xt70rx937t9n_512 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/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/dipstest/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_18/Folder_12/Multipage23760.pdf 1920-1935 1935 1920-1935 section false xt70rx937t9n_512 xt70rx937t9n wThe Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton”

was not without resemblance to that of Queen Victoria. With all due respect
for the rebel of Seneca Falls, the two women had much in common. In their
amazing energy, their nonchalant maternity, their selection of worthy and
well-descended consorts. their pre-occupation with political affairs, they were
not dissimilar. The analogy, however, only serves to point the contrast.
Splendid examples both of the matriarchal type, they had nothing else in
common. All the humour, chivalry and intellect which the English Queen
lacked was abundantly bestowed upon the American feminist. Under a
matriarchate. Elizabeth Cady Stanton would have been the greatest mother
of them all; but, born as she was under the patriarchal order, she became one
of the most brilliant opposition leaders in all history.” The Freeman.

"This Work Is Well Worthy of a Place in the Library of

Anyone Inclined Toward Americana ”

The work is in two volumes, beautifully bound in dark green cloth,
stamped in gold, with gilt tops. It is printed in large clear type with generous
margins on high grade woven antique stock specially made for the books.
There are ten illustrations.

All you need to do is fill in the coupon 011 the attached letter. The books
will come to you by return mail postpaid.

HARPER & BROTHERS
Established 1817
Franklin Square New York

“A LADY WITH A SPINE”

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON

As Revealed in Her Letters,

Diary, and Reminiscences
Edited by Theodore Stanton
and Harriot Stanton Blatch

‘4 NE gathers that there were times when Mrs. Stanton had

too much spine, even for her fellow-workers. Most of
them favored peaceful, non-resistant step by step measures.
When they were afraid of the name Revolution for the suffrage
paper, she announced that they might call it the Rosebud if
they liked; for her part a revolution in the status of women was

exactly what she meant.”—The New Republic.

HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, Established 1817. ‘

 

 A, Vivid Picture of the Period

and its notable men and women is given in the
letters, diary and biography of this brilliant
woman.

The New Republic says of her, and her
book: “Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not one
of your pious, consecrated reformers. Even
if she had a tract on some form of oppression
in her pocket there was a merry twinkle in her
eye. Perhaps that is why her story is such an
engaging combination of anti-slavery and

 

dancing, temperance and the pranks of her
babies, joyous adventures with friends and en-
counters with violent opponents, holding of mobs at bay and
dosing the neighbors with homeopathic pills. There was something

Unquenchably Vital

about her, a large capacity to live for all that could go into it from
playing a game of chess to bucking a legislature.”

The New York Herald says of the book: “Leaves one breath-
less with admiration for her sheer vitality. There seems to be
nothing that she did not think about and little that she (lid not do
in her long career.”

“One of the Greatest Biographies of 1922”

says the Kansas City Journal, “not only because it tells the life
story of this brilliant pioneer of feminism, but because through its
pages the reader meets on intimate terms some of the most dis-
tinguished men and women, both American and English, of her
time.” The Boston Herald says: “She makes her own story as
told in these volumes intensely interesting, and fills the pages
with reminiscences of the distinguished men of her era.”

"A Rare and Gallant Personality”

The Freeman says: “The two volumes of

 

 

memoirs will aid considerably in the preserva-
tion of a rare and gallant personality.”

And not only is this unusual personality
preserved, but the “distinguished men and
women” referred to by the Kansas City Jour-
nal are also depicted—such interesting and
important individuals as Horace Greeley,
William Lloyd Garrison, Gladstone, Carlyle,
Holmes, Whittier, Emerson, Lowell, Haw-

 

 

thorne and others equally famous.

 

 W. A. 100

 

iflvanlntintt

nu the

finiteh @hank (lbffering

11f 1331

iflmnlm’h: That the United Thank Offering
of 1931 be given to the Domestic and For—
eign Missionary Society of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of
America, to be used as follows;

One-tenth of the Offering to be added to the
permanent trust fund, the income from which
is to be used for retiring allowances of United
Thank Offering workers.

