ugh the filthy
cesspool of politics, and the changes were rung on the usual hackneyed
objections. The measure was splendidly championed, however, by many
members, especially by T. A. McNeal (Rep.) who made a telling response
to the scurrilous speech of Edward Carrol (Dem.), leader of the
opposition. No member of the House rendered more effective service
than did A. W. Smith, Speaker. It passed by 91 yeas--88 Rep., 3 Dem.;
22 nays, 5 Rep., 17 Dem. The total vote of both Houses was 116
yeas--113 Rep., 3 Dem.; 35 nays, 15 Rep., 20 Dem. The bill was signed
by Gov. John A. Martin (Rep.), February 15, 1887.[273]

Notwithstanding all the efficient work done by the officers of the
State association, the local clubs and the platform speakers, this
measure would not have become a law but for the vigilant work of the
women with the Legislature itself. Mrs. Johns was on hand from the
first, tactfully urging the bill. She had very material aid in the
constant presence, active pen and careful work of J. B. Johns, her
husband. Mrs. Helen M. Gougar of Indiana was granted the privilege of
addressing the House while in session. Prominent women from all parts
of the State were in attendance, using their influence with the
members from their districts. On the day of final debate in the House
the floor and galleries were crowded, over 300 women being present. A
jubilee impossible to describe followed the announcement that the bill
had passed.[274] The next day the House was transformed by the women
into a bower of blossoms.

In March, the next month after Municipal Suffrage was granted to
women, the "age of protection" for girls was raised from ten to
eighteen years.

Two years later, in 1889, a bill was presented to amend this law,
which passed the Senate by 26 yeas, 9 nays, and was sent to the House.
It was so smothered in words that the general public was not aware of
its meaning. By the time it reached the House, however, the alarm had
been sounded that it proposed to reduce the age of consent, and there
was a storm of protest. This was not alone from women but also from a
number of men. The Labor Unions were especially active in opposition
and the House was inundated with letters and petitions. The bill was
referred to the Judiciary Committee which reported it with the
recommendation that it be not passed. Its author claimed that it was
intended simply to afford some protection for boys.[275] In 1891
Attorney-General L. B. Kellogg