggled as only women can to become independent and self-sustaining. They have honorably and successfully filled those positions which are adapted to their powers and natures. They have demonstrated fully their capacity and fitness for the situations of superintendents, forewomen, clerks, saleswomen, and various other industrial avocations. And it is now undisputed that as physicians to their own sex they are inferior to none, and they, at the present time, form the largest number of our educators in public and other schools. No invidious distinction should be made which denies to woman the right to be man’s competitor for any position to which she is eligible or fitted, and there should be no difference in the amount of wages or salaries paid to either sex when services contributed are the same. It is not necessary to repeat here the unanswerable arguments which have been made during the last quarter of a century by the women reformers of America; suffice it to say that it is to this noble band of heroines that we owe much of the progress and enlightenment vouchsafed to the industrious workingwomen of our day. These reformers have made it possible for the women and girls of this generation to obtain employment in many of the departments of industry to which they have heretofore been denied access. We owe to the pioneer women of America a debt of gratitude which should never be forgotten. Their heroism and courage form many of the brightest pages in the history of the republic. It may now be confidently affirmed, and especially in the city of Washington, that wherever women have been entrusted with positions in the public Departments they have shown ability and capacity equal to the opposite sex. In the course of the past twenty years there is not one case of the discharge of a woman for incapacity or dishonesty. We are therefore at a loss to understand why the Cabinet officers of this administration should undertake to discharge the women clerks from their respective Departments, simply

APPENDIX 1

187

because they were women, and to refuse to receive applications from women who had successfully established their ability and fitness for the places they had honorably filled. These unwarranted acts must be set down to the lasting disgrace of such officers as Secretary Teller, of the Interior, and Secretary Lincoln, of the War Department, and more especially to Mr. Lincoln, who has assumed this attitude in opposition to the workingwomen. The name of Lincoln, associated as it is, with immortal memories of the republic, should not be so disgraced. The only virtue the present Secretary of War seems to have is that he is made visible by standing in the great shadow of his illustrious father; he was one of the noblest and best friend[s] women ever had. His patriotism was only equaled by his benevolence, and that descended to woman as a slave in the vast fields of the South, and also to her in the humblest ranks of toil at the North. And still another Cabinet officer, Mr. Brewster, the present AttorneyGeneral, had the unblushing effrontery, in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, in his capacity as an officer of the administration, to cast a slur upon a citizen because he had been a mechanic, thus throwing an insult into the very teeth of the mechanics and the working classes of the nation, so that we have three Cabinet officers, ruffled and bejeweled aristocrats, who have placed themselves on record as the enemies of those who work for an honest livelihood. It is to be hoped that ere long these public officials will be taught that “this is a Government of the people, made by the people, and for the people,” and that the working people are in the vast majority. It is certainly the proper time now to organize for the protection of the laboring classes—the toiling millions—to counteract the baneful influences at work to degrade the very class who have made the country what it is; those who cultivate its farms, build its cities, make its public improvements, fight its battles, and do all [the] work of its manufactories, and produce all the necessaries of life. The aim of the present organization at the capital of the nation is to induce the workingwomen of America to form similar organizations in the great commercial and manufacturing centers and communicate with the parent league in this city to the end that a net-work of leagues may take place in every State and Territory in our broad land. We appeal, therefore, to the mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and sweethearts of the industrial classes and to the workingmen of the country to join with us in carrying out the intentions herein set forth; that is to say, the freedom, right and privilege of women to compete for public situations and to participate in the profits of their own industry. Women who desired to earn their living were ostracized in Washington by one of the officers of the Government because they could not vote, and these ladies who are present this morning are ostracized by one of the greatest monopolies in the world—the Western Union Telegraph Company—because they have had the principle to stand by their

188

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

brethren, their fellow workers. I shall appeal to the women of America to protest against such an outrage—a monopoly ostracizing the truest women because they stand by their principles. When I am better prepared, I will make a report on this subject. I am sending out now for statistics, and I intend to collect them and make a true report in regard to the working women of America. Pardon me if I am somewhat excited this morning. I speak in behalf of these noble women who are told by this monopoly that they cannot go back to work. Some of them have aged parents dependent upon them for support, yet they are ostracized because they have acted upon principle. But we will black-ball Mr. Jay Gould, and I shall appeal to the workingmen of the nation not to travel over his roads or send telegrams over his lines. These working women who are thus proscribed by this great monopoly are, many of them, entirely dependent on their labor for their own support and the support of their friends; but I hope that during your sessions here these ladies will come in a body and state their cases themselves. [Smith’s testimony continues briefly with reports on real “distress among telegraph operators.”]

Appendix 2: Memorial of the Woman’s National Industrial League of America IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 14, 1891—Ordered to lie on the table and be printed. Mr. Paddock presented the following

URGING LEGISLATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF THE ADULTERATION OF DRUGS, MEDICINES, FOODS, ETC. We, the memorialists, present to the Senate of the United States this our memorial praying that your honorable body might favorably consider our petition and enact stringent laws which will in the future prevent the abuses herein enumerated. The adulterations practiced differ in kind as well as in degree. One form of adulteration consists in the addition of substances usually of greatly inferior value, for the sake of bulk and weight, the choice being determined by the cheapness of the substitute. Another form of adulteration consists in the addition of coloring matters of various kinds, with a view to heighten[ing] the color, and, as it is considered, to improve the appearance of the articles, as well as to conceal other forms of adulteration. This is a very prevalent adulteration, and is the most objectionable and reprehensible of all, because substances are frequently employed for the purpose of imparting color [that possess] highly deleterious and even in many cases poisonous properties, such as preparations of lead, copper, mercury, and even arsenic; the latter especially is found in candies dyed with red aniline colors. A third description of adulteration consists in the admixture of substances for the purpose of imparting smell, flavor, pungency, and other properties. The fourth is the deception practiced by the manufacturers and vendors of the so-called patent medicines, of some cosmetics, and above

189

190

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

all the vile compounds known as soothing sirups, bitters, and preparations for the stimulation of the growth of hair. In the household, even the bread purchased contains alum, inferior and musty flour, and often mashed potatoes and white sand. Butter contains oleomargarine, lard, annetto coloring, and sometimes even coarse beef and mutton fat. Coffee: Several samples bought by the league in different parts of the city were sent to experts for analysis and [were found to contain] roasted wheat, rye, corn, burnt beans; one sample contained roasted acorns and mud flavored with the essence of coffee. Tea: Samples purchased contained mostly exhausted tea leaves, dried over again; some were adulterated with leaves of the horsechestnut tree, leaves of the sycamore and plum tree. The coloring of tea was composed of indigo, turmeric mixed with Prussian blue and black lead. Sugars and sirups contained glucose, burnt starch, and the powdered sugar [contained] flour and ground starch. Lard[:] extensively adulterated, the ingredients being water and flour, as well as potash, alum, carbonates of potash and soda, and caustic lime, these being intended either to cause the lard to hold water or to improve its consistenc[y] as well as color; the admixture of cotton-seed oil, and even fats from the entrails of animals. Candies: Several samples were purchased and analyzed. Yellow candies were colored with lemon chrome and the pale variety with chromate of lead. Red candies contained aniline dyes, red lead, and even vermilion; brown candies, sienna earths; purple, an admixture of indigo, Prussian blue, and some red pigment; green candies, carbonate of copper, chromate of lead, and Prussian blue. Extract of beef, especially in the liquid form, contains glue in solution. Cider, with not a trace of the apple, consisted of vinegar, some alcohol, and molasses. Honey in bottles admixed with glucose and pale sirup. Mustard: Wheat flour colored with turmeric. Marmalade made of the pulp of the apple or turnip, flavored with the rind of the orange or lemon. Black pepper, mixed with wheat and corn flour, ground rice, ground mustard seeds, linseed meal, and coarse pepper dust. Bitters, composed of the vilest stuff of raw whisky full of fusil oil, which in itself is a most poisonous ingredient. Claret wine, made of decaying raisins, colored with logwood. Brandy, with not a trace of the grape juice, but an admixture of whisky, alcohol, flavored with artificial oil of cognac—a very poisonous ingredient, imported mostly from Germany—colored with burnt sugar. Patent medicines, composed of the violent narcotics, mercury, and adulterated drugs as well as chemicals, which for a moment numb the pain but do not reach the cause of the disorder. Ingredients which no

APPENDIX 2

191

regular practicing physician would dare to prescribe form the basis of these secret remedies, and they are sold under fictitious names. Antipyrene is used in patent medicines for the relief of headache, but the frequent use of the same has only too often resulted in partial paralysis of the brain. Bromide of potash forms the basis of most of the advertised remedies to cure epileptic fits. Momentary relief is often obtained from the use of that chemical, but the repeated administration of patent medicines containing bromide produce paralysis of the spine. Patent medicines advertised ostensibly for the cure of opium habits contained morphine in solution, and the cravings for those deceptive liquids by the unfortunate are often beyond power of resistance. Elixirs of opium advertised under fictitious names are sold all over the country, and are said to be found in every drug store. But the vilest of all compounds [containing] morphine in solution is known as “Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Sirup.” This soothing sirup is fraudulently advertised as a harmless medicine; it quiets the children and produces a sound but most unhealthy sleep. This “soothing sirup” has killed thousands of children . . ., and those who have survived have only too often become idiots, and thousands of them are now in lunatic asylums. The consequence is, insanity is alarmingly on the increase in this country at the expense of the States and Territories; in some States as high as 40 per cent within the past decade. The Governments of France, Russia, and Germany have prohibited the importation of “Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Sirup.” Mothers, in their innocence, administer this subtle poison hourly to their children. When in October of last year the Druggists’ Association, representing millions of capital of the leading patent medicine manufacturers in this country, held its meeting at the Arlington Hotel in this city, the president of the Woman’s National Industrial League presented a memorial. In the same[,] mention was made and protest entered against that vile and poisonous stuff[,] “Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Sirup.” The Druggists’ Association took exception to this, and unless the sentence condemning this vile and poisonous sirup was stricken out they declined to entertain that memorial. We refused to strike out the objectionable soothing sirup paragraph and our memorial was not presented to the convention. Upon further discussion with the members of that association, assertion was made that if a clause be presented to the Senate for the prohibition of this soother and similar compounds, they would spend half a million dollars to defeat the bill. The industrial classes, of both sexes, being not always able to procure medical assistance, are forced to resort to the patent medicines. So they are the largest consumers; it is therefore of vital importance and imperatively necessary for the protection of the industrial classes that a stringent law be enacted and that the ingredients which form these medicines be printed upon each label and the omission of the same as

192

RAISING MORE HELL AND FEWER DAHLIAS

well as the misrepresentation being not only punishable by a fine, but always with imprisonment and confiscation of these deceptive nostrums. As to the adulteration of articles of food[,] the industrial women which your memorialists represent are by far the greatest sufferers. Not only are they swindled out of their meager earnings, but their health is jeopardized as well by consuming vile and adulterated compounds. Therefore we pray for strict legislation on this subject. CHARLOTTE SMITH, President[,] Woman’s National Industrial League of America. CATHERINE BERGEN, Secretary. WASHINGTON, D. C., February 4, 1891. [Document #70, Miscellaneous Documents of the Senate of the United States, for the Second Session of the Fifty-First Congress. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1891, vol. 4.]

Notes INTRODUCTION The “Corliss Engine” in the chapter title is a reference to the massive steam engine patented by George Henry Corliss (1817–88), which powered all the exhibits in Machinery Hall at the Philadelphia Centennial in 1876, running continuously for six months. 1. Orson Squire Fowler (1809–87), immensely popular writer and lecturer on phrenology. 2. This could have been what Charlotte meant when, in describing her lobbying methods in 1899, she mentioned the rare occasion when she “had to use force” (“Threw the Cash Away,” Washington Post, July 28:9:1). 3. Except for a brief and unsatisfactory period, discussed in chapter 4, when Logan Reavis became her business and minor editorial partner.

CHAPTER 1. BEGINNINGS 1. In 1887, when she was actually forty-seven years old, or within a few days of it, one of Charlotte’s depositions in her mother’s pension claim gave her age as forty-three (Deposition B, Claim #337,612, July 27, 1887 [hereinafter cited as PC:B], p. 31). On the other hand, in March 1861, when she was twenty, the manifest of a ship bringing her from Havana to New Orleans listed her age as twenty-six (New Orleans Port District, Steamship Cahawba, March 21, 1861). 2. I am deeply grateful to the late Persis Boyesen, then librarian at Ogdensburg, NY, who found this nearly illegible baptismal record in the microfilm archives of St. Mary’s Church. Mrs. Boyesen has been honored as a Distinguished Librarian of the State of New York. 3. Logan U. Reavis, Saint Louis . . ., with Biographical Sketches of the Representative Men and Women. . . . St. Louis: C.R. Barns, 1876, pp. 756ff. 4. Robert was named after Robert Emmet (1778–1803), Irish patriot (or rebel, depending on your viewpoint). Hanged for treason for his part in an abortive uprising against the English, he was nevertheless a romantic popular hero, and admired and eulogized by Thomas Moore. 5. Christening Register, 1805–1820, Church of Ireland, Parish of Rosecrea. The Church of Ireland is Protestant. 6. Logan Reavis’s above-mentioned biographical sketch of Charlotte implies the marriage took place in New York City, and says that Catherine’s maiden name was Burgoyne (756). Charlotte’s death certificate has her mother’s maiden name as Gray.

193

194

NOTES

7. “Who was Robert E. Odlum?”, Ogdensburg Journal, May 26, 1885, cited, e.g., in Baxter, “Odlum in Dive to Death.” (1969). 8. Of course if the Ogdensburg Journal’s vicious article is correct, those two boys were not Richard’s sons at all, but the offspring of a long-standing affair between Catherine and a neighbor (see below). 9. A puzzling clue comes from the 1850 census, where we find Catherine, age thirty, and three children: Charlotte, ten, James, three, and a days-old male infant. This is confusing, because the second-oldest surviving child, David, should have been about seven at the time and thus living at home. Unless his name was actually James David (or David James), and the census taker recorded the wrong age, David must have been away at census time—perhaps visiting his father in Canada. In the latter case, both three-year-old James and the male infant later died. Robert and George, the two youngest brothers, were not yet born (August 31, 1851, and February 28, 1853, respectively). Still another child must have been lost at some point, most likely in the four years between David and James. 10. Catherine’s Memphis home was rural enough for her to keep cows, but she did not live in Memphis by choice. She and her family were caught in the Union occupation of Memphis and forced to stay for the duration of the Civil War. Her country stay near St. Louis in the 1870s was brief. 11. Charlotte herself was the likely source of Reavis’s information, since she and Reavis knew each other well when the profile was being written, nearly twenty years after Richard’s death, and Reavis (born in Illinois and active there and in the Nebraska Territory till after the Civil War) could scarcely have known either Richard or Charlotte before that time. Reavis was Logan Uriah Reavis (1831–89), a newspaper editor and urban promoter, best known for his campaign to make St. Louis the national capital. His role in Charlotte’s story will be discussed in a later chapter. 12. Local historians suggest the writer was Nathaniel Lytle, the Journal’s editor. Aged fifty-nine at the time of the story—and not far from his own death—he would have been in his twenties during Catherine Odlum’s sojourn in Ogdensburg (Lytle obituary, Ogdensburg Journal, Jan. 8, 1889; Bailey, Letter of May 24, 1990). 13. This installment of “Canadian News” is reprinted from the Kingston Chronicle of October 4, 1851 (probably a typo for 1853). 14. A tiny photograph on the evening edition obituary, December 4, 1917. 15. Since the 1850 census places Catherine and her family at Clayton, if she arrived at Ogdensburg in 1850, it must have been later in the year. 16. The Reavis sketch is curious, for its source should have been Charlotte herself. Yet it mentions “older children” who received a better education than she, whereas Charlotte was actually the oldest (or oldest surviving) child. 17. Their timing seems puzzling at first. It may have been related to Robert’s death as the last remaining son (George had moved to the Midwest), but probably had more to do with pension legislation just passed. The pension claim will be discussed in more detail in chapter 7. 18. Mrs. Catherine Odlum, The Life and Adventures of Prof. Robert Emmet Odlum, Washington, DC: Gray & Clarkson, 1885.

