From the 17 May 1960 Schenectady Gazette:

Tax Foe Sent To Jail Again

Chicago, May 16 — A Vermont congressman’s son was sentenced today to his third jail term for distributing leaflets on federal property.

Imposing the 20-day sentence, U.S. District Judge Walter J. Labuy commented to Karl Meyer, 22, “I suppose you’ll do it again when you get out.”

Meyer, son of Representative William H. Meyer, (D. Vt.) replied, “I suppose I will.”

Meyer has served earlier terms of three days and 15 days for passing out the leaflets in the U.S. courthouse which urge a boycott on payment of federal income taxes. Meyer said he feels that the government will use tax money to wage war.

Meyer is still resisting today. The Numinous Nomads recently visited his home at a Catholic Worker urban farm in Nashville, Tennessee and share their impressions of the visit.

The photo below comes from the Niagara Falls Gazette from fifty years ago today (the accompanying article comes from the following year).

A friend of mine, 43 year old Arthur Evans, a medical doctor with offices in Denver, Colorado, was sent to jail last August 8 by Judge Alfred A. Arraj of the Denver district court, for his refusal to pay his part of the income tax (about 50%) which would be used for the annihilation of the human race. He sent it, instead, to the United Nations, to promote peace in the world.

In a statement circulated by him to his friends he says in part: “My lawyer, the judge, and other lawyers, tell me that there is no law, no constitutional provision that provides for the individual to refuse to pay taxes for annihilation. So I go to jail, for I will not, I cannot in conscience be party to financing the means to annihilation. The Jews under Hitler were taxed to buy their crematoriums. The same happens here – but it is not only the Jews who finance their means of destruction – it is almost every income earner in the United States. This is called democratic because we are all taxed alike.”

Letters of approval have been pouring in to Dr. Evans, and since he is only allowed to write very few, his mother in Philadelphia has taken up the task of acknowledging them, sending at the same time a typewritten sheet explaining the affair in detail.

A little over a century ago, in 1846, another man (who is now considered one of America’s greatest) was picked up in Concord, Mass. on the way to his shoemaker, and brought to jail because he had refused to pay his poll tax to a government he thought misguided and evil because it allowed slavery and was also at that time waging a war with Mexico to extend its slaveholding territory. I mean, of course, Henry David Thoreau. Out of that incident came his famous Civil Disobedience, which influenced Gandhi and Nehru; Thoreau’s ideas are very much alive in many parts of the globe today. Strange, how history repeats itself!

Some day, perhaps after another century (if we escape a war of annihilation), Dr. Evans will be spoken of with appreciation and respect. We have a way of crucifying the great while they are with us, and of exalting them after they are gone. At present a medical doctor is doing laundry duty as a “trusty” in the Jefferson County Jail in Golden, Colorado, and he may like to hear from you.

Adele Wehmeyer

There were a couple of perplexing short pieces about war tax resister Richard Stenhouse in Jet magazine in 1958:

Harlem Cleric Defies U.S., Refuses to Pay Taxes

A 37-year-old white pastor of Harlem’s predominantly-Negro Presbyterian Church of the Master faced seizure of his automobile and personal property because he refuses to pay $344.81 in Federal income taxes. The Rev. Richard Stenhouse, associate pastor at Church of the Master, told Jet, “religious conviction and belief prevents me from paying that part of my tax (approximately 80 per cent) which is earmarked for military expenditure.” The taxes due are $192.27 for 1955 and $157.54 for 1956. The government in 1956 attached Rev. Stenhouse’s salary for 1954 taxes due. “I don’t refuse to pay taxes per se,” Rev. Stenhouse declared, “I simply refuse to support military expenditures.”

