SS

 

‘a
1
{
“University of Virginia Library
JK1911.M4 M38 1900

Ani ~ALDERMAN LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIAx

Anyone wishing copies of any of these leaflets, or

desiring to obtain other information about anti-suffrage

work is invited to write to the Secretary of the Massa-
oposed to the Furthe

sion of Suffrage to Women, P. O. Box

chusetts Association O} r Exten.

2262, Boston.
Mass.

i
E
b
7
ee
#3
7
45
|
x
2
2

,
j
}
=
iq
}
|
i
q=
=

es

paure

LRG

ideeoS “a :———
3

dx
<
Z
}
a
i>
-
£

&

Nw

La vekec bed thd. bide ef be

Wie mere
ph_

Oo

(mn

ON

14.

5.
16.

b7:

 

~
OF THE 2 \
oy
a pi
iry oF

CONTENTS

AIMS OF MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION.
PREAMBLE AND PROTEST OF NEw York.
PROTEST OF ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION.

WOMAN’S PROTEST To UNITED STATES SENATE AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE
— 1886.

THE WOMAN MOVEMENT IN AMERICA — 1902. Mrs. Caroline F. Corbin.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS AND EXEMPTIONS BY LAW FOR WomMEN — 1903.

SOME OF THE REASONS AGAINST WomAN SUFFRAGE. francis Parkman.
ARGUMENT BEFORE COMMITTEE — 1884. George G. Crocker.
LETTER TO LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE — 1884. Mrs. Clara T. Leonard.
ADDRESS BEFORE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE — 1385. Lon. Fohn Lowell.
MINORITY REPORT OF COMMITTEE — 1885. William H. Tappan.
ARGUMENT BEFORE COMMITTEE. Mrs. Kate Gannett Wells,

WOMAN SUFFRAGE UNNATURAL AND INEXPEDIENT — 1886,
Views of Six Distinguished Massachusetts Men.

LETTER TO Hon. HENRY W. BLariR — 1887. Mrs. Caroline F. Corbin.
APPEAL — 1889. Mrs. Creighton.
FEMALE SUFFRAGE — 1802. Letter from Lon. W. E. Gladstone, M. P.
OF WHAT BENEFIT TO WOMAN — 1894. Mary A. F. M’ Intire.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE — 1894. Carl Schurz.
LETTER TO REv. J. M. BucKLEY — 1894. Bishop Fohn H. Vincent.
Wuy I am OpposED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE — 1894. Feanette L. Gilder.

ADDRESS BEFORE COMMITTEE OF NEW YorkK CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

—_ 1894. Francis M. Scott.

ADDRESS BEFORE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE oF NEw York — 1895.
Mrs. Francis M. Scott.

THE NEW WOMAN AND THE LATE PRESIDENT OF WILLIAMS — 1895.
Fudge Charles C. Nott.

ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE ON WELLMAN BILL IN MASSACHUSETTS — 1895.
WHY SHOULD SUFFRAGE BE IMPOSED ON WOMEN ?— 1808.
EXTRACTS FROM ADDRESSES — 1895. Bishop Wm. Croswell Doane.

ADDRESS TO COMMITTEE OF REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION — 1896.
Mrs. W. W. Crannell.

ADDRESS TO COMMITTEE OF DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION — 1896.
Mrs. W. W. Crannell.

‘

2
a
%
:
=
os
a5
35
33
x.
x
a
a

—RMA AEE

peg SARC telah wih ob ee

49:

un un
i) e oO

Un

U1
Oo

_ Views ON WoMAN SUFFRAGE — 1896.

. THE MICHIGAN DECISION.

. TAXPAYING SUFFRAGE — 1903.

. TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION — 1898.

. THE OUTLOOK — 1897 — COLORADO.

Herbert Spencer, Bishop Vincent, and John G. Bright.

ARGUMENTS FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE CONSIDERED — 1897. A Wew York Lawyer.
Father Walsh of Troy, New York.
Seattle Daily Times.

PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
As To WoMEN — 1898.

DEFEAT OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN STATE OF WASHINGTON — 1808.
From Portland Oregonian.
WoMAN SUFFRAGE IN WYOMING — 1898. Mrs. Caroline fF. Corbin.
Reprinted from Woman's Journal.
NOBLESSE OBLIGE — I9OI. Mary A. Jordan.
AN OPEN LETTER TO A TEMPERANCE FRIEND. Francis A, Parkman.
OBJECTIONS TO LICENSE SUFFRAGE — 1898. Frank Foxcroft
SOME REMARKS ON PENDING PROPOSITIONS — 1897. Frank Foxcroft.
MUNICIPAL SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN — WHY? — 1902. Frank Foxcroft.
SoME OBJECTIONS TO MUNICIPAL SUFFRAGE FOR TAXPAYING WOMEN — 1902. —
Frank Foxcroft.
Charles R. Saunders.
Wes. 1. A: foster,
WoMAN AS A MUNICIPAL FACTOR — 1900. Priscilla Leonard.
Priscilla Leonard.

Mrs. Charlotte M. Vaile.

A HELP OR A HINDRANCE.

ADDRESS TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK — 1899.
Mrs. Rossiter Johnson and Mrs. Winfield Moody
ADDRESS BEFORE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE — I900.
Emily P. Bissell.
Ture NEw WoMAN AND THE PROBLEMS OF THE Day — 1896.
Popular Science Monthly.
THe BULWARK OF INDIFFERENCE — 1895. 2. ik. S.
REMONSTRANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE ON ELECTION LAWS — 1903.
frances J. Dyer.
EXTRACTS FROM REMARKS BEFORE N. H. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION —
1902. Judge Aldrich.
OuGHT WOMEN TO VOTE— 1903. The Guidon of Manchester, NV. H.
EXTRACT FROM ADDRESS OF MASSACHUSETTS FEDERATION OF CLUBS — 1903.
Florace G. Wadlin.
*XTRACTS FROM AN ADDRESS ON CO-EDUCATION — 1903.
Pres. Andrew S. Draper.
THE WoMAN’S BIBLE — 1896.

Pittsburg Chronicle.

Elizabeth McCracken.

A SUFFRAGE LESSON — 1897.
WoOMAN’S SUFFRAGE IN COLORADO — 1903.
WuHy WoMEN DO NOT WISH THE SUFFRAGE — 1903. — Kev. Lyman Abbott, D. D.

WomaAN’s ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY. Mrs. Annie Nathan Meyer.so

OPPOSED TO THE

FURTHER EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE
TO WOMEN.

 

The atm of thts Association ts to increase general
enterest in this subject, and to educate and stimulate
public opinion to an opposition based on intelligent
conviction.

Lhe method of work ts to collect and distribute
literature which the discussion of this subject calls
forth, to encourage the writing of articles and giving
of lectures setting forth the reasons for opposing
female suffrage, to present, when necessary, remon-
strances to the Legislature to counteract the Tae
of petitions presented by advocates of female suffrage

Lhe suffragists, in the face of the decisive vote a
November, 1895, when only four per cent of the women
of Massachusetts called for the suffrage, continue to
demand this undestrable and undesired privilege.
While they remain active and aggressive, it 1s wmpor-
tant that women opposed to female suffrage should
also testefy to their opinion.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Ex-
tension of Woman Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secre-
tary of the Association,
Mrs. Rosert W. Lorn,
P. O. Box 2262;-Beston.

er at oe 5 rete ceva re 7g8 $4 ERS HL SLELSL St ELE Tie Stster tate Pa Bet ee

    
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
 
 
    
   
      

esis Sm

~~

  

Ue Mihai tah tin MAE Leta

~
Fe cage Fay (em

ABA hl eg ht bat
Ne aCOrY OF PREAMBLE AND PROVES.

We, Amertcan women, citizens of the State of New York,
protest against the proposal to impose the obligation of
suffrage upon the women cf this State, for the following, among
other reasons :—

I. Because suffrage is to be regarded not as a privilege to
be enjoyed, but asa duty to be performed.

£4

2. Because hitherto the women of this State have enjoyed
exemption from this burdensome duty, and no adequate reason
has been assigned for depriving them of that immunity.

“4

3. Because conferring suffrage upon the women who claim
it would impose suffrage upon the many women who neither
desire it as a privilege nor regard it as their duty.

4. Because the need of America is not an increased quantity,
but an improved quality, of the vote, and there is no adequate
reason to believe that woman’s suffrage by doubling the vote
will improve its quality.

5. Because the household, not the individual, is the unit of
the State, and the vast majority of women are represented by
household suffrage. , ay

6. Because the women not so represented suffer no practical
injustice which giving the suffrage will remedy.

7. Because equality in character does not imply similarity |
in function, and the duties and life of men and women are
divinely ordered to be different in the State, as in the home.

8. Because the energies of women are engrossed by their
present duties and interests, from which men cannot relieve te
them, and it is better for the community that they devote
their energies to the more efficient performance of their
present work than to divert them to new fields of activity.

SERN
eee ee <i
RU PELL Uh Cl Lame tt

g.- Because political equality will deprive women of special
privileges hitherto accorded to her by the law.

      

a

10. Because suffrage logically involves the holding of
public office, and office-holding is inconsistent with the duties

of most women.

  
 
  
 
 

BAe eH Moe hth

Copy of Preamble to the Protest prepared by Committee of Brooklyn Women,
which was extensively signed, and sent to the Constitutional Convention in May,
1894.

BROOKLYN AUXILIARY,
NeW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE
EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN,

   

Bi Pare si eR GA a cel

baat

han rene
ayy Be
isk

navaat
= HAN

  

Aig

So a a a rE NT re oat

  

a7 RE ee be eee BO eB A tel te
eat%
©

if
“Aya

alee

aeTo THE HonorasLte THE MEMBERS OF THE

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS:

The Honorable Judiciary Committee of the Senate hay-
ing returned ‘the Joint-Resolution for an Amendment to the
Constitution giving women the right to vote at all elections
without recommendation, thus opening the question for debate,
the Hlnois Remonstrants against Woman Suffrage desire to
be heard.

We are told that many and numerously-signed petitions in
favor of the resolution have been presented to your Honorable
Body by women in various parts of the State. We have
offered no petitions for the following reasons: It is well
known that the labor involved in circulating these petitions
and inducing people to sign them is not only great in itself,
it is also very exciting and wearing to the nervous strength of
the women engaged in the work. If there were two factions
engaged in the same enterprise upon opposite sides of the
question, there would be likely to be much heated discussion,
some angry recrimination, and much time spent in making
proselytes, which might be put to a nobler and more practical
use. We have no desire for such work, no feeling of sympathy
with it, and we believe that the element of general discord
and unrest which would thereby be introduced into the atmos-
phere of the home and of social life would be most unfortunate.

And to what result? Let history and very recent history
answer. We have the honor to lay before you a brief account
of recent events in Massachusetts, in regard to woman suffrage.

It is now more than thirty years since the legislative cam-
paign was actively begun there. The cause has had the
championship of Lucy Stone, Mary Livermore, Dr. Blackwell,
and others of the ablest men and women who are enlisted

ER oO Ee ak BO ee od ee ee ee Ee
pss 5 1

    
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
    
 
  
     

a

Seetiedidefihe{ Ph tetthe Abel halle eas per rey IA That bdto 4
ne RAO al ahah iy “ ia SA A, bs A OCA Sk

   
   

~

~

bearer pe et aw peace tre
Be Rat nate nat Sos oti

 

Never ronal5 ‘i -
“ys SANA DIA AAR
ADVI ue epbse at) lib ga

At

abt A SB ee ME an LOE iuileeromaii Ay

2

under the suffrage banner. In Boston, under the very eaves
of the historic State- House, it has established the Woman’s
Journal, the ablest and most widely read of all the suffrage
papers. Equal Suffrage associations have been formed in
every county and almost every large town in the State, and
the number of petitions, with numerous signatures, which
have been poured into the legislature year after year is
beyond computation. In the spring of 1895, the legis-
lature, by vote, submitted the whole question to the people
of the State, asking men and women alike to vote upon it.
The Women Remonstrants, who had also for ten years or more
been quietly opposing the cause, were convinced that the
better way for them to indicate their views was not to vote,
and so instructed the women in sympathy with them through-
out the State. They did not believe in women voting, and
they thought that consistency required this course of them.
On the sixth of November, 1895, the vote was taken. The
result we have the honor to lay before you in the Report of the
Executive Committee of the Man’s Suffrage Association of
Boston. It is quoted from Zhe Remonstrance, a paper published
for legislative use by the Remonstrants of several Eastern States:

To THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS:

After twenty-five years of agitation by the suffragists, the
question of municipal suffrage for women has been brought
to a test. The voters have been asked their opinion, and
have given an emphatic reply.

Never before has there been so full an expression of opin-
ion upon any question submitted to the people of Massachu-
setts. The vote for governor at the State election was 328,121.
The vote of the men upon municipal woman suffrage was
273,976. Over eighty-three per cent of those voting for gov-
ernor voted upon this question, while upon the most important
amendment to the Constitution since the war, that abolishing
the poll-tax as a prerequisite for voting, only sixty-one per
cent of those voting for governor voted on the amendment.

Never before has any question submitted to the people of

aa

o

Massachusetts received so overwhelming a defeat. The vote
of the men was: “No,” 186,976; Yes,” 87,000,-a “No”
majority of 99,976, only 24 short of a round 100,000. The
vote in 1889 on the prohibition amendment to the Constitu-
fon -was.. “No,” 131,062; “Yes,” 85,242,--a- “No” majority
of 45,820. So that the majority against woman suffrage in
Massachusetts is more than twice as* great as that against
prohibition.

The vote of the women on the suffrage question: ‘“ Yes,”
22,204; “No,” 864, is as significant as that of the men. By
the census of 1895 the number of men in Massachusetts quali-
fied to register and vote is 561,699. The number of women
qualified to register and vote on this question was at least
575,000. Of these more than 550,000 declined to vote, and
less than four in a hundred voted “Yes.” In other words,
more than 96 pér cent of the women of the Commonwealth
either prefer the present status of the suffrage, or are wholly
indifferent in the matter. :

In 47 towns not one woman voted ‘‘Yes,” and in 138 other
towns the women voting ‘‘Yes” numbered fifteen or less. As
the vast majority of the women opposed to the suffrage ex-
pressed their opinion by refusing to vote, the women’s vote,
for purposes of tabulation, has little value. In the following
statement of votes, therefore, the votes of the men alone are
considered :

Massachusetts has 31 cities and 322 towns. Of the 31
citles every one cast a large majority against woman suffrage.
The vote of the cities was: ‘“‘No,” 120,657; “Yes,” 54,012,—
a “No” majority of 66,645. Many people have thought that
the vote against woman suffrage was disproportionately heavy
in the cities, but this was not so. The vote of the 322 towns
Bece “No, 66,319; “Yes,” 32,988,—a “‘No” majority of
33,331. The cities of Massachusetts contain two-thirds of
the population of the State, and in an even distribution of
sentiment should therefore contribute two-thirds of the “‘No”
majority. That is what they have done, and the closeness
of the figures to an exact two-thirds is remarkable. Of the
322 towns, 293 voted “No,” 28 voted “Yes,” and 1 was a tle.
The 28 towns voting ‘“‘Yes” were among the very smallest in
the State, their vote averaging only, “Yes” 51, “No” 42.

 

a rk

< eee

 

~ ~ cman
wwe eee ee

ii th pte be eee I

pa os ale

Lod RI ed

Ae AlRes
Metis Age it

i

(S)

May: ayes UAE)

te

ped

AL, Asstt ST od a PE

ashe

Tee
Ya

4

Every county and every congressional, councillor, senatorial,
ana representative district in the Commonwealth cast a majority
against the proposition.

In view of such a result, it would seem that further agita-
tion of the question at present is uncalled for.

For the Executive Committee,

Francis C. LOWELL, Chairman.
CHARLES R. SAUNDERS, Secretary.

(Amended returns of the vote of the men at the State
election in Massachusetts, the question of municipal suffrage
for women, filed in the office of the Secretary of the Common-
wealth, show a loss of 30 votes for the suffragists, making the
total vote of the men stand: “No,” 186,976; ‘‘Yes,” 86,970,
—-a majority against woman suffrage of 100,006.)

We regard this as conclusive, not only as to the sentiment
of Massachusetts in regard to woman suffrage, but also as to
the value of petitions as a test of public sentiment. It 1s also
worth while to notice that the plea for suffrage in Massachu-
setts, as elsewhere, had been noisily and persistently claimed
to be made by che women of Massachusetts. To read suffrage
documents, it would sometimes seem that the women of these
United States were languishing and fit to perish for the want
of suffrage. As a matter of fact, of the 575,000 women in
Massachusetts who were qualified to register and-vote on
this question, less than four per cent, under all the pressure
that the suffragists could bring to bear on them—and it was
very considerable, could be induced to cast that simple ballot
which would have gone so far toward giving them their

 

‘political freedom.”

But let us look at some of the pleas advanced in behalf
of woman suffrage.

It is sometimes said that women object to being classed
by the Constitution with minors, idiots, criminals, paupers, and
the insane. There may be some force in this plea. Person-5

ally we have never been practically inconvenienced by the fact,
neither do we believe the majority of women are so troubled.
But if there are any women who feel themselves in danger of
being confounded with any of the above-mentioned classes,
of course they have a right to complain; we do not think
the feeling is general. Most women regard the provision that
such men shall not vote as a wise one, and feel themselves, as
women, in no way affected thereby.

The Revolutionary war-cry, “Taxation without representa-
tion is tyranny,” is also invoked in behalf of woman suffrage.
The fallacy of this argument, if argument it can be called,
has been so often exposed that there is little left to say except
this: The colonies complained that as colonies or communi-
ties they were taxed by Great Britain without being repre-
sented in her parliament. Now if any community in these
United States could be found not represented in the law-
making body of the State, by its true and natural representa-
tives, then there would be pertinency in the above cry; but
the truth is that every community is represented by those
upon whom nature and civilization have laid the burden of
civil government. And this brings us to the question which
we believe is the fundamental and pivotal one of this whole
issue. It is the question of sex. We believe that men are
ordained to govern in all forceful and material matters, decause
they are men, physically and intellectually strong, virile, aggres-
sive; while women, by the same decree of God and nature,
are equally fitted to bear rule in a higher and more spiritual
realm, where the strong frame and the weighty brain count
for-less, but the finer fibre of the woman’s body and the
Spiritual uplifting of her affections and her soul are the indi-
cations of a power not less than that of man, and even more
necessary to the progress and elevation of the race.

What the effect of the participation in political life and its
duties would be upon the finer nature of woman is told better

ERS SSP Ss oe met
. Z SeEry SEPA ee ae
te ee ee de ee aes
aati

Fa bleh tc heh eld rey

nape nani

OA ae ee

ee

 

     
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
    
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    
  

Cgc

¥

Vaythan we can tell it in an article herewith inclosed which
we copy from Harpers Bazar of February 13, 1897, entitled
BURDEN OR PRIVILEGE.

Is such work as that which is outlined in this article, the
work of managing primaries, of serving on campaign com-
mittees, of adjusting by mutual barganing and concession the
complicated working of the political mechanism, the best use
to which the time and strength and nervous energy of woman ~
can be put? It seems to us there can be but one answer to
the question from any intelligent man or woman. Certainly
the person who can sincerely answer it in the affirmative, has
a very low conception of what the true mission of woman is.

One of the strongest pleas urged by the suffragists is, that
the votes of women would have a beneficial effect upon
legislation in regard to intemperance and other kindred evils.
If this were true, it would be an argument worthy of pro-
found attention. But the history of prohibitory legislation
does. not bear out the plea.

In a recent scholarly and scientific investigation of ‘The
Liquor Problem in its Legislative Aspects,” conducted for
three years, at an expense of several thousand dollars, under
the auspices of President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard Uni-
versity, and President Seth Low of Columbia University, and
Mr. James C. Carter, the result of which is published by
their authority, it has been demonstrated that prohibitory
legislation not only does not effect the suppression of the
liquor traffic, nor materially reduce intemperance, but that
the evils of disregard of law, violation of oaths, public dis-
respect for courts and judicial procedure, and habits of eva-
sion and shamelessness, which prohibition fosters, far outweigh
any good results obtained.

It follows conclusively that the true method of suppress-
ing intemperance and kindred evils is not through legislation
mainly, but by means of moral education and training; and

stst4 1 Ly
we wish to emphasize what we believe to be the truth, namely,
that there is no other power on earth which has the means of
moral control so nearly at hand as woman. It is the com-
pensation which woman owes to the State for the protection
which she enjoys in the home, and for immunity from public
labor and service, that she should rear her children with
right habits, and instill into their minds true principles and
noble ideals of life; and she can not do this while she is
managing political machines and besieging legislatures. The
best and most practical means of securing moral reforms lie
at the hearthstone, and are one with its holy privileges and

duties; and it is there that woman’s noblest and most effec-
tive work must be done.

In conclusion, gentlemen, we entreat you to remember that
the answer to this question lies wholly in your hands. - Will
you as legislators, pledged to act for the best interests of the
Commonwealth, at the behest of a very small minority of the
women of the State, take the responsibility of doubling our
already too large ignorant and irresponsible vote? of putting
questions of taxation and expenditure in the hands of those
who have the least experience as producers and conservers of
property? Will you reduce the power of women in their own
estate by exacting of them duties which belong to yours?
Will you, in short, overturn the settled order of civilized
society, and make a muddle of what the ages have been
engaged in reducing to system and regularity? We ask you,
in spite of that well known amiability which predisposes every
son of Adam to yield to the persistent importunities of women,
to take counsel of your own right reason, and act in accord-
ance with what we are sure its dictates will be found to be.

For the Remonstrants,
CAROLINE F. CORBIN.
597 Dearborn Avenue,
CuicaGco, February 24, 1897.

i
Pe
s
Ta
133
ee
Ie
=

Nel bd eho

Hverteun erreur.
wey %.

pe EO a al ne

gee

Be

Vig ARPES pie Maire gr 5)

Tn

ny . AL
earn "
het er

~~
Ay

NS
»

r ; ‘ = —— Soe
ESE NIT a
—

i}
i
t
f
\
at3")
3
oe
t
+
=
. is
2
<
=
=.

SSM

Cae a as Suh if

(j
cx

XiWOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN
SUFFRACE,

Reprinted from the Minority Report made to the Senate of the
United States, 1886,

VE acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to
have no less ability to perform the duties which God has
imposed upon us than they have to perform those imposed
upon them.

We believe that God has wisely and well adapted each
sex to the proper performance of the duties of each.

We believe our trusts to be as important and sacred as
any that exist on earth.

We believe woman suffrage would relatively lessen the
influence of the intelligent and true, and increase the
influence of the ignorant and vicious.

We feel that our present duties fill up the whole measure
of our time and ability, and are such as none but ourselves
can perform. Our appreciation of their importance re-
quires us to protest against all efforts to infringe upon our
rights by imposing upon us those obligations which cannot
be separated from suffrage, but which, as we think, cannot
be performed by us without the sacrifice of the highest
interests of our families and of society.

It is our fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons who rep-
resent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and our brothers
love us; our husbands are our choice and one with us;
our sons are what we make them. We are content that
they represent zs in the corn-field, on the battle-field, and
at the ballot-box, and we ¢em in the school-room, at the
fireside, and at the cradle, believing our representation
even at the ballot-box to be thus more full and impartial
than it would be were the views of the few who wish suf-
frage adopted, contrary to the judgment of the many.

We do therefore respectfully protest against any legis-
lation to establish ‘‘ woman suffrage” in our land, or ‘in
any part of it.

2
@

Lin

4 Dasa. haf ted Arde het het heated) ele tied hehe F Adi beleeil eery,
REPT te ort on Wet AB A at td ar tah ie Gaol Vs) Ue

a

ae
pA AN

ile alma
aptetn ere=
he
Pa

A

Bir

waaay

LAV AS RN A ERO

paTHE WOMAN MOVEMENT
IN AMERICA.

The movement for the advancement of Woman began
in America early in the nineteenth century in the very gen-
eral demand which arose soon after the Revolution, for bet-
er educational opportunities for women. The founding of
Female Seminaries and the entrance of women upon educa-
tional, literary and professional fields of labor, were among
the most notable characteristics of the first half of the Cen-
tury. It was not till 1848, the yearof Socialist revolutions in
Europe, that the idea of the so called political rights of wo-
men was publicly formulated in this country by the calling
of a woman’s rights convention, The great social and polit-
ical disturbances during the next decade, which led to our
Civil War and the freeing of the Negro slaves, fostered the
idea of universal liberty. The emancipation of women there-
fore quite naturally became the cry of those philosophers
and reformers who failed to look deeply enough into the
complicated structure of civilization, to see that the admitted
limitations to the sphere of woman had arisen from causes
which natural growth and evolution were sure in the long
run to dissipate, without any violent, structural changes in
society itself.

The demand for political rights for women had how-
ever, this excellent effect. While the great mass of Ameri-
can people have never had any sympathy with it, have
always distinctly felt that it was contrary to the principles
upon which society, and especially the established relations
between men and women were founded, the very aggressive
and persistent tactics of the propaganda, have made it'im-
perative that the defenders of the true progress and
advancement of women should examine the basis of their
belief, and fortify their position against the attacks of their

4

+
is
t
3
“To
a5
3
‘ :
i%
eu)
Ps
&

—

eriprrraerenenrire
Ube het eh Hebi

Sad al

eee
be

neal Ue wre

Sra eae

OMG en rioea aol

oe
ry

> oe

SS SESE ESTE ES EE

“

i
-

va]

\

if

SOT rae ee Le ee oe Le oe ee Ee oe ee ae a
Ag a

a ary

AEA er OR
ARMED

v4

‘te For twenty years or more, this sifting process,
houchtful and studious examination of pros and cons,
nen quite silently. In 1870 it found its

went on among womel
first united public expression. In that year a very remarka-
ble paper was sent to Congress by women opposed to
3 | | i | ] is } 1 >» ©
woman suffrage, who felt that the time had come to make an

L2¢

the work of the Suffragists. This pro-

open protest against the WOYrk ¢ l §

test wa ‘tten by Mrs. Madeline Vinton ] a0 See wife of

Admiral Dahleren, and her coadjutors were Mrs. General
imiral SEG. J

ker of Mrs. Emma Willard of Troy, the greatest

nd co-worker ol I i \
yvoman educat rtime. It was signed by needle of
leading ladies all over the country, women of prominence In
ocial, educational and philantht ypic circles. In all, fifteen

thousand names were enrolled [t was thought at the time
that so wide spread and powerful a PL must end the
zation was attempted.

The agitation went steadily forward ite and in
snother decade it became apparent that further means we

xpression to the growing conviction of

necessary, to glve expresslo \ lc 5

, : ey ne ‘ ] is
the great majority of thoughtful. women, that the true ad-
vancement of won must come along lines sympathetic

, ] ] t i } T | Cc a ty Ne
with her pecullar endowments, and not through political

[In the early ’80’s a number of leading women of Boston
and Cambridge, several of them connected with State Boards
of Charities and Reforms, called a meeting, and without
forming any organization, commenced to offer quiet but
effective opposition to the efforts of the suffragists before

ia + V7 ]

he state legislature. Year after year, they met petitions

with counter petitions, arguments with counter arguments,
and succeeded at session aiter session of the le egl slature, in
defe lng the proposed Measures OF the suffragists. As the

contest grew more intense, and extended beyond the con-

fine aC) DQ, >TO] tO th St f large. many gentlemen4

became interested on either side; and at last the legislature

with a view to settle the vexed question forever, submitted

the whole matter to the people of the State, women as well
|

ac > | ae eee 5 ot é 4 x r
as men being permitted to register and vote upon it. The
ie rae ta lkans Noevemhes fi be
vote was taken November 6th, 189s and the result was the
most yverwhel in Io { c +} - Cl a
Ost Overwhelming aeteat for tl Ssullragists that any propo-
sitlon h id ver SU tain SA stan tha Al 4 to at Mia cap PR pace ;
LLO ila EVer SUStalIneGe: in UniG  OLale. OF NMiassachusetts,

+1] ' ] . rte << 7 , f ee
while the number of votes cast by women in favor of It, Was

. 1 G ~ C + x PD + f i} } a feed : y
less than four per cent of the number entitled to register and

te This f Frac} Iva )
VOLE; i nis LCE ClrGCliiahiy Gisposed: oO le Cl Mor the Ssul-
oo Wate sth atk 6h — x OT Spee cg ] Boy
fragists, that the women of Massachusetts desired the ballot
ry 7 ae <3 ts 1} 4 ° 4 4
I he anti-sulfragists of course, Supposed that so decide
. re 7 Wy Id yveaciit in at laac Caw aa Ro ee rig . C
a victory WOUIG TFeESUIt-In al lcast a Cemporary Cessation Ol
. <fe L, Cl “1 f+ : ‘ - 17 Al i a | es ‘ 5 oe 4] :
the contest} but cae Sullragist yy FEULET DEE UNGaAuUnted {VtoO, Ene

field. The Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Ex-
tension of Suffrage to Women; which had organized in May
1895, was therefore compelled to continue its work with in-
creased zeal.

Meantime, the Suffragists in the State of New York took
the occasion of the Constitutional C

Albany, in the spring of 1594, to pe

3 . %
male’ as aj
punged from the Constitution, Immediately a numerous and
«2 .
} ] -* - ¥ aN
powerful body of women appe:

) Sha FA CC EV AXE | sain la ee el oe SS
movement Petitions slg@ned Dy thousands of weil-Known

. 1 ; See va a ee ov eae eee A A oe Nie yA ee
and responsible women, Including an overwneiming Majority

- . Cog Ae Bere meant ihn LNX? he
of the tax-paying women of tne district, were sent 1n Dj tne

Albany Anti-Suffrage Association; while I
the contest called into action a very large contingent or the

best known and most influential women in the city. When
the Convention by meat
proposition favorably, the Anti-Suffragists suppose
their work was done for
already of the excitement and publicity Inv lved
t | al

disbanded

re eA ee

i

Pp
£
os
35
25
ay
x
=
%
£Bhi Pip < VPN yD Y

eee
=
ce
=
se
aS
S
eet *

OY. Xi Se

ae Se

4

yet to learn of the tactics of their opponents. Early in the
following year they commenced to lay siege to the legis-
lature to obtain the passage of a bill or Concurrent Resolu-
tion for an amendment to the constitution giving women the
right to vote. So quietly was their work prosecuted that it
was not until the resolution had passed the Assembly and
reached the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, that the Anti-
Suffragists awoke to a sense of the fact that their work, instead
of being finished, was only just begun. The resolution
finally passed the Senate, but a clerical error destroyed its
value.

The necessity of an organization was now fully ap-
parent, and on the 8th of April, 1896, the New York State
Association Opposed to the Extension of Suffrage to Women
was formed, with a standing committee of over one hundred
of the best known women in New York, while its member-
ship speedily rose to more than twenty thousand, while the
active interest aroused all over the State and through adjoin-
ing states, and the earnest sympathy and co-operation of the
great mass of home-loving women are sufficient proof of the
need and usefulness of the organization.

In the West there had been hitherto no strictly local or-
ganization of Anti-Suffragists, but in 1886, the attention of a
few women in Chicago had been called to the work which
was being carried forward at Washington, by the National
Woman’s Suffrage Association, under the leadership of Miss
Susan B. Anthony, and protests and memorials were from
time to time, forwarded to Congress by these remonstrants
with decided effect. They also addressed the Illinois Legis-
lature and the legislatures of various other western states,
besides keeping up a close correspondence with well known
women in many states; thus bringing influence to bear pri-
vately, upon public men, in various localities.

This work proved so effectual that early in 1897, Miss
Anthony announced through the public press, that findinga

S

the obstacles to the cause she advocated so great in Wash-
ington, she was determined to transfer the battle to the
Middle West, concentrating her forces in the states of Iowa,
Montana, Oregon and California. In February, 1897, the
Woman's National Suffrage Association, instead of meeting
at Washington, as it had done for the previous ten or fifteen
years, convened at Des Moines, Iowa, with the avowed mo-
tive of laying siege to the Iowa legislature then in session.
That its influence was considerable, there is no doubt, but
it failed of success. The battle in Iowa has been steadily
waged since that time, always to the discomfiture of the suf-
fragists, while the victory of the anti-suffragists in 1902 is so
decisive as to appear final. In neither of the other States
mentioned, have any successes been recorded.

The point of attack having thus been shifted from the
East to the West, the associations in Massachusetts and
New York, immediately urged organization in Chicago, and
on the 6th of May, 1897, the Illinois Association Opposed
to the Extension of Suffrage to women was formed. Com-
mittees for co-operation were also formed in several other
Western States. The work of all these societies has con-
sisted mainly in circulating literature, to the press, legis-
lative bodies, and leading men and women. Each associa-
tion has sent out many thousand documents and leaflets
each year and the work is still growing in volume and influ-
ence. Parlor meetings have sometimes been held, but
appearance upon public platforms and participation in pub-
lic debates, havé been carefully avoided.

The results during the six years of our organization
have been well summed up, as follows, in a recent article in
the Boston Transcript, It should be noted also that these
substantial victories have been won after fifty years of deter-
mined and vigorous agitation on the part of the suffragists.

‘Since 1896, when Utah and Idaho granted suffrage to
women, four other States—Minnesota, Delaware, Lousiana

2
é
ere
a5
3
ax
3
+
32

5

=~
mac lie

*

earn

PERS Gnibti ie et ehhh ihe

Sheer

i,

PPR dee ae bak he ng
a

Pee

ae aoa! ee
eT ee eee
vn

cg
vo BY

Seley

bs : or Eee ee, .
EE SEE a he ne‘ “i AHA
AN ai AINA a bli Al ble

Hi
rw Ay yar

f
ren

SAMS ANOMAPAD oan A)

a ced
NK

vA

ABAARANED AAA Hns

eee ‘ ae se -

i a

6

New York—have given limited suffrage for School Commit-
tees, Library Trustees or for tax-paying women. During
the same six years, or since 1896, women suffrage along all
lines (license, tax-paying, municipal, presidential, school
suffrage and constitutional amendments) has met with sixty
defeats in twenty-eight States * Fourteen of these States are
west of the Mississippi river, which indicates that the States
which are nearest to the four that have woman suffrage, have
no intention of following their example.”

During this long struggle of fifty years, several con-
clusions of interest have been established. And first, it has
been conclusively shown that only a very small minority of
women desire suffrage. In Massachusetts where the propa-
ganda has been longest and most firmly established, the
referendum of 189s proved that the proportion was less than
four per cent, and experiments with school suffrage which
now obtains in twenty-two States, have shown an even
smaller percentage elsewhere. Secondly, in the four States
which now have presidential suffrage, it is generally con-
ceded by thoughtful observers, even among suffragists, that
the good results so lavishly promised have noi yet appeared.
It should be noticed, also, that Utah, Idaho and Wyoming
no more than two

 

are States of very scattered population,
or three inhabitants tu the square mile—and very primitive
habits of life. Colorado is mainly a mining State with only
one ar two large cities. From observations of the results
there, the conclusion is steadily deepening that the State has
committed a blunder, not easily retrieved, the effect of which
will be to impair its reputation for good sense and sound
policy for many years to come.

Meantime the question of equality between the sexes
has changed ground in the public estimation. Nowhere is

*These statistics can be verified from legislative records.; Px 52

/

this more plainly seen than in the matter of co-education.
When certain of our large Universities opened their doors
to women on equal terms with men, it was thought by many
to be a great gain in the higher education of women, but
now three great co-educational Universities, the Stanford of
California, the Northwestern of Illinois, and the Chicago
University are calling a halt. It is found that the admission
of female students tends to feminize the University to a
degree that is rather alarming; that the change also is a
cumulative one, since the more the proportion of female stu-
dents increases, the greater is the tendency of young men to
flock to those Universities where the male standard is high-
est. At Stanford University, the proportion of female stu-
dents has been limited, and in the two Illinois Institutions
it has been decided that different courses of study, and
different facilities must be provided for the two sexes. Thus
the line of sex becomes more and more a distinct line of
cleavage through social and educational conditions, and the
logical inference is, that the same embarrasing tendency
would manifest itself in political life.

The experience of Woman’s clubs is also worthy of
The first Wom-
an’s clubs were founded by suffragists in the confident

note, and germane to the subject at issue.

belief that as fast as women become accustomed to lite-
rary debate, to the use of parliamentary law and to the
study of social and literary topics, they would lose their
aversion to the ballot, and augment the ranks of the suffra-
While most of the
clubs are under the control of suffrage leaders, the great

gists. The contrary has proved true.

majority of individual members steadfastly refuse to be-
come suffragists, or even to discuss the matter. They
quietly turn their attention to literature, art, domestic
science, child study, physical culture, anything in fact,

but suffrage. In spite of the gentle pleasantries of

    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
    
    
 
 
  
   
 
  
   

Titer rete Tho

ETI E eR Rare

PPR He th
Ress ei ME

Aa

   
       
    

rid

a.

typed iedetitiat tainted &
MAR ER WT al tata cD dt Nok Syn

\

  
 

aengnrens

ECA

ne TIA
(s bs pethidine
Nee aa SO

t

cum
ea acer a
ot MN

 

be bl
se isoe —————— 2S Ee a ee

8

the press concerning their very feminine way of doing things
and some excess of zeal on the part of individual members,
the Woman’s clubs have done much good in developing
women along the lines which Nature marks out as those
best suited to their progress and achievement, but they have
forwarded the cause of suffrage but little.

Issued by the Illinois Association Opposed to the Extension

of Suffrage to Women.

President, Mrs. Caroline F. Corbin
Vice-Presidents, Mrs. Samuel M. Nickerson
Mrs. Richard J. Oglesby

Mrs. Horatio N. May
Secretary, Mrs. Jas. B. Barnet./)y. 7
a

ae

ag,

Ar BREE STATEMENT OF RIGHTS AND EXEmp.-
TIONS WHICH By LAW ARE GIVEN TO WOMEN
AND! NOT TO MEN,

Under the Common Law and t
and of Massacl
women which

PO tenes PTT,

he Laws of the United States
lusetts many rights and exemptions are given to
are not given to men.

Citizenship is acquired more easily by
“ All persons born or natur

ject to the jurisdiction ther
and of the State wherein t

women than by men, as
alized in the United States and sub-
€of, are citizens of the United States
hey reside.” —(U, S, Const. 14th Am.)
and “ Any woman who iS now or may hereafter be married to a

citizen of the United States and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized shall be deemed a Ciizen. 7 Set) Gl Compiled Statutes
S€C. 1994.

Women are not obliged to do jay duty = ch,

176, SCG: ip
Women are not obliged to do military duty.— R. [.. ch. 16, sec. 2. ¥
= : ~__ Hie
Women are not obliged to Pay 2) poll tax, —— oR Wi or £2) SCC. me ,
a

The Property of a widow or of an unm
age of twenty-one years to the
taxation provided her whole t

7 ub Gh;| to, sec. Fel og.

Women, by residing in a city or tow
and married women if their husbands have settlements, wil] gain
settlements, entitling them to support in case of need in such city or
town, although they have paid no taxes. Men, on the other hand,
must pay taxes three out of five consecutive years of residence
in order to gain such settlement, — R. L. ch. 86, see, 1, cls. 1 & &

oyees are exceptionally provided for and
es regulating labor. — R. J. ch. 106, sec.

arried woman above the
amount of $500 igs exempt from
axable estate does not exceed $1000,

n for five consecutive years,

 

Women who are empl
protected by the statut
36-41.

A a mm PA yruurecresmm sti +".
Minne rth

me dAdo eft,
HURL hbk edt beh

re -i mF ie
Set ys al tee =

Women are exempt from arrest in civil actions except for tort,
but after judgment has been obt

ained against them they may be fi
committed for contempt of court upon failure to Payas—R We eh:
é HOO: Sec; 3.

   
  
 
  
  
  
 

 
  
 
 

—

Married women are exempted from punishment for Many crimi-
nal and tortious acts committed by them in the presence of their
husbands, there being “a presumption of law that acts done by
the wife in the immediate presence of her husband are done by

ane

atte tama
eg Cite oT eT
Monn wees

By. '3

  

Re
Pt See Be on nn ol AE Be
ak So oe Be ae
a a ee
ee i el a oe ek ee ee ee
4 Sh tlie a Ska
TTI SS IE Ee EEE o—

7s Ce heADAMI AL py NEN Tg

TAIN

Lh

ae f
RPO ENN

AV Ais veil oe C0 eA ASIA Pa yee) ry

B

AKI

wn

pom

 

el a Cons sae y S i. ee “ omcun oe i 3 eo Te
- =n eee ee SEE ECE ES SE ad Hah SAE BEES
— = a = a Se So ey ee
~ — we = - Co at © Tor aioe

In the absence of evidence to

her under coercion from him.”
and the wife excused.

rebut this presumption the husband is held
— 145 Mass. 307.

A husband is bound to support his wife and children, and is
liable for debts incurred by his wife in the purchase of necessa-
ries. — 101 Mass. 78; 114 Mass. 424.

During the pendency of a libel for divorce, the court may re-
quire the husband to pay into court an amount which will enable
the wife to defend or maintain the libel, and may require him to
pay the wife alimony during the pendency of the libel. — R. L.
eh; 152; Sec. 14.

The rights of the husband and wife in relation to the control
of their minor children have been made substantially equal, and
now in any controversy between the parents relative to the final
possession of the children, the welfare and happiness of the chil-
dren shall determine their custody or possession. — R. L. ch. 152,
SeG, 20.

A married woman may now hold both real and personal pro-
perty free from the control and debts of her husband.— R. L.
cho 163, sec, 1. & 7.

A married woman may now make contracts and sue and be sued,
except that husband and wife cannot make contracts between
themselves or sue each other. — R. L. ch. 153, sec. 2-6.

A married woman may now carry on business on her own ac-
count. — R. L. ch. 153, sec. 10.

The wife upon the decease of her husband may remain in his
house for six months without being chargeable for rent.— R. L.
el. TAO; SEC. 7:

The wife upon the decease of her husband may be given an
allowance for necessaries out of his property. The amount of
this allowance is fixed by the Probate Court according to her cir-
cumstances and condition in life, and is paid to her in preference
to the payment of his debts. — R. L. ch. 140, sec. 2.

Aside from these advantages to the wife, the rights of the sur-
viving husband or wife in the property of the one who has de-
ceased are now practically the same. If there is no will, or if the
provisions of the will have been waived, the husband or wife, if
there are issue surviving, will take one third of the personalty
and realty ; if there are no issue surviving, then the husband or
wife will take $5000 and one half of the residue of the personalty
and one half of the realty. — R. L. ch. 140, sec. 3.SOME OF THE RE

AGAINST

WOMAN SUPER AGE

BY

ASONS

FRANCIS PARKMAN.

ISSUED BY MASSACHUSETTS MAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION

7A PARK STREET, BosTON.

BES ES ee EL EES ee ae SS it

Se

 
  
 
  
   

Ti Tat eet ha
PLACA HIN CRIS Wat

an as = 5 =
wa Srethettreriarre curerteere sept rrr . - idhediasuanc ee ~~
ae y SUM es betel ohike'thal et: be/he/ or Matt foetivndth dial Ph elthndbd i Seid tte ie Pehla fh PENT ETeRr nent Pty PT. Ah a eaeinn
SAT pa HMO Minden meh ach tn Rais ceamionenat Comet
tt fn bac A Rit Sn MY TNE er aa +

ATTA Te

Prints ani

  

i gt Pac ia :Soa ow Ls | :
er eS i

= r _ ao =
ner. ee
So sss er

CONTENTS.

ce PAGE
The Power of Sex ‘ : ; : ; : cae
Self-Complacency of the Agitators : ; ; : 2
Cruelty of Woman Suffrage : : ; i . : LP ae
Power should go with Responsibility . : : : i 3
Alternatives of Woman Suffrage . : ; : ; : 5
Political Dangers of Woman Suffrage : ; ‘ ; a
The Female Politician : : ; : ; 5 Doe
Men will give Women Suffrage if they want it ; : 6
Most. Women Averse to it : : : : : 6
Woman Suffragists have done nothing to prove their fit-
ness for a share in Government : : : : c
Permanence of the Relations of the Sexes : : : 7
Is Woman Suffrage a Right or a Wrong? . : : : 8
Woman Suffrage not Progress . : : : : 10
Woman in Politics an Antiquated Idea : é ; ae
The Connection between Voting and Fighting . : : Lt
The Voting of a large Non-Combatant Class dangerous
to Civil Harmony : : : : : : : : 1
Another Source of Discord , ‘ . : : : ae
Practical versus Sentimental Government . : ; ; 13

Fd
Pan

Shall we stand by American Principles ?

y
E
a

vA
Nike

He

lll Raa OT Fe t

om
i

ut

_

nian

eS eS si eT

 

ie ea eS Sh a el he Pa 2 ee PEL Rd.g , BySOME OF THE REASONS AGAINST WOMAN SUF-
FRAGE.

 

THE POWER OF SEX.

Ir has been said that the question of the rights and em-
ployment of women should be treated without regard to
sex. It should rather be said that those who consider it
regardless of sex do not consider it at all. It will not do to
exclude from the problem the chief factor in it, and deal
with women only as if they were smaller and weaker men.
Yet these have been the tactics of the agitators for female
suffrage, and to them they mainly owe what success they
have had. Hence their extreme sensitiveness whenever the
subject is approached on its most essential side. Ii it could
be treated like other subjects, and discussed fully and freely,
the cause of the self-styled reformers would have been hope-
less from the first. It is happy for them that the relations
of women to society cannot be so discussed without giving
just offense. Their most important considerations can be
touched but slightly ; and even then offense will be taken.

Whatever liberty the best civilization may accord to
women, they must always be subject to restrictions un-
known to the other sex, and they can never dispense with
the protecting influences which society throws about them.
A man, in lonely places, has nothing to lose but life and
property ; and he has nerve and muscles to defend them.
He is free to go whither he pleases, and run what risks he
pleases. Without a radical change in human nature, of
which the world has never given the faintest sign, women
cannot be equally emancipated. It is not a question of cus-
tom, habit, or public opinion ; but of an all-pervading force,

pre ES Ee

CE ae Be Be ee Le

ies bs \ Ma al i wn }
Hitch Hine Utah

cae
Chetase

OO ee Sd
Se —_ =

Sax 7s

er. ee 2 es ae £ as ‘ :
Peg ted ea ee ose Se Sa -e i ert
ve Cs = : os en Tes ~ — : = ss
win Sa Renan -

2

always formidable in the vast number of men in whom it is
not controlled by higher forces. A woman 1s subject, also,
to many other restrictions, more or less stringent, necessary
to the maintenance of self-respect and the respect of others,
and yet placing her at a disadvantage, as compared to men,
in the active work of the world. All this is mere truism,
but the plainest truism may be ignored in the interest of a
theory or a “ cause.”

Again, everybody knows that the physical and mental
constitution of woman is more delicate than in the other
sex; and, we may add, the relations between mind and
body are more intimate and subtile. It is true that they
are abundantly so in men; but their harder organism 1s
neither so sensitive to disturbing influences nor subject to
so many of them.

It is these and other inherent conditions, jomed to the
engrossing nature of a woman’s special functions, that have
determined through all time her relative position. What
we have just said

 

and we might have said much more —
is meant as a reminder that her greatest limitations are not
of human origin. Men did not make them, and they can-
not unmake them. Through them, God and Nature have
ordained that those subject to them shall not be forced to
join in the harsh conflicts of the world militant. It 1s folly
to ignore them, or try to counteract them by political and
social quackery. They set at naught legislatures and peo-
ples.

ST

a

SSS TSS SASS YTS AOPADD SOIL) TS

me

SELF-COMPLACENCY OF THE AGITATORS.

Here we may notice an idea which seems to prevail
among the woman suffragists, that they have argued away
the causes which have always determined the substantial
relations of the sexes. This notion arises mainly from the
fact that they have had the debate very much to themselves.
Their case is that of the self-made philosopher who attacked
the theory of gravitation, and, because nobody took~ the
trouble to answer him, boasted that he had demolished it,
and called it an error of the past.

—_—— T= TT)Enka i eB BB Ta nn

  

CRUELTY OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

The frequent low state of health among American women
is a fact as undeniable as it is deplorable.

In this condition of things, what do certain women de-
mand for the good of their sex ? To add to the excitements
that are wasting them other and greater excitements, and
to cares too much for their strength other and greater cares.
Because they cannot do their own work, to require them to
add to it the work of men, and launch them into the tur-
moil where the most robust sometimes fail. It is much as
if a man in a state of nervous exhaustion were told by his
physician to enter at once for a foot-race or a boxing-
match.

POWER SHOULD GO WITH RESPONSIBILITY.

To hold the man responsible and yet deprive him of
power is neither just nor rational. The man is the natural
head of the family, and is responsible for its maintenance
and order. Hence he ought to control the social and busi-
ness agencies which are essential to the successful discharge
of the trust imposed upon him. If he is deprived of any
part of this control, he should be freed also in the same
measure from the responsibilities attached to it.

ALTERNATIVES OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Woman suffrage must have one of two effects. IH, as
many of its advocates complain, women are subservient to
men, and do nothing but what they desire, then woman
suffrage will have no other result than. to increase the
power of the other sex ; if, on the other hand, women vote
as they see fit, without regarding their husbands, then un-
happy marriages will be multiplied and divorces redoubled.
We cannot afford to add to the elements of domestic un-

happiness.

POLITICAL DANGERS OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

One of the chief dangers of popular government is that

6 ae eS eesets eames Maiaemeies uate
: <—- nome een et a a a te

™ er Sy Ca eat SS | a2 AS a ;

4

of inconsiderate and rash legislation. In impatience to be
rid of one evil, ulterior consequences are apt to be forgot-
ten. In the haste to redress one wrong, @ door may be
opened to many. This danger would be increased 1mmeas-
urably if the most impulsive and excitable half of humanity
had an equal voice in the making of laws, and in the admin-
‘stration of them. Abstract right would then be made to
prevail aiter a fashion somewhat startling. A lady of in-
telugence and admirable intentions, an ardent partisan on
principles of pure humanitarianism, confessed that, in the
last presidential election, Florida had given a majority for
the Democrats; but insisted that it was right to count it
for Hayes, because other States had been counted wrong-
fully for Tilden. It was impossible to make her compre-
hend that government conducted on such principles would
end in anarchy. In politics, the virtues of women would
sometimes be as dangerous as their faults.

If the better class of women flatter themselves that they
can control the others, they are doomed to disappointment.
They will be outvoted im their own kitchens, without reck-
oning the agglomerations of poverty, ignorance, and vice,
that form a startling proportion of our city populations. It
*s here that the male vote alone threatens our system with
its darkest perils. The female vote would enormously in-
crease the evil, for it is often more numerous, always more
impulsive and less subject to reason, and almost devoid of
the sense of responsibility. Here the bad politician would
find his richest resources. He could not reach the better
class of female voters, but the rest would be ready to his
hand. Three fourths of them, when not urged by scme
pressing need or contagious passion, would be moved, not
by principles, but by personal predilections.

THE FEMALE POLITICIAN.

It is not woman’s virtues that would be prominent or in-
fluential in the political arena. They would shun it by an
invincible repulsion ; and the opposite qualities would be5

drawn into it. The Washington lobby has given us some

means of judging what we may expect from the woman

‘inside politics.” If politics are to be purified by arttul-

ness, effrontery, insensibility, a pushing self-assertion, and

a glib tongue, then we may look for regeneration ; for the
typical female politician will be richly endowed with all
these gifts.

Thus accoutred for the conflict, she may fairly hope to
have the better of her masculine antagonist. A woman
has the inalienable right of attacking without being at-
tacked in turn. She may strike, but must not be struck,
either literally or figuratively. Most women refrain from
abusing their privilege of non-combatants; but there are
those in whom the sense of impunity breeds the cowardly
courage of the virago.

, In reckoning the resources of the female politicians,
there is one which can by no means be left out. None
know better than women the potency of feminine charms
aided by feminine arts. The woman “inside politics’ will
not fail to make use of an influence so subtile and strong,
and of which the management is peculiarly suited to her
talents. If— and the contingency is in the highest degree
probable — she is not gifted with charms of her own, she
will have no difficulty in finding and using others of her
sex who are. ‘If report is to be trusted, Delilah has al-
ready spread her snares for the congressional Samson ; and
the power before which the wise fail and the mighty fall
has been invoked, against the sages and heroes of the Capi-
tol. When “ woman” is fairly “ inside politics,” the sensa-
tion press will reap a harvest of scandals more lucrative to
itself than profitable to public morals. And, as the zeal ot
one class of female reformers has been, and no doubt will
be, largely directed to their grievances In matters of Sex,
we shall have shrill-tongued discussions of subjects which
had far better be let alone.

It may be said that the advocates of female suffrage do
not look to political women for the purifying of politics,

Oe he ie at
4 eh theded hele FS d heaid Me 6
MED Sad a ad Sahat ag

Li ree

There Ren —_
See rerSa eaecave ga NE ah ee cae eee aaa dl SSS osaslisiees anaes eN ay 12
fae asa oe coe ee : a ah gn wa as i

¢

fe ™ ee ne ae

6

but to the votes of the sex at large. The two, however,
cannot be separated. It should be remembered that the
question is not of a limited and select female suffrage, but
e miversal.one, To limit would be imposmble 14
would seek the broadest areas and the lowest depths, and
spread itself through the marshes and malarious pools of
society.

MEN WILL GIVE WOMEN THE SUFFRAGE IF THEY WANT IT.

Again, one of the chief arguments of the agitators is that
government without the consent of the governed is opposed
to inalienable right. But most women, including those of
the best capacity and worth, fully consent that their fathers,
husbands, brothers, or friends, shall be their political repre-
sentatives; and no exhortation or teasing has ind uced them
to withhold their consent.. Nor is this surprising; for a
woman is generally represented in a far truer and more in-
timate sense by her male relative than is this relative by
the candidate to whom he gives his vote, commonly with-
out knowing him, and often with dissent from many of his
views. J

Nothing is more certain than that women will have the
suffrage if they ever want it; for when they want it, men
will give it to them, regardless of consequences. A more
than readiness on the part of men to conform to the wishes
of the other sex is a national trait in America, though
whether it would survive the advent of the female politician
is matter for reflection. We venture to remind those who
demand woman suffrage as aright that, even if it were so,
the great majority of intelligent women could judge for
themselves whether to exercise it, better than the few who
assume to teach them their duty.

MOST WOMEN AVERSE TO IT.

The agitators know well that, in spite of their persistent
importunity, the majority of women are averse to the suf-
frage. Hence, the ludicrous terror which the suffragists7

showed at the Governor’s proposal to submit the question
to a vote of the women of the State.

THE WOMAN SUFFRAGISTS HAVE DONE NOTHING TO PROVE
THEIR FITNESS FOR A SHARE IN GOVERNMENT.

A small number of women have spent their time for sev-
eral decades in ceaseless demands for suffrage, but they
have lost their best argument in failing to show that they
are prepared to use the franchise when they have got it. A
single sound and useful contribution to one side or the other
of any question of current politics — the tariff, specie pay-
ments, the silver bill, civil-service reform, railroad monopoly,
capital and labor, or a half score of other matters — would
have done more for their cause than years of empty agita-
tion.

PERMANENCE OF THE RELATIONS OF THE SEXES.

The agitators say that no reason can be given why
women should not take a direct part in politics, except that
they have never done so. There are other reasons, and
strong ones, in abundance. But this particular one is never-
theless good. All usages, laws, and institutions have risen
and perished, and risen and perished again. Their history
is the history of mutability itself. But, from the earliest
records of mankind down to this moment, in every race and
every form or degree of civilization or barbarism, the rela:
tive position of the sexes has been essentially the same,
with exceptions so feeble, rare, and transient that they only
prove the rule. Such permanence in the foundation of so-
ciety, while all that rests upon it has passed from change to
change, is proof in itself that this foundation lies deep in
the essential nature of things. It is idle to prate of the old
time that has passed away and the new time that is com-
ing. The “new time” can no more stir the basis of human
nature than it can stop the movement of the earth.

The cause of this permanence is obvious. Women have
great special tasks assigned them in the work of life, and

men have not. To these tasks their whole nature, moral

 

ota
aA Reena
hi ALGRUAUA Sb r TTT CALAL worpurE VTE inmereee
Bietinin MMT neni ret tee bua phy WAY ACTA UL a ar RoC eye ac pe Maat

——_
ee
Pal ite. ATs hah
uM ee es - 7”

ial nuit

wi

en
eu

SN inet
Ady

names

Iba

=
CR

ae

Dee

aoe ie
eater te er erate or 4 ' r
‘ ri} bbouiurt |
p natea ‘ees

8

and physical, is adjusted. There is scarcely a distinctive
not a direct or indirect bear-

“abuse Cr AURAL Al
Per
Hee ih SUR i. , ie

quality of women that has
ing upon them. Everything else in their existence is sub-

ordinated to the indispensable functions of continuing and
rearing the human race; and, during the best years of life,
this work, fully discharged, leaves little room for any other.
Rightly considered, it is a work no less dignified than es-
sential. It is the root and stem of national existence,
while the occupations of men are but the leaves and
branches. On women of the intelligent and instructed
classes depends the future of the nation. If they are sound.
in body and mind, impart this soundness to a numerous off-
spring, and rear them to a sense of responsibility and duty,
there are no national evils that we cannot overcome. If
they fail to do this their part, then the masses of the coarse
and unintelligent, always of rapid increase, will overwhelm
us and our institutions. When these indispensable duties
are fully discharged, then the suffrage agitators may ask
with better grace, if not with more reason, that they may
share the political functions of men. 7

TAN Aad
rural

A
ru

<<
=

zs 4
=
es
Ee
et

IS WOMAN SUFFRAGE A RIGHT OR A WRONG ?

(GREATNO

It has been claimed as a right that woman should vote.
It is no right, but a wrong, that a small number of women
should impose on all the rest political duties which there 1s
no call for their assuming, which they do not want to as-
sume, and which, if duly discharged, would be a cruel and
intolerable burden. This pretense of the female suttragists
was reduced to an absurdity when some of them gravely
affirmed that, if a single woman wanted to vote, all the
others ought to be required to do so.

Government by doctrines of abstract right, of which the
French Revolution set the example and bore the fruits, in-
volves enormous danger and injustice. No political right is
absolute and of universal application. Hach has its con-
ditions, qualifications, and limitations. If these are disre-
garded, one right collides with another, or with many others.

At wae

ANAT DAD DENY 8

AA

i)

dak
ve

if
i

SALON Mr Pt

ae (ZAM AG

reZ

Even a man’s right to liberty is subject to the condition that
he does not use it to infringe the rights of his neighbors.
It is in the concrete, and not in the abstract, that rights
prevail in every sound and wholesome society. They are
applied where they are applicable. A government of glit-
tering generalities quickly destroys itself. The object of
government is the accomplishment of a certain result, the
greatest good of the governed ; and the ways of reaching it
vary in different countries and different social conditions.
Neither liberty nor the suffrage are the end; they are noth-
ing but means to reach it; and each should be used to the
extent in which it is best adapted to its purpose. If the
voting of women conduces to the greatest good of the com-
munity, then they ought to vote, and otherwise they ought
not. The question of female suffrage thus becomes a prac-
tical question, and not one of declamation.

What would be the results of the general application of
the so-called right to vote, a right which, if it exists at all,
must be common to all mankind? Suppose that the popu-
lations of Turkey, the Soudan, or Zululand were to attempt
to exercise it and govern themselves by universal popular
suffrage. The consequence would be anarchy, and a quick
return to despotism as a relief. The same would be the
case, in less degree, among peoples more civilized, yet not
trained to self-government by the habits and experience
of generations. In fact, there are but a few of the most
advanced nations in whom the universal exercise of the
pretended “ inalienable right” to vote would not produce
political and social convulsions. The truth is this: If the

exercise of the suffrage by any individual or body of indi-
viduals involves detriment to the whole people, then the

= 4
4
AEE
| ae
ae
ae
Bo

$
Ee

bse
ay

+4
Eo
x

Zz

~
Z

t

Hales Pe eT

Pg

right to exercise it does not exist.

It is the right and the duty of the people to provide it-
self with good government, and this great practical right
and duty is imperative and paramount ; whatever conflicts
with it must give way. The air-blown theory of inalienable
right is unworthy the good sense of the American people.

ETT bib)
Wiad

tierce GAGS
we|
xa
eS
é

A
I
Ee
ed
ee
es
A
pa
A

=

 

10

The most rational even of the suffragists themselves have
ceased to rely on it.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE NOT PROGRESS.

Many women of sense and intelligence are influenced by
the fact that the woman-suffrage movement boasts itself a
movement of progress, and by a wish to be on the liberal
or progressive side. But the boast is unfounded. Progress,
to be genuine, must be in accord with natural law. If it 1s
not, it ends in failure and in retrogression. ‘To give women
a thorough and wholesome training both of body and mind ;
to prepare such of them as have strength and opportunity
for various occupations different from what they usually ex-
ercise, and above all for the practice of medicine, in whieh
we believe that they may render valuable service ; to rear
them in more serious views of life and its responsibilities,
are all in the way of normal and healthy development: but
to plunge them into politics, where they are not needed and
for which they are unfit, would be scarcely more a move-
ment of progress than to force them to bear arms and
fight.

WOMAN IN POLITICS AN ANTIQUATED IDEA.

The social power of women has grown with the growth
of civilization, but their political power has diminished. In
former times and under low social conditions, women have
occasionally had a degree of power in public affairs un-
known in the foremost nations of the modern world. The
most savage tribes on this continent, the Six Nations of New
York, listened, in solemn assembly, to the counsels of its
matrons, with a deference that has no parallel among its
civilized successors. The people of ancient Lycia, at a time
when they were semi-barbarians, gave such power to their
women that they were reported to live under a gynecoc-
racy, or female government. The word gynecocracy, by
the way, belongs to antiquity. It has no application in mod-
ern lite; and, in the past, its applications were found, not
in the higher developments of ancient society, but in theA |

lower. Four hundred years before Christ, the question of
giving political power to women was agitated among the
most civilized of ancient peoples, the Athenians, and they
would not follow the example of their barbarian neighbors.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN VOTING AND FIGHTING.

The advocates of woman suffrage have ridiculed the idea
of any connection between voting and the capacity to fight.
Their attitude in this matter shows the absence of reflection
on questions of government, or the mability to form rational
judgment upon them. In fact, it is with nearly all of them
a matter, not of reason, but of sentiment.

