Marie Suiste, entrepeneur, 1856-1871
When Marie Suiste petitioned in 1870 to be legally allowed to wear the clothing Suiste already had worn for twenty years, the story found its way into newspapers across the U. S. Most editors appear to have been amused. That Suiste had built more than one business wasn’t of interest; that Suiste had the audacity not to wear clothing that publicly declared the genitals of the body within—and to insist on the right to wear that clothing—was central.
Suiste’s story is difficult to follow, given the creativity with which newspaper editors spelled the name. Marie Suiste was “Marie S. Weize,” “Marie Sweize,” “Marie Suise,” and “Marie Susie”—and probably other spellings I haven’t found.
Unnamed, Suiste had appeared in newspapers at least 15 years earlier, arrested for wearing male clothing on a female body. The story is interesting for a number of reasons: it highlights the “rough times” in California in the early days of the Gold Rush, when a woman needed a “disguise”; it points out that clothing was expected to announce publicly the genitals of the body within, and that not doing so was wearing some form of “disguise”; and it emphasizes that once “rough times” were over, individuals with female bodies were expected to adhere to cultural customs—and were arrested for not doing so.
“In Disguise.” Daily Democratic State Journal [Sacramento, California] 17 September 1856; p. 2.
A French woman, who resides at the Gate, near Jackson, Amador county, was noticed by the police yesterday walking our streets dressed in male apparel. She was not long permitted to travel, however, without being invited to the station house, in order that a knowledge might be obtained as to the motive which induced the attempted disguise. She was much frightened by the arrest, but told a straightforward story, and was released. She resides at the Gate, as above stated, and has not dressed in the apparel of her sex during the past seven years. In early times she labored as a miner, but is now keeping a restaurant. She has become so accustomed to the dress she then adopted, that she has no inclination to discard it, now that the rough times which caused her to assume it are over.
By 1870, Suiste had bought real estate, had built businesses, and was launching another—all while wearing men’s clothing, which was, apparently, still illegal in California and Nevada, where Suiste was operating. Thus the petition to be legally allowed to wear what Suiste had been wearing for twenty years. The article appearing in the 14 September 1870 issue of the Territorial Enterprise (unavailable to me) launched versions across the nation.
“Woman’s Rights—A Strange Petition.” Territorial Enterprise [Virginia City, Nevada] 14 September 1870; reprinted in Daily Evening Herald [Stockton, California] 17 September 1870; p. 1.
From the Territorial Enterprise, September 14.
A petition from Marie Susie, a French lady, was read at the meeting of the Board of Aldermen last evening, in which the fair petitioner prays to be allowed to wear male attire. She states that she has worn masculine habiliments for twenty years, and wishes to continue to do so. Being about to open an establishment in this city for the sale of California wines, she wishes to be protected against arrest for wearing male attire, against which there is a city ordinance. With her petition she sent a document bearing the signature of the Clerk of the District Court of Amador County, California, which was given to her as a protection against arrest, and which speaks of her as an industrious and virtuous woman, and one possessed of considerable real estate in that county. With this document, which is certified to and countersigned by the French Consul at San Francisco, it appears that she made a trip to France, and other countries in Europe. The document states that she first adopted male attire in 1850, upon her arrival in California; that, not finding anything to do in San Francisco, and not wishing to lead a life of prostitution, she dressed in men’s clothes, and went to work in the mines, where she made money enough to start in business.
”Industrious and virtuous” or not, Suiste wasn’t safe from arrest in California; Suiste’s crime seems tame in comparison to the other recorded in the column:
“Latest Telegrams: From San Francisco.” Gold Hill Daily News [Gold Hill, Nevada] 19 April 1871; p. 2.
[SPECIAL TO THE GOLD HILL DAILY NEWS BY THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH LINE.]
FROM SAN FRANCISCO
San Francisco, April 19—1 P. M.—J. C. Horan, for many years a merchant in San Francisco, died suddenly last night. He was a native of Ireland, aged forty-four.
A fight among primary politicians occurred at the Mint Saloon, on Commercial street, last night, in which Wm. Higgins flogged J. M. Verdinal in the face, drawing blood freely. Higgins and a friend then drew pistols, and Verdinal broke for the street, when the police arrested Higgins.
Marie S. Weize was arrested in a saloon on Broadway last evening, dressed in men’s clothing. She claims that she has been wearing male apparel eighteen years, working much of the time as a miner at Jackson, Amador county.
