xt70rx937t9n_507 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4.dao.xml unknown 13.63 Cubic Feet 34 boxes, 2 folders, 3 items In safe - drawer 3 archival material 46m4 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Laura Clay papers Temperance. Women -- Political activity -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- United States -- History. Women -- Suffrage -- Kentucky. Women -- Suffrage -- United States. Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets text Suffrage pamphlets and leaflets 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_18/Folder_7_46m4/Box_33/Folder_2/Multipage21723.pdf 1885-1898 1898 1885-1898 section false xt70rx937t9n_507 xt70rx937t9n was our sister State of Tennessee, whose last legislature raised the age of
consent from 10 years to 16 years by unanimous vote, yet this degraded
state of morals is found in many of the States of the Union.

The age of consent in Delaware is but 7 years, think of the horror
of such a law. - It is enough to horrify and sicken the soul of humanity.
In the States of Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, Georgia, North and South
Carolina, Texas. Idaho ‘and South Dakota the age of consent is only 10
years, while all the rest of the States and Territories range from 12 to 18
years. Both \Vyoming and Kansas have raised the age to 18 years. New
York was the ﬁrst State to raise the age of consent from 10 years to 16
years. \Ve have been told that this is too delicate a subject to bring
before the legislature.

It is a signiﬁcant fact that in every State where this moral advance
hasrebeen secured, women have brought it about, men seem to be so ab—
sorbed in material progress and the pursuit of place, power and gain, that
they give little thought to moral progress, and only do so when urged to
their duty by women. Hypocrites and prudes have so stiﬂed free discussion
on the subjects that most vitally concern the race, that we are a nation "of
moral paralytic pigmies. Since girls are the Victims of this degraded con—
dition the Kentucky Equal Rights Association appeals to the General
Assembly for a more just and humane law. Every city, town and neigh-
borhood has its‘ victims. Does the law step in when girl children need the
most protection, declaring in the name ofjustice, that he who pollutes and
degrades these defenceless minors shall suffer a punishment commensurate
with the terrible crime? Nay Verily! the innocents are sent to doom, degra-
dation and despair. The present law reserves its protection for libertines
in their pastime of despoiling a maidenhood.

Gentlemen of the Legislature of Kentucky, you are not responsible
for the laws’ you found in our code, when the interests of the people became
your sacred trust, but you will be responsible for the laws you leave on our
statutes. Do not forget that every wrong done to woman is visited with
terrible vengeance on man. The race is stamped by its mothers, and
mothers were girls before they were mothers. Even your own daughters
may be the victims of the diabolical law now on our statutes. If not your
own daughters, the helpless child victims are some one’s daughters. De-
signing libertines with the law to shield them are no respectors of person
or position. In the name of humanity we plead with you to think of the
helpless negro girls who emerge from hovels of ignorance and poverty,
who are the prey of this law in every community in the State. God only
knows the number that have been sent to the lowest depths of human
misery, “with no eye to pity and no hand to save.”

“There are deep wrongs men dare not have revealed,
And in our midst insane barbaric hordes
That make the law their shield.”

Can any man in the General Assembly of Kentucky defend the
present law of the age of consent, and then look into the eyes of his
innocent daughter without quailing, or face the mother who bore him with-
out self condemnation? p

The Kentucky Equal Rights Association voices the sentiment of all
good men and women in the State when pleading with the legislature to
at once enact a law raising the age of consent from 12 years to 18 years.
We petition for this law in the name of humanity and justice. God is
just and He will not let His justice sleep forever. May you be the instru—
ments to bring justice and protection to the defenceless. For the honor
of Kentucky we plead with you to enact this just and humane law.

To THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY: ,
We, l/ze undersigned, cz'lz'zens of Me Connnonwea/l/z o/ [(enlnc/ey, do most

respeol/u/ly petz'lz'on your Honorable Body lo enact a Law for ﬁle pro/eclz'on of

girls, by raising l/ze age of consent from. twelve years to ez'g/zleen years.

IXIQ .EXIDIDEDEXIs

FROM 'l‘lll‘.

Kentucky Equal Rights Association

T0 '1‘ l 1 If

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF KENTUCKY.

MRS. JOSEPHINE K. HENRY,
.S‘Ilpz.’rz'nlent/ent 0f Legislalz'w and Pe/I'z‘z‘on I/Vorlz,

VICRSAILLES, Ky.