That at least $75,000 be held in reserve for
training of United Thank Offering workers,
any surplus to revert to the general fund.
And the sum of not less than two hundred
thousand dollars ($200,000) to be appropri—
ated for buildings to be erected in the mis—
sion field.

The balance of the Offering, together with

. all interest earned thereon to be used by the
Missionary Society as directed by the National
Council, for the work of women in the mis—
sionary enterprises of the Church including
their training, equipping, sending and sup-
port and for their care when sick and dis-
abled, the appointment of said women having
been approved by the Executive Board.

1‘32 311 iflurther 182511111921: That to our United -
Gifts shall be added our united and earnest
prayers, that God will put it into the hearts of
many faithful women to give themselves and
their substance, to the work of the Master in
the Mission Field.

 

 

.L
J.

[OVER]

 

  

Pray ye therefore the/Lord 0f the harvest, that
he will send forth labourers into his harvest.
5. Matt. 9:38.

Eh» firmer

fur 1112

finite}! @hank (IDflfering

O Lord, our heavenly Father,
we pray thee to send forth more
labourers into thy harvest, and
to grant them t'hy special grace
for every need. Guard and guide
the workers in the field, and
draw us into closer fellowship
with them. Dispose the hearts
of all women everywhere to give
gladly as thou hast given to
them. Accept, from grateful
hearts, our United Thank Offer—
ing of prayer and gifts and joy~
ful service; and bless it to the
coming of thy Kingdom
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

 

 

 

r?

4 ED. "-8 25M. D.

 

  

 

LEGAL OPINIONS

SUPPORTING

WOMAN’S CLUB

OF

LOUISVILLE ’

 

 

 

 

Additional copies of this pamphlet can be secured from The Women's
Club, 1820 Fourth St, Louisville, Ky.

 

  

 

 FOREWORD

’The Board of Directors of the Woman’s Club of Louisville, re-
sponsive to requests, herein presents the following legal opinions on
the situation created by the demand of the Kentucky Federation of
Women’s Clubs, upon the Woman’s Club of Louisville, to rescind its
By—Law, Article 6, Section 3, adopted, April 13, 1926:

A re-statement of the facts preceding and followmg the adoption
of this By-Law is as follows:

At the Thirty-First Annual Convention, Kentucky Federation of
Women’s Clubs, meeting at Henderson, Kentucky, May 19-23, 1925,
the Woman’s Club of Louisville, alarmed by the arbitrary tendencies
within both the Kentucky Federation and the General Federation,
offered a Resolution, which was adopted into the By—Laws of the
Kentucky Federation, Article VIII, Sections 2 and 3, as follows:

“All bills and resolutions, except those of courtesy, which are to
be brought for consideration before the Annual Convention, shall be
sent in writing to all Federated Clubs at least sixty days before the
date of Convention. Clubs shall be given the opportunity, if they
so desire, to send their delegates to the convention instructed by the
vote of their own organization assembly.

“When this rule shall have been complied with, in case of legis-
lative measures a two—thirds vote shall have been taken before said
endorsement becomes binding on those voting with the majority, or
before said endorsement can be said to be the endorsement of the
Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs.”

One week later, the Biennial Council of the General Federation of
Women’s Clubs, meeting at West Baden, Indiana, June, 1925, adopted
a majority ruling offered by Mrs. John D. Sherman, President of
the General Federation, in its nature a denial of the stand taken one
week before by the Kentucky Federation Convention at Henderson,
Kentucky. This said ruling, which before it was binding as a By-Law,
would have to be adopted by a General Federation Convention, being
as follows:

“Through the delegates the Federation has its opportunity to
record its stand on questions. When a resolution has been adopted
at such meetings, either unanimously or by a majority it should be
regarded as the action of the organization. State Federations, or in—
dividual clubs, opposed to the action taken, should not conduct a
campaign in the name 'of the State or the Club, in opposition to that
of the General Federation. Individual members Of the State Federa-
tions or individual members of clubs, are free to enter campaigns in
opposition as individuals but not as clubs. In no other way can the
General Federation speak as an organization.”