CHAPTER 2. A DIVIDED FAMILY 1. U.S. federal census, 1860, St. Louis, 4th Ward, p. 247; St. Louis City Directory, Kennedy & Co., p. 392. Although the census taker visited the Odlums

NOTES

195

in July, the “as of ” date for this census is June 1. Charlotte’s age in this census is incorrectly given as eighteen. 2. As usual, Charlotte declines to tell the examiners how much money she got, or who gave it to her, which probably means it was a substantial sum. It was obviously in Catherine’s interest to appear as poor, and thus as much in need of pension support, as possible. 3. St. Louis City Directory (Kennedy & Co., p. 392); U.S. Census, St. Louis, 1860 (4th Ward, p. 247). These two sources describe Charlotte’s enterprise slightly differently, the former showing her as the proprietor of a dressmaking shop or pattern emporium. No real property is listed for Catherine in St. Louis property records, deeds, etc. 4. Charlotte’s pension claim testimony (PC:B, Jul. 27, 1887:39) dates the ad to 1861, but this conflicts with the timing of other documented events; she may have meant 1860. Microfilm search of the newspaper proved negative. 5. Interestingly enough, Richard Henry Dana sailed to Cuba on the Cahawba not long before the Odlums’ trip. See his book To Cuba and Back: A Vacation Voyage (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1859) for details on the Cahawba and life in Cuba at that time. Author and lawyer Dana (1815–82) was most famous for his Two Years Before the Mast (1840). 6. What Catherine and Charlotte did in New Orleans is not recorded, though, as noted above, they had family there (Dep. A, Jul. 26, 1887:14; B, Jul. 27, 1887:31–32). Since they sent for specific papers, they may still have been pursuing the business that took them south in the first place. 7. This date and the subsequent account of the 8th Missouri’s battle experiences come from pp. 128ff of the Annual Report of the Adjutant General of Missouri for the Year Ending December 31, 1865, published in Jefferson City, MO, by Emory S. Foster, Public Printer (1866), hereinafter cited as Adj. General’s Report, with relevant page numbers. 8. David’s exact birth date is unknown; but if the 1860 census is correct in showing him as sixteen, he would presumably have been seventeen at his enlistment on June 13, 1861 (Service Record, Charles Rogers; National Archives). As already noted, though the Odlum entry was recorded in July, the “as of ” date for that census was June 1. 9. In the early 1870s, on returning to St. Louis from celebrating Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Charlotte called the South “the land of our birth and love” in an editorial titled “Home Again” (Inland Monthly, Mar. 1873: 186ff ). This is doubly curious, since, according to the census, her parents were living in upstate New York (Waddington) just two months before she was baptized, also in upstate New York, in 1840. 10. Though admitted to the Union as a slave state, Missouri never had a fullblown plantation economy, and after 1850 was increasingly settled by nonslaveholding immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and free states of the United States. In 1861 a popular convention voted 80–1 against immediate secession, and expressed strong sentiment for compromise or neutrality. 11. Grant took command of Cairo on September 2, 1861 (McFeely, 89). 12. Fort Pillow was about eighty miles upriver from Memphis. 13. A search of Gayosos Hospital records in the National Archives reveals no mention of Charlotte or Catherine (Axelson, L-Jul. 26, 1995). 14. W. W. Jackson claims that the services (and seemingly also the dairy products) were “gratuitously rendered” (Dep. F, Apr. 27–30, 1887), as is also claimed in the relief bills. In partial support of this claim, the two women did not appear on a list of federally paid nurses during the Civil War (National Archives Record Group 94: Hospital Attendants, Carded List of Nurses, Matrons, etc.).

196

NOTES

15. Col. Ignatz G. Kappner took command of Fort Pickering on October 17, 1863 (War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, vol 30, Pt 4, Correspondence: 432). 16. See also HR 9308, dated June 7, 1886. The same wording as in the earlier bill was for some reason introduced again, but by a different representative (Mr. Houk). No record has been found to indicate that this claim was ever actually paid. 17. This name is almost certainly wrong (possibly Chipp wrote from memory?). Both Catherine and Charlotte say it was a Mrs. Harris—Mrs. Dr. Mary Harris, specifically—who sold them the house, and land deed records from Memphis show at least two Harrises, Zeno and A. O., connected with this property between 1849 and 1855 (Mid-South Title Insurance Corp., Thomas G. Margry, Ass’t Mgr., L-Mar. 22, 1991). Records were greatly disrupted during the Civil War. 18. (Dep. B, Jun. 27, 1887:45)—or $40,000 if one believes Catherine’s testimony (Dep. A, Jun. 26, 1887:19). 19. Possible exceptions may have been brief stints as an employee of Hills & Co. in Chicago just before the Great Fire, writing for a newspaper in St. Louis just after arriving there (SHL), and as a federal clerk in the early 1880s in Washington, DC.

CHAPTER 3. CARPETBAGGING

AND

MARRIAGE

1. This is double the original investment mentioned by Charlotte in her parallel deposition; but twenty years had elapsed, and Catherine’s memory, or her caution about disclosing blockade-running profits, may have faded. 2. Charlotte says 1919 Market Street in her deposition B (July 27, 1887:44). Catherine recalls it as “around 1700 Market Street” (A: July 26, 1887:20), and R. G. Dun says 1934 Market Street. Of course, the women were testifying nearly twenty years later, and city directories of the day show that small businesses moved fairly often. Still later (1892), in SHL, Charlotte says 1910 Market Street. 3. Edward’s older sister married John Sale, and emigrated with him to Pennsylvania. According to a letter from Jane B. Sale to other Smith descendants, dated October 7, (19)48(?), furnished to me by Charlotte’s great-greatgranddaughter, Tanya Retan Smith, “Charlotte Smith was the wife of Edward Smith who for many years lived with us. . . .” 4. Not included in my copy of the divorce papers. 5. Copy of the marriage record from Dauphin County Historical Society, Harrisburg, PA (September 2005). 6. For instance, there were several listings from 1872–73 onward for an Edward Smith, com(mission) mer(chant), and an Edward H. Smith, produce, but both of these were ruled out because they also appear in 1880–81, when our Edward is listed at 550 Summit Avenue, boarding at the same address as his divorce lawyer. Isolated listings appear for Edward Smiths without occupation in 1870–71 and 1890–91, but the addresses are different, and these entries, separated as they are by twenty years, may be two different men. An Edward Smith, grocer, appearing intermittently at various addresses from 1881–82 through 1888–89, is the hardest to rule out, but it seems significant that Edward is listed in the 1880 census as a retired merchant (emphasis mine). 7. Charlotte Smith certainly had her share of negative publicity in her tu-

NOTES

197

multuous life, but Edward is the only person ever to accuse her of drinking too much. As the Washington Post interviewer for SHL put it in 1892, “among those who know Mrs. Smith it is unnecessary to go to the trouble of refuting a charge so devoid of the truth.” And although she never became a Temperance crusader, she was well aware of the role of drink in poverty and other social problems, and favored temperance. In her Inland Monthly editorial for May 1875, she has much to say about temperance, her approval of the cause, and a report she has just received from Frances Willard (544). This accusation would never have gone unchallenged if Charlotte had had a chance to respond. 8. Which she has earlier said took place in January or February, 1867. 9. Enrique Parmer was born at Frederick, Maryland, on September 21, 1829. He came to St. Louis in 1871, and practiced law there for more than thirty years, keeping an office in the city even after he retired to New Jersey about 1910 (St. Louis city directories, 1871–1913; U.S. Federal Census, Somerset County, NJ, 1910). He was married (Laura Creighton) and had four children. Though never winning national fame as an author, he was a versatile writer, contributing essays as well as fiction to the Inland Monthly. He also published at least one novel, The Maple Hall Mystery (1880), and a commemorative piece on Edgar Allan Poe (in the American Exchange and Review, March 1873). For reasons unknown, when he retired to New Jersey he changed the family name to Palmer. He died in Bound Brook, New Jersey, on June 11, 1916 (Obituary, Enrique E. Palmer, Bound Brook, NJ, Chronicle, June 16, 1916).

CHAPTER 4. ST. LOUIS REVISITED 1. Smith says in the September 1872 Inland that after she had “drifted to the Lake City . . . to redeem the losses of the terrible past, a flame of fire enveloped the accumulation of several years of toil, and laid it in ashes” (411). It is not clear from this plaint whether the bookstore had already opened or not, but one of her obituaries says the store had been open just three days when the fire struck (Boston Evening Globe, Dec. 4, 1917). 2. Catherine says in her pension claim testimony (A, Jul. 26, 1887:21) that they lived first on Olive Street, renting from a Mrs. Palmer (actually Pommer) who kept a piano store, and then on to Eighth Street, where they first appear in St. Louis directories in 1873, at 318 N. 8th Street, downtown. From then through 1878 they appear at various addresses on Olive Street (1004, 2917, 419, and 511). Sometimes the Inland Monthly is being published at the same address as their residence, though early on, its offices were at 407 N. 4th Street, near the St. Louis Book and News Company, which sold the magazine. At one point the family moved four miles out into the country, traveling to and from the city by streetcar. This may account for gaps in their directory listings. Interestingly enough, their landlord in the country was Logan Reavis (PC:A, ibid.). 3. Smith and Nolan may actually have met or known of each other before this, though again there is no record. Mary’s parents came from Ireland to New York about 1845, and had moved to St. Louis by 1850 (census records). Mary, five years older than Charlotte, may already have begun to be known in the city when the Odlums lived there in 1860–61. She had taught in her parents’ “select school,” and by the outbreak of the Civil War was already principal of the Carr School (Nolan, obit., St. Louis Republic, Mar. 25, 1897:3:5–6).

198

NOTES

4. This subscription price should be seen in the context of working women’s wages, which often did not exceed $2 per week. The Inland was definitely aimed at readers who were middle class or above. 5. Vol. 3, p. 95. Mott may have considered the Working Woman, Charlotte’s periodical of the 1880s to 1890s in Washington, DC, a newspaper rather than a magazine. It was large format, with multiple columns and only eight pages. And the Woman Inventor ran for just two issues. 6. Charlotte Smith despised gossip. In the July 1876 Inland (993–94), she says, “Busybodies ought to be tied in a sack of iron nuggets and flung into the sea.” 7. Charlotte seems the likely author of this unsigned piece from the Editorial Department, since she had been a major support of her mother and brothers for some years and was now supporting her own two children as well, whereas Mary Nolan had never married. Also, women’s economic rights soon became Charlotte’s major crusade. However, Nolan could also have written it, as she was officially the Editor at this time, and she, too, knew what it was to make her own way in life. 8. Tantalizing among the ball guests named is one Captain Charles P. Rogers. Charles Rogers was the false name Charlotte’s brother David chose when he enlisted in the Union Army a decade earlier. And the filler immediately following this story is “What’s in a name?” (90). 9. Technically, the St. Louis Republican did not exist until 1873 (St. Louis Public Library Catalogue; Taft’s history of Missouri newspapers) but popular usage (and Charlotte) may have jumped the gun on this brief name change of the Missouri Republican (1873–76). 10. Just as mysterious as the basis of Smith and Nolan’s quarrel are the mechanics or bibliographical details of the split. Pages sent me by the Missouri State Historical Society (Columbia, MO) from this first edition of the Central Magazine, bear “INLAND MONTHLY” running heads and internal language pertaining to the Inland. Thus it appears that Nolan—who may originally have intended to take over rather than leave—used some sheets already typeset for the Inland in her first Central Magazine issue. Alma S. Vaughan avoids the problem by dating the inception of Nolan’s Central Magazine to September rather than August 1872 in her article “Pioneer Women of the Missouri Press” (Missouri Historical Review 64:3 [Apr.1970]: 292). In any case, the two statements (IM, July 1872; and CM, August 1872) about the breakup of the partnership are strikingly different, the one brief and matter-of-fact (except for the snide remark about Nolan’s [non]contribution), and the other relatively long and emotionally charged. Neither the personal nor the bibliographical mystery is likely to be solved unless someone with access to Mary Nolan’s papers undertakes her biography. 11. James Parton (1822–91), English-born journalist and biographer. The DAB calls him “highly successful as author of carefully researched and wellorganized lives of Horace Greeley (1855),” among others. 12. American political leader, and former governor of Mississippi, born in Virginia in 1804, died in 1880. Resigning from the Confederate Congress after criticizing Jefferson Davis for rejecting Lincoln’s peace offer, he was imprisoned. Upon his release, he sailed for Europe. At the time of this essay he was practicing law in Washington, DC. Later, he ran the New Orleans Mint (1878–80). 13. Best-selling author and humorist (1836–1926). Her twenty-volume Samantha Allen series cleverly ridicules the two major sources of opposition to the rising tide of U.S feminism.

NOTES

199

14. James Buchanan Eads (1820–87), engineer and inventor; famous for innovative improvements in dealing with the silting problems at the mouth of the Mississippi, and for the design of the great bridge across the river at St. Louis (completed in 1874 and still standing). 15. Notable American sculptor, 1847–1914. Her marble bust of President Lincoln, finished just after he was shot, found such favor that in 1866 Congress gave her a $10,000 contract for a full-scale marble statue of him to stand in the Capitol rotunda. This was unveiled in 1871. In 1875, she won a $20,000 federal contract for a heroic bronze statue of Admiral Farragut. Her achievements were doubly impressive because she was largely self-taught; and even though she later gave up sculpture because of her husband’s wishes, she was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. A replica of her “Sappho” bronze marks her grave. 16. Anna Elizabeth Dickinson (1842–1932), famous Civil War orator and Lyceum lecturer, author, actress, and playwright. Though a friend of both Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, she was aloof from the organized suffrage movement. 17. Not the Future Great City mentioned in chapter 1, but a forthcoming work he proposed to call St. Louis: The Commercial Metropolis of the Mississippi Valley. 18. This was one R. B. Crossman, whose connection to the dispute is unknown except that he was a printer in St. Louis at the time. Presumably he did some work for the Inland. 19. Couzins (c.1839–1913) was born in St. Louis and became the first woman to get a law degree from Washington University there. She was admitted to the Missouri bar in 1871. Her Notable American Women profile says that she never practiced law, but clearly she had at least one case. 20. The two classic—and conflicting—approaches to prostitution have always been abolition and regulation. Reformers in New York City advocated regulation on the European model as early as 1850, but a legislative proposal for regulation in 1867 was killed by Susan B. Anthony’s lobbying before reaching the floor of the Albany Legislature. In 1870, however, St. Louis succeeded in passing a regulatory measure. In its final form by 1871, it had three parts: strict regulation of prostitutes’ residences and public behavior; provisions for ensuring the health of prostitutes; and finally, measures designed to give the women an opportunity to reform. With regard to control and regulation, all prostitutes had to register, streetwalking was forbidden, no new houses could open without Police Board permission, and the police could order any house to move or close. The health provisions were perhaps the most striking and controversial: the women paid weekly hospital dues and, after examination by one of the six medical inspectors, received a certificate of inspection. Anyone found infected had just twenty-four hours to report to a designated hospital. The reform program was combined with isolation and treatment of infected women in a special “social-evil hospital,” and “house of correction” or “house of industry,” financed jointly by the women’s hospital dues and the brothelkeepers’ license fees. Results were not uniformly positive, but there was some initial success in stemming the incidence of venereal disease. Prostitutes continued to be arrested—but not for prostitution—and one madam commented that St. Louis prostitutes were “better-behaved and more circumspect than those of any [other] city in the country” since the reform. Certainly the women were no

200

NOTES

longer at war with the police as before, and they were freed from unscrupulous doctors and druggists. Also, the city reaped large amounts of revenue from the plan. In any case, it could certainly be argued that the ordinance was repealed before it had a chance to demonstrate its full effect. 21. The Inland Monthly for June 1876 (895) cites the Chicago Times Tribune on this one.