PUBLISHED BY THE KENTUCKY EQUAL Rionrs ASSOCIATION.

18%.

To the Qeoﬂe of Kentucky:

The Kentucky Equal Rights Association

makes an appeal to all good men and women in the

State to aid in securing from the Legislature a law .

raising the age of consent from I2 years to 18 years.

All persons who will circulate or sign petitions
praying for such a law, please address,
MRS. MARY K. JONES, Newport, Ky.
or MRS. SARAH G. HUMPHREYS, Versailles, Ky.

Spec/mi Com mittee.

To the Honorable Jl/[ei/nbers of like General .Assembly of Kentucky.-

If Kentucky would maintain a proud position in the federation of
States she must keep pace with the ideas and laws which evolve a grander
race of men and women. The barbarous laws that crouch in our statutes
ready to spring upon the delenceless must be expunged to give place to
those better suited to the conditions of today. The Kentucky statutes still
contain some disgraceful laws, and the victims of these laws are
women and girls. To our honor be it said that the general public, and
even some of our lawmakers do not know of the existence of these laWs,
for the reason that the law and its victims may not have cros ed their paths,
but that they are there in all their darkness and disgrace cannot be denied,
and nowhere is it more vividly illustrated than in the law which is known
by the name of “age of consent,” by which legal statute ﬁxes the age of
twelve years at which a female child may consent to her own ruin.

In the words of Editor B. 0. Flower of the Arena, one of the grandest
moral reformers of our time, “If a government has any legitimate function
itis that of defending the weak, from the outrages of the strong, and secur—
ing as far as possible equal justice for her citizens. When a government
legislates in the interest of one class and to the injury of another, it has
clearly exceeded its function, but when it goes beyond this and deliberately
legislates in the interest of the lust of men, and against the most defence-
less of its citizens, legislates to place little children whose lives have not
yet opened into the ﬂower of maturity, in the hands of moral lepers to be
despoiled, and forever ruined, it inaugurates a policy as suicidal as it is
unjust,'as destructive as it is infamous,” yet this is the status of Kentucky
law where the age of consent is ﬁxed at 12 years which is only a step be-
yond infancy. .

Kentucky law takes particular care to guard a girl’s property until
she is twenty-one years of age, claiming she as a minor is not competent to
manage her property. The State debars her from making a contract owing
to her minority, and if she wishes to marry before legal age the State inter—
poses and says her consent is not valid. If the girl he possessed of fortune,
and those nearest and dearest to her be in absolute want, she is not permit—
ted by the State to use a penny of her abundance to relieve the needs of
parents or relatives. The child is protected in her property, and though
she is not allowed honorable marriage where parents or guardian object,
she may consent to her spiritual, moral and physical ruin, and the guilty
one who thus robs her of the crown of womanhood—her virtue—is pro—
tected behind this infamous law, giving libertines license to prey upon little

' girls. Was ever travesty on justice greater, or has law ever touched a

lower depth of degradation? Comparatively few of the mass of virtuous
home—loving people of Kentucky know this awful fact, but whether they
know it or not, it is high time for some one to try and retrieve our honor

, by asking our lawmakers to wipe out this foul blot from our code.

The Kentucky Equal Rights Association has taken upon itself this
task. We do so trusting in the integrity of our lawmakers in the matter
ofjustice, and the conception of the duty they owe the defenceless, and
society at large. We are hoping they make this task an easy one by raising
the age of consent in Kentucky from twelve years to eighteen years, by
unanimous vote. Should the women of Kentucky expect less from the
men who hold all the interests of the women and children in the State in
their power, while they are debarred the poor privilege of raising any pro-
test against tyranny and injustice that can be crystalized into law to pre-
vent wrong? Surely not! or we are sadly mistaken in the moral stature
of the men the voters have sent to ,our legislative hall. It is encouraging
to note the fact that since the work and heroic sacriﬁce of Josephine Butler,
and Mr. Stead’s revelation in the London Pall Mall Gazette only a few
years ago, by which hundreds of thousands of girls were saved from ruin,
that the spirit of moral reform along this line has invaded our own country
and many states have raised the age of consent The last to fall in line

m T
Q
U)
0:
Lu
I
I-
0

THE GREAT PULITICALSITUATIUN I86A TQ 1896
33%: STATES I0641868l872|8761880
‘I II ALABAMA_

. 8 AfIAIIgANsAIIsI'I_
[”9 CALIFORNIA
I, A ggLoAADp

-. 6 CONNECTICUT
i 3,. DELAINAAE ,

A [FLORIDA
LIB :GEOFIGIIA
T 8' IIDAHD ,
T 24 ILLINDI8
T I'5 INDIANA

ITS IIQWA

T; Io 'IIANSA'S'

