the first there were 8,368 votes cast by
women out of a total vote of about 34,000. At the second
election, which was held in November last, out of 48,000 votes,
12,000 were cast by women.

I desire also to inform my friend from Georgia that since women
were enfranchised in Washington Territory nature has continued in
her wonted course. The sun rises and sets; there are seed-time
and harvest; seasons come and go. The population has increased
with the usual regularity and rapidity. Marriages have been quite
as frequent and divorces have been no more so. Women have not
lost their influence for good upon society, but men have been
elevated and refined. If we are to believe the testimony which
comes from lawyers, physicians, ministers of the gospel,
merchants, mechanics, farmers and laboring men--the united
testimony of the entire people of the Territory--the results of
woman suffrage there have been all that could be desired by its
friends. Some of the results have been seen in its making the
polls quiet and orderly, awakening a new interest in educational
questions and those of moral reform, securing the passage of
beneficial laws and the proper enforcement of them, elevating
men, and doing so without injury to women.

Senator James B. Eustis (La.) inquired whether, if the right of
suffrage were conferred, women ought to be required to serve on
juries. To this Senator Dolph replied: "I can answer that very
readily. It does not necessarily follow that because a woman is
permitted to vote and thus have a voice in making the laws by which
she is to be governed and by which her property rights are to be
determined, she must perform such duty as service upon a jury. But I
will inform the Senator that in Washington Territory she does serve
upon juries, and with great satisfaction to the judges of the courts
and to all parties who desire to see an honest and efficient
administration of law." The following colloquy then ensued:

MR. EUSTIS: I was aware of the fact that women are required to
serve on juries in Washington Territory because they are allowed
to vote. I understand that under all State laws those duties are
considered correlative. Now, I ask the Senator whether he thinks
it is a decent spectacle to take a mother away from her nursing
infant and lock her up all night to sit on a jury?