The human race consists of two equal parts, the comba-
tant and the non-combatant, and these parts are separated
by the line of sex. It is true that some men are perma-
nently disabled from fighting, and others may be disabled
in one year or one month, and fit to bear arms in the next;
but the general fact remains that men are the fighting half
of humanity, and women are not. Fundamental laws are
made in reference to aggregates of persons, and not to in-
dividual exceptions; and it would be absurd to exact a sur-
geon’s certificate of military competency from every voter
at the polls. It is enough that he belongs to a body which,
as a whole, can and will fight. The question remains, What
has this to do with voting? It has a great deal to do with
it, and above all in a government purely popular.

THE VOTING OF A LARGE NON-COMBATANT CLASS DANGER-
OUS TO CIVIL HARMONY.

Since history began, no government ever sustained itself
long unless it could command the physical force of the na-
tion; and this, whether the form of government was des-
potism, constitutional monarchy, or democracy. The despot
controls the army which compels the people to obey; the
king and parliament control the force of the kingdom, and
malcontents dare not rise in insurrection till they think they
have drawn away an equal or greater share of it. Finally,

Sa ere
Sey al

4
a
a3;
2
‘y
¥
7]ES s ae ee = aes Sete
Se es SRS SS eS — a =, sm I

 

ee
ag ES ee

12

the majority in a democratic republic feels secure that its
enactments will take effect, because the defeated minority,
even if it does not respect law, will respect a force greater
than its own. But suppose the majority to consist chiefly
of women. Then legality would be on one side and power
on the other. The majority would have the law, and the
minority the courage and strength. Hence, in times of po-
litical excitement, when passions were roused and great in-
terests were at stake, the majority, that is, the legal author-
ity, would need the help of a standing army. Without such
support the possession of the suffrage by the non-combatant
half of the nation would greatly increase the chances of
civil discord. Once in our history a minority rose against
the majority, in the belief that it could out-fight it. This
would happen often if the minority, as in the supposed case
of woman suffrage, had not only the belief but the certainty
that it could master the majority. It may not be credit-
able to human nature that if we would have a stable gov-
ernment it is necessary to keep the balance of power on the
side of law; but the business of government is to shape
itself to the actual, and not the ideal or millennial, condi-
tion of mankind.

Suppose, again, a foreign war in which the sympathies of
our women were enlisted on one side or the other. Suppose
them to vote against the judgment of the men that we
should take part in it; or, in other words, that their male
fellow citizens should fight whether they liked it or not.
Would the men be likely to obey ?

ANOTHER SOURCE OF DISCORD.

There is another reason why the giving of the suffrage
to women would tend to civil discord. In the politics of
the future, the predominant, if not the engrossing, ques-
tions will be to all appearance those of finance and the
relations of Jabor and capital. From the nature of their
occupations, as well as other causes, women in general are
ignorant of these matters, and not well fitted to deal with

as bee13

them. They require an experience, a careful attention, a
deliberation and coolness of judgment, and a freedom from
passion, so rare that at the best their political treatment 1s
full of difficulty and danger. if these qualities are rare in
men, they are still more so In women, and feminine instinct
will not in the present case supply their place. The pecu-
liar danger of these questions is that they raise class anl-
mosities, and tend to set the poor against the rich and the
rich against the poor. They become questions of social
antagonism. Now, most of us have had occasion to observe
-how strong the social rivalries and animosities of women
are. They far exceed those of men. If, in the strife be-
tween labor and capital, which, without great self-restraint
on both sides, is likely to be a fierce one, women should be
called to an active part, the effect would be like throwing
pitch and resin into the fire. The wives and daughters of
the poor would bring into the contest a wrathful jealousy
and hate against the wives and daughters of the rich, far
more vehement than the corresponding passions in their

husbands and brothers.

PRACTICAL VERSUS SENTIMENTAL GOVERNMENT.

The real issue is this: Is the object of government the
good of the governed, or is 1b not? A late writer on wo-
man suffrage says that it 1s not. According to her, the ob-
ject of government 1s to give his or her rights to everybody.
Others among the agitators do not venture either on this
flat denial or this brave assertion, but only hover about
them with longing looks. Virtually they maintain that the
object of government ‘s the realization of certain ideas or
theories. They believe in principles, and so do we; they
believe in rights, and so do we. Butas the sublime may
pass into the ridiculous, so the best principles may be trans-
ported into regions of folly or diabolism. There are minds
so constituted that they can never stop till they have run
every virtue into its correlative weakness or vice. Govern-

ment should be guided by principles ; but they should be

   

TTT TT PIT he
Wath

Letom nas
Ae Ni Ba

a

aia

Peta aeebefibeth Ah aE H TR Mt
aw RETA AT UN ta ta iP OA dM ad hy

Ue
eo

lta fei
etek

Megan gc
aa oe
i;14

sane and not crazy, sober and not drunk. They should
walk on solid ground, and not roam the clouds hanging to
a bag of gas.

Rights may be real or unreal. Principles may be true or
false; but even the best and truest cannot safely be pushed
too far, or in the wrong direction. The principle of truth
itself may be carried into absurdity. The saying is old that
truth should not be spoken at all times; and those whom
a sick conscience worries into habitual violation of the
maxim are imbeciles and nuisances. Religion may pass
into morbid enthusiasm or wild fanaticism , and turn from a
blessing to a curse. So the best of political principles must
be kept within bounds of reason, or they will work mischief.
That greatest and most difficult of sciences, the science of
government, dealing with interests so delicate, complicated,
and antagonistic, becomes a perilous guide when it deserts
the ways of temperance.

 

 

SHALL WE STAND BY AMERICAN PRINCIPLES ?

The suffragists’ idea of government is not practical, but
utterly unpractical. It is not American, but French. It
is that government of abstractions and generalities which
found its realization in the French Revolution, and its apos-
tle in the depraved and half-crazy man of genius, Jean
Jacques Rousseau. The French had an excuse for their
frenzy in the crushing oppression they had just flung off
and in their inexperience of freedom. We have no excuse.
Since the nation began we have been free and our liberty
is in danger from nothing but its own excesses. Since
France learned to subject the ideas of Rousseau to the prin-
ciples of stable freedom embodied in the parliamentary goy-
ernment of England and in our own republicanism, she has
emerged from alternate tumult and despotism to enter the
paths of hope and progress.

The government of abstractions has been called, some-
times the a priori, and sometimes the sentimental, method.
We object to this last term, unless it is carefully defined.

EI}
Sari

LUM ADAAM se

Salis

TAN OS

vk

Ae

lo

my Wt
Fe

é ae ei,
eee

BEAL AAPA In

Rykiel E

AS6 a a i Na

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

15

Sentiments, like principles, enter into the life of nations as
well as that of individuals; and they are vital to both.
But they should be healthy, and not morbid; rational, and
not extravagant. It is not common sense alone that makes
the greatness of states; neither is it sentiments and prin-
ciples alone. It is these last joined with reason, reflection,
and moderation. Through this union it is that one small
island has become the mighty mother of nations; and it is
because we ourselves, her greatest offspring, have chosen
the paths of Hampden, Washington, and Franklin, and not
those of Rousseau, that we have passed safe through every
danger, and become the wonder and despair of despotism.

Out of the wholesome fruits of the earth, and the staff
of life itself, the perverse chemistry of man distils delirious
vapors, which, condensed and bottled, exalt his brain with
glorious fantasies, and then leave him in the mud. So it
is with the unhappy suffragists. From the sober words of
our ancestors they extract the means of mental inebriety.
Because the fathers of the republic gave certain reasons to
emphasize their creed that America should not be taxed be-
cause America was not represented in the British Parla-
ment, they cry out that we must fling open the floodgates
to vaster tides of ignorance and folly, strengthen the evil of
our system and weaken the good, feed old abuses, hatch
new ones, and expose all our large cities — we speak with
deliberate conviction — to the risk of anarchy.

Neither Congress, nor the States, nor the united voice of
the whole people could permanently change the essential
relations of the sexes. Universal female suffrage, even if
decreed, would undo itself in time; but the attempt to es-
tablish it would work deplorable mischief: The question iS,
whether the persistency of a few agitators shall plunge us
blindfold into the most reckless of all experiments ; whether
we shall adopt this supreme device for developing the de-
fects of women, and demolish their real power to build an
ugly mockery instead. For the sake of womanhood, let us
hope not. In spite of the effect on the popular mind of theavery
Meth on,

Py wa
Hida ok tab

F : .
AMA AT HEA Pit Aoee A aukonist Ruel
: Ai V Dror ‘ 4

AN

WI MCCA IR
Perr AMA ray ae
A htabsieed

x ¢
i:
5
eB
53
a
ie
B
A
ie
ee
2}
5 a

”

tgged
pales

SN

BL LET Bu SIR PA MIP PAOLA

a on ee
f MPLA
ea eat

    

: = Bijiet J 7 - : = ee os fF aS see * : : ‘ eae
, Se SRE Se ae anaes © Aeneas a
She Ce ata oe eed ee z a oe ‘nseabatiaiiaiiios Dp aes aeaeYa secmren ont - = — ¢ Ste

16

incessant repetition of a few trite fallacies, and in spite of
the squeamishness that prevents the vast majority averse
to the movement from uttering a word against it, let us
trust that the good sense of the American people will vindi-
cate itself against this most unnatural and pestilent revolu-
tion. In the full and normal development of womanhood
lie the best interests of the world. Let us labor earnestly
for it; and, that we may not labor in vain, let us save
women from the barren perturbations of American politics.
Let us respect them; and, that we may do so, let us pray
for deliverance from female suffrage.

keprinted by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension
of Suffrage to Woman.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the
Association, Mrs. RoBerT W. Lorp,
P, ©. Box 2262, Boston,ARGUMENT |
7 a)
I

OF

 
   
 
  
     

Hon. GEORGE G CROCKER,

AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WOMAN
SUFFRAGE, JANUARY 29, 1884.

belied Fb ilod Nite fying i TET eI HL eurrereitnt CD
Neat EN Sa a pret thts etd ha

  
    

ee

    

. ee
weuatho there babel h/t Pe ibefe
fh ee ve

Recreate
dered eid RR

  
 

nee eer

-
Ranbir et or 4
aS nec ac a ASE as oS

Se I AL Se

a a ee hie i EO OS OO a ee ee a a aesiat htsa tae

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
    
  
   
      
    

ADDRESS OF HON. GEORGE G. CROCKER.

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE :—

I appear here before you to-day to state in this building, as on sev-
eral occasions heretofore, my convictions upon the question of woman
suffrage, and I am impelled hereto not only by a sense of duty, but
also by the earnest request of many ladies.

Of course, in the short time that is to be allowed to each speaker in
one morning devoted to this subject, it is impossible to treat of it in
any but a partial manner.

iit is claimed by the woman suffragists that the right of suffrage is a
natural and inalienable right, and if that claim is a correct one, then
their case needs no further argument. What is the meaning of a nat-
ural and inalienable right? If you will look in the dictionary, you
will find that a natural right is one which is fixed or determined by
nature ; one which pertains to the constitution of mankind ; which. is
essential, and is not assumed, put on, or acquired. If the right of
suffrage is a natural right, then it pertains to every man and woman,
without regard to sex, without regard to age, without regard to edu-
cational qualifications, without regard to any fixed term of residence,
and without regard to any requirements of naturalization. If the
right of suffrage is a natural right, then every one of the limitations
which we have imposed upon it are infringements of the right, and
should be swept away at once. The mere statement of such a propo-
sition proves its absurdity. Fortunately, the question as to whether
the right of suffrage is a natural right has been brought before the
Supreme Court in Maryland, in the case of Anderson vs. Baker (23
Md. Reports, p. 531), and before the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett (21 Wallace, p. 162). In
the latter case Chief-Justice Waite delivered the opinion, and it was

ent

VIMAR POM LI

A tehehh eho Ti
NIP Gl tare PO Mak As

 
  

~
pete

MRP eRe tere it re
Abb battdniteteh bie he

mem ee
SETI Ab yates es
raat oad

etme te

RE IS Sate

freee

Pretty

~*~

Suan
4vA
is

ire

LEAL SRN MMF jue

lm

IMO AK

 

ame Aart. Sees > s Rie = - a i i piesa ; 5 Bisse ;
a ae aha —_ =; a I a ee
_ - beceemmiehees eee maw atid eae an vente “ ct ede 4 = ness 3 oa = aha
a3 er: Ss

4

held that from the foundation of the government citizenship had ex.
tended to women as well as to men, but that suffrage was not, and
never had been, one of the necessary rights of citizenship. |

Our Bill of Rights says that “Government is instituted for the com-
mon good ; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the
people ;” and the Preamble to the Constitution says, ‘‘The body
politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals ; it 1s a so-
cial compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen,
and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by
certain laws for the common good.” “The common good,” there-
fore, is the end and the aim of government ; and what we are seeking
here to-day is to find out whether the extension of the right of suf-
frage to women will promote that: “common good.” I trust that
there is no woman here who would say that she wants the right, in
spite of the fact that she believes that the extension of suffrage would
on the whole not conduce to the “common good.” We are all ques-
ticning this, simply —what will promote the “common good” Lt
woman suffrage will promote that, then it ought to be granted.

[One of the war-cries of our forefathers was, ‘‘ Taxation without
representation is tyranny.” The colonies at that time were taxed by
the English government without representation in Parliament. They
were not only taxed without representation of their community, but
also special taxes were imposed upon them which were not laid upon
the people of England. They said, and said truly, “This is unjust ;
this is more than we can bear. Such taxation, without our being rep-
resented at all, without our interests and our needs being presented
in Parliament, —such taxation is tyranny.” That war-cry is invoked
to prove that women ought not to be taxed without the extension of
the suffrage to them. Our forefathers objected to the taxation be-
cause it was unjust. Is there anybody who can state to your Com-
mittee in what way the laws in regard to taxation in this State are
unjust to women? )The fact is that the property of women is taxed
exactly in the same way as the property of men, with this single ex-
ception, —an exception and an exemption in favor of women, — the
law providing that the property of widows and unmarried women, to
the amount of $500, shall be exempt from taxation. The laws are
more than just to women, they are generous.

Let us consider the question of taxation in another light. At the
present time the complaint of the tax-payers is that those who own
the property and who have to pay the largest amount of taxes do not5

have control of the expenditures and of the method of taxation, but
that the control is in the hands of a large number of people, who,
having no property subject to taxation, do not feel the burdens of tax-
ation directly, and that therefore they are not as conservative in their
expenditures or as wise in their legislation as they would be if they
were voting away their own property as well as the property of others.
Now, if we extend the right of suffrage to women, what will be the
result? The proportion of women who are possessors of taxable
property is smaller than that of men, and the consequence will be
that the complaint, the danger, the evil to which I have alluded, will
be aggravated. It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, I think, that thoughtful
women in this Commonwealth who are owners of property will not
be found advocating the extension of the right of suffrage to women,
The change would only increase the danger of inconsiderate, unwise,
and burdensome taxation.

Wherein will the extension of suffrage tend to promote the common
good? In no way can we form a better estimate of the probable value
of woman in the administration of public affairs than by considering
what her success has been in the conduct of private business. Take
a simple case. Women are liable to represent their property in Corpo-
rations ; but, in spite of the fact that they have that power, a lady sel-
dom attends a meeting of a corporation ; she almost always places her
proxy in the hand of some man to vote for her. And why does she

do it? Because she feels that man knows more about the affairs of-

the corporation than she does. The legal profession is open to women,
but they do not rush into it as if it was a natural outlet to their pent-up

energy. nd

Women go into the medical profession in greater numbers than into
any other, but their success there is lamentably marred by a large per-
centage of humbug and immorality.

‘The ministry is open to woman. ‘There has been no legal impedi-
ment in the way. It must be admitted that of all the occupations of
men none requires less masculine force, none is more appropriate to
the “higher moral character of women,” than the ministry, and yet in
that field the woman laborers are few and their harvest is small.

We all know that women as a rule do not go into business, and yet
there is no legal impediment in the way. The wives of these members
of the Committee are not members of business partnerships. Why do
they not go into a business firm with men? Why do not the members
of this Committee take women, married or single, into business. part-

es i

a ee©
4
fe
iat
a
<

AANA. PADANAT

AP Atay nh a a

RK AL AGAR AER a

 

   

Oh Me | One we =

 

6

nerships with them? The question answers itself when it is asked.
Nay, more, why do not ladies, when they wish their property to be
taken care of for them, get other ladies to take care of it? Why,
when they are appointing executors of their wills, or trustees, or
agents to manage their estates, do they not appoint ladies? The an-
swer is that they believe that their property will be better managed
by men than it will be by women. Now there is no reason to suppose
that women will be any more successful in politics than they have
been in business. The fact is that the elements which have inter-
fered with their success in private business will to a much greater ex-
tent interfere ‘with their success in public affairs. Should we not hate
to see our wives and our daughters taking that part in politics which
we men ‘are obliged to take, going round so freely as we are obliged
to, in order that we may gain that knowledge of the questions at stake
which will give us the groundwork upon which we can form a just de-
cision? The management of a city or of a town is the management
of a great business corporation. Do any of you gentlemen think that
the “common good” will be promoted, that the affairs of a city or
town will be better administered, by a majority of women rather than
by men alone? I say “a majority of women” because it is to be sup-
posed, if women are equally fitted, and are in a majority in the Com-
monwealth, that there would be a majority of women in the city and
town governments. But I will not state it so. Do any of you gentle-
men suppose that the affairs of a city or town would be better admin-
istered if there was a mingling of women and men in the government?
Think what the duties of the city and town governments are. ‘There
is the educational department, and in respect of that we have given
women the right of suffrage, because it has been argued that that is
their especial province, and that they know more about that than men
do. ‘There is the charitable department, which comes the nearest to
the educational ; but when you strike out those two, you come to the
question of taxation, and the affairs of the water department, of the
sewer department, of the fire department, of the street department, of
the police department, and of public buildings. Can any one claim
that the affairs of those departments can be administered as well by
an admixture of women? If it is so, why have business men not dis-
covered it and taken women into their partnerships ?

We are asked to try the experiment. The trying of the experiment
is a very serious thing, Mr. Chairman. We ought not to try that ex-
periment unless we are convinced, beyond the possibility of a doubt,7

that it will promote the public good, because that experiment will in-
volve us in a great many changes, intricacies, and complications, some
of which we can readily see and others of which we cannot well fore-
tell. Among the first difficulties to be met and expenses to be in-
curred are those which will grow out of the necessity of furnishing in
cities and towns accommodations for more than double the present
number of voters. This would necessitate, in many cases, a change
from a town to a city government. Let us now look at the question
in another aspect. The family relation is the natural relation. Upon
the perfection of that family relation depends the perfection of our
society, of our State, and of our nation. In all our legislation the
sacredness of the interests of that relation must ever have the most
prominent position, and our laws must be general laws. We cannot
make laws to suit exceptional cases. It is a common law principle,
that the duty of protecting and supporting the wife and children de-
volves upon the husband. This is the common law, but it is also the
law of nature. It can never be repealed ; it can never be changed ;
it will stand forever, because it is the edict of the Almighty. If the
husband is responsible for the protection and support of his wife and
family, then the methods of securing that protection and support
should be under his control. Persons cannot be held responsible for
that which they cannot control. The degree of responsibility is de-
pendent on the extent of control. If we hold a man responsible for
the support and the protection of his family, we should leave in his
hands not only the control of his business, but also the control of the
administration of public affairs, because upon the wisdom of such ad-
ministration depends not only his business prosperity, but the safety
of his home. Suppose that men and women are mentally and morally
equal. Upon any important question with reference to the financial
or business interests of the town, the State, or the nation, by whose
decision is it safest to proceed, — by the votes of men alone, who have
spent their lives in the practical solution of questions of business and
of finance, or by adding to their votes the votes of women, the prime
of whose lives, as a rule, must be spent in the equally important duties
of wife and motherhood?

I believe, then, that the extension of the suffrage to women will do
harm; I believe that it is not for the “common good ;” I believe
that it is a wrong, and not a right ; and, furthermore, I believe’ that
nine tenths of the mothers in this State know that it is wrong in prin-
ciple, and will prove injurious in its effects. Let man attend to his

~ zm
AAedbdhebed ti ef
Rey be cal ah eee bd

Het ELC Mh

ae

6 Ee

wf sg Ne SiN cena8

province, and perform his work as well as he can. Let woman attend
to hers, and be as perfect init as she may. Let each carry out the
Creator’s plan of the economy of nature, and, cheerfully assuming
their division of the labor, do it to the best of their ability. But when
man trenches on the province of woman, or when woman trenches on
the province of man, the man becomes womanly, or the woman be-
comes manly, and, in either case, they lose the influence which they
might otherwise have. |

j

eC
I
G
i
ie
ES
r=
Ea
a
aA
=
Es
aE

we

1 SMH SN

fe

re

BH

BAN

CUaeaN

I LRA AR A Re ful

aaa.

CEP Ee ae ee
Ee ae BE ne

LETTER FROM MRS, CLARA 1. LEONARD,

FORMERLY MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, LUNACY, AND CHARITY OF

MASSACHUSETIS, IN OPPOSITION TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Tue following letter was read by Thornton K. Lothrop, Esq., at the
hearing before the Legislative Committee on Woman Suffrage, January 29,
1884 :—

The principal reasons assigned for giving suffrage to women are these:

That the right to vote is a natural and inherent right of which women are

deprived by the tyranny of men.

That the fact that the majority of women do not wish for the right or
privilege to vote is not a reason for depriving the minority of an inborn
right.

That women are taxed but not represented, contrary to the principles of
free government.

That society would gain by the participation of women in government,
because women are purer and more conscientious than men, and especially
that the cause of temperance would be promoted by women’s votes.

Those women who are averse to female suffrage hold differing opinions
on all these points, and are entitled to be heard fairly and without unjust
reproach and contempt on the part of ‘‘suffragists,”’ so called.

The right to vote is not an inherent right, but, like the right to hold
land, is conferred upon individuals by general consent, with certain limita-

tions, and for the good of all.
It is as true to say that the earth was made for all its inhabitants, and

that no man has aright to appropriate a portion of its surface, as to say
that all persons have a right to participate in government. Many persons

can be found to hold both these opinions. Experience has proved that the -

general good is promoted by ownership of the soil, with the resultant induce-
ment to its improvement.
Voting is simply a mathematical test or strength. Uncivilized nations
strive for mastery by physical combat, thus wasting life and resources. En-
lightened societies agree to determine the relative strength of opposing par-
ties by actual count. God has made women weaker than men, incapable
of taking part in battles, indisposed to make riot and political disturbance.

\
(
Ni 7
BE ES a I i Pe a ae

iAe

WA HISAas ;

SASS PEASANT ADD ASO AT Tere ee

SD OMANAH

SRSA LL NOAM NS RENE UN eee

 

 

 

2

The vote which, in the hand of a man, is a “possible bayonet,” would not,
when thrown by a woman, represent any physical power to enforce her will.
If all the women in the State voted in one way, and all the men in the oppo-
site one, the women, even if in the majority, would not carry the day, be-
cause the vote would not be an estimate of material strength and the power
to enforce the will of the majority. When one considers the strong pas-
sions and conflicts excited in elections, it 1s vain to suppose that the really
stronger would yield to the weaker party.

It is no more unjust to deprive women of the ballot than to deprive
minors, who outnumber those above the age of majority, and who might
well claim, many of them, to be as well able to decide political questions as
their elders.

If the majority of women are either not desirous to vote or are strongly
opposed to voting, the minority should yield in this, as they are obliged to
do in all other public matters. In fact, they will be obliged to yield, so
long as the present state of opinion exists among women in general, for
legislators will naturally consult the wishes of the women of their own fam-
ilies and neighborhood, and be governed by them. There can be no doubt
that in this State, where women are highly respected and have great influ-
ence, the ballot would be readily granted to them by men, if they desired it,
or generally approved of woman suffrage. Women are taxed, it is true ; so
are minors, without the ballot; it is untrue, to say that either class is not
represented. The thousand ties of relationship and friendship cause the
identity of interest between the sexes. What is good in a community for
men, is good also for their wives and sisters, daughters and friends. The
laws of Massachusetts discriminate much in favor of women, by exempting
unmarried women of small estate from taxation ; by allowing women, and
not men, to acquire a settlement without paying a tax; by compelling hus-
bands to support their wives, but exempting the wife, even when rich, from
supporting an indigent husband ; by making men liable for debts of wives, and
not vzce versa.* In the days of the American Revolution, the first. cause of
complaint was, that a whole people were taxed but not represented. To-day
there is not a single interest of woman which is not shared and defended

by men, not a subject in which she takes an intelligent interest in which she

cannot exert an influence in the community proportional to her character ,
and ability. It is, because the men who govern, live, not in a remote coun-
try with separate interests, but in the closest relations of family and neigh-
borhood, and bound by the tenderest ties to the other sex, who are fully
and well represented by relations, friends, and neighbors in every locality.
That women are purer and more conscientious than men, as a Sex, 1S ex-
ceedingly doubtful when applied to politics. The faults of the sexes are
different, according to their constitution and habits of life. Men are more
violent and open in their misdeeds ; but any person who knows human na-
ture well, and has examined it in its various phases, knows that each sex is
open to its peculiar temptation and sin; that the human heart is weak and3

prone to evil without distinction of sex. It seems certain that, were women
admitted to vote and to hold political office, all the intrigue, corruption, and
selfishness displayed by men in political life would also be found among
women. In the temperance cause we should gain little or nothing by ad-
mitting women to vote, for two reasons: first, that experience has proved
that the strictest laws cannot be enforced if a great number of people de-
termine to drink liquor ; secondly, because among women voters we should
find in our cities thousands of foreign birth who habitually drink beer and
spirits daily without intoxication, and who regard license or prohibitory
laws as an infringement of their liberty. It has been said that municipal
suffrage for women in England has proved a political success. Even if
this is true, it offers no parallel to the condition of things in our own cities :
first, because there is in England a property qualification required to vote,
which excludes the more ignorant and irresponsible classes, and makes
women voters few and generally intelligent ; secondly, because England is an
old, conservative country, with much emigration and but little immigration.
Here is a constant influx of foreigners: illiterate, without love of our coun-
try or interest in, or knowledge of, the history of our liberties, to whom,
after a short residence, we give a full share in our government. ‘The result
begins to be alarming — enormous taxation, purchasable votes, dema-
gogism, — all these alarm the more thoughtful, and we are not yet sure of
the end. It is a wise thought that the possible bayonet or ruder weapon
in the hands of our new citizens would be even worse than the ballot, and
our safer course is to give the immigrants a stake and interest in the gov-
ernment. But when we learn that on an average one thousand immigrants
per week landed at the port of Boston in the past calendar year, is it not
well to consider carefully how we double and more than double the popular
vote, with all its dangers and its ingredients of ignorance and irresponsibil-
ity? Last of all, it must be considered that the lives of men and women
are essentially different. One sex lives in public, in constant conflict with
the world; the other sex must live chiefly in private and domestic life, or
the race will be without homes and gradually die out. If nearly one-half of
the male voters of our State forego their duty or privilege, as is the fact,
what proportion of women would exercise the suffrage? Probably a very
small one. The heaviest vote would be in the cities, as now, and the igno-
rant and unfit women would be the ready prey of the unscrupulous dema-
gogue. Women do not hold a position inferior to men. In this land they
have the softer side of life, — the best of everything. There are, of course,
exceptions — individuals — whose struggle in life is hard, whose husbands
and fathers are tyrants instead of protectors ; so there are bad wives, and
men ruined and disheartened by selfish, idle women.

The best work that a woman can do for the purifying of politics is by her
influence over men, by the wise training of her children, by her intelligent,
unselfish counsel to husband, brother, or friend, by a thorough knowledge
and discussion of the needs of her community. Many laws on the statute

EEE ee eS

Sa

hehe D ae pds td od itd hh
Ppa tel tal ab, PE aed al

Chey

hana react
et WE ay cathe

HIE hier

he < BusAS)
Nh. ry

Ane}
apn

)

HH) PTA NVA UT

y)

Aer it  ECuaian rhe .
SP ALA UMM MA Ae SN

AUR Rina

ees
ey

ee
5
=
Se
x é
eS
“|
V3

ae ed £> Odgers ; a 5
pe NE NCIS ta Reale oar eae
SS x = = J i =

a5, a

4

books of our own and other States have been the work of women. More
might be added.

It is the opinion of many of us,-that woman’s power is greater without the
ballot or possibility of office-holding for gain, when, standing outside of
politics, she discusses great questions upon their merit. Much has been
achieved by women in the anti-slavery cause, the temperance cause, the im-
provement of public and private charities, the reformation of criminals, all
by intelligent discussion and influence upon men. Our legislators have
been ready to listen to women, and carry out their plans when well framed.
Women can do much useful public service upon boards of education, school
committees, and public charities, and are beginning to do such work. It is
of vital importance to the integrity of our charitable and educational admin-
istration that it be kept out of politics. Is it not well, that we should have
one sex who have no political ends to serve, who can fill responsible posi-
tions of public trust? Voting alone can easily be performed by women
without rude contact, but to attain any political power women must affiliate
themselves with men; because women will differ on public questions, must
attend primary meetings and caucuses, will inevitably hold public office and
strive for it; in short, women must enter the political arena. This result will

be repulsive to a large portion of the sex, and would tend to make women

unfeminine and combative, which would be a detriment to society.

It is well that men after the burden and heat of the day should return to
homes where the quiet side of life is presented to them. In these peaceful
New England homes of ours, great and noble men have been reared by wise
and pious mothers, who instructed them, not in politics, but in those general
principles of justice, integrity, and unselfishness, which belong to and will in-
sure statesmanship in the men who are true to them. Here is the strong-
hold of the sex, weakest in body, powerful for good or evil over the stronger
one, whom women sway and govern ; not by the ballot and by greater num-

bers, but by those gentle influences designed by the Creator to soften and

subdue man’s ruder nature.

(Signed) CLARA T. LEONARD.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
Suffrage to Women.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. Ropert W. LORD,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.ADDRESS OF EION. [OUN BOW BEL.

f)e/7 Aptnre thro Bee eS Cc a x =
Delivered before the Committee on Woman Suffrage, in Boston,

March oth, 18385
De a eee eR ee
PRINTED BY THE REMONSTRANTS.

I have been asked to say a few words on the question whether,
under our free Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our Declara-
tion of Independence, the right of suffrage is one of those rights
which are declared to be inalienable rights.

Of course, it is hardly necessary to say that the Declaration of
Independence and the Article of the Bill of Rights which refers to
inalienable rights have nothing whatever to say about suffrage

That would seem to be a pretty sufficient answer. But there is
in our Constitution something about suffrage which shows clearly

o

on
Cy
VY

the opinion of the founders of the Republic that it was not one
of those “ inalienable rights.”’ Under the Constitution, as adopted,
every male citizen, inhabitant of the town, who had a freehold
estate worth three pounds a year, or personal estate of sixty pounds
(which at five per cent. would be three pounds a year), had a right
to vote. That Constitution, of course, was framed by the same
people who framed the Bill of Rights. They were persons, John
Adams and others, who had very thoroughly considered these “in-
alienable rights ;’’ some of whom had periled their lives for them.

Suffrage has been very much restricted in the freest country in
the world except our own, — England. They are enlarging it now,
and I believe they are doing well. But England was a free country
with a very restricted suffrage. In France universal suffrage was
made the chief prop of despotism under the second emperor. Na-
poleon III. was kept in office by universal suffrage.

Suffrage is a political and not a natural right. As our Consti-

awwusepreweye ~ mew iaevse = weeovye eaaw J

yVrawvenuw ve ere yuwe ecuampurnvy VE erro 1irvvor irsewrt

Vv

er peed) Pay

\w Ve \v ww NV

ry cr

Gale ates

oe and who most desire that no present change be made in our legislation

upon the subject.

SB a a a a a aiB
re

a
st
ES

£9
wal

 

lel fetch Atenas ty CsA Ew

AEE ee

a

a 4
9

VETS

»

YY

>
a

tution has it, it is the right of every person to elect and be elected
according as the same is established “ by the frame of government,”
—that is the way these men put it, who required a property qualli-
fication. That property qualification was done away with in 1820,
though Mr. Webster thought it had better be preserved. But it
was argued on the ground of expediency, and not of inalienable
rights.

I think it must be conceded by any one who has read our Bill
of Rights, or who thinks upon the subject, and believes that the
Bill of Rights is sound, that suffrage is a political right, a political
privilege, or whatever you may choose to call it, which is to be
established according to high expediency.

The chief point, which is almost his fundamental one, upon
which my friend and neighbor Mr. Bowditch made a very earnest
argument to you, is that unless women can vote you have no right
to tax them. That is not quite fundamental, because you can
abolish, of course, the taxes on the property of women, and leave the
right of suffrage where it is; but he says men are so mean they will
never do that, and therefore he thinks they will rather establish the
right of suffrage. He says that taxation without representation is
“robbery.” He does not give any reasons for saying that it is
“robbery,” — he says that Lord Camden said so, and that James
Otis thought that taxation without representation was. robbery.
Well, he admits that James Otis and Lord Camden did not mean

what he means. James Otis and his associates made this Bill
of Rights and this Constitution, and in that they provide for
this very thing that they had been fighting for. They say no one
ought to be taxed without the representatives of the people, and
they say the representatives of the people should be chosen by
those who have a freehold estate of three pounds a year or sixty
pounds in money. ‘That shows exactly what James Otis and those
who fought with him against “taxation without representation”
meant by it. Therefore Mr. Bowditch takes a maxim, and, giving
a new meaning to it, makes it the foundation of a very earnest,
very able and impressive, but yet a very peculiar Speech. die
brings up an example: he says, “I know a woman in Brookline
who pays nearly $11,000 of taxes a year, and she cannot vote.
Isn't that robbery?” Or rather, “I say that is robbery,” says Mr3

Bowditch. Well, I hope Mr. Bowditch pays $11,000 taxes. If he
does, he pays it for precisely the same reasons, and he gets for his
money precisely the same things that this lady gets, exactly. He
gets his roads, his gas, his water, etc., and he pays on exactly the
same property. Where is the robbery? Howiis that tax “rob-
bery”’ from a person who has for that tax precisely the same
equivalent that he has, and. who pays that tax on precisely the
same property that he pays it on?

There is no such universal maxim in morals or in anything else
as that everybody who pays a tax shall vote. It must have been a
slip of the tongue in which he said that if a man was refused his
vote the law would not compel him to pay his taxes. There is no
such law, of course. If aman is refused his vote, he may have
some action against the selectmen, but I do not think he will find
the tax bill on his property is any smaller. He means to say it
ought to be so, perhaps, but I really do not know what he does
mean. But he says this taxing is “robbery,” and therefore that
the governor, legislators, and judges, when they draw their salaries,
aie tecewing stolen goods. “And,” says Mr.  Bowditeh “in #
were a judge, I should feel every time I sentenced a thief that I
was sentencing a brother, for I am receiving stolen goods all the
time, because I receive my salary.” The remark was received with
applause, the reporter says, and I don’t wonder at it. It is the fun-
niest thing that has been said for months ; it would make the for-
tune of Gilbert in the Pirates of Penzance!

“Receiving stolen goods’? Why, every citizen, of course, has
some benefit from the taxes; Brother Bowditch has, — he walks on
the common roads. Why does he not go through the fields? He
uses the water the town of Brookline taxes him for. He uses the

gas. Why does he not go and put out the gas? “ Receiving
stolen goods”! — it is not worth while to say much about that.

But the way he reconciles himself to it is this, | suppose: no one
can be a thief against his own will; it is against my will that we do
not give women the vote, and therefore I am not a thief, and the
people who think with me are not thieves. Or, in other words,
everybody who thinks differently from me is a thief, and those who
think with me are honest folks, — that is the amount of it.

It is evident a great many persons pay taxes who have no vote.

CViIALUC Li

yewvipreewmrrerv awutisvist ao wLlitse
E E

cT ow TF rey

aeeUy.

\¥

\Y

ry

rn care

~

em

»

>

Liaw yrivgttwed Vx Ciiv Vader ey. VL CITVOY TTYL T1IteL

ested and who most desire that no present change be made in our legislation

upon the subject.

a
ae

 

W pe
AP

Ae

\

ik

irb

PAAR MMOS A)

ite

s

=
=

SF

Si

~

x

I :

i

EMR

 

A
sake

 

Our corporations have no vote, — they pay taxes pretty liberally. I
do not mean to say they ought to have a vote, — I am not advocat-
ing that side of the question, — but they have no votes. Some of
their stockholders may have or may not, according to where they
live, etc., but the majority of them may not, of course. Corpora-
tions have no votes, and a foreigner who has lived here less than
five years has no vote, however rich he may be, and however much
he may be taxed. The richest man in the Commonwealth has no
vote, if he cannot read and write.

The truth is, that maxim had nothing to do with individual
voters at all. It was a good maxim, and it was intended to say
that in a free government there should be representation of the
people, in order that the taxes may be voted by the people, and not
arbitrarily by a king or a foreign parliament, or persons who have
no interest whatever in the matter. The male taxpayers have the
same interest, of course, that female taxpayers have in all these
matters.

If you are talking about “robbery,” the woman in Brookline
who pays $11,000 tax would be more robbed by allowing two people
who pay only a poll tax to vote away her taxes than she is robbed
y not being permitted to vote. Universal suffrage is a robbery in
that sense. I am not saying that, —that is not my point; I do not
believe it; but it would be so upon their theory. The “robbery ”
would be in allowing people who pay no taxes to vote away the
money of those who pay all the taxes. It would strike directly
at universal suffrage. It would lead directly to a plutocracy. If
people were to vote in Massachusetts as they vote in a corporation,
according to the stock they hold, then the “robbery” that Mr.
Bowditch speaks of would not be committed.

I am not arguing for or against the suffrage. I have not fully
made up my own mind upon it. But I say that the right to vote
by man, woman, or child, above the age of intelligence, is a political
right, to be established on grounds of high expediency for the good
of the Commonwealth, for the good of the people themselves, for
the good of the women themselves, the children themselves, the
foreigners themselves, and all who are subject to our laws. On
these grounds it must be argued and on these grounds it must be

decided.

Se oe SOEMINORITY “REPORT?

OF LHE

COMMITTEE ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE,

[N OPPOSITION TO THE BILL: REPORTED: 210 RE Mee ote
CHUSETTS LEGISLATURE OF 1885.

THE undersigned, a minority of the committee, respectfully dissents from the
conclusion of the majority, and for the following reasons : —

The petitioners ask for municipal suffrage for women, which is at present
withheld by men, in whom the functions and duties of municipal government
have by general custom been vested. ‘To effect this change, or some such
change, they have for years sought legislative action, and to this end your aid
is now invoked.

Sincerely respecting the earnestness, the ability, and the undoubted honesty
of the petitioners, I am not unmindful that they represent a small minority of
the women of the Commonwealth, although they appear to have captivated by
their eloquence a majority of your committee. It seems fitting that a minority
report should be given representing the vast majority of the women of the State
who claim exemption from the duties of citizenship, preferring to have their
rights maintained and vindicated by the men of Massachusetts, whose zeal for
the highest welfare of their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters is surpassed
by no other State in the civilized world.

This vast majority of the women of our State, whose wishes it seems but just
to present, are absorbed in carrying out plans for benefiting the poor and the
ignorant, public and private charities, social obligations, as well as household
duties, and the upbuilding of our homes, which, according to De Tocqueville, are
the true foundations of the American Republic. They believe that they serve
their country more faithfully with their present opportunities than would be
possible if the ballot were thrust upon them. They are women so intelligent
that they do not wish to assume the active duties of citizenship without study-
ing the situation and attempting to solve the problems of statesmanship, a work
so difficult that they believe it to be entirely impracticable for them to do it
without neglecting the duties nearest to them, the efficient administration of
domestic, social, and philanthropic activities, which are essential to the well-being
of the State. They recognize themselves as unprepared by inclination, by edu-
cation, and by nature for the duties of electors ; and they claim that to inflict
these responsibilities upon them, because a small fraction of the sex desire ie
would be unjust and oppressive.

Believing, as I do, that four fifths of the women of this Commonwealth do
not desire this change, then by every principle of justice their judgment should
rule ; and so far as relates to the duty of the present session of the legislature
there can be no question of the imperative nature of our obligation to take no
precipitate action against the wishes of the vast majority of those most inter-
ested and who most desire that no present change be made in our legislation

upon the subject.

aOna AYO IAIS

SAYA ASDASA PAE ALUN ) Ste es:

SITY

oe
Ag
ia

b Ne tA Ma ae)

 

Would not an examination of our existing laws show that men are not un-
mindful of the rights of woman? that the enactments for her protection, socially,
morally, and pecuniarily, are abundant, and that if others are needed they will,
judging by the past, be cheerfully made? Our legislators will not neglect the
best interest of their own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters, and they can-
not legislate for them without also protecting every widow and unmarried woman
in the Commonwealth.

Would the ballot promote domestic happiness? In the early days of woman
suffrage in Wyoming I saw much of it; but I saw nothing I would like to see
transferred to Massachusetts. I knew an intelligent, contented family there in
which the husband was nominated for a justice of the peace (a trial justice with
us), and on the following day the wife was nominated for the same office by the
opposing party. The wife was elected. Can any one suppose the happiness of
that family was increased by that event?

Would the ballot strengthen woman’s influence? Upon this subject one-who
is widely known, and everywhere honored for her valuable services upon the
State Board of Health, Lunacy, and Charity, Mrs. Clara T. Leonard, in a letter
to the Committee on Woman Suffrage of last year, says :—

It is the opinion of many of us that woman’s power is greater without the ballot or
possibility of office-holding for gain, when, standing outside of politics, she discusses
great questions upon their merit. Much has been achieved by women in the anti-slavery
cause, the temperance cause, the improvement of public and private charities, the ref-
ormation of criminals, all by intelligent discussion and influence upon men. Our legis-
lators have been ready to listen to women, and carry out their plans when well framed.
Women can do much useful public service upon boards of education, school commit-
tees, and public charities, and are beginning to do such work. It is of vital importance
to the integrity of our charitable and educational administration that it be kept out of
politics. Is it not well that we should have one sex who have no political ends to
serve who can fill responsible positions of public trust? Voting alone can easily be
performed by women without rude contact; but to attain any political power, women
must affiliate themselves with men; because women will differ on public questions,
must attend primary meetings and caucuses, will inevitably hold public office and strive
for it; in short, women must enter the political arena. This result will be repulsive to
a large portion of the sex, and would tend to make women unfeminine and combative,
which would be a detriment to society.

Will the public welfare be advanced by giving the vote to woman? Miss
Mary E. Dewey, in a remonstrance bearing the names of many well-known
women, says : —

We believe that the common good will be lessened by the voting of women on polit-
ical questions. We believe in a wise division of labor, based on natural fitness, inher-
ited capacity, and functional occupation; and just as it would not be wrong, but very
unwise, for men habitually to exercise their indisputable right to manage the details of
the kitchen and nursery, so we urge that it would be a great mistake for women to mix
in the technical turmoil of politics and cast votes. Our influence will be stronger and
truer exerted in ways more congenial to us than the ballot box. |

Therefore, we pray you not to impose an undesired and undesirable obligation upon \
one half the community whom you represent, and whose wishes you are here to con- |
sider.

The Rev. Brooke Herford, at our last hearing, said : —

The exercise of woman suffrage in municipal elections in England has not been con-3

ducive to the intelligence of town councils. In Manchester ignorant and disreputable
men have been voted into office by woman suffragists solely because these men would
support a further advance of woman suffrage.

The effect of the experiment in Utah has been the reverse of that hoped for
and expected. Instead of checking and restricting polygamy, it has nurtured
and spread the red roots of that cancerous growth until the adjoining territories
have become badly infected.. There the women added their influence to that
of their vicious male companions. A Mormon patriarch, with five wives and
twenty marriageable daughters, is at least twenty-five times harder to handle
than he would be if woman suffrage were suppressed in Utah.

It is probable that in our State, in the smaller towns and villages, the voting
of women would be attended with no objectionable results, for in them intel-
ligence so largely predominates that doubtless the influence of any woman car-
ing to vote would be in the direction of sobriety and good order. But to in-
crease the number of legal voters in the large towns and cities of the Common-
wealth, where ignorance and vice assume such alarming proportions, by adding
the suffrage of the worst of the women to the least intelligent of the men, would,
in my judgment, be hazardous in the extreme.

What class of women most desire the ballot? We are frequently told by the
advocates that Beacon Street does not favor suffrage. In other words, the rich
do not want it. This is doubtless true, for they well know that the parlor and
the library would be very largely outvoted by the basement. That the great
majority of the reading, thinking, middling class of women do not want it is evi-
dent, and is generally admitted by the friends of suffrage.

Then who does want it? This, we think, is satisfactorily answered by Mrs.
Kate Gannett Wells, whose earnest work for the advancement of her sex is
widely known, in an opinion given before the Committee on Woman Suffrage in
1884 :—

It is argued that for various reasons we need not fear that the unintelligent will vote.
This must remain a matter of opinion between us and those who differ from us. I can
only say that my experience has led me to the contrary conclusion. I had occasion
one winter to be connected with some work at the North End. The women were too
careless and wretched in their ‘lives and in their dress to be here described. They
talked with each other in little groups ; many a one spoke of the time when she could
vote as the only vengeance left her to exercise upon the wealthy classes. Woman suf-
frage, they said, would give the unskilled workwomen more ample wages, for they
could vote themselves what they needed. Again, I was in a house where workingmen
came for their daily dinner. The men were also talking on this subject, and said that the
women must vote, “for we want the eight-hour law, and can get it through the women.
They must make the State give us work. The women must see to it that we have
work, and only work for eight hours.” These are but two instances, though I think
they could be multiplied a hundredfold; yet are they not indications of the way in
which woman suffrage may be urged to forward some special party measure *) Onee
let the great mass of uneducated women be added to the great mass of already unedu-
cated men voters, and the State will slowly but surely be shaken under the varying
demands made upon it for bread, work, money, leisure, and all kinds of laws to favor all
kinds of persons. When those times come, there will be more bitter animosities of
women against women, of secret warfare, of despicable wire-pulling, and of exercise of
the power of personal charms as a weapon of persuasion, than now exist among men.

It is generally conceded by the business men of the State that the great polit-
ical problems of the future are likely to be those of finance and the relations of

SS

ce eerroenineernesnaemn iPte: sy Deeb asee: eal AY
SEAM SIEM

CRT ETA a A eR

OMAP

o Nai! rr A

i fed Fo ie la

 

4

labor and capital. The consideration of these subjects will requ;re an amount
of experience and careful attention, cool deliberation, and a freedom from pas-
sion very rarely found among men. The ablest of the women, as I have before
indicated, have little time for giving the attention needful for such problems ;
and the least able of the women are not peculiarly fitted by nature, education, or
temperament for such difficult work.

Then what can be gained by increasing the vote of this State?

Will the cities be better governed?

Will morality and good order be advanced and strengthened ?

In view of the indisputable testimony accumulated upon this subject, I do
not believe it is wise to put this experiment to the test in the populous places
of this Commonwealth, where of all places the danger is the greatest.

The experiment already made in this direction in Massachusetts has not been
successful. Some years ago we were asked to test this question by granting the
women the right to vote upon the school question. The eloquent speeches
then made led us to expect a great deal from this, the first extension of suffrage.
We were told the women were everywhere anxious for the privilege, and their
voice and influence would soon place the educational system of the State upon
a higher and far better plane of usefulness. But the result has been a great dis-
appointment. Instead of an enthusiastic interest, we have found apathy and in-
difference. In his official statement the Secretary of the Commonwealth shows
that last year while 3,471 women registered only 1,789 voted.

In 1883, 2,778 registered and 1,333 voted.

In 1882, 2,570 registered and 1,181 voted.

In 1881, 3,032 registered and 1,437 voted.

In one county last year 68 obtained the right to vote, but only 3 exercised
it. This could not have been caused by “the oppressive restrictions to registra-
tion” so much complained of ; for, having registered, why did they not deposit
their ballots?

In this city, with 1,000 female voters, they have not been able to retain one
woman on the Boston School Board.

In the entire State, outside of Boston, there were last year less than 800
‘female voters,’ and we find too women serving on the various school boards,
and 47 of these women are on the school boards of towns in which there is
not a single woman voter.

These facts confirm my belief that the women of Massachusetts, who are the
leaders in elevating their own sex, who are foremost in promoting organized
charity, who minister to the sick, who enlighten the ignorant, who train the
children of the State for future usefulness and honor, do not desire the ballot.
Will it not be better to defer action upon the bill reported by the majority of
the committee until the women of the State want it entered upon our statute
books?

I believe the present distribution of public duties is not disadvantageous to
women or to society, and that it is founded upon the broad principle of justice
to both men and women ; and no sufficient cause has been shown for any such
radical change in our laws as the petitioners pray for, and as a majority of the
committee propose ; and therefore, in my judgment, the bill which they report
should be rejected, and the petitioners have leave to withdraw.

WILLIAM H. TAPPAN.

_| Against Woman's Suitrace.. i 2. = 30
pees Mite an favor of Woman's Suffrage-:.... . . 61

eh Do5 ee a

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

By MRS. KATE GANNET®: WEES:

 

DELIVERED BEFORE A SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE.

I have not come here with any hope of refuting in ten minutes all the
arguments of our pro-suffrage friends, nor is it necessary that I should even
try to do so, for repeated discussion of the subject has made us all familiar
with our own convictions and those of our contrary-minded neighbors. Still
less have I come in any unfriendly spirit to the pro-suffragists, for I know
many of them too well not to acknowledge that they are working, heart and
soul, for what they believe is one of the necessary, if not the most necessary,
factors in human progress.

The anti-suffrage women are women so busy in their own homes, so
occupied in charities and plans for the poor and ignorant, that they never
have had time, more than that, they never have had the wish to come before
the public, even in this Green Room. More than that, they do not think it
is woman’s place to argue or to refute statements in the arena of politics.
For years they were silent, passive ; their convictions strengthening all the
while, they expressing them only as social intercourse demanded. Buta year
or two ago reproaches were heaped upon them for their passivity, which was
called cowardice. They are not cowards, but they are women, and as such
they prefer to stay at home and do their part through their home. There are
but few of us trained to the public work of addressing you. Those few the
distance of many miles keeps from us, but there are thousands of women
who feel that if their silence is attributed to fear or to small numbers, they
must summon courage to speak, and therefore have they asked me to come
and speak as best I may for them.

I stand here because we anti-suffragists believe that the time has come
for us to declare that our intellectual judgments, our moral convictions, and
our belief in right expediency as one of the grounds on which governmental
and constitutional changes should be made, are entirely opposed to the
doctrine of female suffrage.

It is said that the casting of a vote is a slight duty, quickly performed.
If it were that simple mechanical act, we might not object to such action,
but to cast a vote ought to mean to cast it intelligently and honestly ; and
how can we gain that accurate intelligence except by attending caucuses,
primaries, nominating conventions, and supplementing general knowledge
as far as possible by personal acquaintance with candidates? Even if some
women have time and ability for such work, most of us have not ; and even
if we all had the time, is it desirable that the presence and co-work of un-
intelligent and depraved women should be added to the already jarring
factions of political life? Every woman knows that all women cannot purify
politics ; and if a good woman can vote, so can a bad woman! Therefore,

{
wi Ta aaa

Vues ee ‘ mas

eaSTONEY

Pe Peete Cs
cs

MLAS MM Ry OMtaM Es

RSAC A Aw carte,

ne

gentlemen, we say that to permit us to vote is to permit us to do many
impossible things, which, nevertheless, we ought to do as patriotic women.
The point in question is a vexed one between the pro and anti-suffragists.
They say we have no right to prevent their doing what they consider to be
right, and also that we need not vote because they do. We say that their
demand for extension of the suffrage does involve us, and therefore we are
put on the defensive against them. Party questions and reform measures
of all kinds will arise ; we may hold convictions different from theirs, and as
we also care as much for our country’s welfare as they do, when we see some
measure we deem unwise likely to succeed, then, to save our country or
State, we must vote; therefore do we beseech you not to grant female
suffrage. And if it is replied that women will only vote and legislate rightly,
I answer that I utterly disagree with such a statement. Women, as a rule,
will vote on the side of pure moral issues, but they will also vote for illogical,
inexpedient measures to secure some narrow, present good, which should be
outweighed by the larger issues of legal stability, validity of order, constitu-
tional and States’ rights, which are also involved in the immediate settlement
of any question.

What, then, is our general position? se

1. That suffrage is not a zatwral right ; if it were, no restriction of age,
property, or education could be put upon it such as now exists.

2. That the essence of republicanism does not depend upon every one’s
voting, independent of qualification, but that it is the sovereign people, and
not a monarchical power, who shall decide what persons may vote and under
what restrictions.

3. That to be deprived of a vote is not to be deprived of one’s personal-
ity ; we are persons whether we are voters or not, and as persons should de-
mand and receive careful legislation in all that concerns our interests.

4. Our opponents have rendered it useless for us to reaffirm that an in-
telligent woman is as capable of casting an intelligent vote as an intelligent
man, or that some form of restricted suffrage might perhaps be desirable,
for they demand unrestricted, universal female suffrage. They claim that
suffrage is an educating power. We “anti” women grant that it may be,
but we add that as the country is already so heavily weighted with an igno-
rant population, and that as our naturalization laws admit foreigners to vote
before they have become Americanized, therefore we, as true patriots, will
not burden our country with a great class of women to be- educated.

We anti-suffragists will not yield one iota to the pro-suffragists in our be-
lief in woman’s capacity for advancement in every direction; in her right to
receive the highest education, to demand equal wages with men, to work as
physician, lawyer, minister, lecturer, or in any occupation she wishes. We
also demand of our legislature that they erase from the statutes laws which
discriminate unjustly against woman. We also believe that she should
serve on school committees, on State boards of charities, and on all kindred
institutions, so that we wish to effect no curtailment of a woman’s sphere
except in the direction of suffrage.

And why do we wish that she should not enter upon that? Because most
women are not fitted for it. We do not say that they never will be, but that

they are not now, and will not be for some generations to come. Because

SY

‘IT am a woman, because I care for woman’s advancement, because I believe

that though a large number of women are already fitted to vote, an infinitely
greater number of women are not fitted for it, do I— do we — implore you

£t0nuLivu Vi vuvLeo.

(In favor of Woman's Suffrage3

not to give to all what at least most of us are not able to use rightly. You
cannot give us suffrage without letting loose influences akin to those which
have already debased politics and given rise to words of doubtful morality
like wire-pulling, bribery, log-rolling, etc. If you give suffrage to all, you
will speedily find that women are adepts in political measures, and will no
more shrink at trying all means to secure their ends than do men ; though
on the other hand many men do, and many women would, employ only hon-
orable means.

It is not necessary that women should vote in order to have the laws
more favorable for them. The changes that have already taken place in
them are due to the great progress of modern civilization within the last
fifty years, and have had nothing to do with suffrage.

There is an opinion in some minds that the State should more and more
assume a paternal relation to its population; that it should provide what-
ever is asked, and that by the making of laws, oppression and poverty will
cease. It is also supposed that women can legislate best for themselves.
Gentlemen, those who assume either of these opinions are asking the State
and the power of suffrage to do the work of personal righteousness. If
women can best legislate for themselves, why should not minors, both girls
and boys, ask to have themselves qualified before the present legal age?
And why should not one class of women legislate for themselves, and still
another class for themselves? That there are still unfair and degrading
laws is granted, but if we ask for woman suffrage in order to rectify them,
we open the way for increased private, class, and personal legislation of all
kinds. Is woman suffrage going to cure the evils that come from one’s own
misdoings? | Will a brutal, an intemperate husband be any less brutal or
intemperate because his wife has the power to vote? Will trustees cease
to speculate with their clients’ money because those clients can vote?
Again, it is personal righteousness that must do the work which so often is
expected from legislation and suffrage.

It is woman’s ignorance more than man’s wickedness, or the law’s injus-
tice, which brings about the evils for which our sympathy is craved. Suf-
frage is not needed to beget self-respect, or a knowledge of contracts,
investments, and the workings of the law, which if carefully studied before
action is begun, would save later needless misery. Lastly, it is argued
against us that for various reasons we need not fear that the unintelligent
will vote. This must remain a matter of opinion between us and those who
differ from us. I can only say that my experience has led me to the con-
trary conclusion. I had occasion one winter to be connected with some
work at the North End. The women were too careless and wretched in
their lives and in their dress to be here described. ‘They talked with each
other in little groups ; many a one spoke of the time when she could vote,
as the only vengeance left her to exercise upon the wealthy classes. Woman
suffrage, they said, would give the unskilled workwomen more ample wages,
for they could vote themselves what they needed. Again, I was in a house
where workingmen came for their daily dinner. The men were also talking
of this subject, and said that the women must vote, “for we want the eight-
hour law, and can get it THROUGH the women. They must make the State
give us work. The women must see to it that we have work, and only work
for eight hours.” These are but two instances, though I think they could
be multiplied a hundred-fold ; yet are they not indications of the way in
which woman suffrage may be urged to forward some special party meas-

: pe ata
a Nes a!

. 2 oe gs = Eom Ce
Se ee a a as a aeSO

i" Lg
“ ei AEA

St (HPI bas

G

Enon

RR shied

ee eS

SA a eenar

4

ure? Once let the great mass of uneducated women be added to the great
mass of already uneducated men voters, and the State will slowly but surely
be shaken under the varying demands made upon it for bread, work, money,
leisure, and all kinds of laws to favor all kinds of persons. When those
times come, there will be more bitter animosities of women against women,
of secret warfare, of despicable wire-pulling, and of exercise of the power
of personal charms as a weapon of persuasion, than now exists among
men,

“One word more. Even if in itself suffrage may be based upon the funda-
mental principle of justice, it does not follow that it should be applied when
great injustice must be done. No wise government deals in abstract justice
without considering the expediency of the steps necessary to remove Justice
from an abstract principle into a concrete action. ‘Therefore, if in close ar-
gument I should be forced (which I could not be) to surrender all my as-
sumed positions against woman suffrage, I could never be driven from this
position, that in the present constitution of events, of facts, — physiological,
social, financial, moral, and political, — it is inexpedient for government to
grant universal female suffrage.

Inexpedient! Yes, forever inexpedient, until the highest type of mo.
rality and the clearest sense of justice and the widest reaches of law in its
theoretical and practical applications are reached by all women. Women
now do generous, wise, and lofty deeds, and women now do mean, foolish,
despicable actions, — oh, how mean! how bad!

So finally we beseech you, gentlemen, to rectify all unjust laws against
women ; to strengthen the hands of good women all over the land in raising
the fallen, in teaching self-respect and self-support to the ignorant, in bring-
ing more happiness into every one’s life ; and to withhold from us the duty,
necessity, right of suffrage, whichever it may be called, until you can have
only zoble, honest women for your voters and legislators.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to the Extension of Suf-
Jrage to Women.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. Rosert W. Lorp,
P. Q. Box 2262, Boston.

&£t0nNULUL UL vwueuvu:.

(In favor of Woman’s SuffrageWOMAN SUFFRAGE

UNNATURAL AND INEXPEDIENT.

VIEWS OF

Rev. O. B. FROTHINGHAM.
PRENTISS CUMMINGS, Esq.
TOHN BOYLE OF RETELY,
ProF. W. W. GOODWIN.
RICHARD: H. DANA, Esq;

REV, |. P. BODEISHE:
Chancellor Cathedral of the Holy Cross.

BOSTON:
1894.

negiecteda Im tue pase.

 
 

peat ALAA ft Tet ATL ELT URE
er uaa aS Nad cad at Aubrey Sac RT Ad, ET ake he oe Me ha Bos ae a Ne ined

a |
1k
i)

: nace
Len ba pee. W!
BKM eelLtunuru ve vwuwueo:,

(In favor of Woman’s SuffrageREV. O. B. FROTHINGHAM’S ARGUMENT.

Tuts is a subject to be considered judicially; not with
sentiment, fancy, wholesale assertions, still less with impas-
sioned prejudice, or abuse, but with serious argument. It
has been said that all the argument is on the side of the
advocates of this reform. We take the liberty of doubting
that. To us it seems the very opposite of the fact. They
of the other side may possibly excel in power of appeal,
emotion, in feeling, in eloquent assumption, in sway over
the imagination, the susceptibilities of the heart ; but judg-
ment is all against them. ‘This is a grave, social question,
and it cannot be answered by abstract generalities. No
experience throws light on the problem. Our forefathers
would be very much surprised at the interpretations the suf-
fragists put upon their innocent words, “ people,” and ~ per
sons ;” nor is the issue of experiments in sparsely peopled
ppilores, like Wyoming, any criterion for States like Massa-
chusetts, or for great cities, like Boston, New York, Chicago,
or Philadelphia.

Some time ago I put the question respecting female suf-
frage to an active, energetic, intelligent, earnest man, a lawyer,
and he answered at once that no one should take part in
government who was not ready to defend, by force, if neces-
sary, the institutions of the country. Women could not be
counted on; therefore women should not vote. That argu-
ment has never been met; for it is no reply to mention the
Amazons of antiquity, about whom, besides, we know noth-
ing. It has been said that a certain proportion of men, —
the invalid and disabled, — are drafted for the hospital, aad
that such work might be done by the drafted women. By
all the women? What becomes, then, of the assertion that
women can serve in the army? And what shall we do with
the feeble men? Or are the hospitals to be large enough
for both? Admitting that some women Can bear arms, can

negiected Im tue pase.

a Ok =

a. ped pose eee ee ee, ee ee et

eee

re ~
wt
JOA
4

= =

eeI eg i ae

 

 

eet

Ztunuru ui

6

it be reasonably affirmed that the sex would supply half of
a modern army? Could the government depend on fifty
regiments, on ten, on five, in such an emergency as our late
war presented ?

Then consider the crue/ty to woman which this new move-
ment presages. Here is a point seldom touched on. I
do not refer particularly to the multitude who are over-
worked and overweighted already by social or charitable
duties, but to the great majority who are busy in refining
the community in various ways, as artists, teachers, writers,
musicians. ‘The exemption of such from civil cares is indeed
a boon. An English lady at Hombourg spoke with envy of
American women, whose lot seemed to her so desirable. So
far as she could discover, they were a privileged class. She
was unable to see their limitations. In her view these were
advantages, inasmuch as they made woman’s opportunity by
so much the larger, her exemption from toil so much more
complete, her chance for development so much more exten-
sive. Here was the leisure, the ease, the unlimited scope
for the education of her talents, the encouragement to exer-
cise every faculty she possessed. Men were her friends, not
her tyrants or her patrons. They were at her service, to
protect and care for her, not her masters to domineer over
her. If she had no family to care for, no household to su-
perintend, no social requirements to satisfy, she was per-
fectly free. She could follow her own leading, cultivate her
own taste, assert her own prerogative. All usages were in
her favor, and if all laws were not, they fell immediately into
disuse, and were counted as relics of old barbarism. They
may stand on the pages of the statute-book, but have no
place in the minds of the people, who do not know of their
existence even, and are indignant at being supposed to ac-
cept them as exponents of their own convictions. In Amer-
ica a woman is mistress of her property, can pursue any
calling for which her talents qualify her, can attain to any
position within her reach, and yet not be held responsible by
the best people. She may lecture, preach, go upon the stage,
practice medicine, plead before the courts, transact business,

vuvuuC:

(In favor of Woman's Suffrage7

hold real estate, make speeches in public, conduct debates
in convention; in a word, do whatever she chooses within
the lines of virtue. It is hard to discover the legal disabili-
ties under which she suffers in contrast with men. And all
the time she is courted, flattered, and looked up to, waited
on, followed, as the higher inspiration of the race, in a way
that no man would venture to proscribe.