Refused to Pay Taxes, Seize Cleric’s Bank Account

A 37-year-old associate pastor at Harlem’s Presbyterian Church of the Master, who over the past four years has refused to pay Federal income taxes because he objects to U.S. military expenditures, learned that his $35 personal bank account has been attached by the government as partial payment of a $344.81 tax bill for 1955–56. Rev. Richard Stenhouse declared that “religious conviction and belief” prohibit him from paying that part of his U.S. income taxes (approximately 80 per cent) earmarked for military expenditures. Rev. Stenhouse disclosed that the Internal Revenue Service has also moved to attach his church salary for the balance of taxes due.

I think the second article gets it right, while the first one pictures Stenhouse’s partner-in-ministry Rev. Malcolm Evans.

I’m surprised I haven’t come across Stenhouse before in my research. There weren’t a whole lot of war tax resisters in the U.S. in the 1950s.

And continuing our series on lesser-known war tax resisting ministers, here is an article about Karel Botermans from this date in 1963:

Won’t Pay U.S. Taxes for Arms, Says Minister Who Fought Nazis

Kentfield, Cal. — (UPI) — A Unitarian minister who fought with the Dutch resistance during World War 2 now is refusing to pay part of his U.S. income taxes.

Karel Botermans, 40, says he is challenging the U.S. Government for reasons basically similar to those which prompted him to fight the Nazis 20 years ago.

He wouldn’t bow to some of the Nazi occupation’s orders because, he said, an individual has no right to violate his conscience just because the government so commands.

Now Botermans is refusing to pay that part of his taxes – 69 per cent – which he says would be spent for defense. To do so, he said, would be to make a personal contribution to an arms race which will lead to world destruction.

(Actually, under the budget submitted by the administration for the coming fiscal year, only about 50 per cent would be spent on defense and related items, including space and foreign military aid.)

Botermans, who arrived in the United States in 1947, paid only 31 per cent of his tax bill this year, and sent the remainder to the United Nations for use in developing a world court.

But the UN replied that it could not accept money withheld from income taxes.

Botermans’ action parallels that of a bookstore operator in this area who won’t pay any taxes. The Internal Revenue Service, however, gets its money by clamping liens on his bank accounts.

In the past, the service has employed the same method to get money from former Utah Gov. J. Bracken Lee, who refused to pay taxes for the support of the UN.

Botermans said his congregation is split over his conduct, but that nobody has questioned his right to follow his own belief. Respect for the other person’s position is a keystone of Unitananism, he said.

But he said his wife and four children agree with him. His 8-year-old son, Matthew, summed it up for Botermans when he said:

“Daddy, I think you are right because it is not the government that pays for the bombs, it is you.”

Asked if disarmament might not cause the U.S. to lose its freedom or to be wiped out by Communist attack, Botermans replied:

“There has to be another way than the way we’re headed on now. Our present path will lead inevitably to nuclear destruction.”

Karel Botermans died in 1979.

An editorial in the 8 June 1843 New York Morning Courier included these remarks:

The people of nearly all the States are now oppressed with direct taxation, for State and local purposes, to the utmost limit of their endurance. Indeed, in some of them they have resisted the collection of taxes and defeated, at least temporarily, the operations of the law; in some cases, by the resignation of officers whose duty it was to collect the taxes and in others by the refusal of the people to elect the proper officers for that purpose. In a portion of the State of Maryland, resistance to the tax laws has assumed a revolutionary character, and a meeting of “Democratic citizens of Carroll county,” adopted, among others, the following resolution, which was advocated by two of the Locofoco Senators of that State.

Resolved, That several of the counties have neglected or refused to pay any direct tax, and that all the counties ought to oppose, in a constitutional and legal manner, the payment of the same.

These are modern instances of the tone of American feeling on this subject, but those who are familiar with the condition of things during the late war with Great Britain, know that when contributions were levied upon the people for the purpose of defending their firesides, and sustaining their rights, and the national independence, they were collected with the greatest difficulty, and were the occasion of most exasperated and bitter feeling towards the Government. Direct taxation could not be resorted to, on the part of the General Government, with any prospect of realising an amount sufficient for its wants, nor without destroying the attachment of the people to their Government and creating a feeling which would, in its result, be destructive to our institutions.