CHAPTER 5. THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART I 1. It may also support a statement in Edward Smith’s divorce papers that Charlotte came to his house in New Jersey “more than three years” before he applied for the divorce (filed in April 1883). At the end of the visit, Edward attacked Charlotte for supporting the Widow Oliver, at which point he claimed she struck him over the head with her umbrella and left. This story seemed unlikely at first, because Edward claimed elsewhere in his filing that he didn’t know where Charlotte was. But since Charlotte says in this 1879 article that she saw Mrs. Oliver (and was moved by her sad condition) at a Jersey City ferryboat station, perhaps the alleged visit did indeed take place. And if the widow’s plight was that fresh for Charlotte (i.e., if the encounter with her had just happened), Edward’s words may well have seemed unbearably heartless. 2. Presumably Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania (1799–1889), businessman, newspaper owner and dominant figure in his state’s politics; Secretary of War 1860–62, removed for corruption; U.S. Senator 1867–77. 3. The verb to lobby and the noun lobbyist are first recorded in English in 1850 and 1863, respectively, and are considered American coinages (OED). 4. Dr. Walker and Charlotte Smith were sometimes linked in people’s minds: both considered eccentric and thorns in the public side. The Washington Post once joked that “By the exercise of a little diplomacy, we ought to be able to arrange a pair for Charlotte Smith with Dr. Mary Walker and thus get rid of two difficulties” (Untitled, Apr. 13, 1898:6:4). It is not clear how well these two knew each other, but they clashed publicly as early as 1882, when Walker tried to defend Interior Secretary Teller’s refusal to hire women in his Department—a refusal that had so outraged Smith (see below on the founding of the WNIL, and Washington Post, Sept. 8, 1882:4). In 1887 the Boston Globe remarked that they “often crossed paths . . ., but never without friction.” On the other hand, they obviously had much in common: both women considered other causes more important than suffrage, both fiercely opposed smoking, and both believed in direct action. If Smith brolly-bashed mashers, Walker strode up to any man she saw smoking a cigar and knocked it out of his mouth with her own brolly. 5. Willis Hawkins, author of the “Capitol Sirens” piece, clearly admired Olive Hechtman, saying that “she probably knows more influential men than any other woman in America” and, though she works with “less ostentation” than some, “she has probably done more, in her quiet, practical way, for the really needy than most of those whose names are familiar . . . to the Nation and the world.” Hawkins says her work began in Civil War hospitals and has continued through years of peace with “unabated energy and faithfulness.” 6. This may be a veiled reference to the reports on prominent men allegedly brought her by clients of her free employment office (see below). 7. Henry William Blair of New Hampshire (1834 –1920); lawyer, Union sol-

NOTES

201

dier, and Republican Congressman, 1875–79; Senator from 1879–91; proponent of federal aid to public schools, woman suffrage, and favorable labor legislation. 8. William Lyne Wilson (1843–1900). He was a Confederate soldier, lawyer, educator, and Democratic Congressman from West Virginia (1883–95). His most important work was tariff reform, and he came into prominence in the 1888 debates. He supported the Morrison bills and, like Charlotte, strongly opposed the McKinley Bill. 9. “Sockless” Jerry Simpson (1842–1905); rancher and Populist representative from Kansas 1891–95; 1897–99. He delivered few speeches and proposed just two bills, but would have appealed to Charlotte for opposing insincerity and false doctrine. He was known for his belief in simple democracy and monetary reform. 10. Charles Benjamin Farwell (1823–1903), businessman, Republican Congressman, and then Senator from Illinois. 11. This was not actually her first fight; she had championed the Widow Oliver three years earlier (1879). 12. Indeed, in an 1898 Memorial to Congress, she says she has never accepted government employment, but she may mean an appointed position. 13. The fact that she had such sources, and was willing to name them, is strong evidence of her remarkable success, only three years after her arrival in Washington, in obtaining Congressional access. 14. Although Secretary Robert Lincoln (1843–1926) of the War Department, son of Abraham Lincoln, had a similar exclusion policy, both Charlotte Smith and the Washington Post focused more on Teller, at least initially. 15. Statistician and economist (1830–1909); for ten years chief of the Government Division of Internal Commerce and of the Bureau of Statistics. 16. Henry Moore Teller (1830–1914); U.S. Senator (Republican) 1877–82; Secretary of the Interior 1882–85. Some weeks later, Teller said in his own defense that he did not now object to employing women in the Department, or appointing them to office “where they could fill the offices satisfactorily,” but thought Congress’s extra appropriation for clerical staff was to expedite pension claims, and this seemed to him to work best with male clerks as examiners and women as copyists. Pension Commissioner Dudley had told him only two or three out of a hundred women were satisfactory examiners (Boston Globe, Sept. 16, 1882:4). 17. The full text of the document appears in Appendix 1. 18. This, incidentally, was also Charlotte’s home address as listed in the Washington, DC, city directory for 1887 and 1888; and in 1886 she was listed at 1103 F, NW. She quite literally lived where she worked for much of her adult life.

CHAPTER 6. THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART II 1. Confirmed by Catherine Odlum, Life and Adventures, 12; see also her deposition of April 3, 1886, in her pension claim #337,612. 2. Contrary to the writer’s snide suggestion that “he was a myth or makeshift for the convenience of Mrs. Odlum,” Richard Odlum is firmly recorded both in the 1840 census and in Charlotte’s baptismal record (see chapter 1). 3. The “crimes” in question evidently involved keeping a house of prostitution (Baxter, col. 5). However, it should be recalled as noted in chapter 1, that

202

NOTES

nineteenth-century boardinghouse keepers were sometimes accused of this merely for accepting boarders of both sexes. On the issue of paternity, presumably the question could arise because Richard Odlum went to Canada, possibly as early as 1850. What is still uncertain is whether he traveled to Canada for the summer construction season to work on a canal or railroad project, and then returned to New York, or whether he had left permanently. This was long before the days of DNA testing, so the question remains. 4. Lytle is proposed as the story’s author by Ogdensburg’s City Historian, Elizabeth Baxter, in her commemorative story in the same paper, April 28, 1978. 5. Baxter, “Brooklyn Bridge Leap Was Last . . .,” col. 5. 6. Richard appears as “engaged in agriculture” in the 1840 census for St. Lawrence County, NY, but, as noted in an earlier chapter, is not to be found in the 1850 census either in St. Lawrence or in Jefferson County, where Catherine and several children appear as boarders with another family (Federal Census, 1840, St. Lawrence County; 1850, Clayton, Jefferson County). 7. A brief squib in the Missouri Republican for Apr. 15, 1873, p. 5, says “Mr. R. E. Odlum of the Inland Monthly magazine starts in a day or two for an extended trip up the country in the interest of that publication.” 8. First appears in the Washington Directory that year. 9. Hanlan vs. Courtney (Odlum, 18). 10. While waiting for the Queen to come aboard, Boyton saw Victoria’s trusted friend John Brown arriving and cried, “Holy Blue, Captain, who is that man coming aboard without any pants on?” The Captain explained about John Brown’s kilt, and luckily Victoria was not within earshot. She was impressed with Boyton’s prowess, gave him a fine chronometer watch, and ordered one of the lifesaving suits for her yacht. 11. Perhaps the only thing worse than being Boyton’s mother would have been to be his wife! He married her in 1884. A letter to Robert Odlum in November of that year says he (Boyton) gave up a trip to China because he “could not make up my mind to leave my wife alone so soon after marriage” (Odlum, 187). 12. Mrs. Hannah B. Mountain was a New York City inventor whose patented “Life-saving mattress” was officially approved by the United States Supervising Inspector of Steamboats. Patented in 1873 (U.S. Pat. #136,749), it had the double advantage of being readily available (since it could be used as a regular berth mattress) and of being reversible, so it could be tossed overboard in haste. Regrettably, Mrs. Mountain died during the Centennial (New Century for Women, No. 3, May 27, 1876:1,131).

CHAPTER 7. THE CAPITAL YEARS, PART III 1. She could sound quite rabid on the subject, and clearly she harbored religious, racial, and xenophobic prejudices against the Chinese, as well as specific fears about diseases, drugs, and sexual immorality they might introduce into Ameican society. After sneering at a new fashion for thumb rings, for which she blames the Chinese, she continues, “Some of our snob women will be wearing rings in their noses, which would be very appropriate for women who

NOTES

203

give their dirty linen to the pig-tailed Chinese leper to wash.” (WW, Oct. 15, 1887:2:1). 2. It should be noted that some laundries appearing in the residential listings were omitted from this business directory at the back of the main directory, whether because the owner had to pay for such a listing and did not wish (or was unable) to do so, or because the compilers missed some names. For example, the 1876 Boston Directory missed at least one woman (Mrs. Julia Johnson, Laundry) and two Chinese (Horp Wa & Co. and Wah Lee & Co.). However, the backof-the-book listings are probably a reasonable sample. 3. These laundries were listed not by the proprietors’ names, but by street and number because, the compilers disingenuously said, “Chinese names are unreliable”! 4. Powderly (1849–1924) was a labor leader who became a government official. Originally a machinist, he joined first the Machinists’ and Blacksmiths’ Union, and then the Knights of Labor, where he rose to head the organization from 1879 to 1893. After retiring from the Knights, he studied law, practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court, and served in high positions with the U.S. Bureau of Immigration (1897–1902 and 1907–21). 5. In Chicago in the 1870s, the Chicago Women’s Club had proposed similar reforms, and succeeded in several of them: notably separation of women and children from the general population of detainees at police stations; a chief matron to look after women prisoners and first offenders, quartering them in the matron’s annex; and a night matron to protect women when the chief matron went off duty (Weimann, 14). Although Charlotte does not mention the Women’s Club, she would have been in Chicago at the time of its founding (1876) and these reform efforts, and perhaps inspired by them for some of her own later proposals. 6. The subject of these hearings was tariff revision in general, with many products and materials under consideration. Among the other witnesses listed was Kate Field, representing American artists on the subject of imported paintings, etc. Although the tobacco tariff comes up considerably earlier than the fine-art question, Charlotte and Kate might have met at one of these hearings. 7. William Windom (1827–91), lawyer, congressman, senator, and Treasury Secretary for two separate terms: March to November 1881 and 1889–91. 8. Interestingly enough, one of the speakers, Clara Foltz, a lawyer from California, delivered a scathing criticism of the woman suffrage movement, despite the fact that the NLU’s position was pro-suffrage. 9. The same article appears in the Hawaiian Gazette for Sept. 7, 1891, the Bismarck (ND) Daily Tribune, Jul. 18, 1891; the Newark (OH) Daily Advocate, Jul. 16, 1891, and probably in the Washington Post and other better-known newspapers as well, though I have not found the latter two. 10. A whole chapter could be written on Charlotte’s finances. She mentions various monies given to her by relatives; and of course she made money from blockade-running during the Civil War and from her postwar drygoods store in Mobile. However, she said that the Smith brothers cheated her, and her mother, out of much of these postwar profits. (Whatever may be the truth of this, Smith relatives in Ireland today still talk about the Civil War money that came to them from America.) Nevertheless, at least until very late in her life she always seemed to have plenty of money, not only for her own living expenses, but for her many causes. One friend reported in 1891 (HFW) that Charlotte had “a comfortable fortune, $58,000 of which has been expended in her work for women.” When she became persona non grata at the Woman’s Building offices

204

NOTES

at the Columbian Exposition of 1892–93, one of the exasperated ladies there called her “a bloated bondholder” (Weimann, 510)! At one point she claimed to be in line for a large fortune if she would agree, among other things, to give up her work on behalf of working women (“Charlotte Smith’s Fortune,” WP, Jun. 16, 1905:11). Of course she refused, but seemed to hint there was hope of getting the money nevertheless. And yet when she died, she was buried in a pauper’s grave. 11. In the chronology of their lodgings in Washington, DC, Catherine testifies that they “had rooms in the Corcoran Bldg for about 2 years until we were put out on the street on account of the League Meetings my daughter had. Then we went down on E near 12th, where we were put out in about 6 weeks on account of the Woman’s League” (PC:A, Jul. 26, 1887:23). 12. But fortunately for posterity, since Charlotte left no personal papers. Without this pension claim, very little indeed would be known today about her life. 13. It was easy for Charlotte Smith to demonize Mrs. Palmer, for she was the wife of an extremely wealthy man, and she lived in fabulous luxury, with French Impressionist paintings on red velvet walls, and a mother-of-pearl wash-basin in her bathroom. She also apparently ran the Board of Lady Managers with an iron hand. However, Jeanne Weimann makes clear that there was more to Bertha Honor´e Palmer than the society grande dame. For example, she opened her house to the women millinery workers of the city, and helped them form a union, even though many in her circles disapproved of unions. She also helped Jane Addams and Ellen Starr develop Hull House, and supported the Women’s Alliance in its fight against sweatshops (Weimann, 17). 14. The convention date also makes clear that the dateline on this first issue of the Woman Inventor (April 1890) is a typo. 15. Supplements were published that carried the compilation forward to the Fair years and beyond, but the original list came out in 1888. 16. Famous American sculptor (1830–1908) and professional inventor; interested in perpetual motion; inventor of a magnetic motor as well as this important new marble (Stanley, 329ff ). 17. For further information on Martha Coston and other nineteenth-century patentees and inventors, see Anne Macdonald’s Feminine Ingenuity, my book on women inventors, Mothers and Daughters of Invention, and two works by Denise Pilato; “Martha Coston: A Woman, a War, and a Signal to the World,” International Journal of Naval History, Vol. 1, Apr. 2002, and Retrieval of A Legacy, Praeger, 2000.

CHAPTER 8. THE BOSTON TRAVELER 1. In the course of a letter to Cardinal Gibbons in support of keeping one Father Stafford at St. Patrick’s Church (Washington, DC), Charlotte says, “I am a ‘tramp’ and have no permanent residing place. . . .” This is Cardinal James Gibbons (1834 –1921) of Baltimore, known for his pro-Labor sympathies. For example, he protected the Knights of Labor from being proscribed as a secret organization. The letter, on the letterhead of the Women’s Industrial and Patriotic League, is dated April 6, 1901. 2. In Section E, after services at St. Patrick’s (Interment records, Mt. Olivet).

NOTES

205

The burial date on the St. Patrick’s records, Apr. 12, 1895, conflicts with her death certificate (Boston) and the Post’s death notice. 3. Here and elsewhere (e.g., “Grave Charges,” Globe, Feb. 22, 1888:8) Charlotte was angrily concerned that the employment or “intelligence” offices often lured girls and young women into brothels and other sexual situations rather than finding them good, honest employment, all the while charging them fees that they could ill afford. In Massachusetts in 1888, before the Labor Committee of the state legislature, she charged a prominent police official with being part-owner of a house of ill fame, supplied with girls from one of those intelligence offices (ibid.). Smith got her information by undercover work, as usual, asking at one intelligence office whether they could supply her with girls to fit up a brothel. She was told she could have “any number the next day at $2 apiece for good-looking girls.” She also charged the appointed inspector of the intelligence offices with being in league with them, “knowing that they were engaged in such business,” and provided fifty written statements from victims of the practice, most of which were sworn to (ibid.). 4. As noted elsewhere, there are four Charlotte Smiths in the Boston directory for 1894, but the Eliot Street lodging house mentioned in the newspaper identifies ours (Boston Evening Transcript, Obituary, Tues. Dec. 4, 1917: 12: 4 – 5). Material from this 1905 interview was reported as far away as Texas (“Pioneer of Industry,” Galveston [TX] Daily News, May 22, 1905:1). 5. The city she had chosen in the 1880s was Boston, where she joined shop girls trying to live on just $2.50 a week (“Charlotte Smith: The Champion of Working Women Interviewed,” Boston Globe, Sept. 4, 1887:4). 6. The important book Ehrenreich wrote on this experience was Nickel and Dimed (NY: Metropolitan Books, 2001). 7. According to one source, this organization was soon torn apart by dissension, especially upon the departure of Mrs. Pauline Levy, one of its directors. However, this report was denied by Miss May Brown, the Secretary of the Board, who maintained that the group had a waiting list of 250 (“Woman’s Board of Trade,” Boston Sunday Herald, Aug. 12, 1907). 8. The Barrisons were actual sisters who performed both here and abroad from about 1890 to about 1910. Both Smith’s review and Dale’s appeared in the New York Journal on Sunday, October 11, 1896, under a large headline asking, “Has Public Taste Sunk to This Degrading Level?” I am grateful to Paul Joannides, who cites this passage in his book in progress on Victorian sexuality, and who called it to my attention. 9. Charles Henry Parkhurst (1842–1933), prominent Presbyterian clergyman and reformer, best known during his New York City pastorate (1880–1918) as an opponent of Tammany Hall. Though seeing eye to eye with Smith on the Barrison sisters, he was also sometimes an opponent (See, e.g., “Charlotte Smith is Still Defiant,” Chicago Tribune, Jan. 8, 1897:9). 10. Charlotte Smith’s battle against syndicates had, of course, been going on for some time. Indeed, she had just spent months campaigning against them in what she considered their headquarters city, Philadelphia, and had been interviewed there by the press (“Like a Knight of Old,” WP, May 7, 1905). But the Claiche case brought more publicity than Smith and other opponents had been able to create in years. For example, the story appeared in newspapers from New York to California, with at least nineteen articles on it in the Washington Post alone from July 1905 to June 1906. 11. It is not clear exactly when this doggerel was written, but according to E. J.

206

NOTES

Hopkins’ Enlarged Devil’s Dictionary, where it occurs on pp. 267–68, it did not appear among Bierce’s serialized pieces of the Dictionary; so it probably appeared first in the 1911 Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce. The two different spellings of “smithereen” are in the Hopkins text. 12. Winfield Scott Schley (1839–1911) served in the Civil War and in the Pacific, taught twice at Annapolis, and rescued survivors of A. P. Greely’s Arctic expedition (1884). Effectively in command at Santiago, he was nevertheless not credited for the victory by Acting Rear Admiral Sampson. Some of Schley’s actions during the battle were questionable, albeit partly caused by poor communication, and by problems with recoaling his steamships. The Navy inquiry he himself demanded did not exonerate him, though Adm. Dewey wrote a dissenting opinion in his favor, and the public continued to honor him. See E. S. Maclay’s History of the Navy, Schley’s own Forty-five years Under the Flag (New York, 1904), as well as articles in the Washington Post (e.g., Oct. 12, 1899:2:3; Oct. 14, 1899:2:6; Oct. 26, 1899:2:3; Mar. 24, 1901:2:3; Mar. 26, 1901:6:6). 13. Philadelphia-born author and political economist (1839–97), whose ideas became so popular that he was nearly elected mayor of New York in 1886. The idea that all people have an equal right to the use of the earth was not original with him, but his method for putting it into practice while actually simplifying government—the single tax—gave the idea a new form. His death provoked one of the greatest demonstrations of popular feeling and respect ever seen for the funeral of a private person in this country.