Such was the belief of the English lady, and it was, in the
main, just ; certainly, as compared with English or European
usage, the condition of women in America is enviable in-
deed, and every day is becoming more desirable, more influ-
ential. One advantage she possesses, in being released from
the responsibilities of government, that is not commonly con-
sidered. From her position outside, she is able to survey,
with an impartial eye, the movements of her generation.
She is freed from the prejudices of partisanship. She can
be broad, liberal, wise. No party lines need circumscribe or
narrow her. She is not tethered to a political stump. Her
nose is not held down to a grindstone. She can be inde-
pendent without bolting.

Truly, the reasoning of the women suffragists is somewhat
defective. For instance, — a few women paint; therefore
all women must vote. A few women write ; therefore all
women must vo/ez. A few women excel in business ; there-
fore all women must vofe. A few women have shown ability
in commanding a ship, or a squadron, or a party ; therefore
all women must vote. What is become of the syllogism?

Before this great revolution is proposed, women should
have the preparatory training in affairs out of which is born
sober expectation, knowledge of what can be done, modera-
tion of hope, solid practical judgment. One step ata time !
Let us not begin at the end, or take for granted that the
conclusion will trammel up the conditions.

 

January 31, 1886.

negirecteda Tr tue past.

SS ee I Re a

aes : a z ee ge
SN ee Oe a ae =

nt oe
ees TE ofr baar err yet bg LTR
Oh ta Wo ta Sy ah

vo tts
L Nolithelbed helt! id
MEO BR el tal tabs MEPL asd

rodenta oe an ae i a

5.

  
  
  
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
    
  
   
   

  

LETTER OF PRENTISS CUMMINGS, ESQ.

 

 

 

 

THE following is an extract from a letter of Prentiss Cum-
mings, Esq., who had expected to be present at the hearing
before the Committee on Woman Suffrage.

R. H. Dana, Esq.: DEAR Srr, — Since I was unable to ful-
fill my agreement to take part in the recent hearing before the
Committee on Woman Suffrage, I have been requested to set
forth my views in writing for such use as counsel for the re-
monstrants might see fit to make of them. My engagements
are such that I cannot undertake an elaborate statement ;

but I have decided convictions on that subject, and am will-
} } ing to state informally by letter some of my reasons for those
convictions.

An extension of the franchise to women would in Massa-
chusetts more than double the number of its voters by add-
cK ing thereto a class hitherto untried in politics. No man can

foresee the consequences of such a step, yet, if once taken, it
could hardly be retraced short of revolution; and it is rea-
sonable to ask the question whether we are in any such strait
\ as would justify a step so hazardous. A state of facts can
be imagined which might justify it, —for example, if a de-
cided majority of women wished to vote, and would feel a
permanent sense of wrong if the right were denied them, or
4 if the existing government were so corrupt, unjust, and intol-
T

SANDMAN PASAT AML A se IT

\ erable, that as a last resort some desperate action must be
{ taken for the common safety. It is no light thing that is
‘ asked for by the petitioners. Nothing short of some such
| grave exigency, or a demand from women as a whole of the
right to vote, would warrant the risk attendant upon such an

extension of the franchise.
} J No such state of facts exists. The women who wish to

UPOU PAN Ma taslarabeee Pays Ah i

Kip

Rae Me

i
«

EAM

Btunuru ws vwuwvuu:

(In favor of Woman’s Suffrage

abate

  

Re

UR2

vote are confessedly in a small minority. Women, as a rule,
have no taste for public life, know little and care less about |
political questions, and feel that their labors and responsibil- |
ities now are as great as they can bear. The disinclination |
of the women of Massachusetts to take an active part in pub-
lic matters is shown by the smallness of the number who vote
for school committee ; yet if there is any public matter in
which women take a lively interest it is the public schools.
The form in which the suffrage question has been brought ite
before the legislature for several years past has been by a )
Municipal Suffrage Bill, so called; but not even the women
who appear to advocate it claim that they take any personal P
interest in ordinary municipal questions, or have personal \| 4
knowledge respecting them, such as the laying out and repair h) ©
of highways, the building of sewers and water mains, or the i
government of the fire department. Such subjects in their |
practical form are peculiarly uninteresting not only to the |
average woman, but to the exceptional woman. I can see no .
reason to believe that more than a mere handful of women ,
would vote on municipal questions if they had a chance, nor AME
that that handful would bring to such questions an interest E
and intelligence which would result in any public benefit. i f
The granting of political power to mere “stay-at-homes,” or Bt
to blind followers of interested leaders, would be adding a
new danger to our system of government. Both classes are
too large in our voting population now.

When it is considered that the franchise, if extended to

"th Abita

ere

eG
hr

any women must be extended to them as a class, and that
women as a class do not desire it, and have no taste for the
duties involved in it, it would seem clearly to be the duty of
the prudent legislator to vote against such extension. But it
is sometimes claimed that women ought to wish to vote, that
if the duty was imposed on them they would learn to take an ")
interest in public affairs, and that woman’s advent in politics \
would purify the political atmosphere, and be of great public |
benefit. This argument, that women should be forced into
public life for the public good, is commonly based upon the
assumption that women are better than men. I have never

neglected In tue pase:

ae ge EE SERS
i a

5 re Ea ae) fr ae —
eS ee

eae)PAVE Se

Ait

aM

f PUA HimU RNa sf

RRR AAA SIN

 

B2tunuru Vi vVuvuo:

Io

heard it claimed that women as a rule are wiser than men, or
more capable of dealing with public questions.

It is idle ‘to discuss the question which of the sexes is the
better. Both sexes have their peculiar virtues and failings ;
but I have never seen reason to believe that their moral nat-
ures are essentially different. Women, perhaps, are more in-
nocent than men, —a fact logically accounted for by the dif-
ference in their manner of life, since the life of women is do-
mestic, while men in their daily encounter with the world
must become more or less familiar with its wickedness. It
may fairly be questioned whether women might not lose this
distinction of superior innocence in proportion as their man-
ner of life and that of men became more nearly identical.

But so long as the family relation continues, and indeed as
long as the human race continues, women and men must lead
very different lives. The community is made up of families,
and the family relation is the very foundation of human hap-
piness as well as of public and private virtue. Advocates of
woman suffrage disclaim any intention to destroy its exist-
ence or lessen its sacredness ; yet the very condition of its
existence and its worth requires that the mother, and there-
fore the majority of the sex, should pass a large part of life
in the nursery, and in household cares. The life thus led is
not imposed by the legislature, but by the Creator who made
women women, and legislation cannot make them otherwise.

he same power which imposed the burden has beneficently
so made the majority of women that they find their highest
happiness in that very life. The family relation also imposes
its burdens upon men, but in a different way. He fights the
battles of the family with the world at large, while she guards
the home, and is the centre and source of its comfort and
happiness. Her position is in no sense inferior to his either
in importance or dignity. It is simply different ; but that

difference in the nature of things gives men a training for
public and political duties that women cannot have. A man’s
duties, narrowing as they commonly are, are still akin to the
practical questions upon which voters act. The tariff, coin-
age, the relations of capital and labor, and kindred matters,

(In favor of Woman’s SuffrageEE

are all practical questions in his business ; and if legislation
leads to war, he must encounter its hardships and dangers.
He therefore is forced to take an interest in public questions,
and naturally and inevitably becomes, as a general rule, the
member of the family best qualified for political duties.
These are simply facts, for which no human power is to
blame, and which it is folly to ignore.

I wish to treat the advocates of woman suffrage with entire
respect. Some of them are people of high character and
ability ; and some of the ladies among them are better quali-
fied for the suffrage than some men. But special legislation
to enable these exceptional ladies to vote is not practical,
and indeed is not asked for. What is asked for is general
legislation, applicable to the whole female sex, and contrary
to the wishes of a majority of that sex; and that, it seems to
me, is more than the few petitioners can reasonably ask, and
more than the community can afford to grant.

neglected TW tue past.

ee
Fi i a a ct

pa i I

Be RE ain

So aera

ALA ey
Rawareh eeu

Pitch

ert

aeMuleiene re ee ee
x o 1 “AD by

SSS

Cetmet
vA

we HEN

Dae

 

 

 

Puli
ie

Sas OG

ED
(is :
on

AVS ATMS OAD OSTEO A SMITH

BtunuLu Vs

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    

LETTER FROM JOHN BOYLE O’REILLY.

February 11, 1886.

For the sake of men. and women, we ought to ask the leg-
islature to refuse the woman suffrage motion. Women de-
ceive themselves in thinking that they can cure the evils of
society by the ballot. The evils are spiritual and social: the
ballot is only intellectual and political. All men’s political
issues are based on compromise. Political movements, par-
ties, aims, are not, and cannot be, ideal or ultimate. The
only ultimate ideal in society, as it is to-day, is the infal-
lible “ Right” and “Wrong” of good women. Their souls
are at the judgment, when men can only use their minds.

To compel women to vote would be to reduce the whole
human race to the secondary or intellectual level of the male
half. The uncompromising spiritual sight and sense of the
female half is the reservoir of morality and equity.

To compel women to vote is to excite the brutal in men,
and to engender disregard for law. Women cannot enforce
an ideal equity, when they have enacted it. The physical
weakness of woman is her strength when it appeals to the
spirit of man; but let it attempt to control or obstruct his
physical or intellectual movement, he will push it aside or
trample on it.

Ideal statutes openly disregarded is barbarism and anar-
chy, — the rule of the stronger appetite.

It would be no more deplorable to see an angel harnessed
to a machine than to see awoman voting politically, giving
up her divine intuition for a vulgar material compromise. It
is not fair to let women make laws they cannot enforce. They
could set the world by the ears, and leave the men to fight it
out.

Political excitements will injure their health, and interfere
with their family duties. Natural law makes them weaker
than men: they ought not to assume an equal strength, for
the outcome of failure is inevitable.

vwuuu,

(In favor of Woman's Suffrage13
Woman suffrage would be the constitutional degradation of
women ; it would be an appeal to the coarser strength of
men ; and I profoundly believe that it would result in social
disorder and disrespect of law.
Very truly yours,
JoHN BoyLe O’REILLY.

negiecteda Im tue pase.

. a al
E = aaa Gi a a i a ee as
a ca a nae

SEER BE et

i

Se a
rr

= ~
Wo RONG Ae Gat or ta wo

hi

ine 2

- 37

tit os

aes

\ 5
i

ps
Ei oonlnnys

uae

dite D iMedia thi
A a Uh al an

LLL aretha ahd

or
PUK

ere reee ereI PR

A LETTER FROM PROFESSOR GOODWIN, OF
HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Ir is universally admitted that the government of our large
cities by universal suffrage presents the gravest and most per-
plexing problem in modern politics. No one can seriously
maintain that popular government has thus far been a success

} in the management of cities. It therefore seems to me in-
i credible that any one who appreciates the increasing gravity

| of this problem can propose to extend municipal suffrage to
all the women of the Commonwealth by an act of the legisla-

ture.
When the wisest minds are so sorely perplexed by the
horde of evils which ignorance and irresponsibility have al-
ready brought upon almost all our large cities, when the
) power of the State has to be invoked to save them from their
own governments, it is little less than wanton recklessness to
propose to more than double the number of voters with the
certainty of increasing largely the amount of irresponsible
gi ignorance in the electorate, and with no hope of even balan-
cing this by an equal addition of political wisdom. The evil
which is now so deeply felt, caused by the unwillingness of
many of our best and wisest citizens to take part in politics,
\ especially in city politics, would be greatly increased if suf-
frage were extended to women. Even if I were disposed to
favor this scheme, I should be strongly deterred by seeing
that the great majority of the intelligent women of my ac-
a quaintance, whose votes might bring us an accession of politi-

OETA SOSA yA

' cal wisdom, would accept political duties only on compulsion.
Unfortunately, we cannot hope that the same repugnance to
politics would extend to the less intelligent women of the State.

Indeed, it seems to be acknowledged that the only reason
for this attempt to introduce woman suffrage just at this most
dangerous point, where the warnings of experience are so

/ 3 plain, is the accident that here an entrance can be effected,
it is supposed, without the tedious process of amending the

BtuUnNaLu Vi vwuuwu:,

In favor of Woman's Suffrage15

Constitution of the State. We cannot doubt, I think, that we
can depend on the wisdom of our legislature to see the motive
of this attack, and also to save us from the danger which it
threatens. WILLIAM W. GOODWIN.

neglected Im tue pase.

a a ata a a ES al a a
E =e : i ~S he a? — —
eB Be an

al a EAI ea

Ty 5
, 2
iE

fue Rah a eee eens .
alt tL ATH om ARRAN

Lares
ba

 
 

_ ti
ones

bar re-U weer Osh
¥ dah ak Sd ad see

er

        
 

a

at! =

LA Oe —
haf ed beta etd edEE Teer

RUIN ISR RRET aaaa

Btonuru Vi

    
  
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  

LETTER FROM RICHARD H. DANA, ESQ.

 

BEFORE entering upon the discussion of this difficult ques-
tion, it seems worth while to survey the ground.

When this country was first settled, our forefathers had a
pretty full opportunity to establish any form of local govern-
ment they pleased, and that opportunity was renewed after
the war of the Revolution. The latter was a period of able
discussion of constitutional questions, and no time was more
fruitful of wise results, yet they decided, without any hesita-
tion, in favor of a form of government based on the votes of
men. To this country, established upon that form of govern-
ment, thousands of people have come, have acquired for-
tunes, raised families, and taken their part in the establish-
ment of the laws that were to govern them and their chil-
dren, male and female. Male representation has been in fact
the basis of our social compact, and any change in this basis
is so fundamental that the parties urging that change have
upon them avery grave burden of proof. It is for them to
show the need of the change, and whether the change they
propose will meet the needs.

Now, how have they sustained this burden of proof ?

At the hearing before the Legislative Committee on the 28th
of January, 1886, there were three main points developed : —

The claim of an absolute right of women to vote; the
comparison of their cause with that of universal suffrage,
and of the right of freedmen to vote ; and, lastly, a petition
signed by some ten thousand persons, and the statement that
they would be satisfied to wait until a hundred thousand
women had agreed to ask for woman suffrage.

As to the absolute right of women to vote.

That there is no legal or constitutional right has been
clearly settled by the Supreme Court of the United States

Vwuuu:,

(In favor of Woman’s SuffrageBy,

and the Supreme Judicial Court of this Commonwealth. All
the cases and reasons are found in Robinson’s Case, 131
Mass. 376. But doubtless it is not only the legal right, but
it is some natural right to which they refer. Now there is
nothing more vague in all metaphysics than what constitutes
a natural right. Whatever, exactly, a natural right may be, a
ereat many of our so-called natural rights it is safer and better
that we should not maintain. Every one in a certain sense
may have the right, the natural right, to use his time as
pleases him, but for the public good we are not allowed to
open our shops or carry on our business on Sunday. Every
one has a natural right to use his real estate as he wishes,
but in cities we cannot build wooden houses, and in many
other respects our so-called natural rights are restricted for
the public good. It is always a question of expediency and
of the balance of advantages or disadvantages to the many
or to the few; the practical value of the right, the need of
its exercise, the benefit to be gained, and the evils to follow.
So from the mere assertion that we have a natural right to
do an act, it does not follow that it is wise or prudent to ex-
ercise that right. Yet those who would assume the great
burden of proof in urging a charge to women’s suffrage rest
this part of their case on repeating the bare statement of an
abstract right.

One of the arguments for universal suffrage, and for the
suffrage of the freedmen, with which the petitioners compare
their cause, was the argument that can be summed up in the
famous phrase, “‘ the consent of the governed.”

The immediate answer that has been suggested is that
women are virtually represented. It is, however, stated in
return that women are not virtually represented, and because
as we are reminded Parliament claimed virtually to represent
the colonies ; the slave-owner claimed virtually to represent
the negro; and one celebrated writer goes so far as to say
that a man in an adjoining county might as well say that he
virtually represented him, as for him to say that men virtually
represented the women.

Now the question of universal suffrage, and the right

neglected I tue pase.

BE a i

oi see aaa a "=

eg Se

aS
pm

I Ge

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

ALTA AURAL DEL

a agPw WAAR LH

¢
ANG oi MAD 0 4 inal,

—
HL A

prey

A

yay ma i

oe Yn
er

rr

  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    

CAM

    
   
 
   
  

18

thereto, cannot be treated as a logical proposition of only one
syllogism. It is the result of close reasoning, in which there
are a great many conflicting arguments ; and on the whole it
was decided in favor of universal suffrage, or nearly universal
suffrage for men, and that because no one class of men was
so closely connected with any other class that in fairness the
latter could virtually represent the former. And because the
argument of virtual representation has been misapplied in
some cases, it does not by any means follow that it cannot be
properly used in a case in which it does apply.

The interests of Parliament in England were very different
from the interests of our colonies ; and the interests of the
inhabitant of one county are absolutely opposed to the in-
terests of an inhabitant of another county ; é. g. in laying out
roads or spending money in public improvements: while the
interests of a father and daughter, son and mother, husband
and wife, brother and sister, are more closely united than any
other interests imaginable. If we wish a new street laid out,
it is for the benefit of ‘‘ our’ house ; if we wish “‘ our”’ street
better lighted, it is for the benefit of us and our family. It
is for a man’s family that he works, labors, saves, strives,
and deprives himself. It is for the family that he wishes the
prosperity of himself and the nation, and for which mainly he
wishes for his right to vote.

Virtual representation, much closer than between a voter
and his representative, exists between men and women, and
to compare the condition of a separate and distinct class of
persons in the same or different countries to persons of the
same class connected by the closest ties of blood, home, and
affection, would serve as an illustration of unsound logic
which can itself be illustrated by nothing more misleading.

It hardly seems, then, that the burden of proof is sustained
by trying to carry to an extreme the principle of universal
suffrage which is applied with good results and sound reason-
ing to men of different classes and diverse interests, but not
even then without much hesitation and over many weighty
objections. It would be like saying that because in cold
weather we lighted the coal and wood in our furnaces and fire:

vwuvuvu:

(In favor of Woman’s Suffrage9

places we must, as a logical conclusion, proceed to ignite all
the combustible material in and about our houses.

How was the burden of proof supported by the petitions?
Out of a population of seventeen or eighteen hundred thou-
sand, a petition with some ten thousand names was handed
to the Legislature.

Every one at all experienced in public affairs knows what
little value can be placed upon public petitions, and not a
few of us are aware of the urgency with which the petitions
in favor of woman suffrage in particular have been presented
to us, and how hard it has been in many instances to refuse
to sign them.

Now in making any fundamental change among any body
of persons, as, for instance, in the organization of a corpora-
tion, or in the Constitution of the United States or that of
a state, it requires a two thirds’ or three quarters’ vote, or a
vote of three quarters of the states, as the case may be, to
carry such a change, and in the case of introducing woman
suffrage, changing so essentially our whole social compact,
it does not seem as if the burden of proof could be sustained
by offering to wait until they can obtain the assent of one
hundred thousand women to the change, when there are in
Massachusetts over a half million of women of voting age.
Instead of obtaining two thirds or three quarters, they expect
us to be satisfied by their showing that one in five of those to
be affected desire the change.

One cannot pretend to solve absolutely so difficult a prob-
lem as the results that would follow from the introduction of
woman suffrage, but I would like to make a few suggestions
on some points which the arguments of the petitioners, either
at the late hearing or at former hearings, do not seem to have
touched in such a way as to sustain their burden of proof.

Society itself is based upon the family, and the family has
grown, or naturally proceeds, from the dependence of the wife
and children upon the husband and father. The marriage
relation itself comes from the need of protection. The best
writers upon general jurisprudence acknowledge this, and, as
a part of the system, there has grown up a division of labor

neglected In tue past.

ore

pre = ‘ = Se

Seal ea a

Se eS aeee

SAO ALARA
¥ vt
ehabaelK a) Als

wee
are

UA RUM Te ew
AA UIP ata aio AU ra,

yew

NR

ra

 
   
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
    
 
 
  
   
    

YOM 4

MANOA ET

AA

Bho

AN

ALON oR MRLs Re Rill

na ee

Btunurtu Ve

 

    
   
 
  
  
 

20

between men and women. The household duties naturally
attract the women, while the men are more fitted for and
called upon to do the harder work of maintaining and sup-
porting the family. Just as in watch-making, those who are
most able to do the delicate and intricate work confine them-
selves to that department, and those with less delicate fingers
who are able to do the harder work — the melting and beat-
ing the metals — confine themselves to that. . So by a pro-
cess of natural selection, depending largely upon motherhood,
women have selected the household duties, the care and edu-
cation of the children. Upon them depends the making the
house bright and interesting, and having the boys as well as
the girls grow up under the better and nobler influences of
the mother. ‘The trust is enormous: the mothers are respon-
sible for a whole succeeding generation.

The husband even who digs and shovels is better fitted to
understand the needs of a public road in the town meeting
than the wife or mother who stays at home; and so on in
every stage of life on the average — exceptional cases being
put aside — the man is better fitted to attend to the business
affairs of public life than is the woman of the same grade, and
after all, public affairs are business affairs extended to the
body politic.

There has often been discussion as to whether the differ-
ences between men and women were natural or educational.
They are undoubtedly both. Children in the nursery, with

the same parents, and under the same influences, very soon

.
show a difference of sex. Children brought up together play
tag. The girls scream, the boys are quiet. Again the differ-
ences of education are not wholly arbitrary or conventional.
They depend upon the natural differences, and upon the fact
that women, as a class, have looked and will look forward to
the domestic and household duties. Why is not this division
of labor on the whole the wisest and best ?

One of the most fascinating ideas, and which captivates
almost any one, is the suggestion that women will purify pol-
itics. In this the petitioners have again the burden of proof
to sustain, and we should suggest whether the higher and

vwuvuu:

Jin favor-of, Woman's Sulttace >". ..% « ;  6LeC EE EE PER

   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
   

21

nobler qualities of woman, as a rule, fit her to appreciate the
business relations of men in such a way as to enable her to
understand all the bearings of affairs, which knowledge is
absolutely necessary in order to be perfectly honest in busi.
ness relations.

Women in politics history shows us have not had an envi-
able reputation. Almost every king who had a notoriously
bad reign has been influenced for evil by women. The brib-
ery cases in England have developed a great deal of dis-
honesty among women otherwise high minded. The very in-
experience of women may lead them into many serious mis-
takes, which will implicate them in wrong though their ulterior
motive be good. In answer to this it has been suggested
that women may be educated, that they may learn the affairs
of men, and that being interested in politics will be of itself
an education. Then comes the question, — is woman Ca-
pable of this extra work ?

Knowing as we do that the whole physical and moral wel-
fare of the succeeding generation depends upon the women
of to-day, we should be very careful before we lay upon them
any burden which they are not able to bear. Ah, but it is
answered by those who assume to prove their case, the de-
positing of a ballot in a box twice a year can be no burden.
But then it was just argued that women should educate
themselves to understand the affairs of men, and this educa-
tion requires a great deal of work. It is not mere book learn-
ing, but can be got only by experience. Round this point
there has been much dodging. The need of business educa-
tion of women is conceded at one time and ignored at another.
At one time a scheme involving immense expenditure of
time and work and change of occupation is proposed, and
again it is described as dropping a ballot twice a year.

Again women are excitable, and politics are extremely ex-
citing. The women of the South kept their bitterness of feel-
ing much longer than the men. There is the long campaign
in which even men have lost their tempers, business partner-
ships have been dissolved, and clergymen have been obliged
to separate from their congregations from differences in pol-

neglected In tue past.

5 ee

= a lS

eaeZ2tunuru Vi

22
22

itics. If women are to vote as their husbands and brothers
do, the mere depositing of their ballot in the box would be
but doubling the vote, and would create no material change
in the final result. If they differ from their husbands or their
brothers, the excitement would be intense. To vote effec-
tively, they must organize whether they are to vote as a mass
independently of the men, or whether they wish to join them-
selves to some party or faction of men. Those who organized
and worked for the independent movement in the last cam-
paign are well aware how much labor there is even in getting
a body of men who are used to voting, to vote in unison with-
ut even being obliged to form an independent party. It re-
quires public meetings and private persuadings, the circula-
tion of literature and the creating of enthusiasm, all of which
take a great deal more time and effort than is usually sup-
posed. And among women it would have to be the women
who did this work, provided they differed from their hus-
bands, fathers, brothers, or sons.

de

Now the American woman is noted for want of strength of
nerves. In the life insurance expectation tables it appears
that women die of those nervous diseases which come from
nervous weakness, such as debility or nervous prostration,
more than men; while the men die from nervous diseases
caused by overwork in a much larger proportion than women ;
and, again, such nervous diseases among men are much more
common in the cities of the North and East than in those of
the South, and still more than in the country. All this shows
that the nervous strength of women is but slight, while work
and excitement tend to increase nervous diseases even among
those who are naturally strong. At present 16.2 per cent. of
children in this country die before reaching the age of one
year ; and between 4o and 50 per cent. of all the deaths of
all persons in any one year are those of children dying under
five years of age. A mother’s duty is not confined to her
babes alone, but she has a duty to her growing children,
which should take much health and strength and time. We
had better be careful and not burden the American mother
with new duties. Those who have to sustain the burden of

vuvuwvu,

(In favor of Woman’s SuffrageCr ae ee Be Se

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

tp
=)

proof in this matter point us to exceptional cases. A very
large majority of the women over twenty-one years of age
are married, and of the remainder many will become married.
A large proportion of the balance have to keep house for
their widowed fathers, their brothers, or their sons. There
are some exceptions, but no general rule involving the whole
community can be based on a few exceptions, and yet the
argument founded on exceptional cases is constantly resorted
to by the petitioners and their friends.

There are, no doubt, many women, as has been suggested,
who are very capable of working in our churches and chari-
ties, and are able to give very much time and attention with
good results. ‘They are generally persons of means, who are
able to hire servants, and therefore, taking the community to-
gether, are and must be exceptional cases, and besides they
have exceptional ability. Moreover, their work is of the most
important kind ; there are not enough of these useful women,
at present ; we only wish that there were more ; and we would
do all we could to prevent their being further burdened and
distracted from the good work which they now perform.

This question of the health of women and the perpetuity of
the race is one almost always overlooked ; but we must re-
member that in the close competition which is growing up be-
tween civilized nations at present, with the rapid interchange
of commodities and cheap transportation, any change for the
worse in the succeeding generation may put a country almost
irreparably behind in the race of nations.

It is not presumed that very extreme results would follow.
If they were extreme we should not be afraid, for there would
be an immediate reaction. The greatest danger lies not in
their being extreme, but in their being gradual and slow in
their developments. Very much as if we should give up all
our holidays, including Sundays. The deterioration of the
race from overwork would be only gradual. It might hardly
show its worst results in a single generation.

In reading through the arguments presented by the lead-
ers in this movement I have been wholly unable to find any
reasons why this change is needed. The number of laws on

neglected In tue pase.

. ag Se
A 5 as :

is ee Oa

fl a ie at he =

Ba

Dif idedetttit ie

RHINE CHT

Se ee ee Se

a =eT

 

     
    
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
  
 
   
 
 
  
  
   

24

conflicting interests of men and women as classes is small, as
such interests are few. One writer for the cause of woman
suffrage states some three or four laws which he thinks are
unjust, not one of which exists in the Commonwealth of Mas-
~. sachusetts ; and as a last resort he uses the argument that
the improvements in our laws have been caused by the fear
of woman suffrage, and that in order to hold these improve-
ments it 1s necessary that women should vote. I think he
hardly proves his case. If there were no improvements in
the laws, excepting improvements in the relations between
men and women, and only to the advantage of women, then
: there might be some reason for his inference ; but while the
few needed improvements have taken place in those laws,
hundreds of improvements have been made in the laws re-
lating to the men themselves, and for the benefit of both men
and women collectively.

 

The experience of Washington and Wyoming Territories has

been frequently quoted as an argument to which there can be

) } no answer ; but with a little inquiry it is very clear that the

results in those territories cannot be used as illustrations of

what would happen if universal suffrage was introduced here.

In Wyoming Territory they had in the census of 1880 6,637

5 females (including minors), the smallest number in any State

or Territory, and 14,152 males, and in Washington Territory

29,000 females and 46,000 males. In the territories political

feeling, as it exists in New England and in the populous

\ states, is hardly known. They do not elect any governor or

\ a president of the United States, and they have no voice

whatever in national legislation. Their only affairs are local

affairs, like the affairs of town, city, or county in this Com-

monwealth. The same candidate frequently appears in dif-

. ferent years on opposite tickets, and still more frequently

both parties unite on a common candidate. So what works
| fairly well there may not work so well in Massachusetts.

Some letters have been used with great effect, written by

men of prominence in the territories; but I have learned

they have usually been from persons who either have gained

their positions or may have to gain their positions through

PH

TALAn
ee
Xe =

Btunuru Vs vwuuvu,

(In favor of Woman’s Suffrage5

the female vote, and therefore have been interested in mak-
ing the best of woman suffrage. The usual result seems to
have been, and I get my information direct from Wyoming,
that the women vote as their husbands do. They are usually
disinclined to vote at all, and vote when tiey do mainly for
the purpose of counteracting the woman vote of some other
faction or party, and have often to be urged very strongly by
husband or brother in order to do their political duty.

The objection of being disturbed by the men at the polls
does not seem to be so great as some have imagined, but it
is sometimes extremely disagreeable to meet “ disreputable
and loud-mouthed women” who very frequently make them-
selves conspicuous at the polls.

I have not seen among the petitioners’ papers any accurate
or careful statistics which have been gathered from these ter-
ritories. The letters that have been used by the suffragists
have been but carelessly written without quoting statistics,
and I find from private sources that they are incorrect in
many respects.

Tried, then, under the most favorable circumstances, what
good has it done? What results has it accomplished ? What
results that would lead us to try the experiment in another
community where political feeling runs more high, where
women outnumber the men, and where the poor and ignorant
classes are vastly more numerous ?

In general, women’s great work seems to be the influence
she exerts. Her power to influence for good is very great.
If she were to undertake to quell and conquer men by voting
against them, it seems as if she would lose her greatest power
for good. As in the fable of the Sun and the Wind, the gen-
tle influence of the Sun persuaded the man to take off his
coat, whereas the Wind the harder it blew only obliged him
to wind his coat around him the tighter.

For example, one celebrated champion of the cause tells
us the following stories :

D’Aguesseau, the consummate Chancellor of France, to
whose tomb pilgrims from afar have traveled, in the one im-
portant and turning -point of his life, when he was sent for

neglected In tue past.

ae Eee

ss yt aa

ae ame

eS
~

  

on Sol acc aneNOADADINTLAN A DY NI ITE

init

AALS SRE ALOU rn Da MIME PALE TMB E

Ryances

 

BtunuLu VE

26

by Louis XIV. to Versailles, who demanded of him an unjust
judgment against his conscience, was about departing from his
house trembling and preparing to submit, when his wife laid
her hand upon his shoulder, and said to him, “ When you
appear before the King, forget your wife, forget your chil-
dren, forget everything but your duty and your God,” and the
counsel of that woman it was that saved that matchless judi-
cial reputation among the treasures of mankind.

In the great case between Charles First and John Hamp.
den, Judge Croke gave the opinion of the minority in favor of
the liberty of the subject. He was. however, about to deter-
mine in favor of the crown. He was reproached for his base-
ness by his wife. Says Nugent: “This noble lady cast the
shield of her feminine virtue before the honor of her husband
to guard it from the assaults equally of interest and fear ; and
with that moral bravery, which is so often found the purest
and brightest in her sex, she exhorted him to do his duty at
any risk to himself, to her, or to their children; and she pre-
vailed.”

This seems to me to show how great was the power of
women without a vote, and as an unromantic but practical
fact it would indeed puzzle one to see how the wives could
have increased their influence, or how they could have worked
at all, if they had tried to work upon or oppose their husbands
through the ballot.

The association of women of refinement, social position,
and education in New York city for the defeat of Tammany,
in the autumn of 1894, shows what can be done by way of
organizing women’s influence, and with results more easily
achieved and greater than could be gained by their individual
votes, which would have been counteracted to so large an
extent by the votes of Tammany women.

Let me suggest that this organization of women be made
permanent, and others started in other cities. ‘The members
will acquire a knowledge both of details and principles of
municipal government, that will greatly encourage and stim-
ulate the men. If the franchise is ever granted to women
they will be the better prepared to use it. Meanwhile they

vuvuvu,

(In favor of Woman’s Suffragea a i

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

27

will do much good, and will see, what so many women now
believe, that the indirect influence of the more intelligent
women will be greater than their direct, and the results
accomplished with less friction and excitement.

The truth is the ballot for women is not needed. If granted,
its results will doubtless not be so bad as some suppose, but
simply and only because women will vote with their husbands,
fathers, and sons, as they do in Wyoming. In our more excit-
ing elections the results will be a strain on our over-burdened
women, and if they were ever called upon to combine and work
in antagonism to the men, which they must do if their vote is
really needed, the evils of the conflict would strike at the very
foundations of our social system.

neglected In tHe past.

ie i a ~
: tthe Epo Bi BO a aa
Sgr RT A a ee a a ae

Fo ae i ES
SB

a eee———— nisi

Te
SAAN

AA) tens.
sapare wt

ASE OTOH

v7
4

RASS MME SAGAS

ft
CAG pe a omethel oe Oy

Btunuriu VUE

 

Excerpt from a Sermon preached at the Cathedral of the Lfoly
Cross, Boston, Sunday, February 21st, 1886, by kev. F. P.
Bodjish.

“Not that I would have woman step out of her sphere ;
the man is the natural protector, the father, the lawgiver, of
his family ; nor would I counsel wives to usurp the places of
their husbands at the polls. I believe this to be one of the
errors of modern times, to try to unsex woman, and take her
from the high place she occupies, and drag her into the arena
of public life. What has she to do there? We might as well
try to drag down the angels to take part in the menial affairs
of this world as to take woman from the high place she occu-
pies in the family, where it is her privilege and duty to guide,
to counsel, and to instruct, — to lead that family in the way of
righteousness. It is but offering her a degradation ; Almighty
God never intended it. The charm, the influence of woman,
is in that purity that comes from living in a sphere apart from
us. God forbid that we should ever see the day that a man,
a husband or a father, is to find his will opposed and thwarted
at the polls by his daughter or his wife. Then farewell to
that reverence which belongs to the character of woman.

‘¢ She puts herself on an equal footing with man when she
steps down from that place where every one regards her with
reverence, and becomes unsexed by striving to make laws
which she cannot enforce, and taking upon herself duties for
which she is altogether unfitted.”

vuvevu,

(in favor of Woman’s Suffragei aE BE

    
  
 
 
    
  
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
   

Lo the Hon. Henry W. Buatr, U. S. Senator from New
Hampshire : —

Dear Srir,— During the last week of the last session of
Congress I received, under cover of your own frank, a copy of
your Report of the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, de-
livered to the Senate of the United States, December 8, 1886.
In it you make a lengthy quotation from a pamphlet of mine,
entitled ‘“ Letters from a Chimney Corner.” It appears to me
that in the argument drawn from this quotation you mistake
utterly the point at issue, and it is my purpose in this letter to
direct your attention to this mistake, and to put the argument
upon its proper basis. I shall also comment upon certain other
considerations put forth therein.

The quotation referred to is too long for the limits of a letter
like this. The argument briefly is, that neither the man nor the
woman 1s individually the representative of the genus homo, but
that, according to nature and revelation, the two united make
one, and that to each constituent of that union certain distinct
powers and properties belong, each dependent upon the other,
in a minor way, for proper fulfilment. You say, “If upon this
account woman is to be denied suffrage, then man equally should
be denied the ballot, if his highest and final estate is to be some-
thing else than a mere individual.”

Now, marriage is that partnership upon which the right order
of society and the right perpetuation of the species depends.
The question is, whether each partner shall keep to that line of
labor which Nature has marked out, or whether of woman shall
be demanded, not only her own share of the labor, but also a
large part of that which belongs to man. For, let us notice,
that while it may be granted that woman has the physical capa-
city to cast a ballot, man has not the physical capacity to bear

fo do it. Lt has yet to De prov
enable them to do. better 1n t

neglected in the past.

5s IS BB

a ee

nl ee ia

ed that giving women tne vote will
he future the work which they have

Se

eS ee

Be eead

SOMA
i

aa

 

 

POHRG

ACTA OTE A) SSS ik rN Re

Rae C a Ack ol, PLL PBT

ALA

Ltunuru ve vwuuvu:,

£ oe | Ff : B 3 SENS ec Bree
on ek es 3 Le - 2 aa — = ioe Pe eat eS a a
ee ee i

2

and nourish children. Nature has made it forever impossible
that he should perform that office. If, therefore, he demands
of her that she shall participate in those external and general
duties, such as labor for the support of the home and for the
direction of the State, which his natural constitution, physical
and intellectual, fit him for, while he cannot by any possibil-
ity relieve her of those most necessary offices and duties which
Nature demands of her, he commits a palpable and monstrous
injustice.

Nor does it help the matter to say, as you do, that, because
woman’s nature is purer and nobler than man’s, the state would
be benefited by her participation in political affairs. If men are
not capable of managing the affairs of the state according to the
highest and best ideas of the race, that is, of both men and wo-
men, will you permit me respectfully to inquire what proper and
adequate share of this world’s work they can perform? What
is their natural place in the order of society? Are they mere
hewers of wood and drawers of water? They cannot bear
citizens ; they cannot care for them in infancy and rear them to
manhood. If they cannot govern them with wisdom and justice
when they are produced ready made to their hands, what is their
reason for being? When a man stands up in the United States
Senate and makes such a statement as that, in regard to the
men of this republic, it appears to me that he compromises his
own self-respect, and the respect due to the dignified and honor-
able body to which he has been elevated.

You say that you have only proposed the measure because
women have asked you to do it. The same plea was made by
your great progenitor in the Garden of Eden; but it did not
avail him. Moreover, in the case of Adam, it was true. In the
present instance the plea contains but the minimum of truth.
There are fifteen millions of women in this country (I quote
your own statistics) of voting age. Will you kindly inform us
what proportion of that fifteen millions you have heard from?

In favor of Woman’s Suffrageol ote i ee

    
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
    
  
 
   

3

You say that these women are being governed without their con.
sent. Is it possible that you can sincerely believe that fifteen
millions of American women could be governed without their
consent? Do you not rather feel assured that if a bare ma jority
of that number did not consent, for what appear to them to be
good and sufficient reasons, to be governed by indirect rather
than direct representation, there would be a revolution within
twenty-four hours? With every right of agitation at their
command which man possesses,—free speech, free assembly,
the right of petition, a press ever ready to disseminate their
views, and many privileges of courtesy besides, that men lay
no claim to,— what power could withstand the moral force
of any demand which these fifteen millions should unitedly
make ?

With what show of reason do you compare free-born Amer-
ican women to the degraded and ignorant slaves on Southern
plantations, and speak of men as their masters? As a matter
of fact the power of men over women is not greater than that
of women over men. Nature lays the infant man a helpless
creature in the lap of his mother. He is in her power for life
or for death, and for the first ten or fifteen years of his exist-
ence, and that during the forming and determining period of
his career, a period, too, in which he is answerable to no other
law than that of his home, her power over him, physical, intel-
lectual, and moral, is so nearly supreme, that no power which
he can arrogate over her in later years can overbalance it. Un-
der ordinary circumstances the faithful, intelligent mother may
make of her son, in all the essentials of manners and morals,
whatsoever she will. If American men were to-day the narrow-
minded, tyrannical, vicious creatures they are charged with being
by the woman suffragists, unfitted to be legislators for hae whole
nation, it could only be because their mothers had misunder-
stood or neglected the opportunities which Nature puts into their
hands. Such a charge is a tremendous indictment against the

fo doit, Lt hasiyet to be P
enable them to do. better in th

neglected in the past.

* si ‘i
FE a

I tee
ee ge SL ce a pe

nat a oe

9 fee

\v

ay

roved that giving women tne vote will
e future the work which they havemotherhood of the nation, and, if it could be sustained, ought
of itself to bar women from all legislative functions until they
ean better fulfil that which Nature demands of them in child-

ET
er Aner

Fie
appt
rie areal 64 a

iw

| ' bearing and rearing. Moreover, it is the function of slaves te-
labor ; but it is this nation’s pride and boast that in no other
a . country that the sun shines on are there so many homes sup-

ported by the loyal and untiring industry of men, where women

are kept in ease and comfort, in order that they may give their

time to the higher duties of rearing children and planning and

carrying on enterprises of charity, philanthropy, and reform;
and the influence of these homes upon public sentiment is the
one irresistible power in American social and political life.
Plainly, if any portion of the American people are slaves, it is
not the women.

But let us return to the question of the physical adaptability
of women to the duties of voters. If women vote, they must
) } also hold office and assume the working duties incident to poli-
tical campaigns. It appears from the published record of your
life that you commenced your political career at about the age
of thirty. For the next ten or fifteen years you were actively
cf in politics. Now, will you tell me if you think it would have

been convenient or agreeable during those years, when you were
laying the foundations of your political success, to have been
also engaged in bearing and rearing a family? Could you have
done what you found it necessary to do politically, and at the
same time have attended properly to your duties as wife and
mother? You will say that the very suggestion is indelicate,
and I agree with you, but the fault is in the situation as pro-
posed by you. The duties and offices of motherhood are all
sweet, and pure, and holy, when kept within the sacred precincts
of the home. Brought out into the garish light of publicity,
what do they become ?
om, Nor will it avail you to say that some part of these offices may
/ r be delegated to servants. There are too many mothers of that

SEE AGP pe Tn -

itis sie
Ls

Btuounuriu vei vuvuvur

(In favor of Woman’s Suffrage

  

RACAL AD5

sort in the country now ; no political measure can be a wise one
which tends to increase their number.

You say in your Report that there are many women who are
not wives and mothers. Very true, and when women vote and
hold office, there will be more of them. A true regard for the
best interests of society demands that their number shall be re-
duced by all natural and reasonable means; but when political
rewards are offered as the price of services in public life, do
you not believe that many, and those not of the weak and igno-
rant, but of the more gifted and intellectual, will be tempted to
forego marriage and motherhood for the sake of winning them ?
Woe betide the land which thus offers its political trusts as
premiums for childless women! The morals of society are cor-
rupt enough now. What do you suppose they will become when
not to be married, not to be a mother, is the prerequisite for a
woman’s success in a chosen and tempting career? History gives
abundant evidence that women are not naturally of purer in-
stincts or more capable of self-control than men. It is only as
they are subject to men as in heathen countries, or yield them-
selves to the elevating and purifying influence, of Christian
teaching concerning marriage and the home, that they rise to a
higher moral level. Emancipated from these restraints, the in-
tensity of their nature often betrays them into surpassing depths
of depravity. I speak advisedly, therefore, and in the light of
thirty years’ profound and prayerful study of social problems,
when I say that the direct tendency of woman suffrage would
be to form a class of women such as held high court in Greece
in the days preceding its downfall; women brilliant and intel-
lectual, but wholly wanting in that steadfast faith and abiding
virtue which characterize’‘the Anglo-Saxon ideal of womanhood,
I may say the Christian ideal as well, — the wife and mother.
Are American men prepared to relegate the wives and mothers
of this republic to a secondary and subservient place, and share
the political leadership of this great and free country with an
oligarchy of Aspasias?

io do it. Lt hasmyet to De p
enable them to d
neglected in the past.

= —— = ex oe
te ee

ee ae es wei a aS Tae ore
gS TE a eine

roved that giving women tne vote will
o. better in the future the work which they have

ee

edible
Sharh eeu

bE nC cra

a

hnBa IRI oN HA A pre ee
Ber VT area ae AA

PENA Palnlabalabalenn
w f

 

=

i

SARA OOH

ih

OCA

OAR Me hake

WE th,

NY

 

2tunuru wi vuuu:

You say that the passage of the proposed resolution would not
commit any person to the support of woman suffrage in the end.
But what does it do if passed by both houses? It sends the
discussion of this question, backed by the authority of Congress,
into every State of this Union. A score or two of the profes-
sional advocates of woman suffrage will beat up the entire terri-
tory, and, by their noisy persistence, will necessitate either that
women shall take the field upon the other side, or else let the
question go by default. Home-loving women — the women
who stay in their homes and fulfil the duties of their vocation,
and these women are in the great majority in all our States and
Territories — have little taste for public strife, and few gifts
with which to win battles in the public arena. Still, if needs
must, they can and will defend their homes; but, believe me,
they will not exonerate from blame those legislators who, by the
advocacy of measures like this which you propose, have thrust
the hard necessity upon them.

Do you ask me, then, what shall men do, in regard to this
ery, which is coming up all over the land, for purer polities, a
worthier conduct of affairs? Men know very well what they
ought to do about it. They ought to live daily and hourly in
the fear of God and for the honor of good women. They ought
steadfastly to practise those principles of purity, honor, up-
rightness, and patriotism which it is the duty of every Chris-
tian home to inculcate. It is very true that the duty is now
too often imperfectly performed in our homes; but, believe me,
the remedy for this evil does not lie in the direction of woman
suffrage. It is by inciting and helping woman to the more
faithful discharge of her own duties that legislators will honor
her far more than by dragging her out of the quiet of her own
domain, and setting her to perform their neglected and unful-
filled tasks.

Instead of fifteen millions of women voters vainly trying to
do the work which God demands of men, there should be fifteen

(in favor of Woman’s Suffragewd
(

millions of happy homes in this broad, fair land; homes sup:
ported by the fathers’ labor, made to glow with heaven's own
light by the mothers’ tender love and care; homes where chil-
dren are being reared who shall become just and upright men,
and faithful, conscientious women; where those virtues are
being taught which are the only enduring bulwarks of a free,
republican government. It is to build up such homes, not to
break down their walls, and quench the light upon their hearth-
stones, that legislation ought to be directed.

There are other and weightier arguments against woman sut-
frage, but these are such as are suggested by the text of your
Report. I commend them to your earnest consideration before
you again address the United States Senate as the Champion
of Woman.

Very respectfully yours,
CAROLINE F. CORBIN,
Author of “ Letters from a Chimney Corner.”

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Exten-
sion of Suffrage to Woman,
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of
Mrs. RoBpert W. LorRD,
P, ©; Box 2262,. Boston:

the Association,

fod it.
enable thet
neglected in the past.

~hes - ee ee Lia
BS A es II IO eet

EE ae

lv

us

— YU

Porat ee

—

»)
1

y

Vv

It has yet to be proved that giving women the vote will
n to do. better in the future the work which they have

aBtunuru ve vuvuu:

(in favor of Woman’s SuffrageMRS. CREIGHTON’S APPEAL.

—_—_____—__-#-+

 

[Mrs. Creighton is the wife of the Bishop who has recently been
translated from the diocese of Peterborough to that of London.
She is noted for her executive ability, as well as her literary talent.
Her History of France and England and her historical biographies
are well known. ‘The following extracts are taken from her article
on Female Suffrage in the Nineteenth Century: ]

 

The advocates of female suffrage seem to labor under two delu-
sions: First, that the vote is a good in itself; and, secondly, that
change is necessarily progress, and must be welcomed, at any price,
by all who do not wish to remain hopelessly behind. Mrs. Ashton
Dilke, indeed, acknowledges that the vote is not an end in itself, but
only a-means to aul end. 3ut she does not say to what end; she only
says that, without a vote, we ‘‘risk the loss of all those improvements
in the position of our sex’’ which have been obtained. Such a state-
ment implies a hostility between the sexes from which society seems
to be happily free; and it is not easily to believe that the day will
ever come when men will take away from women what has been
proved to be good both for them and for the whole community.
‘here is surely no need to feel that we have won a position from an
active foe, which we must maintain at the risk of our lives.

he vote is supposed to have a certain magical power. Mrs.
Dilke even knows why it was originally given, and when she
says that the vote ‘“vas certainly originally intended to give effect
to the opinions of the quiet orderly citizen instead of leaving power
in the hands of the strong and warlike,’’? she has solved a problem
baffled the ingenuity of the constitutional historian.
any of the advocates of female suffrage seems to
sing side by side with an ideal man in
But we have to do with realities; there

which has long
The attitude of m

suppose an ideal woman, WoO!

an ideal system of politics.
is a great deal of work to be done, and the practical question is how

be proved that giving women the vote will

fo doit. It hasaet to
the future the work which they have

enable them to do. better 1n
neglected in the past.

2 i ee 5 5 —— ca
ae ee Be ET RN se iE aeRen aT) hom meet
PAD HEY rina oan oe

rebar

 

nvata

Na

iy

Keke fink

U 8
AA,

soe

LGA “ HIP

SR ees

SS a eg eg ee Pans ey ae ee eae

There is no magic about the vote; it is merely a necessary part
of the machinery of government. ‘The act of voting is not, as some
would wish to make it, the chief way in which the individual can
share in the work of the State for the good of all. The question is
not whether women are not as qualified to voteas men. Weare very
tired of the rich and cultivated lady who may not vote whilst her
coachman may. Ifthe vote was the privilege of the wise and the
educated, many women might justly claimit. But it is the propelling
power of a part of the machinery of government which has always
belonged to one sex.

The present organization of society offers an abundant field for
the energies of women. ‘The fields are white for the harvest, and
the reapers are few. ‘The pursuit of female suffrage as the first aim
offers a wrong ideal to women; the desire to play an active part in
politics make them neglect their own work. It is perfectly true that
women in the last few years have formed political organizations for
the purpose of influencing public opinion; but many of them regard
such organizations as only a temporary nature, justified by a period
of exceptional difficulty. J am not concerned with defending the
wisdom or expediency of such societies; but it is no discredit to
those who have joined them if they frankly admit that their experi-
ence of the results of their activity does not make them wish to ex-
tend it universally. There is much to be said for women discussing
amongst themselves political and social questions, investigating
points concerned with the labour and education of women, and sug:
gesting grievances to be remedied. ‘Their formulated opinion will be
sure to meet with respectful attention. But the more women stand
apart from the machinery of party organization, the more weighty
and influental will be the expression of their opinions.

The more women take an active part in politics the more consid-
erations of sex will be used as one of the means of obtaining politi-
cal influence. We may try to change society, we cannot change
nature; sex will remain. The advocates of female suffrage, indeed,
speak of women as a class, and as such demand that they be repre-
sented in Parliament. We answer that they are not a class but a
sex, and that our representative system knows nothing of classes as
such. We urge that women should be content to continue working
side by side with men, possessing their own duties and their own
opportunities. We think that the questionable advantage of a direct
representation of such interests as women may be supposed to have
made peculiarly their own, would be dearly bought by an experiment
which would shake the very basis of human society.

The present need is that women should do their own work bet-
ter. For the married and the mothers the path is comparatively
plain, but no one could say that they have yet risen to a full sense

are ae
seit naa

a_—sN

 
 
   
    
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
    
 
 
 
   
  
   
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  

VET B= payeA aa Bi

  

of their responsibilities in training useful members of the com-
munity. For those who, from circumstances or choice, are compelled
to carry on their struggle alone the opportunities of doing useful
work are unlimited. I am not speaking now of paid work; there
the question is more difficult, and the possession of the franchise
would not solve it. But the community can never have too large a
number of devoted and unselfish workers in every line. The women
who show their capacity for such work never fail to get it. But
women need to train their practical abilities, to show their capacity.
We want more women guardians, more women on school boards,
more women who will investigate the existing conditions of society.
What the future may need we cannot say, and it would be rash to
say that the time may not come when in an ideal political system the
ideal woman may work side by side with the ideal man.

The power of woman’s influence cannot be measured. When I
speak of influence, I do not mean a conscious definite desire to
guide another in some particular direction, but the effect produced
upon man by a nature which he believes to be purer, nobler, more
unselfish than his own. Sex is a fact—no act of Parliament can
eliminate it—and woman, as woman, must be a power for good or
evil over man. In her hands rests the keeping of a pure tone in
society, of a high standard of morality, of a lofty devotion to duty
in political life.

It is given her to make or mar a man’s life; she may not care
for the power—she may wish she did not possess it; but she cannot
escape from its responsibilities. Would not the wise course be, to
try to make herself such a woman that her influence may lft all
those with whom she comes in contact? She need not have wealth
or position to do this. Beside the struggling, toiling women are
struggling, toiling men; each lonely worker is a power in her little
sphere; she will be a greater power if she is not struggling for her
rights, but is trying to live her own life nobly and unselfishly.

Mrs. Dilke says that we who do not want the vote are like those
who will not open the door to go into a concert hall to hear beauti-
ful music, but content themselves with the faint echoes that reach
them through the windows. We might retort by saying that those

women who, not content with what they have, still demand the
franchise, are like those who, deaf through misfortune or their own
fault, stand within the concert hall but cannot hear the music.

A TO

: = tie 7 . .
le SIL a rear

es geeI OE

jupiter

Ce arateey

 

=

nT eg Ve
Ra CAA raoRo tse ithFEMALE SUFFRAGE.

2 LT
FROM
THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, MP. q

SAMUEL SMITH, M.P.

——————SSSSS————

REPRINTED BY
AMERICAN WOMEN REMONSTRANTS TO Th
EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN.

rr

 

pre pe. — a OO te OR i
eed wi Ba a = a SRE EOE e saete

>
=

3
2
o
=

ie
ns

ee 4

iFEMALE SUFFRAGE.

   

1, CARLTON GARDENS, 4

April 11, 1892. | 2

Dear Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, I}
In reply to your letter, I cannot but express the We

hope that the House of Commons will not consent to the |
second reading of the Bill for Extending the Parlia-
mentary Suffrage to Women, which will come before it
on the 27th instant. ute
The Bill is a narrow Bill, inasmuch as it excludes
from its operation the entire body of married women ;
who are not less reflective, intelligent, and virtuous,
than their unmarried sisters, and who must I think be
superior in another great element of fitness, namely the
lifelong habit of responsible action. If this change is
to be made, I certainly have doubts, not yet dispelled,
whether it ought to be made in the shape which would
thus be given to it by a halting and inconsistent
measure. if
But it is a change which obviously, and apart from
disputable matter, ought not to be made without the
fullest consideration and the most deliberate assent of
the nation as well as of the Parliament. Not only has Ie
there been no such assent, but there has not been even an
approach to such consideration. The subject has oceupied
a large place in the minds of many thoughtful persons, ;

ee a a

ee Ee pee a i a a a aRNAS MTS
tna

Malay
Wire. ie a ee

  

NOY

Paul Nia
SOE Las haath aie Vip

er
y

INULIN NCS ACR TA TLC
SALAH Moi edoepeaaiiaosy

CMO DEI eV A

pala

  
  
  
  
     
  
  
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
    
    
 
 

e
t
\
mee
t
(
BE
y
a
iy
}

eed
a

  
  

Cae)

and of these a portion have become its zealous adherents.
Just weight should be allowed to their sentiments, and it
is desirable that the arguments on both sides should be
carefully and generally scrutinised: but the subject 1s as
ly sectional, and has not really been taken into
view by the public mind at large. Can it be right,
under these circumstances, that the principle of a change
so profound should be adopted? Cannot its promoters

yet on
}

be content with that continuance and extension of dis-
cussion, which alone can adequately sift the true merits

LiCl

[ offer this suggestion in the face of the coming
Election. JI am aware that no legitimate or effectual use
can be made of it for carrying to an issue a question at
once so great and so novel; but I do not doubt, con-
$] the zeal and ability which are enlisted in its
favour, that the occasion might be made available for
procuring an increase of attention to the subject, which I
om wilh ie in earnestly desiring.

There are very special reasons for cireumspection in
this particular case. There has never within my knowl-
dge been a case in which the franchise has been
extended to a hee body of persons generally indifferent
about receiving it. But here, in addition to a widespread
indifference, there is on the part of large numbers of
women who have considered the matter for themselves,
the most positive objection and strong disapprobation.
Is it not clear to every unbiassed mind that before
forcing on them what they conceive to be a fundamental
hange in their whole social function, that is to say in
their Providential calling, at least 1t should be ascer-
tained that the womanly mind of the country, at present
so largely strange to the subject, is in overwhelming

Samed ol

Cee

  

proportion, and with deliberate purpose, set upon securing
it ?

I speak of the change as being a fundamental change
in the whole social function of woman, because I am
bound in considering this Bill to take mto view not
only what it enacts, but what it involves. The first ot
these, though important, is small in comparison with the
last.

Be oe ae aie gy Ge eee
What the Bill enacts 1s simply to place the individual

woman on the same footing in regard to Par eh:
elections, as the individual man. She is to vote, she is to
propose or nominate, she is to be designated by rl law

as competent to use and to direct, with advantage not
only to the community but to herself, all those public

agencies which belong to our system of Parllamentary
representation. She, not the individual woman, mé arked
by special tastes, possessed of special gifts, but the woman

h, 1s by iad change to be plen: arily launched into

Pol ] 1
|

lic life, such as it is in the nineteenth,

as suc
the whirlpool of
‘ | eich as it is to be ] tha t ant iath eenthiry
anc such 4S 1b 1S to be 1n the twentieth Ce n ee

So much tor what the Bill enacts: now tor what 1t

involves, ana involves 1n the Way Ol fair and rational,

q } eee | eee aby : ee ke aa EVs
and therefore of morally necessary, consequence. Hor a
long time we drew a distinction between competency to
q fai ee. cs in , Runt |
vote and competency to sit in Parliament. but long
before our electorate had attained to the present popular
ee this distinction was felt to involve a palpable
«4 J re ee a os SET ENNT 1 W147 7
inconsistency, and accordingly it died away. It surely
cannot be revived: and if it cannot be revived, then the
; ° °,] °, ; ees E ae Ea PD!)
woman’s vote carries with it, whether by the same Bil
a a {VN 7 4 ; ‘ 1 2 ill | 7 -: ? ‘@! ‘ava + ; f Pa yr] ; 6 f BY rT
or by a consequential Bill, the woman's seat In Farhament.

v

These assertions ought to be strictly tested. But, if they

cannot be confuted, do not let them be ignored.

I a a ee as 5 a asEe ee

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    
   
    
  
  
 
   
  
 
    
  
 

  

Come )

If the woman’s vote carries with it the woman’s seat,
have we at this point reached our terminus, and found a
standing ground which we can in reason and in justice
7 regard as final? Capacity to sit in the House of Com-

mons now legally and practically draws in its train
capacity to fill every office in the State. Can we alter
this rule and determine to have two categories of Mem-
bers of Parliament, one of them, the established and the
. larger one, consisting of persons who can travel without
check along all the lines of public duty and honour, the
other, the novel and the smaller one, stamped with
disability for the discharge of executive, administrative,
judicial, or other public duty? Such a stamp would I

}
ih ty a a ae
Sa rhlah ui Bh *y/
ARV bry I
cht ah plc ie J 4
ena

A re

eet Rp,

if
CL eee

in Queens Aiea

Ye RRO
Tapa ABAD,

Mn
ery

ANAM

L apprehend be a brand. There is nothing more odious,
)}\ L nothing more untenable, than an inequality in legal
a Nf privilege which does not stand upon some principle in
i | its nature broad and clear. Is there here such a
f Bl principle, adequate to show that when capacity to sit

in Parliament has been established, the titie to dis-

charge executive and judicial duty can be withheld?
tee , Tried by the test of feeling, the distinction would be
\ Gh offensive. Would it stand better under the laws of
logic? It would stand still worse, if worse be possible.
| For the proposition we should have to maintain would
alt a 4 be this. The legislative duty is the highest of all public
Ail \ duties; for this we admit your fitness. Executive and
2 . 7 judicial duties rank below it: and for these we declare
e . you unfit.
a | I think it impossible to deny that there have been

and are women individually fit for any public office
however masculine its character; just as there are
. persons under the age of twenty-one better fitted than
many of those beyond it for the discharge of the duties

>. %

Dred
ANN

v

Hira Pure AM Lea ACEC

 

CaO AA ADD

s
a

.

Seaeo

of full citizenship. In neither case does the argument
derived from exceptional instances seem to justify the
abolition of the general rule. But the risks involved in
the two suppositions are immeasurably different. In the
one, individual judgment and authority plainly would
have to distinguish between childhcod and manhood, and
to specify a criterion of competency in each case, which
is now more conveniently fixed by the uniformity of law.
In the other, a permanent and vast difference of type
has been impressed upon women and men respectively
by the Maker of both. Their differences of social office
rest mainly upon causes, not flexible and elastic like most
mental qualities, but physical and in their nature un-
changeable. I for one am not prepared to say which of
the two sexes has the higher and which has the lower
province. But I recognize the subtle and profound
character of the differences between them, and I must
again, and again, and again, deliberate before aiding in
the issue of what seems an invitation by public authority
to the one to renounce as far as possible its own office, in
order to assume that of the other. I am not without the
fear lest beginning with the State, we should eventually
be found to have intruded into what is yet more funda-
mental and more sacred, the precinct of the family, and
should dislocate, or iniuriously modify, the relations of
domestic life.

As this is not a party seein or a class question, so
neither is it a sex question. I have no fear lest the
woman should encroach upon the power of the man.
The fear I have is, lest we should invite her unwittingly
to trespass upon the delicacy, the purity, the refinement,
the elevation of her own nature, which are the present

sources of its power. I admit that we have often, as

a ao Saardians of her rights to

1 uy. And I do not say that full
things ; but such great
made in most things, that in regard to
i yemiatt the neces ae for vi fae ant remedies
shown. I admit that in the Uni-
rofessions, in the secondary circles of
have ak mies gone so far as to give a
proposals to go

we have done

turmoil

S
es
ess
ee

Ae
i

MSL APRICOT bare AS Ee

v4

SERA Moh Mies

tiated
Ri
vOF WHAT BENEFIT TO WOMAN?