The following spring, April 13, 1926, six weeks prior to action on
this ruling by the Biennial Convention of the General Federation, the
Woman’s Club of Louisville, seeing in this proposed reversal of policy
by the General Federation, at once a denial of its rights as an in-
dividual club, and a declaration that minority clubs in general are
bound by the will of the majority, thus converting the General Feder-
ation into an oligarchy ruled by a few officials at the top, took action
by a vote of 254 to 80, as follows:

“WHEREAS, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs was or-
ganized, as set forth in its charter, for . . . . culture, and to bring
into communication with one another the various women’s clubs
throughout the world,” and »

WHEREAS, the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs was
organized as set forth in its Articles of Incorporation, “to bring to-

getéher the representatives of various clubs of women in. Kentucky,”
an

 

  

WHEREAS, nothing in the charter, articles of incorporation, or
by-laws of either Federation, or of the Woman’s Club of Louisville,
or in the resolution under which the Woman’s Club of Louisville be-
came a- member of the Federation, gives to either Federation any
authority to control the action of the Woman’s Club of Louisville by
a majority vote or otherwise, and,

WHEREAS, the absence of proportional representation would be
sufficient reason if no other existed for refusing to recognize the
authority of the General Federation to control the action of the
Woman’s Club of Louisville, as claimed by Mrs. Sherman in her re-
cent ruling at West Baden, _

RESOLVED, That, the By—Laws of the Woman’s Club of Louis-
ville be amended by the addition of the following:

The Woman’s Club of Louisville shall not be bound by any action
of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs, or of the General
Federation of Women’s Clubs, until such action shall have been duly
ratified by the members of this Club at a meeting called for the
purpose.”

So arbitrary and dangerous to the clubs throughout the United
States, did the Woman’s Club of Louisville consider this proposed
reversal of policy by the General Federation, that it endeavored to
protest through its delegates to the Thirty-Second Annual Convention
of the Kentucky Federation, meeting at Middlesboro, May 4-7, 1926.
But when this West Baden ruling was brought up for endorsement at
the opening session of this convention, the delegates from the W0-
man’s Club of Louisville were denied time to adequately present their
opposition, and the vote for endorsement was overwhelmingly car-
ried. And this despite the fact, as set forth by the delegates from
the Woman’s Club of Louisville, that such endorsement, so long as
the Henderson By-Law, Article VIII, Sections 2 and 3, defining and
limiting the binding power of the majority, remained on the books,
was null and void.

Again, at the Biennial Convention of the General Federation,
meeting at Atlantic City, May 24-June 6, 1926, the delegates of the
Woman’s Club of Louisville, having asked to present a motion for
the rescinding of the West Baden ruling, were allowed two minutes,
to present the motion, and two to present the argument, the said
ruling being endorsed by an overwhelming majority, a minority of
eleven votes opposed.

The Executive Committee of the Kentucky Federation, at a
special meeting, held at Lexington, Kentucky, June 21, 1926, passed
the following resolution by a vote of 9 to 1:

“WHEREAS, the Woman’s Club of Louisville has adopted the
following By-Law:

“The Woman’s Club of Louisville shall not be bound by any ac-
tion of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs, or of the General
Federation of Women’s Clubs, until such action shall have been duly
ratified by the members of the Club at a meeting called for the
purpose,”

WHEREAS, the enactment of this by-law would be a physical
impossibility for the State or General Federation, and

WHEREAS, the enactment of this by—law would disrupt the
unity and harmony from such a composite group as the Kentucky
Federation of Women’s Clubs derives its strength and benefit, the
Executive Committee of the Kentucky Federation empowered to act
in emergencies (Article IV, Section 7) respectfully requests the W0—
man’s Club of Louisville to rescind the by—law. , ‘

RESOLVED, That if no official notice has been sent the Presi-
dent of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs of the rescinding
of this by-law by November 1, 1926, the name of the Woman’s Club

[2]

l
l
l
l

 

 

 of Louisville shall be stricken from the records and books of the
Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs.”