Intrigued, I tried to hunt up a little more about this tax revolt. Niles’ National Register tut-tutted as follows:

Symptoms Of Repudiation.

There is no state in this union where a more sovereign aversion to repudiation is entertained by the great body of the people, than in Maryland, and yet there is perhaps no state in which there is a more distinctly organized and active party operating to effect repudiation if they can.

“Repudiation” here means individual states defaulting on their debts. The United States in the early 1840s were something like the European Union in the early 2010s — overextended, out of money, with failing institutions, a public unwilling to tighten the belts and pay off their creditors, and a central government reluctant to be the financial backstop. Some states ended up flatly repudiating their debts, and a number of others (including Maryland) partially defaulted.

In Maryland’s case, the debts had largely been racked up by government investments in canals, which were the bullet train boondoggles of their day – launched with promise of great benefit to the taxpayer (“they’ll pay for themselves!”) but mostly benefitting government contractors and kickback artists.

This party embraces men high in authority, wielding no small share of party influence as well as official power. Their measures heretofore have been covert and insidious — such as throwing every possible obstacle in the way of enacting salutary laws, in the first instance — then by obstructing the enforcement of such laws as are enacted to sustain the credit of the government, by sowing discontent amongst the people, and finally by intimidating men from accepting or attempting to execute the laws of the land. The progress of these efforts we have watched with deep anxiety. The effect of it has been to paralyze in a great measure the otherwise wholesome demonstrations of those who are zealous in maintaining the integrity and character of the state.

At length however some of the leaders of this movement have distinctly exhibited their designs and hoisted their colors.

This party, composed to some extent of members from each of the great political parties which divide community, has nevertheless such a preponderating proportion of one party only in their ranks, that the other party (though whigs) may be said to be prepared to act in body and unbroken phalanx upon the question; their opponents, calling themselves “democrats” are seriously embarrassed by the defection of so considerable and influential a section from their unity. Yet as a party, the great majority are sound in principle, upon this question.

These preliminary remarks are made in order to enable distant readers to understand the true posture of affairs, of which the following proceedings are the exponents. We are mortified at the necessity for recording such documents — and nothing but fidelily to the duly of being faithful chroniclers of passing events, would induce us to insert them.

The fact that the authorities of some three of the counties of the state neglected to take efficient measures to have the state tax collected from their people, last year, was one of the greatest difficulties which surrounded the legislature of the state at its last session in relation to ways and means to sustain public credit. Most of the counties had paid either the whole or a considerable portion of that tax — and they demurred at paying more unless all were compelled to bear their proportion. The measure of coercion which the occasion required, was the difficulty. Some were for a decisive course — others for temporizing, under an idea that a better temper and better times would insure the payment in future. — A medium course was adopted. To insure the collection of the state tax, it was concieved that to compel the county collectors to bond for the payment of that as well as of the tax required for county purposes, and to forbid by law the collection of the one unless the other was collected, would be conclusive. This therefore was the course adopted. It was a plausible expedient, — but has failed. Those counties that so easily enjoyed immunity from the state tax last year, by neglecting to obtain collectors, were in no humor to pay double tax this year, and accordingly they endeavor to find new expedients to avert the imposition. Other counties seem determined not to have all the tax to pay, whilst these are allowed to go free — and so we go.

Worcester, Somerset, and Calvert, were the defaulting counties last year. All of which — or the two first at all events, had real excuse in the successive of failures in their crops, — the last year’s especially. Calvert, we regret to learn, has again failed to obtsin the services of a collector.

A meeting was called upon the subject by the leaders of the party who call themselves “democrats” in Harford county on the 13^th ult. at which Alexander Norris, esq. presided, Henry Macatee and William L. Forwood vice presidents, John R. Nelson, secretary. The meeting was addressed by Otho Scott a Van Buren state senator from Harford county, and William P. Maulsby, a Van Buren state senator from Carroll county, two of the leading men of that party in the legislature of Maryland. Amongst the proceedings of the meeting, were the following preamble and resolutions, which were adopted, signed and published.