  

CHE 16 A BAR CREATER POWER WHHoOUD
SUFFRAGE. le

Reprinted. from the Boston Ss inday Herald.
To the Editor of The Herald :—

The question of woman suffrage can no longer be treated with in-

difference —it has already become a practical dies stion. If women

are to assume the duty of suffrage, they must either add it to their

other duties or lay aside other duties to take up this new duty. Would

either adierncs ive be just to the women the eel ves i the community

at large? It is for us to decide. Indi ene e 1s ee ally an influ-

ence in favor of the movement ; we should seriously, in the light of a

sacred duty, consider what the issue porten for coer and our i

fellow-beings. 4
‘Rights” is a word of much sound, but little meaning — since i

everybody’s rights stop where another’s commence, if there be a con- bh ae

flict between them. We are to consider a question of rights, woman’s } iz

rights, the suffragists call it, but let us look into it and we see a three- | y

fold aspect: The rights demanded by the women who advocate suf- I

frage; the rights of those women who oppose the movement; the hea

rights of the community at large, the Commonwe ealth, the nation. Mh :
We are to determine whether the claim of the first class to a natural,

inherent right to vote, and its demand to exercise that right, are: |

First, just ; second, expedient ; that 1s, not in conflict, but in harmony,
with the rights of 1 he others

The suffra gists claim the franchise for women on the following 1
grounds : — i)

First, That the right to vote is a natural and inherent one, of which ¥
they are deprived.

Second, That women are taxed but not represented, contrary to the H
principles of free government. |

Third, That society would gain by the partic ipation of women in )
government, in that they would purify politics ; the cause of temper-
ance would be pr omoted by their vote ; woman’s voice would abolish
war: the franchise would be to woman an educational factor.

Dick. That a majority of women not wishing the franchise is no
reason for depriving a minority of an inbori. right, i

Se

—

Cece

PERS

 

eee =

ae " i A
SS eae =ae ee

bres ee cian

  

2

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
     
  
 
 
 
 
 
    
  
  
   
    
   
   
   
  
  
   
     
 
   
  
   

Fifth, That women are physically and intellectually as capable of
the duties of the franchise as are men.

The first two proposals come under our first head —justice ; the
rest under the second — expediency; and so we will consider them.
As to the justice of their claim to an inherent, natural right of which
they are deprived, we answer that the right of suffrage is not inherent
~. or inalienable. In all political history there is not one phrase which

could be construed into meaning that men have the right of suffrage
because they are human beings. Society does not exist by the con-
sent of those who enter it. Our OV ernment was established 1 ong be-
fore the present generation existed ; so the consent of the governed
must be taken for granted (except as ch ranges are made by constitu-

g tional methods) until a rebellion arises.
ge A government exists to secure the safety and best welfare of all who
g look to it for protection. The assumption that suffrage is a natural
right is anti-republican, since the very essence of republicanism i is that
power is a trust to be exercised for the common weal, and is forfeited
when not so exercised, or when exercised for private or personal ends.
To deny this is to imply that our government is a pure, unmitigated
democracy, which may be interpreted in two ways — either as tanta-
mount to no government, or as the absolute despotism of the ruling

 

 

 

i | majority in all matters. T his is not American republicanism certainly,
)\ | since republicanism has always aimed to restrain the absolute power

vy of majorities and protect minorities by constitutional provisions.

uf Suffrage BEnot be the right of the individual, because it does not

exist for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of the state
itself. ‘Unless a doctrine is susceptible of being given practical

| : effect, it must be utterly without substance ” (Cooley’s Constitutional
A Law); and this doctrine of inherent right cannot be given practical
effect, since this would imply that minors, insane, idiots, Indians, and

t Chinese | now wholly or partially restrained) would have a right to ex-
f ercise the franchise. A gift from nature must be absolute, and not
. | oo ea the state to prescribe qualifications, the possession of

which shall be the test of right of enj joyment; and no restrictions of

age or een could be put upon it, such as now exists. Liberty
itself must come from law, and cannot, in any institutional sense, come
from nature. Rights, in a legal sense, are born of restraints, by which
every one may be protected in their enjoyment within prescribed
ia limits. In prescribing limitations, the framers of the Constitution
Y showed that they did not consider suffrage an inherent right. The
article of the bill of rights which refers to inalienable rights has nothing
bt whatever to say about suffrage.
e Ya The suffragists claim that women are taxed without representation.
; Y Those advancing this argument exhibit their entire lack of understand-
cl ing of the theories of taxation and suffrage, and prove that they, at
least, are not yet ready to enter intelligently into politics. We have
founded our government on manhood suffrage, not because our male
citizens own more or less property, or any property at all, but be-
cause they are men; because behind the law must be the power of
| ' enforcing it. Without sufficient force to compel respect and observ

TA OPAD AMA ANY (up ANE ANE gg

SSO OOM

GA
aa

 

a
Sg neon

Ay PtP hs

ALAR3

ance, laws would be dead letters. To make laws that cannot be
enforced, is to bring a government into ridicule and contempt, and in-
vite anarchy! ‘The insuperable objection to woman suffrage is funda-
mental and functional, and nature alone is responsible for it, since she
has created man combatant and woman non-combatant.

The reason we have adopted as the basis of our political system that
the will of the majority must prevail over that of the minority, is that
we recognize the fact that the majority can, if the minority rebel, com-
pel them to acquiescence. Therefore suffrage has been given to men,
because they can back laws by force enough to compel respect and
observance. It becomes thus a duty to be performed, not a privilege
to be enjoyed, and women are exempt because of what it would entail ;
their present position in the state, as its mothers and educators of
future citizens, being held as more than equivalent to any political
service.

The duty of voting is in no sense dependent — in this state at least
— upon the fact that the voter pays taxes or owns property. A man
who has no property has the same voice in voting as a millionaire!
Property of a town, city, or state is justly liable for the current ex-
penses of the government which protects such property, and thus in-
creases and preserves its value. The only question the law asks is:
‘“‘Ts there property ?’’ If so, it imposes a tax. The laws of taxation
are general, and not particular, taxation being simply a compensation
to the government for protection of property, that such property may
have value. Woman’s property receives exactly the same protection
as man’s and she benefits as much thereby; there is therefore no in-
justice to her.

Minors are taxed without being able to vote, and there are more
minors than voters. Men between eighteen and twenty-one could
quite as justly as women consider themselves wronged, for they are
by a large majority capable of voting intelligently ; so also could those
who are taxed upon property placed where they cannot vote. Women
enjoy all the rights of citizens, protection of property, use of public
institutions, roads, gas, postal facilities, etc. A vote would not pro-
tect her property, since two women with no property interests could
more than annul her vote by theirs.. (here is not a single interest of
women which is not shared by men.\ What is good for men— what
protects their interests, also protects;woman’s. We may look to men
to further what in their judgment seem the best interests of life and
property, and in doing this they protect both man’s and woman's inter-
ests because they are inseparable.

Since women have not — for men have not — any natural right to
vote, and cannot claim it on the ground of taxation without represen-
tation, it remains to be seen whether they can demand it on the ground
of expediency. The pointing out of benefits always rests with those
who demand a radical change in a system of government ; not polint-
ing out only, but proving. Will the franchise extended to women —
first, benefit the whole community? second, gain definite benefits for
women, which cannot be obtained in the existing order of things?
The remonstrants to woman’s suffrage cannot find stated in all the

 

eer as pat a

Se

i

a a acca

a a ee—_—

 

uA

RM yuuie AVA Cae sil

suffragists’ arguments one definite, certain benefit eit!
On what grounds of expediency do the suffragists
First, that society would gain because woman

The cause of temperance would be promoted

state or woman.
demand the ballot?

would reform politics.
by their vote.

Woman’s voice would abolish war.

     
   

to result to either

Second, that

women would gain, since the ballot would be to them an educational
factor. The problem of woman’s wages would be solved.

Would women reform politics?
not a question

Let us see! In: ote country a as
, as it is in England, of the relatively intelligent and

responsible women being allowed a share in the government. Eng-
land restricts the use of the ballot (by women) in municipal affairs to

those who pay rates and taxes in thelr own names.

In our country

where manhood suffrage exists it follows that, if suffrage belongs to
women at all, it belongs to all; suffrage must be given to all women
or none, and such is the final proposition of the suffragists. If the
franchise were granted to women in America, all women of legal age,
sound mind, and not disfranchised for special causes (now applying to
men) could vote; not only the intelligent and those unburdened by
home and business duties, but all women without respect to race,

character, or intelli
We must not overl

ok or leave out the densely ignorant, the supinely

indifferent, the trivial, the “occupied” women —out and out bad

women (60,000 in New York city alone).

The suffragists say, ‘‘ Yes,

that is true also of men; but it is surely evident that existing evils

should not be added to simp!
telligent, bought, or corrupt votes are worse than one

 

y because they exist, or that two unin-

on the sim-

ple ground of unnecessary outlay of means and energy, if nothing

elise lithewr
great mass of
demands for work,
laws to favor all kinds of persons.”

at mass of ignorant women’s
norant men’s votes, there will be constant unwise
money, bread, leisure, in short, “all kinds of

votes are added to the

(who makes

no positive claims for woman suffrage, save on the ground of natural

right) acknowled

ges that “the ground taken that woman as woman

would be sure to act on a higher plane than man as man, is now
urged less than formerly, the very mistakes and excesses of the agita-

tion itself having partially disproved it ;” and again “‘w

‘hile the sympa-

thies of women are wholly on the side of right, it is by no means safe

to assume that their mode of

judicious.”

enforcing that sentiment will be equally

As for temperance — there must be taken into consideration not
only its advocates, and on the other hand those women who favor
license through depravity (the most difficult class to deal with, vide
kitchen bar-rooms in no-license cities), but the countless number of

foreign-born

vomen brought up where liquors are used, and not

abused, who would feel themselves cramped in their liberties under a

no-license law.
“’Woman’s voice would abolish war.”
lated and encouraged by women in the North;

The Civil War was stimu-
and it is generally con-

ceded that but for the women of the South it would have sooner ended.

A suffragist is responsible for the statement that a mayor of a leading5

southern city lays the survival of dueling anywhere in the South to
the sustaining public sentiment of women. I cannot better sum up
the illusive nature of the benefits proposed by the suffragists than in
again quoting from Colonel Higginson. In an article devoted to
oe Too much prediction,” he says: “ I am persuaded that at present we
indulge in too many bold anticipations!”’

We come to the question of the gain to woman personally. Is there
anything to be gained which cannot be brought about with the exist-
ing franchise? The suffragists say: 1. Women will be educated by
the ballot. 2. The problem of woman’s wages will be solved. In
regard to their first claim we need only ask, Has the ballot proved of
much educational value to men; then what are the probabilities as
regards women?

Thr problem of woman’s wages! The ballot could not help the
working girl in the way the suffragists claim, since legislation affects
the business of the country only in a general way, helping or hurting

all the workers alike in any special industry. ‘The question of wages
is one of supply and demand simply! So the general wages of wo-

men will always depend greatly on the amount of skill acquired by
the mass of them. What especially affects woman’s wages is the tem-
porary character of her work! ‘The average age of working women
is twenty-two years, as determined by government investigation. You
see what this means — that the ranks are constantly being filled up
with raw, untrained girls, while those who have attained to some de-
gree of skill are constantly dropping out.

The natural expectation of every normal girl should be that sooner
or later she will marry and leave her work ; therefore, there is not
that incentive that men have to become highly skillful; and the char-
acter of her work is, consequently, not so high, generally speaking, as
men’s, lacking, as it does, two factors, time and incentive, to develop
great skill. Then, since the majority of women take up work with
the intention — conscious or unconscious — of devoting only a part
of their lives to it, they naturally gravitate to such work as can be
most easily made a temporary occupation, and competition comes in
to help complicate the wage question.

The problem therefore resolves itself into this — how to regulate
justly the distribution of wages between a sex which works through-
out life and a sex which works with only temporary expectations,
looking toward withdrawal in a few years from the labor market, and
withdrawing to take with it its acquired skill, leaving only inexperi-
ence in its stead. The wiser of the suffragists acknowledge that the
suffrage will not of itself solve the problem of wages, dependent as it
is on other than political considerations. The wisest and best of our
women are studying what can be done for the working girl. They
hope that organization among workers, and the cooperation of all in-
telligent women may do much. Let all thoughtful women consider
how they may best contribute their share, and, leaving the duties of
political life to those whom they now burden, devote what of energy,
time, and ability they have to the solution of this problem, which the
ballot cannot help to solve.

 

‘ , <r ereae
ps 2 z i ae (I a ee
ee ee a a at ae CARON

Se as at

aaaSe ; eS ee
SRE ae eee eR ee ee =

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
    
   
  
  
  
  
  
     
   
   
   
 
   
    
 
    
   
  
       
 
  
  
  

6

We have left one argument for granting woman the suffrage,
namely, that a majority of women not wishing to vote should not be
a sufficient reason for depriving a minority of an inborn right. We
f have summed up the other arguments for the franchise and shown
; what is to be aad in their refutation ; but this last argument, it seems

| to me, contains the gist of the whole question, that is, wherein the
demands of the suffragists and the anti-suffragists clash. We have
shown their error in claiming the franchise as an inherent right, but
even were we to grant that such a right existed, it would still be per-
fectly within the power of the State to deprive women of this right, if
by granting it the general good would be imperiled. We know that
the State holds authority to deprive citizens of the right of property,
of liberty, of life itself, if the common weal demand it. The family
is the safeguard of the State, and the granting of the suffrage to wo-
men tends to weaken this mainstay of the nation by bringing into it
elements of discord and disunion ; therefore the State would be more
than justified in denying women even an inherent right which might
prove thus disastrous.

To the rest of the argument we answer that a majority of women
believe that their inherent rights and privileges would suffer if the
duty of voting were imposed upon them, for “the following reasons:

Because suffrage involves office-holding, which is inconsistent with

) & | the duties of most women ; because they feel that their obvious duties
| \ and trusts —as sacred as any on earth — already demand their best
A 7 | efforts ; because the duties cannot be relegated to others ; because
political equality will deprive woman of special privileges hitherto
| accorded to her by law; because they hold that the suffrage would

| lessen rather than increase their influence for good.

ay Suffrage involves office-holding. If women vote, they ought also
to hold office, and assume the working duties incident to office. A

system which tends to the dissolution of the home is more perilous to

the general good than any other form of danger, and office-holding is,

on the face of it, incompatible with woman’s proper disch large of her
duties as wife and mother. ‘There is too little stress laid on this.

No theory of womanly life is good for anything which undertakes to

leave out the cradle.

We cannot ignore the fact that nature has imposed upon women
| the duty of bearing and rearing the race, and in so doing, has un-
4 fitted her (for a number of years at least) for holding political office.
| : Many women there are, it is true, who are not wives and mothers ;
. and, if women vote, there will be more of them. When political re-
Bil wards are held out as the price of services in public life, many wo-
, men — and those of the brightest — will be tempted to forego mar-
. | riage and motherhood for the sake of f winning them. Well may we say
\ cf with Mrs. Corbin: “Woe betide the land which offers its political

\ trusts as premiums for childless women!” What will become of the

: morals of society when not to be married, not to be a mother, is the
prerequisite for a woman’s success in a chosen career ?
. The trusts of woman now are’ as sacred as any on earth, and man
y cannot relieve her of them. If, therefore, he demands of her partici-
f

 

 

 

 

J COAL PPAU IRA Str uae bt BFS

RELA A Re Refi o Ne,

yy
337

pation in such duties, political or general, which his natural constitu-
tion fits him for, while he cannot relieve her of those most necessary
duties which nature demands of her, he commits towards her a mon-
strous injustice. This is what imposing the suffrage on women would
amount to; for if woman may vote she must vote. It is a mere
sophism to say that the simple dropping of a ballot is all that is re-
quired of her, If the suffrage is extended to women, they must accept
it as a duty, bringing to bear on it the conscientious spirit which they
bring to bear on their present life problems.

It would be well to consider, too, if they would be prepared to give
up the special privileges which in Massachusetts they possess : —

Unmarried women and widows of small estate are exempt from
taxation.

Women, and not men, are allowed to acquire a settlement without
paying a tax.

Husbands are compelled to support their wives, but wives (even
when rich) are exempt from supporting an indigent husband. |

Men are liable for their wives’ debts, but women are not made lia-
ble for their husbands’.

Women are excused from jury duty.

Woman is exempt, except in actions for tort, from arrest previous
to judgment and execution.

She has the advantage of man in regard to policies of life insur-
ance.

The husband is liable for criminal acts committed by his wife in his
presence, yet no such counterbalancing liability exists for her.

A father must support his children during their non-age, even when
they have property of their own. A widowed mother is not under such
obligation unless she have sufficient means, and her children have
none of their own.

Women ¢an more easily than men acquire citizenship of the United
States.

Finally we oppose the suffrage for women, because we feel that we
have more influence without it. There is nota single subject in which
woman takes an intelligent interest in which she cannot exert an in-
fluence in the community proportionate to her character and ability.
Without the ballot, women have obtained more than mere justice in
Massachusetts. The number of women who want the ballot for itself
is reduced to a mere handful when we take away those who are work-
ing for temperance, or other worthy causes. How much more would
be gdined by advocating these causes on their own merits!

The influence of woman standing apart from the ballot is 1mmea-
surable. Men look to her then (knowing that she has no selfish, polit-
ical interests to further) as the embodiment of all that is truest and
noblest. She has influence with all parties alike ; if a voter, she would
have only the influence of her own party, even the woman's vote being
divided against itself. We believe that it is of vital importance that
our sex should have no political ends to serve!

Our legislators have shown themselves ever ready to listen to wo-
men, and much has already been achieved by the intelligent influence

ee a

- o BE rt A BPR ESR aaa act
I TO I eaSU UCRIA Rina Ae nO ey ea eas . a
ee EE ee ! LF

8

    
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
  
 
  
  
  

of women in the anti-slavery cause, the temperance Cause, the improve-
| the reformation of criminals. It is of the

f ment of public charities, anc
( utmost importance that charitable and educational administration be
to woman is given this trust.. In whatever

y kept out of politics, and
tends to protect and elevate woman, to §
sense of the word, to open up to her new paths of usefulness, all true-
In such work there is no differ-

ecure her rights in the true

i. hearted men will join with women!

hg ence of purpose.

Childhood is hers to influence and mold, and what greater power

for good could there be given her? Let all true women, loyal citizens

of our republic, look to the best performance of the trusts which are:

naturally theirs, striving for no false “equality” since there is no

question of comparison between men and their duties and women and

theirs. They are not ‘like in like” but “like in difference,” each
supplementing the other, rising or falling, but always together.

MARY A. J. M’INTIRE.

 

 

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Extension of Wo-

ry I man Suffrage.
h | Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the
)\ | Association,
At Mrs. RoBeRT W. LorD,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.

 

AHN

ts
ni cf

3

\ Ear i

a

Ce eeecS > Ka gi ‘
jh

WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

BY CARE SCHURZ:

From HARPER’s WEEKLY, by permission. New York, June 16, 1894.

THE effort made by many women and men of excellent stand-
ing in the community to induce our Constitutional Convention to
strike out the word “‘male” from the State Constitution, and
thus to put the two sexes upon a footing of political equality,
has given the question of woman suffrage an unusual prominence.
It is probable that if the people of the Empire State assented
to so radical an innovation, the movement would receive a pow-
erful impulse throughout the country, and have a chance of suc-
cess where at present it appears hopeless. ‘The action of this
State is therefore likely to be of great influence far beyond its
boundaries. It must also be admitted that in the public discus-
sions of this subject now taking place, the women who advocate
woman suffrage have in some respects a decided advantage over
their sisters who oppose it. The foremost among the female
champions of “the cause” do not shrink from appearing upon
the public stage ; they are mostly ‘‘ accustomed to public speak-
ing,” and speak well; and they are able to turn to their advan-
tage a good many of those catch phrases taken as _ political
axioms by our people in revolutionary times, or on occasions of
self-glorification, although those phrases were never intended to
carry the meaning which the woman suffragists now give them.
Still, they make captivating battle-cries, and are used sometimes
with effect. On the other hand, the women who oppose woman
suffrage, and who believe that the circle of the duties of woman
centres in the family, and that she should not permit herself to
be unnecessarily drawn into publicity, are by their very princi-
ples debarred from demonstrative public manifestations of their
views. The “campaign” is therefore, so far as their aggressive

ce vie ee I I IT
oe esa eae

Fee tt Poe

ae

   
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
    
    
 
 
  
  

Jihad biel Hh J ith)
Daaree eReh Gicwl vL r

— re
4 A-AereecnihYede

     

Xo.: ‘ , oo cf yy a
Re Ee a ee I “ee ne

2

£ i vigor and their argumentative vocabulary are concerned, strongly
4 F in favor of the woman suffragists.

\ y 3ut in another respect they find a difficulty in their way which
i gives their opponents a decided advantage. There was a time

: .. when the American people flattered themselves with the pleasing

A

WATS RE
“papa

thought that they had succeeded in finally solving the problem
of democratic government. The public mind is no longer in this
state of self-congratulation. The number of American citizens
who are much troubled by the miscarriages of democratic gov:
ernment in the nation, in the States, and especially in our muni-
cipalities, is very large and constantly growing. We do not be-
lieve that many of them would seriously think of substituting
for the present form of government another form not democratic.

 

3 But we are very sure the idea that the evils we now complain
of can be cured by further extensions of the suffrage is, after
the experiences we have had, entertained by but very few, if

any, thinking men. On the contrary, the belief is fast gaining

& 7 eround that in the democratization of our institutions by en-
a | A S cr ] :

| )| | largements of the suffrage we have gone fully as far as the safety

= ¥ D} a : 3 < < X 2 ~ a ad

5 of the republic will warrant, and that it is much more advisable

to sift the body of voters by educational requirements and the

like, than to expand it by indiscriminating additions.
} | The advocates of woman suffrage are certainly entitled to
great respect, and there is much force in many of their argu-
ments. When awoman of high character and culture asks us

why she should not have the right to vote, while a plantation
c | negro or an immigrant knowing nothing of American institutions
or of the English language has that right, the appeal to our sym-

pathies is very strong. But calm reason tells us that, after all,
the highly educated woman and the plantation negro and the
ignorant man from abroad do not stand upon the same level of
\ comparison. If woman suffrage meant only the enfranchisement
\ of the women of high character and good education, there would
4 be little opposition among the men, provided such women actu-

TYE tp

A TOVAN ASLAN 1) 3

a

e ally desired the ballot. But the introduction of woman suffrage
( means also the enfranchisement of those classes of women who
correspond in character and education to the plantation negro
} and the ignorant immigrant. And now, admitting that among

. the men enjoying the right to vote there are very many whose

. mental and moral fitness for the exercise of political privileges
is at least doubtful, the question arises whether it would be wiseote le ole Be BE Ba Ee Se be

    
   
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
   
     
  
    
  

3

to increase in so sweeping a manner, as it would be done by the
general enfranchisement of woman, the proportion of persons of
doubtful fitness in the voting body.

It is no answer to this question that as the fit women would
be enfranchised with the unfit, the proportion between fit and
unfit would, in the voting body, remain on the whole about the
same. For here the difference between man and woman, the
existence of which even the most enthusiastic suffragist will after
all not deny, comes into consideration. One of our troubles is
that among male voters the so-called better classes, the well ed-
ucated and refined, take generally a much less active part in tha
political activity which has a direct bearing upon the exercise of
the suffrage, as well as in the act of voting itself, than the less
well educated and refined, the so-called lower classes. Another
is, that many voters are ignorant or careless of public questions,
or easily reached by dangerous influences, or apt to be controlled
by personal considerations or blind party spirit, or have only one
object in view, and sacrifice to it all others. Now, if men of re-
finement are deterred from the necessary political activity by the
rudeness of the contacts inseparable from them, is it not proba-
ble that refined women will be still more so deterred? Is it not
probable that many women, belonging to the most estimable
element of society, would keep aloof from all contact with poll-
tics on principle, believing it to be outside of their sphere? Is
it not probable that even more female than male voters would be
ignorant or careless of public questions, or easily reached and con-
trolled by extraneous, especially sectarian, influences, or personal
considerations, or anything that appeals more to the emotions
than to reason? Is it not probable, in one word, that, while
doubtless a limited element of excellent quality would be added
to the voting force, not only the positive quantity, but the pro-
portion in it of the element to which some of our most serious
troubles are owing, would be largely increased? Even if we
were to admit, for argument’s sake, that to these questions there
are different answers, is it not certain that so tremendous an
addition to the voting force as the granting of unqualified woman
suffrage would effect, would involve at least the possibility of a
dangerous increase of those evils which the best thought of the
country is at present painfully struggling to remedy?

Under such circumstances there would seem to be good reason
for the following protest, which, signed by a large number of

: E Ee wo ee i ee es

a a a

eel beth! thd ded hai dtp
Por uhtate Brel MA yh.

Lal: heeft ee pair v
baetva! rear WU ureEe lee hee om

  

4

 
 
  
  
 

\ women, has been sent to the Constitutional Convention: “ We,
women, citizens of the State of New York (twenty-one years of
f age), believing that it would be against the best interests of the
State to give women unqualified suffrage, thus taking an irrevo-
cable step, at a time when the country is. already burdened with
many unsolved problems, do protest against striking out the
word ‘male’ from Article II., Section 1, of the Constitution.”
The woman who wrote this protest has the mind of a statesman.
It hits the nail on the head with rare precision. Against the
striking commonsense of this one sentence all the able and

{

  

 
   
  
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  

*

7"

PAINT IN MRA APR NATY TI TAT
VAAN A epi aRay haba hail

CR

bs beautiful speeches made by the advocates of woman suffrage
3 about equal rights, and representation with taxation, and so‘on,
= ' avail nothing. Woman suffrage may eventually come. It may
M appear at some future time even very desirable. But will it not

be wise to get more light on the problems which now perplex us,
before adding to them, without the possibility of recall, a new
complication which may immensely increase their difficulties?

{
5 | As good citizens, we should not permit ourselves one moment to
e | yy | forget that this is very serious business, in the treatment of which
‘f we should keep our feelings and sympathies well in hand.
| Reprinted for the Massachusetts Association Opposed to Extension of
fF Woman Suffrage.

WALLS ANVAC A) ADA SOMADLSIAN I INE U EO R RNe

I

M

Net De
wy

Re

hie

Py

v
rai

Rees TARA Sr eA eh

Ree Seeie

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  

LETTER TO: Revd: DR | Me RUCKER:

When about thirty years of age I accepted for a time the doc-
trine of woman suffrage, and publicly defended it. Years of
wide and careful observation have convinced me that the de-
mand for woman suffrage in America is without foundation in
equity, and, if successful, must prove harmful to American so-
ciety. I find some worthy women defending it, but the major-
ity of our best women, especially our most intelligent, domestic,

and godly mothers, neither ask for nor desire it. The instinct |

of motherhood is against it. The basal conviction of our best
manhood is against 1. The movement is at root 2 protest
against the representative relations and functions by virtue of
which each sex depends upon and is exalted by the other. This
theory and policy, tending to the subversion of the natural and
divine order, must make man less a man, and woman less a
woman. A distinguished woman advocate of this suffrage move-
ment says, “We need the ballot to protect us against men.”
When one sex is compelled thus to protect itself against the
other, the foundations of society are already crumbling. Woman
now makes man what he is. She controls him as babe, boy,
manly son, brother, lover, husband, father. Her influence is
enormous. If she use it wisely, she needs no additional power.
If she abuse her opportunity she deserves no additional respon-
sibility. Her womanly weight, now without measure, will be
limited to the value of a single ballot, and her control over from
two to five additional votes forfeited.

The curse of America to-day is in the dominated partisan vote,
the vote of ignorance and superstition. Shall we help matters
by doubling this dangerous mass? Free from the direct compli-
cations and passions of the political arena, the best women may
exert a conservative and moral influence over men as voters.
Force her down into the same bad atmosphere, and both man
and woman must inevitably suffer incalculable loss. We know
what woman can be in the “commune,” in “riots,” and on the
“rostrum.”

Woman can, through the votes of men, have every right to
which she is entitled. All she has man has gladly given her.
It is his glory to represent her. To rob him of this right is to
weaken both. He and she are just now in danger through his

mistaken courtesy.

JOHN H. VINCENT.
Topeka, Kansas, April 18, 1894.

anaes Breas a Pi EO a aalieead
Oa ae ole ne SO ee a

ee ee aa 4
; , rs
a pees

Hi
=
ss
=
5
=
Fr
i}
©)
a

rin

RROWHY I AM OPPOSED TO WOMAN
SUFFRAGE

[FRom HARpPER’s Bazar, May 19, 1894.]

‘ sp em AOR a Os ata aed
2 IA Ba Raa "
a BN a isp i
age eee 3 eae DFR - a
el ae gre ee a oe em eS ae ~ il

WHY 1 AM OPPOSED TO WOMAN
SU Piha Gis

a,
—_ a

 

OKT NAT AUT

It has been quite a shock to people who do not know me, but

who thought they did, to find me opposed to woman’s suffrage.

Because I have been for so many years a working-woman, and

because the profession I chose is, or was at the time I entered it,

supposed to be entirely a man’s profession, they thought I wanted

all the privileges of men. But I don’t. You could have counted

the women journalists on the fingers of one hand at the time I

entered the ranks. Nowadays you could not find fingers enough

} in a regiment to count them on. ‘There are now certain branches

of journalistic work that are almost entirely given over to women,

and women not only edit mere departments of daily papers, but

| there are those who edit the Sunday editions of some of the big-
gest dailies.

f | I am a great believer in the mental equality of the sexes, but

fat I deny the physical equality. I believe in putting men’s work

and women’s work of the same kind side by side, and judging

{
: | them not as sex work, but simply as work. To havea ‘‘ Woman’s
Building ”’ at the World’s Fair did not seem to me a compliment
‘ to the sex, but I believe some good reasons were advanced for it.
; j Even some of its staunchest advocates, however, doubt if there
t ; will ever be such another building at such another show. I do

not believe in sex in literature or art. Every book should be
compared with all other books of its kind, and so with every pic-
ture, statue, or musical composition. There are few trades or
professions that I do not think women fairly well equipped for,
or capable of being prepared for. I cannot say that I quite like

ASDA INADA) SE ee ire

|| ) | the idea of a woman preacher, but that may be a mere prejudice ;
a . / nor do I think that I would retain a woman lawyer. But this is
S| neither here nor there.
' k In politics I do not think that women have any place. The
\ i life is too public, too wearing, and too unfitted to the nature of

hi women. It is bad enough for men—so bad, that some of the5

best of them keep out of it; and it would be worse for women.
Many of the women who are enthusiastic in the cause of suffrage
seem to think that if they are once given the power to vote, every
vexed question will be settled, every wrong righted. By dropping
their ballots in the box they believe that they can set in motion

the machinery of an earthly paradise.

I wish I could think so.

It is my opinion that it would Let loose the wheels of purgatory. If
the ballot were the end, that would be one thing, but it is only
the beginning. It women vote they must hold office, they must
attend primaries, they must sit on juries. We shall have women
“heelers ” and women “bosses ;” there will be the “ girls” of the
Fourth Ward (when it comes to New York) as well as the “boys.”

What will become of home life, I should like to know, if the
mother and the father both are at the “primary” or the con-
vention ? Who will look after the children? MHired mothers?
But can every woman with political ambitions afford to pay for

a “resident” ora

66

visiting

2)

mother ?

And even if she can, will

such a one take the place of the real.mother? I think not.

Cannot a woman find a sufficiently engrossing “ sphere’

2

very important work of training her children! If there are any
sons among them, she can mould them into good citizens; if

there are any daughters, she can guide their footsteps along any
path they may choose, for all paths but the political are open to
them. I do not think that to be a good housewife should be the
end and aim of every woman’s ambition, but I do think that it
should be some part of it ; for I am old-fashioned enough to be a
pious believer in the influence of a mother’s training upon her

children. Read the life of any great man, and you will see how

much of his greatness he owed to his mother, It seems to me

that it is a bigger feather in a woman’s cap

 

a brighter jewel in

her crown —to be the mother of a George Washington than to be
a member of Congress from the Thirty-second District.

From the day Adam and Eve were created to the present year
of grace men and women have been different in all important re-
spects. They were made to fill different roles. It was intended
by nature that men should work, and that women should share
in the disposition and enjoyment of the fruits of their labor. Cir-

cumstances alter cases, and women are often
— driven out into the world to make their own way.

 

alas! too often

  

Would they

in the {

*

   
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
    
   
 
    
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
    
  
 

SS ee¥

Dt
oh bath wi

Rn eer
Wir aese

eR eh tren.

pa eS
Reo

eee

VI Te Rhee
AAPA

ro
WH)

at ENTS RUD MeN
Behe eH

AMEE HA ERM AMR ED MH

SIMILAR OFA ASAI EMU ee a a
Noite ty ot

Les ae

. ¢ a 5
ee ae

a

4

find it any easier if they had the ballot! Do men find it so easy
to get work? If they do, why are there so many thousands of
the clamoring unemployed ?

It is said that the laws are unfair to women. Then call the
attention of the law-makers to the fact, and see how soon they
will be amended. I think that men want to be fair to women,
and a petition will work wonders with a Congressman. Will
women always be fair to women? ‘That is a serious question.
They may on some points, but the question of chivalry never
comes into consideration between women. It does between men
and women, and the latter profit by it.

I speak from experience when I say that I don’t see how
women can cultivate home life and enter the political arena.
Circumstances forced me to go out into the world to earn my
own bread and a part of that of others. When my mother was
living, she made the home, and all went well. But after that,
after marriages and deaths, a family of four small children came
to me for a home. I don’t mean for support, for they had a
father living, but fora home. I had to take, as far as possible,

"the place of my sister, their mother. To do my duty by them

and by my work was the most difficult task I ever undertook. I
had to go to my office every day and leave them to the care of
others. Sometimes the plan worked well, but oftener it worked
ill—very ill indeed. I had seven people doing, or attempting to
do, what I and two others could have done had I been able to be
at home and look after things myself. Suppose that politics had
been added to my other cares? Suppose that I had had meet-
ings to attend and candidates to elect, perhaps to be elected my-
self? What would have been the result? Even direr disaster!
We cannot worship God and Mammon ; neither can we be poli-
ticians and women. It is against nature, against reason. Give
woman everything she wants, but not the ballot. Open every
field of learning, every avenue of industry to her, but keep her
out of politics. The ballot cannot help her, but it can hurt her.
She thinks it a simple piece of paper, but it is a bomb — one that
may go off in her own hands, and work a mischief that she little
dreams of. .
JEANNETTE L. GILDER.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further E-xten-
sion of Suffrage to Woman.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of
the Association, Mrs. RosBertT W. Lorp,

P. O. Box 2262, Boston:

; —
ae FT eee a PaAt a meeting of the Committee on Suffrage of the New
York Constitutional Conv ention, held at the Capitol in Al-
bany, on Thursday, June 14, 1894, Mr. Francis M. Scott of
New York city spoke as follows upon the amendment under
consideration by the Committee, providing for the elimination
of the word “male” from Article 11, Section 1, of the Con-
stitution : —

I appear before this Committee as the spokesman of
large body of women resident in the county of New York,
who are seriously and si incerely alarmed at the Hos possibil-
ity that this Convention may be induced to take the first step
toward the imposition upon the women of this State of new
and onerous duties and responsibilities.

In the opinion of those who send me here, the experiment
which you are asked to indorse would bea ‘most dangerous
one, not only for the State, but for woman herself, and they
have therefore come forward most unwillingly, but in fulfill-
ment of what they regard as an imperative duty, to protest
publicly against so radical and. revolutionary an amendment
of our fundamental law, as would be implied in the unlimited
extension of the suffrage to women.

It is proper at the outset that I should state as briefly as
possible how it has happened that these women whom I rep-
resent, and who shrink from active and personal participation
in public affairs, have, in a yarent contradiction to their own
professed principles and beliefs, been moved to take part in
the public discussion of a question of this character.

The agitation for woman suffrage is no new matter in this
country, and there are few of us present to-night who can
remember the time when there were not some women, with
active, restless minds, who clamored for the right to vote.

Never, until the present year, however, has the agitation
for this extension of the suffrage made sufficient headway in
this State to appear really dangerous, or to seem to warrant
active opposition.

Early in the past winter, indeed almost as soon as the
members of this Convention had been elected, certain very
well known, very estimable, and very able ladies in the city
of New Y ork began to solicit petitions addressed to this Con-
vention, asking it to recommend to the people an amend-

 

 

IssuED BY MASSACHUSETTS MAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION, 7A Park S¥., BOSTON,

an ee a

a a A ee ek ees set

SS a ed

ial Been ad
aa be Sh nei : : é : ee . pate » la
ee ee a ee perenne a ee ee a

>
=

ment to the first section of Article 11 of the Constitution,
to consist of the elimination ot the word “ male” from that
section.
At a time like the present, when the unrestful spirit of
e. Socialism is abroad throughout the land, it 1s not surprising
that they were able to attract to their support many men and
women of acknowledged intellectual capacity, many of the
women who have acquired a certain kind of prominence by
their constant participation in all hae of public discussion,
some women, who by means of their husbands’ wealth and
their own social prominence had poare well known by name
in the community, and not a few of that always considerable
body of people who constantly seek some change in the exist-
| ing condition of affairs, and who, unthinkingly, believe that
whatever is new must, for that reason alone, be progressive
and desirable.
4 A large number of public and quasi-public meetings were
)\ | held, many speeches were delivered, and pamphlets written,
' / } and a vast amount of newspaper prominence was obtained.

 

 

Dore long time ,the suffragists, as they have come to be
| cailed, had the field to themselves, — the subject became the
relay yf di ISCUSSII yn in drawing-rooms and over dinner-tables,

and woman’s suffrage became the “ social fad” of the hour.
| At length, only about three weeks before this Convention
‘ met, a few earnest and thoughtful women in the city of New
York became aroused to the possible danger that unless some
et if positive steps were taken to present the other side of the
\ | question the a in favor of the amendment might suc-
ceed by default. They realized how difficult it has become in
these days for man to refuse to woman anything that she asks
at his hands, and they feared that if this Convention heard
only from the women who wished to participate in the poli-
ot e tics of the State, it might be misled into the belief that these
petitioners represented the sentiments of the women gener-

ally.
, They also appreciated the fact that many of the advocates
. ey of female suffrage were women of signal ingenuity and ability,
ot well primed with specious and plausib le arguments, and that
} you gentlemen, having many matters of great importance to
hee: consider and act upon within avery limited time, were entitled

to all possible assistance in reaching a conclusion upon a
, question of such vital importance, not only to womankind but
to the community.

These women, therefore, who were opposed to the exten-
sion of the suffrage, and who felt very strongly and seriously

 

—

vit

SUI PAT iy See

SUR
Ct

PE,

Rae Any Lanes Be Oa3

upon the subject, quietly prepared and circulated the protest
which has been laid before you.

They" refrained from imitating the methods adopted by
the suffragists. They held no meetings, made no speeches,
conducted no campaign.

They made no effort to impress the Convention by the
mere: number of names attached to their protest.

They accepted the signatures of no men, of no women
under twenty-one years of age, of no aliens or non-residents
of the State.

_ The results have exceeded their most sanguine expecta-
tions.

Notwithstanding the very short time allowed for the circu-
lation of their protest, notwithstanding the unaggressive
methods adopted by them, notwithstanding the reluctance of
many women to take even so much part in public affairs as
would be involved in signing a document of this character,
they have already been able to lay before you from the city
of New York the names of nearly as many women — within
three or four thousand as many — as the suffragists have been

able to present from that city after months of ~effort and an
is] borate and aggressive campaign, and to-day I have brought
to Albany the names of nearly a thousand women in ad idition
to those already presented.

Nor had these women of ‘New York, until within a very
few days, contemplated the presentation of any oral argu-
ments or addresses to you.

They have selected and sent to each membe! of the Con-
vention some of the best literature upon the ES in which
the unanswerable arguments against female suffrage are ably
and convincingly stated

At the very last moment, however, it has been de emed
due to yourselves that fhe: side of the Rea fragists, as

they are termed, should be orally and formally presented to
you.

I shall, however, be very brief in what I have to say, 'con-
tenting myself rather wi ‘th suggesting ee elaborating a few
of the most serious and ap parent objections to the proposed

amendment.

You will not accuse me of seeking to instruct you in your
duties if I begin by quoting from the leading advocate of the
amendment a sentence which, in my opinion, every member
of this Convention should oe ever clearly in mind.

Mrs. Jacobi very justly said to you a few ev enings ago that
‘TRIS Conv ention is no revolutionary tribunal assembled to

a ee

SS Ipara
Hrs. ot a Mabh 6

IN ARN

ai

: Aan RY Rue { VERY Aira
Che er eral TA i eas bibl g

ADIN Ee ete

YT

eae

~

ee Tee ee Na a a

A

sap the foundation or overthrow the structure of existing
society.”

If, then, it can be made clear to you that this proposed
amendment is essentially revolutionary; that its inevitable
tendency must be to sap the foundations and overthrow the
Structure Of exiotiae nee ear that it would bestow apparent
authority upon those who lack the power to enforce respect
for their authority ; that it would tend to destroy that inter-
dependence of men and women for which nature has wisely
provided, and which alone makes social development and
ee possible; that it would be, to quote the report of
Horace Greeley to the last Constitutional Convention, “ An
innovation revolutionary and sweeping, openly at war with the
distribution of functions between the sexes as venerable and
pervading as government itself, and involving radical trans-
formations in social and Homectic life,” —

If you shall be convinced that this proposed amendment
is of this character, then your duty with respect to it will be
clear and easy.

What, then, is the proposition now laid before you and for
which your approval is demanded ?

It is that man, upon whom from time immemorial has de-
volved the duty of making and enforcing laws for the protec-
tion of society, “shall now abdicate his position, and, potential y
at least, turn over to the women the power of making the
laws, reserving to himself only the responsibility of enforcing
those laws which she may make, for while it is possible by
amendment of the Constitution to confer upon women the
power to make laws, a higher power than even this Conven-
tion has denied to her the power of enforcing the law.

I have said that the adoption of this amendment involves
man’s abdication of his right to make laws, and the statement
is none too strong. The women always outnumber the men,
and owing to the itinerant character of many of man’s avoca-
tions the voting women would always largely outnumber the
voting men.

It may be that we should seldom see all the women on one
side of a political question, but we might easily do so, espe-
cially upon a question that appealed to sentiment or emotion,
and so, as I have said, potentially at least, the proposed amend-
ment involves the abdication by man of the power of govern-
ment.

If that be not revolutionary in its tendencies, I know not
what could be.

We have all become so accustomed to defer to woman —5

to accede to her slightest wish —to extend to her all the
privileges that her sex seems to demand —to share with her
everything in which she desires to share, that we approach
this question with a sort of half formed feeling that we may,
in some way, be deemed ungracious and ungenerous if we
refuse to admit her to participation in the suffrage.

But as upon man devolves the power to change the funda-

mental law of the State, so upon man rests the responsibility
of exercising that power in the interest and for the benefit of
the community, and it is his duty to approach the considera-
tion of this question with all seriousness and without a trace
of sentimentality.
\ Before the men of this State consent to surrender to
women the responsibility for government and the power to
change at will its fundamental law, before even we consent
to share that power and responsibility with them, we are
bound to be fully assured : —

First: That to do so will be of benefit to the whole com-
munity, and

Second: That there are certain definite benefits to be
secured through woman’s suffrage, which cannot otherwise be
secured.

The great and insuperable objection to the extension of
the suffrage to women is fundamental and functional.

It rests upon the difference that nature has established
between men and women.

The basis of government is force; its stability rests upon
its physical power to enforce its law. Since the world began
no government has ever sustained itself for any length of
time unless it controlled the physical force of the nation.

To imagine a government unbacked by. the physical power
necessary to enforce its laws is to imagine an anomaly, —
which must soon develop into anarchy.

And it is for this reason that in all times and all coun-
tries the government has been intrusted to the men, because
they alone are able, if necessary, to fight for its maintenance.

[am well aware that the advocates of female suffrage re-
fuse to admit the truth of the proposition that the stability of
government is dependent upon physical force ; they cannot
admit it, since to do so would be to admit the weakness of
their cause. But it is true, nevertheless, and the more you
think of it, the more you turn it over in your minds, the
more you consider ‘it from every side, the more certainly
must you come to recognize its truth. |
The suffragists characterize such a proposition as brutal

5 A

sae

Sea

eee

TT ied tein pAen ree nes aah Menno iad ES oaeiinn —

  
  
   
 
 
    
    
 
  
   
    
     
    
   
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
    
 
   
     
   
    
   
  
   
    
     

or vity
~~ pe

6

and revolting. They assert that with the advent of female
suffrage human nature and the whole theory of government
will change; that a government of reason will supersede a
government of force; that bad men and women will consent
to be persuaded to obagrae the law, and that it will no longer
be necessary to compel them to do so.

Indeed, one of the most enthusiastic, and least logical, of
the advocates of female suffrage ventures the assertion that
already there is going on all over the civilized world ‘‘a con-
tinuous evolution in the form of government from the mili-
tary type to the industrial type,— from government by invol-
untary codperation to government by voluntary cooperation,
from government by force to govern nent by discussion,’

Fine words indeed, but far at variance with the facts.|

i This is still the age of Bismarck: Europe still ré®é@mbles
i 5 I
g ]

 

g} nothing more than an armed camp; the echoes of the rebel-

B | a lion have not yet died away, and the pension list still remains

a | \ to remind us that the eovernment, even of pacinc America,

= | )\ ' can, upon occasion, maintain itself by force.

aut | If we are passing beyond the age when government must

| {| rely upon ce for its stability, why do we go on year by

BY. year developing and IMpror ing our militia? why do we erect

. | | armories, ee not debating halls, why in all the centres of
che .

population do we mane to organize and drill bodies of

polic Cok

A Because we know — you and I know — that laws ie cannot
a. Fy be enforced are worse than useless; that to make laws, and
| a not provide at the same time the means of compelling obedi-
i N ence to them, would be to bring government into contempt,
é — to invite a cond ae on of anarchy, — to endanger the satety
J pl athe oe ee e sanctity of the home, the permanency
a ef fall oun most ae ished institutions; in short, to call
5 oe. 10wn destruction upon the community fret it is our duty to
ae detend.
2 | . Herein, therefore, lies the fundamental difference between
ee | men and women; herein is to be found the ultimate and
. t i, immutable reason why men should vote and women should
a; not: it is simply because men can fight and women cannot.
ie ae fundamental fact may be momentarily lost sight of in
se h the clouds of emotional and sentimental rhetori ic; Dut atas your
St “E fa as serious men, charged with a grave esporniey, to
: ry see to it that you do not permit your vision to be obscured
i ' by either emotion or sentiment. You are bound to look the
| facts 1 in the face, and to legislate in the light of the facts, for

ree,

oF, benefit of the whole community.

RA RRRA AMIE

lech

(Ed Aske

aft 7,
Awe/

The interests of the community clearly require that the law ;
should have behind it sufficient force to compel respect and |
observance

We talk about the “strong arm of the law,’ — where would
be the strength of that arm, if it were only that of weak, non-
combative woman?

The reason why you and I, Mr. Chairman, are entitled to
pe in the government, is not because we are intelli-

ent, or educated, or able to pay taxes. We may be none of
ehies e and still be entitled to vote. It is because we have
back of our votes the physical-force necessary to enforce the
laws we help to make.

But laws passed by the vote of women would have no force
behind them, and consequently could be disregarded with 1m-
punity. |

The reason why we have adopted, as the foundation of our Le
political system, the rule that the will of the majority must 1}
prevail over that of the minority, is that both majority and
minority recognize the fact that the majority can, if the mi-
nority rebel, force them into acquiescence.

But if the majority were all women and the minority were
all men, this would not be true; the minority would soon
cease to pay any regard to the will of the majority, and our
whole theory nt sovernment would be overturned, and govern

V¥

  
  
 
  
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
   
  
   
   
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

ment itself cease to De gov Bani euil
The exception to the general rule that man is combatant !
and woman non-combatant in no wise affects its application. lt ;

+

LLY able to ficht,

I concede that some women are physica
and that some men are not. oa ae the existence of
mannish women, and of womanish men; but in discussing a
question of this character we must cons ider t
_ an the exceptions, and even the most ardent suffragist will

ot venture to assert that the average woman equals in physt- 4
el power the average man. 4

I repeat that the only question you have a right to deter-
mine is whether, in the Pinperes: of both the sexes, it would be

conducive to good vovernment to bestow the franchise upon

Y
i
1
A

he rule, rather

women. |
In considering that question you cannot close your eyes to i
the fact that the result of such a measure would practical os ‘fh :
be to bestow upon women power without respt onsibility, lea
ing to the men merely the respot nsibility without power.
Iam sure that you must conc! lude that an experiment so
revolutionary as that must endanger the welfare and very i

 

existence of ‘the State. |

=a 5 Se
es Se Sa Be ia aE SS Se BI = ee :
Se eee de Es Sa

ce 2
pe Bg 8 eeNA ELTA PNA
COU ea

\e

WH

 
   
  
   
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
    
 
  
   
 
 
 
   
  
 
  
 

“

SONS SVAN OL PALOMA DY NE TAT

NINN

 

q ¥
ene ee

a ee ee

If there‘were any advantages to accrue either to the State,
or to woman herself, from the adoption of this amendment,
which cannot be obtained without it, it might be your duty
to weigh those advantages against the very many and palpa-
ble disadvantages.

If there be in fact any such advantages, the burden of
pointing them out, and proving them, clearly rests upon the
proponents of this radical measure.

I have read with some care all the obtainable essays and
speeches in behalf of the amendment, and have sought in vain
for the statement of a single certain, well defined benefit which
is to result either to the State or to womankind. Glittering
generalities, fantastic speculations, socialistic theories, popu-
listic fallacies, I find plenty, but I find the statement of no
wrong to woman that man has refused to redress, of no
provision for her benefit that he has refused to make. I find
no business or profession closed to her, no barrier inter-
posed to her development and advance in any direction in
which her sex permits her to direct her footsteps.

The law of this State already accords to women, as it
rightly should, many special privileges and immunities, and
has removed the trammels which in years gone by confined
her freedom of action.

If there still be grievances to be redressed, of which we
hear no mention, it is to the Legislature that appeal should
be-made, and until it has shown, as it has not yet done, an
indisposition to act upon any reasonable complaint, there will
be no necessity for an appeal to the ballot-box.

t is true that it is said by some theorists that the posses-
sion of the privilege of voting would enable working-women
to command higher wages and greater consideration from
their employers.

If that were true, it would seem that the possession of the
franchise by men should by this time have raised to a satis-
factory figure the wages of working-men. But we all know
that it has not yet had that effect.

To-day the newspapers are filled with accounts of labor
strikes all over the country, and every striker is a voter.

It is true that among male workers organization and co-
operation have in many industries increased wages and less-
ened the hours of labor, but these concessions have been
compelled because the male workers have possessed that
which female workers do not and cannot possess, physical
force to back up their demands. Practically all these conces-
sions have been gained by strikes, or the fear of strikes, andOQ

2

back of every strike is a possible resort to physical force ;
not perhaps sufficiently strong to defy the law for very long,
but in many cases strong enough to make compromise
cheaper and safer than battle.

But it is claimed that the exercise of the: suffrage is: a
natural right inherent in every individual, and that to deny it
to woman is to refuse arbitrarily that which she has a right
to demand.

No proposition can be more at variance with the theory
and history of political government. ‘There is no such thing
as an inherent natural right of an individual to vote. The
right to say who may and who may not vote has always re-
mained, and must always remain, with the State, and, in the
nature of things, must be exercised with reference to the
interest, not of the individual, but of the State.

In no proper or exact sense is the suffrage a right at all,
or even a privilege.

It is a duty imposed upon the individual citizen because it
is believed that its exercise by him will make for the best
interest of the whole community.

And even if it were, as it is not, a personal, natural, ind1-
vidual right, it would still be perfectly competent and proper
to deny it to woman, if by granting it to her the safety or
stability of the State would be imperiled.

There is no individual right so sacred that the State may
not, for the benefit of the whole community, deprive the in-
dividual of it.

The right of property, of liberty, of life itself may be de-
stroyed if the interest of the community demands it. Pri-
vate property may be taken for public use; the writ of
habeas corpus may be suspended; men may be drafted into
the army and sent, unwilling, to meet death upon the field of
battle, if the welfare of the State—of the whole commu-
nity — needs the sacrifice.

It is urged that to refuse the ballot to women is to render
them liable to taxation without representation, and this is
proclaimed as a gross injustice. To sustain this plea, the
Committee has, as I understand, been furnished with elabo-
rate tables purporting to show the amount of property in
various countries owned by women and subject to tax.

But those who advance this argument exhibit their entire
lack of understanding of the theories, both of taxation and of
suffrage, and thus demonstrate that they, at least, are not yet
prepared to participate in the suffrage. ee
The duty, or right if you prefer the word, of voting is in

Oo

Sa Sieg ee a cesed

bay Ay ubrala ett
i

rN mre
ae rae 7

¥
Wir. ot 28 Meth 0.

eit? Airy Mabe eahnenctitih

A SALAS SL ANA AO OAD AND

TOTO

eB SL bea 0h
apa bie

ies tatchel s

eas KA ey

<A

      
  
 
  
   
   
  
   
   
   
    
       
    
 
  
     
       
       
   
   
    
  
    
     
  
    
        
    
   
   
      
   
    
   
  

t
5
ef
{

oe

Paria
~ OER PE ee
Aetety

ee
aN

TN. samen

  
 

IO

no sense dependent in this State, and has not been for many
years, upon the fact that the voter pays faxes or owns taxable
pinety

We have founded our government on manhood suffrage
and have conferred the voting power upon our male citizens,
not because they own more or less property, or any property
at all, Bs because they are men.

oe women would, indeed, have a right to complain if we
SO ai fferentiated them from their husbands, their brothers,
ne th 1eir sons as to confer upon them alone a limited right
of suffrage restricted by a property qualification.

Nor do we levy taxes as an equivalent for the suffrage, or
even in proportion to the population. New York pays more

I

taxes than ae Not! ecause New York contains a larger
voting population than Albany, and is represented by more
senators and assemblymen, but because the value of the tax-
72] = ~

able property in New York is greater than the value of the
1 : Pete
|

Taxes are the involuntary contributions levied and collected

by the State for the protection, benefit, and:advancement of
the whole community. They are levied alike and in the
Same proportion upon the property of voters and non-voters,

lay Ge aoc aoa en f

OL aliens and citizens, of infants and adults. of men and wo-

In short there is no relation whatever in fact or theory
oet ween taxation and tne voting power.

I have already pointed out that the advocates of the amend-
ment now before you have failed to indicate any see bs fi-
WE WAGE TO DE eained by the extension of the suffr age
[hey refuse to assume the burden of proof which justly
should rest upon their shoulders, and content themselves with
arguing that no harm is likely to follow upon the proposed
experiment.

{hey undertake to wage an affirmative contest by assuming
a negative attitude.

Bue ah needs

Ss be we are prepared to meet them upon this
ield,
(he change in our political system contemplated by this

amendment is the most far-reaching and radical that has ever
been attempted in this State.

LES proposed to ee into the political life of this
State a bc dy of voters, larger than the whole number now en-
titled to vote, and inte for this main part, of persons

wholly untrained and inexperienced in public affairs, and wha

poy eTTt

from the very nature of their duties and occupations have had,
and will have, little opportunity to educate themselves in the
many complex questions that must constantly arise in the
government of a State like ours.

[ beg you to remember that you must consider the prob-
able effect of extending the franchise to all women, not alone
to the exceptionally intellectual and brilliant women who have
addressed you on this subject.

They constitute but a small fraction of their sex, and are
by no means representative, intellectually, of the great body
of women in this State — of the women who are engrossed by
the cares and duties of maternity and wifehood — of the wo-
men who find their home duties so exacting that they have
little time for political reading and discussion — of the women
whose waking hours are fully and happily filled in rearing
their children for the State, and keeping homes attractive
for sons and husbands.

Should we not find the average woman divided into two
classes ? one which, holding on to her home work, voted
unintelligently and blindly, and the other gaining, perhaps,
political intelligence at the cost of a neglected home.

Would the State derive benefit from either of those classes ?

I know that I am referring to what is an unpopular fact
with some female suffragists, when [ speak of the home duties
of woman asa possible barrier to her intelligent participation
in politics. I have observeda disposition onthe part of many
of their writers and speakers to resent the suggestion that
woman’s especial duty in the world hes within the confines of

l ¢

the home.
But we must deal with the facts of life as nature has made

them for us, and nature has imposed upon women certain bur-
dens and duties, which we men cannot relieve them of, even
by an amendment of the Constitution

The chief of these is maternity, and upon the heels of
maternity follows the care of children.

The very existence of the State depends upon the birth
and care of children, and nature has devolved that function
upon woman, while the law, following nature, has imposed
upon man the duty of supporting and protecting the mothers
and the children. Hence if any advocate of female suffrage
is disposed to quarrel with the arrangement which relegates
woman to the home duties, her quarrel must be with nature,

= not. with hiane
And then there is another large class of women who can-

sat es a ee

pure 3 - ee ee ee pe
a

i te aes a ad Ba fag oe Tatoo ie

not be left out of account, — the densely ignorant, who haveROO HERE
TON TRAPATT I Za 2 FI
“EAA Aeros /

LVM SVAMOPADAMNOUA TY cy AE tg

MMM DAG Eyres

Eire smeelee, MUA

Rha

Wh

eal Rae ee
Pte cee

. er CS a ——

sia FPO

L2
neither the education, the mental capacity, nor the desire to
acquire political intelligence. Will the extension of the suf-
frage to them make for the benefit of the community ?

It 1s no answer to say that there is a correspondingly large
body of ignorant and unintelligent men who are now entitled
to vote. It surely cannot be seriously argued that there is
less to be apprehended from two unintelligent votes than
from one, — from two purchasable votes than from one, — yet
that proposition must be accepted to justify the extension of
the suffrage to such women as these.

And then we have, at least in the cities, that large class of
unfortunate women who live outside the law, numbering from
forty to sixty thousand in New York alone. Would muni-
cipal politics become cleaner and better if all these women
were permitted to vote ?—and you may be entirely sure that
every one of them would vote — would be compelled to vote

You gentlemen of the Constitutional Convention know
already, better than most of us can, that there are yet many
unsolved problems arising from universal manhood suffrage,
especially with regard to the government of large cities.

That they will all be solved in time I presume none of
us doubt. —

Some of them you will doubtless solve, or at least suggest
a solution for, before you adjourn. |

Do you think that you would be fulfilling the trust im-
posed upon you by the people, if you were now to complicate
and multiply these problems by doubling the suffr ge, — by
extending it to a large body of untrained and unready per-
sons, wholly lacking in political experience ?

I have endeavored to point out to you some of the dangers
to the State and to woman herself which would attend the
adoption of this amendment, and I have called your attention
to the fact that no one has yet been able to indicate one
single positive, certain advantage to either that may be ex-
pected to result from it.

I cannot help thinking, however, that all the discussion and
consideration now given to the subject is premature.

Surely nothing but an overmastering public necessity could
justify the imposition of political duties upon the women
of this State, until thev themselves have expressed a desire
to undertake those duties.

No such necessity exists, and there is no evidence whatever
that the majority of the women, or even a respectable minor-
ity, have the slightest desire for the ballot.

The total male vote of the State at the last presidential{3

election was over 1,300,000. We all know that a consider-
able number of men neglect their political duties, and refrain
from voting at all,and we also know that the women exceed
the men in number by an appreciable percentage. It is fair
to assume, therefore, that this amendment would affect not
less than 1,500,000 women.

Up to June 1, the whole number of women’s signatures
attached to petitions in favor of this amendment, including
those from the city of New York, was barely 44,000, even allow-
ing the claims of the suffragists, for I do not suppose that
any one else has counted them, —not more than three per
cent. of the whole number of women to be affected. And
this, too, after months of a most vigorous and. active cam-
paign.

Does this serve to convince you that the women of this
State are really anxious for the adoption of the amendment ?

Is it worth while to spend valuable time upon the consider-
ation of an amendment of this character, when only an insig-
nificant minority of the women of the State care enough for
it to ask for its adoption ?

Will it not be time enough to consider the question seri-
ously when we find at least a majority of the women asking
for the imposition of the suffrage ?

I-beg that you will not be led away by the specious plea
that it can do no harm to submit the question for determina-
tion by the people.

It would do much harm.

There will be other questions of really serious import to
the welfare of the State, upon which the people will have to
vote. It would be little short of a crime to distract their
attention from the consideration of these subjects by ‘aying
before them a fanciful proposition, foredoomed to defeat.

You cannot shift your responsibility upon the shoulders of
the people ; to attempt to do so would be cowardly.

Your clear duty is to recommend, not merely to suggest,
and unless you are convinced that the public interests require
the adoption of this amendment, you cannot in good con-
science dignify it with your indorsement.

I cannot more fittingly close than by again reminding you
of the wise words of Mrs. Jacobi, that “this convention is no
revolutionary tribunal assembled to sap the foundations or

overthrow the structure of existing society.

PR ee

le Sah ma BSE a EO SE ae Je eees

Bl aide us AyRUR ibs

es ° =
Rc AG AL

,
ees Ey

ns rolExtension of the Suffrage to Clomen

ADDRESS I,
MRS FRANCIS M. SCOTT We

DELIVERED BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Ve
OF THE NEW YORK SENATE :

APRIL 10, 1896

 

fa Se I RO ace a

ee ee SO a a na a es

ee‘

Ton Pare oe
wr ry
Pr hb ea a4,

SOMA AUR asadedeonuadatn
bi hmabit ahs

ASL CVA AALS A SEN Te eh

aN

SILA UNA

en

iF \pn SPH |

TOR AR SEAS

eZ A Rohe Ke veh,

Be
se

rR

re

 

 

 

WE women who are opposed to the Extension of the Suffrage have
felt constrained to appear before this Committee, because we believe the
legislative bodies to be under a misapprehension as to the attitude of the
majority of our sex toward this, one of the most important social ques-
tions of the day.

Every extension of the suffrage has been a subject of grave debate,
but the general feeling of a fundamental similarity between men has led
to Universal Male Suffrage.

Now comes the question of the extension of the suffrage to women,
and we can no more call it a like question to those earlier ones than we
ean call women like men. Equal they may be — different they certainly
are. I shall very briefly touch upon the points which appeal most
strongly to the body of women whom this committee represents.

The question of the right of suffrage is disposed of by the fact that
the State alone holds the power to extend the suffrage, and she is only
justified in extending it when her own best interests can be served
thereby.