I I8 'I<'ENTUCIKY
I; '8' LOUISIANA I, I I
’I
'I' A MARYLAND
ILI5 MASSACHUSETTS
I IA TMICAIGIAN

9 'IMI'NNE'so'TA

If: 9 MIssT§§II35L T

Ll71 MISSOURI

NEBRASKA

NEVADA

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NEWTIJIERSEY I

TNEw YORAII
T

SEE

PENNaYLVANlA

RHODE'ISLA D A

,,‘§_QUIEL E_WIA
TENNE_s_sEE_
II TEXAS
u TAH _
I VERMONT'
"II/IRGINIAII
WASHINGTON ,8.
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN

WYQMINQ

TOTAL NUMBER ELECTORAL I/OTES 447 NUMBER NECESSARYTO ELECT 224

KEY To CHART

E3 REPUBLICAN. [:1 DEMOCRATIC.

CI REJECTED [:3 No VOTE

:1 NOTADMITTEDTo STATEHOOD. IZI ELECTORS CHOSEN BY LEGISLATURE
l- PoﬂPuLIsr

E.1R.8D.-A.9R.SD.-F.1R. 1D. I? —G. 22 R.1D.-H.3R.1P.

“Hui “int

* a waned“
.“:. ti 7’

For Representative to sist Congress
JOHN L WILSON
For Governor
ELISHA P FERRY
For Lieutenant Governor
CHARLES E. LAUGHTON.
For Secretary of State
ALLEN \VEIR
For State Treasurer
ADDISON A LINDSLEY
For State Auditor.
THOMAS M REED
For Attorney General:
\VILI.IAM C. JONES.
For Superintendent of Public Instruction:
ROBERT B. BRYAN
For Commissioner of Public Lands'
WILLIAM T FORREST
For Judges oftlie Supreme Court
RALPH O DUNBAR.
THEODORE L STILES.
JOHN P HOYT,
THOMAS J. ANDERS.
ELMON SCOTT
FIRST—For the Constitution
A321 11sz .Ji‘m
SECOND 43: ,- Wmnan— Suffrage.
Against Woman Suffrage.
THIRD— F01 Prohibition.
Against Prohibition
FOURTH—For the Pennanent Location of
the Seat of Government

King County Republican Ticket.
For Judge ofthe Superior Court,
‘ JULIUS A STRATTON

For County Clerk.
M M HOLMES

Legislative Ticket.
For State Senators igth Senatorial District,

W D WOOD,

J H, JONES,

O D CUILFOIL,

J R KINNEAR,

\V V RINEHART.
For Representatives King County.

J. T BLACKBURN,

W C RUTTER,

.W. H. HUGHES,

~ALEXANDER ALLEN

w.1. SHINN.

GEO. BOTHELL,

F. w BIRD,

FRED J GRANT.

Fraudulent Ballot Used in Constitutional Election of 1889
to Defeat Woman Suffrage

How Washington Women Lost the Ballot

(By Adella M. Parker.)

How the women of Washington lost the ballot, though the men twice voted it to
them; how Tacoma’s “boss" gambler attacked the law to get “his man” out of the
“pen”; how a bartender’s wife rushed a case through the courts and refused to let it go
higher; how, in ’89, the ballots were “marked” before they came from the press—this is
the story of how Washington women were tricked out of their political rights.

\Nomen ﬁrst voted in Washington in 1884. They were enfranchised by the legisla-
ture of the previous year. They voted during ’85 and ’86, and they voted so well that
they drove most of the thugs and gamblers over into British Columbia, and the British
themselves were forced to enl‘ranchise women “in self-protection,” as was stated by the
honorable member who brought in the bill.

The women of British Columbia still have the ballot. There are no courts on the
British side to question acts of parliament. But in \Vashington, though the suffrage
laws have never been repealed, woman’s right to vote was denied by the courts in ’87,
the power of the legislature to give her the right to vote was denied in ’88, and in ‘89
she was counted out by a ballot “marked" in the printing.