Whereas, The past injudicious legislation of this state has involved us in a debt far beyond the ability of the people to pay, and any attempt to coerce its payment by direct taxation, would oppress the people beyond their power of endurance.

Therefore, it is resolved, That the people are unable to pay the present direct tax, as a permanent exaction.

Resolved, That if the present direct tax was punctually paid through all future time, it would not save the credit and honor of the state, because the yearly interest on the public debt is twice as much as the direct tax.

Resolved, That we now owe for interest which is in arrear and unpaid about one million and a half of dollars, and that the interest which annually accrues, is about six hundred thousand dollars.

Resolved, That the proceeds of the direct tax, if this oppressive system is continued, will not, in less than five years, pay the interest now due, so that by the time the interest now due is paid by the present direct tax, we shall owe three millions for interest, which will accrue while we are paying what we now owe.

Resolved, That it is manifest, that as the present direct tax only pays half the interest, the longer the system is continued, the more we shall be in debt.

Resolved, That the people are unable to pay, even for a single year, a direct tax equalto the interest on the debt — that there is not as much money in circulation as would pay such a tax.

Resolved, That although every one is in favor of such a sale of the public works as would relieve the people from their burdens; still the law passed by the whigs at the last session, deserves the severest reprobation from every friend of the people or its public creditors. That law furnishes no ground to hope, that any sale can be made whereby our taxes can be lessened; on the contrary, its only effect, if not arrested in its execution, will be to strip the people of every portion of the works, which is valuable, for the benefit of wealthy associations of speculators, without diminishing in the slightest degree that portion of the public debt which is now oppressing the people.

Resolved, That several of the counties have neglected or refused to pay any direct tax, and that all the counties ought to oppose in a constitutional and legal manner, the payment of the same.

Resolved, That the people of this county at their next election, ought to express their disapprobation of this oppressive system of exaction, and come out openly for repeal.

The Cecil Democrat of the 9^th instant contains a formal account of what it represents as a “large and respectable” meeting of the “democrats” of that county, called with the design of sustaining the position assumed by the meeting in Harford. According to statements given in the Baltimore papers however, and respectably vouched for, it appears that efforts were made during court week in Cecil, to get up a repudiation meeting — but in vain. Mr. Forwood who distinguished himself during the session before the last of the legislature, in repudiating speeches and propositions, was indefatigable in his endeavors to get a meeting. He had been defeated at the last October election on the ground of having maintained such doctrines. As a meeting could not be mustered, a committee, it would appear — though it is difficult to tell how, got into existence some way or other from which the proceedings, resolutions, &c. that are published in the Democrat, were the produce. A meeting was attempted to be convened to countenance said resolutions. Two persons besides the committee attended, but one of them having come there under the impression that it was to be an anti-repudiation meeting, retired as soon as he was undeceived. Such is said to be the progress of this attempt at manufacturing “public opinion.”

On the 30^th instant a meeting of the opponents of the tax was held in pursuance of public notice in Talbot County, at which Foster Maynard, esq. presided, John Talbot secretary, and the following was unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That the system of direct taxation, as at present enforced or attempted to be enforced, in this stale, is oppressive and unequal in its operation.

Resolved, That the people of Talbot county are unable to pay the said tax.

Resolved, That the law of the last session of the legislature, blending the collection of state and county taxes, and making the payment of the direct tax a condition precedent to the payment of the county charges, is arbitrary, vexations and oppressive, and ought to be repealed.

Resolved, That believing no collector of the ordinary county taxes will serve under the present objectionable laws, and being extremely solicitous that the poor in the alms house, and the county pensioners, and others having claims against the county, shall be amply provided for, the chairman of this meeting is hereby authorised to appoint a committee of four persons (one from each election district) who are hereby authorised and requested to confer with the commissioners of the county and to make with them such arrangements as may be deemed expedient and appropriate for the of the purpose contemplated and intended by this solution.