The Woman’s Club of Louisville, assured as it has beenlfrom the
start that in passing this By—Law it was within its constitutional
and legal rights, on October 6, 1926, re-affirmed its By-Law by a vote
of 301 to 26. '

To make clear that the right of the Woman’s Club of Louisville
to do so is well taken, its Board of Directors here offers to club
women and others interested, the following legal opinions of members
of the Kentucky bench and bar, and also takes this opportunity to
acknowledge their kindness in thus giving of their time and their
ability to this club.

 

  

OPINION OF MR. NEVILLE MILLER, LEGAL ADVISOR,
WOMAN’S CLUB OF LOUISVILLE.

The Woman’s Club of Louisville on “April 13, 1926, adopted the
following by-law, to-Wit:

The Woman’s {Club of Louisville shall not be bound by any
action of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs or of the
General Federation of Women’s Clubs until such action shall have
been duly ratified by the members of this Club at a meeting
called fon‘ that purpose. .
The Executive Committee and the Board of Directors of the

Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs consider such a by-law in-
consistent with membership in their organization and have therefore
called upon the Woman’s Club to either rescind said by-law, or have
its name stricken from the records books of the Federation.

It is my opinion that said by-law is not inconsistent with mem-
bership in the Federation, nor has the Federation under its con-
stitution and by-laws, power of authority to expel the Woman’s Club.

Theconstitution and by-laws are adopted to outline the purpose
and power of an organization. When once adopted, they are binding
upon the organization until altered, amended or repealed. Action by
an organization outside the purpose and authority granted by the
constitution and by-laws is not binding and likewise action by a
member which action is not prohibited and does not conflict with the
purpose or authority of the organization, is not inconsistent with
membership in the organization. A member upon joining an organiza-
tion surrenders only such rights as the organization claims in its
constitution and by-laws.

Therefore whether the said by-law violates any rule or law of
the Kentucky Federation or is inconsistent with membership in the
Federation, and if so, whether the Federation may expel the Woman’s
Club for failure to rescind said by-law, depends upon the purpose for
which the Federation was organized, the rules and laws enacted by it
for governing its affairs and the authority given the Federation as
such purpose, rules and grant of authority may be found in the con-
stitution and by-laws. ’

The purpose of the Kentucky Federation as stated in Article II
of the articles of Incorporation is “to bring together the representa-
tives of various clubs of women in Kentucky engaged in the work
of education, economics, culture, philanthropy, civics or charity”.
Clearly, your by-laws, merely reserving your right not to be bound
on any given subject until voted upon by your members, does not
conflict with the object of the Federation as above stated.

The only by-law of the Federation touching this subject is the
by-law adopted at Henderson in 1925 (Article VIII-Sections 2 & 3)
and your by—law conforms to the spirit of Henderson by-law and in no
way conflicts with it. That by-law expressly states that due notice
must be given before the vote is taken on legislative measures and
then “a two-thirds vote shall have been taken before said endorse-
ment becomes binding on those voting With the majority ............. ”.

Furthermore your by-law does not make your club ineligible for
membership that qualification being stated in Article 1, Section I of
the By-Laws of the Federation, the test being “that the organization
requires no sectarian or political test for membership, that it is not
a secret society, that no one of its members is affiliated With any or-
ganization which tolerates, either by practice or teaching, violation
of national or state laws, and that it conforms to the By-Laws of the
General Federation of Women’s Clubs”.

[4]

 

 

 There is no by-law of the General Federation in conflict with
your by-law and your by-law violates none of the tests of eligibility
for membership.

The by-laws of the Federation make no provision for the ex-
pulsion of a member and therefore to properly handle such a case,
by-laws should be enacted defining the offense, fixing the punishment
and providing the method to be used for inflicting the punishment,
and allowing the offending member an opportunity to be heard. Cer-
tainly without such by—laws, the Federation has no authority to expel
a member without any semblance of a trial.