CONCLUSION 1. An earlier version of this chapter was presented at a Work in Progress session of the Institute for Historical Study (Berkeley, CA) on Sunday, January 16, 2005, with the title “Roots of Obscurity.” 2. Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860–1935), to whom many would give that title of first economic feminist, did not publish Women and Economics till 1898, whereas Charlotte Smith was already calling for equal pay for equal work in the Inland Monthly as early as 1873, and focusing increasingly on women’s economic rights (and wrongs) in her magazine as the 1870s went on. 3. Pauline Periwinkle may have overstated the rapprochement between Charlotte Smith and the suffragists, for Smith had been urging working women—and men—to take political action for years. However, what she meant by that was not so much fighting for the vote as educating and putting pressure on legislators, as she herself did.

Bibliography NOTE

ON SOURCES

CHARLOTTE SMITH LEFT NO DIARIES OR OTHER PERSONAL PAPERS. Consequently, the sources for this biography are all in a sense public. The two major sources are the pension claim filed by Catherine Odlum in 1886 (see below under United States, Department of the Interior), and the numerous newspaper stories written about or mentioning Charlotte, her causes and crusades, her achievements and pronouncements, from the 1870s until her death in 1917. Other such sources, of course, are Charlotte’s own published writings, such as much that appeared in the Inland Monthly, and the entirety of her last two periodicals. The small number of her letters found in various archives, all addressed to public figures, will be cited where appropriate. WORKS CITED BY AUTHOR (WHERE AVAILABLE) AND TITLE INCLUDING BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND RESEARCH CORRESPONDENCE Aberdeen, Countess of, ed. The International Congress of Women, 1899, vol. 4, “Journalism” section, 46–73. [Adjutant General’s Report]. Annual Report of the Adjutant General of Missouri for the Year Ending December 31, 1865. Jefferson City, MO: Emory S. Foster, Public Printer, 1866. American Federation of Labor. Proceedings . . . 1881–1888. Bloomington, IL: Pantograph Printing and Stationery Co., 1905 (repr.). Andersson, Linda M. (Bookkeeper, Lakewood Cemetery, 3600 Hennepin Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55408), L-Mar. 16, 1888. Axelson, Edith. Genealogical and Historical Researcher, Washington, DC: Research correspondence and reports, 1990–2000. Bailey, Elizabeth. (Reference Specialist, The State Historical Society of Missouri, 1020 Lowry Street, Columbia 65201), L-May 24, 1990.

207

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baxter, Elizabeth. “Brooklyn Bridge Leap Was Last for City Native.” Ogdensburg (NY) Journal, Fri., Apr. 28, 1978. Baxter, Elizabeth. “Odlum in Dive to Death Off Brooklyn Span in 1885; Feat Still Causing Ripples in Northern New York.” Watertown (NY) Daily Times, Thurs., Oct. 23, 1969: 4, 7. Bierce, Ambrose. The Devil’s Dictionary, see smithereen entry in E. J. Hopkins, Enlarged Devil’s Dictionary., Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Boston, MA. City Directories, Sampson, Murdock, & Co., comps., 1880s–1917. Boyesen, Persis E. (Library Ass’t, Ogdensburg Public Library, Ogdensburg, NY), L-May 23, 1990; L-June 19, 1990; L-June 29, 1990; L-August 21, 1991. Boyton, Paul. The Story of Paul Boyton. Milwaukee, WI: Riverside Printing Co., 1982. Bragg, Jefferson Davis. Louisiana in the Confederation. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1941. Butler, Anne M. Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985. Caren, E. C. New York Extra: A Newspaper History of the Greatest City in the World, Brooklandville, MD: Data Trace, 2000, 201. Chase, Julia A. Mary A. Bickerdyke, “Mother.” Lawrence, KS: Journal Publishing House, 1986. Chicago: Lakeside Annual Directory of the City of Chicago, Thomas Hutchison, comp. Chicago: Dorndley, Loyd & Co., 1876–79. Chisholm’s All-Round Route and Panoramic Guide of the St. Lawrence. Montreal: C.R. Chisholm & Co., 1880. Cimprich, John. “Slave Behavior during the Federal Occupation of Tennessee, 1862–1865.” The Historian 44: 3 (May 1982): 335– 46. Cook, Helen M. Women of Yesterday and To-day feature, “Women Editors of Two Centuries.” Demorest’s Monthly Magazine, May, 1879: 262. Dains, Mary K., and Sue Sadler. Show Me Missouri Women: Selected Biographies. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1993. Dana, Richard Henry, Jr. To Cuba and Back: A Vacation Voyage. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1859. Diner, Hasia. Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Dun, R. G., Collection, Baker Library, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, MA 02163: John [J.O., Jno.] Doyle, Alabama Vol. 17, 119, 171, 202, 211, Vol. 18, 473, 521; Miss [sic] Charlotte Smith, Missouri Vol. 44, p. 66 (Dec. 1872, St. Louis); Edward Smith, Pennsylvania Vol. 145, 49 (1869[?], Philadelphia). Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2001. Farmer, Lydia Hoyt, ed. What America Owes to Women. Buffalo: Moulton, 1893. Feeley, Patricia (Reference Librarian, Social Sciences Dept., Boston Public Library, Boston, MA 02117), L-3/25/91, 9/17/91, etc. Fleming, Walter. Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama. New York: Peter Smith, 1949. Foner, Philip S. History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. II: From the Founding of the American Federation of Labor to the Emergence of American Imperialism. New York: International Publishers, 1947—(1953).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Foner, Philip S. Women in the American Labor Movement from Colonial Times to the Eve of World War I. NY: Free Press, 1979. [Fowler, Jessie A.] See “Skulls Define Character . . .,” Newspaper Articles section (New York Times, Jul. 25, 1897). Glasson, William Henry. History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States, vol. XII, No. 3, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. New York: The Columbia University Press, 1900. Glatthaar, Joseph T. Forged in Battle: The Civil War Alliance of Black Soldiers and White Officers. NY: Free Press, 1990. Grant, Ulysses S., to Maj. Gen. Hallack: Letter dateline Cairo, IL, Dec. 12, 1861, giving to Mrs. Johnson of Memphis a free pass in return for “valuable information.” (National Archives, Record Group 393, U.S. Army, Continental Commands 1821–1920, Dept. of the Tennessee 1862–1866; “Two or More Name File,” 1862–67). Hanaford, Phebe A. Daughters of America. Augusta, ME: True & Co., 1883. Harper, Ida H. “The Training of Women Journalists,” in Aberdeen, ed., 52ff. Henry, Alice. Women and the Labor Movement. NY: George H. Doran, 1923, 52. Hyde, William, and Howard L. Conard, eds. Encyclopedia of the History of St. Louis, vol. III, “Magazine Literature”: 1345. Kelsoe, W. A. St. Louis Reference Record: A Newspaper Man’s Motion-Picture of the City, When We Got Our First Bridge, and of Many Later Happenings of Local Note. St. Louis: Von Hoffmann, n.d. Kenneally, James. “Women and Trade Unions, 1870–1920: The Quandary of the Reformer.” Labor History, 14, no. 1, Winter, 1973: 42–55. Lamar, Christine, MLS, CGRS (126 Wilson Avenue, Rumford, RI 02916), L-June 8, 1990. Lakewood Cemetery, Minneapolis; see Andersson. LaPointe, Patricia M. Reference Librarian, Memphis/Shelby County Public Library, L-Oct. 17, 1990. Logan, Mary. The Part Taken by Women in American History. Wilimington, DE: Perry Nalle Publishers, 1912; Arno repr., 1972. [Lytle, Nathaniel H., Obit.]: “Nathaniel H. Lytle,” Ogdensburg (NY) Daily Journal, Jan. 8, 1889. Macdonald, Anne. Feminine Ingenuity: Women and Invention in America. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992. Mainfort, Robert C., and Patricia E. Coats. “Soldiering at Fort Pillow, 1862– 1864: An Excerpt from the Civil War Memoirs of Addison Sleeth.” The West Tennessee Historical Society Papers, No. XXXVI, October 1982: 72–90. Marbry, Thomas, Mid-South Title Co., Memphis, TN, L-Mar. 22, 1991. Massachusetts, Commonwealth of, Dept. of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Records and Statistics, Death Certificate No. E 003516, for Charlotte Odlum Smith, Dec. 12, 1917. McFeely, William S. Grant: A Biography. New York, Norton, 1981. McLear, Patrick E. “Logan U. Reavis: Nineteenth Century Urban Promoter.” Missouri Historical Review LXVI:4 (July 1972): 567–88. Mobile, AL, city directories, 1866–81. Farrow & Dennett, Printers, comps. Morris, Maud Burr, ed. Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., vols. 33–34. Washington, DC: Columbia Historical Society, 1932.

210

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mott, Frank Luther. A History of American Magazines, 5 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930–68, vol. 3 (1865–86).; vol. 4, 1885–1905). New Century for Women [newspaper of the Centennial], Philadelphia, 1876. New Orleans, Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at, 1820–1902, #50 (Dec. 1, 1860, through March 31, 1866), in Record Group 36, National Archives: Records of the U.S. Customs Service, M 259: S[team] Ship Habana, from Havana to New Orleans, arriving New Orleans Mar. 19, 1861. New Orleans Port District, Manifest of Steam Ship Cahawba, J.W. Smith, Master; arriving New Orleans from Havana, Mar. 21, 1861. Newport, RI, city directories. Boyd’s Newport City Directory, comp. Andrew Boyd. Newport, RI: A.J. Ward, 1869–70, 1873–74. ———. Sampson, Murdock & Co., comps., 1889–91. Nolan, Mary, ed. The Central Magazine, St. Louis, 1872–? Nolan, Mary. “Editorial.” The Central Magazine (St. Louis), August 1872: 280. [Nolan, Mary, Obit.]: “Death of a Remarkable Woman,” the County Carlow, Ireland Nationalist and Leinster Times, April 17, 1895. [Nolan, Mary, Obit.]: St. Louis Republic, Mar. 25, 1895: 3: 5–6. Notable American Women, 1607–1950: A Biographical Dictionary, 3 vols., Edward T. James, Janet Wilson James, and Paul S. Boyer, eds., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. [Obituaries, Charlotte Smith. See under Death Records/Obituaries.] Odlum, Catherine. The Life and Adventures of Prof. Robert Emmet Odlum. . . . Washington, DC: Gray & Clarkson, Printers, 1885. Odlum, George, comp. The Heart of Minneapolis, A Comprehensive Collection of Photographic Views of the Down-town Business District of Minneapolis. Minneapolis: Byron & Willard Co., 1912. Painter, Nell. Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919. New York, NY: Norton, 1987. Parmer, Enrique. The Maple Hall Mystery: A Romance. New York, NY: Authors’ Publishing Co., 1880. Philadelphia, PA. City Directories, 1850–1870; 1880–91. Pilato, Denise. “Martha Coston: A Woman, a War, and a Signal to the World.” International Journal of Naval History, vol 1, Apr. 2002. Pilato, Denise. Retrieval of a Legacy: Nineteenth Century American Inventors. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000. Proctor, John Clagett, LLD. Proctor’s Washington and Environs: [sketches] Written for the Washington Sunday Star, 1928–1949. Washington, DC: John Clagett Proctor, 1949. Quarles, Benjamin. The Negro in the Civil War. Boston: Little, Brown, 1953. Reavis, L[ogan] U. Saint Louis: the Future Great City of the World, with Biographical Sketches of the Representative Men and Women of St. Louis and Missouri. St. Louis: C.R. Barns, 1876. Rehm, Eida. (Archivist, Archdiocese of Mobile, 400 Government St., P.O. Box 1966, Mobile, AL 36633), L-June 28, 1990. Robbins, Peggy. “When the Yankees Occupied Memphis,” Civil War Times, 16: 9 (Jan. 1978): 26–37. Roth, Darlene R., and Louise E. Shaw,. Atlanta Women from Myth to Modern Times. Atlanta Historical Society (1980–81).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

St. Lawrence Co., New York, History of, with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Some of its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Philadelphia: Everts, 1878. St. Louis, MO, City Directories, 1859–60, 1871–1913. Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Saint Louis City and County, from the Earliest Periods to the Present Day, Including Biographical Sketches of Representative Men, I: 951. Philadelphia: Everts, 1883. Sleeth, Addison, Civil War Memoirs. See Mainfort & Coats, above. ———, excerpt from Civil War Memoirs, pub. as “Soldiering at Fort Pillow, 1862–1864.” West Tennessee Historical Society Papers, Oct. 1981. Smith, C[harlotte]. The Past, Present and Future of the City of Chicago: Its Early History. Authentic and Detailed Account of the Conflagration. St. Louis: E.P. Gray, 1871. Smith, Charlotte. “An Appeal to the Roman Catholic Church, and to the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States in Convention Assembled at Washington, D.C.,” n.d. (but enclosed in Letter CS to Patent Commissioner Duell, 10/18/1898; Q.V.) (From Box 124, Patent Commissioners’ Papers, uncatalogued). Smith, Charlotte. “To the Governor and Legislature of Massachusetts: Appeals for the appointment of a legislative committee to take testimony, etc., to investigate the cause of the large increase of women and young girls who have drifted into immorality and vice in Boston. n.p., n.pub., 1896, 4 p. octavo (Prostitution. Pamphlets, 1871–1916, no. 14; Massachusetts State Library 351.754, A1, no. 14. Smith, Charlotte. “To the Governor and Legislature of Massachusetts and the citizens of this commonwealth: Protest against having “bill to regulate vice” sidetracked on a technicality. N.p., n.pub., 1896, 1 sheet, octavo (Prostitution. Pamphlets, 1871–1916, no. 15; Massachusetts State Library 351.764, A1, no. 15. Smith, Charlotte. The Woman’s Board of Trade Report, Boston, 1908 [Boston Public Library Rare Book Room; also in Patent Commissioners’ Papers, uncatalogued boxes]. Smith, Charlotte. Woman and the Tariff. Washington, DC, n.p., n.d. [1898], 68 pp. Smith, Charlotte, ed. The Inland Monthly. St. Louis, MO, 1872–78. Smith, Charlotte, ed. The Woman Inventor. Washington, DC, April and June, 1891. Smith, Charlotte, ed. The Working Woman. Washington, DC, February 2, 1886– c.1893.

SMITH, CHARLOTTE: CORRESPONDENCE CS to Editor, St. Louis Democrat, St. Louis, Feb. 28 and Mar. 5, 1874. See Jeanie Mort Walker, pp. 506ff (below). CS to Commissioner of Patents, May 15, 1886; on letterhead of WNIL. Box 123, Patent Commissioners’ Papers; uncatalogued. CS to Terence Powderly, Knights of Labor, Nov. 19, 1888; on letterhead of WNIL [opposing admission of Chinese]. CS to John D. Long, Washington, DC, Jan. 11,1889; on letterhead of WNIL.