That the best interests of the State would be served by the extension
of the suffrage to women, we do not believe. Think for a moment of giy-
ing the voting power to a majority (we women are in the majority, you
know), unable to coerce a troublesome minority by physical power. A
government unable to compel is no government at all; it is a mere tra-
vesty, a farce. We cannot be blind to the fact that civilization in the
nature of things progresses by the force of the law, not by its moral
suasion.

But civilization goes forward by two roads; one I have mentioned, the
other is philanthropy, and I use the word broadly. By it I cover educa-
tional, municipal, and charitable work of all kinds. and it has a most
important bearing on this question. The fact that women have no politi-
cal prizes to gain, no offices in view, no constituencies to please, has made
them of special value in all this wide field of work. Their ends are more
quickly achieved, since their singleness of purpose cannot be questioned.
Let them be plunged into the arena of political strife, and there will be
no one left to carry on the work they now sustain so bravely.

There is a ridiculous side to this whole question, which is tacitly
avoided in these public hearings, as are other more serious views of the
subject ; but brief as the time is, I propose to touch upon both.

A very slight mention of the ridiculous side will suffice. We women
are not supposed to be humorous, I know, but even the most serious of
us are obliged to smile when we ask ourselves who will do our work when
we are doing the men’s!

The obvious reply to that is that all women will not want to go into
political life, if they have the ballot. any more than all men do; but all
men may and can, it is a matter of choice. Legislation is for the
majority, and the majority of women are mothers, whose health andstrength must be given to the State, during their best years, only through
the medium of those lives in whose preservation and upbringing lies the
future of our country. It is these women — the great majority — whom
we beg you to protect; the chivalry of men belongs to them. So sure
are thousands of them that you will never place the burden of govern-
ment upon their shoulders, that it is difficult to persuade them that there
is any danger of your mistaking the clamor of the suffragists for truth,
or that their still small voice should be heard above the din.

It is true that last spring, in less than three weeks, without solicitation,
7000 names, nearly half of which were those of self-supporting women,
were collected and sent to the Constitutional Convention to protest against
the amendment you are now considering, but I cannot give you an idea
of how difficult it was for many women to gather sufficient courage even
to put their names to a public paper. ‘They confessed to a struggle before
they could make up their minds to come forward. That may have been
a foolish feeling — it is not for me to criticise — it is at least one which
most women understand. ‘These women do not want publicity, they do
not want to be mixed up in politics ; they just want to be women, and do
a woman’s work, and they are the great majority of our sex, and they
should be respected. ‘

This question is often confounded with that of the higher education.
Believe me, they have nothing whatever to do with one another. The
ballot in itself is not an educational force, as you men very well know,
nor is it a wand with which to turn all vileness into purity. It is simply
a part of the machinery of the State, a very cumbersome part, costing
an enormous amount, but the only way we know of giving to a few rep-
resentative men the power to legislate for all. The laws of the State
have given women so much, that any attempt to alter her position would
in the cause of justice have to begin by taking away, not adding to her
rights.

The gradual changes in the laws of this State during the last quarter
of a century have taken away every cry of the suffragists of that earlier
time, and what women have asked, men have done, time and time again.

Now, in closing, I wish to be very serious. ‘lo many young persons,
to many emotional persons, change is mistaken for progress. ‘Thus in
the train of the women so long identified with the demand for suffrage,
who do not realize that the times have outgrown their cause, have fol-
lowed many who, full of the unrestful spirit of the end of the century,
are hurrying along, eager only for something different, something more,
forgetting the inexorable law which science has laid down —the law we
know as the Specialization of Function. In every line of life we see this
law ruling development. Where there is specialization, there comes to
be greater and greater perfection; nowhere is progress accompanied by
a diffusion of force, but always by a concentration ot effort in special
directions. So, since the first development of sex, has specialization of
the male and female types gone on; men have grown more manly,
women more womanly. Are we alone of all nature to forcibly destroy
the work of untold ages, and, thrusting men and women together, demand
that the work that each is beginning to be perfect in shall be indifferently
done by both? And then, there are the assertions of greater virtue made
for our sex without foundation. Again, in being equal, we differ. Born
as we are of man and woman, inheriting the mental and moral charac-
teristics of both parents, we differ from our brothers only in so far as our

Oi fi IE EE ee ed Ee

eS BBSrp eee!

g
S

cede

ATARI

ars

we

Riu

SES ee Rae a nN

   

physical limitations affect our organizations. Theirs are the robuster
virtues, called to growth and streng th by rough contact with the world.
Theirs the word which serves for the bond ; the responsibility which is
the foundation of business life; the integrity on which justice rests; the
broad mindedness, which gives each man his chance. And to balance all
that, women have the spirit of self-sacrifice, the charity which forgives,
the personal purity, all of which are essential to the existence of the
home, and cause their sons to rise up and call them blessed.

I approach this question of morality with natural hesitation. It and
our physical disabilities are the points I spoke of earlier as being ignored
when this question is seriously discussed, and yet, unless considered, this

‘ question cannot be properly dealt with.

Who does not realize the present disinclination for motherhood which
possesses so many of our younger generation ; and who can see it without
alarm? It can be traced to this unrestful desire for life outside the
home. When motherhood is spoken of with contempt, when a home-life
is considered too dull to be endured ; when the ambition of the intellect-
ual life becomes so warped as to be dissatisfied with any outlet but that
of public life hat is to become of the future?

Do what we may, say what we can, we cannot break down the barrier
of sex which indicates the parting of the ways.

Build up the wall of the law about us, seeking and accepting our coun-
sel meanwhile; protect the homes, which we women alone can make for
you; open to us every door for our education and advancement, but do
not put upon the shoulders of women the muskets they are too weak to
carry, nor the burden of the government which was constituted to pro-
tect them; do not force them to undertake an undue share of the world’s
work.

I leave this matter in your hands with confidence. Iam a woman
speaking for my silent sisters, appealing to you to leave us the liberty we
might demand, begging you not to give your sanction to a retrogressive

action, by breaking “down the barrier experience has built between our
sexes, but, as you go on becoming nobler, finer men, cz arry ing on the
active part of the world’s work; to let us too progress, becoming every
decade abler and more intellectual women, better and better fitted | to help
and counsel, but never your rivals, never partakers in the eager strife of
public life.THE NEW WOMAN AND THE LATE
PRESIDEN F OF “WILETAMS:

Epitor THE RELIGIOUS HERALD:

Dear Sir, — As the Rev. Samuel B. Forbes, in his able and in-
teresting article, “The New Woman,” has made a quotation from
President Hopkins, I will take the liberty of adding another.

In a brief address to the girls of Vassar, President Hopkins Mg
said (I quote from memory) that the fallacy which runs through
all arguments on the woman question is the regarding of men
and women as distinct classes; that they are not distinct classes,
but component parts of one whole; and that the question for {3
society to consider and determine is not what will benefit men as I 3
a class to the exclusion of women, or women as a class to the i
exclusion of men, but what will benefit both in the common ie
welfare and elevation of humanity. He added that, in his !
opinion, it would be a most unfortunate and direful day for NE
humanity if men and women should be treated as distinct classes. ie

An illustration may make clearer what this utterance of Presi- he
dent Hopkins means. |

Mr. Forbes cites the case of a woman whose husband had
been the engineer of a steamboat. On his death, the owners of
the boat made her the engineer, with her husband’s salary.
Now, if men and women form distinct and antagonistic classes,
in which the one is trying to 2eep and the other to gez, the day on
which this unfortunate woman’s husband died must be regarded :
as the luckiest day of her life ; for was she not then emancipated
“from woman’s bondage” and all that sort of thing, and pro- |
moted from being the wife of a steamboat engineer to being the
steamboat engineer himself? What death did for this one {
woman, “a little learning ” (which is now the dangerous element
in society) is striving to do for one million women. It is striving
to prevent women from becoming the wives of workingmen, and }
in the lieu thereof making them work themselves; that is, “a
little learning” is striving to add to the primal burden, cast upon
woman as a part of the race, the other burden of earning her
bread by the sweat of her brow.

pu Un er es

Siete ery

aN

se ar eee arse So" 3 ae Ss ae
Bal Sa ee as

  

t “ . 3 ; snes 2 5 IE oe
Eo BG ee nee i a a a alDR A HAAS
of =
7

yn
Tu aN)

 

ms ee

ee
re

 

'
\
. (EI
Lal \
(= | b
5 la t
ie
Pa \

le ee OL!

It is not a question in issue whether this exceptional woman
should or should not succeed to her husband’s employment in
this exceptional case. Upon that point we are all agreed. All
men and women will rejoice at it, and think well of the woman
who was able to give her own case such heroic treatment, and of
the ship-owners who allowed her to do so. ‘The question, from
President Hopkins’s point of view, is this: Will men and women
and children be benefited if the employment of steamboat en-
gineers 1s taken away from husbands and given to widows, —is
taken away from married men and given to unmarried women ?
In a word, was this woman whom we pity to be pitied, or was
she raised, dignified, ennobled, by ceasing to be supported by a
man, and by doing a man’s work with her own hands? And if it
was a good thing for her and her sex that she ceased to be a
man’s housekeeper and nurse, and became, from a statistical point
of view, a man herself, was it also a good thing for her children
and her children’s children that their father died and their
mother became emancipated ?

If it will be a good thing for all women that a million women
should be like this woman, — doing men’s work, earning men’s
pay, and leaving marriage behind them,— then we expend mis-
taken sympathy on this woman. If it was a bad thing for this
woman to lose her husband, to be bereft of his support, to be
reduced (or elevated) to earning her own bread by the work of
her own hands and the sweat of her own brow, and to be relieved
from the household duties (or drudgery, or whatever you choose
to call it) of the wife and mother, then we may well hesitate
about bringing one million women up or down into like circum-
stances,

That there are many women who can do men’s work, no person
can doubt.

That an exceptional woman in an exceptional case may pro-
perly displace a man and do a man’s work, no person can doubt.

That women, if they are a distinct class and natural rivals and
antagonists of men, have a right to displace men and take their
work away from them, no person can doubt.

That young children can do a great deal of work in mines and
factories which adults would otherwise do, no person can doubt.

That young children, if they are a distinct class and natural
rivals and antagonists of adults, have a right to displace adults
and take their work away from them, no person can doubt.

But that it will be a good thing for women and children and

oe i <n.EE ale ote ES BE EE

   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
    

3

the human race to treat women and children as distinct classes,
and encourage them to forsake the home and the school and
enter the fierce battle of modern competition, is a proposition
which a vast number of thinking persons do and will continue to
doubt.

During the past summer I have seen many women doing men’s
work in the harvest fields of France. The proportion generally
was that of five women to two men; and the five women, I think
it safe to say, displaced four men. ‘The work was of the hardest,
—pulling flax, reaping with the sickle, raking and binding,
pitching on to the wagon, uprooting mustard, and (in Switzerland)
carrying barnyard manure up mountain-sides in panniers on their
backs. When I saw young girls moving with weary, plodding
steps, and middle-aged women, gnarled and bent, with stiffened
muscles and jaded looks, I did not desire that men’s work should
be transferred to women in my own country; and indeed, I
thought it would be better for French women and the French
people if public opinion, and, if need be, the law of France,
should interpose, as the law of America and England does for
minors, and prohibit labor that operates to the injury of the race.
It was not unhealthy labor (that is, it was not labor which caused
sickness or premature death), it was not compulsory labor
(that is, the women were free to take it or reject it, as they
pleased), and yet it was unseemly labor. For a man it was
honorable labor ; for a woman, degrading. If women are to do
men’s work, sooner or later they will have to take the bitter with
the sweet, the hard with the easy; the fewer men there are to
support women, the more women there will be to compete with
men: and the transference of women’s support from men to
women, if carried beyond an exceptional extent, must tend to
the degradation and degeneracy of the sex. When women enter
into competition with men in the labor market, they will knock
out of the coarser portion of male humanity what little chivalry
there is in it; and when women assert that they are in all things
the equals of men and can take care of themselves, the worst
part of the competing class will tell them that they must take
care of themselves in more senses than one. Chivalry is an ele-
vated gratuity which is due, if due at all, from the strong to the
weak. The woman cannot say, “I am as strong as man, as
independent, as free to do what I please,” and then ask for his
chivalry. And the closer women’s wages approximate to men’s,
the smaller will be the supporting power of men, and the greater

m = cen a= : =
re a a ones

aa ee a

a ae ee Ste SS‘ me 73 ae " 7 3
EAST

pa

"4
nin

Dba " i

PARAM

y
a
Ss
Y

AUS NSDL AFANNL Og) SE TE

 

the number of women who must renounce wifehood and mother-
hood, and fight their own weary battle alone in the hardening,
competitive turmoil of the struggling world.

The battle of the New Woman is waged nominally against
the tyrant man; and if he is one of a distinct class, caring for
nobody but himself, well it may be waged. No one need defend
him as an isolated individual, having no ultimate responsibility.
If women, as a distinct class, have a right to fight men as a
distinct class, men have a right to fight back ; and when it comes
to a fight between men and women, men will be abundantly able
to take care of themselves. But behind men are the persons for
whom men always fight more desperately than for themselves, —
their wives and little ones. The fundamental, abiding trouble
with this civic warfare is that it is not what it pretends to be, —
warfare waged against the exclusive usurpation of men. The
real, though unintended object of attack is the subsistence of
men’s wives and children.

It may be laid down as a law of our American civilization that
every normal man who thinks himself able to support a wife and
family in what he deems his proper station marrdes. It is an
instinct of manhood to care for, protect, and support a woman
and her chiluren, though it may be, and generally must be, at
no little self-sacrifice. Every farmer marries; every foreman, su-
perintendent, and well-paid mechanic marries. The poor and
provident workingman does not marry,— partly because he is
ashamed to ask a girl to marry him and earn her own living,
partly because he knows that he cannot earn bread enough to go
round. In higher life it is the same thing. Undoubtedly, there
are thousands of young men of the wealthy classes who could
marry and live comfortably, but do not. Their reason is that
they cannot support this girl or that girl or some other girl of
their set in the style or station in which she has been accustomed
to live. We may think the reason a poor one, an erroneous one,
but nevertheless it is their reason. The law remains, notwith-
standing the exceptions to it, that if a normal man thinks that he
can support a wife and family in what he deems a proper way,
he marries.

Here the New Woman comes upon the stage and tells the
farmer’s daughter not to become a farmer’s wife. She speaks
also to all of our American girls who think themselves possessed
of superior talents and ambition, and counsels. them not to im-
prison themselves in the prison-cell which the rest of us call

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
    
   
  
 
  
    
  
   
    

ee OL)5

home; not to be the housekeeper and nurse and drudge and
slave of man, but to be lecturers, professors, poets, politicians,
and ultimately members of Congress, —to be, in a word, any-
thing but a wife and a mother. To maintain her doctrine, the
New Woman, as she logically must, depreciates, and in some
instances coarsely and flagrantly derides, wifehood and mother-
hood. Unconsciously, she also counsels women to prosecute an
industrial war against men which will take the bread out of the
mouths of numberless wives and mothers, and compel them to close
their doors and toil in the industrial field of men’s work like the
French peasant woman. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if the
question which we men shall soon have to face will be whether
we will fight for the New Woman and her rights or for the sub-
sistence of our own wives and daughters. In reading the records
of great men, we continually— almost invariably —meet the
sentence, “ His mother was a remarkable woman.” It is getting
to be a general belief in this day that a remarkable woman should
be everything but a wife anda mother. ‘The chief and lasting
evil of this New Woman movement is, that it is, directly and
indirectly, consciously and unconsciously, inimical to marriage,
stigmatizing it as the last resort of the incapable and the unfortu-
nate, robbing it of its dignity and of its old contentment, and
taking the brightest and ablest of our American girls out of the
ranks of wifehood and motherhood, and hastening the degenera-
tion of our American race.

President Hopkins believed that the family, and not the indi-
vidual, ‘‘is the unit of society ;” that “this character of it should
be, and unconsciously is, one of the most cherished objects of
and that “unhappy will be the nation

,

Christian civilization ;’
whose legislative mind shall regard society simply as @ mass of
individuals, and not as a combination of families.”

The very existence of society, indeed, depends on men and
women as entering into a special relation which not only unites
their interests, as in a partnership, but identifies them, and makes
each sex reciprocally the guardian of the other. The cases where
this relation does not exist are strictly exceptional, and society is
not organized, and does not exist for exceptional cases.

Respectfully, etc., etc.,
CHARLES ©. NORE
(Judge U. S. Court of Claims].

WASHINGTON, December, 1595.

Se

5 td ee es

5 Se

SS ee iaTun Pe
Thay

   
 
 

AUT mf

RAT Valauadainlecnaaeain
SARA nner tines Ai tires,

ne
Pap

Re

WaAak oko ts Phce OMAR Mero ie

a
Sa

|

aia

usSromm
ay
=
=
Peoees
Ca
Gaberacn
se
ao
cS
owes
Gefiarnenaa
Guttmenea
vowed
Co
rs
—
=
Soma
=
—
c
oe)
—
qa)
ow
—
~
Ccanat
ce
oe)
cf
=
Sela
Ce
G5
Memes
a
—_
a>
~
lone

at the State Election, November 5, 1895.

 

100,000 MAJORITY ACAINST IT ON

OVER

THE PART OF THE MEN.

 

Every County and every Congressional, Councillor,

Senatorial and Representative District votes “NO” on

the Proposition.

 

After twenty-five years of agitation by
was brought to a test at the State election, November 5, 1895.

the suffragists, the question of municipal suffrage for women

The voters were asked their opinion, and

gave a most emphatic reply.

ion of opinion upon any question submitted to the

Never was there so full an express

The vote for governor at the State election was 328,121. The vote of the men

people of Massachusetts.

Over 83 per cent of those voting for

governor voted upon this question, while in 1891 only 62 per cent of those voting for governor voted upon the

upon municipal woman suffrage at the same election was 273,946.

constitutional amendment abolishing the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting, and in 1896 only 72 per cent
of those voting for governor voted upon the constitutional amendment providing for biennial elections.

Never has any question submitted to the people of Massachusetts received so over

whelming a defeat.

ty

majori

186,976, ««Yes”’ 86,970, a «*No”’

The vote of the men was, ‘*No’’

of 100,006. The vote in 1889 on the prohibition amendment to the constitution was, “No” 133,085, “Yes”

86,459, a “No” majority of 46,626.

The vote in 1896 on the biennial elections amendment was, “ No” 161,263,

So that the majority against woman suffrage in Massachusetts is

“Ves” 115,505, a No” majority of 45,758:

more than twice as great as that against either prohibition or biennial elections.

The vote of the women on the suffrage question, “Yes” 22,204, “No” 861, is as significant as that

of the men.

By the census of 1895: the number of men in Massachusetts qualified to register and vote

The number of women qualified to register and vote on this question was at least 575,000.

Of these more than 550,000 declined to vote, and less than four in a hundred voted “ Yes.”

was 560,802.

In other words,

more than 96 per cent of the women of the Commonwealth either prefer the present status of the suffrage

or are wholly indifferent in the matter.

In 48 towns not one woman voted “Yes,” and in 137 other towns the women voting “Yes”? num-

bered fifteen or less.

As the vast majority of the women opposed to the suffrage expressed their opinion

In the following state-

by refusing to vote, the women’s vote, for purposes of tabulation, has little value.

ment of votes, therefore, the votes of the men alone are considered.

Of the 31 cities, every one

Massachusetts, at the time of the election, had 31 cities and 322 towns.

cast a large majority against woman suffrage.

a “No” majority of 66,675.

The vote of the cities was, “No” 120,657, “ Yes” 53,062,

Many people have thought that the vote against woman suffrage was dispro-

The vote of the 322 towns was, “No.” 66,319, “Yes”

portionately heavy in the cities, but this is not so.

The cities of Massachusetts contain two-thirds of the population of

the State, and, in an even distribution of sentiment, should therefore contribute two-thirds of the “No”
majority. That is just what they did, and the closeness of the figures to an exact two-thirds is remarkable.

9.960, 4 * No” majoriy of 33,331,

The 28 towns voting “Yes’’ were

st, “No” 42.

Of the 322 towns, 293 voted “No,” 28 voted “Yes,” and 1 was a tie.

among the very smallest in the State, their vote averaging only “Yes”

Every County and every Congressional, Councillor, Senatorial and Representative district

in the Commonwealth cast a majority against the proposition.WHY SHOULD SUFPERAGE.. BE. IMPOSED

ON WOMEN?

 

Do they want «i ?

For many years the woman suffragists in this State have been doing all
in their power to secure converts. They have an organ and an organiza-
tion. They have endeavored to convince women that they are imposed
upon and deprived of their rights, and that they ought to be dissatisfied.
Their arguments have been most ingenious and seductive. Notwithstand-
ing all their shrewd agitation, their following embraces only a small minor-
ity of the women of the State. This statement can be confirmed by per-
nal experience among women in various directions.

SO

——

Would it promote the general welfare ?

The average woman being no better than the average man, it could not
be a public benefit simply to double the present vote for good and for evil
alike. The woman suffragists constantly inform us how one and another
good measure might have been carried if the men who advocated it “‘ could
only have had the votes of the women who wished it also.’ - They seem
utterly to forget that a measure is not carried by any fixed number of votes
in its favor, but by the proportion those votes bear to the whole number
cast. The difficulty in American politics has long been the proportion of
ignorant, selfish, and thoughtless voters. These elements would certainly
exist quite as largely among women. ‘There is no assurance that women
would be more scrupulous than men in the use of the ballot or in the con-
duct of public affairs.

Could tt benefit the cities #

Even earnest advocates of woman suffrage admit that in the cities the
‘mmediate effects would be questionable. The idle, the depraved, and the
ignorant chiefly congregate in cities, and the votes of such women would
be as unwisely cast as those of the men of the same class, and as easily

SE SSE ae es

a Daa

SE

t2 ts
pote Soe

aeiho EW RUA.
ahah tt

ee

PN A

cham ath

ms
ve

1

purchased, especially by indirect bribery in forms which would excite their
gratitude. ‘The more enlightened and conscientious voters would also be
outnumbered by that large portion of the population which, without being
necessarily corrupt, would readily be led by energetic politicians of either

PML. nih ORES 04

mn ee Pah
Varese nts

Sex.

Would wt be practically possible in the towns ?

& Woman suffrage contemplates that all adults, both male and female,
should take part in town meetings. ‘Towns are not governed by councils
which can be simply elected, but by the voting members of the population
assembled in conclave. After the advent of woman suffrage, how should this
be accomplished? Shall the homes be left deserted? If not who shall re-
main to guard them? Shall it be the father of the family, or the hired man,
the mother, or the help? All would have equal rights. Our town meetings
have been the pride of New England, but their founders certainly never

contemplated any such wholesale muster of the population as the woman

; suffragists are trying to bring to pass.

i

 

flow would it affect the interests of children and householders ?
L Very unfavorably, especially in the country towns. The parents of the
ig State are now fairly represented in proportion to the number of voters,
fi but they would cease to be so if women voters were admitted, since many
single women could easily attend town meetings, while the proportion of
b; * mothers who could be present would be of necessity much smaller. There-
' } . fore the representation of /amzlies, including both children and parents,
would be less fair than it is to-day. ‘The appropriations for the schools
e and the interests of farmers and small householders in the outlying settle-
ments would be very apt to suffer.

, : Would zt not impose great hardship on many women ?

a Women have many physical limitations which do not exist for men:
: i Already, as a rule, their strength is overtaxed. Nervous diseases among
: of them are alarmingly increasing, as is shown by statistics on both sides of
’ - the Atlantic, while those who have time and energy for more than their
A | 1 | home duties, or efforts for self-support, are met by pressing demands from

charities and useful organizations of every kind, in addition to the various
literary and professional labors in which so many are distinguished. What-
soever the fatigue of body or mind, the more conscientious and intelligent
the voter, the more resolute would she be in fulfilling every patriotic duty ;
and it is these willing and right-minded women who should be considered
when such a revolution in their lives is contemplated.

 

J 4 ee ek ) * n
ELEN

 

"
' a '

AP ey mito be Cl bard

apr’f 4
OE ee poe Me ee BE Se

  

Can it be granted simply to the women who wish it, without injustice to all
others ?

Nothing can be more short-sighted than the good-natured indifference
of women who say that they “do not wish to vote themselves, but would
oladly see others gratified if they desire it.” Such liberality is highly proper
when it is a question of opening to women any professional or educational
advantages. But it must be remembered that, if some women were allowed
the ballot, those who held opposite opinions would be obliged to vote in
order to counterbalance them. Women who had selfish interests to pro-
mote, or favorite hobbies to pursue, would be certain to attend all political
meetings, and the more conscientious and moderate women would then be
obliged to follow their example in order to secure as good government as
they enjoy to-day. :

The small number of votes which women have cast for members of the
School Committee is no test of the obligation which wider municipal suf-
frage would impose on them. A large class of women have, after earnest
deliberation, refrained from voting for members of the School Committee,
lest it should prove an entering wedge for that more extended woman suf
frage whose consequences they believe would be most disastrous for the

State.

et
5S
O

Ts the ballot essential to the dignity of women ?

It is urged that unless woman has the ballot “she is classed with
minors, idiots, lunatics, and felons.” With equal reason might it be urged
that minors should have the ballot, since they would otherwise be classed
with idiots, or that paupers should have the ballot to distinguish them from
felons. Itis also repeatedly asserted that “women now are slaves” and
require the ballot for their “emancipation.” But American women know
well the liberty and power which they enjoy, and will not be deceived by
such assertions. The free-born daughters of New England will not be
readily convinced that they are “slaves,” or that they and their mothers
before them have not been honored and respected without the ballot.

Are not the interests of women safe in the hands of men ?

Quite as safe as in those of other women. The woman suffragists
always imply that men legislate only for their own interests. But in
America, certainly, men can be accused of almost any fault rather than of
‘ndifference to the wishes and happiness of women. ‘They would make any
ble amendments in the laws affecting the welfare of women, if
th half the force now annually brought to bear in favor of suffrage.
general the interests of men and women are very much the

reasona
urged wi
Moreover, in

ee Ge ed ee ee Ee a a12}
et
I
a
2
eS
SG
i
a
Ds
4

 

same. Both desire good schools, good roads, good drainage, and good gov-
ernment. The prosperity of the town and of the State benefits both alike.
Only in the common division of labor, certain duties are apportioned to
each, according to their special conditions of strength and organization.
These differences are not of human origin, and therefore cannot be changed
by any so-called “reform,” by which name any movement, however mis-
chievous, seems now to be honored. |

|

teppei

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Extension of Woman
Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. RoBertT W. Lorp,
6 St. Stephen Street, Boston.EXTRACTS FROM ADDRESSES

 

OF

 

The Rt. Rev. Wm. Croswell Doane, D. D.,

BISHOP

OF ATBANY:

To the classes graduated from St. Agnes’ School, Albany.

4

June 6th, 1894 and June 6th, 1895.

ns

ae

Cat ee ee ae oe

PUBLISHED BY THE ALBANY ANTI-SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

1898.

Se TT Sa ee

ae

6 aa

     
  
    
  
   
      

NETL RLT MALLS a trek RA EE br als yy

seb ee eter: a
—___) SF 23 a

we

 

a et ECB. ot

    

i MENSA

Hen
bi

From the Address of 1894.

me

«TH DYNAN AF
“EAA OPE ar UR AnAD

It

ne
AA,

  
 
  
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
    
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
 
   

There must be individuality ; the distinct character which dif-
ferentiates man from man, or machine from machine. For each is
a z len
| one loses sight of this and sets the day laborer to adjust the niceties
‘ of the chronometer, or puts the poet behind the plough. ‘Thisis the
t

critical question of all. ‘The power of a Reaper”? to tie up

after its kind.’’ And there is no waste of power so great, as wl

sheaves with their own straw, with a delicacy of machinery alive
almost to its finger ends, would not be proven, if it were set to break
| ) . stones on the road. Nor would the capacity of the trip hammer be
E | tested, if it were used to drive the needle of the sewing machine.
(| What is itfor? ‘‘ What wilt thou have metodo?”’ Purpose as the
test of power ; object, intention, place and kind of work ; this is

: } L what I mean by individuality. ‘‘ What she could ; Wheat She
had; ‘“‘whatIcan.’? Iam sure that there never was a more im-

t portant time in all the world, to emphasize,

and drive home into
the minds and’ consciences of women, ‘tl

1is most important lesson.

4 4 We are living in a period of reaction. and reaction always means
‘ a tendency to violent extremes. The slowly working leaven of
: Christianity for eighteen hundred years, has been lifting women up
a from the low level into which they fell in Eve, to the higher lines of
: le ‘ life and service to which they rose in Mary. One by one, openings
ql i! SS and opportunities for congenial and convenient service have been
A

opened up to her. One by one, the bars: of the cag
e et down, and the barriers of foolish custom have |}
‘ ( Ba °

which hindered and held her back

e have been let
een taken away,
Tom openings and Opportunities
of usefulness. And one by one, the false restraints and uzz
criminations have been done away ; until
fal consent, by the Christianized instinct,
F | of men, womanhood—and nowhere

 

AMD
or

vzse dis-
to-day, by the common
by the chivalrous endeavor,
more than in America

_. n

"

 

Stands

i fairly out upon that position of correlation and coequality with men
; - )
t} which really was the purpose of Almig

hty God in the double crea-
ation ; which in no sense contradicts the divine intention of the pri-

macy of the first created, and the subordination of the second :
which utterly destroys, and does away with,
superiority and sovereignty

—

but
the false theory of
on the one side, as meaning

ARABS CASE SAN

inferiorityi saan
SO A EE Oe ES ee a Nar

    
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
  
   
    

and subjection on the other. And now the world is full of agita-
tions, which would destroy, if they could be carried out, that ex-
quisite balance which the revealed purpose of God, and the im-
planted and inherent differences between men and women, indicate
as the wise and true relation between the two. Coequality, side-by-
sideness, divided sovereignty, the #2w/wa/superiority and subordination
of influence and control, the interdependence of the ‘‘man whois
by the woman ’’ and ‘‘the woman who is of the man;’’ these are
not only truths and theories, but facts and realities ; which can not
be forgotten or disregarded without serious injury andloss. Nobody
who reads the record of the Revelation rightly, or studies history or
examines the experience of his own life, can fail to feel that what-
ever distinctions and differences there may be between the Azvd of
mind, of capacity, of character between the two sexes, there are no
differences whatever in the degree. But it is the falsest kind of logic
which argues, that, because the two sexes are equalin the sight of
God, therefore, they are interchangeable. Atl that the man can do,
the woman can notdo. Ali that the woman can do, the man can

‘

not do. And, therefore, the talk to-day of ‘‘woman’s rights,”’
apart from the falseness of the application of the ‘word—tor the
rights of either man or woman are fewer and far less important than
their duties—has this inherent fallacy ; that it presupposes that be-
cause their rights are egua/, therefore they are the same. Sttrely, 10
one takes the other andthe better word, it is plain to the blindest,
that the duties of men and women are not the same ; that the trend
of their tastes and capabilities is different ; and that if the women
are to do the men’s duties, their own duties must be left undone, or
done by those who are unfitted for and incapable of their discharge.
Nothing is wilder or stranger, than the misconceptions and dispro-
portidnateness of all this theory. It is contradicted by the whole
material world in which we live ; and in which, its own functions
are given and its own duties assigned to every separate plant and
tree and animal. Nor could a wilder confusion be produced than if,
by some blind force, these unthinking and unreasoning things should
set themselves to tasks, which have not been assigned them ; and for
which they are not intended by their creation. And why, the highest
order of created things, to whom Almighty sod has given not only
the consciousness of their peculiar and different capacities, but the
plain and evident ability of recognizing the fact and reasoning just
why these lines of differences are drawn, should prove itself duller
ath more stupid than the inanimate creation, is difficult to see.
Farnestly I beg that this lesson of the personal pronoun ‘‘T’?’—which
never in any language changes sex because of the equal individuality
of both sexes must be acknowledged as the fundamental prin-

ciple of character—may plant itself deeply in your conscience. You

anaes

a Se ee = id

Wage an

frac avis veer rte ie
fa

REM MeOH

bitin!

CtSee

ER
cree ies Ratt (Cael ine tok A elo
MOAR EEA Rone irs

Ain Birra

HANSA AGAR.

 

 

may turn into the feminine gender that great sentence, ‘‘I can do all
You can
realize all this by the divinely implanted instincts of your nature, by

that may become a woman, who dares do more is none,’’

the limitations or the enlargements of your capacity, by the oppor-
And that
will be the clue, which you may safely follow, as indicating the lines
along which every faculty of your nature is to be set, with utmost
intensity and directness of aim, to do ‘‘your duty in the state of life

tunities and occasions of your providential place in life,

into which it shall please God to call you.’’

[am urging the recognition of such limitations as God has set,
first in your sex, which are written in laws so plain and facts so irre-
sistible that only the blindest can fail to read and see them. ‘The
utter misconception of equality of position, as though it meant
sameness of duty, between men and women, is among the facile
follies and the fatal fallacies of theage. Facing great evils, moved
in some instances by high motives, women who used to be quiet and
content to stand in their lot, are joining in the wretched unrest of
the effort, which, until recently, was inthe hands of wild and un-
womanly fanatics, to unsex themselves and unsettle the peace of the
household, and the prosperity of the world. I havea general dis-
like and distrust of the term woman in the abstract. And in the
manner of its use it is most confusing. There are women and
women, as there are men azd men. And the fond imagination
that the evils of unqualified suffrage given to men, which are the
most dangerous element in our American political world to-day, can
be cured by extending the evil to unqualified women, is the strangest
delusion that ever possessed the human mind. If it should be per-
mitted, which God forefend, the abstract woman may rejoice, but it
will be in the spirit of the maniac, who has laid waste the homes and
marred the happiness and murdered the hopes of women. Privilege,
courtesy, chivalry, respect, deference, consideration, will have
meltedaway. And there will come instead unseemly contests, selfish-
ness, the bitterness of partisanship, the dregs of strife and corruption,
incrimination and the demoralization of the deepest and highest and
dearest relations of society : while in its political effect it will only
multiply corrupt and irresponsible ballots, not to equal, but to out-
weigh the intelligent suffrage of reputable women. Nothing will be
altered in results. Nothing will be gained in the issues. And the
irreclaimable mischief will have left its blight and scar on our social
life. ‘T'wo-handed humanity (that is the figure of the man and the
woman in the body politic) has a right hand and a left hand, each
equal to the other, each needful to the other. But the hand that is
nearest the heart, the woman, is not used, and is not meant to be
used, to grasp the sword, the pen, the reins: nor to seize the roughdifficulties and wring out of them the stern successes, of the strife.
‘They are both hands. _ They are equally hands. Fach is imperfect
without the other, but their functions are apart and different. Learn
the divine, the human, the instinctive, the evident limitations of your
sex. And when you have filled out with ‘‘all you caz”’ the sphere
of your allotted service, you will have no time, nor strength, nor
desire to reach out for other work to do}

oem!

z
es
Si
=
PS
oe
i

1
}
\

rere
De al

i

; =

ac rkalea tba ee Teflba bvtie fied
RH

Da ens =

af Sh he mt

eis

SENS

iru, -

coer Ae

oe

sarod oe 7 am z poe Ee
oe — z r ae A Ge Gs IE et a I
» . - a : Z ae a ee ae a as

Ge ahs is Bae Ee ie a fe tS aaaEN RE NT eal et ete et
DO OE

DNATA AL

PON

fara
vr

rit ioe “i

aha een BMRA PHA

ia
ei
Me

Wey

RAR Ea

SS

se TR

e

 

 

From the Address of 1895.

One gets sick and tired of the way in which the talk of woman’s
vocation fills the air, not merely in the wild vagaries of its blatant
assumptions, but in the parade and push ofits claims for recognition
of what are called ‘‘its rights.’’ Ihave had occasion here, a year
ago, to say what wrong to womanhood these women’s odds would
be. And I have no desire to recall a w ord, to shade down any state-
ment, or to abate a jot of effort to protect the silent many from the
noisy few. For the agitators are rea lly in the minority.
less names on these modern

Number-
‘“‘millenary petitions’? mean only the
thoughtless and good-natured yie Iding to persistent pursuit ;
legislative majority votes stand, in not a few instances,
taken courtesy or an unmanly cowardice.

just as
fer a mis
I believe that God will
yet save this State and Nation from the aggravated miseries of an
enlarged, unqualified suffrage, which, in its universality of male
is our most threatening danger to-day.
visited by

voters, But if we are to be
this infliction, as a well-earned punishment for many

national sins, then I believe th at, when we have tasted its bitterness,
we she back, perhaps through anarchy and revolution,
to a democracy, which shall demand. for its existence,

all be brought

government
by men, whom education and actual Americanism of vital interest in
the Nation qualify to govern. Me: inwhile, when a new Bible shall
have been translated into a denial of ' the origin

al record of creation—
a really

“feversed Scripture,’ as one orice called ‘‘the revised
version’’—when Constitutions shall have been altered, to disturb the
equipoise of the relation between man and

woman ; when mother-
4
hood shall be replaced by mannishness ; when neglected homes shall
furnish candidates for

mismanaged offices -
the votes of women, as it does now
political discord
peace ;

when money shall buy
themselves ; when: the fires of
shall be lighted on the hearthstone of domestic
when the alrogant assertion of demand

ed rights shall have
destroyed the instinctive

chivalry of conceded courtesies
as has been wel] said,
equal of man; ”’

when
‘once the superior, has become the
then the reaped whirlwind of some viol
reaction will be gatherec

d)

‘“woman,

ent political

in tears,”’ ‘by those who 4 re sowing thewind, in the mad ‘‘joy’’ of the Petroleuse of the French revolutions.
The vocation of womanhood is the highest and the holiest in the
world. Guard it, my dear children, in your own selves, from the
desecration that would drag it into the publicity and prostitutions
of political strife. Year by year, as the centuries have gone on since
the great Partheno-Genesis of humanity, its highness and its holiness
have been more and more made clear. Apart from, and in spite of,
all the violence of agitation, the duties, the opportunities and the
privileges of women have opened out before them: service to the
State, in the training of boys and the moulding of men ; in influenc-
ing great reforms ; in organizing charity ; in elevating education ;
in the protected ministries of mercy to the sick, the poor, the fallen ;
in the adorning and sanctifying of homes. But the shoulder that is
unfitted for the musket, and the hand that was not made to guide the
plough mean, and mark off, by very physical distinctions, the voca-
tion of women, from the rough and public stir and strife of men.
If equality means similarity of rights and duties, then the harmony
of nature and the balance of the world would be destroyed. ‘The
milch cow and the ploughing ox are not meant for the same service.
The herb that ministers healing, and the flower that yields its fra-
grance to the summer air, have egual and yet most dz/ferent duties
to render to mankind; from the tall wheat which gives its life up
for our sustenance, or the great tree which falls to float our commerce
on the sea. ‘There is no hive of bees, no field of growing things,
no human household, no housing place of cattle, no machine of man’s
making, with its complex adaptation of each piece to its work, that
does not cry out against the mad mistake of confusing and confound-
ing, into likeness, the distinct and different functions, among which
there is no unequalness that means inferiority. And never in any
age of the world, nowhere in any land, and nowhere in America, so

en an

much as now in our own Empire State, was there such absolute

*

unreason, for the clamour which seeks to distract women from the

ey

te
$s
¥
5
;

duties of ‘‘the vocation to which they are called,’’ into the mad pur-
suit of the greatest wrong that can be done to their sex, their
country and mankind. Forgive me if, all unwilling, I disturb the
sacredness of this place and the sweetness of this scene, with such
unwelcome thoughts. ' But the man who is set in public place to-day,
to train some of the women of America for their vocation, may not,
in times like these, withold his voice of warning against the dangers

GREK HOC Rei

and delusions of the hour.

It is what St. Paul calls a high calling ; a calling upward, an
’Nvo KAnois, MY dear children, to which you are called by every
inherent indication of your nature—physical, intellectual, moral,

irl 1 N service 1 and man.
spiritual—to the wotnanhood of womanly service to God and man

ae ae ee BI ee ~ a it , 3 ra Ste eet ae a SS ae a. ——
a —_ nal ; as Be ee ee Ee —— ee,

> e ’ - ai _— es
I ial ho EE Te ee . oll —= Ea ;Ny 4

Mua Tat Mir ,
OEIC Tarr : aie

 
  

   

 

aoa NTA RG PS me
AV RCPA PA eT wale PAE aS eA ht Rol

ers,

       
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

¥

A RAAT AVIA HIRE A
SAA aaa

ANS SADLER Oy AE EU

2
:

oe

The officers of the Anti-Suffrage society of Third Judicial

   

 

District, State of New York, are

Mrs. J. V. L. PRuvyN, - - : President.

Mrs. WILLIAM J. WALLACE, - Ist Vice-Prestdent.

Mrs. WM. BAYARD VAN RENSSELAER, Secretary.

Mrs. JOSEPH GAVIT, - - - Treasurer.
Executive Commtttee.

Mrs. W. WINSLOW CRANNELL, ~ - Chatrman.

Mrs. HRASTUS CORNING,

Mrs. WILLIAM CASSIDY,

Mrs. J. HOWARD KING,

Mrs. JOEL R. REED,

Mrs. Wm. O. STILLMAN,

Mrs. FREDERICK TOWNSEND,

Miss Lucy A. PLYMpToNn,

Apply for 1
Street, Albany.

an

nore papers to Anti-Suffrage Association, 13 ElkADDRESS OF MRS. W. WINSLOW GRANNELL,

CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE 32RD JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS OF THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL CONVENTION, AT ST. Louis,

JUNE. 16, 1806:

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee on Resolutions.

I appear before you with reluctance and trepidation. IJ am
here to represent a large body of women who do not crave publicity
or notoriety, and who, until recently, were content to submit in
silence to the demands presented by a few women for the extension
of suffrage to their sex; but when the issue was forced upon us
either to speak or to become implicated in the suffrage movement
through our silence, we felt that we must be heard; and so I was
asked to present our protest to your honorable committee.

In the name of nearly one million and a. half of women of the
State of New York, i protest against any such action being taken by
your honorable body as is asked for by Mrs. Blake.

I protest in the name of the Constitutional Convention of New
York State, in 1894, a body largely Republican, who, aiter mature
deliberation, decided that ‘‘until it is shown that woman may become
a politician without losing something of the precious charm of her
personality, and that the State may exact her services in that
capacity without imperiling its stability and tranquility, it is surely
the conservative course of wisdom to retain the existing conditions
tunder which we have achieved our great happiness and prosperity.”’

I protest in the name of South Carolina, as shown by her action
in 1895; of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as shown at the
November election in 1895; of Rhode Island’s Legislature of 1896.

SSS ee °WEA et-y-tih

i laceldal,

    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
    
 
 
   
  
   
  

DA Anse

 

CASPASE AOI ADT AN Ty re eg

i,

SMM SEA MRNA ON SN

Omi

n
COA A ERS aU,

Kak

ne

“ube

or cater eget

 

 

Te
Droge RR

one =

   

All the best civilization opposes forced changes: and I take it
that such a radical change as adding to the 1,500,000 votes of New
York State over 1,500,000 votes more, in direct opposition to the
wishes of her people, is something that you are hardly prepared to
father ; but if you were, there would then be these questions to be
answered affirmatively:

Will it be for the best interests of the country to grant the
suffrage to women ?

Are these certain definite benefits to be secured through women’s
suffrage which cannot otherwise be secured ?

And men of your intelligence, gentlemen, do not need to have
me point out the fallacy involved in an affirmative answer.

Permit me to state briefly our objection:

We object to any woman who has only a backing of one thousand
six hundred enrolled suffragists in New York State to say that she
represents the million and one-half of home-loving women of that
state.

We believe that the extension of suffrage to a people more than
as large again as the present voting population would be to increase
the evils that already threaten to overcome the principles for which
our fathers fought.

We assert that women to-day are so protected by laws made by
men, that they have nothing more to ask for legally. The question
of wages never has been, nor never wil] be, governed by the question
whether the wage-earner has a vote: wages are always governed by
demand and supply. The question of taxation without representa-
tion, as applied to women who have no vote. is absurd. Taxes are
not conditioned upon a right to vote. When our forefathers com-
plained it was because taxes were imposed upon them by a Parlia-
ment sitting 3,000 miles away, in which there was no representation
whatever of the colonies. They did not ask for individual representa-
tion.

There is no discrimination against women in taxation. Every
tax-paying woman in the city of A bany, N. Y., who could be found,
signed a protest against striking out the word ‘‘male’’? from the
State Constitution. Many men are taxed who have no vote—the
wealthy minor and the man who. ]

iving in one town, owns property
in another.

Taxation is the price the citizen pays for the protection
of his property, his life and his liberty.
The value of the ballot in itself is largely overestimated. It is

but a simple piece of paper, were it not for the force lying behind it.*
oO

The truth of Horace Greeley’s terse statement to Miss Anthony
Many years ago, that “‘behind the ballot lies the bullet,’ is as
powerful to-day as it was when uttered. ‘To imagine a government
unbacked by the physical power to enforce its laws, is to imagine
ai anomaly, or something which must of necessity develop into
anarchy. ‘The advocates of female suffrage refuse to admit that
the stability of government is dependent upon physical force, because
they dare not admit it ; since to do so would be to admit the weakness
of their cause.

But you will recognize its truth, Iamsure, gentlemen ; otherwise
why do you develop and improve your militia; why do you erect
armories and organize and drill bodies of police in all the centres of
population? ‘To make laws that cannot be enforced is worse than
useless; and to grant the right of embroiling the nation in war toa
people wholly incompetent to carry it on, would be to bring our
government into contempt.

Without doubt I shall be stigmatized as absurd by the women
suffragists, but ridicule is not argument; and it is your duty as serious
men, charged with great responsibility, to see to it that your vision
be not obscured by chivalry, emotion or sentiment.

We are in the midst of hard times. Every industry languishes.
Our farmers fail in the markets, and our merchants and bankers go
into bankruptcy. There is an undercurrent of anarchy that roils
the waters of our social and political life. Everywhere men and
wise women ate asking, What will be the end? ‘The cry goes up
all over the land, How shall we regain our prosperity? ‘To-day
you were told that the people were going to ask the Republican party
to lead them back to green pastures. Do you think that a solution
of the problem that is vexing men’s minds and casting shades of
gloom over the whole country can be found in adding to the already
unwieldy and uncertain quality called male suffrage, the vote of
every woman in this land?

For suffrage is not asked only for the women who are here
to-day, but for every woman in our land, without regard to intelli-
gence or morality.

If there be any among you who believes at all in the extension
of suffrage to all women, I ask you, seriously, is this the time for
its inception? Have you not to face such problems as have not often
vexed men’s souls, and do you think it would be wise, at this time,

7 ~ = EEE
Sa ee sa

ee ea FS eee Le

FS a i i a ae os

Sere iia

BSS RA

Sh ES

: dens

SomaLO

 

 

Siteet, Albany.

  

4

to throw into the boiling mass of unrest and disquiet the uncertain
element of woman suffrage ?

Gentlemen, without taking up more of your time, in the name
of your mothers, who served their country best by being home
makers and keepers, and by educating sons to care for their country;
in the name of your wives, who are living up to the full the sweetness
of the quality of help-meet ; in the name of your daughters—I am
sure you would wish to keep them out of the mire of political life
in the name of the many hundreds of thousands of women who are
silent to-day because they are loving, home women and have
confidence in you, and in the name of the many thousands of women
in New York State whom I, personally, represent, I ask you to
refuse to take action on the question of woman suffrage.

Officers of the Anti-Suffrage Association of the 3rd Judicial
District, of the State of New York.
Wires ie Ve 1). Priv:
President.
Mrs. WILLIAM J. WALLACE,
rst Vice-President.
Mrs. WM. BAYARD VAN RENSSELAER.

 

Secretary.
MRs. JOSEPH GAVIT,

7 veasurer.

Mrs. W. WINSLOW CRANNELL,
Chatrman.

Mrs. ERASTUS CORNING,

Mrs. WILLIAm Cassipy,

Mrs. J. Howarp KInce,

Mrs. JoEL R. REED,

Mrs. Wm. O. STiLLMAN,

Mrs. FREDERICK ‘TOWNSEND.
Lixecutive Comnitttee.

Apply for more papers to Anti-Suffrage Association, 12 Elk

J ~J 3 aoe -
GAStIMCELY
113 z
tK Liiviex Te
HUMBER SREAE

form: wh
1 q {
by all of

Ae} Danii
Clie IEPpu
| re
DELOre 5

condition

or your daughters, your mothers

OMMITTHE OF

sulfrag1

 

the country from D

reasons

ley intend throu:

Q

r your sisters, to take activ

x

Dit T T T
I yi i
WATT +t Ts
oP i

yy A

BAC QO),

+
<4

spheres of usefulness,

= a

99

-e honest in their wording of

to purify polities; a
st be based upon the ho

us Curantur

ould, would you want your

ta prithar ru7axrea « xx7¢ ;
StS €lEbDer Were, OF Weke

emoc

  
 
 
 
 
  
       
    
  
   
     
   
    

 

4
into the Republican plat-

fragist, was approved

s includes equal Oppor-

We

and

ratic

ENG
arn
Lele

MIECOs

sea eat ‘+ Les alae a a an Sate a
scentlemen, to take at its true
aofo

rR

Her Nar eae As Ai

eS

RN eo
oa

Meer er mon

ts

  

  
  
  
   
  
    
    
 
     
  
   
  
    
    
  
  
  
 
  

r.

nil

 
     

 

   

in the primaries and caucuses, at the polls, and even in the con-

VEMEONS.. LO Cie ple pOs
would be SOClal Centers ©
vomen, who would purity t
ele aya ia ee o,
HOOGE WOULGs SUMECE aoe “Ena
while the purification 1s going

é of making

moral

Were

24 yurified | Vy

Is it not true that woman-

J ¢+¢ha rhartt ble w lz + it 1107 : *
HG Cie? Cha reliia Pre wwWiOlnk= Ui LlO\V“
that they are often overburdened. and
strain [fs to bisldswmp hemes not toi

fae
DI €

QUIK

would gain? And

going to d

o the home work,

down beneath the

17 ats . . Pes 2 1 3
it now so fills the lives of good women

eak down their walls, and

, that women’s best energies

 

ee ys aed ie ae ; CX; A; Yo .
Mrs.  wtanton-blatch, daughter of Hlizabeth Cady wtanton,
hl | J | y« ) hat4 + | > nea . ny - 44
Aa Wa 7a LOMSHea’ artereie th: E>) was better to let home suiter 1n
- 1 ; + | TT} Ol » 7C 7 yy
rder that women should gain economic freedom. Let the women
1 J r 1 1 = — { — iP Letin rOriz - heir
Site Sara: who have not the taste or domestic work turn thei
children over to other women’s cart We have too many servant
ates 1 A ] ud - hl — ft 91 4 1X7 W194 Nec rel] ‘ ~ 4
motners to-da alla avNe Lede a y I Olah tO WOollan aS Well as 16
: tee WMA +I ; 14 a ti 7 O :
Iman, 1S to encourage and upbuild the home life from which we are
A
11 aad . end 1} ( rald 4 . “ined }
50 Sadly ariiting : AGACIS ‘ONLY as V len yleld themselves to the
| mtinga a d ' twWing 7 ijmen r hrict "1 Ter ‘-hine concernine
CLeVa cl Lh pul pi bid CLIC )I Lis tall tegen a QUCChIESS:
1 47° ‘ 1 7
marriage and home, that they rise to a higher moral level, and bring
1 4 if eo : | ] 4
men up to that plane with them
I appear before you unwilline, ut as the representative of
4 17 ° : 1 1 12 a 3 1 C3
Ce Many Mati 1S OL OMe Wie 4 Veo LO prove 1 the silent
. ai, ) Ty { . 7 oy 1 { xy} ar v7
WayOrity i come Irom New York State whe re there are only 16« O
EI AA ciate aos - “al +] 7 1 pn Or rox |
Enrolled SUuNragists out of neat ) people, or, 290 Organized
Ce ee 4 ea ; ec ee - ] ; 1 ‘
SULTASISTS TO Every LOO, OO OL Net Dopmaven I NAVE also Deel
1 T } ) ] x } f 7 ) ‘ 4 y a
asked tO represent the home-lovii ¥ women Of; Vlassachusetts where
Cle l aye 5] Tre-an ed uft OISTS ) WiSlay OC of ] Onle
Ria ul = ) : | DUT a A \ DAO POF Ler Ae
i Fennsylvania where there are TI | OFZanized Subtarisis ta
‘ 1 1 Niawo oF ee 1
GVELY TOO; O00 OF her population ; ‘ew Hampshire where there
= ‘ r anf i : : 9. bye Fat rta A 4
are but 5 suiiragists to every 100,000 of her inhabi ants: Ol (onnerti=
17 whe thet ‘ y]}x7 9 13444 { \7eEr ] ] -
A VWI eGre PiiCEeS ait ONLY Se OU SSL. LO) tere ian LOO. O00" Ol LE
Te asi a ~ 1 ; Be 14 : ; at . :
Inhabitants ; of south Carolina where there are but three suitragists for
- > 4 “ 1
Every 100,000 OF her people ; of Arkansas where there are onlv three
Fe y X | 1 a 1 oe 1 1
SUMTagists tO every 100,000 of he REOpie * DCSiTes DEI dissed fo
] } vx + y bs 1 ; rN <4 } o }
Speak Dy women ol PLIODUNENCe In Calirornia. wher CLG are but 33
a { c tr ro. q a ri j i ‘
Suliragists to ¢ yY 100,000 of her peopl ITl LIINOIS Where there are
Tv 5 Cee 4 4 > 7 4 ~
DUt a) sua LEISES*_ CO" eVe4nr FOO OO ¢ he De PL oka Michi: n
h St rea 4a ( Ixy cq] C44 OIC { . , f°
Vitec Cie Te are aN 51X eS [EEA OTS ES O EVeTY To OOO OF her p Op! .
LISS CH Cte kk Wiele ENChe ane pat LD; StH agistS to every J] OH. OOo: Ol
] = T) | € ° 44 CVIXT x 4 : . : 2 ‘
Mel Pp ople in lowa whe re there ue OU Sle sullragists LO every
har 7 . 4 Ty ogee oe te 41 : cc ;
[00,000 Of her people ; in \ irginia where there is but one suffragist LO
EVECLY. 100,000 of her people ;suffragists to every 100,000 of her people ; in Maine where there are
but 12 suffragists to.every 100,000 of her people; in Ohio where

CHEE are ONLY FI SUMTAPISES LO Every 100,000: OF Nex people, and in
eect pee eS oe ae yl ae eran pe af spe teal ae Rant B
New Jersey where there are but eis ght SUNTAPIStS TO-EVELY LOO,OCO, OF

her people. All these requests coming to me unsolicited.
TM

[‘hese statistics are taken from an address delivered by Mr. Catt,

husband of the National re organizer, before the National

Society, at their annual meeting last January; and published in the
Woman’s Journal, the suffrage organ edited by Henry B. Blac alee

better known as the husband of Lucy Stone,—and his daughter,
Alice Stone Blackwell. I make this statement so that it may not
be subject to contradiction by anyone present.

e - i

ie Pee eee sete Chace as ek ee Ts Ve es f
What are the reasons given for asking you to help thejscause oO

aan Suffrage ?

‘s HA : a Sipe Seas yc a As qi

First; ‘hat women who pay taxes should have a ballot. In
answer we assert that the women who pay taxes do not want the
ot. ‘That taxes are not conditioned upon the right to vote.

liscrimination against women in taxation. ‘That

S = ae ae 4 Bese ci qe ee it 2 Sy - ans C ae

taxation is the price the citizens pay tor the protection o1 theit
1 : 7 12 «4-4+ - 77M 4 + + + aT a - J y

property, their life, their liberty. ‘“lhat many men are taxed who

have no vote,—the wealthy minor, and the man who Hving 1n one

towtll See th ANOTHER. rRaAE THe Wollak Who pays axes

1

vill receive no benefit from the ballot which will not be an hundred

. 1 17 y TAN so <xyl a + XY
times counteracted by. the ballot oi ve women who do not pay

taxes. - That what is needed for the benefit of the tax-paying

Ads
€3
ay
E
ay
$
a
2

. ° 4 ' 1 PAY ; 4

woman is not at increased but a restricted ballot. That whi ile there
3 T T .4 + : y mathaA ‘ r “AWAC hare :

are in Ne VW Vork Sta ce 144,00 oO women who pay taxes, there are

4

at least I1.500,000 women who do not pay taxes

4

qd the
of suffrage to these women would more than duq ylicate the evils ate
which the tax-payer now suffers.
Second: ‘That when women have the ballot, they will be
employed constantly and at higher wages. ‘The answer is shown in
the fact that men vote and are yet unemployed. That no employer

‘ 1 1 ea y CS XAT ¢ ro (> 4 ~ +} PF llOVe 1 E
is going to pay an increased wage because the employee has the

Tt

franchise. iat while there are, as in the factories everywhere, long
lists of girls waiting to be employed at nor ninal figures, no employer
is going to raise the pay of his employees because they ask an hour
off to vote on election day.

hud: What ‘tite

t ause of temperance will be helped when
women vote. I admire t

Q

SIA

he women who are working for temperance,
‘ | s11t feel rfect]
and wish them God speed, but feel periecu

d

y sure that they are mis-

taken if they expect to be helped by the granting of suffrage to all
women North, South, East and West. Statistics tell us that while
the population of the United States has increased but 20 per cent in

-
J

= —— SS ee
=; a5 eee Sa ee SD tl
“45 x 23> ee a nt ee - ni ee
we ee BE ee a a ala i .

OE at he atRP
si iN a id Alek

We eA

et ate ma en

   

     
   
    

7 ee WN

UA

ues Ay

ae
a

peal

BAR

a.
—

iPr.

 

 
  

»

|

 

7
1NLCECASCG: 5OO pel
Lr
4 TY +t) T
l@ Stalement tua
{ + © - ]
LLOE Oo. @O2 1 ( )
/} iSS LS ae 1}
= : hr
YY Women we
Ty 1 \ \
Pais ¢ yi L \ \
1 ] i>
US LOOK
an 1 ET]
“Qual WOTK 1 I
Pyle lie ten S )
' {
wold
LiCl }
VE WO] | ]
n 1
Lon
) ] lla C \ it
; . 1
L( z alic LD \
, +1 ’ )
| Tit l 1}
XAT 4
\ V il du L VAL
{ >
1 1
1a ym |
OOINS )
1TOTrC Re’
Ai \ Xv Ul
7A ies L \
Bey Shas Sa Ot \ cil
i
* f
rT f a
PG € ¢
] Ss Mary W ¢
; ‘
-{ ri¢ 7
\ ~
au
YLIDC J] iy VO
s } T
OU Ci il¢ I l

}
A
TYN1
Hf :
Cent i 1)
at \1r t 1Q
PAPAS ANS
i] 1ses 2.
Oo
UIE O ] |
1
Same conadlti«
1 1 1
Lia ness
Sa veLUN
lat Sounds
| WATQ S
A \ ~ >
11s ») Sdyj
'
Lic u IC
2 i)
\
\
ed L¢ Tene
( i |
V ¢ | De
A AA A
+ 4 1 |
: i () t il
9q an
€ Tit
t f
{ ULIG
} ]
} a Po
I it} 1
1
r his wag
_
hi hin
( } hoy
I LLOW-W“
Ow rnat VW
i] \

 

hig]
\A
ONO,

inkine

Pap)

iT, | ‘
) tHe alrea
] 1
fae’ | qq T)
y.t nat
rT {
Ee Or it
Cite | T}
A st i A
C =| | i
7% 7 ]
LIE Cl cd
L¢ UDD
work ll
+ ) T
j Nn
{ [ 5
LI1Ce Ua
1
sa Sea
<
ryé Dri
it the Tea
)
¢ +1,
>» Uf CELE Wh
: Ceé
aaah, 4
PCy LAG
omen do

 

and drug taking women have

Advocate is my authority for
1 1 7 ss
se law in Philadelphia, Penn, «

ited to women In Boston
woo 407 > Were applied fol
lgs prevails nearly all ove

J Se aes ‘
ly overburdened and unem-
< 1A YA } ) 14d \14 ] 4
5 wages should be cut down
) A . ' der cae 1
tact beyond dispute that
OT d ™m rnaA nd a 4 pn] y 1 q
i CUig iiCh an SUPD \ ile)
] Cy 1 ns
l OL labor once 4a man’ s-soel
ble to work for lower wacec
VOLS LOT LOWE Wa2es
a4 } XT: s x | Y +14 + -
rt, Nave crowded them out.
cod pase mull: elas
Is anything at all, 1t means
WOTrK than the women are

laie employe that he could

} ‘ 1a hin na whi)
was paying him, and while
Cr Tate, Be NIUSt Elfner ais:

‘wise they would

} J
te
Nard

 

>»Si q 7 i717 4
ie Ort. | Whe 4° he sac ine ~ “ ae = A f
personal, whether the husband consents or not. A father cannot
1OWVW IT)NTeNHN T1e¢ } < lLild +m Ir, a een 4 Ae : Ao x { <4
Now Ppirs eS l] COPLL Ol Hlaice Vail ippointment Olea testa-
JAN) a rae ae ee ‘ ‘ 2 eC . 11 : ° 1 1 Tet :
m1elital lan without th NSENC OF TNE NOLMerR, 11 She De living,
2
TTA . 4
ine wt ; ( “4 ot cin + : Pn rey ; a Tey
eee VV-LEG Lee tele I USI] i Obl els OMT AceOunEeanG. 1s entitled to
11 . 1 1 1 s
} | a tT) 111 1N¢ mA Die | 1 1 4 1 wm14% - . )
Akl Une rou t NOS 1 that DUSINESS, and may contract 4s
] x 1 1 J T
Si Wel LHAIMALTIECG. ryVeCrEYyY DrEOLeGSSIOn TS Open: tO
OO \ 11 | | ‘1 caret J 1 ‘
Ol up LOT dalsO L Deh Woatk. Go: tHe Valli. VWilat
] C711 +} } 1] i) c = aa 1 {
Navin? Ea pallot it nen ALS cEO© CaDa | Ul lal
+ 4 1d I : + XZ 14 bateeraal
OL C Otte Ale Tween Alok ACCOrGiie. to. nione
5 1
t 4+}, + . 4} { } + j
OF Lie. Ttace Lila IS OF DON men Tie W ome \
+ POOH AY baa] } +4 { x17 hat + - + q
LO eSpectiully 111C UITE vhat Drop l | ideqdu
]? x ] . ' { i ate ) CX
Ss WORK WO ( LE DErIOnR VV Dat 1 QO1
\ pe ii) VV I
1 z ) \ } } F
OMGreE Ol SOCTCIY: * Peis \ 1 ( levV 7 V\ Ch LI Cra WiGIKS e)!
x YT ey ? \ O11 . CYT hea ( 11 ho} ( that j
VW AlCl XY L \ Wed itt Lip GE wat Li) | a )] LAC. =uh)
Haney ana re Ul Nl tO Nannood ke VOU: .¢ INIOE LOVE [Heh with
WiASGOHT allo tustice Wilt Cil¢ ie OA Clie: TEE YOu nands, wiat
VOUT LEasO LIS Lt-StrikeS me that these: women who watt
| 1 r + < + t In ‘ +in-
roretain ki CLs )I 1 Fi Ol 1} SCA LITLE SECT . JCSraes LOOSé all that
Boe Vo EINK Pate (bes c1( Lik Je PEM Bie Vee Lemilain )
ha t111¢ } ] } 1 \ a } £44 449 ¢ TL\1 i ? c 1tT1<. . \ 14 \
Pil Ve Ed L PL Gib ) id ULLLIILY EQ). VOU alig Sa Y LI OUs GO HWGt
: | x : Iza la th \ re Orr 4
KILO \V\ } Vv. a4 i tw iN OV" 2) LiL people YOu LIC COrrupt
{ | +}4 } ( \14~ 1474 1Y | ey m9 1+ lant
rnG 1 1 1 i bla LIOLI Re Wits aS I Ura Se tial We mas supptiadllt
‘ : 4 eat ‘ | ] 7 Rae Bee ee fel eet ae
VOU ATG lIeEVi SAV - Chis: NOG LO  ENnEHISE! > alone Dot tok au the
} { \T + } & 144 +-{ f non N\ x } +
WO Ea Pos Lt LlaA LIO} \ ELL DOME Mast ana West, Without
reaard ( 1141 rah Om moraine I ‘hex 1 r( Dipl = litics|
Potaitl tv Uui t 1 dh PL chk é il Lek Bu { DOTS
f ‘ 1 a ‘ \ hat i. | | 4] : Ca ate
rE liemen 1 large number of the leade OF tHe, SU thyaae party
4 LA j= ' leat ss arene
COMMILLEe £ ld WHaAE IS KHOW as
fal ; Sesto 7 ] rate
At the] have only dealt with
lL need on! columns to show you
11. +1 Tan oO 4
Is SailG Ake LO] iti CE CTIELES
OL Hre-. and all tn Natural Pp SOHAL! ELO ts: © Nel, as SGE bowen as
e @: I
: i Fe { a f men 9
THeSE 1 eS LC abi e OLLOUICE CLES Lek Ci i WOmlen. at

{ a barbarou.