The Federation was formed by the clubs, and has only such power
as the clubs have seen fit from time to time to delegate to it. All
authority not delegated to the Federation remains in the clubs.

The clubs on forming the Federation did not delegate to it the
right to bind them on any question, at no time have the clubs sur-
rendered their right to their own opinion and at no time has the Fed-
eration by a properly adopted by-law or amendment to its constitu-
tion legally assumed such a right. The power to exercise such a
right does not lie Within the authority of the president or directors or
any other officer or officers of the Federation.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the said by—law does not con-
flict with the purpose for which the Federation was organized, Vio-
lates no rule or by-law of the Federation and is not inconsistent with
membership in said Federation, and by failure to rescind said by-laW,
the Woman’s Club has committed no act for which it may be ex-
pelled and furthermore that there is no provision in the by—laws de-
fining the offense or fixing the penalty or granting the offending
member an opportunity to be heard, and therefore, the Board of Di-
rectors of the Federation have not the authority to strike the name of
the Woman’s Club from the books and records of the Federation for
failure to rescind the said by-law.

Respectfully submitted,
NEVILLE MILLER.

[5]

 

  

OPINION OF EDMUND F. TRABUE, E'SQUIRE.

Responsive to your request, I give you my opinion on the sit-
uation created by the demand of the Kentucky Federation upon the
Louisville Woman’s Club to rescind its by-law of last April pro-
viding:

“RESOLVED that the by-laws of the Woman’s Club of Louis-
ville be amended by the addition of the following:

The Woman’s Club of Louisville shall not be bound by any
action of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs or of the
General Federation of Women’s Clubs until such action shall have
been duly ratified by the members of this Club at a meeting
called for that purpose.”

The demand of the Executive Committee of the Federation is
that you rescind this by-law or submit to having your name stricken
from! the books of. the Federation, November 1, 1926. The Executive
Committee further resolves: ' '

“That if no official notice has been sent the President of the
Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs of the rescinding of this
by-law by November 1, 1926, the name of the Woman’s Club. of
Louisville shall be stricken from the records and books of the
Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs.”

The Executive Committee, in one of its resolutions, gives as its
authority for its action Art. IV., Sec. 7, of its by—laws, Which reads:

“Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall trans—
act necessary business and-act in emergencies. They shall report
in writing all business transactions to the Board of Directors.”

The Executive Committee bases its action on the assumption of
emergency.

You are, therefore, confronted with the dilemma of either recant-
ing, and of rescinding your by—law and becoming an inanimate cog in
the Federation wheel, or standing by your guns and submitting to
martyrdom, or petitioning a Court of Equity for an injunction. The
choice must be made by you. -

The question presented is of national importance, because the
Federation is behind measures involving change of our dual form of
government. The Cincinnati Enquirer said May 31, 1926, referring
. to your fight at Atlantic City:

“This is a matter of importance to the nation. It is easier
for certain forces, inimical to the best interests of the American
form of government, to ‘get next’ to a few individuals than it
is to influence considerable groups of women.”

What influence you can have under Federation methods without
your by-law was shown at Middlesboro and at Atlantic City.

Has the Federation then a right to expel the Louisville Club
for refusal to surrender so vital a privilege as the right to decline
to support a measure deemed by it destructive of our institutions?

The by-law when made, seems admittedly to have been in ac—
cordance with the Kentucky Federation’s by—law promulgated at
Henderson, and this, I understand from you, was recognized at Mid-
dlesboro, but that it was there declared that the Henderson by-law
Would be repealed. The, coincidence of the two by—laws, however,
seems immaterial.

[6]

rr\’4

 

 

 The Cincinnati Enquirer, June 2, 1926, through its Atlantic City
correspondent reports:

“Mrs. Sherman said in an interview that a disciplinary by-
law will undoubtedly be enacted at the next biennial to take care
of just such cases of a disturbing minority which, at present,
are beyond the jurisdiction of the Federation.”

