In 1911 Tacoma, Bon Ton corsets were on sale for $2.69 (marked down from $5.60), women’s hats were huge and feathered, and only one student in 15 graduated from high school.
The Daily Ledger listed births and visitors from out of town under “Items of Interest to Women,” elopements made national news, and Washington state women had just won the right to vote.
One of the unanswered questions as the year began was whether women would be allowed or even be willing to serve as jurors. The question wasn’t answered until early September.
The morning of Jan. 14, the Washington Equal Suffrage Association met to celebrate “woman having won her rights.” The Ledger said the meeting was also “a means of declaration by woman that she will not sit idly by and see any of the rights which should properly go with her new real citizenship taken away from her.”
Attendees applauded to signal their wish to serve on juries and were urged to write, telephone and telegraph the Legislature, urging lawmakers that women “be not relieved from jury duty.”
Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway called it “being relieved from a way of making money without working.”
That night, they gathered at the Tacoma Theater to form the National Council of Women Voters. The newspaper listed Puget Sound-area delegates to the council, a list that took up 12 column inches and included three men.
The juror issue wasn’t as new as some people thought. The newspaper pointed out that in territorial days women had been required to serve on juries, no excuses allowed. Under the 1911 law, being female was excuse enough if a woman chose not to serve.
By August, the first group of women had been summoned to jury duty. Five of the 31 expressed their willingness to serve. Four said they would refuse. The rest were undecided.
“Sure, I’m going to serve,” said Mrs. Rose Dwyer of 612 N. N St. “I think it will be kind of nice. If those other ladies are going to do it, I can do it, too.”
But it was clearly a new idea, a foreign concept, even to her.
“I’m not used to sitting still so long as those court sessions must be, but I guess it won’t be hard to do,” she said.
It took some time for many women to sort out what they thought.
“I can’t think what they want me for,” said Mrs. Ollie A. Roberts of 220 S. Tacoma Ave. “I’m not a suffraget, anyway, and I don’t think I’ll serve. I’m going on a trip, anyway, and I’ll not be here, but of course I can’t tell yet.”
Mrs. Mary E. Woods, wife of Commissioner Owen Woods of the Public Works Department, said family duties would preclude her attendance at court.
“I owe my duty to a large family here, and I couldn’t think of leaving home every day to go down to that courthouse,” she said.
Chief deputy prosecutor Fred Remann announced that the fall term of the Superior Court had especially heavy dockets, which would require night sessions, and that brought up another issue. Some of the women would come from as far as Roy and Orting, and would need to spend the night at the courthouse.
Underlying doubts about the abilities of women also persisted.
Said The Ledger: “The crucial test will be made of the theory advanced by the doubters of both sexes, who have contended that women sitting in criminal trials would be swayed by passion, prejudice or sympathy in returning a verdict.”
Ten women reported to the courthouse Sept. 5, 1911. Attorneys, eager to make the test as definitive as possible, allowed the first four women drawn from the pool to sit on the first jury without exercising a single challenge, either peremptory or for cause.
The Ledger reported on the trial of George Gates, who was accused of grand larceny: “Four women, three of them young and pretty, have been listening to the evidence for and against Gates all day and the reputation of their sex as jurors rests with them. The four women so burdened with trust are Mrs. Mattie R. Reynolds, 1244 South Ainsworth avenue; Mrs. Minnie Ayers, 4302 McKinley avenue; Mrs. Millie Shock, 405 South Thirty-third street, and Mrs. Hattie Johnson, 2127 South K street.”
We are left to guess which woman failed to be young and pretty, but all four passed the test as jurors.
They joined eight men in returning a unanimous guilty verdict. And having women in court resulted, the paper reported, in smiles, shiny boots and creased trousers.
“Judge (William O.) Chapman was unusually stern and dignified as he presided this morning. (Deputy prosecuting attorney A.O.) Burmeister appeared neatly shaven with a natty, fancy brown vest and a high clean collar. His opening address to the jury was much more flowery and longer than the usual simple statement of the facts before the trial of a case.
“G.C. Nolte, deputy prosecuting attorney, although but a bridegroom of a few weeks, kept his feet from the attorney table and also from the jurors’ box partition during the progress of the trial, which was something unusual.
“Judge E.M. Card, who listened patiently to the excuses of 20 men with pressing business engagements and who could not afford the time to sit during the month with the regular venire, was far more strict than usual and coldly weeded the good from the insufficient pleas.”
Said Burmeister: “It certainly is a great improvement to have women on these juries. It lends dignity to the courtroom, because the attorneys as a rule will be more careful about their conduct, abandon chewing of tobacco and lay aside many of the little habits that come from constant contact with men as jurors.”
Judge Card told the women they could take advantage of their gender and leave, but none did.
And county commissioners had to come up with money for 14 new beds and bedding so that female jurors would have separate accommodations at the courthouse if they needed to spend the night.
Janice Smith: 253-597-8543
This is one of a series of stories appearing during The News Tribune’s 125th year. Every Sunday we take a look at what happened during the same week sometime in the past 125 years. To suggest a week or an event for an upcoming story, e-mail your idea and any details to randy.mccarthy@thenewstribune.com.