 

so1 PeaPAupaerA

 

 

  
  

them will be seen when I tell you that she covers much space to

1 - 7 } tT) < - } ¢ E Pp qQ¢

prove that “the chief point of interest in the parable ot Balaam and
oe to the Anica?
11S ass, 1S that the 35 belonged LO ENE Tel ae sex

i hese are the women who are going to give us better laws than
th Ss rounded on he Mosaic COGS, alld who ne SOLIS LO purily

q° s ak J ~ - edad } 1 ) 4+ + {IQ i f +15 147 CS c a ar

NOLITICS | IZOLVOU WOUGEr.- Semuemien: toat the mnotners appeal to

you ; the mothers who have builded their homes upon the truths laid
i . 4 ~~: 7 1 4 1 4q- . - at rTA -
own in the Bible; and who have taught you to reverence it? "here
Take away

1 { ents 21s bore 1s ad e es eet <A 4
from men and women that belief in the Bible that causes them to

: s ' . : | rh- have TO11 ¢
strive to: do right tor righteousness sake and wha Have Vou =
er o : :

>

a reer
FL1istory. tells vou

 

The suffragists speak of what has been accomplished by woman

| T ;
S1 it] LOE 11) i 0 LZ \ SOT | i Way Ay | AtS n \ \ >
1 X a aa a
Ae VET lS. BLG Ca ail Ol \ \ i line \ Li Ge women have voted
LOroa GUlarter Of a Century Nas a popunation OF less than [2, O00. |
1 told tha Chi ine there are 25 licensed gambling houses, and

1 47 - Iaaa7 : er 1 1+ 1 .
lat saloons are aS numerous as any other kind of StLOLeS = and le as

{ <1 4 oe rae 1 es > at -
J cS act UO} ihe 51 1t1O11 Mea 2Ub the better-
ment or the human race, has been passed in WU yoming through
1ompson, who managed the Democratic

. 7 ; 5 Q - ‘ rele Ce . + nD. 77> 4- < 5
Ali palen Ine VW YOMmINS 1 Too2, Said: ine women’s vote is the
pets

1 Tq ey cata es oO -pA c
easiest thing in th OLIGO "Ze Lnd the €aSi€Se Laine =o keep, and
oi : : laws + 4 117 ‘ltt oo ie -

ne easiest thing to Manipulate of any lement in politics. JXELEI

six month’s residence in Wyoming, divorce may be obtained for any

Ni aed "XF ; ~Xy ) wd ne 17 Tn le yolntive 9 |
[he history of woman's iniluence in the legislative halls of

} : { vit +- x 19044 sat =“) CY 4 Ne ic ‘ % 74 =
L1¢ tner wtates where woman suiirage obtains, 1s not a glowing
4 } eee cor - - hit+x ‘ 1 \< vy >t 1% r1C + ~
tribute fo thei intelligence « Ee Droplen Ind nas been Lil existence too
sort a time to be given as precedent for the States Hast and south,
> A

TAs ee eee Seo he Boar eet : Peete We ae es c
A 11€ Partial SUNTage reterred to 1S aiso a thing not to be boasted of

1

he women who desire the ~UHTage. 1. TLE record ot the Mass-

ichusetts vote 1s that 1n boston 1n 1888. 20,252 women registered te,

lS TMTereSe OF SCHOOL SUP Awe a id most of (nem voted, lor it was a
Waftiare OF religious sects; a Frotestant and a Roman Catholic higeht,
such gC would apnea] CO MOST womet Th -> nen 7eqgr the 1 her
PEINS EL Ga VOULG a} peal L LLOS | CTE Liat 21 At YCdi PLAC Num pel

Om -1 11 | 1S 1 ] '
Ole WOME re LGlIne Was Teaueed nearly one-nali In [ISQI, 6,008
4 + Ni ee rei 5G ee J ri. +4 hin “4 6 >
women registered and 5,428 voted. The same thing was tried in
(snnneanrt 114 Inn \at +x } ~) } + }
WVOWNMCCCLEULE alle L LWO |

AA Nnhnoeacholt ar an 4 Sola - An +4 1
and ONe=halt Per Cent OT Ene women entitled

o vote exercised that right. Do you imagine fora moment that thev

5 . Kha - 44 Peele whic TIO “4% 7“ ; 7 is ‘
would do better ira iull franchise were given them? Who are the
} x71A11 | : 4 +} Milena tee * > : 4 5 Pei
women who would go to the polls in stormy weather? I do not need

4 1

that the women who would vote “ear hy

4

and often are not the women to whom you would trust the ballot in
case of need.

to prove to you gentlemen t

Cc ,)It has been stated to you that I have no right to claim that I
represent 1,500,000 women of New York. It has also been stated
that 400,000 women of New York had signed the suffrage
The truth of the matter is, gentlemen, that two vears ago when th
suftragists made an effort to ‘strike out the word ‘‘male” fron the
Constitution of New York, Miss Susan B. Anthony promised to off

a petition signed by LE, Of LOO} \O women Ot Ne \\ Vorik: - and with that

end in view, the suffragists canvassed New York State with thet
energy for which they are noted. I should not be surprised to leat
that not one woman over 21 years of age had escaped having been
tried to be cajoled or ci enced into signing the petition The result
was a failure so great that they abandoned the idea of getting the
women to sign, and so they asked men to come to their help. ‘They
a for signatures sometimes as high as three cents In one town
there were sent in the signatures of more women than there were
women in the town, over 21 yearsofage. ‘hey did not succeed even
then; so they claimed to have the signatures of 200,000 members of
the labor organization, and 50,000 grangers through their respective
secretaries. Many members of both of these organizations have
denied since then having known of the petition, and also denied
having any sympathy with the woman suffrage movement.

we claimed also 75,000 W. C. T. U. members. I have personal
friends who are members of the W. C. T. U. and who are bitterly

11 Sea to Spe, et eg Sf ee ee ea 1 oe5 : :
eae to the granting of sufft age to all classes and conditions of

> <

women.

7 4 7 ae tS ee rap ee Peete ee rat 4 ae Eat hh el i Le ae
But allowing for the sake of the ar Suim ent that all these persons
signed the petition, they then only claimed 426,000 names; as

uote trom an article written Dy one or the
a -— cP “ 4.7 4 / c f Oo E <> oh (~ \ 4-4 - ‘ at \ TTA fea is $6 FE
leaders aiter their dereat before the Constitutional Cony Cerone U e

) See, fs eee SoBe pee sae ri tee a
have 200,000 women’s names encircled by the great arms of labor

and clasped together by the strong arms of the farm’’, which 1s poetic

at least, but which only claims 200,000 women,

There are 7,000,000 of people in New York State. It is fair to
|

believe that one-quarter of that number are women ove!

2T VeArs oF

ase, that is 1,750,000. Ihe truth is, that there are several thousand

more women a men in New York ee But granting them those
ficures, I lay claim to only those women who refused to be enrolled
as suffragists, when I say I represent 1,500,000 women of voting age
in New York State, who do not desire to have suffrage thrust upon
them. Jam sorry to take up your time to prove my assertion: One

: to ee ip
fore tact and | WI -elose.

The Anti-suffragists have not tried to organize until recently ;
and then only because’ we were forced to protest against the ery of

ose suffrage

4 . ° 4

this very small minority that claimea

cal
>
ey
New
m
mH
_
ri
_
~~
~
hart
os
_
a
~~
YY
ct
©

- =

en[ae bee EI

      
       

protest. j

 

 

Fthe feeling of th . ie eh |

: will give you an idea of the feel : Pr the Women OU IBOBES; sayobnalloyes
=
11

Were medisl\ \ tax-paylne WwW fi at ny >; well as women

] 7 1 } | ( i) - eS T s
t 1lO W pe Sat V pDredu {) 1) U 1 hom reOT? er 1,OU1S I

% | |

} ] | <4 + * 4 + r\1 4 arts <
v was delighted | expression \ il t into one of our largest

| ve { ‘ ] | i f ge
y-2go00d Shops to n C a0) ¢ ( Cane Bie 1 Or he
TA J 1 : T 1 : } i jee a
YOST UIOTI i j d taken t I l ) i ele Ene SHO] eCVeTry

4 s q ] 1
1 In the depart nad L nan One of sthem
\ Y Ss 1 ‘ } 4 4 1 1 4
$a1d VS Sie LOT Id NOtWICerstana witat
| | 1 } YAY { { V7} 4
ermecan Du \ E Ve LJ eC) UEP | PEGE SL W nen

 

 

{ 14 12

ier Will lOOk « uld IO LvySelt.
} Fac { : ] ' 1 , 4 ee :
\ | Pe 1s said € : I VOMIEM WHO are
i : . ; a \ { 1 . as :
. slaves ett C Ltretven. fr 1b Is
}

ab)
f
on
pod
lk
aah.
—
>a
V

I

1 { ‘ ] 1
‘ 1 ~ ) C t ’ ‘ x
i LES ) t ) 4 C } Tecte L by LAWS
f
f ¢ J ! ; } x a |
; i Li ) | | ¢ TA * oO ‘ nN }
; re I L L OLEVIA ed Peru
‘ =
Cr) Set 17 1 it ) ) ) 1 t 4 | tT) 1
| > WILT ltd ) ES hy Ih LOT NIN
i | } rin ] \ ) } } ] ic WAT 14 1 +},
a I A A A > AA J 5 1 li Cent
i
\
; , } } 4 x
{ ;
la a ; ) 14 “e a
y may « oO insult oman :
] { i 44 1
rh 1 ) )
Lif 1 yu A 1 A | 3 Lid J Ce | reC)
} } ) t ) } 1x >
Tet \ l ren) l ) ) rat “Cl , Ll Wome
X } +o | = { 4 mm) xx7 hh
) Td \ t | J i L I UX {1\ . VV I JC
1
1X {
L VV Lt Ot > | Poe OLOOm: Of
§
5 ) Bs | 1 ) | 1a 1 4
‘ l CA t i - Pa 1ISdom 9g C
é 5 } {
z ) Te LCE | CES = ) } c Tes VOU
t : )
] 4 TY 1 .
} ITeEY i ‘1 -
Es a | Tes i SiN l T } ee WM 5b cal ee Se 11 \
O € \ Y PTEsOMsIrtion
\ I 1 JUL COTTIVe |) L
f C4 F }

   

 

¢ j r
/ ! IRS Vii CASSID\
\f RC WV 2 \ \ ) aay \ : D R RED

{ LVI IN V eck \ i N HI i \ | iN

j I Hy, Hy I

 

PA
IPS

\ T ‘
MRS. JOSEPH GAVIT, \ C Cy A. PLYMPTON
9 . 7
rss 4 oe I 7 } f45
5 $ / { / VECULLVE COMLVALLLIE€
~ T ‘ v7 Noxor \
= IWMLRS, MU oe VV aL VSEOW ARAN NE] . CHALTT

Other leaflets may be obtained by appli
Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany. N. Y.

Se ok V5is

VIEWS ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

REASONS GIVEN BY THREE EMINENT PERSONS WHY

SHOULD NOT VOTE.

HERBERT SPENCER’S POSITION ON WoMAN SUFFRAGE.

Herbert Spencer in “Justice”? maintains that there are
fundamental reasons for keeping the spheres of the sexes
He had formerly argued the matter ‘“ from the point
of view of a general principle of individual rights,’’ but he
finds that this cannot be sustained as he “ discovers mental
and emotional differences between the sexes which disqualify

women for the burdens of government and the exercise of its

EXTRACT FROM A LETTER FROM BisHop JOHN H. VINCENT,

THE FOUNDER OF CHAUTAUQUA, ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

“When about 30 years of age I accepted, for a time, the
doctrine of woman suffrage, and publicly defended it.
of wide and careful observation have convinced me that the
demand for woman suffrage in America is without foundation
in equity, and, if successful, must prove harmful to American
I find some worthy women defending it, but the
majority of our best women, especially our most intelligent,
domestic, and godly mothers, neither ask for it nor desire it.
The curse of America to-day is the dominated partisan vote

—the vote of ignorance and superstition, Shall we help

Pe oo a eI

tate Bole ER Ne et

aes

a =. mt Gas
caer a batactaRtanenenel Urea So adhd areas ban he ee

to

x

 

Sell[ae bee ee

 
   
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
  

matters by doubling this dangerous mass? Free from the

rey) Liter
AEE eHub pric AMP

RA tk Aik le

direct complications and passions of the political arena, the

oN Pee

weer

best woman may exert a conservative and moral influence

over men as voters. Force her down into the same bad

Eve Mitt thatthe bite. in. sie

RAPS Ha

: | atmosphere, and both man and woman must inevitably suffer

4 incalculable loss. We know what women can be in the

hy ¥ aft
rasa A

commune, in riots, and on the rostrum.

“Woman can, through the votes of men, have every right to
which she is entitled. All she has, man has gladly given her.
It is his glory to represent her. To rob him of this right is to

weaken both. He and she are just now in danger through

 

his mistaken courtesy.”

tl | VIEWS OF JOHN BRIGHT ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

t John Bright, the patriot, the tried and valued friend of every
movement for the general benefit of woman, accustomed to
equality of women in Friends’ meetings, was one of those who
fl on May 20, 1867, voted in favor of Mr. Mill’s amendment to

)

strike out of a reform bill the word ‘“ man,” and insert the
} I word “person.” Nine years afterwards, in March, 1876, he
4 spoke against the enfranchisement of women. When charged
i with having changed his opinions, he said that he gave Mr.
| Mill the benefit of the doubt, and sympathized with him ina
. | courageous stand, and in a letter published in “ The Woman
Question in Europe,” by Theodore Stanton, he wrote : —

' “T cannot give you all the reasons for the view I take, but

IT act from the belief that to introduce women into the strife

NOAM ae LO

Swat

Ob:

of political life would be a great evil to them, and that to our
own sex no possible good could rise. When women are not
safe under the charge or care of fathers, husbands, brothers,
and sons, it is the fault of our non-civilization, and not of our

laws Ascivilization founded on Christian principles advances,

 

Pa Rina MM SS yearn yuh ROMA To

A y Tv ace, at z aie 4 3 7
MRS, W ° A INSLOW WCRANN BL. -CHALHI

( Ar lea. ate may he } Aina Bey nnn ae 1 \ ° 4 cc
Other leaflets may be obtained by applying to the Anti-Sullrage
Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany, N. Y.

RGR An BAOeewomen will gain all that is right for them to have, though they

are not seen contending in the strife of political parties.”

To this he adds personal testimony : —

‘“‘In my experience I have observed evil results to many
women who have entered hotly into political conflict and
discussion. I would save them from it.”

Reprinted by permission of N. Y. Association by the Mass.

Association opposed to the Extension of the Suffrage to
Women.

a. ~ £5 ECE ES ae
EI Et hE BER BES a pe a ae a a, ga a
= ee ee i e. = is aee

     
 
 

 
  

mA
ween r

Mri oie Sieh, 04 bial i

      
      

a

  

AMUN ah

Ur mibtaph amit tied

RUPUTALR A fr

»

a oy
Aria:

eRe gTE

i
£
i
{ %
¥ ¥
' i
f § i

 

Pee
Pp

—

4

FERNS A ie

Mrs. W. WINSLOW CRANNELL., Chairman.
Other leaflets may be obtained by applying to the Anti-Suffrage
Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany, N

RAL Ee ialEB eB EE le ee

   
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
   
  
 
   

ARGUMENTS FOR’ WOMAN SUPFRAGE
CONSIDERED:

It is proposed to consider in this paper certain assertions
made by suffragists, with a view to the refutation of the con-
clusions drawn from them.

ist. Women who used to work at home now work more
and more in factories and shops. Here they work under the
same conditions as men. The number of women doing this
is now very large, and it is continually increasing. There-
fore, the suffragists assert, they should have the vote.

2d. The courts are taking a new attitude toward women,
treating them not as wards and children, but as complete
citizens, not giving effect to special legislation in their favor,
but treating them as part of a whole community. Therefore
they should vote as does the male citizen.

3d. The word “ politics” should be used to cover the whole
field of activities in which the public is or might be inter-
ested. Women are, therefore, as factory inspectors, as mem-
bers of school boards, trades unions, etc., already in politics,
and should as a matter of course obtain what they want
through the ballot as men do.

4th. The object of general suffrage is to bring all classes
under equal protection ; to secure to all classes equal consid-
eration, and to unite all classes for the common welfare.
Women should therefore be represented as a class.

sth. The ballot will correct the evil conditions in working
women’s lives.

6th. The ballot is an educational power.

I. As to the first statement, it is to be admitted that it is
partially true. Great numbers of women, and doubtless con-
stantly increasing numbers, are engaging freely in all sorts
of occupation away from the home. To be sure, it should be
remembered that in the majority of such cases, the occupa-
tion is regarded by the women themselves as temporary, and
not as a life work. That under such circumstances so large
a movement should take place, and with such ease and rapid.

— = x Se eRe see F —_—
PEO OE EES eb oe Se asemeccmmmmsee

5 es SE eae

 

—
app
Ly pic marl)
ite OCU CRA Su Gye

a.
RUHR

he inert
Oe BN Ss a

toe
a le

arn OONAD Rte Saat:

ao mR I.
agg

ag re
Passer ea

4Ne re, 4

   
  
    
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
    
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  

, et)

- i Ly Da? ¥ qua
“Src Wii aru EY,
em te whet _

~

Rn Pare eA enh

va sata hia tatiana’.
.

=
oe

ui
swage eee

m
van,
oa

OREO a UPA MW) a PY Pome
PPA ADy i ‘

ys

 

LNT 8 RIG AUP Re
eat} SHA 4o

 

 

My

vit ay y © ett ve al ran
LAL SENN

me Le

RRO ABAD

as hee a

  

2

ity, indicates what the fact is, namely, that no obstacles,
legal or other, are placed in the path by men, and that the
conditions must all be favorable, or at least not hostile. It
is evident, therefore, that woman does not need the suffrage
to facilitate her entrance into wider fields of industrial occu-
pation; but it is at least a very serious question whether
such increased entrance into industry is not a social danger.
The ideal community is one where women can devote them-
selves to the most important duty of rearing and training
the family. No society can long endure in safety if great
numbers of its children must be left to grow up uncared-
for and untrained, as must be the case when both father and
mother devote themselves to the exacting pursuit of gaining
a livelihood. The increasing density of population, and the
crowing difficulty of maintaining a family, may compel such a
condition ; but it isa most unfortunate social situation, full
of dangers, and sure to precipitate the most serious social
problems. It is an evil to be warded off as long as possible,
and with all the means at hand, by the true social reformer.
Less than this cannot be said by any one who looks into the
future to find the dangers to be guarded against.

II. The second proposition is that the laws and courts are
extending the rights and privileges of women.

This, too, is true. In fact, so far has this tendency been
carried, that now in almost all our States women have all the
legal rights and privileges that men have, and many protec-
tions and safeguards that men have not. Without the suf-
frage they have been put in most States in a distinctly better
position than men. This is believed to be right; but it cer
tainly has taken place without female suffrage. It has been
demonstrated that women could secure greater protection
from our laws without suffrage than men get with it. Surely
no one can claim that the facts stated in this second proposi-
tion demonstrate, or tend to demonstrate, that women need
the suffrage for their protection in these respects. Devotion
to a preconceived theory must be carried very far not to see
that chivalry has given, and is giving far more to women than
suffrage could ever do, in all the respects under consideration.
And so doubtless will it ever be as long as human nature
remains what it is, and as long as sex is permitted to remain
what it is.

III. We come now to the third point.

“As before stated, this is a definition of “ politics” that
includes almost every form of human activity; at least so
far as industrial pursuit is concerned. In the definition is

Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany, N. Y.3

included all associations of men or women in corporations, if
syndicates, trusts, etc., and all the infinite variety of labor t
associations, male or female.

This is a wholly new definition of “politics.” As truly it
may be said to bea wholly incorrect definition. You mightas
well lump all these varied human activities, and call them reli-
gion, art, or science, as politics. There is no justification for y
such hazy thought or statement. As it has usually been }
assumed that all political questions are properly settled by
votes, the only object of this definition would appear to be to
persuade that these questions, which are so interesting to all
people, are political questions. If, therefore, the coiners of eg
this definition could satisfy every one that all questions of :
vital interest to every individual could only be properly set-
tled by votes, they could perhaps convince more people that
every one should have a share in the voting. But in any
rational consideration nothing would seem to be gained by
such inaccurate thought or definition.

IV. The fourth proposition is that general suffrage is to be
desired as a means to bring all classes under equal protection ;
to secure to all classes equal consideration, and to unite all
classes for the common welfare. It follows, the suffragists
claim, that women as a class should be represented.

When it is said that classes, by organization of various
kinds, secure advantages from time to time, that is certainly
correct. When it is intimated that sometimes such advan-
tages are secured by legislation, that is also correct. Now if
it were claimed that all this tended to prove the benefits of
organization, no one would take issue with such a conclusion.

It is now generally believed by the laboring classes that
they owe in large measure the progress they have made to
their unions and societies, and associations of various kinds.
No one would deny the right of women to associate similarly ;
in fact they do so already, and in many instances in union
with the men. It may be that they should do so more
largely, and it is probable that they will if the present move-
ment on the part of women towards industrial pursuits should
continue or increase.

It is a safe prediction that the previous experience of
women will be repeated; that, just as they have secured
more privileges and protection on the whole than men in the
same community, so they will secure more privileges and bet-
ter conditions than men in their industrial pursuits, and under
the influence of the same causes.

Everything that the suffragists claim as to the benefits of

aires

    
 
 

ALI ineeR MA RHR

rare
Rati tude Wy
een al

 

BEE EEE Se eee le a
SE aa gee

: . . eS 5
“oil ite ol ES Be 5 ae a aeMMAR TUAMH TOOTH
es ee 7 ik

   

CRAPO IA mL 7m

w

 
 
   
  
  
   
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
   
    
  
   
  
   
  

 

AUST VAS NR SUA FADE O gy SETS RS ph

SERRA SSNS OIN

"

Ret hil,

PASM

 

 

4

organization among all classes, may be admitted, at least for
the sake of argument. But the fallacy that lies at the bot-
tom of their conception is that the division of human beings
into males and females is in any true sense a “class” divi-
sion.

Nature scouts such an idea. It takes the male and female
to make one class. The great, fundamental fact is that the
males and females in any class of society are in full sym-
pathy in most of their feelings and emotions, and opinions.
The world would be a hell if this were not true. You might
as well say that a man’s right hand belonged to one class,
and his left to another. The males and females of the race
that we call human have no hostility to each other any more
than have the males and females of other species that we see
and know. In fact all nature demonstrates just the con-
trary. You cannot separate the interests of males and
females and thus get “class interests”’ in any true sense.

It is true that there isa difference of function; but it is
absurd to say that this makes a “class” difference, or that
the function of one is any more important and honorable than
that of the other. It is notin any just sense a badge of
woman’s inferiority to man to say that he votes and she does
not; any more than it is a badge of man’s inferiority to
woman to say that she bears children and he does not.

The only question is, and always must be, what under all
the circumstances is the proper and suitable division of func-
tion between the male and female. This should always be
determined by many considerations.

V. The suffragists claim that the ballot will alleviate the
condition of working women,

Sympathetic and emotional minds and hearts, when con-
templating the evils of life, and the sufferings, hardships, and
miseries of human beings, are very apt to long for, and finally
to think they have discovered, some direct remedy for what
seems unbearable. In fact a great part of the nonsense, and
most of the crude nostrums of the world have this kindly
origin, Earnest souls see evils of various kinds, enumerate
them sympathetically and convincingly, and carry themselves
and their listeners along, so that when with confidence a
single remedy is announced for the admitted evil, it seems
just the needed panacea. Unfortunately in the real world
the case is not so simple.

The silver crank of to-day exploits free coinage as the sov-
ereign remedy for evils vividly portrayed, and readily believed.
But his remedy would aggravate the case. The suffrage

Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany, N. Y.5

enthusiast offers his nostrum, and he too would probably
aggravate all the evils he so clearly sees. Nature’s methods
of cure take time and patience. She knows no short cuts.
The world with its slow evolution in the right direction
shows us that only patient pursuit by right methods promises
any real relief in all our social problems.

One hears sympathetic narrations of the evils found among
working women, — what one of their most ardent friends de-
scribes as ‘“‘a feeling that they are shut up to a life in which
only the meanest personal interests are matters of considera-
tion ;” “a blind and stupid selfishness that does not and can-
not see the wrong of base, political strife ;” ‘‘a feeling that
they and their interests are not sufficiently considered ;”’
“a orowing feeling of antagonism towards that vague per-
sonification known as the State.”

To all this the reply is that it could almost identically be
said of the men in the same class; and that with the density
of our population, and the increased difficulty of support of
the family, it is being felt more and more by both the men
and women in their class; and that female suffrage will not
remedy it, as male suffrage has not.

But is it safe to double the number of ignorant, discon-
tented, and dangerous voters, and to do it decause they are
discontented, ignorant, and dangerous?

Some such question is often asked ; but so much is hoped
from the educating influence of the ballot, that its advocates
are willing to take the risk.

VI. The educational power of the ballot. The suffragists
exaggerate the educating influence of the ballot ; they also
underestimate the dangers attending so overwhelming an
‘ncrease of the suffrage; and they seem strangely unaware
of the fact that the very same feelings and sentiments found
among the women, exist, and have increased, among the
men of the same class, notwithstanding the possession of the
suffrage.

Suffrage of any kind is not an end, but a means to an end;
a contrivance to secure the best government, the greatest
security, the best protection for our lives and property, —a
contrivance, it may be added, to afford that stable and or-
derly condition under which our rights shall be most secure,
and under which all the forces of civilization shall have the
best opportunity to work out the best results. It is not in
itself a right of nature, any more than the privilege of hold-

ing office is a natural right.
Many just and good governments have existed and worth-

; ea
scicniapee
+

= tens ti pepe
béutthaaaha a laden iW
RUE aH WU tat al

CE Thaler
nthe Ue AE oO EUS

OS ns,

om

et
i

inet

ARLE LEHR Hiatt prec

meme
a
awe Ne

a pi bd ak
NA iene S

aa 7 - : p= ” = ee Ee ete Se EI oe Ee EE ee ==
i ae EE ee EE aE a i na SB Ee eeTo
Were

net ire red. sot atleah

 
      
  
 
  
   
  
  
  
    
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
 
  

A ee ee Aion
Phau

i
vy

wr

Pon ate SE TNT
SEERA PAI pala

*~

   

 

te,

=e

|
i

 

6

ily performed their functions without providing for the exer-
cise of the privilege of suffrage. The privilege should be
exercised everywhere, and at any time, so far, and only so
far as it will conduce to the end which alone justifies its ex-
istence, and which has been already defined; in a word, in
so far only as it will continue to give the best government.

The denial of this privilege is not the denial of a right.
Its granting or extension is to be determined simply by its
political wisdom.

We have extended this privilege of suffrage in this country
very far: so that it now practically includes all males of the
age of twenty-one and upwards, whether native or foreign ;
for the residence required of a foreigner is only five years.

If the question could now be considered an open one there
are many things that could now be said against so sweeping
and indiscriminate an extension. But the chief vice of an
extension is that it is under our system of government prac-
tically irrevocable.

Shall we zow extend the suffrage to the other half of the
community? No.

{t may be well to state that the reason for saying “No” is
not that women are in any way inferior to men. They do
have different functions ; and these do seem to point the way
to an arrangement that shall assign to each different duties
and responsibilities. “The world has not hitherto been wrong
in generally agreeing that the man shall as a rule support the
family, carry on the contests of the world, fight its battles
when war becomes necessary, sit on juries, and exercise the
correlative privilege of voting; and that to the woman shall
be assigned other and by no means less important duties and
privileges.

Shall we double our suffrage now ?

Certainly we all agree that we should not unless we feel
absolutely certain of its wisdom. No mere balance of proba-
bilities in our minds; no mere groping after education;
nothing, in short, but absolute conviction of its wisdom can
justify any one in favoring it. The awful extent of the
change, its absolute irrevocability, demands the utmost cer-
tainty before any reasonable being can favor it.

It is foolhardy for any one to say he has such certainty.
Political changes should never be so sweeping ; government
should never be so rashly experimented with. It is only an
experimental science at best, and the experiments should be
moderate.

This is the whole science of political wisdom.

Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany, N. Y.Get oe ER Ee ee

   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   

It is believed that enough has been said in this paper to
show that extension of suffrage is not an appropriate remedy
for the existing industrial evils, or for any of the existing
miseries of mankind. What a mistake to draw off the intelli-
gent thought and effort that should be directed to the cure
of the countless social evils that beset us in our times, by
consideration of this quack remedy, whose only effect would
be the intensification of all the disorders it was supposed to
cure! A thousand times better to accurately diagnose our
diseases, correct all the loose and false notions with regard
to this supposed remedy, and clear the field for an honest,
and above all patient effort to better our condition.

Let us stop talking and thinking as if we regarded suffrage
of any kind as a God-given right —to be deprived of which
by any human creature would be an act of oppression — and
as a panacea for all social ills, and let us apply ourselves to
real remedies.

There are many objections to female suffrage that will
readily suggest themselves to most people, on the social or
family side of the subject. That field is now only entered by
way of suggestion, in passing.

It seems impossible to exaggerate the objection to the ex-
tension of suffrage to women, that comes from a considera-
tion of the present conditions and tendencies of the indus-
trial and social state in this country. The increasing density
of our population ; the vast and rapid expansion that all our
industries have had ; the growing difficulty of sustaining and
properly rearing the family; the bad effect on the future
generation of being deprived of sufficient home training, be-
cause of the increasing necessity that the mother as well as
the father shall work; all these and many other conditions
work together to divide our people into real classes, with
much jealousy of each other, subject to many discomforts
and sufferings which to them seem unjust. Those philan-
thropists in whom emotion predominates over intellect are
always preaching to such people dangerous doctrines.

The notion that comfort —or such comfort as is obtain-
able —and success come primarily from the practice of the
old-fashioned virtues of temperance, frugality, and self-re-
straint, is not encouraged. In place of these a new gospel 1s
inculcated. They hear that somebody besides themselves is
at fault; that the world owes every one comfort; and soon
all get to feel that if they are not as comfortable as in their
opinion they should be, some one or some class is at fault.
The homely virtues are lost sight of, and every one must

ra Ine
BE GI late

i a BE

_

SSS SSDAL OSE eh bok ein

RRS ORNS DAME oe CME DOIN

LD

 

 

Association, 13 Elk Street, Albany, N. Y.

8

be a statesman. The ballot is held up as the great instru-
ment of getting from one, giving to another. So this class
feeling is being fed more and more, and the thought and
activity of one class is more and more directed to getting in
some way from another class. The most serious danger to
our civilization now comes from the struggle of these classes,

The forces of order are hard pressed in the battle now. If
they are overborne it will be in this way. It is to be feared
that the hostility between classes may increase, as an increas-
ing population makes the conditions of life in this country
increasingly diffcult. The men and women of the same class
have — as has been said before in another connection — the
same feelings and aspirations, the same antipathies and pre-
judices.

The women of our ignorant classes have the same sense of
injuries and wrongs as the men; the same crude notions of
what the world owes them; the same fierce desire to get in
some way, if in need, from those who have. If now you
double the voting power of all these dangerous ideas you
quadruple the danger, you give to them at once such a ter-
rible preponderance that the stoutest heart may well quail,
the firmest courage feel unequal, to the contest.

In our mad confidence in ourselves do not let us try to
shoot this political Niagara.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Extension of
Woman Suffrage.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the
Association, Mrs. Ropert W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston, Mass.

22 Se SRE Ae aPROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BY
ihe Riev DA EEE VW Adz F., of brane

At a Mass Meeting called by the Anti-Women’s Suffrage Asssociation of i
Albany, NN. Y. lg

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,—A gentleman of our city with more tact than We
intelligence, on being asked to express an opiniou on woman suffrage, met his 2
questioner with this remark: ‘‘ This is a woman’s question and must be decided
by women.”

Unhappily for women, though it is a woman’s question, it is to be decided

by men only—by men in the Constitutional Convention, and by the men voters |
afterward, if this ek decide to adopt it. For this reason men will by l}

courtesy and necessity take part in these preliminary meetings whether called I \e2
to promote or defeat female suffrage
Before this audience of the gentle women of this city, convened for the pur-

pose of voicing opposition to any amendment to the Constitution investing
women with the right of suffrage, I crave a religious reverence forwoman. In
opposing what we believe to be a movement calculated to d legrade woman, we

are impressed altogether by the danger lurking ange an assumed privilege, and

ight, which threatens the position and character of t iis being, whom we would

eee

7
ns aa st ee Se ee a ne
ja¥ LVE like Ceesar’s wllte — without suspl ion OFLC proat ie
No one here can forget his indebtedness to woman. To her as mother, sister,

healt

wife or friend, we owe the tenderest emotions of ’ life —the noblest slanienes of

character — the purest aspirations and the sweetest sympat ae in joy and sorrow.

gE A Ti

= XT s ie A = ne realz> lad hv ar \
Into her arms we are born. Watching her Ups we el to speak; led by her
hand we learn to walk in obedience of law. in painting, sculpture and poetry,
as 1 Pe: + ¥ . RA 1c 6 TO\YY n- ahe 1
she gives us ideals of innocence and beauty. fe ee is a woman; chastity

Ua |

4 + 1 ee 1 oat cyl TrYM ¢
isa woman: charityisawoman. Iand youdo not w ish to lose this ideal woman,

I belone to a church where woman has been clothe .d with high responsibili-
ties, and even the right to vote. In ali our religious orders of women, some-

’

 

times all the subjects, and sometimes a few, exercise this right in the selection
of their superiors.

there then inconsistency in my present position’

of morals, to vote or not to vote, is a neutral duty. It is the

py

n the sphere
s which may lead to demoralization and degradation—not the

A

a0
surroundl

mere act of casting the ballot. IfI can be convinced that the right of suffrage
granted to women may be exercised as innocently, as harmlessly, amidst all the q
filth. obscenity, blasphemy and perjury of our modern See oth as in the
peace, solitude and purity of the cloister, then I am willing to be recorded as

in favor of woman suifrage.
If I can be convinced that this enfranchisement of woman is needed to ideal-

ize woman still more, or make her more womanly, orsecure her in greater '
purity and innocence, or deepen her sympathetic and religious nature, or

: ] +7 1 1 TQ 3 KT] ladiv 1 T j >
strengthen her maternal and domestic instincts, then I will gladly lift my voice,

and exert my influence, in behalf of granting this boon to woman.

   

= ba aa

Se ee eS eee aewre ey

me

Yuna ahaa tht rtd.

HAR APY eI

: .

PSP Ra Ne

Bel

tC

Re AA Ee

aL Ab yaaa
poate henge never sts

 

 

&
f
{
b
é
;
|
ae
\

 

   

I have yet to learn that a single advocate of female suffrage has contended
for the measure for the reason that its concession will improve and strengthen
and safeguard the female character. Much declamation is indulged in on the
plea that it is a hurtful discrimination between ‘‘male” and ‘‘ female” in the
Constitution — or that women will never enjoy the full measure of liberty till
they can vote, or that women owning property are unjustly taxed by others;
and they have a fondness for the axiom, ‘‘ No taxation without representation.”
Can there be serious disagreement as to the result of her enfranchisement?
Rum and politics are the ruin of vast numbers of our citizens. Incurable and
deepening corruption is the condition of politics to-day. Polling places are
pestilential spots, seething with perjury, bribery, unclean language and rowdy-
ism. JI have never yet cast a ballot that I did not blush for shame because of
this temporary association. I have no hope that these evils will ever be cured
till some limitation is placed on the farce of universal suffrage. Parties ambi-
tious of political ascendancy or continuance in power will perpetuate them.
These female suffrage fanatics say: “‘Let the women vote and healing will
come to the festering and hideous sores of politics. Let the woman bring all
her refinement and delicacy, and intelligence and sympathy down into this
noisome vortex, and she will bring peace, orderliness and purity out of confu-

é

sion, chaos and uncleanness.”

Ah! They know little of human nature who talk in this fashion. The best
element among our male voters has tried to improve the shame. Have they
succeeded? They were so apathetic, owing to repeated failures, that Governor
Hill twice in his messages tried to induce the Legislature to enact laws making
the suffrage a duty, and not merely aright. And where strong influential men
have failed, will women succeed? Who here would wish to see his mother,
wife or sister, enter our polling places? And you really believe that the most
of the female voters would be proof against bribery, and intoxicants, and, in
time, more degrading and iniquitous crimes? They read the history of woman
with false lights, who cannot recognize, in heraffiliation with public affairs, the
marked cause of her deterioration in personal character. There are some few
exceptions; but from Deborah to Cleopatra, and Elizabeth of England, and Cath-
arine of Russia, and to the princess claiming the right to the throne of Hawaii,
there is an insolent cruelty, and a moral debasement, that shames the worst male
profligacy.

Within her own sphere, woman’s influence is beneficial and uplifting. When
ambition or accident has carried her beyond her sphere, the transfer has
wrought evil to man, and wreck to woman. This, then, is my first reason of
opposition to female suffrage—in the present debased and corrupt condition of
politics, I fear that female participation in the franchise must entail conse-
quences fatal to the legitimate work and destiny of women.

My second reason is close to this. Has not partisanship in politics been car-
ried already to a ruinous extreme in this country? Is not our boasted national
unity a farce and a fiction? Have not recent Congressional debates, and meas-
ures, affirmed that we are hopelessly divided into opposing industrial camps,
and recent political contests proved the fierce enmity of our battling political
hosts? I believe that our prosperity, and vitality, depend on the coalition and
pacification of these hostile forces. I believe that we should be a party to no
legislation which would tend further to separate us, and increase the din of
battleI believe that other more vital interests which cluster about the home, the
church, and the school, demand that our large female population be kept aloof
from these rivalries and contentions, as a refuge and restraint in the day of our
direst distress, and with the fervent hope that their unbiased influence may be-
get a generation of citizens who may be willing to put the nation before the
individual, and men and principles ahead of party.

If we clothe our women with the franchise, we increase a thousand-fold all
the evils and injustice and blindness and selfishness of partisanship. Into the
nation we throw a solvent that will be felt down in its lowest foundations. Al-
ready, with only men to vote, the heat of a political fight will divide families, 3
and strain and snap friendships of a life-time. Bring women into the strife, and ee
what home will be secure against discord, and what friendship safe from
wreckage?

The more sacred duties of home, religion, and education, will be sacrificed to
the more engrossing excitements of politics; and we will have a grotesque, ill-
formed nation, where women are never mothers, and where men will know more
of the tariff and the election law than of God and the ten commandments.
That morbid condition is universal enough now among men. Do you want it
also to brand women?

My third reason, which is also my last, though these are only three of a se-
ries which might run into many were I the only speaker, is based upon other
material. The remark has been made editorially by one of your journals, that
this question of female suffrage is not to be determined by female superiority or
inferiority as compared with males. The issue at best is ungallant and ungra-
cious, and yet I cannot avoid it. I would regret to find the question settled
without a reference to this issue of comparative ability. Legitimately, it never
should be raised; and it would not now if women were not insisting on tres.
passing on exclusive male territory. Fortunate would we be if we could imitate
the gallantry of Horace Greeley, who, when asked ‘‘who was the cleverer, man
or woman ?” replied, “‘It depends very much on what man or woman you mean.” ~*~

If the franchise is conferred on woman, it should co-ordinately confer on her
the right to hold any office for which she may vote. If you separate the two,
female agitators will never sleep till they worry you into granting this sub-
stantial sequence of the franchise. If you now permit her to vote, sooner or
later this is the very serious condition you must face. In such an event, ber |
sex should be no bar to her being a governor, a chief justice, United States
Senator, or any official within the jurisdiction of the people, or other appointing
power of this State. I being eligible to these offices, the mother’s and wife’s
ambition covets them against the protest of husband and children—what then?
If to prevent her election, husband and children must vote against her—what i
then? If during the tenure of office, the duties or functions of motherhood
demand her retirement—what then? If, in the distribution of official patronage,

 

she ignore husband and sons—what then ?

Women agitators call the franchise, by a gross misnomer, a natural right.
The refutation of the absurdity lies in the obtrusive antagonism between this
alleged natural right and other real natural duties. Frances Power Cobbe, a
vigorous female agitator, confesses there is a period in a woman’s life when the
duties she owes her sex force her to a complete abandonment of the duties she
owes the commonwealth. Is not this a singular anomaly? Because female
suffragists will not heed the voice of nature they are unsexing themselves,

Sa Sree 7
Io Tae =e. pO ES I I te Sa
Pg a a eta

ae 8 E as ac ee ae ns
oS£
b
Lo
eB

 

"

a
ee
ie
fe z=
Ee

ee
Sf
ee $
=
es
x

epee

a
—=

ALAS SOO ALARA ESE

ai.
Pr

#

 

—
ANS Rpyas'4 t

It is this possibility of female office-holders that forces on us the feature of

 

female capacity.

Dr. Wm. A. Hammond, the distinguished nerve and brain specialist, after
writing harshly of the original female suffrage agitators as short-haired women
and long-haired men, says that a woman’s brain evolves emotion rather than
intellect: and whilst this feature fits her admirably as a creature burdened with
the preser vation and happiness of the human species, it painfully disqualifies
her for the sterner duties to be performed by the intellectual faculties. The
best wife and mother and sister would make the worst legislator, judge and
police. :

The excessive development of the emotional in her nervous system, ingrafts
on the female organization, a neurotic or hysterical condition, which is the
source of much of the female charms when it is kept within due restraints.
In emergencies, or difficult situations, or moments of excitement, or under con-
tinued strain, it is liable to explode in violent paroxysms, when all the mental
and physical faculties are perverted, and thrown into a condition of startling
tapalence Every woman, therefore, carries this power of irregular, illogical
and incongruous action; and no one can foretell when the explosion will come.

oS

A woman lives more in her emotions, and will judge more as she feels than
She has no idea of abstract

”

as she thinks. She is bereft of the ‘‘judicial mind.
justice. Her likes and dislikes are paramount with her. She will sacrifice life,
famil character, if necessary, to the man she loves; and punish

2
S
E

severely those, who, innocent of crime, may have only aroused her prejudices-
A man will judge of things as they are without reference to himself. Only the

exceptional woman can do this. Men are strong in those virtues that grow out
of the nature of things—women in those that are found in mere sentiment or
right feeling.

These differences make their union necessary. They were never intended

for rivals. They are complementary to each other, like the voices in a choral
harmony; and their wants and differences are the bond of their union. If na-
ture makes them differ, so must the spheres of their action vary.

If an abnormal female ambition, blind to these essential and God-given unlike-
nesses, craves for activity in an unhealthy, masculine field, let the strong, virile
the State, rebuke the yearning as it would that of an unthinkin

opinion of g, way-
ward child.
1} 1 + 3

Gladly do I endorse your own resolution when you say :

‘It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent us at the bal-

lot-box. Jur fathers and our brothers love us; our husbands are our choice
and one with us; our sons are what we make them. We are content that they
represent us in the corn-field, on the battle-field and at the ballot-box, and
we them in the school-room, at the fire-side and at the cradle, believing
our representation even at the ballot-box to be thus more full and impartial
than it would be were the views the few whe wish suffrage adopted, con.
trary to the idement of the many

‘“We do, therefore, respectfully protest against any legislation to establish

woman suffrage’ in our land, or in any part of it.”

 

nd pamphlets can be obtained, and Protest signed, at

earl Street, ground floor, under the Kenmore Hotel,

ANtI-SuuTrage papers a
headquarters, 70 North J
Albany.FROM THE SEATTLE DAILY TIMES,

February 14, 1898.

AS TO WOMEN.

The Idaho Register, of Idaho Falls, commenting upon an
address given at that place during the suffrage campaign by
Mrs. Catt, gave the following personal testimony regarding
Wyoming :

“Tt seems that she has allowed some enthusiast in
Wyoming to fill her mind with wonderful stories about the
results of equal suffrage in that State, and she, taking them as

true statements, tells them as such. From some of them one

SS ooaiite at, Wwe a WV

is led to believe that Wyoming is a paradise.

“She demonstrated that the compulsory education law
was responsible forthe small per cent of criminals in the peni-
tentiary, and of idiocy in the state, and then claimed that this
was the fruit of female suffrage.

“One who was not better informed would imagine that
the juries and political conventions were mostly composed of
women.

“The writer was a resident of Wyoming from 1870 to

1880, and during that time attended every territorial convention,

NEN

pier

both Republican and Democratic, and every county convention

ce Mea
pus ie crhl

ROR EHGat

in the two western counties that were held during that time

and no woman ever sat as delegate in any one of them ; and it

was usually only by urging and stating that others had voted,

PEG SS NEN

and their vote was wanted to offset it, that a large portion of

the women could be induced to vote.’’

   

- x . “i ——_— =~ oa pet ee ee ge Le as Sree SiS ee
eS Oe ee GR ee Ce ee el 2Ir arr

wy Pvp
ea ener ere’ 7

f
cs
m
ot

a
aS
el

:
a

Mae

ny

ASSASSIN

MMO Rete (FORAY

TAA pele b Acie:

abs? 46DEFEAT OF WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE IN STATE
OF WASHINGTON.

FROM PORTLAND ‘‘OREGONIAN,’’ OF 12th Nov., 1808.

 

 

The woman suffrage amendment was buried in the same grave
with the single-tax proposition by the voters of Washington on
Tuesday. Political suffrage for woman isa slowly dying cause, and
it is dying because it is without excuse for further existence. . The |
real wrongs of women which existed when Lucy Stone began her A
agitation in 1847 have mostly been redressed by legislation. To-day
every political principle advocated at the outset is enjoyed by women,
save full suffrage, and every legal right sought by Lucy Stone has
been granted to women. ‘They are even treated with partiality by
the laws, compared with men. ‘Their individuality is not lost in Le
marriage, as it was when Mrs. Stanton, who is now over 80, was a iE :
young girl. Every avenue of activity is open to them: they are as
free as men to earn their living in any lawful way they please. The
conjugal, parental and property rights of women have been recog-
nized and established by the political action of men without the aid
of woman suffrage, simply because the vast mass of influential women
and public opinion thought that the best way. The present situation
is totally different from that of forty years ago, when ‘‘woman’s
rights’? was a genuine cause, because there were genuine woman’s
wrongs to be righted and legal disabilities to be removed. ‘The
agitation and the organized effort begun more than fifty years ago
had much to do with the recognition and redress of these wrongs,
legal disabilities and inequalities; but with the accomplishment of
these reforms the cause of woman suffrage has made no real progress.
Its modern revival in Kansas, Colorado and Idaho was but
the out-growth of the temporary socialistic spirit that prevails in
those States.

The lack of the ballot surely robs a woman of no rights of life,
liberty or property. The reason why woman suffrage is not favored
by the mass of women or the mass of men is because itis a barren
ideality. It rights no wrongs, it corrects no disability. Women to-
day have without the ballot all the civil and social rights exercised
by men. As a natural right, suffrage belongs to neither man nor
woman, for the ballot is only the child of an artificial social order to
be granted or withheld as a matter of social and political expediency.
The mere wish of a few women to vote is of no more consequence to
the State than the mere wish of a few women to enlist in the regular |
army,  iLhat Moll Pitcher served her wounded husband’s gun at us
Monmouth is not an argument for the expediency of enlisting women ; 4

:

as artillerymen.

RE Toe BE BREE EE eeHird oie tibia 44 hail a

i
if
ig
be
£
&
£

+

:

Valea cdaate enerWOMAN SUFFRAGE IN WYOMING.

The importance of the woman suffrage experiment in Wyoming
has been so much insisted upon that it is perhaps well to analyze WY
the conditions under which it has been made. iE
_ The state has an area of 97,890 square miles. Its population L
in 1870, about the time when it admitted women to the ballot, !
was 9118, in 1880, 20,789. There were then 14,152 males and
6637 females. In 1890 the population had reached 60,705, the
males being still largely in preponderance. ‘The census of 1890 2
shows only eight towns with a population of more than 1000, ;
only one town with a population of more than 10,000, Cheyenne,
the capital, having 11,6go.

There is no navigable river in the state, and except that one or
two of the transcontinental railways are obliged to cross it, its
railroads are few and insignificant. Not only are its rivers not
navigable, they are for the most part dry in summer, so that
commerce and manufactures, which are the industries that tend
to the growth of large towns, are almost unknown, not to say
impossible, within its borders. The principal sources of wealth es
are cattle-raising and mining. The ranchmen live in isolated 2
localities, and their herders range the plains with the cattle. ‘The E
miners live in camps, also to a great extent isolated from female i]
companionship. ‘The majority of the women naturally congregate
in the towns, and Wyoming would make a very poor show of
voters, indeed, if they were not allowed to vote.

As to poorhouses, such a pastoral population as ranges many
of those counties does not anywhere, whether women vote or not,
develop many paupers. As to jails, before you can jail a criminal j
you must catch him, and with wild territory and bad roads so t
plentifully abounding a criminal must usually be too much of |
a fool to be worth catching if he cannot successfully elude the
pursuit of justice. Beside this, the laws of the state have always,
or until very recently, recognized and approved of gambling and
liquor selling as legitimate and even honorable vocations, and
murder committed in the heat of passion as excusable homicide.
Horse thieves are generally hanged without the formality of send-
ing them to jail.

Such conditions can only exist where the inhabitants are scat-
tered, in this case less than one to a square mile. If Wyoming, \
with its peculiar laws and institutions, were compressed into the |
compass of any one of a hundred of our eastern cities, each
having 60,000 inhabitants, or a ward in New York or Chicago,
some of which contain about a like population, the real test of
the wisdom of its legislation would begin. As it is, the utter
absurdity of regarding it as a type of advanced civilization, a
model for great and complex communities, like those states and
cities which make the glory of our republic, is sufficiently

apparent.

 

CAROLINE F. CORBIN:

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Ex-
tension of Woman Suffrage.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secre
tary of the Association, Mrs. Rosert W. Lorp, ||
; P. ©, Box 2262; Boston. | §

6 ie

Pees ase

NA BB eeon a

<
eS
£

j
i
4
HyTHE MICHIGAN DECISION. |
[Reprinted from “ Woman’s Journal,” November 18. ] |

Mary Stuart Coffin and Mary E. Burnett, relators, v. Board of Election
Commissioners of the City of Detroit, respondents; and Edward H. Kennedy 1 2
and Henry S. Patton, relators, v. Hazen S. Pingree, Charles R. Forster, and ' '
the Common Council of the City of Detroit, respondents. McGrath, J. :

These proceedings are instituted to test the validity of Act No. 138, of the
Laws of 1893, which is as follows : —

Section 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact that, in all school, village,
and city elections hereafter held in this State, women who are able to read
the Constitution of the State of Michigan, printed in the English language,
shall be allowed to vote for all school, village, and city officers, and on all ques-
tions pertaining to school, village, and city regulations, on the same terms and
conditions prescribed by law for male citizens. Before any woman shall be He
registered as a voter, the board of registration shall require her to read, and I) 2
she shall read in the presence of said board, at least one section of the Con- We
stitution of this State in the English language.

Sec. 2. All laws of this State prescribing the qualifications of voters at
school, village, and city elections therein shall apply to women, and women
who are able to read the Constitution of Michigan, as above provided, shall Ve
enjoy all the rights and privileges and immunities and be subject to all the
penalties prescribed for voters at such elections. fi

Sec. 3. Women who are entitled to vote under the preceding sections of
this act shall be subject to all laws relating to the registration of voters, and
be liable to all penalties attached to the violation of such laws, and their names
shall be received and registered by the various boards of registration at the
time and in the manner required by law for other voters.

The general rule is that the source of all authority to vote at popular elec- [ie
tions is the Constitution; that the electorate is constituted by the fundamental i
law, and that the qualifications of electors must be uniform throughout the
State. Mr. Madison, in the “Federalist,” No. 52, says: “The definition of
the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of re- J

SAUL hat ano,

matin

publican government. ’’ ‘

In Attorney General v. Detroit Common Council, 58 Mich. 212, 216, Mr. ‘
Justice Campbell says: “ As the right of voting is the same everywhere, it 1s
obvious that the conditions regulating the manner of exercising it must be the
same in substance everywhere. . . . Tt cannot be lawful to create substantial
or serious differences in the fundamental rights of citizens in different locali-

at

iain
Mele belineaiper nner ete

enciur et

AY

Yeh: b/ eet
TRA ac ur ee ca

ties, in the exercise of their voting franchises.”

In Mr. Cooley’s “Constitutional Limitations ” (p. 599), it is said: “ Wher-
ever the Constitution has prescribed the qualifications of electors, they cannot
be changed or added to by the Legislature or otherwise than by an amendment
of the Constitution.”

In McCafferty v. Guyer, 59 Pa. St. 109, Strong, J., says: “It has always
been understood that the Legislature has no power to confer the elective fran-
chise upon other classes than those to whom it is given by the Constitution, for
the description of those entitled is regarded as excluding all others.”

Section 1 of Article 7 of the Constitution provides who shall be electors and
entitled to vote, and is, according to its terms, applicable “ in all elections.”

To empower the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon classes of

1

. ci ea
: Case ee ae a S z SL F Si ae a ee
sm EEE ET BA a la 3 : : ss —

Fail ioALE

vee es

  

mA Pie

ne mae wei iy abet
WWM nin Auta M a Bal

PT. St AN, bd Mitel

 

AA

< —""
mea

OTS ream

aie

SPM

 

a iT

~

ae eee

persons other than those named, some other provision must be pointed out.
which confers that authority in express terms or by necessary implication.

The only provisions to which we are cited are Sections 13 and 14 of Article
15, which are as follows : —

Section 13. The Legislature shall provide for the incorporation and organ-
ization of cities and villages.

Sec. 14. Judicial officers of cities and villages shall be elected, and all other
officers shall be elected or appointed, at such time and in such manner as the
Legislature may direct.

In support of the act in question, it is contended that the sections last quoted
empower the Legislature to provide qualifications of voters in village and city
elections, and Belles v. Burr, 76 Mich. 1; Wheeler v. Brady, 15 Kan. 26;
State v. Cones, 14 Neb. 442; Opinion of Judges, 115 Mass. 602; Plumer v.
Yost, 33 (IIL) N. E. 191, are relied upon to support this contention. These
cases involved the validity of acts conferring upon females the right to vote
for school district officers, under constitutions which, like our own, name no
school district officer, do not prescribe or suggest how such officers shall be
chosen, but in express terms relegate to the Legislature the duty providing for
In Belles v. Burr, Mr. Justi
Champlin reviewed at length the legislation in respect to the qualifications of

and establishing a system of primary schools.

voters at school district meetings, under the Constitution of 1835, and says : —

Viewing the question historically, it is apparent that for fifty years it has
never been considered that the qualifications of voters at school district meet-
ings must be identical with those prescribed in the Constitution as qualifica-
tions of electors entitled to vote under that instrument. The authority granted
by the Constitution to the Legislature to establish a common or primary school
system carried with it the authority to prescribe what officers should be chosen
to conduct the affairs of the school districts, to define their powers and duties,
their term of office, and how and by whom they should be chosen.

School districts are regarded as municipal corporations. As such they pre-
ceded the Constitution, and were recognized by that instrument.

But no officer of the school district is mentioned and recognized by that
instrument. ‘The reason is that the whole primary school system was confided
to the Legislature, and it cannot be said that the officers of school districts,
chosen pursuant to the system adopted by the Legislature, are constitutional
officers. The Constitution provided for no municipal subdivisions smaller than
towns, except cities and villages, and it authorized the Legislature to incorpo-
rate these.

While it must be conceded that no person can vote for the election of any
officer mentioned in the Constitution unless he possesses the qualifications of
an elector prescribed by the instrument, it does not follow that none but such
electors can vote for officers whom the Legislature has the right to provide for,
to carry out the educational purpose declared in that instrument.

Mr. Justice Campbell, in a dissenting opinion, insisted that the question was
not whether relator was entitled to vote at a school meeting; that a school
meeting under the control of school authorities was entirely separate and dis-
tinct from a popular election; that the clause of the act then under considera-
tion must be construed as extending the additional qualifications to voting at
school meetings; that district school government in cities had been adjusted to
city conditions ; that the powers exercised by city school boards were analogous
to those of township inspectors, although more extensive; that these city
boards had been made by the Constitution the correlative bodies to the town-
ship boards, and that school inspectors were recognized constitutional officers.

Mr. Justice Morse recognizes the point upon which the court divided, when
6)

nehe says: “I cannot find in the present case that the trustees of the Union
School District of Flint are made school inspectors in the sense that they are

named in the Constitution. If they were, I should hold that Mrs. Belles was a
not entitled to vote for them.”

Mr. Justice Campbell then proceeds to discuss, not the question as to whether
the Legislature has the power to enlarge or restrict the qualifications of voters

at district school meetings, but whether that power exists as to popular elections i
for officers of cities and villages, the existence of whom are within the contem- \
plation of the Constitution. He says: “The power of local administration and i

regulation which may be allowed to cities and counties is vested in these cor- &
porations as such, and it cannot authorize the Legislature to change the right lB
of suffrage. . . . Cities have elected judges and justices who cannot be in office
without election, and who perform functions precisely like those elsewhere.
The city is represented on the board of supervisors, who are, except in Wayne
County, the same everywhere. The city ward is the constitutional place of
election. To import into the Constitution power to enlarge suffrage for one
officer must reach all officers. When an election for any local officer is
required by law, the Constitution declares who shall be qualified to act as
electors.”

The majority in that case hold that the Constitution of 1835, as wel] as.that
of 1850, had in terms authorized the Legislature to construct a primary school
system, and that for years antedating the present Constitution, the Legislature
had construed a similar provision as conferring the power to determine the

 

qualifications of voters for district school officers.

The Legislature had for many years prior to the adoption of the present
Constitution exercised the power of providing for the incorporation of cities
and villages, and, in the exercise of that power, had in each instance deter-
mined what officers should be elected and what appointed, and the time and
manner of both election and appointment. ‘The question of municipal govern-
ment has long exercised thoughtful minds, and the propriety of an educational
qualification or a property qualification, and of female suffrage, has been much
discussed, yet this is the first instance in which the Legislature has attempted
to extend the right of suffrage to persons other than those named in the Con- (
stitution. Many of the charters granted for the incorporation of cities and vil-
lages contain no reference whatever to the qualifications of voters.

The power to provide for the incorporation of cities is not unlike that given |
for the organization of counties, and the authority to direct the time and man- (
ner in which judicial officers shall be elected, and the other officers elected or
appointed, does not involve the power to determine who shall constitute the
electorate. The word manner, it is true, is one of large signification, but it is
clear that it cannot exceed the subject it belongs to. It relates to the word
elected. The Constitution had already provided for electors, and when it pro-
vides that an offizer shall be elected, it certainly contemplates an election by
the electorate which it has constituted. No other election is known to the Con-
stitution, and when it provides that the Legislature may direct the manner in
which an officer shall be elected, it simply empowers the Legislature to provide
the details for the holding of such election. The machinery of government dif-
fers in its details in cities, villages, and townships, and there must necessarily
be differences in methods and officers to administer the election laws. In Peo-
ple ex rel. v. English, (Ill.) 29 N. E. Rep. 678, relator claimed the right to
vote for a county superintendent of schools. The Constitution of that State

2
vo

eee (=e ea See
Bese cree ees
oe ie z ee a es =
Ben Ee S26 at wale

el aoe~*~ PA
weer way

AOR tee nets Cb rnd, nt irae,

MEMS Dem Ani

AA
vv

ate tates

98 MA TR
AAO

TH

<

VW

iPM CLA eee
PL eT aaa ta:

Mai
oa
——

TULA gy Se Tet

Cua

 

f

 

as. bee

provided that “there may be a county superintendent of schools in each county,
whose qualifications, powers, duties, compensation, term of office, and time and
manner of election shall be prescribed by law.” The court says: “The Con-
stitution, having made provision for such officer and for his ‘election,’ and hav-
ing prescribed in another article and section the qualifications essential to entitle
a person to vote at any ‘election,’ it must be presumed that it was and is the
true intent and meaning of that instrument that no person should have the
right to vote for such officer who does not possess such qualifications. . . . The
word manner is usually defined as meaning way of performing or exercising ;
method, custom, habitual practice, ete. It indicates merely that the Legisla-
ture may provide by law the usual ordinary or necessary details required for
the holding of an election.”