Harry Morgan, ‘Zboss” gambler of Tacoma, made the ﬁrst attack upon the suffrage
laws. It was he who was back of the famous case of Harland vs. Territory (3 W. T.),
which ﬁrst denied the women the right to vote. Harland was a henchman of Morgan
who had been convicted on a felony charge and sent to prison. Both men and women
sat on the jury which brought in the verdict, and Morgan challenged the right of] Women
to act as jurors. -

The right of women to serve on the jury depended upon their right to vote. For
three years they had been voting, unchallenged, and they had been serving as jurors
with such marked ability as to call forth the most favorable comment for their capacity
to enforce the law.

But woman’s capacity in this respect did not recommend her to Harry Morgan, and
he was determined to drive her from the courtroom. Defeated in Harland vs. Territory
in the lower court, he appealed to the higher.

And he won. Harland vs. Territory was decided in favor of Harland. Judge George
Turner wrote the opinoin, holding that women had no right to sit on the jury because
the law granting them the privilege was not given the proper title.

The title of the bill was “An act to amend Section 3050 of Chapter 238 of the Code
of “Tashington.” Nineteen other laws passed by the same legislature had been headed
in the same way and the very bill authorizing the sitting of the court which pronounced
this decision was one of them. Yet, though nothing was urged against these other
laws, the suffrage law was declared void.

This decision was made by a divided court. Chief Justice Roger S. Greene and
Judge John P. Hoyt both held the suffrage law to be valid. But Judge Hoyt was dis-
qualiﬁed from sitting in the case because he had been the trial judge in the lower court.
Had he been qualiﬁed to act the validity of the law would have been sustained, but, as
it was, it was possible for two men—Justices George Turner and William Langford, both
appointees of Grover Cleveland (peace to his asheslj—to deprive all the women in
Washington of the ballot on a mere technicality which was. not urged against scores of
other 13.st and one which was later overthrown by a unanimous court; for this ruling
was completely reversed in Marston vs. Humes (3 W'ash.) four years later. Judge Hoyt,
with the full bench concurring, delivered the opinion of the court, and after making an
exhaustive survey of the cases cited in support of the decision in Harland vs. Territory,
he makes the comment that if the learned judges who made that decision had read the

cases which they cited they would have decided the case the other way. He excuses
them on the ground that there were few books in the territory and that digests are
often misleading.

But Harland vs. Territory did not ﬁnally take away from W'ashington women the
right to vote. This case was decided in February, 1887. The legislature which met
the following winter had already been chosen by the votes of both men and women, and
during that session a new suffrage law was passed, having a sufﬁcient title to bring it
within the ruling of the court.

This law was passed early in 1888§ In April of that year women voted at the spring

elections, but in Spokane one woman’s vote was challenged, while the votes of all the
others were accepted by the election ofﬁcials.

The vote of Mrs. Nevada Bloomer was refused. Mrs. Nevada Bloomer was a bar-
tender’s wife, and she at once brought an action for $5,000 damages against Todd and
other election ofﬁcers for the injury she sustained by being deprived of her vote.

On April 9, 1888, George Turner resigned from the Supreme Bench and became an
attorney in this suit, defending the election ofﬁcials.

The case of Bloomer vs. Todd (3 W. T.) was rushed through the courts at a lively
rate. Though the Supreme Court was a year behind its docket, this case was advanced
on the calendar and decided in four months. Four of the ﬁve judges then making up
the court concurred in the view that Mrs. Nevada Bloomer had suffered no injury be-
cause she had no right to vote.

Chief Justice Jones wrote this opinion, which followed closely Judge Turner’s brief.
The territorial legislature had failed to give Mvrs. Nevada Bloomer the right to vote,
not because it had meant to withhold the right or had wished to do so. The legisla-
ture had passed a suffrage law and there was this time no defect in its title. But the
legislature hadn’t given Mrs. Navada Bloomer the right to vote because it couldn’t.