Resolved, That this meeting most anxiously and earneastly desire the sale of public works for the benefit of the holders of state bonds.

Resolved, On motion, that the proceedings of this meeting be published in the newspapers of this town.

The committee appointed in pursuance of the fourth resolution is composed of the following individuals: Edward Lloyd, Nicholas Martin, Thorn Pierson, and Dr. James Dawson. The resolution itself is in direct opposition to the act of the legislature relating to the collection of state and county taxes.

These meetings, and especially the one in Harford county, being called under the appellation of, and with a view of identifying as far as was in their power those movements as being the movements of the “democratic party,” were objectionable to the great body of that party in the city of Baltimore. A meeting of the party was called at Monument Square the 11^th instant, the following proceedings of which; we extract from the Baltimore Republican of the 10^th instant.

I can’t figure out how that timing is supposed to work so that a paper published on the 10^th covers the proceedings of a meeting held on the 11^th. I suspect they just got it backwards.

I’m pretty sure, also, that Niles’ is sometimes confused as to its “instant” — sometimes this means June, but sometimes this means May.

But anyway, this is what the Baltimore Republican reported, according to Niles’:

TOWN MEETING.

In consequence of a call for a town meeting having been published by order of the Baltimore democratic convention, a numerous assemblage of persons convened at Monument Square last evening to take into consideration the subject for which they were called together. The meeting was organized, on motion of col. Wm. Fell Giles, by calling JOHN NELSON, esq. to preside, and appointing the following named gentlemen as officers for the occasion:

Vice presidents. Wm. Geo. Read, Robert Howard, Joseph White, B.I. Sanders, H’y. R. Loudenrman, Daniel Bender, John King, Mark Grafton Ant’y Millenberger, John I. Donaldson, Wm. J. Wight, William Krebs, Richard Marley, Elijah Slansbury, Jr.

Secretaries. Frederick I. Dugan, Wm. D. Roberts, Philip Muth, Jr., Benj. C. Presstman.

The organization being complete, Wm. Fell Giles, esq. addressed the meeting with much eloquence and feeling, and submitted the following preamble and resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:

Whereas, at a public meeting held in Bel-Air, Harford county, on the 18^th May last, a series of resolutions were passed in reference to the public debt of this state, and of the ability of her citizens to pay, by taxation, the annual interest thereof; and also expressing an opinion that the counties ought to oppose the payment of the present tax; which resolution if permitted to pass unnoticed, may lead the citizens of other states to believe that the same sentiments and opinions pervade the democracy of the state at large, and may thereby injure the great cause which we have so often been triumphant — a cause which recognizes, among its leading principles, prompt and faithful redemption of all promises, whether made by states or corporations; therefore,

Resolved, by the democratic party of the city of Baltimore in town meeting assembled:

1^st. That, although we believe the creation of a large part of the debt of Maryland to have been unwise and against her true interests, yet we recognise as obligatory upon the state her public debt, conracted by various acts of her legislature through a period of twenty years, and sanctioned by all forms of law; and that the state and her citizens are bound, by every consideration of justice and honor, to provide for the payment of the interest and the ultimate redemption of the principal thereof.

2^nd. That our state abounds with all the elements of wealth, that her resources are daily developing; that her lands are daily becoming more fertile; that this meeting believe that her citizens are fully able to pay, by taxation, the amount necessary to enable her to meet the annual interest on her public debt,

3^rd. That the city of Baltimore, having carried into execution the tax laws of the state, and her citizens being willing to pay the state tax of 25 cents, while they are paying at the same time a tax of about 77 cents on the $100 to provide for the payment of the interest on their corporation debt and for other municipal purposes, has a right to call upon every other part of the state to bear their portion of the public burden and to pay their amount of the public taxation.

4^th. That the idea cannot for a moment entertained, that this free commonwealth shall repuidate her public debt, — a debt solemnly contracted in the face of all nations, — and refuse to provide for the payment of the principal or interest of the same.