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CS to Patent Commissioner Charles H. Duell, L-Oct. 18, 1898: On letterhead of Woman’s Patriotic Industrial Relief League. (Box 124, Patent Commissioners’ Papers; uncatalogued. Enclosures: 1 . . . “An Appeal to the Roman Catholic Church, and to the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States in Convention Assembled at Washington, D.C.” (no date; written as President of the Woman’s Rescue League). 2 Flyer from the Woman’s Industrial and Patriotic League (no date [1898] on the proposal “to establish an Industial Exhibit of the handiwork of American Women, in the Arts, Sculpture, Science, Medicine, Literature, and Manufactures. To show her value as an Educator, and to Perpetuate her Work in Peace and War,” to open in DC, February 15, 1899. 3 A Memorial of the Woman’s Industrial League of America to the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, n.d., but encl. w/ letter of Oct. 18,1898: calling upon Congress “to establish a National Military-Naval Industrial Insurance Bureau in Washington, D.C.” to take care of the dependents of veterans and workers killed or injured in the line of duty; also industrial insurance for 3,000,000 wage earners. Petition signed by several “of the most prominent citizens” of DC, and 500 others. CS to Cardinal James Gibbons, Washington, DC, April 6, 1901; on letterhead of the Women’s Industrial and Patriotic League, 726 Eleventh St., NW; expressing support for Father Stafford of St. Patrick’s Church. Doc. #98T 12, Baltimore Archdiocesan Archives, St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, MD. Sneddeker, Duane R. “Regulating Vice: Prostitution and the St. Louis Social Evil Ordinance, 1870–1874,” Gateway Heritage 11: 2 (Fall 1990): 20– 47. Soltow, Martha Jane, and Mary K. Wery. American Women and the Labor Movement, 1825–1974: An Annotated Bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1976. Taft, William H. Missouri Newspapers: When and Where, 1808–1963. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Historical Society, 1964. United States Congress, House of Representatives, 49th Congress, first session, February 8, 1886, H.R. 5443: A Bill for the relief of Charlotte Smith (reimbursment for services rendered the State Dept., investigating female labor conditions in Europe). United States Congress, House of Representatives, 49th Congress, first session, Mar. 1, 1886, H.R. 6290: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Charlotte Smith (nursing services, Federal hospitals of Paducah, KY, and Memphis; furnishing of milk, Nov. 1–Apr. 4, 1864). United States Congress, House of Representatives, 49th Congress, first session, Mar. 1, 1886, H.R. 6291: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Charlotte Smith (nursing services, Paducah, KY, Apr. 14, 15, 1862; feeding the wounded Apr. 20–22, 1862, nursing same from April 1862 to Nov. 1, 1862; furnishing milk and other items to sick and wounded, same period). United States Congress, House of Representatives, 49th Congress, first session, Apr. 5, 1886, H.R. 7578: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Catharine Odlam [sic] (compensation for the destruction of Memphis house/property, 1864).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

United States Congress, House of Representatives, 49th Congress, first session, June 7, 1886, H.R. 9308: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Catharine Odlam [sic] (virtually identical to H.R. 9308). United States Congress, House of Representatives, 51st Congress, first session, 1889–’90: Hearings on Revision of the Tariff before the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1890. Testimony of Mrs. Charlotte Smith: 1016–17. United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, 48th Congress, 1883. Report of the [Sub]Committee Upon the Relations Between Labor and Capital, vol. I. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1885. Testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Twitchell, New York, Aug. 16, 1883: 258–68. United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Report of the [Sub]Committee Upon the Relations Between Labor and Capital, 48th Congress, 1883, vol. I. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1885. Testimony of Mrs. Charlotte Smith, New York, Aug. 20, 1883: 382–85. United States Congress, Senate, 49th Congress, first session, May 27, 1886, S. 2558: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Charlotte Smith (same claim as H.R. 6291). United States Congress, Senate, 49th Congress, first session, May 27, 1886, S. 2559: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Charlotte Smith (same claim as H.R. 6290). United States Congress, Senate, 49th Congress, first session, May 28, 1886, S. 2561: A Bill for the relief of Mrs. Catharine Odlam [sic] (same claim as H.R. 7578). United States Congress, Senate, 51st Congress, second session, Feb. 14, 1891, Miscellaneous Documents: “Memorial of the Woman’s National Industrial League of America, Urging Legislation for the Prevention of the Adulteration of Drugs, Medicines, Foods, etc. United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 57th Congress, first session, Hearings on House Bill 9206 Relating to Oleomargarine and Other Imitation Dairy Products. Testimony of Mrs. Charlotte Smith, Jan. 22, 1902: 343– 45. United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Immigration, 57th Congress, first session, 1902. Hearings on Chinese Exclusion. Testimony of Mrs. Charlotte Smith, Mar. 17, 1902: 442– 47. United States Congress, Senate, Committee on the District of Columbia, 58th Congress, January 13, 1903: 19–20. “Statement of Charlotte Smith, President of the Woman’s Industrial League [protesting high prices of coal]. United States Department of the Interior, Pension Bureau: Pension Claim No. 337,612, 1886–87. United States National Archives, Washington, DC “Hospital Attendants: Carded List of Nurses, Matrons, etc.” Record Group 94. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Women Inventors to Whom Patents Have Been Granted by the United States Government, 1790 to July 1, 1888 (with Appendices: #1, July 1, 1888–October 1, 1892; #2, October 1, 1892 to March 1, 1895). Compiled under the direction of the Patent Commissioner, Government Printing Office, 1888, 1891, 1895. Vaughan, Alma S. “Pioneer Women of the Missouri Press,” Missouri Historical Review 64: 3 (April 1970): 289–305. Wainright, Irene. Research Librarian, New Orleans Public Library, L–Jan. 27, 2007.

214

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Walker, Jeanie Mort. Life of Capt. Joseph Fry, the Cuban Martyr. Hartford: J.B. Burr Publishing Co., 1875. Warner, Deborah J. “Women Inventors at the Centennial,” in Martha Trescott, ed., Dynamos and Virgins Revisited. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1979. Washington, DC, City Directories, 1870s–1917. Weimann, Jeanne M. The Fair Women. Chicago: Academy Chicago, 1981. Wernick, Robert. “The Rise, and Fall, of a Fervid Third Party,” Smithsonian 27: 8 (November 1996): 150–58. Wertheimer, Barbara Mayer. We Were There: The Story of Working Women in America. NY: Pantheon, 1977. Wiley, Bell. “Soldier Newspapers of the Civil War,” Civil War Times 16: 4 (July 1977): 20–29. Willard, Frances, and Mary Livermore, eds. A Woman of the Century: 1470 Biographical Sketches . . . of Leading American Women in All Walks of Life. Buffalo: Moulton, 1893. “The Woman’s Exposition.” The Patent Record and Monthly Review, Feb. 1902. Wynkoop, Mrs. M.D. “The Labor Question: Wrongs of the Workingmen.” Chicago Daily Tribune, Mar. 1, 1874:10.

NEWSPAPER STORIES (Alphabetical by city and newspaper; date order within city and paper. Major Sources: Boston, New York, Washington, DC)

Boston GLOBE

“The Female Office Seekers,” Sept. 16, 1882: 4. “Keeping Socialists Out: Workingwomen Unite: Meeting to Organize a Permanent Association,” Aug. 19, 1887: 1. “Charlotte Smith: The Champion of Workingwomen Interviewed,” Sept. 4, 1887:4. “Labor’s Pride,” Sept. 6, 1887:1. “Ready for Work: Independent Labor Party: Steps Toward Forming a Ward and City Committee,” Sept. 19, 1887:8. “Labor Politics: The Party Not Discouraged by the Small Vote Polled,” Nov. 11, 1887:2. “Women at the Polls: The Good Though Unpaid Work Done by Mrs. Charlotte Smith,” Nov. 19, 1887: 2. “Central Trades Union: Reports of the Legislative and Label Committees,” Nov. 28, 1887: n.p. “Labor Matters: Work of the Woman’s Industrial League,” Nov. 30, 1887: 5. “For the Benefit of Women: To Start a Free Intelligence Office . . .,” Dec. 12, 1887: 2.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

“Women’s Industrial League To Start a Free Intelligence Office and Other Enterprises,” Dec. 19, 1887: 2. “Communism Bad for Them. . . . Charlotte Smith’s Little Scheme. . . .,” Dec. 25, 1887: 5. “LABOR ITEMS: Of Interest to Trades Unionists and Knights of Labor,” Jan. 1, 1888: 9. For Workingwomen: Appeal of the Women’s Industrial League for Funds,” Jan. 28, 1888: 4. Committees at Work: Various Hearings of Legislative Interest,” Feb. 11, 1888: 3 [CS on abuses of intelligence offices; inspector for same]. “Grave Charges,” Feb. 22, 1888: 8 [Further on sexploitation by intelligence offices; 50 written statements by victims]. “Maidens of All Ages, Who Haunt the Halls of Congress: Female Lobbyists, Quaint Claimants, and Cranks,” Apr. 13, 1890: 21. “Garment Workers Reply,” Jan. 27, 1893: 2. “Cry Against Convict Labor: Women Unite in Appeal to Governor Elect to Recommend Changes that Will Give Work to Unemployed,” Nov. 30, 1893: 10. “ ‘Superba’ Girls in Want, So Says Mrs. Smith of the Woman’s Rescue League . . .,” Jan. 14, 1894: 24. “Army of Women: Coxey to Have Fair Rivals in Washington; Regiment Will Hail from This City, Thirty Strong; Mrs. Charlotte Smith Will Lead the Band,” Apr. 21, 1894: 3. “Exciting Times on the Common: Turbulent Scenes Attending the Start of Boston’s ‘Industrial Delegates’ for Washington,” Apr. 23, 1894: 1. “Caught Napping: Train-Stealers Surrounded by U.S. Troops at Forsyth,” Apr. 26, 1894: 1ff. “Had To Live Frugally: Ten Cents a Week Left After Paying for Board,” May 23, 1894: 2. “Marched up the Hill,” May 25, 1894: 2. “More Trouble Now: Mrs. Smith Says Her Mother Was Beaten,” Aug. 4, 1894: 5. “Used a Slipper on Him: Women’s Rescue League President Gets Angry,” Aug. 7, 1894: 3. “She Had a Small Audience,” Aug. 23, 1894: 2. “Home for Girls: Latest Enterprise of Mrs. Charlotte Smith,” Sept. 28, 1894: 3. “Has Had Experience: Mrs. Charlotte Smith Finds One Who Openly Favors Her Plan,” Nov. 13, 1894: 3. “Angels on $3 a Week: Charlotte Smith Thinks Girls Cannot Be,” Dec. 6, 1894: 9. “Two Reports: That by the Majority Was One Adopted: Last Day of the Catholic Total Abstinence Convention,” Aug. 10, 1895: 5. “Charlotte Smith in New York,” Aug. 12, 1895: 7. “Reformer Flees: Mrs. Charlotte Smith Goes from Gotham,” Jan. 7, 1897: 6. “Has Come to Sad Days: Prominent Citizens Whom Charlotte Smith Counted as Assistants in Albany Repudiate Her,” June 2, 1897: 7. “Resting from Crusade; Charlotte Smith Returns to Boston,” June 30, 1897: 10. “Argumentum ad Editor,” Aug. 23, 1897: 12.

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“For Family Men: Woman’s League Goes on Record Therefor: Declares That All Bachelors Are Ineligible to Office,” Sept. 6, 1897: 7. “Everybody’s Column: ‘Is Marriage a Lost Art?’ Asks Charlotte Smith,” July 17, 1898: 31. “Editorial Points [talking match between Carrie Nation and Charlotte Smith],” Aug. 8, 1903: 6. “Charlotte Smith Here [to break up a ‘cadet’ system in Boston],” Sept. 22, 1906: 16. “Business Women Unite, Form Board of Trade to Promote Commercial Relations,” Aug. 15, 1907: 2. “Hotel for Women: Boston Women’s Board of Trade Advocates It,” Nov. 19, 1907: 5. “Women in Revolt; Score of Consigners to Educational and Industrial Union Form New Organization,” Jan. 19, 1908: 9. “Farms for Women: Miss Smith Appeals to Bay State Lawmakers,” June 2, 1909: 7. “To Aid Working Women,” Apr. 27, 1910: 16. “Say No Bachelor Is Fit To Be Governor,” Oct. 31, 1911: 10. “Women Tackle ‘Cost of Dying,’ ” Jan. 4, 1913: 1. “Would Tax Property of Single Women: Hanford’s Proposition Stirs Mrs. Smith’s Ire,” Sept. 17, 1915: 2. “Slaps Charlotte Smith,” Dec. 10, 1915: 5. “Wants Sign on Common in Behalf of the Women,” Oct. 16, 1917:11. SUNDAY HERALD

“Woman’s Board of Trade Schism-Rent,” Sept. 12, 1907, n.p.

New York City HERALD

“Washington: The Senate on Its Rights,” Dec. 20, 1869. JOURNAL

“Has Public Taste Sunk to This Degrading Level?” Oct. 11, 1896: 17. TIMES

“Women in Legislation,” Jan. 27, 1875: 1. “Accustomed to Poverty,” Jan. 29, 1875: 4. “Washington Gossip: Social Topics at the National Capitol,” Jan. 31, 1875: 2. “Women in Public Service,” Sept. 8, 1882: 5: 2. “Woman’s Industrial League,” dateline Washington, DC, Sept. 14; Times, Sept. 15, 1882: 2: 6. “Shot Down by an Editor,” Oct. 14, 1882:1. “Woman’s Industrial League,” dateline Washington, DC, Sept. 14; Times, Sept. 15, 1882:2:6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

“A Working Man’s Congress: The Federation of the Trade and Labor Unions,” Aug. 22, 1883: 8. “The Federation Congress: Yesterday’s Proceedings. . . .,” Aug. 24, 1883: 3: 1. “Capt. Boyton’s Story,” May 20, 1885:1. “To Make War on Chinese Laundries,” Sept. 11, 1885: 5. “Not Much of a Parade: Miss Charlotte Smith’s ‘Demonstration’ Was Not a Success,” Nov. 2, 1888: 9. “The Democratic Leaders: Meeting of the Executive Committee of the State Committee” [Delegation from the Women’s Suffrage Society, incl. Charlotte Smith], Aug. 6, 1889: 1. “The World’s Fair: Letters to the Mayor . . .,” Sept. 22, 1889: 13. “Mrs. Mackay’s Assailant,” dateline London; July 13, 1890: 1. “The World’s Fair: Mrs. Charlotte Smith Criticises the Methods of Mrs. Palmer,” Mar. 17, 1892: 5. “Dismissed for Asking More Pay,” Apr. 30, 1892: 1. “Didn’t Know of the Divorce: Edward Smith’s Former Wife Alleges a Plot Against Her,” June 29, 1892: 1. “Boston Women Condemn Him” [Breckinridge v. Pollard case], Mar. 27, 1894: 3. “Almost a Riot on Boston Common: The Industrial Army Forced to Fly Before an Enraged Mob,” Apr. 23, 1894: 1. “Kate Chase Sprague’s Debts,” Jan. 7, 1895: 5. “Its Second Week Begun: Convention of the American Federation of Labor” [Charlotte Smith pleads for higher wages for women], Dec. 17, 1895: 3. The Anti-Scalpers’ Bill” [NY State Legislature, Albany], Mar. 11, 1897: 5. “Gossip of the Cyclers,” July 5, 1896: 12. “Charlotte Smith’s Ideas,” July 25, 1897: 14:4. “Skulls Define Character,” July 25, 1897. (“Woman” Section): 10:1. “Bachelors Should Marry,” Aug. 23, 1897: 2. “Wicked Bachelor Politicians: The Woman’s Rescue League Denounces Them as Not to be Trusted,” Sept. 6, 1897: 1. “PERSONAL” col.: “Boston politics this year are taking a decided tinge from the name of SMITH. . . .” Sept. 7, 1897: 6. “News of the Labor World” [Charlotte Smith asks Central Labor Union support in a boycott against Chinese laundries], Feb. 7, 1898: 5. “A Home for Admiral Schley,” Oct. 12, 1899: 1. “Chinese Exclusion Hearing,” Feb. 16, 1902; 5. “Rats Caused Women Inspectors to Flee: Report of Rescue League of Washington, DC, Declares Men Failures as Cleaners,” July 9, 1903: 6. “Women Face Devery Before Saloon Crowd: National Rescue League’s President Asks Questions,” Oct. 27, 1903: 5. “Want Woman Police Head: Boston Women Ask Foss to Appoint One or Call Out the Militia,” May 4, 1911: 6. “Dogs at $100, Babies at $2: Conditions in Boston as Described by a Social Worker,” Apr. 11, 1913: 1: 7.