In this decision the court did not assume that Congress had no right to authorize
the territory to enfranchise women. nor does it claim that the organic act under which
the territory was organized expressly excludes women from the ballot. In fact, the
court admits that Congress does authorize the territory to enfranchise “citizens,” bar-
ring ihe criminal and the insane, and the court will not, of course, claim that Women is
not a citizen; but the court, following closely still the brief of the Hon. George Turner,
did ﬁnd that Congress should have put the word “male” before the word “citizens” in
the organic act, and inasmuch as Congress did not put it in, but, in fact, left it out, the
court took the liberty to amend this act of Congress by inserting it.

The amended act now read that the territory could enfranchise only “male” citizens,
and, of course, this barred Mrs. Nevada Bloomer. '

Now, at this time the women of Wyoming Territory had been voting for twenty
years, and in Utah also women were voting, and in at least two cases Utah women had
taken to_ the United States Supreme Court questions similar to that involved in this
action and had won them. So, willing friends at once came to the aid of Mrs. B‘l‘oomer.
Funds were placed at her disposal. That $5,000 might still be hers if she would carry
the case to the United States Court. But Mrs. Nevada Bloomer refused. She was per‘
haps convinced that she had no right to vote, for nothing could induce her to pursue
that $5,000, even with all her expenses paid.

Bloomer vs. Todd was decided in August, 1888. When the statehood bill was rushed
through the next winter the reason for the haste was plain. Women Were to be ex-
cluded from voting for members of the constitutional convention, and suffrage was to be
left out of the new state government. As four-ﬁfths of the women were voting at the
previous elections, no other method could have been successful in accomplishing this
result.

Members of the constitutional convention were to be elected in May. Had Mrs.
Bloomer consented to carry the case up, the federal question involved might have been
decided before this time. To start a new action and reach a decision within this time
was impossible, and any other course might delay statehood. The women were begged
not to do this, and all were eager for admission to the Union.

Furthermore, the women were assured that if they would trust to the chivalry of
the men suffrage would be incorporated into the new constitution.

So the women trusted to the chivalry of the men, and when the constitutional con-
vention met two of the seventy-ﬁve members were in favor of suffrage for women.

This is the statement of Henry C. Blackwell, who convassed it thoroughly.

Neither woman suffrage nor prohibition was inserted in the constitution, but they
were presented as separate amendments at the same election. Considering the make-up
of the convention, this may seem a remarkable concession, but in the light of later
events but little risk of enacting them into law appears to have been run.

he prohibitionists at the fall election had not put any ticket in the ﬁeld, with the
understanding that the republicans would not oppose the amendments, but when election
day came it was found that the republicans had printed a ballot marked in advance,
voting down the amendments, and had even printed it on the prohibition printing press.

There are men in Seattle who know just how this trick was turned. It was general-
ly believed at the time that agents of a large wholesale liquor house not having its
headquarters in Portland, had offered to print all the republican ballots for the whole
state without cost to the party if allowed this privilege. (There was no Australian bal-
lot system in the territory. Each. party got out its ballots and gave them out at the
polls.) '

These facts are known. The small printing ofﬁce of the Leader—the prohibition
paper—at Third and wall streets, in Seattle, was hired for forty-eight hours, under lock
and key, to print the republican ballots. No one in the Leader oﬁice was employed on
the work. Printers were brought from elsewhere, the work was done and the ofﬁce had
been thoroughly cleaned up when the Leader staff regained possession.

1n cleaning up the press a crumpled ballot was found shoved down behind it. This
was the ﬁrst intimation of any irregularity. A member of the republican committee
was confronted with it. He claimed that only 2,000 or 3,000 of these fraudulent ballots
had been printed—“vest pocket” votes for the liquor interests. He ﬁnally admitted that
there were 60,000 or 70,000, but the press registered 180,000.

It was three days before election. The prohibitionists sent out 125 telegrams,
“XVatch for fraudulent republican votes.” Many points, of course, could not be reached.
Large numbers of the ballots were returned to headquarters and clean ones demanded
or none. But thousands of these marked ballots were given out on eletcion day, and
in spite of challenges thousands were voted and counted. The amendments were lost,
but a change of one vote in twelve would have carried them.

g1J1...\111

‘7‘ @ ~ 0” 0’
““11, Justice :mh 11mm”

CoHiRmEENrHH (acmegess on (Son/ram.
1885.