5^th. That we cordially and affectionately invite the citizens of every part of our state to a prompt and faithful compliance with the laws passed for the purposes above mentioned.

6^th. That whatever individuals may do, we believe the democratic party of Maryland will ever be willing to join their fellow citizens in bearing whatever burden may be necessary to redeem the plighted faith of the state.

These resolutions having been read and adopted, Benjamin C. Presstman, esq., made an address of considerable length to the meeting, appealing to their love of principle, patriotism, honor, and justice; and called upon them to stand by their time-honored state in her hour of difficulty. The following resolutions were submitted to the meeting by Mr. P:

Resolved, That while we thus recognise the doctrine that the public creditor has the right to demand the full and faithful discharge of the annual interest of the state debt, yet we have equal confidence that if a temporary failure should sometimes happen to meet the entire amount, owing to causes not under our control, nor within the reach of honorable means to void, that in such case, in that spirit of justice which rould regulate all private dealings between man and man, no imputations of dishonesty could or would be cast, if we discharged our liabilities at all times in good faith to the full extent of our ability. And that the want of power to meet the whole demand is not a valid defence for a refusal to pay what we can.

Resolved. That this meeting entertains the belief, that a sale of the public works upon such terms and conditions could be made as to cause a large diminution of the principal debt of the state, and that time alone is required to develope the practicability of such plan, consistent with the interest and honor of the state, and that when such deduction shall have been made, the interest which would have to be paid upon the remainder would in view of the advantages derivable from the completion of the public works alone, if from no higher consideration, be cheerfully met, and that in estimating what might be effected by such a sale, we believe that the citizens of Maryland might be relieved from the burthen of taxation to an extent when it might be easily borne, to a point indeed less than what prevails in many other stales of the Union. And that whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the proper mode and manner of disposing of the state’s interest, it is now manifest that these works are esteemed valuable, and that they may be used so as to concel [“conceal”? “cancel”?] a large portion of the public debt, at any time the people may desire and the legislature carry out the wish by proper legislative enactments.

Resolved, That this meeting in thus setting forth its opinions in a manner and language too plain to be misunderstood, upon a subject of such vital imortance to the public welfare, so intimately blended with the fair fame of our beloved state, so inseparably connected with the commercial credit of Baltimore, in short so paramount in all respects to every other political consideration, being a question of public morals, upon the settlement of which may depend whatever confidence is justly due to republican institutions, make no attempt at dictation as to the course others may see proper to pursue, and yet we desire to mark emphatically our own determination in the premises, from which there will be no shadow of turning, which is to express at all times as we do now, in the name of more than 7,000 voters of the democratic party of this city, their deep abhorrence of the odious doctrine of repudiation; their indignant and unequivocal denial that it is sanctioned by any principle of the democratic faith, but on the contrary that it is at war with its cardinal principle of equal and exact justice to all; and that we will use every effort in opposition to this novel heresy, looking at last to the ballot box as the faithful defender of the virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the people.

Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting are due and are hereby offered to the able editor of the Balmore Republican & Argus, who well knowing the sentiments of our people upon this subject, did as a faithful sentinel on the watch tower, and in the spirit of a true democrat, rebuke the “first dawning of an attempt” to enlist the democratic party in hostility to the maintenance of the public credit.

These resolutions having been unanimously adopted, and the remarks of the speaker received with great unanimity and decided approbation, the meeting adjourned.

So how did that work out for the Democratic Party machine that, with Whig assistance, got Maryland into its debt mess, and for the Locofoco Democrat insurgents who were trying to lead the party on a path of debt repudiation and free trade?

Well, Maryland had already partially defaulted on its debts by halting payment in January, 1842. It tried to make up some of the difference by selling off its interest in the canals, but nobody wanted to buy them. Eventually the state managed to push new taxes through, but it wasn’t until 1848 that it formally resumed paying interest on the debts. But the repudiation party never won their case.