218

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Washington, DC POST

“The Widow Oliver,” Oct. 23, 1879: 1. “The Widow Oliver’s Appeal,” Dec. 15, 1879: 1. “The Women’s Meeting,” Aug. 11, 1882: 4. “Brevities” [Working girls give Charlotte flowers], Aug. 13, 1882: 4: 1. “Dr. Mary Walker and Mrs. Smith,” Sept. 8, 1882: 4. “Women in the South,” Sept. 29, 1882: 4. “A Very Slim Audience,” Nov. 24, 1882: 1: 7. “A Shorthand Man Wanted,” Nov. 25, 1882: 2. “Their Last Night on Earth,” Mar. 9, 1883: 2: 5. “Three Firms Boycotted,” Mar. 20, 1883: 1: 2. “District Government Affairs”, Mar. 22, 1883:4:2. “Brevities” [Female physicians to the poor], Apr. 6, 1883: 4: 5. “Brevities” [DC Commissioners reject idea of separate detention room for those arrested for minor offenses], July 29, 1883: 5: 7. “Refusing Mrs. Smith’s Request” [see previous entry], Aug. 9, 1883: 4: 3. “Enlightening Senators” [CS gives statistics on U.S. working women], Aug. 21, 1883: 1: 5–6. “Tales of the Toilers,” [Third annual F.O.T.L.U. Convention; CS only woman present], Aug 22, 1883:1:3. “Mrs. Charlotte Smith in Court,” Sept. 23, 1883: 8: 5. “The Proposed Labor Bureau” [Nimmo’s response to CS’s idea], May 4, 1884: 5. “Belva’s Ratification” [Belva Lockwood’s Presidential campaign], Sept. 19, 1884: 5: 3– 4. “Odlum’s Fatal Leap”, May 20, 1885: 1:6. “Odlum’s Fatal Leap,” May 30, 1885: 1: 4. “Working Women Heard” [Senate Committee on Education and Labor], Feb. 13, 1886: 2: 5. “ ‘Larry’ Jerome’s Latest” [Joke on CS re Chinese laundries], May 18, 1886: 1: 9. “Personal Intelligence,” Oct. 20, 1886: 2: 4. “The District in Congress . . . Senate District Committee” [CS asks appropriation for decent burial for paupers], June 2, 1888: 5:1. “Mrs. Charlotte Smith’s Charges” [Immigration scandal: women brought in for sex traffic], Aug. 21, 1888: 4: 5. “The Mary Ann Dougherty Case” [CS tries to sue Pres. Cleveland for libel], Sept. 1888: 2: 5. “Gossip Here and There,” Sept. 12, 1888: 4: 6. “Charlotte Smith on Parade” [Demonstration against Cleveland], Nov. 2, 1888: 1: 5. “Called on Secretary Windom” [Behalf of women discharged for attending union meetings], Mar. 26, 1889: 6: 3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

“An Old Time Deserter Forgiven” [Bainbridge case], May 9, 1889: 6: 2. “The Waifs at Johnstown,” June 11, 1889: 8: 2. “Capitol Gossip,” Jan. 14, 1890: 4:7. “Will Stand by Charlotte,” Jan. 19, 1890: 4: 6. “A ‘Liberal’ Platform . . . Woman’s National Liberal Union,” Feb. 26, 1890: 6: 2. “The Woman’s Industrial University,” June 25, 1890: 7: 4. “Heard About Town” [CS’s defense of Capitol apple-seller], Aug. 23, 1890: 2: 6. “Mrs. Smith’s Memorial . . . Child Labor in Factories,” Sept. 24, 1890: 7: 1. “Was it Woman’s Work?” [Women’s role in politics], Nov. 22, 1890: 2: 3. “Aid for a Deserving Man” [CS advocates for blind newsdealer], Dec. 1, 1890: 8: 4. “Brevities” [CS and WNIL on Irish question], Dec. 3, 1890: 4: 3. “Industrial Women Ignored” [Management of World’s Fair], Dec. 12, 1890: 6: 3. “Look Out for an Impostor” [Collecting for blind newsdealer], Dec. 15, 1890: 5: 4. “Her Senators Three” [Praising Sen. Blair], Dec. 29, 1890: 1: 7. “Against Closing on Sunday,” Jan. 18, 1891: 7: 4. “For Women Who Work: Annual Meeting of the WNIL,” Mar. 2, 1891: 2: 7. “The Woman Inventor” [CS’s third periodical], Apr. 14, 1891: 4. “Mr. Blair Eulogized,” May 5, 1891: 4: 7. “Women the Sufferers” [CS proposes female Immigration Commissioners], June 11, 1891: 1: 2. “In Hotel Lobbies” [Re Chinese immigration], June 20, 1891: 4: 6. “Wages of the Gentler Sex” [Working Woman issue devoted to subject], Aug. 3, 1891: 6: 7. “Humors of the Ohio Campaign” [CS’s threat to take part], Aug. 10, 1891: 4: 4. “Equal Pay for Women,” Sept. 14, 1891: 4: 3. “After Mr. Niedringhaus” [WNIL opposes high tariff ], Sept. 24, 1891: 4: 7. “Offers a Helping Hand” [CS to Gov. Campbell, Ohio], Sept. 29, 1891: 1: 5. “Woman and the Tariff ” [CS’s 64 –p. anti-tariff booklet], Oct. 21, 1891: 7: 2. “Some Observations” [CS back from Ohio . . .], Nov. 16, 1891: 5: 3. “Wants Women Recognized,” Nov. 23, 1891: 2: 8. “Woman Wage-Workers” [Statistics; regrettable death of Cardinal Manning], Jan. 24, 1892: 10: 6. “Mr. Blair’s Candidacy,” Mar. 5, 1892: 4: 6. “. . . Hearings Before the Committees. . . .” [CS wants amendment forcing cosmetic manufacturers to state ingredients on labels, with penalties for violators], Mar. 10, 1892: 1: 2. “Opposed to the Reformatory” [CS says training more useful], Mar. 22, 1892: 5: 4. “Women Wage-Earners” [Mail-Bag Repair Shop workers], Apr. 30, 1892: 4: 7. “The Story of Her Life” [CS’s marriage, unknown divorce, frauds against her], July 4, 1892: 2: 1–2. “A Tender from Women,” July 13, 1892: 1. “Wanamaker the ‘King Sweater,’ ” Nov. 5, 1892: 4: 6.

220

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Coxey at his Rubicon,” Apr. 23, 1894: 1: 2. “Charlotte Wields the Slipper,” Aug. 8, 1894: 4: 8. Untitled [Breckinridge case], Sept. 19, 1894: 4: 3. “Care for Scarlet Women,” Aug. 12, 1895: 3: 2. Untitled [CS and NY Police Commissioners], Aug. 14, 1895: 4: 3. “Higher Pay, Less Vice,” June 8, 1896: 3: 4. “New Plan for Reform” [of prostitution], June 15, 1896: 4: 3.

CS’s crusade against cycling for women “Whirr of the Wheels” [CS’s anti-bicycling crusade], July 20, 1896: 7: 5. Untitled, Sept. 4, 1896: 6: 3. Untitled, Sept. 29, 1896: 6: 4. “Wheels Checked at Church,” Dec. 14, 1896: 4: 2. Untitled [CS to Boston], Mar. 22, 1897: 6: 3. Untitled [CS and Boston mayor’s campaign], Aug. 24, 1897: 6: 3. “Sullivan and Quincy” [CS opposed to bachelor candidates], Aug. 25, 1897: 6: 2. “Crusade Against Bachelors,” Sept. 6, 1897: 1: 4. Untitled [War on Chinese laundrymen], Jan. 24, 1898: 6: 3. “Here and There” [CS proposes regiment of single women for coming war], Mar. 21, 1898: 2: 5. Untitled [DC benefits: CS move to Boston], Mar. 21, 1898: 6: 4. “Send New Women to War,” Apr. 7, 1898: 7: 6. Untitled [Pairs CS with Dr. Mary Walker as irritants], Apr. 13, 1898: 6: 4. Untitled [Idea for the Regiment of Women], Apr. 19, 1898: 6: 4. “Patriotic Women’s Work” [Help for veterans’ families], May 13, 1898: 7:7. “Brigades are Formed” [CS proposes women’s help for regiments], May 25, 1898: 2: 2. “Insurance for Soldiers” [CS Memorial to Congress for insurance bureau in DC], June 18, 1898: 9: 3. “Friend to Unfortunate Women” [Eulogy for Police Supt. W.G. Moore], July 17, 1898: 12: 6. “What To Do with Them” [Humor at CS’s expense], Aug. 28, 1898: 19: 1–3. “Queen of Holland Dames” [Lavinia Dempsey and Charlotte Smith at close of 55th Congress; tribute to CS], Mar. 5, 1899: 3: 4. “Denounce Commissioner Peck” [WNIL to boycott Paris Expo], Mar. 21, 1899: 9: 2. “Give the Women a Chance” [CS to Democratic Party], Mar. 28, 1899: 4: 6. “Entertainment for Industrial Exhibit” [Benefit for CS’s proposed Woman’s National Industrial Exhibit, in DC in 1900], Apr. 7, 1899: 2: 3. “Woman’s Industrial Exhibit” [Benefit entertainment by the Woman’s Industrial Committee of the Government Printing Office at Rifles’ Armory], May 19, 1899: 7. “Proposed Woman’s Exhibit,” July 7, 1899: 2: 3.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

“Threw the Cash Away” [Important article: CS’s lobbying experience, techniques], July 28, 1899: 9: 1. “Woman’s Industrial League. . . . Permanent Exhibition Project,” Aug. 6, 1899: 7: 4. “Protection from Assaults” [Better protection for women; harsher penalties], Aug. 16, 1899: 2: 1. “Filipinos Want Their Liberty” [CS sympathizes; letter to her from Senor ˜ Lopez], Oct. 10, 1899: 3: 4. “Home for Admiral Schley” [CS and WNIL propose fund], Oct. 12, 1899: 2: 3. “Home for Schley Now,” Oct. 14, 1899: 2: 6. “The Home for Schley,” Oct. 26, 1899: 2: 3. “Work for Woman’s Industrial Exhibit,” Apr. 5, 1900: 7: 4. “Admiral Schley Home Fund,” Mar. 24, 1901: 2: 3. “Denies Schley Letter Story,” Mar. 26, 1901: 2: 2. “Mrs. Smith and the Schley Home,” Mar. 30, 1901: 6: 6. “Oleo Fatal to Matrimony,” Jan. 23, 1902: 3. “The Woman’s Exposition,” Jan. 31, 1902: n.p. “To Foster Silk-Growing” [CS elected President of new organization], Oct. 12, 1902: 1. “Woman on his Trail” [CS v. Senatorial candidate Justin D. Bowersock on question of Woman’s Industrial Exhibit, etc.], Nov. 20, 1902: 3. “Women and Civil Service: How They May Further . . . Reform. . . .” [CS introduces talk by Secretary Doyle of Civil Service Commission], May 19, 1903: 4. “Found Conditions Shameful” [CS and Women’s Rescue League ask changes at 6th and D Street Police Court], June 3, 1903: 10. “Defi for Bowersock” [CS champions cause of three million working women; wants government bureau to provide husbands and pensions], June 7, 1902: 9. “All in Line But Bowersock,” June 26, 1902 [on the Permanent Exposition of Women’s Work and Inventiveness]. “Women Sanitary Inspectors” [CS recommends], July 15, 1903: 2. “Police to Distribute Tickets” [for entertainments for poor children organized by Woman’s Rescue League], Aug. 3, 1903: 12. “On White House Grounds: Five Hundred Children to be Entertained There Next Saturday” [CS given use through Col. Symons; outing for poor children of DC], Aug. 6, 1903: 12. “Gates Closed to Tots” [White House grounds picnic permit revoked; conflicting explanations], Aug. 9, 1903: 4. “Woman’s Industrial Exhibit” [CS appeals to Congress for funding], Feb. 10, 1904: 4. “Contingent on Congress” [further appeal to Congress for same], Jan. 24, 1905: 5. Untitled [Humor re CS crusade in Philadelphia], Apr. 18, 1905, n.p. “Like a Knight of Old” [Important interview w/CS in Philadelphia; ref. to 50 bills she’s had passed in Congress], May 7, 1905: n.p. “Charlotte Smith Victimized” [Check-fraud], May 25, 1905: 8.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Charlotte Smith’s Fortune,” June 16, 1905: 11. “Aiding Claiche Girl” [Berthe Claiche murder/sex-slave case], July 28, 1905: 2: 3. “Girl Slayer Is Free,” Sept. 9, 1908:1. “She Gives Moran Data” [CS exposes corruption at Boston Exhibition], Oct. 22, 1907. “Hill Escapes Woman” [CS wanted financier’s help w/Farms for Women scheme], Oct. 10, 1913. “Woman’s Value Is Twice As Much As Man’s, and Blondes Third More Than Brunettes,” Jan. 6, 1914: 4. “Wants Cages for Fair Typists” [CS wants girls protected from employers’ advances], Sept. 12, 1915. “Office Girls Oppose Cages . . .,” Oct. 3, 1915; E8. EVENING STAR

“The Woman’s League,” Feb. 9, 1883: 4: 2. “Washington Delegates to Federation of Labor,” Aug. 23, 1883: 4: 2 [Lists DC delegates to 3rd annual F.O.T.L.U. Conference; CS “the only lady present,” made an address]. “From the Capitol . . . The House,” Mar. 6, 1890: 1 [WNIL petition that two women be appointed to the World’s Fair Committee of 1892]. “For a Permanent Exhibit: Officers Chosen by Woman’s International Exposition Association,” Jan. 16, 1902: 6: 6,7. “Exposition of Woman’s Work,” Jan. 17, 1902: 2: 3 [CS asks use of Government reservation for the Women’s Industrial Exposition.]. “The Passing of the Dairy Maid,” Jan. 25, 1902: 17: 4. “From the Capitol,” Mar. 6, 1890: 1. “To Promote Exposition: Women Hold Enthusiastic Meeting at Arlington Hotel,” Jan. 31, 1902: 16: 2.

MISCELLANEOUS NEWSPAPERS (Alphabetical by city and paper title if more than one; in date order for each paper)

Albert Lea (MN) “A Woman’s Talk,” The Freeborn County Standard, May 16, 1878:1 [Repr. from St. Louis Evening Post.].

Atlanta “The Rights of Women,” Constitution, Sept. 19, 1882:1 [Formation of WNIL in DC]. “Extinguishing the Race,” Constitution, Aug. 6, 1895, n.p. [Bicycles mean no babies].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Bismarck (ND) “Help for the Women,” Daily Tribune, July 1, 1891.

Bristol (PA) “Women Who Work for Pay,” Bucks County Gazette, May 1, 1884.

Brooklyn “Robert Emmet Odlum’s Jump: Her Son’s Fate,” Daily Eagle, May 28, 1885. “His Head in a Halter,” Eagle, Aug. 9, 1891: 7 [CS to Ohio campaign with “Sockless” Jerry Simpson]. “Is Bicycling Immoral? Woman’s Rescue League Says It is,” Eagle, Aug. 19, 1896. “Anti-Cycling Mass Meetings . . .,” Eagle, Aug. 20, 1896: 2

Butte (MT) Untitled, dateline New York City, Aug. 21, The Daily Miner, Aug. 23, 1883 [CS’s testimony before Senate Committee on Education and Labor].

Cambridge (OH) Untitled, The Jeffersonian, Apr. 30, 1891 [Thanks to H.T. Simons from leading women inventors (incl. Martha Coston) and from CS for getting women inventors admitted to the National Association of Inventors and Manufacturers]. Untitled, The Jeffersonian, Dec. 15, 1904 [Women lobbyists; anti-Sen. Smoot of Utah].

Chicago (IL) “The Labor Question,” (Mrs. M.D. Wynkoop), Tribune, Mar. 1, 1874:10. “Not Satisfied with Mrs. Palmer,” Daily Tribune, Mar. 17, 1892:9. “Charlotte Smith Is Still Defiant,” Daily Tribune, Jan. 8. 1897:9.

Davenport (IA) Untitled, Weekly Gazette, Apr. 6, 1881 [Charlotte’s proposed work on the Hayes Administration]. “The Woman Lobbyist in Washington,” Leader, Mar. 30, 1893 [Repr. From Harper’s Weekly].

Decatur (IL) “Startling Announcement by the President of the Woman’s National Industrial League,” Daily Republican, Aug. 21, 1888 [CS to Rep. Ford on ‘syndicates’ bringing women to the U.S. for houses of ill fame].

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Another Meeting of Women,” dateline Washington, Mar. 3; Morning Review, Mar. 4, 1891 [Annual meeting of Woman’s Industrial League].

Dunkirk (NY) “Capitol Notes,” Evening Observer, Feb. 25, 1885 [Delegation of wage women headed by CS, thanks Senators Blair and Miller re Foreign Contract Labor Bill].

Fitchburg (MA) “Daughters of Eve,” Sentinel, July 30, 1890 [Misc. notable achievements of women; lobbyists listed; not CS].

Fort Wayne (IN) Untitled, Gazette, Feb. 27, 1883 [On lobbying; Congressional immorality]. Untitled, News, Sept. 12, 1896 [Article on value of long bicycle rides mentions CS]. “Charlotte Smith Writes of Women’s Patriotic League,” News, Sept. 19, 1899. “White Slave Girl Dictates Story of Monstrous Captivity,” News, Aug. 17, 1905 [Berthe Claiche].

Frederick (MD) “Capt. Boyton Should Be Arrested,” Daily News, May 28, 1885. Untitled, Daily News, Dec. 7, 1886: 1 [CS, known as spokeswoman of WNIL, proposes herself for Chief of Police (DC)].

Galveston (TX) Untitled [praise for Inland Monthly], Daily News, Feb. 15, 1874. “Pioneer of Industry: Charlotte Smith’s Great Work for the Women Who Toil,” Daily News, May 22, 1905:1.

Hartford (CT) Connecticut’s Senators Repel a Slander on Connecticut,” Courant, Sept. 26, 1890 [WNIL on factory working conditions for women and children].

Hawaii Untitled, Gazette, Sept. 7, 1891: 1 [Repr., “Help for the Women” article; see Hornellsville, NY, Weekly Tribune, July 17, 1891].

Helena (MT) Untitled, Daily Independent, Oct. 7, 1875: 1 [Humor re Charlotte; mentions Inland Monthly].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Hornellsville (NY) “People with Wants,” Weekly Tribune, Sept. 26, 1890 [On lobbying; no mention of CS; line drawings]. “Help for the Women,” dateline Washington, July 7; Weekly Tribune, July 17, 1891 [Important article; best summary of CS’s achievements to this date].

Jefferson City (MO) “Miss Mary Nolan,” People’s Tribune, Apr. 25, 1877: 3: 5.

Lima (OH) “A Large Contract: Mrs. Charlotte Smith to Wage War Against New York Wheelwomen,” Times Democrat, Sept. 19, 1909.

Lincoln (NE) Unitiled, Daily Nebraska State Journal, May 23, 1886:3 [conflict between CS and a New York Congressman].

Los Angeles Willis B. Hawkins, “Capitol Sirens: Lady Lobbyists Who Influence Legislation,” Times, June 29, 1890: 1 [Important article on women lobbyists w/some history; mentions Olive Hechtman, Dr. Mary Walker, CS, some others; line drawings]. “The Woman Lobbyist in Washington,” Times, Mar. 31, 1893: 10 [Reprinted from Harper’s Weekly; no mention of CS].