The Association torthe Advancement of Women will hold their Thirteenth Congress in Des Moines. lowa,
October 7th, 8th and 9th, in the Congregational Church, corner ot Locust and Seventh Streets.
Public Sessions at 2:30 and at 8 o’clock P. M. At Evening Ses-

Executive Sessions at 10 o’clock A. M.
sions an admittance tee of twenty-five cents will be charged.

A Conference 0F (ff/Envy UNI/('1’ will beheld October 6th, at 7:30 o'clock P. M., in the Vestry of the Church.

Entertainment tor otticers and speakers during the Sessions 01‘ the Congress will be provided upon application
to Mrs. Julia M. Hunting, 705 Eighteenth Street, Des Moines, Iowa. All applications should be made, it possible,

before September 15th.
Board can be obtained at rates varying from $1.25 to 3.00 a day.

We llje Members of The ﬂssocialiog for ‘Ilge @daancenjegl of Women.

DEAR FRIENDS AND FliLLO\V-i\lEl\Il¥ERS:

As years roll on, events seem to prove that the Association for the Advancement of \anen has still
much work to do, and many points in this vast Country to reach with its inﬂuence. New occasions for
effort constantly arise, and we should endeavor to meet them with new energy, and in a spirit of hopeful-
ness justiﬁed by the results of our labor in the past.

\Ve take pleasure in issuing this summons to another Annual Congress, which will be held in Des

Moines, Iowa, October 7th, 8th and 9th, 1885. \\’c hope for a large attendance of members and an in-
spirinibr meeting.

ELLA C. IAI’IIAM, JULIA \VARD I’IO\\'E,

St’t‘l‘c‘ldij’. 1)}‘L‘JZ‘4/c’llﬁ

“\ W \
OB FIGBHS.
PRESIDENT.
JULIA ‘VAHU 110\\'1:, 1\’11r111c 151111111.
VICE— PRESIDENTS.

1’1‘111..\1;1r1:1 .\Ii1cl11‘11. N. Y. 191N111 111\1s L111111\ , - - Cum]..1121111yK.110111.311).
A1111y \V. 111:1}; .\1:1<>. Rcv.A1.111111111c1111\\111.11;11:1.\\'c11. N.j. ‘ 1\’1:11c1'1:;11'. 11:17,:11'11. —
Elizz1111'111 11. Chucc, - 1\'.1 1.‘ 1 111$ (1. 11111111111 - - - 11111. ‘ 11111111: A. 111111513111, -
C, A. (3111111111, - 311'. 1111111c 5 *11111- » ()11111.1/\1i11.1(_'..;\vu‘y, )1.
E11211 .\1111:11u11. - 111.y A11u113 5. 11111111151111 .\1.1)., M'11111.1 A111.111111'1':1\111r
(Hun-11.111: 1.. 1’1-1r1tc, - - 1’11111. ‘ .1111 R H 1111111 I\ H. 1.1111121 (1"1}.
Ruth C. 11131151111, 1).}. (1l!11>c\\11.1: (111m . .\c11. 1i1i/' 1111111 \\111g1.*rv\ (111111111
]<‘.m111;1C. 11151-11111, '. “is 1111111113 1LS1111u — Mich.1C1111:1(_‘(111\\'."13, - — 'J'unn.
113111111; _\11;L'1.w<_'11, )1. 1).. 1(;\\11L.:11*01111c 31.5cvu1'1111cc, - (1111. 1

1 AUDITOES.
SECRETAEY' TREASURER' .~\111:1n11;1 .‘11. Lougcc, - Muss.

111111 (.'. 141111111111. - N. Y.111€11r11:1111 L. 1. “111cm: M1153 Mary V. Kucllc, N. Y.

DIRECTORS.

111:? 1‘. 11311111111111”. _ 21:33.11111 )1". 11.1111, M. 11., Me. ; 11:11:11 .11. 111111111111. 11.11
191111111 i) “(111.-11%" ‘ 51111111 1. ‘1'1111-11111r1111, - ~ 3113. ' 1\1:11‘y 1C. 11 Lynda — “'15.
411111 (1:11'1111511c‘1c’cr ' 1'1'1'111cu‘s 11.\\111;11'11- 111. ‘ .\:1111:y 11. Adult. — “'15.
1401111111 L' 111.11111311 ‘_ . ’ »‘ 11.1111. (1 11.111111 M. — — Ill. ; .\I':11'y I\c\v11111y Adams, 1011/11.
11111111: . 111.1 11