In the case of the People v. Hulbert, 24 Mich. 44, which involved the
power of the Legislature to appoint the members of certain boards in the city
of Detroit, this very provision (Sec. 14, Art. 15) of the Constitution was
under consideration, and in very exhaustive opinions by Justices Christiancy,
Campbell, and Cooley was given a construction which is opposed to that con-
tended for in support of the act in question here. Mr. Justice Christiancy
there says : —

In respect to the election, the inference is very strong and satisfactory that
it was intended to be only an election by the electors of the locality. This
accords with the meaning of the term as generally used in the Constitution,
in reference not only to the State at large, but in reference to the local organi-
zation of counties, towns, and districts; and cities and villages being local
organizations for like governmental purposes, it is difficult, if not impossible,
to resist the conclusion that when this section (Sec. 14, Art. 15) of the Con-
stitution declares that “judicial officers of the cities and villages shall be
elected,” an election by the electors of such localities was intended ; and this
was precisely the principle adopted by the Constitution in reference to all
other judicial officers; and there is no reasonable ground for saying that the
election of other officers mentioned in the immediate context was to be of a
different character.

And it may be said with certainty that wherever in the Constitution the
election of an officer is provided for, it means an election by the electors of
the State, if it be a State officer, or of the district or political division for
which he is to be elected, unless the Constitution itself, as to any particular
election, provides otherwise.

Mr. Justice Cooley, in the same case, says : —

That instrument provides (Art. 15, Sec. 14) that “judicial officers of cities
and villages shall be elected, and all other officers shall be elected or
appointed, at such time and in such manner as the Legislature may direct.”
It is conceded that all elections must, under this section, be by the electors of
the municipality. But it is to be observed that there is no express declaration
to that effect to be found in the Constitution; and it may well be asked what
there is to localize the elections any more than the appointments. The answer
must be, that in examining the whole instrument a general intent is found per-
vading it, which clearly indicates that these elections are to be by local voters,
and not by the Legislature, or by the people of a larger territory than that
immediately concerned. J think, also, that when the Constitution is examined
in the light of previous and contemporaneous history, the general intent
requires, in language ‘equally clear and imperative, that the choice of the
other corporate officers shall be made in some form, either directly or indi-
rectly, by the corporators themselves.

It follows that the act in question is invalid ; that the mandamus in the first-

named case must be denied, and the writ of prohibition granted in the case
last named.

“:ets else cel ens etataesesssTesee

 

NOBLESSE OBLIGE
By MARY A. JORDAN

OF SMITH COLLEGE

THE woman who opposes the extension of the suffrage to wo-
men is likely to find herself in a peculiarly ungracious position.
Her attitude is almost certain to be interpreted as that of a pro-
tected and privileged person, so well off herself that she is easily
indifferent to the needs of women less favorably placed. She is
bluntly asked in the last resort: ‘‘Supposing you do not want or
need the suffrage yourself, why do you object to our having it?”
In another form the same criticism is made by some exception-
ally high-minded men as well as by some most thoughtful women
as they question, “ Why do you resist the implication of the most
obvious equity?” or, “ Why will you be blind to the practical
and educational benefits the suffrage would confer on women ?”’

I am sure the thoughtful woman does not live to whom these
questions do not bring keen pain. Nor does careful explanation
of her reasons meet with much sympathy. In proportion as men
are thoughtful, sympathetic, and competent judges of social move-
ments, they are likely to think time wasted in combating the de-
mands of a few women for the suffrage, on the ground that what-
ever the whole class of women decide that they want, men will be
only too glad to give them, even though the desired thing should
be clearly unrelated to the end for which it is proposed. With
the passing comment that this position is the most final assertion
of feminine inferiority, however well meant in the particular in-
stance it may be, I will try to show why the trained and thought-
ful woman must persist in her opposition to the extension of the
suffrage to women, and must persist in proportion to the thorough-
ness of her training and to the accuracy and efficiency of her
thinking.

And first of the demand for equity. I take it that this means
in general that women should have full opportunity to secure the

Ee

ela ks

     
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

et atti

WRENS AST Nod

heliport a
et

&
HREM HL eetPorn
tv apr pesatrtiie tre, ah 4

ee re Mae

        
  
  
   
  
 
 
  
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 

ALARM pak

PEMD

."

aii aid de

MORAN

ei fer

oleae A

_

 

Peo RR

 

 

last named.

PY
_

widest and most fundamental well-being. To this I suppose no
enlightened person will dissent. But I conceive that the claim
for equity is intended to cover very different and far less obvious
demands. There is a deep underlying conviction on the part of
women who ask for the suffrage that men are as men better off
in the world than women, that they enjoy themselves more) and,
by some curious distortion of the moral forces of the universe,
find themselves literally the lords of creation. ‘There is also a
strong belief among women that an active part in the process we
call government has had much, possibly most, to do with putting
men in this position, and in keeping them there. This belief is
summed up in the assertion that society is organized by men for
men, and that laws are made by men for men. In regard to the
belief that men are better off and happier than women, it is con-
trary to probability. There are not facts to support it. Asa be-
lief it, for the most. part, begins and ends with women who are
discontented with their lot as women, and who thus far area
small proportion of the whole number. There is little reason
for thinking that men are happy because they are lords of crea-
tion, but much for believing that as far as they are happy they
are lords of creation. In the same view it may be more than sus-
pected that women are not happy because they are satisfied, as
often as dissatisfied because they are unhappy. ‘The inequity of
expecting many women to make themselves unhappy because
some others are dissatisfied needs no comment.

But with regard to the value of the suffrage in securing and
maintaining the position of men, it must first be noticed that the
suffrage is at best but one of many means to an end, and it may
easily be shown that the well-being of men is dependent, not upon
the right of suffrage, but upon a share in the blessings of that for
which the suffrage, in any form, exists, — good government./’ Men
have been quite as powerful, quite as happy, quite as virtuous,
without the suffrage as with it) Indeed there are men who un-
dertake to be powerful, happy, and even virtuous in spite of the
suffrage, There are men who look on it as a dull tool, others
refuse to use it, and a growing class look upon it as a heavy con-
cession made to the tardy education of social dullards and sav-
ages.

Concerning the faith that the possession of the suffrage has di-
rectly enabled men to better their conditions, it should be re-3

marked that in no case has the improvement in conditions been *
the result of an extension of the suffrage. Nor has it come |
through the use of the suffrage as an instrument. In individual
cases calamity has not been arrested nor much mitigated by the
possession of the right; political defeat has been less bitter to
the voter only where he was enough of a philosopher to recog-
nize the true value of his vote, and to estimate judicially the
meaning of a majority.

Finally, it is said that men make the laws for men. As far as the
effort has been to accomplish the well-being of men by legal en-
actment, it must be admitted that the failure has been conspicu-
ous. The student of things as they are is driven to the conviction
that legal enactment touches very few of the most important
issues of life. Furthermore, men have made many laws for wo-
men, not indeed for women as women, as the phrase goes now,
whatever it means, but for women as human beings, in the na-
ture of the case entrusted with important services to the social
organism. In some communities at least, women are highly pro-
tected by law. A married woman’s earnings are her own in a -):
sense that her husband’s are not his. A young woman has the te
right to be paid where a man is compelled to wait. The work- ae
ing day for women has been restricted. Seats must be provided
in stores and suitable conditions in factories where women are
employed. The wages of a wife cannot be attached for her hus-
band’s debts. Failure to pay the wages due to a woman up to
$50.00 makes all a man’s property liable to execution and he him-
self to imprisonment without bail. No woman can be arrested
in a civil action, or held by an execution, except under the most
stringent provisions. The rights of a married woman in property
and in dower are so generous in some parts of the United States ne
as to be unfair to other heirs. Now, the point for consideration z
here is not that these enactments are all wise, or all well-consid- a
ered, or that they singly or together effect the changes that are \
contemplated at present by women who demand the ballot, but
that they have been effected by men not themselves directly
interested, and that each and all of them have at some time been
advocated by women as ends for which it was particularly neces-
sary that they should have the ballot.

A standing reason for demanding the ballot, on the part of
many women, is that it is needful for the protection of their in-

 

wats SESE SSS BE ee =
ESTES ee SSE
ste = (SES e Cee ee see ee : . 'Ran 4 -, )
ACN eA Ve ar a ne

nati Oi Mir th, oi Oi Wadh 4 hindi Oe

ite ca ana tetany

ANY gh a
dmtinstimene on .

mint

Wf

WA's TIT AAI
hcp etal

Ae
AoA

     
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
 
  
   
 
   
   
  
 

RR OMe
rere aganans |

YAM pan eee

a

PAGE 3

Se

nN

   
 
 
  
  
 
  
   
  
 
  
   

 

i
d

 

 

last named.

  

4

terests as property-holders and wage-earners. Here it is sup-
posed popularly that men have profited by their possession of
the suffrage. ‘There is no greater fallacy among those left untold
by Aristotle and by Bacon. The ballot has not kept the privi-
leges of property, nor raised the wages of labor for men. It isa
significant fact that the organizers and members of Labor Unions
are all voters. Would such efforts at control of the market be
needed if the ballot were a means to the same end? The de-
spairing men who see the value of their corner lots going down be-
fore an unexpected tide of fashion, or their homes left in an ugly
and disagreeable neighborhood to switching-yards and round-
houses, all are voters. The stately gentlemen who have improve-
ments voted on their property until it is assessed beyond its
rental, all have the suffrage. In such cases they are at the dis-
advantage of not being in the majority, or of being confronted by
what no votes can change, no law control. Economic laws, pub-
lic taste, moral motive, are beyond the province of the ballot.
It must be conceded that in cases where the way a man uses
his right of suffrage may be made to serve some ulterior end, he
becomes of more importance thereby. It is possible that the
politics of a candidate for school inspector may determine his
appointment or even his election. But this is corruption ; this is
the intrusion of politics into places where politics should have no
weight. I cannot believe that this use of a vote would ever be
seriously put forward by a woman as good reason for her having
one to prostitute. But granting that she contemplated this use of
it in the last resort, how would her case radically differ from the
one that she resents now? It is true that one aspect of disad-
vantage under which she thinks she works, as compared with men,
would have been removed, but another would have been substi-
tuted in its place, and a much more influential one. For she
would appear as the representative of a class and of a principle,
not as she does now, as an exception, to be treated on the merits
of the case. Consider for a moment the facts. In this country
there are four million working women. Half a million are teach-
ers ; a million and a half are in domestic service ; two million are
in the manual industries. Of the three hundred and sixty-nine
groups of industries represented in the United States only nine
are without women. Five per cent of the wage-earning women
have a tenure of work above five years, the other ninety-five per5

cent live in homes during their term of outside employment, and
at the end of five years return to homes. Fifty per cent of the
women workers use their earnings for home support, and over sixty
per cent, besides their trade, help with housework at home. These
are plainly not the conditions of permanent workers, nor of skilled
workers. Yet even here, when a woman succeeds in these un-
toward conditions in making herself a skilled worker, she often
earns as much as a man or, in case of piece work, more. Other-
wise she falls under the action, not of an unjust discrimination
against her sex, but of an inexorable economic law, — that quick
and easy trades are overstocked, and therefore poorly paid ; that
skilled trades take time and attention, which she ceases to give
just as her work becomes valuable. Finally, more than half the
wage-earning women in this country are under twenty-one, so
that to be practically useful for them as wage-earners, the suffrage
would have to be extended to them as infants, instead of as wo-
men. ‘That any one should seriously advocate the desirability of
influencing this ninety-five per cent of wage-earning women, now
accepting their lot temporarily, to make it permanent, is out of the
question. It could not result in the happiness of women nor in
the welfare of society.

Again, what would be gained for good government by adding
to the bulk of votes either by the repetition of those already cast,
or by the foredoomed effort to form and conducta Woman’s
Labor Party? The working women are only a tenth of the whole
number. Is it likely that the rest would sympathize with them
in case their economic interests were definitely opposed to those
of men? Inview of the differences of opinion and of practice
now existing among men on the labor question, is there any rea-
sonable certainty that all women, or even the majority of them,
would generally think more accurately or more reasonably than
any but the best men, and so justify the complication created by
their share in the machinery of the suffrage? Indeed, is there
any reasonable certainty that women would be more likely to
agree upon any question than men are? Would they strike out
any new, any better way of looking at public questions ? Or in
case they did, would they be any more competent to make their
view prevail than are the best men now? From these consider-
ations it seems clear that the ballot will complicate, not simplify,
the economic conditions of all wage-earning women, and will put

: SE

BESTE ee ee ee

 

%

as = eee euet 7
. Lai A
CEERI arr Veter alas
ne Addl .

   

SN BR a ee a,
Vie

ware tahy

  
  
   
  
 
 
 
   
   
 
 
  
   
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
  
 
    
  
  
 

  

{
i
4 f
3 ;
a
| \
- f \
. » a

ee RCA
rhe)

 

CORES

 

 

last named.

  

6

on the already burdened woman, who becomes a permanent wage-
earner, an embarrassing and formidable addition to her task of
maintenance and progress.

There remains to be considered the plea that the ballot should
be given to women on account of its practical and educational
influence. It is very honestly believed by the advocates of this
extension of the suffrage, that some women will be by its exer-
cise made more competent, more earnest, and more responsible.
It is felt that the failure to require formally of women an ardent
and constant interest in questions of government and of public
policy, reacts unfavorably upon certain characters, making them,
more than they would otherwise be, unpractical, if not willful ; and
indifferent, if not frivolous. The exercise of the suffrage is ex-
pected to impart weight and dignity, soberness and gravity where
levity has been most apparent. It is thought that other women
deserve, and need as much as they deserve, the suffrage as a door
into an experience for which all their powers fit them. All wo-
men, it is asserted, would with proper education and practice
perform their part here well enough to justify the change, and
some women would do exceptionally well. From this field they
have been inequitably excluded too long. To the arguments
from the steadying effect of the suffrage on women, it must be
replied that the woman who has been light-minded, without the
ballot, is more likely to use it carelessly than to change her mind.
It is hardly likely that the ballot has any magic of purity or of
earnestness about it. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it
will do any more for the individual woman than for the individ-
ual man. For the individual man the ballot takes its place in a
series of symbols beginning with first trousers. For the individ-
ual woman there is an ideal series of equal value where the ballot
can be shown to be as superfluous as it is out of place. But of
this later. Meantime, what of the exceptional woman who has a
taste for the management of business, a taste for affairs? Is she
to be shut up to the narrow influence of an insignificant life be-
cause she has, from choice or from necessity, stepped out from
the one assigned to women? My answer is that it is her own
fault if her life is insignificant, and that the ballot would hinder,
not help her, in the effort to make it significant. And whether
or not she has her way, simply because it is her way, and be-
cause she has set her heart on it, I am profoundly indifferent ;Civ lee Tele ee Soe

     
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   

7

for her satisfaction, as far as it calls for radical changes in the

relation of women to an ideal society, is at once undesirable and
perverse.

The ballot is superfluous for women because their interests are
indissolubly bound up with those of civilized society. It is super-
fluous because women always have accomplished, do now bring
about, and always will effect more without it than it has ever com-
passed. ‘They have the right of petition, of organization, and of
moral initiative. All that the ballot is fabled to insure, for the
individual or for the sex, is really controlled by these influences.
Women undoubtedly have a work to do in settling the vexed ques-
tions of economics, personal happiness, and of government; but
it will not be done by the use of less than the best tools at their
disposal, nor by competing with any part of society for the lar-
gest share of awkwardness and blunder. The ideal series of which
I spoke, and in which the ballot is as superfluous as it is out of
place, cannot be better stated than by T. H. Green as the posses-
sion of the “ will to know what is true, to make what is beautiful,
to endure pain and fear, to resist the allurements of pleasure in
the interests of some form of society.”

i cit ia

Ne aeLaat
“arta

ear WARY oe ad dy Pulls gergal

i nla

 

Eanes

ISMN

feel (Faas

t

RR Nut Ae Gre ea

  
 

 

 

 

  

last named.Sere ee ee

An Open Letter to a Temperance Friend.

My prar Mapam:

You and I agree in aim, though not in methods. You think
that license-suffrage for women will help the temperance cause. I see
in it nothing but a desire to gain by indirect means an entering wedge
to universal woman suffrage, which, when asked for directly, the com-
mon sense of the great majority of both men and women will refuse.

Kager prohibitionists of both sexes, joined with the politicians who
trade on them, are pushing this new stroke of the woman suffragists.
If it sueceeds, the advocates of extreme temperance legislation will no
doubt gain some votes. Enthusiastic and unpractical reformers, among
women even more than among men, will vote for what they are pleased
to think radical legislation, whether it answers their purpose or not.
hey will bear their testimony though the heavens fall, and though
all our large cities be subjected to the corrupting farce of a prohibition
which does not prohibit, which in large communities does not prevent

or even diminish drunkenness, but which is the fruitful parent of
meanness, fraud, lying, and contempt of law. They forget that all
women are not reformers. and that, for the sake of the votes of those
who think with them, they call into action the vastly greater multitude
of those who do not, those rude masses of their sex ot whose votes
nothing can be foretold except that they will reinforce that ionorant
male vote which already puts our institutions to so perilous a strain.

Yours very truly,

K. PARKMAN.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Jurther L:xtension of
Suffrace to Women.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. Rospert W. Lorp,
| P. O. Box 2262, Boston,

ERSTE IES aa

Beer ear tre ee

"

ae

£5 psp. ’

a i
ar mnie

Stine

eee

- — ee
= ere pI ce a att
hat hehe

LI seni:
“ ef thd ere Pyle Tl toed i.
Mes tha Mtoe Sere a te fa

  

anean Pe

Aya eA
eh tis, sok sabe.

Maas 3
ae hip teneti’

ae

REYAIA im (nl

A
AAAS MYA,

RTA Ie
PARA Apo:

IAAT TTY PRN NY ML ny Rye Ta bee eT
LAMONT PAA ELON DY SEY CNT

i

H

Foner

mr

4
mbt ho

Ea AR Tra

ih OAT Espo ae

&

RS

 

ri

    
  

 

 

|
\ A
F
£
Fit
i
;

—_—
eae

Rr per

len

 

last named.SE

  
  

TagASsss = ee See Sate ae ae pe re ae eee eee ee re Ee ee - _— ee See

OBJECTIONS TO LICENSE SUFFRAGE EROM
A NO=LICENSE POINT © WiEwe

Address of Mr. Frank Foxcroft, of Cambridge, before the Massachusetts Legislative
Committee, 1898.

DIFFERENT considerations influence the advocates of license suffrage for
women. Every year certain members of the Legislature support it who are
not suffragists in any general sense of the word, but who believe that it
would be a good thing for temperance if the women voted on this question.
I respect the motives of these men, but I do not approve their judgment.
I approach this question as a No-license man, and it is because I believe
that giving women the ballot on the license question would be a bad thing
for No-license that I oppose it.

It is assumed that the majority of women would vote for No-license.
But this is only an assumption. It must be remembered that what is asked
is not that certain selected classes of women, but all women, shall be em-
powered to vote: not only the intelligent, but the ignorant ; not only the
women of the Christian Temperance Unions, but the women of the slums
and the saloons.

For the sake of the argument, however, let us grant the assumption that
the majority of women would vote for No-license : what then ?

As matters now (1898) are, about four fifths of the towns and cities of
Massachusetts are carried for No-license. -The number varies slightly
from year to year, but that is about the average ratio. I claim that in these
towns and cities we have an ideal condition for the enforcement of No-
license. We have first of all a majority of the male voters declaring that
they want No-license. We have this same majority of male voters choos-
ing the officers who are to enforce the law, and able to punish promptly
any unfaithfulness on their part. I claim that the introduction of the
women’s vote, so far as these four fifths of Massachusetts cities and towns
are concerned, would only weaken and confuse the situation.

I think of this with reference to the city where I live. I am from Cam-
bridge, where I have been for seventeen years a member of the No-license
Citizens’ Committee. For twelve consecutive years we have carried Cam-
bridge for No-license. Our majorities have ranged from 400 to 1,g00.
Yet there is scarcely an election which we have carried in which we have
not owed our victory to the support of moderate men who, as a matter of
general principle, are scarcely No-license men at all. This certainly has
been true of all our close elections. These men have voted with us because
they have been convinced by the practical workings of the system that it 1S
best for Cambridge. One reason for their support has been their know-
ledge that they had the control of the situation in their own hands, and

4 = a err eran ee ESS a re = a
RE ee nee

be

It te fe ee Se ee ee ee ee

/(p

OT al

    
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   

RE Raia eat ah cas Mk
ag TT Sa Sr aa

ni i

 

EXERT

< es a
LoRW N Ede

Lit art 4
TCU UL EMM LL

binding

Tn PA se
Pl vty

Peay

NY

Vertaal atti Alb Ale cia tabla. 4:4

intr

ren

SER ALaN RU
ere

Tere
a. ae

Peace

POI

 

last named.

       
  
   
 
 
 
 
    
  
 
 
    
  
 
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
   

z

that if No-license did not work well or was not properly enforced, they
could vote License in again. Now, suppose that by means of the women’s
vote, you take away that assurance: what happens? We lose some hun-
dreds of men’s votes, which are potent, not only for voting No-license but
for securing its enforcement, and we get in place of them some hundreds
of women’s votes, which are potent only as regards voting for No-license
and powerless as regards its enforcement.

There is another consideration with reference to No-license communities.
All of us who have had any direct share in No-license work know how hard
it is to keep public sentiment keyed up on such a question for a series of
years. ‘There is a disposition to take it for granted that the election will
go all right any way, and it is hard to convince individual voters of the
importance of every separate vote. If it came to pass that the vote of
the women was generally relied upon to carry this question, there would
be, I am confident, an appalling increase of indifference on the part of
men voters, and we might have some painful surprises.

So far, then, as concerns the towns and cities now usually carried for
No-license, numbering, as I have said, about four fifths of the whole, the
vote of women, assuming that a majority of them would vote for No-license,
is clearly not needed, and I am sure that it would work injury, for the
reasons which [ have stated.

And what of the other places, now usually voting for License? With
the reinforcement of the women’s vote, it might be possible to carry some
of them for No-license. But have you reflected upon the situation in that
event? You would have a majority of the men-voters voting for License,
but balked of obtaining it by the vote of the women. You would have this
License majority of men voters electing the officials who are to enforce the
law. By the wishes of which body of voters would the officials be likely to
govern their conduct: that body which elected them and had the power to
depose them? or that body which had no control over them? Would it
not be inevitable, under such conditions, that the enforcement of No-license
would become a mockery and a farce?

It is for these reasons, then, because I believe that the voting of women
on the license question would work injury in the places now carried for
No-license, while at the best in the other places it could only bring in a
nominal No-license, half-enforced and demoralizing to the public con-
science, that, as a temperance man and a No-license man, I oppose License
suffrage for women.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
Suffrage to Women.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. RoBerT W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.Se Peer Eee ee

    
   
  
  
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    

(Printed for the Massachusetts Association opposed to the Extension

of Suffrage to Women.)

SOME REMARKS
ON THE PENDING PROPOSITIONS.

At the hearing before the Committee on Elections, Febru-
ary 24, 1897, 0n the petitions for Presidential Suffrage,
Municipal Suffrage, and License Suffrage for Women, Mr.
Frank . Foxcroft, of Cambridge, spoke in substance as

follows :—

Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee :—

The lady who opened this hearing for the petitioners for
License Suffrage stated that the Legislature, to which it
would be your duty to report, contains members whose votes
upon this question are purchasable ; but that there are no such
eentlemen on this committee. That is a delicate compliment
to the committee ; but 1t seems to me an unwarranted reflec-
tion upon the Legislature. I prefer to believe, and I do
believe, that not only the members of this committee, but
the members of the Legislature intend to act upon such
questions as this with a single eye to the public good.

Of the three propositions before the committee, I shall
not detain you with extended remarks upon the first, that for
Presidential Suffrage for Women. This is a proposition
which thus far has not found the slightest favor, even in the
freak Legislatures of the West. Only last week the Kansas
House refused to even discuss the suggestion. It is argued
that under the constitutional provision that each State shall
residential electors in such manner as the Legisla-

appoint P

ture thereof shall direct, it is entirely competent for the

wt EE SE =

»A Pe %
We Age eu

i , re Vin
Rea tA tires, is able iy

 
   

PRN TAY

wh

 
  
    
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 

PUNT DAT IG TTA IT AA St
er A ogee

"

ESE TAMRON

MFO Any rie

   
 

 

 

hfe Apulia) bs

last named.

WPA Rane aK: eh

2

Legislature to direct that they be elected in part by the votes
of women. That maybe. The constitutional provision is so
broad that it might be possible for the Legislature to direct
that the names of Presidential electors be drawn out of a hat.
But it is not likelytodo so. The framers of the Constitution
assumed a certain degree of conservatism and prudence in
legislators.

The second proposition, that for Municipal Suffrage for
Women, comes before the Legislature under unusual circum-
stances. In November, 1895, the male voters of Massachu-
setts, by a majority in round numbers of 100,000, voted that
it was not expedient to grant municipal suffrage to women.
The petitioners now ask this Legislature to override this
clearly expressed decision.

There are two arguments which might be used to sustain
the appeal for municipal suffrage for women. It might be
shown, first, that women need it, or, secondly, that the com-
munity needs it. Both would not be necessary. If it could
be shown that women need it, it might be granted, even if
there were no proof that the community would be better for
it. Orif it could be shown that the community needed it,
women might be asked to overcome any reluctance that they
felt and to use the ballot as a duty due to the public. But I
submit to you, gentlemen, that before municipal suffrage for
women can be justified, one or the other of these claims
must be made good, either that women need it, or that the
community needs it.

What is the evidence upon the first point? I give the
women of Massachusetts credit for intelligence enough to
know and to express any need which they feel. The refer-
endum of 1895 gave them an opportunity to express them-
selves upon this point. The women of the State were in-
vited to give their votes upon the question of the expediency

of municipal suffrage for women. There were perhapsPe SE

    
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    
    
  

5
575,000 women qualified to vote. The suffragists organ-
ized a campaign, raised money, distributed literature, and
held meetings, and as the result of their exertions just
22,204 women went to the polls to say that they wanted
the municipal suffrage. That is to say, about four in every
hundred of the women of the State said that they wanted to
vote at municipal elections. There is some quibbling about
the position of the remaining ninety-six per cent. It is
affirmed that they were merely “indifferent” to it. But if
they had wanted the ballot, they would not have been
“indifferent ’ to it; so that it comes to the same thing.

Now as to the second point: Is there any evidence that
the community needs the municipal ballot for women? I
have listened to the arguments advanced to-day, and I have
read much suffrage literature, but I have yet to find any ad-
vocate of suffrage for women who puts his finger upon any
particular question of town or city government upon which
the votes of women are needed. All towns and cities are
not equally well governed; the same town or city is not
equally well governed at all times; but taking them as a
whole, for any considerable period of time, what question
is there connected with their administration upon which
there is reason to believe that the votes of women would
be more wisely given than those of men ?

In what I have to say upon the third proposition, that for
License Suffrage for Women, I am grieved to have to differ
with the ladies of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union,
some of whom I am proud to number among my personal
acquaintances. So far as that organization represents the
interests expressed in its title I am fully in sympathy with
it. But it is as a No-license man that I am opposed to giv-
ing license suffrage to women. And this not because I do
not think that a majority of them would vote for No-license,

hut because, in my judgment, extending the ballot to them

*

es ag ae aE . pera
eS = s aes a i i ere

rerio iI hal lS
eR isd Mad Groat a SL

ae

ren a se a a
AREER CS

Al =
a Dt eT

eh RAH i deh

rey iit

Pt
oe
ta

   

 

= ee
et(

 

 

SANNA SAAR CMe cso

 

last named.

4

upon this question would undermine the enforcement of the
law.

There are two classes of communities to be considered in
this matter.; those that are now carried for No-license, and
those that are not now so carried, but that might be with the
aid of the women’s vote. I am from Cambridge, a city
which has been carried eleven times against the saloons;
and as a member of the No-license committee in sixteen
campaigns, I am convinced that to give women license
suffrage would be injurious to the No-license cause. There
is a widespread impression that women, as a whole, are more
emotional and less practical than men. .I do not say that
this is true: nor that, if it is true; if 1s mot to the-credm
of women. But it is at least an impression sufficiently wide-
spread to influence official action. Four fifths of the towns
and cities of Massachusetts are already carried against the
saloons. It is. my belief that the situation there is ;better,
with this result brought about by the vote of the men, than
it would be if it were complicated by the addition of the
women’s vote. And what as to the other communities? I
ask you, gentlemen, to consider what the situation would be
in places where one electorate voted in the No-license sys-
tem, and a different electorate, hostile to No-license, elected
the officers whose duty it was to enforce the law. I am a
strong believer in No-license; but I am not satisfied with
nominal No-license. I want to see it thoroughly enforced ;
and it is because I believe that giving the License ballot to
women would disturb and weaken the enforcement of the

law that I oppose this proposition.a

MUNICIPAL SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN —WHY:? ‘
BY FRANK FOXCROFT. 4

i

put the question in this form, because it is clear that, when so revolutionary |

a change is proposed as that of doubling the electorate in municipal affairs by :
giving the ballot to women, the burden of proof rests with those who advocate ;

the change. ‘They must be prepared to show that great advantages would
accrue, either to women or to the community at large, from the change pro-
posed. I am inclined to think that either would be sufficient. If they can

show that women would derive great benefit from the use of the municipal

St

ballot, the community would be willing to take some risk to bring about that
result. If they can show that the community at large would gain greatly, the
great mass of women, who now shrink from the responsibilities of the suffrage, /
would overcome their reluctance. But [submit that one or the other of these
propositions must be clearly proved, before any legislature can be justified in
enacting a law giving municipal suffrage to women.
Touching the first proposition, what evidence is forthcoming? There is.
declamation in plenty; vague generalizations about the nghts of women; a
tedious reiteration of the misapplied principle that “ taxation without repre-
sentation is tyranny’’; even, now and then, a faint echo of the generally
abandoned claim that the suffrage is a natural right. But when it is asked
precisely what are some of the wrongs under which women suffer in town and
city government as at present conducted, at precisely what points the by-laws
of towns or the ordinances of cities bear unjustly upon women as women, and “
in precisely what ways women are to gain from being permitted to vote at
town and city elections, there is silence all along the line. No one yet, to my
knowledge, has ever formulated a definite, concrete, reasonable statement of
this kind. Until such a statement is made, and adequately supported by
argument, the question why municipal suffrage should be extended to women
—_.so far as the interests of women themselves are concerned — remains,
unanswered. ay
But how about the interests of the community? In what particulars would
cities and towns be benefited by the bestowal of the ballot on women? The
question cannot be answered by contrasting the best and most intelligent
women with the worst or least intelligent men. ‘lhe ballot, if it is given to
women, will be used by all sorts of women, just as it is now by all sorts of men ;
and if, as must be confessed with shame, it is usually more difficult to bring
out and concentrate the votes of the best sort of men than those of the baser
sort, somewhat the same oy may be anticipated with regard to women.
The practical question is \ Will the average woman vote more steadily, more
intelligently, with a eee knowledge of men and affairs, and with a wiser
adaptation of means to ends than the average marine It will not serve to say
that she will vote almost as steadily, intelligently, and wisely as the average
man: or that, in course of time, after she has freed herself from. the handicap

sci he seit ir BEE EE are
EE maa ;APRN HAAR

‘ashen,

 

Mnf

Ay:

wn

*

AMO

Jeep d)4)

 

  

of inexperience, and has so readjusted her other duties as to give herself ample
time for this, she will vote just as steadily, intelligently, and wisely. If the
community is to gain from her use of the ballot, the average woman must vote
more steadily, intelligently, and wisely than the average man. Otherwise, at
the best, the general average will be only what it was before.

Here again what is needed is a definite and concrete statement. In
precisely what particulars —— with reference to precisely what problems of
municipal government — are women likely to act more wisely than men?
Here, for example, is a list of the standing committees of the Boston Board
of Aldermen : —

Armories and military affairs.

County accounts. \

‘Electric wires.

Faneuil Hall and county buildings.

Lamps.

LAGENSes.

Markets.

Railroads.

Public improvements, with subcommittees upon paving, sewers, bridges,
ferries, sanitary regulations, street cleaning, and street watering.

The list might be extended to include the special committees and joint
standing committees,* but, as given, it fairly represents the practical matters
which engage the attention of city governments. Will any advocate of muni-
cipal suffrage for women run his finger down the list and place it on those
items regarding which the votes of women aldermen would be likely to be
more intelligently and wisely given than those of men! If this cannot be
done, then the question as to the second proposition goes unanswered, just
is the question relating to the first proposition did.

In a word, it not only has not been shown that the municipal ballot in the
hands of women would be a benefit to women, or a benefit to the community,

' but scarcely any attempt worth mentioning has been made to show it. Vet

this is the really crucial and determining point. |

* The joint standing committees are these: Appropriations, art, assessing, auditing, baths, building, ceme-
teries, city clerk, city messenger, claims, clerk of committees, collecting, elections, engineering, finance, fire
department, health department, hospitals, institutions, lamps, legislative matters, library, markets, music,
ordinances, overseeing of the poor, parks, police, printing, public buildings, public grounds, public lands,
registry, schools and schoolhouses, statistics, streets, street laying out, treasury, vessels and ballast, water,
weights and measures, wire department. The joint special committees are these: Fourth of July, June
Seventeenth, Labor Day, Mayor’s address, Memorial Day, rules and orders. The special committees are
these: Inspection of prisons, rules and orders, and state aid.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
Suffrage to women.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. Rospert W. Lorn,

P. O. Box 2262, Boston.BPE Sie ee

  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  

sis

SOME OBJECTIONS TO MUNICIPAL SUFFPRAG#
FOR TAXPAYING WOMEN. ~

BY FRANK FOXCROFT.

Tue demand that municipal suffrage be given to taxpaying women 1s
usually accompanied by the declaration that “taxation without representation
is tyranny.” But, as was remarked by the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott at the
hearing before the committee on election laws of the Massachusetts Legislature
of 1901, this declaration applied, when first uttered, and still applies, to com-
munities, not to individuals. Nothing could have more surprised the founders
of our institutions, who coined this watchword, than the idea that it would ever
be used as a justification for woman suffrage. The worthies who sat in con-
vention in Cambridge, in 1779, to framea constitution for Massachusetts, were,
most of them, active participants in the War of the Revolution. but not only
did they never dream of giving the ballot to women taxpayers, but they shut
out men taxpayers, unless they owned freehold estates within the Common-
wealth producing an income of at least three pounds a year, or an estate of
some sort of the value of at least sixty pounds.

The first thing to be noticed in this proposition that the ballot be given to
women property owners is that it discriminates against the vast majority of
women, in favor of a comparatively small minority. Hitherto, the advocates
of woman suffrage have professed to plead in the interest of woman wage-
earners, of the great army of school-teachers, and of women in business or the
professions. But what becomes of these classes under this proposition? ‘They
are to be discriminated against in favor of the few women who own property
and are taxed upon it. Intelligence, capacity, executive ability, and fitness to
deal with public affairs count for nothing: the one test applied is that of

wealth. The petitioners for the ballot for taxpaying women ask the legislature ,

to tgnore the fundamental distinchons of function, training, educaton, and
aptitude which are inherent in sex, and to set up the purely arbitrary adistinc-
tion of property.

A second objection to be noticed in this connection is that to give the
ballot to taxpaying women would, in a considerable number of cases, double
the voting strength in municipal affairs of & certain class of men. It is an
t, or rather it is no secret at all, that many married women who are

because their husbands have found it convenient,
1, would not bear the closest scrutiny, to deed over
The wife’s ownership is nominal.

open secre
rated as taxpayers are such
sometimes for reasons whicl
to their wives some portion of their property.
The prime purpose which it serves is to keep the property affected out of the
reach of the husband’s creditors. It is aside from my purpose to condemn

a ee

ae eeSR hth AE tech. terres a AAS

rt

FR ABA

 

  

}

this practice, which may often be justified circumstances ; but its wide
prevalence is well known. To give the wife, in such cases, the municipal
ballot would often be the same thing as giving the husband a plural vote; and:
that, all would recognize as undesirable and unjust.

A third, and, as I think, conclusive objection to the proposal to give the
municipal ballot to taxpaying women, is that ¢¢ zs based upon an idea which
ws fundamentally at variance with American institutions. What does the
talk of the injustice of ‘‘taxation without representation” in this connection
mean if not that property is entitled to a vote, or that the owner of property
is entitled to a vote because of such ownership? ‘That is not the American
idea. Itis the British idea. In England the idea is carried so far that the
owner of landed estates is entitled to vote in all the districts in which his

estates are located ; and the man who beat the record at the last parliamen-
elections was one who, owning Bey in thirteen different parliamen-
tary districts, so timed his schedule as to vote for thirteen members of

Parliament. Such an arrangement as that may work in England, but it

would not do in this country. With: us, John BD, Rockefeller, Andrew
Carnegie, or J. Pierpont Morgan has no more power at the polls than the
humblest workman in his employ. In Massachusetts we got rid of the last
vestige of the idea that there is a connection between the ownership of

property and the suffrage when, by the action of’ two successive legislatures
ad the vote of the people, we abolished the poll tax as a requisite for voting.
The poll tax itself is retained, as a moderate and proper tribute which the
citizen pays for the support of the government, but we no longer disfranchise
the man who fails to pay it.

To carry out their idea to its logical conclusion, the petitioners for this
legislation should insist that taxpayers be allowed to vote in all places where
they pay taxes. It is to be noticed that their chief spokesman at the hearing
of 1901 did this, declaring that if a person owned property in six towns, he
should be privileged to vote in all of them, at least upon matters of local
concern.

But I think it will be long before any legislature subverts long-established
institutions, and revives the discarded notion that the right to vote is con-
nected with the ownership of property, by granting tl

1€ prayer of these
petitioners.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
Suffrage to Women.
Pamphlets and |

leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
elation,

Mrs. Rosperr W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.rere race Sele re eS Se eee ee ee eo Se ee ee

la, 4 2-

v
Ul]
i
Pra
‘
dd
\
0

PAXPAVING SUBEP RAGE
LETTER FROM MR. CHARLES R. SAUNDERS

r 7 a a - A x

Lo the Counsel of the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Exten-
ston of Suffrage to Women, on the occasion of a hearing before the Election
Law Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, wm January, I90}.

SOSTON, Jz ave 2 ;
ne BosTON, January 26, 1903

As you are aware, for fundamental and general reasons, I
consider all bills granting suffrage to women inexpedient in
the highest degree. But I am very willing to state the special
reasons why I am opposed to House Bill No. 119, granting
municipal suffrage to taxpaying women.

The bill proposes to reéstablish, for women, the tax quali-
‘fication for men, stricken out of the Massachusetts Constitu-
tion in £891 by 90,000 majority. Revolutions do not go
backward. It has been settled once for all in Massachusetts
that. if is the man, and not the house or the horse, ahat
votes.

But our women suffrage friends say, “Taxation without
representation is tyranny.” No phrase in political discussion
is used so frequently with less comprehension of its real
meaning. When James Otis used those words before the
Revolution, he used them with reference to the action of
the British Parliament in imposing taxes upon the colonies
without allowing any one representing them to have a seat in
Parliament and state their needs and participate in the law-
making power. That is what Otis, and Adams, and Han-
cock meant by “taxation without representation,’ and such
taxation as that was tyranny.

But nothing was further from these men’s minds than that
every individual paying a tax should, in consequence of such
payment, have the right to vote. Why, these were the very

   

a ee
rE eae Sa I a te

PES ET" tataret hee a

~*~

 

nent
—

SIAM NT AUT OFAN Ny

SO)

¥ ? t a yi ke am ‘A Ko rae
Naa SE Ree en

i

oe

i

a
-¥
S
S
y

  

Lee | een

2

men who, a few years later, framed the Constitution of
Massachusetts, in which they declared that the representa-
tives of the people ought to be chosen only by those male
persons twenty-one years of age, etc. That shows that our
forefathers did not mean by ‘taxation without representa-
tion’ what the suffragists would have us believe they meant,
and it is grossly unfair to attempt to mislead people into the
belief that that old rallying cry has any application to the
woman suffrage question of to-day.

The fact is that the payment of taxes and the right to vote
have no connection whatever. The Boston Terminal Com-
pany, paying a tax of $218,000, is the heaviest taxpayer in
Boston, but it has no vote. The largest individual taxpayer
of Boston, paying a tax of $68,000, could not vote if he could
not read and write. A man may own property in half a
dozen places in the State, but he can vote in only one, the
place of his residence. Minors are fully taxed on their pro-
perty and so-are aliens, but “neither Class Cam yore, wis
theory of the suffragists that taxation and voting go together
would lead directly to the establishment of a government
based on property, in which each person would be given
votes in proportion to the tax he paid. The largest individual
taxpayer mentioned above would have hundreds of times as
many votes as I, and I, perhaps, would have several more
than the man who sweeps my office. Such a doctrine mili-
tates directly against the rights and liberties of the individual
as a member of the body politic. Massachusetts twelve
years ago finally declared that the right to vote rests upon
an entirely different foundation from the possession of
property and the payment of a tax.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES R. SAUNDERS.PP Se

  

TAXATION AND REPRESENT A LION.
By MRS. H. A. FOSTER, Des MOINES, IowA.

THERE are few political propositions so odious and reprehensible that
they would not gain character, respectability, and adherents when coupled
with the terms “ natural rights,” “equal rights,” or “ taxation without repre-
sentation.” To incorporate them into a political plank gives it prestige at
once, and in this matter of woman suffrage they are the magic strains which
lure the unthinking to the realm of unreason and impracticability.

I desire to consider the phrase “ taxation without representation :” first,
because it is too frequently passed over lightly by the opponents of suffrage ;
second, because it is the great cry and watchword of the suffrage organiza-
tion.

The phrase “ taxation without representation,” as applied to the question
of the enfranchisement of women, is not pertinent. In this country, taxa-
tion has nothing whatever to do with representation, which is in no way
based upon property. Men do not vote because they own property and
pay taxes ; property is merely incidental, as is the color of the eyes. It is
possible that a property qualification, or an educational qualification, or
some other qualification, might be better, but these limitations have not yet
been placed upon suffrage.

The phrase “taxation without representation ’’ was used with much force
by our forefathers when the American colonies belonged to Great Britain,
and were taxed to maintain that government, while denied representation in
parliament or government councils. In that connection the phrase was
eminently fitting and very proper, having sense as well ag®@$ound. A State
denied representatives in the national council at Washington, and still
subject to call for men or money to maintain the nation, would be taxed
without representation. A district or county denied senators and repre-
sentatives at the state capitol, and taxed to maintain the peace or pay
the expenses of the state, would be unfairly taxed without representation.
A ward of a city denied aldermanic representation, but compelled to con-
tribute to the expenses of the city, would be taxed without representation.
Used in such a sense as this, the phrase is legitimate.

In our government, national, state, or municipal, property has no repre-
sentation. The property of railroads and other corporate institutions
located in States in which their owners do not reside, and subject to taxes
in levying which they have no voice, exceeds in value fifty times the pro

eee 1h PERE See eee oe ee Eee

  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
   
   

4

sa Pp
ii He et reer ETE

bn nameie a F een a ee eo

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

| Pe perty owned by women in their own right, yet the owners of this first-named
property do not complain that they are taxed without representation. A
woman with the right to vote would have nothing to say about the taxation
of her property, if she happened to reside outside of the township in which
it is located, even though such property were worth millions. If she should
own a farm across the state line sixty yards away, she might gather apples
from her trees or pluck roses from her garden without a.word to say about

 

~Fe the tax upon the soil which produced them. ‘The case is precisely the same
pep) +,
cP r I with men.

| To use this phrase, then, after the manner of suffragists is to exhibit the

most profound political ignorance or a reckless disregard of truth. It is

not peculiar that women should hold tenaciously to the idea that property

P| should signify power, for women are by nature aristocratic, and this is
essentially the spirit of all aristocratic institutions.

Let us turn from this general to a more specific view of taxation, — to
the practical effects of present methods upon the men and women who
really do pay the taxes, particularly to the tax-paying maiden or widow who
is, as they say, “unrepresented.” First, as we are dealing with the taxa-
tion question and nothing else, we will for convenience separate the voters
into two classes, — the tax-paying and non-taxpaying, or the responsible
and the irresponsible. These terms are here used with the utmost respect
and deference for the latter class, with a full recognition of their value to
the people and the nation, and simply to distinguish them in the matter of
taxation from those who really feel the burden. It is natural to account

A > everything cheap and every luxury necessary that costs neither money nor
} i effort, and very natural therefore that the irresponsible voter should favor,
" as he usually does, every new so-called improvement. His vote is regarded
with dread by all property owners, male and female. The “ unrepresented ”
tax-paying woman to-day is not subjected to the imposition of taxes voted
upon her by the non-taxpaying woman. The property-owning male citizen,
while often actuated doubtless by selfish motives, protects the “ unrepre-
sented” woman in a far greater degree and more effective manner than her
‘| own vote could, if subjected, as it would be in this republic, to the nullify-
ing effect of the vastly greater numerical strength of the non-taxpaying
woman. If the statement be true that the larger the proportion of non-
property-owning citizens the greater the danger of burdensome taxation, is
it not apparent that the conditions to which tax-paying women object would
be greatly intensified by the addition of the vote of the non-taxpaying
woman, who would be as a hundred to one against her?

 

 

POETS

TLR VAP Oba AAT SP
PO

i

It is certainly, then, not the woman who pays taxes, whose interests
would be advanced by this political innovation ; and the woman who seeks
relief from the burdens of taxation imposed upon her by the male voter,

STEMMED

(Ome
Aba

bs
a hehts|oe ee ee ee SS SSS SES ST IT Serres s Les rere s rere re:

   
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   

and who expects to find a remedy through this political quack nostrum,

should carefully peruse the fable of the frogs who were not satisfied with

King Log, but who found King Stork a much more grievous and undesirable

ruler. The woman to-day who regards her tax onerous or out of due pro-

portion to that of her male neighbor has the same avenue of redress open |

to her as is open to him. The Board of Equalization established for all a

tax-payers, men and women alike, will listen with as much deference to her

complaint, and be as ready to remedy and correct willful injustice or error |

of judgment in the assessor, for her as for her male neighbor. i g
It will probably be urged that the result of the female vote is immaterial ; a

that the unrepresented tax-paying woman should have a voice, if she desires

it ; that it is “her right,” and that expediency is not a desideratum. The

question of her absolute right in the matter does not belong here. ‘The

“natural right ” cry is just as devoid of proper application, as the suffragists

mse it, 4S the other < catch” terms used by them. here 1s not a semulla

of argument in it. Expediency, to which they so much object, is a necessary

factor in all the affairs of men, and the practical affairs of government are

no exception. Governments themselves are nothing but expedients. |
There are other women whose ideas on the subject of woman suffrage

are vague, who say they would like to see the experiment tried. Tried! Do |

they not know that this is something which cannot be tried in any true sense

of that word ; that suffrage once extended cannot be revoked? I am not |

one of those who think the earth will cease to revolve in its orbit or rotate v

on its axis if women vote, but the woman who says, when the argument of

expediency is quoted against her, “All these things will regulate them-

selves,” and the women who ask to have it “tried,” remind me of the story

of the girl who asked how to distinguish mushrooms from toadstools, and

was told to try one of the specimens, — “If you live, it is mushroom ; if

you die, it is toadstool.” A
Within the past twenty-five years nearly every just complaint of inequality .

before the law as to persons or property has been respectfully listened to

and promptly remedied, and this has been done through a sense of justice

of male legislators, and not because of suffrage agitation. Many of the

most advanced and liberal enactments were made in States where there was

no marked suffrage agitation.
One remark more in regard to the affirmation of the suffragists that the

female half of the nation is not represented in legislative assemblies and

centres of deliberation. In a very modified sense this is true ; that is to

say, in the sense of actually casting the ballot for the individual represen-

tative ; but to say, as do the suffragists, that no one can represent any one

else, that every one must represent himself, is a strange statement, to say

the least, unless women have some special and unique idea, inimical to men,

ih pliner cee et
REHM iren Curr sre VnUELL ios

Pie ees E Ee

PEE EERe Crna, ee [ase A A SS :

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
   
 
   
  

   

which could not otherwise be incorporated into the nation. The truth is,

mL! the interests of men and women are identical, and to instill into the minds

Lv of women the idea that the two sexes have interests so diverse that they

, must be fought out in open battle in legislative halls is detrimental to that

j perfect harmony necessary to the best and highest development of each,
and to that unity which is indispensable to the public weal.

It is a grievous error to undervalue the power of women in this nation,
| or the importance of that work which is essentially feminine, and which we,
it \, \ as women, have yet to perfect, not by doing man’s part, but by working in
Pee i harmony with nature’s law of progression toward a greater and greater
: specialization of function.

 

“

‘There is no great and no small

eI To the soul that maketh all ;

P And where it cometh all things are;
And it cometh everywhere.”

 

= Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
_ Suffrage to Women.

¥ | . Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
f | i ciation, Mrs. Rosert W. Lorp,
( i P. O. Box 2262, Boston, Mass.

LS LAA SVAN PADMA) SE

HW:

"

Sore RaLEA TM sgeiacini HALT

pate Hehe A

ARRIR SKoCA Lcd= > — i
eS SS ee SS ee Se re et eee ee ee ee SESE re rere erect rere

FE LE Ce SELES Oe See ee eee ee eS ee Pe Te Se

    
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   

   

WOMAN AS A MUNICIPAL FACTOR

By PRISCILLA LEONARD

Our friends the suffragists have two great advantages in presenting their
case to the world —first, that they appear, to most people, to be on the .
positive side of the question. Now, to be on the positive side of a question Ae
is to enlist popular sympathy. To advocate some definite action, to urge p
it, to ‘‘ whoop it up,” as the phrase goes, continually, is to make the major-
ity of people feel, vaguely, that you stand for something, and that some-
thing really ought to be done. Indeed, there is nothing so fatuous and so
illogical that an earnest, determined propaganda will not make it accepted
and followed by many. So it is not in the least to be wondered at that the
suffragists, though everywhere in the minority, have created a certain feel-
ing that they stand for progress, for wider opportunity, for a definite re-
form, and that their sex is obstinate and unprogressive in refusing to back
up their demand. A very near friend of mine voiced this feeling the other
day, when she said to me, “I would not vote for suffrage, perhaps, but I
really would not like to oppose any movement whatever which seems to
open new paths for women.” This is the charm of the suffragist move-
ment for many; and it especially influences the highest and most magnani-
mous class of men, who wish to give woman everything she wants, as far
as it is in their power to do so.

That is the first advantage of suffragists, — the apparently positive posi-
tion. And the second advantage is quite as strong, — that the premise in
their argument is one that cannot be debated; it is an axiom, so to speak.
It is this, that the right of suffrage is a divine right, belonging to every
woman, inalienable, immutable, absolute. Now you cannot argue with
that, evidently. Even though it should be conclusively proven that equal
suffrage was mischievous in its workings everywhere, the divine right
theory would not be in the least shaken ; for a divine right has nothing to
do with consequences. The suffragists, of course, reserve the right to
modify this wherever they think best (as in the South, where they only
demand the suffrage for educated women, in order to exclude the colored
women, whose “divine right” would not commend itself to the white
voters for equal suffrage), but they never allow any one else to modify or
interfere with it in any way. As Mrs. Ecob said solemnly, when asked
questions about the actual good, if any, accomplished by equal suffrage in
I

SS

PPSUTRA AL (UM Wa PIS 14 waa
yA

 

 

ea
The

ye A NA
EPA AA

AMATO g) STS Te ee

MOY

SMO a OO

RRR RMN Aya ror es

(Aue

 

PORE

~

 

Colorado, “The demand for equal suffrage is one of justice, and not of
expediency. Justice walks straight on, and never looks back to see if
Expediency is following.” This is certainly unanswerable, and it seems,
truly, as if there was nothing for us to do but to follow Justice meekly in
her wild career, and part company with Expediency forever— until we
reflect that, under such circumstances, it is well to make sure that Justice
is Justice, and not a mistaken pretender. There have been Pretenders
and theories of divine right before this, as all readers of history know;
and while the axiom was quite as unanswerable in the case of the Stuarts
as in the case of suffrage, yet, being against reason and against truth, it
needed no answer, but went down before the logic of events.

The suffrage axiom is superbly complete, but — it simply is not true, any
more than the divine right of the Stuarts. It is not even true that man is
born with a divine right to vote. The privilege is given him in this coun-
try because the present electorate, in every State, thinks it the most expedi-
ent way of carrying on the government. But the voters of each State, if
they so chose, could disfranchise their uneducated fellow voters to-morrow ;
and every State to-day has its own special qualifications for voters, with
which nobody quarrels. The Declaration of Independence does not say
that all men, being free and equal, have a right to vote; it says they have
a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and I leave it to any
one whether the women of America have not their full share of these three
blessings. ‘The unanswerable suffrage axiom is all very well, if you want
heroics ; but common sense is better. And common sense is the founda-
tion of all government.

So much for the second position— but how about the first? How
about the positive side of the question? Well, there are advances that go
backward. “A few more such victories, and we are undone!” is a true
saying to-day as of old. We do not believe in the suffrage as a true
advance or a true victory. We who oppose equal suffrage believe that the
anti-suffragists are the true progressives, and that they have the immense
majority of the womanhood of the land behind them. But we do not
always make this plain, as we ought to do. We content ourselves too often
by saying ‘‘ Don’t” to the woman who feels that she wants to go forward,
and who thinks that the ballot is an attractive path because it seems to
lead ahead; and “ Don’t!” is not a satisfying word.

We so earnestly believe in doing things quietly that we fail to recognize
the actual work and aims of quiet women to-day, and so the world natu-
rally forgets them, and considers the suffragist as the only woman who is
doing anything. The suffragist is progressing, of course, because her
whole sex is progressing, and carries her along in its advance; but her
assertion that she is leading that advance, and responsible for it, is sheer
2nonsense. I venture to say that if you made a list of the women who lead

to-day in educational and social work, art, literature, and religious activity, * ail
you would not find that a quarter of them were workers for equal suffrage. 4,
I am not saying this in disparagement of our suffragist friends, for some of :
them have been and are undoubtedly marching in the front ranks ; but the i

front ranks would have gone forward just the same in the past whether
they were there or not, and will continue to go forward in the future in
the same victorious way, whether they keep up with the procession or stay
behind.

In order to make this plain, let us consider the present place of woman
in municipal life, gained without the ballot, and enlarging steadily without
the franchise. Let us assume, too, in spite of “ divine right,” that expedi-
ency is a good thing in every-day affairs, and we shall see, if we do this,
that woman, as a municipal factor, is a more unique and valuable factor
without the ballot than with it, and that no city can well afford to try the
experiment of unrestricted equal suffrage.

The problem of our cities is the great problem, at present, of our civili-
zation. It confronts us like the Sphinx’s question of old, and unless we
answer it, we perish. We all know the elements of this problem, — the
foreign immigrant, the criminal, the sweat-shop, the neglected child, the
tenement, the slum, the ward worker, the “boss,” — they are too familiar
to need more than a passing allusion. Every city, nowadays, is beginning
to realize these dangers, and cast about for remedies. And as, with all its
evils, the modern city is not like Sodom and Gomorrah of old, but has in
it, always, a goodly number of righteous persons, the best remedy is to
bring their influence most forcibly to bear upon the unrighteous and indif-
ferent citizens, who make all the trouble. Any plan that accomplishes this i
is certainly a positive advance in the right direction. -

Now, suppose we divide a city population, roughly, into four parts, — :
the righteous and public-spirited men, the righteous and public-spirited
women, the unrighteous or indifferent men, and the unrighteous or indiffer-
ent women, — four separate divisions, with the latter two very much in the
majority. The situation, if the suffrage were equal and unrestricted, and
every woman had her divine right of franchise, would then be this — that
the righteous and public-spirited men and women would be united against i
the unrighteous and indifferent men and women — two against two, but
the second two, alas! overwhelmingly strong. But what is the present sit-
uation, without the ballot? This, as we shail see, —that the righteous and
public-spirited men and women are already working together shoulder to
shoulder, in our large cities, with only one party able to vote against them
—the unrighteous or indifferent men. In other words, now we are two
against one, while equal suffrage would make us two against two. Would

3

ee BE a a ee

oop pe eee mamasme
7m

ae
RIAA

wn

CNA,

ASLAM OM ANT PAANU E

A ; r sk
_ ~ ~ ~ = a 4 A Auhx 7 £ / 1g
Lee ey IANA ey ee PALa ay Nat ky Wet ; iy
A ahaha) : ceva eut ‘
eons as ile

 

 

~

   

that be an advance? We have the positive side of the question here,
surely.

Felix Adler’s words on this phase of the matter are very wise. He says:
“Tt is one thing to draft into the service of political duty the women that
are capable, and another to admit to the polls the unintelligent and inex-
perienced. All of those who are fit are welcome, and in fact we would be
grateful to them for their share in the work, but it is impossible to admit
the deserving minority and exclude the unfit majority. No one who real-
izes how much we suffer from the ignorant vote will think of increasing it.
and the counterclaim to the effect that if we allow all men to vote, why not
also extend the same privilege to women, brings with it the logical answer
that if we are suffering from one evil there is no reason why we should in-
crease it.” No— equal suffrage would not prove a panacea, but an aggra-
vation, in the evils of our great cities. There is a better way.

Has the world any idea of how much municipal work women are doing
to-day, without making any fuss about it, and what a splendid force of
public-spirited women are studying and meeting the problems of each city,
and being recognized and welcomed everywhere, by the men of each mu-
nicipality, as invaluable auxiliaries? At the National Conferences for
Good City Government, in Minneapolis, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and Balti-
more, — assemblages of experts on municipal reform, whose authority can-
not be disputed, — the deference paid to the women members of the munici-
pal associations is very striking. Ex-Mayor Schieren of Brooklyn and Mr.
Herbert Welsh of Philadelphia both declare that municipal reform is im-
possible without the cooperation of women. In the seventy or so special
organizations for municipal betterment reported as existing in this country,
women are represented in about thirty, and have a dozen or so organiza-
tions of their own in addition, some of these latter very important ones,
such as the Health Protective Associations and Civic Clubs. In Chicago
a woman, Mrs. A. E. Paul, has had charge of the street cleaning in the
First Ward for a year and a half, and the business men of the district have
lately presented a congratulatory address to her, saying that the streets
have never been so well looked after before.

The women’s work in New York, against Tammany, is well known, but
perhaps it may be news to us (I found the fact in the minutes of the Balti-
more Conference of 1896) that it was a woman who was primarily responsi-
ble for the great street-cleaning reform in New York. It was she who
went to the men in office and out of office, who had power in the matter,
and persuaded them of their duty. It was she who pointed out the mea-
sures necessary to be taken ; who compelled the men to put in the form of
law the requisite conditions of the work, and who forced them through the
Legislature, and who saw that the force was created, organized, and set in

4motion which was adequate for the purpose. She did it all, too, without

making herself in the least conspicuous, as is proved by the fact that Colo- ai,
nel Waring stands for that street-cleaning reform in most people’s minds ; 4

but he, though deserving great praise, only carried out the plan to which a:
she first gave impulse and direction. And she was not a believer in equal 4
suffrage.
Miss Jane Addams of Chicago is a decided factor in the civic life of ‘ 3
that city. She was secretary of the Arbitration Congress, and one of the
Citizens’ Committee in the great railroad strike of 1894, and she has made
Fiull House a centre for a higher civic and social activity than any other
college settlement has yet attained. In London Miss Octavia Hill has
not only made herself valuable in municipal work in that greatest of mod-
ern cities, but has also trained workers for Edinburgh and other British
towns, and for cities in America, Holland, Germany, and Italy. But not
alone in the large towns is woman at work for public betterment, as the
Village Improvement associations in New England so abundantly prove.
Wherever there is a question of municipal health, of municipal education, |
of municipal conscience, the women are studying that question to-day, and |
are helping the best men of the community to solve it. |
But how are they doing municipal work without a ballot? Well, suppose
we take a few branches of their work, and see why the denial of their
“divine right” rather helps than hinders them. ‘Take the school boards,
for instance, to begin with. The trouble with school matters, everywhere,
is that politics and patronage will creep in; and the crying need of educa-
tion is to be divorced from politics, and put into disinterested hands.
Now, wherever a woman comes upon a school board (in States where
women do not vote, except perhaps in school matters) she brings this
needed quality with her. She cannot vote; she has no ward politics be-
hind her; no patronage, no interested motives; she stands for purity and
progress, and everybody realizes it. When I was in Colorado I was struck
by the criticisms freely made upon women in office there. ‘“‘ Oh, she was
elected by the help of such and such a politician, and she appointed his
cousin to the best office in her gift, of course,’ and so on. I do not sup- te |
pose it was all true, by any means: people say such things everywhere
about those in office; but in the East, where women do not vote, such ie
things simply cannot be said. The woman on a school board here stands
for the public conscience incarnate, and holds every man on that board up
to it, by her mere presence there. She can get nothing from the position ;
she gives, and gives freely, instead, of her time and thought. Miss Grace
Dodge, herself at that time a member of the New York Board of Education,
well presented the function of women on such boards when she said in
O90:

Sp me eT a = ee is = ae oe a es as
¥ y . - Se Be SS a a ae

a Eea eee

   

‘The women school trustees in New York and the women inspectors
have accomplished much. The quiet influence peculiar to the sex has
been manifested in various ways, and yet it would be difficult to point out
the particular things that women have done. ‘The women themselves
realize that their influence has been great; but if they made such claims
openly it is quite possible there might be some who would contradict them.
Women on the school boards have been more valuable in their influence
: TF in bringing about desirable reforms than for aggressive action. They can-
’ | not point to any radical reform, but they have exercised a quiet, silent
influence toward improvement in educational methods which has been of
almost equal value. ‘They have had the time and taken the time to visit
the schools, ‘They have shown special interest in the kindergarten and
the practical manual training side of public education. They have made
it their business to investigate and study school systems. They have
especially upheld the position of women teachers, and urged that they
should receive higher salaries, based on terms of service.”