Suiste’s appearance in police court before Judge Sawyer was highlighted in a long and entertaining description of the criminals appearing that day.
“Sawyer’s Bench: A Female Miner in the Police Court.” San Francisco Chronicle [San francisco, California] 20 April 1871; p. 3.
The Usual Choice Selection of Petty Malefactors.
Business was lively in the Police Court yesterday morning; sentences were pronounced, cases continued, and the characters of respectable (?) people exposed. In fact, it would be impossible to describe the rich evidence and spicy debates that enlivened the session of the Police Court between the hours of 9 and 12 o’clock. A number of cases were continued and the following
SENTENCES PASSED.
…
A WOMAN IN MAN’S ATTIRE.
Mary Sweiz is a woman with a determined look upon her sun browned countenance, and hands hardened by twenty years toil in the mines of Amador, handling the pick and shovel, and working at the windlass and pump, with all the energy and perseverance of an “honest miner” himself. To accomplish her work with greater safety and case, she donned male apparel, and while she resided in Amador was allowed by the authorities to retain her male attire, known among the people in the vicinity as “Mary Pantaloon;” but when she left Amador for a short stay in Virginia City some time since, she was arrested on a charge of misdemeanor. The Judge, before whom she was brought for trial, believing her story and admiring the record of her twenty years’ toil and hardship, dismissed the case, and she returned to her mines. Again she left Amador, this time for San Francisco, still dressed in the apparel she had been in the habit of wearing. While “seeing life” in this city, she was arrested on the same charge of misdemeanor as before, and yesterday morning was arraigned before Judge Sawyer. She alleged that she came to the city for the purpose of selling her mines, and that she was having clothes made, the clothing she wore in the Court-room having been borrowed. Judge Sawyer imposed a very light fine upon her, namely, $5, and she left the City Hall, having learned that justice is not quite as indulgent in the metropolis as it is in some parts of the country.
A BARBARY COAST IDLER.
Mary Berry is quite a different character, for work to her is like pulling one of her eye teeth, and although she stated in a very loud voice and emphatic manner that she was not a vagrant, and almost yelled, “Everybody knows my husband,” she was proved to be an idle and dissolute creature, roaming from cellar to cellar on Barbary Coast, and ordered to appear for sentence to-day.
…
The New York Daily Herald seems most fascinated by Suiste’s clothing and managed to work in the always-crucial critique of Suiste’s appearance. Also hinted at just why 19th-century authorities were so very focused on keeping female bodies in women’s clothing.
“A Woman Eighteen Years in Trousers.” New York Daily Herald [New York, New York] 7 May 1871; p. 14.
It appears, says the Virginia Enterprise, that Marie Suiste, the woman who was engaged in business for some months in this city in male apparel, has been fined five dollars in San Francisco by Judge Sawyer, and required to doff her masculine toggery and don the proper habiliments of her sex. In this city she kept a wine store on B street, where she sold the products of a large vineyard owned by her in California. Soon after making her appearance here she applied to the Board of Aldermen for permission to be allowed to wear male attire. The matter was left discretionary with the Chief of Police, he having authority to arrest her at any time, should he think proper. She was in business here for several months and was never arrested, though some of the other “sole traders” of her sex were very uneasy about her for several weeks. It came out at last that there were many of these persons who felt that they also ought to be allowed to wear the breeches, in case they should desire to do so. As in San Francisco, Marie Suise [sic] stated here that she had dressed as a man for eighteen years, had worked in the mines with men in Amador county, California, and had even made a trip to France and tarried for some months in European countries dressed in male attire. It is said that she looks much better in male than female habiliments. We should suppose so. She had not the face or figure to set off a Grecian bend; she was sailor-built. She will be apt to get out of San Francisco and into Amador county and her breeches as speedily as possible.
The “sole traders” convinced they should be allowed to wear trousers were no doubt sex workers, but it’s entertaining to think that Suiste’s example was too tempting to women in general to be allowed by authorities. (And “sailor-built” is surprisingly vivid.)
Did Suiste go back to Amador County and trousers? Unknown. Suiste doesn’t appear in later newspapers, under any spelling of the name.
previous: Johnny Gardner gets along, 1870
next: Walter Huntington gets an education, 1870
To “Nineteenth-Century American Children & What They Read”
Some of the children | Some of their books | Some of their magazines
Some works for adults, 1800-1872