As for the Locofocos more generally, I don’t hear much about them after 1843, and I’m not sure to what extent this means they were absorbed into another party, or their concerns went mainstream, or they evaporated, or what. Histories of the Democratic Party of Maryland are not easy to find, and I’m not sure I’d really want to thumb through one if I did find it.

The women’s suffrage movement in France took a lot longer to reach its goal than did the movements in Britain and the U.S.. Women could not vote on par with men in France until after World War Ⅱ. I haven’t seen many examples of tax resistance being used as a tactic by French suffragists — a couple from the 1930s that were mentioned in The Vote is all. But here is a brief note from way back in 1880 that shows the movement there had its “no taxation without representation” activists:

Paris women are beginning to assert their “rights.” Mlle. Hubertine Auclerc [sic] refuses to pay her taxes unless she is allowed to vote…

Here is another mention:

Mlle. Hubertine Auclert, the French woman who wants her rights, has served written notice on the Prefect of the Seine that as she is not allowed to vote she is not going to pay taxes. So long as she is denied a voice in determining the use to be made of her money, she prefers and intends to keep it in her own pocket. “If I have no rights,” she says. “It follows that I have no responsibilities. I do not vote. I do not pay.” Seven other ladies, three of them widows, join Mlle. Hubertine in this notification. One of the Paris newspapers remarks that this stroke of strategy is original with Mlle. Hubertine: that neither in England nor America has it occurred to any member of the disfranchised sex to refuse to pay her taxes. Evidently this Paris editor never heard of the Glastonbury cows.

Here is another brief note from later the same year:

Madamoiselle Hubertine Auclert, the notorious advocate of Woman’s Rights, appeared to-day in person before the Council of the Perficture of the Seine, demanding exemption from payment of taxes. Her argument was that, as women are allowed no voice in the government of the country, they ought not to bear any of the expense. It is needless to say that Mdlle. Auclert’s application was rejected.

The following year, an American women’s suffrage magazine called The National Citizen and Ballot Box carried this brief article:

“Les Femmes Qui Tuent et Les Femmes Qui Votent.”

by Alexandre Dumas

Or, Woman Suffrage as a Means of Moral Improvement and Prevention of Crime

[Extracts from the above book, translated by Thos. Mott, the only son of Lucretia Mott.]

In the moral world, as in the physical, everything is logical and progressive. We see the practical claims of women advance with her moral improvement and soon these new ideas will take shape and become incarnate as indeed, already appears.

An advocate of woman suffrage, Miss Hubertine Auclert, refused latedly to pay taxes, urging that as women are not allowed to vote, it was unjust that they should be taxed, that in imposing upon them the same responsibilities as upon men, they are entitled to the same rights, and she demands for women the right to the ballot.

Of course she is ridiculed. The furniture of Miss Auclert was seized, and the majesty of the law was sustained against her vain protests.

Among Auclert’s other claims to fame is that she invented the term “féministe” to refer to women’s rights proponents.

The Greek “won’t pay” tax resistance movement fielded a small party in the recent national elections, though there were questions as to what extent they really represented the movement or to what extent they were just trying to ride the wave of it. (Kind of like what would happen if Michael Moore announced he were running for president as head of the Occupy Party.)

From what I can decipher of the reporting, Greece elects its government on a sort of regional proportional representation system, with a couple of quirks: the top-vote-getting party gets a bonus pack of seats in the parliament (this is supposed to make it easier for them to form a government on their own initiative), and a party must get at least 3% of the vote to seat any of its candidates.

In the recent election, voters abandoned the major parties in droves, for a variety of smaller fringe parties – including “won’t pay” – to the extent that 19% of the voters cast their votes for a party that failed to reach the 3% threshold. That’s as many as voted for the top vote-getting party, who with their tiny plurality, will attempt to cobble together a coalition that can form a government. A further 38% of those eligible to vote didn’t bother. This means that despite proportional representation, of a sort, half of Greece is not represented in parliament — including one-fifth of those who attempted to elect a representative.

“Won’t pay” itself reached only about the 1% mark, and so it won no seats.