Mansfield (OH) “Women Compliment Ex-Senator Blair,” Evening News, May 5, 1891: 1.

Marion (OH) “Send New Women to War: Mrs. Charlotte Smith Thinks Her Plan Would Solve Several Problems,” Daily Star, Feb. 21, 1898 [Reprinted from Washington Post].

Memphis “A Flagrant Outrage,” Daily Bulletin, May 29, 1864: 3: 2. “Further Outrages on Seventh Street,” Daily Bulletin, May 31, 1864: 3: 3. “A Disturbance of the Peace,” Daily Bulletin, June 1, 1864: 3: 2.

Middletown (NY) Untitled: “Mrs. Charlotte Smith . . . alleges . . . extensive system of office brokerage . . .,” June 19, 1891: 1.

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mitchell (SD) “Strong Accusation,” dateline Washington; Daily Republican, Aug. 19, 1888 [CS denounces Postmaster General for appointing adulterous women].

Newark (OH) “A Broad Assertion,” dateline Washington, Daily Advocate, Aug. 21, 1888 [CS denounces immigration for immoral purposes]. Untitled, dateline Washington; Daily Advocate, Aug. 16, 1890 [CS summons women of the civilized world to the Woman’s International Industrial Congress at the Chicago Fair]. “Women Lobbyists,” Daily Advocate, Sept. 17, 1890 [Women of all sorts; few professionals]. “Help for the Women,” Daily Advocate, July 16, 1891 [See Hornellsville, NY, Weekly Tribune]. Untitled, Daily Advocate, Oct. 3, 1891 [CS offers to help Gov. Campbell of Ohio against McKinley]. “Mrs. Smith on the Stump,” Daily Advocate, Oct. 24, 1891. [CS “better posted on the labor question than any other woman in this country”; says her Eastern newspaper articles on workers’ suffering have refuted Republican claims that tariff benefits wage workers]. “It Intends to Check Mrs. Smith’s Crusade Against Bachelors,” Daily Advocate, Feb. 28, 1898: 1 [Anti-Bardell Bachelor Band, Atlanta]. Untitled, Daily Advocate, Nov. 20, 1907: 5 [CS plans woman’s hotel in Boston, like Mills Hotels, New York].

North Adams (MA) “A Home for Schley,” Transcript, Oct. 27, 1899: 2 [Likeness of CS included; claims 22 branches of WNIL, nationwide].

Ogdensburg (NY) “Who Was Prof. Robert E. Odlum?” Journal, May 26, 1885: 4: 4 [Reprinted, St. Lawrence Republican, May 27, 1885: 2: 6].

Oshkosh, WI “Prof. Odlum’s Body,” dateline New York, May 20; Daily Northwesterner, May 25, 1885: 1. “The Pool Jumper,” dateline Washington, DC, May 20; Daily Northwesterner, May 25, 1885: 1. “Women Don’t Lobby,” dateline Washington, DC; Daily Northwesterner, Jan. 15, 1889. “Make ’Em Marry,” Daily Northwesterner, July 31, 1897. “To Force Men To Wed: Charlotte Smith Pushes her Marriage Plan,” Daily Northwesterner, Aug. 24, 1897: 6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

Untitled, Daily Northwesterner, Aug. 27, 1897: 4 [Humor re anti-bachelor crusade].

Pittsburgh “Women, Not Ladies Are the Need of the Hour . . .,” Dispatch, Mar. 16, 1892: 1f [Quotes CS; Mme Yale and CS on same platform; both attack Mrs. Potter Palmer]. “Mrs. Potter Palmer: The Beautiful Chicagoan Severely Scored by a ‘Woman’ and a ‘Lady,” Leader, Mar. 18, 1892.

Racine County (WI) Untitled, [CS’s visit to the paper], The Argus, Aug. 30, 1877: 1.

Reno Untitled, Nevada State Journal, Dec. 26, 1874 [Charlotte Smith’s Female Printing Co.].

St. Louis MISSOURI REPUBLICAN

“Mr. R.E. Odlum . . .” [trip for Inland Monthly], April 15, 1873. Couzins, Phoebe. Letter to the Editor, March 29, 1874: 10 [Charlotte Smith sues Logan U. Reavis in Circuit Court, Mar. 28, 1874, to dissolve partnership]. “Women’s Printing Co. Organized.” Nov. 27, 1874: 8. “Question as to Whether a Married Woman Can Sue and Be Sued, Tried,” Nov. 2, 1875: 5 [Collier White Lead court case].

(ST.

LOUIS) REPUBLICAN

“Mary Nolan’s Death,” Mar. 25, 1897: 3: 5–6.

Sandusky (OH) Untitled, Daily Register, June 12, 1891: 1 [CS letter to Pres. Harrison urging appointment of two women to board of Immigration Commission: immoral and labor-supply aspects].

Sedalia (MO) “Inland Monthly,” Daily Democrat, Feb. 27, 1874 [Review].

Stevens Point (WI) “A Leap to Death,” Journal, May 30, 1885.

228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Trenton (NJ) Untitled, Evening Times, Sept. 8, 1897 [Dr. Anna Clarke’s reply to CS’s anticycling crusade].

Watertown (NY) Elizabeth M Baxter, “Odlum in Dive to Death . . .,” Daily Times, Oct. 23, 1969: 4: 7 [Robert’s death; old rumors about Odlums].

Winfield (KS) Untitled [Haggart arrested in Robert Odlum death], Courier, May 28, 1885.

Zanesville (WI) Untitled, Weekly Gazette, Mar. 30, 1881: 1 [CS, editress of the Inland Monthly, plans work on Hayes Administration].

Other Sources: Records Birth Records Odlum, George Henry (son of Charlotte): City of Philadelphia, Department of Records, City Archives, 523 City Hall Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19107: Birth Certificate No. 4628. Date of birth, July 27, 1869; date of filing July 31, 1869.

Church Records Baptisms of St. Mary’s, Ogdensburg, NY, p. 10, 1840: August 13(?), [Baptism of ] Charlotte, [daughter] of Richard and Catherine Odlan [sic]; Sponsors— ?Donald and Cath. Bethune; priest—D. W. Baem. Marriage record: Charlotte Odlum to Edward Smith, parsonage of Locust Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Harrisburg, PA, July 28, 1866. (See Plaintiff ’s Exhibit 1, divorce petition of Edward Smith, Jersey City, NJ, Nov. 2, 1883, hearing transcript). Carbury Parish, Church of Ireland, Marriage record of John Smyth and Jane Forsyth [parents of Edward Smith], 1810. Carbury Parish, Church of Ireland, baptismal records for Edward Smith (1825) and several of his siblings. Carbury Parish, Church of Ireland, burial record of Edward Smith (1891), his parents, and several of his siblings.

Court Records [Newspaper ref.] “Question As to Whether a Married Woman Can Sue and Be Sued, Tried,” Missouri Republican, Nov. 2, 1875: 5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Odlum, Charlotte: Record search, Probate Court of Mobile County, AL (L-June 15, 1990, P.O. Box 7, Mobile, AL 36601): no marriage record found for Charlotte Odlum and Edward E. Smith, 1865–70. Charles Smith: holographic will dated June 15, 1888, at New Orleans; witnessed by H.J. Laverne, dy ck, and F. H. Monroe, Judge. Probate filed, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, New Orleans, LA, Div. C., September 17, 1890; No. 30988; Judge F. H. Monroe. Succession papers (same estate), Petition by Thomas Smith and William Canton to become executors; filed Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Div. B., September 17, 1890; No. 30988: Judge F. H. Monroe. Charles Edward Smith (son of Charlotte): Petition of Abby Dougherty Smith (2nd wife) for Letters of Administration on the Estate of; Surrogate’s Court, Erie Co., Town of Tonowanda, NY. Date of death, November 16, 1939; date of petition, February 8, 1940. [N.B. Widow Asks to Become Administratrix of His Estate—No Will—has only 4 survivors: herself and 3 of his children: Robert and Allen Smith and Mrs. James Smith Duncan]. Jersey City, NJ, Chancery Court of New Jersey; divorce petition of Edward Smith for dissolution of his marriage to Charlotte Smith, initiated Nov. 2, 1883; Benjamin F. Sawyer, Attorney. Smith, Charlotte, v. Collier White Lead Company, December Term, 1875, Case No. 36682: nonpayment of advertising bill. Smith, Charlotte, v. Reavis, L. U., Circuit Court Case No. 29221, June Term 1874: Dissolution of Partnership.

Credit Records: See under Dun, R. G. Death Records, Notices, Obituaries Nathaniel H. Lytle, Ogdensburg, NY Daily Journal, Jan. 8, 1889. Catherine Odlum: Registry Division, City of Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Certificate No. 3334. Date of death, April 12, 1895; date of certificate, April 15, 1895. George Worth Odlum (brother of Charlotte): City of Minneapolis, 5th Ward, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota: Certificate No. 19638 2737. Date of death, Aug. 2, 1917. Jerome Odlum (son of George Worth Odlum): Social Security Death Index: d. California, March 2, 1954. Robert Emmet Odlum (brother of Charlotte): William H. Kennedy, Coroner in and for the City and County of New York, Certificate No. 528530. Date of death May 19, 1885; date of certificate, May 20, 1885. ROBERT EMMET ODLUM: NEWSPAPER DEATH NOTICES:

“Odlum’s Fatal Jump,” Washington Evening Star, Wed., May 20, 1885, 2nd ed.: [1]. “Odlum’s Fatal Leap,” Washington Post, Wed., May 20, 1885: 1. Odlum’s Leap to Death,” New York Times, Wed., May 20, 1885: 1:1–3+. “Odlum’s Leap to Death: Killed in Jumping from the Big Brooklyn Bridge,” Ogdensburg Journal, Thurs., May 21, 1885: 1: 4 –5.

230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Odlum’s Leap from the Bridge,” Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, May 30, 1885: 242. “Odlum’s Body Taken Away,” New York Times, Thursday, May 21, 1885: 2. “Local Brevities” [Robert Odlum], The Missouri Republican (St. Louis), Tues. Apr. 15, 1873: 5. Parmer, Enrique [listed as Enrique E. Palmer], Obituary, Bound Brook (NJ) Chronicle, Jun. 16, 1916. Charles Smith (brother of Edward): State of NY, County of Saratoga, Certificate No. 32974 (death record No. 1064; Date of death August 19, 1890; date of certificate, same; Charles W. Keefer, Coronor. Also recorded by the Board of Health in and for the Parish of Orleans, New Orleans, LA. Date of death, Aug. 19, 1890, in Saratoga Springs, NY; date of certificate, Aug. 25, 1890. Charles Edward Smith (older son of Charlotte): Date of death, Nov. 16, 1939, Tonowanda, Erie County, NY [See also under Court Records]. Charlotte Smith: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Dept. Of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Records and Statistics, Certificate No. E 003516 for Charlotte Odlum Smith. Date of death, Dec. 3, 1917; date of certificate, December 12, 1917. Edward Smith (death notice): “SMITH–Nov. 11, 1891, suddenly, of heart disease. . . .,” The Philadelphia Ledger, Nov. 14, 1891: 4. Edward Smith: Queenstown, Ireland, District 2; Certificate No. CRD 20510 0137. Date of death, November 11, 1891; date of certificate, December 17, 1891. George Henry Smith (younger son of Charlotte): St. Louis, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Division of Health; Certified copy of Death Certificate: date of death, May 11, 1873, aged 3 yrs, 10 mos, and 20 days [sic—see date of birth]. Jennie Watson Smith (first wife of Charlotte’s son Charles Edward Smith). Brooklyn, NY: Jacob M. Brownstein, MD, Date of death, Apr. 22, 1928; Certif. #9254 (n.d.). Thomas Smith (brother of Edward): Board of Health in and for the Parish of Orleans, New Orleans, LA. Date of death, January 27, 1892; date of certificate, January 29, 1892.

OBITUARIES, CHARLOTTE SMITH “Charlotte Smith, Reformer, Dead.” Boston (Morning extra) Globe, Tues., Dec. 4, 1917: 9: 4. “Charlotte Smith, Reformer, Dead.” Boston Record, Tues., Dec. 4, 1917: 9: 5. “Charlotte Smith: Picturesque Reformer. . . .” Boston Evening Transcript, Tues., Dec. 4, 1917: 12: 4,5. “Charlotte Smith’s Son Sought For.” Boston Evening Globe, Tues., Dec. 4, 1917: 5: 3. “Charlotte Smith, Well known in Boston . . .,” New York Times, Dec. 6, 1917: 13: 4.

Index Addams, Jane, 181–82, 204 n. 13 adulteration (food, cosmetics, medicines), 133, 152–53, 182; ingredient labels, 191; penalties for, 191–92; types, 189–90; WNIL memorial on, 189–92; and working class, 192 American Federation of Labor, 129, 159, 175 Annapolis, MD, Legislature, 149 Anthony, Susan B., 142– 43, 178, 199 nn. 16 and 20 Anti-opium bill, 138 Arlington Hotel, 150–54, 157 bachelors’ auctions, 28, 78, 104 bachelors: campaigns against, 169– 70 Ballot Box, The, 73 Barrison Sisters, 161–62, 205 n. 8 Baxter, Elizabeth, 116 Bickerdycke, “Mother” Mary Ann, 47, 51 bicycling (for women), 29, 167–70 Bierce, Ambrose, 169, 205–6 n. 11 Blaine, Sen. James G., 118 Blair, Sen. Henry, 47, 103, 106, 107, 112, 128, 131, 134, 138, 140, 143, 181, 200–201 n. 7 Board of Lady Managers, 142, 182, 204 n. 13 Boston, 30, 33, 37, 53, 149–76 Boyton Paul, 15, 115, 119–26, 202 nn. 10 and 11; adventures, 119, 120; Philadelphia curio shop, 121; as inventor, 120; and Robert Odlum’s death, 122–26; and water safety, 119–21. See also Odlum, Robert

Boyesen, Persis, 193 (chap. 1), n. 2 Brewster, Attorney General, 187 Brown, John, 202 n. 10 Cahawba, 41, 195 n. 5 Call, Rep. Wilkinson, 107, 135 Cameron, Sen. Simon, 102, 200 n. 2 Canada, 33, 202 n. 3; canal railroad work in, 33, 34, 202 n. 3 Candler, Rep. John W., 108 carpetbaggers, 54 Catholicism, 39, 83 census records: NY (St. Lawrence Co.) (1840), 31, 195 n. 9, 202 n. 6; NY (Jefferson Co.) (1850), 33, 194 n. 9, 202 n. 6; St. Louis (1860), 39, 40, 194 –95 n. 1; Philadelphia (1870), 57, 117; Jersey City (1880), 58; NJ (Somerset Co.) (1910), 197 n. 9 Centennial, 91–92, 94, 121, 149, 193 headnote Central Trades Union, 150 Chicago, 29, 53, 57, 60, 17, 91, 196 n. 19; Fair (see Columbian Exposition); Fire, 29, 57, 60, 68, 19, 71–72, 78 Chicago Women’s Club, 203 n. 5 Chinese immigration, 102, 128–30; and laundry work, 129–30, 170, 202–3 nn. 1, 2, and 3 cholera, 33 Christian Brothers School, 40, 117 cigarette smoking, 132–33, 138, 151–52, 182 Civil War, 35–36, 40–53, 186, 200n. 5; Smith Brothers’ profits from, 68, 203 n. 10; Union depredations (TN), 45– 46

231

232

INDEX

Claiche, Berthe, 163–65, 205 n. 10 Cleveland, Pres. Grover, 35–36, 102, 140 Columbian Exposition, 53, 138, 140– 43, 182 contract (convict) labor, 155, 157 Corliss Engine, 23, 26, 30, 102, 193 headnote Corliss, George Henry, 193 headnote Coston, Martha J. 147, 204 n. 17 Couzins, Phoebe, 90, 141, 199 n. 19 coverture: precedents against, 90–91 cows, 45, 51; Odlums’, 43, 49, 51–52 Coxey’s Army, 156 Crossman, R. B., 199 n. 18 Cuba: trips to, 29, 35, 40, 41, 149 Dale, Alan, 161–62 Dana, Richard Henry, 195 n. 5 Daniel, Senator, 147 Dewey, Adm. George, 206 n. 12 Daughters of St. Crispin, 97, 98 Dependent Pension Bill, 140 Detroit, 37 Dickinson, Anna, 89, 95, 199 n. 16 Dougherty, Mary Ann, 103 dress reform, 74, 105 Eads, Capt. James Buchanan, 85, 199 n. 14 education, 82, 130–31, 153–55 Eglin, Ellen F., 113, 143 Ehrenreich, Barbara, 159, 205 n. 6 Emmet, Robert, 116, 193 n. 4 equal pay for equal work, 12, 26, 29, 96, 97, 98, 113, 135, 186, 206 n. 2 factory inspectors: women, 139 Farwell, Sen. Charles Benjamin, 103, 108, 201 n. 10 fashion, 74 Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (F.O.T.L.U.), 113, 134, 181 Field, Kate, 203 n. 6 Folz, Clara, 203 n. 8 Foote, Hon. Henry S., 80, 82, 98, 198 n. 12 Forrest, Nathan Bedford, 47 Fort Donelson, 42 Fort Pickering, 47, 196 n. 15