Admittedly then, your by—law when passed was not forbidden
by any Federation by-law.

Expulsion of members, when it is desired to secure such right,
is generally provided in the charter or by-laws of a corporation such
as the Kentucky Federation, but I find no by-law of the Federation
providing for expulsion of a member Club. There is a by-law (Art.
XI) entitled “Parliamentary Authority” providing:

. “All meetings shall be in accordance with the rules of par-
liamentary procedure, ‘Roberts’ Rules 'of ‘Order’ being the au-
thority.” -. -

Of course, this by-law furnishes no support for the present action
of theExecutive Committee of the Federation. It is meant to provide
the method of procedure in meetings of the Federation. '_ Furthermore,
it is. “based upon the Rules and PractiCe ‘of Congress,” and it would
be a. bold 'man (or woman) who w0uld‘assert that Congress could,
.unde'r"RObe1‘ts’,Rules, expel a' State from the Federal Government.
.Our queStion, howeVer, is even narrower'than mightappear from
what’has been said, because the action under consideration is not
that of theFederation itself, nor even of its Board of Directors, but
only of .its Executive Committee; and the Executive Committee has
only authority in routine matters and in emergency, and the present
action is neither. The Executive Committee, however, has no power
of expulsion at all. . -~

Your by-law was passed last April by a vote of 254 ayes and
80 nays, and there has been ample time for action by the proper
corporate authorities of the Federation if they had desired to act.
Also, there has’been at least one meeting of the Federation since
April. For this reason, also, there is 'no ground for claiming an
emergency to'give the Executive Committee the right to act, if it
had had'any such right. This consideration of itself ought to end
theucontroversyvand prove the Executive Committee’s action void.

, Equally fatal .to the Executive Committee’s action 'is‘that it af-
forded the Louisville Club no trial. It tried that Club 'behind the
closed doors of the Executive Committee, in the absence of the Club,
convicted it of a capital ofi’ense, and fixed its execution fer November
1st,} Your failure to rescind the‘by—law is made a crime punishable
by expulsion. You are afl’orded no opportunity to try‘ the, question
ofyour right to: pass the by-law, nor of the Executive Committee’s
right to expel you for failing to rescind it. The Executive Committee’s
failure to afford you a trial is, of itself alone, fatal to the validity
of its action. See, for example, Heaton v. Hull, 59 N. Y. Supp.
281, s. c. aflirmed 64 N. Y. Supp. 279. . _. .

The excuse given for the action of the Executive Committee of
the Federation is: . .

“ “WHEREAS the enactment Of this by-law would be a phy-
sical impossibility for the State or General Federation, and

WHEREAS the enactment of this by-law would disrupt the
unity and harmony from such a composite group as the Kentucky
Federation of Women’s Clubs derives its strength and benefit,

[7]

 

  

the Executive Committee of the Kentucky Federation empowered
to act in emergencies (Art IV., Sec. 7) respectfully requests the
Woman’s Club of Louisville to rescind the by-law.”

That the individual action of the Louisville Club would not have
the effect thus attributed to it is demonstrated by the procedure of
the United States Chamber of Commerce. It holds a referendum
on bills before Congress, and requires a two-thirds vote of its mem-
ber organizations to commit the National Chamber; and even then
a member organization among the minority is left free to publicly
declare its position, Art XIII., Sec. 10, of the By- laws of the Chamber
providing:

“On a question submitted to referendum no organization
member found to have voted with the minority shall be deemed
to impair its standing in the Chamber by adhering to its posi—
tion or by continuing its efforts in support thereof."

The Louisville Club’s by-law, therefore, does not obstruct the
purposes of the General Federation, nor of the Kentucky Federation,
unless—unlike the United States Chamber of Commerce—they pro—
pose to represent to Congress that all of their member clubs are
behind the Federation’s measure whether the member clubs favor it
or not. Your Club’s by-law represents exactly the privilege which
the Chamber of Commerce was careful to accord to its constituent
members, and while the Executive Committee of the Kentucky Fed—
eration declares your action to be a capital offense, the Chamber
declares that such action should not impair the constituent member’s
standing in the Chamber.