Fort Pillow, 45, 195 n. 12 Foster, Marion, 147 Fowler, Orson Squires, 25–26, 193 n. 1 free love, 84 Freeman, Rev. C. J., 165–66 Fry, Widow, 90–91 Gage, Matilda J., 134, 147 Gaines, Myra Clark, 110 Garfield, Pres. (sons of ), 118 Gatling, Dr. J., 147 Gayosos Hospital, 47, 195 n. 13 Geary Act, 128–29 George, Henry, 176, 206 n. 13 Gibbons, Cardinal James, 149, 204 n. 1 Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 206 n. 2 gossip, 75, 76, 198 n. 6 Gompers, Samuel, 113, 129 Gould, Jay, 134 Grant, Ulysses S., 42, 49–50, 195 n. 11 Greeley, Horace, 80–83, 98, 130, 198 n. 11 Greenhalge, Gov. (MA), 157 Hanaford, Phebe, 12 Harding, Mrs. E. J., 78 Hayes, Pres., 118 Hechtman, Olive, 104, 105, 180, 200 n. 5 Henrotin, Ellen, 181–82 Holley, Marietta, 84, 198 n. 13 homesteading: women, 160 Horner, Judge, 118 Hosmer, Harriet, 141, 147, 204 n. 16 Houk, Rep. 47, 48, 196 n. 16 Howard, Dr. Robert Palmer, 37 Hull House, 204 n. 13 Hurlbut, Maj. Gen. Stephen, 46, 50 immigration: women commissioners of, 138. See also Chinese immigration; see under Smith, Charlotte Industrial Women’s International Exposition Association, 154 Inland Monthly, The, 12, 25, 29, 60, 65, 69, 71–100, 104, 113, 130, 179; ads, 77, 78, 84 –85, 197 n. 7;

INDEX

233

Chicago branch, 9, 29, 87, 91; contemporary views, 75–76, 77, 81; content, 75–85, 92, 99–100, 180; contributors, 80, 84, 98–99; correspondents, 78; covers, 85–87; demise, 74, 100; difficulties, 88– 91; financial success, 99, 100; founding, 72, 73; impact, 98–99; New Orleans branch, 29, 91; Nolan leaves, 78, 198 n. 10; omission from obituary, 174; printed/typeset by women, 74, 88–89; recognition of, 73; subscription price, 73, 198 n. 4, travels for, 149 Inventors’ and Manufacturers’ Association, 147 Irving Block Prison, 46 Isabellas, 141, 142, 182; monument, 138, 141– 42

McClellan, Miss Edna, 173 McKinley, Maj. William, 167 McKinley Tariff, 102, 201 n. 8 Memphis, 33, 96; battle of, 44; occupied, 39–53; Odlums’ house, 49–51; Confederate ardor, 44 – 45; Union hospitals in, 47– 48 Merriman, C. S., 120 Mills, John, 34 –35, 116 Missouri: and slavery, 41, 195 n. 10 Mobile, 33, 52–56, 60 money, women and, 12. See also Charlotte Smith: finances Montreal, 37 Moore, Maj. William G., 166–67 morality, 160–69 Mott, Frank Luther, 73, 74, 198 n. 5 Mountain, Mrs. Hannah, 121, 202 n. 12

Jackson, W. W., 47, 50 Jersey City, 58, 60 “Johnstown waifs,” 103, 131 journalism, 83– 4; early school of, 99, 130; Reavis on, 83–84; women and, 99. See also under Smith, Charlotte

National Federation of Labor, 137 New Orleans, 29, 32, 37, 40, 63, 149, 195 n. 6 New York City, 30, 37, 53, 63, 149 New York Legislature, 29–30, 149 Newport, RI, 53, 57, 60 Nimmo, Hon. Joseph, 110–11 Nolan, Mary, 72–73, 76, 77, 84, 88, 197 n. 3, 198 n. 7; and Central Magazine, 79, 198 n. 10; as inventor, 94 –95; leaves Inland, 78–79, 198 n. 10 Notable American Women, 12, 177

Kappner, Col. I. G., 49–50, 196 n. 15 Knights of Labor, 113, 137, 175, 181, 203 n. 4 Knights Templar, 173 Labor Bureau (Bureau of Labor Statistics), 110–11, 131, 182 Lard Bill, 138 Leach, Rep. William A., 107–8 Lee, Frederick T., 23–24 Lincoln, Pres. Abraham, 46 Lincoln, Robert, 108, 111, 187, 201 n. 14 Logan, Mary, 12 Logan, Olive, 80 Lytle, Nathaniel, 116, 194 n. 12, 202 n. 4 Maryland Legislature, 149; CS to, 173 Massachusetts Legislature, 29, 53, 149, 154 –55, 160, 205 n. 3 McAdams, Rep., 107

Odlum: surname, 32, 39 Odlum family: and colored soldiers, 51; compensation claims, 50–51 Odlum, Catherine, 29, 32–35, 56, 72, 179–80; attacked (Boston), 161; birth, 7, 32–33; book, 34, 116, 127, 194 n. 18, 201 n. 1; burial, 115, 150, 204 –5 nn. 1 and 2; census (1870), 57–58; and Charlotte’s children, 57; “crimes,” 34, 116, 201–2 n. 3; finances, 66, 118, 125– 26; health, 37–38, 150; loss of infant children, 33, 115, 194 n. 9; maiden name, 9, 32, 193 n. 6; marriage, 9, 32–35, 193 n. 6; nursing services (Civil War), 24, 47– 48, 96; occupation, 10, 35, 39,

234

INDEX

Odlum, Catherine (continued ) 55, 96; personality/character, 34, 116; residences, 44, 56, 57, 139, 204 n. 11; sorrows, 33, 43,115, 122–23, 127 Odlum, Charlotte. See Smith, Charlotte Odlum, Christopher, 39 Odlum, David, 23–24, 27, 35–36, 40– 44, 48– 49, 52, 53, 56, 68, 115– 17, 139, 140, 149, 194 n. 9; birthdate, 195 n. 8; Civil War battles of, 42– 43; enlistment under false name, 41, 198 n. 8. See also Rogers, Charles Odlum, George, 40, 41, 54, 57, 72, 139; birth, 33; burial, 115; legitimacy, 34, 194 n. 8 Odlum, Henry, 39 Odlum, James, 194 n. 9 Odlum, Michael, 39 Odlum, Richard, 32, 55, 115, 116, 202 nn. 3 and 6; birth, 32; class, 10; death, 9, 33, 36; marriage, 32– 34, 201 n. 2 Odlum, Robert, 32, 35, 40, 46, 49, 54, 57, 115–26, 150, 202 nn. 7 and 11; birth, 33, 116; burial, 115; childhood, 36, 116–17; death, 34, 115, 116, 123–24, 194 n. 17; high dives, 118, 119; legitimacy, 34, 193 n. 8; namesake, 193 n. 4; Natatorium, 118, 119, 189; place in history, 115; and safety, 121; swimming prowess, 117–19 Ogdensburg, NY, 31, 33, 116, 194 nn. 8, 12, and 15 Oleomargarine Bill, 138, 152 Oliver, Widow, 101–2, 200 n. 1, 201 n. 11 O’Neal, Mary, 102–3 Paducah, KY, 42, 47 Palmer, Bertha, 141, 142, 204 n. 13 Panic of 1873, 91–92 Paris Exposition, 173 Parkhurst, Dr. Charles, 162, 205 n. 9 Parmer, Enrique, 14, 65–70, 77, 78, 80, 82, 197 n. 9 Parton, James, 80, 198 n. 11 patent/Patent Office reforms, 147– 48

paupers: burial for, 103, 108 Pelz, Paul J., 154 Pension Claim: Odlum, 24 –25, 35– 36, 40, 42, 52, 70, 140, 193 (chap. 1) n. 1, 195 n. 4 pension claims: Civil War, 103, 104 – 5 pension legislation, 140, 194 n. 17 Periwinkle, Pauline, 177, 178, 206 n. 2 Philadelphia, 30, 33, 56–57; 60, 63, 91–92, 149, 159; white-slavery headquarters, 164, 205 n. 10 Plumb, Sen., 132, 138–39 police inspectors: women, 162 Powderly, Terence, 129, 131, 203 n. 4 prostitution, 29, 94, 95, 131–32, 138, 160–61, 163–7; New York City plan, 199 n. 20; St. Louis plan, 95, 199–200 n. 20 Pure Food Bill, 138, 152, 175 Quinlan, Fr. (Bishop of Mobile), 56, 62 Ream, Vinnie, 87, 199 n. 15 Reavis, Logan U., 25, 27, 29, 31, 35, 39, 75–77, 79, 81, 82, 194 nn. 11 and 16; as CS’s partner, 89–90, 193 (Intro.) n. 3 and (chap. 1) nn. 3 and 6 reformers: women, 186, 203 n. 5 Revolution, The, 138, 149 Richmond, VA, 138, 149 Roessle, T. E., 153, 154 Rogers, Charles, 115, 198 n. 8. See also Odlum, David S., Mary, 94, 95, 143 St. Louis, 29, 33, 37, 39– 41, 57, 60, 68, 71–100, 116–17, 149, 196 n. 19; newspapers, 198 n. 9; proposed U.S. capital, 194 n. 11 St. Patrick’s Church, DC, 204 nn. 1 and 2 sanitary inspectors: women, 153 Scharf, J. Thomas, 31, 35 Schley, Adm. Winfield Scott, 153, 171–73, 206 n. 12 Seneca Falls Convention, 97–98

INDEX

Sherman, Gen., 46, 118 Shiloh: battle of, 42 Silk Culture Bill, 138 silk-mill workers’ strike, 157 Simpson, Mrs., 147, 201 n. 9 Simpson, Rep. Jerry, 107, 153; Mrs., 147, 201 n. 9 Smith Brothers Co., 63, 66 Smith, Charles, 57, 58, 62–63, 64, 66, 68; spurned by CS, 67; will, 14 Smith, Charles E., 56, 57, 139, 145– 46, 174, 183; baptism, 64; estrangement from CS, 174 Smith, Charlotte: accomplishments, 136–39; advanced ideas, 11, 90, 91, 97–98, 147– 48, 159–63, 165– 67, 179–83; addresses, 44, 144, 197 n. 2, 201 n. 18, 204 n. 11, 205 n. 4; appearance, 9, 11, 23, 24, 26– 27; arrival at DC, 101; autobiography, 32; baptism, 9, 13, 31, 32; birth date, 9, 31; birthplace, 9, 31–32, 195 n. 9; blockade-running, 11, 48, 52, 180, 203 n. 10; burial 11, 115, 174; causes/crusades, 102–3, 128–39, 142; charity, 27, 90, 102, 103, 156 (see also finances, here); childhood, 29, 31, 35, 36; and child labor, 132; and Chinese, 128–30, 202–3 n. 1; Congressional access, 104, 106–8, 201 n. 13; Congressional appearances, 29, 30, 135, 152–54, 156, 180 (see also Blair, Sen. Henry); on corruption, 27, 28, 102, 160–61, 205 n. 3; in Devil’s Dictionary, 169; difficulty of research on, 9, 10, 14, 31, 193 (chap.1) n. 1, 195 n. 1; divorce, 58, 196–97 n. 7; economic feminism, 9, 10, 38, 74, 100, 183. 196, 198 n. 7, 206 n. 2; education, 10–11, 194 n. 16; on education, 130–31, 153–55, 180; energy, 26, 29, 35, 102, 136; as entrepreneur, 39– 40, 53, 55, 56, 195 n. 3; feminism, 29, 104; finances, 9, 27–28, 36–37, 40– 41, 48– 49, 53, 71, 80, 82, 100, 118, 139, 154, 175, 180, 195 n. 2, 196 n. 1, 197 n. 1, 201 n. 12, 203– 4 n. 10; health of, 35, 101; humor, 28–29,

235

78, 128, 131, 158–59; husband (see Smith, Edward); on hypocrisy, 27, 28, 102; on immigration, 102 (see also Chinese, here; prostitution; white-slave traffic); investigative reporting, 29, 106–7, 159, 175, 205 n. 5; Irish background, 9, 10, 14, 32; and journalism, 29, 72, 99; lawsuits, groundbreaking, 90–91; lobbying, 11, 29, 105–6, 135–36, 142, 180–81; loss of son, 87–88; “man of the house,” 36, 40, 58, 179; marriage, 9, 55–57, 61–63, 65–68, 197 n. 7; and marriage, 70, 83, 104; masher-bashing, 11, 103, 174; methods, 37–38, 104, 105–7, 193 n. 2; middle initial, 32; newspaper publicity, 102, 156; obituaries, 174 –75; omission from history, sources, 11–12; on health, 29, 132–33, 151–53; papers, lack of, 9–10, 183, 204 n. 12; personality, 11, 24 –29; photograph of, 23, 24, 35, 174, 194n. 19; on policing, 28–29, 95, 131, 162; and politics, 30, 97, 176, 179, 206 n. 3; and prostitution, 29, 95–96, 131– 32, 158, 163–67, 205 n. 3; and religion, 28, 128, 176; social position, 10; and tariff protection, 183, and temperance, 197 n. 7; travels, 149; and underdogs, 102– 3; and women inventors, 11, 94 – 95, 142, 144 – 48; and working women, 26, 27, 29, 53, 92–94, 103– 4, 128, 133–39, 155–60, 184; writings, 9, 29, 30, 71–72, 81, 92, 179 Smith, Edward, 9, 53, 55–59, 63; birth, 63–64, 66; death, 64, 65, 48; divorce, 58, 60–61, 139– 40, 196– 97 n. 7, 200 n. 1; marriage, 55–56, 58–62, 65–68, 196 n. 5; Irish background, 63–64; NJ residence, 196 n. 6; religion, 64; Sale cousins, 196. n. 3 Smith, George Henry, 56–58; death, 60, 87–88 Smith, Thomas, 63, 66 Southern women, 110 Spanish-American War, 29, 170

236

INDEX

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 199 n. 16 Starr, Ellen, 204 n. 13 suffrage: woman’s, 10, 73–75, 100, 105, 177–78, 199 n. 16, 200 n. 4, 201 n. 8, 203 n. 8, 205 n. 8, 206 n. 3 “Superba” Girls, 156 sweatshops, 155, 157, 204 n. 13 tariff reform, 132, 183, 201 n. 8, 203 n. 6 telegraphers’ strike, 112, 134 –35, 187–88 Teller, Henry M., 108, 109, 111, 185, 200 n. 4, 201 nn. 14 and 16 temperance, 74, 197 n. 7 Tilden, Samuel J., 97 Troy Female Seminary, 10 unemployment insurance, 182 Victoria, Queen, 120, 202 n. 10 Waddington, NY, 31, 33 Walker, Dr. Mary, 105, 106, 109, 180 Washburn, Gen. Cadwallader E., 147 Washington, DC, 29, 53, 101–50, 153, 196 n. 19 Washington Post, The, 101, 102, 201 n. 14 white-slave traffic, 30, 163–65, 205 n. 3. See also prostitution Willard, Emma, 10, 12 Willard, Frances, 197 n. 7 Wilson, Rep. William L., 107 (chap. 5) n. 8, 201 n. 8 Windom, William, 203 n. 7 Woman Inventor, The, 12, 29, 113, 143– 48, 183, 198 n. 5, 204 n. 14

Woman’s Journal, The, 73–74 Woman’s National Liberal Union, 134 women inventors, 9, 11, 12, 72, 78, 94 –95, 113, 121, 143, 147, 155, 170, 204 nn. 16 and 17; list of, 142, 144 – 46, 183, 204 n. 15; Mutual Aid and Protective Association, 147– 48 Women’s Board of Trade, 160, 175, 205 n. 7 Women’s Homestead Association, 160, 162, 175 Women’s Industrial and Patriotic League, 153, 173, 204 n. 1 Women’s National Industrial League (WNIL), 12, 26, 29, 108–9, 128, 130, 176, 183; Boston branch, 150; and colored women, 113, founding, 108–9, 185–88; omission from CS obit., 174; as PAC, 108, 111–12, 181; services to working women, 112–13 Women’s Protective Society, 135 Women’s Rescue League, 152, 153, 156, 159, 164, 165, 167, 168, 176 women’s rights, 74, 95 Women’s Trades Union Leage, 181– 82 women’s work: permanent exposition of, 142– 43, 153–55 worker’s compensation insurance, 182 Working Woman, 12, 29, 114, 127–28, 130, 150, 156, 179, 182, 198 n. 5 Workingmen’s Party, 128 Yale, Mme. Maude, 26, 133, 142, 152