The excuse for the Executive Committee’s action, therefore, is
without foundation.

CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, my conclusions, as you see, are:

(1) That if the Federation had desired to prescribe offenses
andpenalties it should have done so in its charter and by-laws;

(2) Even had the Federation prescribed offenses, and provided
penalties for their commission, the Executive Committee could have
had no power to pass the expulsion resolution which it has under-
taken to pass;

(3) With or without charter or by~law provision prescribing
offenses, or providing penalties, neither the Executive Committee,
nor the Board of Directors, nor the Federation itself could have ex-
pelled the Louisville Club without a trial on charges previously made,
and notice of time and place of trial;

(4) You have, therefore, the option:

(a) To recant, and rescind your by-law under the lash
of the threat made by the Federation’s Executive Committee, or

(b) To submit to martyrdom for your principles, or

(c) To petition a court of equity for injunction against
the Executive Committee’s proposed action.

Very respectfully,
EDMUND F. TRABUE.

 

 

 ‘m

OPINION 0F MR. H. H. NETTLEROTH.

Mr. Edmund F. Trabue,
Inter-Southern Bldg.,
Louisville, Kentucky.

Dear Mr. Trabue:

Last night I carefully read your opinion in the matter of the
controversy in which the Louisville Woman’s Club is now involved
and I fully agree with you in your conclusions under the facts as
stated.

Yours very truly,
H. H. NETTLEROTH.

[9]

 

  

OPINION OF JUDGE ALEXANDER P. HUMPHREY

I have kept up, as well as I could through the newspapers, with
the differences between the Woman’s Club of Louisville, The General
Federation of Women’s Clubs, and the Kentucky Federation of Wo—
men’s Clubs. I have before me a very clear statement made by Mr.
Trabue of the'law and the facts incident to this controversy. I have
never had any doubt of the right and duty of the Woman’s Club
to insist that it shall not be committed to the approval of matters of
governmental policy unless and until it has had an opportunity to
pass upon them. And, further, the right to differ with the conclu-
sions reached by the larger bodies of which it is directly or indirectly
a constituent member. As is well said in the Constitution of Ken-
tucky:

“Absolute and arbitrary power ............................ exists nowhere in
the Republic, not even in the largest majority.”

This is especially true of opinion and the right to express it. I,
therefore, approve of the by-law passed by the Woman’s Club and
hope that it will adhere to it.

With reference to the action taken by the Executive Committee
of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs, I can see nothing
,in the grant of power to that committee which would justify it in
expelling the Woman’s Club from the Kentucky Federation, nor in
laying down any hard and fast line of conduct, failure to observe
which would result in the exclusion of the Woman’s Club from the
Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs.

I would suggest that the Club adhere to its by-law and express in
a courteous but firm way its protest against the action of the Ex-
ecutive Committee of the Kentucky Federation of Women’s Clubs.
I would further suggest that at the next meeting of the Kentucky
Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Club of Louisville appear
with its delegates and claim admission and, if refused, demand a
hearing, challenging the action of the Executive Committee and in-
sisting that it is not within the lawful authority of the Kentucky
Federation of Women’s Clubs to exclude the Woman’s Club of Louis-
ville on account of its passage or insistence upon its by-law.

Very truly yours,
ALEX. P. HUMPHREY.

[10]

 

 

 OPINION 0F JUDGE WALTER P. LINCOLN.

During the last forty years many clubs and associations of wo-
men have organized throughout the United States, each seeking to
promote some special purpose, of interest to its own members. In the
course of time, it became apparent that the individual object of each
club would be advanced by a community of interest with other wo-
men’s clubs, although the fundamental purpose of each was different.
Hence, their union in State Federations and subsequently'union of
the State Federations in the General Federation\. These unions of
the i