There are a number of women, doing this quiet, effective work, on the
various municipal school boards of our country. New York appointed her
first woman member of the Board of Education in 1886, and now has in
her thirty-five school districts many women inspectors, etc. In 1895 six
women were appointed on the Brooklyn School Board. Mrs. Flower has
been one of the leading women members of the Chicago Board and ac-
complished much, as have also Mrs. Mumford and Miss Halliwell in Phila-
delphia. Miss Pingree has done good service in Boston. Everywhere
men have recognized the efficiency and high conscientiousness of these
women in their chosen task. What would the franchise do for these mem-
bers of the school boards? Simply put them on the same level as the

men. Becoming offices of gain, these positions would be sought, inevi-

tably, by women whose disinterestedness might not be above suspicion,
| and we would lose exactly that element which the school boards most
need, and which is now available everywhere.

Then take the question of municipal health. There is no doubt that
men are just as anxious to preserve the public health as women. What-
ever help the ballot can give is at woman’s service through the voters,
who are quite willing to help her crusades against dirt and disease. But
it is not easy for the voters, apparently, to get at questions of public
health effectively. In Philadelphia, for instance, the voters are dying by
the hundreds from polluted water, and yet the council cannot be coerced
into doing anything for the water supply. Tremendous meetings are held,
resolutions are passed,— and then the audience go home and die from
typhoid, and the council remains entirely inactive. What is the trouble in
Philadelphia? Simply that politics, as well as typhoid, have got into the
6

 
 
 
  
  
    
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
   
    
  
       
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  

<a eee
LIRA RR ere wer y ra Air
vm ‘ i ;
/
_

 

ey

uray)
1 aici
oer »
ane

TTA RN
PAI eri gs

Ah yA
eas

my ml
oar a

IH.

ehh

Ra
ates

 

(Tm

STS

REALM tt ova aL ae

NN

Binal

ag

 

PBA MLEPe re es

     
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

water supply. In New York the voters are suffering to-day from dirty
streets, in spite of the tremendous object lesson given them by Colonel
Waring. What is the trouble in New York? Politics, by which a minority
of the voters have forced dirty streets upon the metropolis, because the
party “boss” so decreed. t
What, then, is the logical remedy? The suffragist says, ‘More
politics — twice as much of them!” The really progressive woman says, |
“A non-political element, which shall educate and agitate for the health of
the city.” And she goes quietly but earnestly to work. She puts con-
venient receptacles at the street corners for what passers-by would other-
wise throw into the street, — paper, orange and banana skins, apple cores, Vie
refuse of all kinds, and the passer-by uses these receptacles gladly, and
learns, thereby, not to throw things into the gutter, which is a long step in
educating him toward desiring and securing clean streets. She goes to the
slaughter houses and the markets and remodels the slaughter system, as
she has done in New York ; she investigates school hygiene, and the
sanitary conditions of street cars and stores, and forms a Health Protec-
tive League and a Consumers’ League ; she goes into the tenement houses, ti
and sets the street children to work at keeping things clean, which they
soon do with the same zeal which they formerly displayed in playing con-
tentedly in the dirt ; she gives these children parks and playgrounds and
public baths ; she traces unwholesome odors to their source, and stable
refuse is cleaned up, and garbage-strewn back alleys are cleansed and kept
tidy in future, and every child and father and mother is taught lessons
of order and sanitation that never came home to him or her before. In
doing all this, she learns what legislation is needed, and gets it, wherever
politics are not too strong for her at present. She learns to dislike this
eternal intrusion of politics, too ; and the growing and wholesome feeling ‘
that there ought to be no politics in a city, but only municipal policies |
instead, is an idea that women everywhere are helping to spread.
Then, again, take the problem of public institutions. Every city has its
asylums, its poorhouses, its hospitals, its courts and jails. They are not ORE
usually managed as well as private institutions, because politics will creep a
in. Women at all times have been active in promoting private charities of |
every kind to supplement the deficiency in the city institutions. But they ‘
also do more nowadays; they visit and inspect, wherever practicable, the
municipal institutions, and improve conditions wherever possible. Here is
a short list of what the State Charities Aid Association of New York, of
which Miss Louisa Lee Schuyler was president for many years, and of
which women form a large part of the membership, had accomplished in
nine years preceding 1881, when it was brought to the notice of the legis-
lature because the politicians objected to its activity. It had organized

7

« a See RE BIL EE ee
aa a = Ea. OE A OO a Oe DE anes
Ey SE te ag a ee -

EGE EE a eee ESOS LEE shmeme =

 

Pe

UA

Pep st4
\
ee

wy

LOREAL MMO Sp AALAND UAL OF ADEA) SE A

aK
eT al

rly HV Pa ou |

fw

hala

Wel IRR

ee Abie £ Laa.ds

v

ee
et
ee

»)

#

forty visiting committees — all unpaid volunteers — to visit the charitable
institutions in the city and State of New York. ‘They had ended the bar-
barous custom of farming out the poor to the lowest bidder, secured the
removal of children over two years of age from the poorhouses, opened
the Industrial Home and the Westchester Home for such children, founded
the Bellevue Training School for Nurses and the Emergency Hospital,
established boxes for collecting papers, magazines, etc., at railway stations
and ferry-houses, and forwarded such matter daily to many different institu-
tions where it was welcome; drafted and procured the passage of a Tramp
Law for the State ; improved and made less costly the systems of outdoor
relief everywhere, and formed the “ Improved Dwellings Association ”’ and
the “ Sanitary Reform Society ” for the betterment of the New York tene-
ment districts.

No wonder the politicians were afraid of such a quiet but tremendous
agency! Their effort to stop it was entirely vain, and it has gone on since
then to the establishment of the Reformatory for Women, the formation of
the Craig Colony for Epileptics, the enaction of the Cumulative Sentence
Law, the successful furtherance of state care for the insane, and the sep-
aration by law of the charitable from the correctional institutions of New
York City. Some of the ladies in this association have been rowed weekly
in open boats each winter, through the ice in the East River, to visit the
city institutions on the islands there, or have traveled through summer heat
and winter snow alike to some out-of-the-way country almshouse, year
after year, suggesting to its ignorant and unprogressive officials better ways
of management and indicating defects which generally have been willingly
remedied. ‘These women visitors, indeed, represent what such officials
particularly need: the sense of an embodied public conscience, to which
they are responsible for their treatment of the helpless wards of the city
or State, — the poor, the insane, and the sick; and the element which non-
voting women supply here could not be replaced by all the voters in New
York.

Then as to the criminal problem. In many cities women have taken
the police station-houses in hand, and secured the appointment of police
matrons. In Boston one of the probation officers is a woman, who looks
after young offenders, and assists them to do better in future. Hull House
supplies another such probation officer in Chicago. We have all heard of
Mrs. Foster, “the Tombs angel ” of New York City, and her heroic and
marvelous ministry of so many years in that gloomy prison. In Massa-
chusetts there is a Reformatory for women, officered by women entirely,
and women are also among the Prison Commissioners and among the
managers of the Reform School. The problem of the criminal class in
the cities is thus being met by women as well as by men; and it is partly

8owing to feminine insight that municipal retormers are now learning to stop

crime at its sources, by meeting some of the problems that produce crimi- ate

nals, — the neglected child, the neglected young offender, and the tenement WW

and lodging house evils.
Women have done wonders in this work of prevention. First and fore- a

most comes that transforming power, the kindergarten, started as a
private charity, but now become, in many cities, a recognized adjunct to
the public school. The Day Nursery work is akin to it, and has well-
known representatives in every large city. Free parks and playgrounds
and vacation schools give the street boys and girls healthy exercise for
mind and body. Wholesome lunches for school children, at penny prices,
show women’s knowledge of the situation and wisdom to meet it. Factory
and school inspectors keep the child from many crying evils during its
development. Mrs. Alice Lincoln’s tenement house work is well known
in Boston, and women in other cities are alive to its necessity also. The
college settlements in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York, Boston, Pitts-
burgh, etc., have all sorts of clubs and associations for boys and girls,
young men and maidens, and grown men and women, using them in their
far-seeing aim of quietly but steadily transforming the neighborhoods
where they are at work into centres of uplifting influence, which will make
the city better in the next generation, and the prisons less full. And all
these things require no franchise, no vote, nothing but that continued, self-
forgetting ministry that is woman’s real “divine right” and that solves
more problems than the suffrage can ever do. Would Mrs. Booth’s work
among the prisons of America be more helpful if the foundress of “‘ Hope
Hall” had a vote? Would that Massachusetts heroine, Dorothea Dix,
have been more of a power in the legislatures of the land if she had cast
a ballot? She did not think so, certainly, for years of public work only
deepened her conviction that women should keep themselves apart from
political action, a conviction which, considering the fact that she did as
great a work as any suffragist has ever accomplished, is worthy of respect-
ful attention. ys

There are so many things, indeed, that women have done and are doing |
without the ballot, that I cannot begin to crowd them all within the neces-
sarily brief limits of this paper. In Boston every one knows how much has
been done for the community by public-spirited women. Boston has Mrs.
Hemenway’s School of Household Arts, and her Old South work, with its
valuable leaflets ; and there are women on its Public Libraries Board, and
its Municipal Lectures Committee, and its Almshouse, and its insane hos-
pitals, and among its Overseers of the Poor. Boston has the noble Dis-
trict Nursing Association, copied elsewhere nowadays, but started here ;
and it has under women’s direction Emergency and Hygiene lectures given

9

Het

AREER HMC

Seg

sey pram

PEE EE ee en ee ee awe

kA ane
ILS Aha

ow

4 TIN
VT AAA
4

SAL

IMO A eiva baba ek Oe Nn TRON TARR
Oa Pa a. WU

LU OAD ys

yo

Oana MMe at

ae

roe ;

en)
Re EME.

um

~

oe,
caverener
"VR;
Ne
-

 

OT ae

  

to the police and fire departments, which are sure to be copied in the future
by other cities. One thing seems strange at first, — that since women voted
for school matters there are fewer women on the Boston School Board, I am
told; but after all, that is what we have always believed, that the ballot is
not a help, but a hindrance. And in this connection I wish to say, emphat-
ically, that in studying the reports of women’s work in American cities, I
have not found that Denver, with her women voters, is ahead of the others.
Denver is abreast of the other communities of her size, but no more. In-
deed, I may say here that Mr. Morrison of Denver asserts that the
‘“‘ solid vote of 2000 women under police surveillance ” is an obstacle to all
municipal reform in that city —which is a most suggestive fact, showing
that the work of women loses rather than gains from the franchise, as re-
gards municipal betterment.

And this is perfectly logical; for why should it gain? and what could
the ballot give in any municipality that women cannot have now, if they
really choose? The male citizen of the American city is not an antagonist
or an oppressor of his mother or his wife or his sister or his daughter. In
the main, he spends his life in supporting and pleasing his womankind,
and it is often because he is working so hard to give them what they desire
that he neglects his public duties, and lets the politician get ahead of him.
You know, I know, everybody (including every suffragist of them all)
knows perfectly well that if the majority of women in any city want a thing
done, that thing will be done for them instanter. Why have the suffragists
been besieging legislatures, and presenting petitions, and working, and
appealing, and arguing for so many years? Why, simply because their
own sex is not behind them, and every man knows it. When women really
want to vote, they will not trouble Miss Anthony or Mrs. Catt or Mrs.
Blake to do their asking for them ; they will make their wish known to the
men of their households, and the ballot will be in their hands before the
next election. And in the same way, whenever the women of Boston or
New York or Chicago or Philadelphia really want a thing done, they are
just as able to do it now, without the franchise, as they would be with the
franchise. The women who have gone to work and put their shoulder to
the wheel, and helped the men, have abundantly proved this, and they
have found, as one can logically see that they would, that their independ-,
ent position, outside of the electorate, is an advantage instead of a draw-
back. The women of experience on public boards in Massachusetts are
most emphatic in their testimony on this point, and so are others else-
where. Of course there are suffragists among them; but I repeat, with
emphasis, that suffragists are in the minority and represent the minority
always. ‘The positive, the progressive work of to-day in our large cities
is done by women who are not asking for the ballot, and even the suffra-
IOgists who are doing municipal work are doing it, necessarily, without the
ballot.

There is a story which has always struck me as peculiarly appropriate to
this subject — the story of the small boy who was seen purchasing papers
from a larger boy who was crying war extras in the street last summer.
The little fellow paid two cents for each paper, and, tucking them under
his arm, began crying “ Extra”’ as lustily as possible. An amused passer-by
stopped and asked the price of a paper. “One cent,” was the answer.
But, my boy, you have just paid two cents for it. Why are you selling it
for less than it cost?” The little fellow smiled joyously. “Jest so’s to
git ter holler!” said he, perfectly contented with his bargain. He was of
the stuff, evidently, of which suffragists are made.

“Jest so’s to git ter holler!” That is not what the truly progressive
woman believes in. She wants to do as little “hollerin’” and as much
quiet, solid work as possible. She sees what the voter cannot do with a
ballot, what no one can do through the polls at all, — that which only per-
sonal, patient, self-forgetting, conscientious labor can do, which brings no
glory, which nobody clamors for, which needs no authorization for her to
do it, and which only an unselfish love for her city can lead her to take up,
— the ministry of disinterested public duty. To enter upon that ministry,
she does not have to sign a petition or go to a convention. She will find
its opportunity on the next street, or perhaps at her very doorstep, and she
can go on without the slightest fear of its narrowing about her because she
has not a vote. Instead of that, it expands and ramifies ; it touches the
life-work of other men and women for her city; it joins with them, and
reinforces them ; itt extends in unexpected directions; it has no limitations
except the limitations of her own ability and personality.

A woman who cannot do anything without the ballot will never do any-
thing to speak of with the ballot. The ballot is not a fetich. If we do not
amount to anything individually, the ballot cannot transform us into useful
personalities. We see that clearly in the case of men, but somehow we
have a kind of false sentiment about women. We listen to the suffragists’
appeal, “ Give woman the ballot, and she will right all wrongs, and lead
man forward in the path of progress!” and we forget that woman could
“right all wrongs and lead man forward,” etc., just as well to-day without
the ballot —if all women only wanted to! It is not a world of men alone.
All the abuse and crime and wrong and venality are not confined to the male
sex. It is a world of men and women. The indifferent male voter is our
danger now —the indifferent female voter is just as real a future danger.
Temperance? it would come to-morrow in our cities if every mother, every
sister, every wife, believed deeply in it. Social purity? it would have to
come, perforce, if all women resolved upon it. Wages? they would rise at
II

a

ee eerie ‘ mr SSS ee ee ee
FMS eeOR DL dela
AMOR OT Det Vee yh Kane gh

 

eT PAT ENA To
SAA ga ty

«

AN

i
he

area

+

STUN deanna Ay

AMATO UNH

We
r

‘
rib eae

ib Ain canary raster

he

ChE

a

Raa wncne

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

 

 

~ —

  

once if all women foreswore bargains. Asylums, courts, jails, would no
longer be needed if every home had a wise mother init. ‘‘Who is the
greatest man you know?” a little boy was asked, and he replied without
hesitation, ‘‘My mother!” As amatter of fact, woman has the biggest
opportunity in the world, and the strongest influence, since the hope of the
world is forever in the children, and she has the training of the coming
generation, and so the real moulding of city and state.

That wise and well-known municipal worker, Mrs. Mumford of Philadel-
phia, has said truly that “‘ woman is the silent force opposed to the machine,
— the machine in politics, the machine in charity, the machine in educa-
tion. She disturbs set routine and cast-iron law. She works for ideals.”
“We get from the women of our community,” said another municipal re-
former, ‘a conscience.” ‘This is the testimony of to-day as to the present
work of women for our cities. They represent an element untouched by the
corruptions of politics ; they have an eye single to the betterment of munt-
cipal conditions. They supply the element of the ideal — that civic spirit,
that civic pride, which is to a city what the soul is to the body. They rein-
force and stimulate the courage of the men who are bravely struggling for
the city’s very life against abuses and corruption. They do the neglected
work, they remember the forgotten duty, they bring light and help into the
dark places. And all this they do, not for their own sakes or their own
glory, but for the common good. ‘The motto of these quiet, self-sacrificing
workers is not a new one, but it is a divine one, and its possibilities have
never yet been exhausted,— “ Wot to be ministered unto, but to minister.” Not
to claim eagerly and uneasily to be man’s equal, not to demand recogni-
tion, not to crave a larger field, not to ask praise or position or reward at
all — but to give, to love, to minister; to lead the little children of the city
into happier growth ; to prepare the boys and girls of the city for a better
manhood and womanhood ; to care more tenderly for the sick, the poor, the
afflicted, the despairing, who dwell within the city’s bound; to make the
city more beautiful, more healthful, more righteous every year, and by such
unselfish, steadv ministry to create unconsciously but surely an ever higher
and nobler municipal ideal—this is the practical, positive, progressive
work, unrestricted, unhampered, inexhaustibly wide, which is freely open
to-day to every woman who truly desires the joy of fruitful service in her
day and generation.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
Suffrage to Women.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation, Mrs. Rogert W. Lorp,
P..Q. Box. 2262, Boston
12a pe Oe an I NN
Te TR TERI rere eee TS Tee me F
ee eres F. 5 fF e reyes el ie hh 2

A HELP OR A HINDRANCE?

There is no wise woman who does not want her sex to
have the best opportunities that life can give, the freest
and highest education, the widest choice of occupations,
the largest social activity, the truest culture, the most
commanding and permanent influence that are possible in
the world to-day. Young or old, rich or poor, educated
or ignorant, we are all women, and we want what is best
for all womanhood.

Do you want the ballot? If so, why? and if not, why
not? It is a real question and an important one, a question
on which every thinking woman to-day ought to have an
opinion, and know what her reasons for that opinion are.
It is well for you to ask yourself, seriously, do I want’ the
ballot? and would it be a hindrance or a help to me asa
working-woman ?

Suppose we begin with a few facts about that great body
to which any girl may be proud to belong, that army of
intelligent, conscientious, capable workers who are so
necessary in every field of occupation to-day. Do you
Know that out of the 369 groups of industries in the United
States only nine have no womenemployedin them? There
are about 2,000,000 working-women in the United States, (of
these, by-the-way, more than half are in the New England
and Middle States) and their number increases steadily
every year. Besides these two million, more than a
million and a half women are employed in domestic service,
and half a million more are teachers, thus making about
four million in all.

This great army of two million workers, is not detached
from the ordinary life of womankind. Ninety-five per
cent. of the two million live at home, and the average

Rea HOE Hittite

ss - iia -

 

a a a a a are a EEE TL een ot a
Ba a ee a a

RSWES

ee
eer

RR
Pao

eer

we
AAs

"GUTH

4

LACAN PATA ge

 

‘|

 

  

length of their outside occupations is less than five years.
The average woman works only from about eighteen to
twenty-two years of age, after which she returns to domestic
life, usually to preside over a home of her own. During
these years of outside work, half of the workers give their
earnings to the home life, and nearly two-thirds not only
work at their regular occupations, but assist in the house-
work at home. Working girls seldom change from one
occupation to another, and are peculiarly steady and con-
scientious in their work. Their wages, however, are less
than those of men, except in piece-work, where they often
earn more than men can. In some fields of occupation,
they have already driven men out, and are rapidly dis-
placing them in others.

‘‘ But,’ you say, ‘‘ what have these facts—most of which
I know already—got to do with the ballot?’’ Suppose we
take them separately and see.

W hat does the equal suffragist promise that the ballot
will give the working-girl? A larger field of labor? well,
360 occupations already conquered, out of a possible 369,
does not seem to need much improvement, does it? More
permanent work? but does the woman who only works
five years on an average require more permanent employ-
ment? These two promises, surely, we need not consider
seriously.

The great question of wages, however, is a different
thing. The suffragists make a point of assuring us that
the ballot will raise wages, shorten hours and equalize
conditions; and if this were true, the ballot would cer-
tainly be a good thing for the working-woman. But, is it
true? is it backed up by facts? or is it just a mere catch-
word? ‘The only way is to study up the facts, and see for
ourselves.

It is hardly worth while, here, to set forth the laws of
supply and demand, the position of woman as a new
economic factor, etc. Political economy is a dry subject ;
so, beyond the mere statement of the acknowledged fact
that the supply of women ready for work is greater than theee De a , —
ber CS PNT Sere Peer eee ee reese Ts

demand for their labor, and that woman, aS a mere factor
in the field of occupation will take some time yet to find
her right place and her fair wage, we will not consider
these points. One thing, however, may be affirmed that
voting can no more influence supply and demand than it
can change the phases of themoon. When there are two
men to every job, wages are low, whether men vote against
the lowering of wages or not; and when there is only one
man to two jobs, he can ask his own priceand get it. And
another thing is also certain, that where untried labor
comes into the field against skilled labor, skilled labor will
always command the high wage, and unskilled labor sink
to the lower one.

Just think about it. If you go into a factory or a store
as a beginner, say, at sixteen years of age, you do not look
at that work at all in the same way that a boy of sixteen
would do. You only work because, at present, you have
no necessary home duties, and you want the money for
your support or for the support of others at home. No
girl works outside her home for the pleasure of it, or
deliberately expects and hopes to work thus all her life
long. She expects, and she is right to expect, for the vast
majority of all working-girls realize this expectation, to
work only for a limited term of years, until she has a
home of her own, or until the present necessity for her
wage-earning is over. It would be a most unnatural and
wrong state of things, and a peril to any community, for
such an immense number of girls, in the flower of their
youth, to renounce the thought of marriage and devote
themselves absolutely to their work. For this obvious
reason, no working-gitl does or can, or ought to, enter any
field of occupation on the same level as a working-man,
because marriage does not stop a man’s work but rather
stimulates him to become more skilful in it, and therefore,
though he also expects to marry, he is a permanent worker
from the beginning.

The average age of the working-woman is only twenty-
two. Few remain after twenty-five, and fewer still after

A

5 iz
male rho /eh eae itl ML aA
Pp SSRED Gi Wl reo a WA Ale ne

li 2
oe

 

, ery
= teil 5 an ED Sa Sees SS TS

PES Le ae pepe re ee sete tee te ee ee ee eee aed Fo a ae
Si sig Sy © te Oe ee’ ee Oe ee Pa ba ncpeca eesti? ,

pa NtSATU SHO MSA A DADAM NY 8

Mei
rey

AAA M Mu

Marie

in a

aot

val

a
eS
e

    
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
    
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 

thirty. In other words the woman-worker must either
choose a trade which can be learned quickly and such
trades are always poorly paid, or she must drop out just
as she becomes skilful, thus losing her only chance of a
high wage. Don’t you see that all the voting in the world
cannot make a high wage for woman’s work, if it is tem-
porary and unskilled? On the other hand, when a girl
remains in higher grades of work, after becoming skilled,
asin piece-work, for instance, she earns a wage equal to and
sometimes larger thana man’s. I know, and I daresay you
do, many a girl who makes larger wages than her father
does in the same mill, and who is surer of her position, as
long as she wants to keep it, than he is. And in trades
where men are principally employed, but where there is
overcrowding and the grade of work required is not
especially skilled, wages and conditions are no better, and
often are far worse, than in the case of women.

The best illustration of the whole thing can be found in
the case of the million and a half of women engaged in
domestic service. Here is a vast class of women, generally
foreigners, often uneducated, entirely without organization
or influence, whose wages are yet raised, year after year,
without a struggle. Why? The answer is evident, there
are never enough good domestic servants to supply the
demand, and therefore even the unskilled emigrant gets a
high wage at once. The plain fact is that the ballot has
no more connection with wages than the Statue of Liberty
has with the tides in New York Harbor.

But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that voting
was a sort of miraculous process, and could work the im-
possible wonders the suffragists promise. Suppose that
the ballot, in the hands of working-women, meant higher
pay for skilled work, shorter hours, longer vacations, and
yet more wages. Suppose all these fairy tales were true,
how would the working-girl gain control of the ballot ?
Could she grasp the talisman, or would it remain tantali-
zingly outside her reach ?

In the first place, the majority of working-girls couldnot vote. They are too young. More than half are under
twenty-one, the legal voting age at present. Even if
eighteen were fixed as a voting age for women there would
yet be many who could not vote. And the remainder
would not be a large enough body, for the proportion of
working women to women in general, as shown by the last
United States census, is only one in ten—to make even the
smallest impression upon politics unless they were closely
organized, well officered, and all of one mind as to what
should be done. It would take a tremendous amount of
determined work and steady perseverance to organize such
a party, and each member would have to give her leisure
to it. The closest organization, the most arduous work,
the largest expenditure of time and thought would be
necessary to form and guide a Working-Woman’s Party.
It must have its primaries, its delegates, its conventions,
its candidates, its district leaders and workers, and,
naturally, its expenses. It would mean a great deal of
hard work for both leaders and members, and it would be
so small, in comparison with other political organizations,
that it would never be an appreciable factor in a general
election. The ordinary women’s vote, nine time as large,
would overshadow it completely, and it could not command
the needed influence to accomplish the hoped for results,
even if the ballot could bring them.

Even if it could bring them! Some of them if we will
stop and think about it, have come already, without the
ballot. A girl employee has the right to be paid where a
man’s claim must wait. A married woman’s earnings are
her own property, her husband’s must be shared with her.
The hours of labor for women have already been restricted
by law, while men’s are not. Girls in stores must be pro-
vided with seats, and given a certain length of time to eat
their noonday meal. The wages of a wife cannot be at-
tached for her husband’s debts. If any employer fails to
pay the wages due to a woman, up to $50, not only is none
of his property exempt from execution, but he is liable to
be imprisoned without bail. No woman can be arrested in

Eee 2
—_— a as — =: 9 7 = as ay Sp eh EO he eS Ee te id a
os Ss - see pa ps ese eet eee £ er a i Ri i i ae a ea A ae
PSE Ste ee a Sa I Sppaencecs

Ce eae en nae eee ,
eect y cele lect Sele le le Le Ie ee eee ee Te Pe Pere cee

ae

Z
aay
$

1 AES

Cr

 

We

CHINE CH rarcre

durante
Seen ct

Chesed i Th A
SRR nana s f
Naas wee uA A ae

5 PRN at | bP ale
Se Ay Hylhnt Plsier iia yt Mie Lt
Dinrienenetanenehetn’s¢ cities. hye)

WTA MPC TALIA ih Jn PAR MC ahs
Pere WAV) otutoraaharsonalatbih

~

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
     
   
    
  
  
 
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
  
    

NN A TA
POA a,

 

 

iS rtT Te pet eI I
eGR rane Mtr BUA he cree ie

oe CR Re tat fok

  

6
a civil action, or held by an execution, unless it is clearly
shown that she has committed a wilful injury to person
or property, or is in contempt of court. It would be hard
to mention any injustice to women that -the law has not
tried to prevent, as far as such injustice lies within the
power of law. But the trouble is that law cannot help
most of life’s problems. The majority of voters have
wives, sisters and daughters, and are anxious as to their
welfare. As far as the ballot can help woman, it is help-
ing her now, though cast only by man in her penee It is
because the ballot cannot help her in certain directions.
and against certain economic laws, that she continues to
struggle with low wages and overcrowded trades.

The voter would help his wife, his sisters, his daughters,
if he could but, alas! he cannot even help himself by his
vote to steadier work or a better living. Recognizing this
powerlessness of the ballot, he has organized instead, the
Labor Union, and the Labor Unions, with all their mis-
takes, are far better and more available channels of in-
fuenes than the voting-booths. In several cases they have
succeeded in raising the wages of women to a level with
those of men; and if a woman is to give time and energy,
she had better spend it in the promotion of such or vaniza.
tions among women than in a fruitless str uggle for political
power. The working-girls’ clubs are also a splendid force
for good, and time is never wasted in joining and working
inthem. But the ballot, which has never yet raised wages
for men, and never will for women, is a delusive light
which is not worth while to follow. Equal suffrage has
not raised the pay of women workers in Colorado, during
its three years of trial there, nor in W yoming, w here it hae
been in force for a quarter of a century; a el which its

advocates agree to ignore, but which is c onvincing to any

intelligent mind.

In fact, instead of being a help, the ballot, in several
ways, misht become a decided hindrance. Many laws
have already been made, as we have seen, to protect women.
Would men continue to make laws which discriminate iney
tt
Uy
ae
Cu)
i
lal
be
i
a
é
1
be
ny
a
iD
mi
i!
4
H
t
>
v
i)

d

favor of women, if women had the vote? It would be only
natural for them to say, ‘‘ You asked for the vote so that
you could arrange better things for yourselves; now that
you have the vote, use it, and do not trouble us to legislate
for you. Your vote gives you an equal chance and we are
no longer responsible.’ In that case, the working-girl’s
chance would be a poor one indeed.

And, above all, we must remember that a vote is a very
poor and mechanical substitute for true womanly influence.
The girl who only has the power in the world represented
by one vote out of 26,000,000 is a cipher indeed ; while the
intelligent and womanly girl who influences all those who
know her is a queen in her own right. Do you suppose a
vote would have added anything to Martha Washington,
or rendered Mrs. Cleveland a whit more popular? The
women of America, without a vote among them, abolished
slavery. The great temperance movement of to-day, which
grows stronger and spreads wider every hour, is the work
of women with no aid from the ballot. If we were all the
right kind of women, thoughtful, wise, loving, helpful,
striving to understand and do the best things, the world
would move onward as fast as we could lead. The ballot
is only a hindrance to such progress, for it tempts the weak
and useless woman to think that it would give her power
in an easy an irresponsible way.

No! true womanhood does not need the ballot to in-
fluence the world. And the working-woman is not an
abstract woman, one cut off from normal, womanly life, no.
longer restricted by its natural limitations, or out of
sympathy with its sphere of love and home. She is just a
woman, who, for awhile, happens to be working outside
the home, but who, later, will be a home-maker and a
home-lover. Votes, politics, office-holding, primaries and
ward meetings, the pulling of wires, the making of speeches,
the manipulation of candidates, what useful wife and
mother has room in her life for these? what active, hard-
working, home-loving girl can make a place for them in
her busy existence? Education? yes, let a woman strive

opp cea eeeRR 7 7
tk ane

 

TCE,

US AOA

a y ry
1 ry mae ye u r me
OME ROOM HHI

Mira!

‘i

&
aa /
=
a
=
:
:
;
L

(Age

MARA

LAL) SEN eee er

SRE

 

  

8

for the best and most of it that she can get; it will make
her home brighter and her life more of an influence upon
her husband and her children. Social opportunity? yes,
the more of it the better. Choice of occupations? yes,
while she is working, let her work be as congenial and as
wide as possible. All these are good ; but political activity
is a barren gain, it cheapens womanhood in a vain struggle
for the wrong kind of influence. As in England centuries
ago the ‘‘ King-maker’’ was far greater than the kings
whom he made and unmade, so woman, with the training
of voters in her hands, is greater than the voter, if she but
knew it. Shesupplements man best by keeping in her own
higher, more disinterested sphere of love, sympathy, purity
and righteousness in daily life and thought, and leaving
him to translate that influence into action upon the world
outside, into whose work she never throws herself except
from necessity, and from which she returns gladly, as
soon as she can, into the higher life of the home again.
‘‘ Every wise woman,” said the greatest of afcient Sages,
‘“buildeth her house, but the foolish plucketh it down
with her hands.’ It is the foolish woman, to-day, and
not the wise one, who asks for the ballot, that she may pull
down, with her own hands, the protection and the sanctity
of her womanhood and her home.

PRISCILLA LEONARD.

Printed by the New York State Association Opposed to
the Hatension of the Suffrage to Women.Pe Tete rere + sh Pem Perera. fie rele ry re oe Per ele ry eee re Sere ee ce ee Te Te ere Te ee ee ee eee ee

  

Che Outlook.

Saturday, May 8th, TSO7,

   
   
 
 
 
    
   
  
 
 
 
       
     
     
   
 

from COLORADO.

Lo the Editors of the Outlook :

As it is evident that much has been said in criticism of the
article by Priscilla Leonard on‘‘Woman’s Suffrage in Colorado,’’
I feel impelled, as a Colorado woman and a representative of
many who share my views on this subject, to dissent from the

critics. Barring a few slight errorsin fact, which did not

essentially affect the argument, I believe it presented truthfully, He
: a ‘ : : : 15
and in a spirit exceptionally fair, the result of the experiment Le

as thus far shown in Colorado. It is a mistake to suppose that Nes
a large majority of the women in this State are now enthusiastic
believers in woman suffrage. I do not know one who was
opposed to it before its adoption—and the number included
very many intelligent and conscientious women, unfortunately :

for the most part silent—who has reversed her judgment as to | 7
its advisability in the last three years, while I know many, 3
who at that time favored the movement, who now say \
openly that they regard participation in politics as a burden-
some and uncongenial duty, with no compensating advantage ly

to the sex or the State.

ia

A lady correspondent for a promient New York daily,

an,

DT baer en ere eet M)
v Mi Walrad Au hoa.

Sali Maree te

ere wre

summing up her observations after election last November,

me Ne

says: ‘“‘Of the thirty-five women with whom I talked in the

  

eee

hill districts’’ (the most intelligent part of Denver) ‘‘twenty

were directly against woman suffrage. Of the other fifteen, ten

  
 
 
 
 

< iy Peril. heed ae
RN Se CU

were enthusiastic supporters ; the others were undecided.’’

CHARLOPTIE My VAILE.
Denver, Colorado.

pe ee a
Pa a EE aE Ee

sata SS EEE

peerage ete ee ere ree ere=

[4
sd

‘

UGA S E ARS NINES 3ADDRESS

FO HE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK

FEBRUARY 22, 1899

@

PRESENTED BY
THE ASSOCIA TION ORPOSED TO TEE
EXTENSION OF THE SUE.
FRAGE TO WOMEN

@

Sere aaron erm lth rh ra ita hn lL va ah Fh
Wurth eG bicuh ul ahoy Wa A a, Bie Abr be a al

FA cack

f ea a oe i
Ree stg! AURIS iE CECE CH rerc

The Address was prepared by a Sub-Committee consisting
of Mrs. RossITER JOHNSON and Mrs. WINFIELD Moopy,
and was read by Mrs. ARTHUR M. DopGE

ie comer
AZ AAA Ed ST Sel ha i hg
Be a a a

~ 4
Ba a
%

 

1

ryt

xs eTT IS SEEKS ESSER ESR ELE a
See emaie
ee

;
eS

oA

aie alae
AA ALra

Ae homies

wu bufapiti Aaa!

Lee fo)ADDRESS.

GENTLEMEN: We come before your honorable body as repre-
sentatives of the New York State Association opposed to the
Extension of the Suffrage to Women.

We come to speak concerning three bills which have been
introduced into the Legislature by advocates of woman suffrage.
They refer to a tax-paying vote for women.

Of two presented in the Senate, one provides that “ A
woman who possesses the qualifications to vote for village offi-
cers, except the qualification of sex, who is the owner of pro-
perty in the village, be entitled to vote upon propositions
authorizing the expenditure of money.”

The other provides that “ Every other person” (except
married women) ‘twenty-one years of age, who shall have re-
sided in the village thirty days next preceding such election,
and is the owner of property in the village, shall also be entitled
to vote upon a proposition for or against the expenditure of
money.”

The new one introduced in the Assembly provides that in
all towns and villages, when questions of local taxation or the
issuing of bonds for municipal improvements are submitted to
the tax-paying citizens, women shall have the right to vote on
equal terms with men.

The most specious of suffrage cries is: “Taxation without
representation is tyranny,” and the claim that appeals most
strongly to those who would otherwise feel no sympathy with
suffrage is: ‘‘ We pay taxes, and yet have no voice as to how
our money shall be spent.”

Before discussing these bills, we wish to call your attention
to a singular fact. Suffrage advocates appear to know that the
din concerning taxation rings hollow; for they do not make it
a legislative issue. It has not been pressed here before for
twenty-five years, at least. During the last three years sut-

ds
ra
PES,
=
3
#5
a3

é San
ac
ee

aeu\

AY

Sa oe) han
i CREA HAN

pe easFOO MOAN ANY I aE LAM

Shame

hie
DH

Re ARS NM Ta

ee TAGS

 

Ti & : ‘ Je
ASS che Sete See aie

 

 

=

Ser a, 5 —
a A i Ne ac

A

frage propositions have met with thirty-seven defeats in twenty
States, and of all these only two concerned taxation. In Con-
necticut, in 1897, the Legislature rejected a bill to permit tax-
paying women to vote on questions involving the laying of
taxes; and in Kentucky, in 1898, the House rejected a propo-
sition to exempt from taxation the property of women while
they are not permitted to vote.

The bills before you may or may not encroach upon consti-
tutional suffrage. If they do so, we believe that you can be
trusted to defeat them; but even if they represent only dele-
gated power, as does the school vote, we have profound objec-
tions to them. They would give special privileges to some, and
equal rights to none. They would establish a special privilege
for the woman who has property, against the rights of the
woman who has none. They would also establish injustice as
between women of property ; for the millionaire would have no
more votes as to her thousand acres than the wage-earner would
have as to her grass-plot.

If you are going to establish or extend a property vote at
all, it should be proportional. Where will you stop? If the
woman who has five thousand dollars has one vote, then the
woman who owns a hundred thousand dollars’ worth of pro-
perty must have twenty votes, or she is wronged.

These bills are based upon such undemocratic and excep-
tional conditions as to lead one to believe that they are intended
as mere entering wedges for a cause that is desperate. One of
them asks this vote for widows and spinsters ; the other asks it
for married women as well. The first restriction belongs only
in Europe, while any tax-payer’s vote is an anomaly im a free
land.

Unmarried women have always stood, as to property rights,
ona par with men. Will anybody believe that man intended
to favor his sister, and to wrong his wife and his mother? The
laws that once bound a woman’s property rights with her hus-
band’s were meant to be protective. But, whether unmarried
or married, woman cannot vote “on equal terms with men,”
for reasons that will be given later in the course of our argu-
ment.

It is quite generally thought that the advocates of woman
suffrage secured the passage of the laws giving property rights
to married women in this State and country. But the “ His-per PTE TESE TA TEE SEES ETE ESSE SoS SaaS SOS SSIS nae SA Oe

  

5

tory of Woman Suffrage,” edited by Mrs. Stanton, Miss An-
thony, and Matilda Joslyn Gage, tells a different story. That
work was published in 1881-85. In setting forth the causes
that gave rise to the suffrage movement the editors mention as:

First. “The discussions in several of the state legislatures
of the property rights of married women.”

The suffrage movement began in 1848. In 1844 Rhode
Island had passed a law securing property rights to married
women. In 1848-49 Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Texas
passed such laws. In 1850-52 Maine and Alabama passed
such laws. In 1853 New Hampshire, Indiana, Wisconsin, and
lowa took the same step. In 1849 Ohio, Maine, Indiana, and
Missouri passed laws giving married women the right to their
own earnings. Suffrage agitation had not even been dreamed
of in most of these widely separated States. As to New York
State, we quote the following from the Suffrage History : —

When preparing their first volume, Mrs. Gage wrote to
the Hon. George Geddes to ask who was responsible for the
married woman’s property rights bill that was passed in 1848,
and whether any debates had preceded it. He wrote in reply,
in part, as follows: “I believe this law originated with Judge
Fine, without any outside prompting. Only one petition was
presented in favor of the bill, and that came from Syracuse, and
was due to the action of my personal friends. I know of no
debates that preceded it, and I am quite sure that in our long
discussions no allusion was made to anything of the kind.”

So it appears that suffrage advocates had no connection with
this bill, which opened the way for all the liberal legislation
that has ended in making laws far more favorable to women
than to men.

In a pamphlet published by the New York State Woman
Suffrage Association, to report their proceedings during the
Constitutional Convention of 1894, it is recorded that Mr. B. F.
Church, in presenting an appeal from his county, asking for the
submission of the suffrage amendment, said: “Sir, beginning in
1848, the male citizens of the State of New York, not at the
clamor of the women, as I understand it, but actuated by a
sense of justice, began to remove the disabilities under which
women labored at that time, until, in 1891, I believe, the last
barriers were stricken away.”

A prominent suffrage advocate said: “ When any community

cS

5S ae EL
ee

   
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

a
Ure

Cae RTD tore
nee nie

alia

CHA EEC

CRN ae
RUHR G LS ORR IES,hd wD

AEE
"

AULA VIP ADNAN gy Se

RE aR Re Rm

Nie Son

rq Peteagew, Vay Sg
eRe Seta

~

 

6

is civilized up to the point of enfranchising women, it will be
civilized up to the point of sustaining their vote, as it now sus-
tains their property rights, with the whole material force of the
community.”

We offer the foregoing as testimony that woman does not
need the property vote in self-defence.

These bills ask for the ballot in behalf of women who hold
property in their own right. But the owner always adds the
taxes to the rental; therefore, tenants and occupiers are as
truly tax-payers, and this bill, which is urged in behalf of
woman sufffage, and not of tax-payers, may soon be followed
by another demand for the ballot.

Virtually there is no connection between voting and tax-
paying. When a millionaire becomes a bankrupt, he does not
lose his vote. ‘This is because he does not lose capacity for the
things the government counts on equally whether he is rich or
poor, a tax-payer or a non-tax-payer. These are: police duty,
jury duty, riot quelling, property guarding, and law defending,
in peace or in war.

The property of man, woman, and child is alike taxed; and
in return for the payment of the tax they all get the same
things: schools, roads, gas, water, police protection, ete. But
there is another tax—the service tax — which is necessary to
make the property of all tax-payers of any value. It is the
service tax that gives security, and this tax is laid upon men
alone. With this tax goes the vote. To give woman a tax-
paying vote when she is exempted by nature and civilized usage
from forming part of the defence of even her own property, is
to work injustice. It is not true that woman has no voice in
regard to her property now. Practically she is likely to have
more voice than her masculine neighbor with his one vote.
Besides, the majority of women are not direct tax-payers.

Again, the property interests of women are so bound up with
those of their husbands, sons, and friends that they are repre-
sented by men. If a woman cannot trust any of these to vote
as she could wish, how can she trust them to carry out her
wishes after she has voted? For we must remember that the
execution of laws must always be left to the men.

The final vote concerning laws should rest in the hands of
those who alone can enforce the laws. Ina republic the de-
fence depends only on the individual men, and the wisest states-t

men have seen that the ballot must therefore be theirs alone, if
the government is to be stable. The ballot is not a reward to
man for standing ready to give this defence. It is merely the
symbol that civilized usage employs in order to learn what
strength could be arrayed to support opposing votes. If man’s
strength ceases to stand behind the symbol, the ballot is of no
value to anybody. Man is as much controlled by the limita-
tions of his nature as woman is by hers. He cannot “make
over half the voting power to women” without endangering
all voting power. So long as human nature remains what it 1S,
and so long as man cannot make over his larger brawn and
muscle, he cannot make over the voting power. He might.hand
over the symbol ; but the symbol without the thing symbolized
would prove a delusion.

That the sovereign power is man’s only while he is able to
exercise it, we realized during the glorious and tragic summer
of 1898. Man would fain have voted freedom to Cuba and the
islands of the sea, but found that only his sword could win it.
This is as true, though not as evident, of every law’s enact-
ment and every poll’s decision. For this reason women cannot
vote on equal terms with men.

Woman’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
is inalienable ; and man commits a moral wrong when he endan-
gers these by attempting to extend the symbol of his protective
power where he cannot extend the power itself.

Nature, not man, has exempted woman from the fighting line
where rests the ballot-box. Frederick Douglass said: ‘“* Ameri-
can freedom depends on the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the
cartridge-box.” The advocates of woman suffrage demand com-
plete use of the first, partial use of the second, and entire ex-
emption from use of the third, on which both the others rely
for existence. And this they do in the name of “ equal rights
to all, and special privileges to none.” The request would be
ludicrous if it were not dangerous.

We have other grave objections to offer, gleaned from expe-
rience. Woman tax-payers are among the most numerous
signers of anti-suffrage petitions. Women do not now vote
concerning their money affairs where they have opportunity.
They do not use the school, or even the constitutional suttrage,
except to a very limited degree. The social and moral initia-
tive is theirs, and stated voting does not belong to the genius
of their life.

Ee a a

     
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   

aos 4 ub 7
LATOR ten reer 4 BTR nh hk ;
PEON irrrcrurch ren inuhur cect mutt

ERE ct

eRe oaeterd nee eam
oN eeee Fee

  

8

 
  
  
     
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  

eae a

i Lt ALA Dene e
ALMA AMAA a by

| Gentlemen: Woman suffrage and woman’s progress are
founded on distinct and, as we believe, on antagonistic princi-
ples. As proof that law-makers have recognized this truth, we
point to the fact that while for fifty years New York has stead-
ily denied appeals for woman suffrage, her statesmen have made
‘ laws so largely in our favor that, if we want legal equality, we
1] must begin with a surrender of great privileges. We believe

 
 

 
   
 
   
  

TN

Pavatatnta tatare

ane A th acne aoe lath ee | hate

~~

= ~
APN

 

TM ne

that these privileges have been granted in recognition of the
fact that our life and work are as valuable to man and to the
government, and as much respected by both, as man’s more evi-
dent service. Such privileges appear to be our equal rights,
and we pray you not to endanger them by the passage of these
bills. We also believe that their passage would result in seri-
ous injury to the general weltare.

Issued by the New York State Association opposed to the Extension of the Suf-
\ frage to Women.
Reprinted, with slight adaptation, by the Massachusetts Association opposed to the
further Extension of the Suffrage to Women.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Association,
Mrs. Ropertr W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.

 

SALSA SLAC APACE DNL) EN eh ek
7

‘

a
|
a
©)
a
3 rc
:

ReADDRESS

BY
MISS EMILY P. BISSELL OF DELAWARE,
BEFORE THE
U. S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE, FEBRUARY 13, 1900.

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: It is not the tyranny, but the chivalry
of men that we American women have to fear. The men of America want
to give us everything we really need, and the danger is that they will mis-
take a minority for a majority. That is why we are here to-day. We hold
a brief for the silent majority who do not want the ballot. There may be
thousands of women who wish the ballot, and wish it earnestly, but cer-
tainly there are millions who do not desire it.

The proof that we represent this majority may be asked for. It lies in
this, — that the suffrage movement must be against the opinions of most of
our sex, since it has been pushed for fifty years by as able a woman andas
popular a one as Miss Anthony, and yet still remains a minority movement.
In these fifty years every other woman’s movement really desired by women
has succeeded. The educational movement (not necessarily the coeduca-
tional) is a magnificent success. And, by the way, I may mention here that
the heads of four of the most prominent women’s colleges are all antisuffra-
gists. The movement for property rights is so successful that even married
women now have more property rights than married men. The entrance
of women into all occupations and professions has been so great that out
of a possible 369 occupations over 360 had been conquered for our sex,
according to the census of 1890, while a suffragist speaker at the confer-
ence this week claims that we are now represented in over 4oo trades and
occupations. And the club movement —well, gentlemen, wherever there
are two women nowadays, there is a club. The remotest hamlet is no
exception to this rule. These movements have had no trouble in winning
their way, and they have not taken half a century to do it, either. The
woman-suffrage movement is the only woman’s movement in existence that
after fifty years’ hard work finds itself not only in the minority, but with
strong associations of women banded against it.

The suffrage movement is a minority movement even where it has suc-
ceeded. In Colorado, where I have been twice since the equal-suffrage law
I

TEUPAR Ran gaKeee 4a)
ral DATA buena ry >
Cert senate tls Hrs. ai

m

*

TOT ee A
AAA Aihara Al

~

 

 

my pase “cy

4), Poa !
RA AE ROO AR a
:

ap, p
ees.
. BS S35 Si Pe Sa ara

Se 3 - ees
i a a rea

 
   
  
   
    
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  

was passed, and where I have friends who are old residents, I have been
assured that the majority of women did not desire to vote, and have been
‘ndifferent ever since as to casting their ballots, When I was going to
Oregon last year, I had a most interesting talk with an Oregon suffragist,
who sought to dissuade me from opposing suffrage. I asked her if she did
not think that I represented the majority, and she said : ** Why, of courses
the majority of women here in the East are against us, and you will find
the majority out there against us, too ; but when they have to vote, they
will vote.” And when I reached Oregon I found that she was right in her
first remark, at least. The great majority of all the women I met there
did not care a button for the ballot, and a strong organization has been
formed there against it. In this connection I may add, as the success of
municipal suffrage in Kansas is often spoken of by the suffragist, that one
of the members of the standing committee of this Oregon State association
opposed to the extension of the suffrage to women, came upon that com-
mittee because, as she said, she had been living in Kansas under municipal
suffrage, and was so disgusted with it that when she moved to Oregon she
wanted no more suffrage.

The suffrage movement is a minority movement, too, in that the four
States which have accepted suffrage are not representative of our large
communities. Colorado by the census of 1896 had less inhabitants in the
whole State than the city of Baltimore ; by the last estimate, made by its
governor, it had just about 20,000 inhabitants in the whole State more than
Baltimore, which is not much of a margin. Wyoming’s total population is
less than the foreign population of Maryland, and Maryland is not a land
of immigrants by any means. The population of Idaho is far below the
number of colored people in Maryland. Utah (where the admission of
women to the suffrage can hardly be said, in view of the recent events, to
have elevated the character of the candidates) has less population than
there are negroes in Arkansas; and altogether the four States that have
equal suffrage, all put together, have fewer people in them (700,000 fewer)
than Chicago, and not half as many as New York City. Gentlemen, results
from such States, even if they were conclusive and positive, would still be
minority results.

Sut even in these States the results are negative. Colorado has no ad-
vance in legislation to speak of, no purification of politics, no improve-
ment of municipal conditions, no raising of working women’s wages, no
tokens of the millennial dawn whatever. Utah has sent Mr. Brigham
Roberts here, but he has been returned with thanks (through the efforts of
the women without the ballot), so that Utah’s effort to uplift the country
goes for nothing.

Wyoming has had equal suffrage for thirty years, yet nothing important

2ee

SS Se tlie eee ee eee

  

has happened any more than in Idaho, which has just begun the experi-

ment. Negative results such as these speak powerfully against suffrage, to
our mind.

I may be asked by what authority I speak for Colorado. I have here
letters from Colorado men, signed with their names and giving their opin-
ion as to the negative or evil results of suffrage in Colorado. It may be
said that you would prefer to hear from the women, and I also have a letter
from a Denver woman who signs her name to it and who shows up the
same evils.

I will read extracts from some of the letters I have received. I have here
a letter from R. S. Morrison, of Colorado, in which he says : —

One problem in the local politics of Denver to-day is the large number
of “women who vote under police surveillance,” and he adds : —

“I have conversed with a large portion of the politicians of this city and
they are unanimously against it. Still, in public utterances and in private
letters they are not willing to commit themselves to that view. They have
talked with me fully because they know I will reveal no names, but they
recognize the danger of provoking a vindictive vote when there is no issue
on the subject to bring out the vote on the other side.

“Women are fit to vote; no one denies their fitness. They are fit just
as a silk dress is fit for a mop — but the silk dress was made for something
better than a mop, and a woman was made for other purposes than those
of political contentions.

“The phrase ‘ purity in politics,’ as produced by the woman vote, will
raise a laugh wherever mentioned. They have quickly brought to the polls
the power to ape the vices of men and have produced no countervailing
virtues. They have been indicted for ballot stuffing and charged with
repeating, and when the subject is mentioned to that class of women who
still advocate the right, because to them the right means power, the com-
mon answer is, ‘We are no worse than the men.’

‘This answer is doubtless true, yet, madam, it is a fearful fall from the
promises they made when they appealed for the ballot, that they would
elevate and purify the polls.

“Tf the question were to be resubmitted to-day, it would be overwhelm-
ingly defeated.

‘Yours respectfully, R. S. Morrison.”

Now, they will say that that is a Denver man. I have just one word to
read from a Denver woman’s letter to me — Mrs. Joel T. Vaile. She says:
“He would be a bold man, indeed, who should claim that the municipal
affairs of the city of Denver are to-day in the hands of cleaner or more dis-
interested politicians than before the days of woman’s suffrage ;” and she
adds, with regard to the “testimonials” signed by Colorado legislators

3

eee oe ee a SS a esa S eos eee Nene

   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
  
 

Hf
AY

ea e

ee
BP cai eee tNRor

 
   
 

oh WNC 4 ial

   

     

Ve Ae
RO ate peer OE tes,

ARP

   
   
 
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
   

©

RCH I IRN ET A
AAA Ph a gparaaaetn

~ KA K
4

ALAS SLATE OPA OETA) NTO et pe i

 

.

AAACN MMM HNN

ui BENT

 

»

oa eS ae
: +5434 a pt ae BS cscs

ec Sh

and officials, of which the suffragists boast, that they are not by any means
spontaneous expressions of real opinion, but have been framed and urged
through by committees of women, and personally presented for signature
by them, the names being in some cases, to her positive knowledge,
‘“sioned with strong mental reservations and some after-grumbling as to
the kind of pressure to which the signers had been subjected.”

In conclusion, gentlemen, if you will excuse a personal detail, I wish to
say that if any woman in the United States needs a vote, I ought to be that
woman. ‘The suffragists ask for the ballot in the name of the self-support-
ing woman, who must be a bread-winner, not only for herself, but often for
others ; they ask it for the property-owning woman, who needs it on account
of taxation; they ask it for the temperance woman, so that she can save
those nearest and dearest to her from the saloon; they ask it for the club
woman, because her intelligence and interest in public affairs deserve it.
And above all, they ask it for the poor downtrodden single woman, who has
no one to look out for her or take care of her interests. Well, gentlemen,
by a freak of coincidence I happen to be a single woman myself, a club
woman, a temperance woman (though not a prohibitionist), a small pro-
perty owner, and a self-supporting woman these many years. And yet,
though I ought to have thus a fivefold longing for suffrage, I have never yet
been so situated that I could see where.a vote could help me. If I felt
that it would, I might become a suffragist, Aerzaps, but as it is I remain
with the majority of my sex, and I beg you to believe that we do not want
to vote, and that Miss Anthony, whose courage, whose devotion, whose
interest, whose determined perseverance we sincerely admire, is neverthe-
less not backed by the women of America, but is leading a minority move-
ment only.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Extension of Woman
Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
ciation,
Mrs. Ropert W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.ee ee ee eee — ——- . ee ee ee ti -s
eters tenets settee test Pe eee oS ee ee eee :

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  

As there is a new everything in these days, we suppose it was
inevitable that there should be a “‘new woman ;’ though why a new
woman more than a new man it might not be easy to explain, ong
our part we believe but faintly in ‘new woman ; we believe im
woman. We believe in progress ; we believe that new times call for
new measures; we believe that these are new times, and that it
behooves both men and women to prepare themselves to meet the
demands which the age is making on them. Men and women every-
where have been roused, we might almost say stung, into a sense of
individual existence ; and, looking round on their changing environ-
ment, they are asking a thousand questions to which as yet 110 very
certain answers can be vouchsafed. Woman is awake because man
is awake ; the keenness of the times has roused them both ; and from
both we seem to hear the inquiry made by the jailer at Philippi, when
startled from slumber by the trembling ot the earth and the flashing
of a strange light : ‘‘What must I do to be saved?” ‘The difference
between the so-called ‘‘new woman’’ and woman without that qualifi-
cation is that the latter would wish to be saved with man and the
former apparently without him.
The two principal questions which to-day confront society relate

to the future relations of men'and women and the education of the
rising generation. The allegation is freely made in many quarters
that marriage is a failure ; and no doubt frequently it is. None the
less, however, is it the case that no scheme that has ever been pro-
posed as a substitute for marriage merits a moment’s consideration.
It is easy to provide theoretically for the gratification of passion and
impulse, but not so easy by any means to show how by any union
less solemn and abiding than marriage the higher natures of men and
women can be duly developed and their lower propensities kept in
check. We do not look to any new women for light on this question;
but we do look to the best women of to-day to join with the best men
in indicating the higher path which the generations of the future may
tread. ‘There is a gospel on the subject which has to be preached and

Fee IHME IH ie

pee

1 7
emwre
ep eartical

MENS, 2-5

MAA ew

2
‘
r$
21
a
;
?
-
:
+

aE

oe
*
ty

nia
ee

no

a
Bea bs be bl pre

SAREE MNDBT Se a Se ee sap

So far as individual action can do it, enforced, the gospel that there is
more in marriage than for the most part poets have sung or romancers
dreamed, and that the failures of which we hear so much have been,
in the main, failures to grasp the true conception of it and to make a
tight preparation for the duties which it involves.

The hope of the future lies mainly in well ordered homes—homes
in which children are trained to be just, reasonable and humane, in
which they are taught to look with an intelligent eye upon the
phenomena alike of Nature and of society, in which they learn
lessons of industry and self-reliance, of honor, purity and self-respect,
and are guarded against the vulear worship of wealth and worldly
success. It is for the wise and noble women of our time to help to
make such homes, and it is for men to sec to it that they are worthy
of partnership in so sacred a cause. It is no time for any silly
rivalry or futile opposition between men and women, who are as
necessary to one another now as at any previous age in the world’s
history—nay more necessary. On the contrary, it 1s a time for
earnest council and vigorous co-operation on the part of all who have
the interest of the present and future generations at heart: and the
less we hear of the separate and conflicting claims of men and women
the better. There is ample scope to-day for the efforts of all, and if
any stand idle in the vineyard, it must be from lack of will, not from
lack of opportunity.

Apply for more papers to Anti-Suffrage Association, 13 Elk
Sireet, Albany, N. Y.

 

SSSyas

 

hm

3
oe
c)
4:
a
]
+.

OAD oy ee

rt
aM

rispetbbabsSen Ne

Mi

Airy

{Soh

_

KABA ANNA MOA

C

rtd AR aes i

=epee ssessses 55 a ee =) —— —. se AKER EC ECS : a Cee EO SOS
oi steseiesPiesrsrseatetie 852325055132 Stissistesises FSi sRiiseses sie seeeis ee ee eese es elvis tier

THE BULWARK OF INDIFFERENCE.

 

In spite of the immense array of arguments and statistics mar-
shalled by the opposing forces on the Woman’s Suffrage question, it
seems to me that one fact is too little considered. I refer to the fact
of woman’s indifference to the ballot. Tro quote the greatest states-
man of modern times: ‘‘There has never within my knowledge
been a case in which the franchise has been extended to a large body
of persons generally indifferent about receiving it !’’

Our ears are weary of the cry reiterated by the suffragists ;
“If you do not wish the ballot at least permit us to have it.’ Such
has not been the history of great movements! The will of the majority—
however perverted, however uninformed—holds the reins of power.
The suffragists must confess that in the Eastern States, at least they
are but a remnant.” In their own eyes, perhaps, Matthew
Arnold’s “‘incomparable, all-transforming remnant,’’ but their busi-
ness as a ‘‘remnant’’ is to convert the majority—then their cause is
won! ‘To remove woman’s indifference to a sudden and appalling
increase of burdens laid upon her is the only legitimate work of the
Suffragists! This besieging of legislatures, this worrying of con-
ventions, the din and clamor with which men of influence are
pursued is unworthy and unwise. Every Woman Suffragist knows
that if a majority of her own sex demanded the ballot, she would get
it. Men, nearly always chivalrous at heart, yield to what they
believe women desire.

WHY ARE WOMEN INDIFFERENT ?

The fact is, that the last twenty years has opened such new
avenues for woman’s activities, the arena stretching before her is
already so vast that even in her haste to beon an equality with man
she shrinks from the too-multifarious and bewildering duties of
political life. She has not yet attained the sure footing in her busi-
ness and professional life that could make her wish to grapple with
the most subtle and difficult problems the twentieth century has to
face.

What are her opportunities at present? From a recent census
bulletin it is discovered there are 1,025,525 women employed in the
manufacturing and mechanical industries of the United States ;
679,509 women carrying on agriculture, fisheries, and mining, and
268,726 in the professions, 245,230 of which are teachers. Insteno-

EE EEE LIE a oe a ee aeaye?
rar vari art a ara

vr

AA ie PA ge ee
athshe ne tieaehed a te eee

AAs aha aesaenie Aaya

¥

»

ea

RU PLRAASEabs Loa SUSae is Se teas ee Sete tee es fedede So Ssle re se less Fe ess Tepe se tee ess Pere te eee eye eee eee ee Ces

graphy and type-writing women out-number men twotoone. ‘There
are 129 butchers, 191 carpenters, 83 undertakers, 24 hostlers,
4 locomotive engineers, 59 blacksmiths, 2 auctioneers and 1 puot.
There are 237 female hackmen, 3,949 actresses, 1,235 ministers,
4,555 physicians, 337 dentists, 208 female lawyers, 22 architects,
888 journalists, 6,714 literary and scientific women and 10,810
devotees of the arts. In addition to these are the hosts of those in
older occupations, boarding-house keeping, store-keeping, dress-
making, and domestic service. It will be seen women do not need
the ballot to give them a chance to earn their daily bread !

There are deep causes for the indifference of women to political
duties. Active, eager-hearted women pushed by circumstances into
the world find their hands more than full in learning to equip them-
selves for the new careers opened to them in the last twenty years.
They are willing to leave to men the field which is peculiarly their
own. The exigencies of the time demand a division of labor, and in
the political field women are not unmindful that men have in the
main been quick to protect their interests. But it is not among the
professional women, the business women, the working women where
the bulwark of indifference may be said to be the strongest. It is

peeme

ainong the thousand home-keeping women of the state, whose busy
lives are filled with daily service along the traditional lines of “good
mothers,’’ “‘good neighbors,’’ ‘‘good wives,’’ where the indifference,
nay shrinking from political burdens, is the greatest. It is this
inertia which our friends, the Suffragists, must overcome! Can they
do zt? Until they have touched what may be termed the heart of
the Commonwealth, their cause is not won !

es reir
Pe Hine AA

er m

In the closing years of this century, in some respects more rest-
less and turbulent than preceeding ones, the bewildered spirit, worn
by the jar and fret of endless controversy, finds solace and hope in

this bulwark of Indifference, which, representing the conservative | £
° - e e

instincts of the community, stands as a safe-guard to the reckless | t
encroachments of a ‘‘remnant’’ of the people ! ‘e
i Roe =

 

~

ell again one ene

SA a at

oo

- — Ree oS eae a al
SeOrica eras

ye

POTD te Bt NT ity Mtl 4 ah.

Pha

    

YARN hy

ry

vant

atatentaee

EOS

Ale

on
Bal vel foe 47 Ae bape
EA

AA IRR rea

 

       

~Masi se oe saeis eter ise teteseh pede Seieiere se iese Fe se sere ye se tess yet eter et eree es erese eee se eles siete Te

A REMONSTRANCE.

AN ADDRESS BY MISS FRANCES J. DYER BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE ON ELECTION LAWS, AT THE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JANUARY 27, 1903,

[ appear before you this morning because I do zo¢ own property,
because I do mot pay taxes. I stand here as the representative of
a large class of intelligent wage-earning women, who feel keenly
that we should be discriminated against in the legislation pro-
posed. Why should there be set up against us, who by force of
circumstances are compelled to earn our living, the purely arbi-
trary and artificial distinction of property ?

Has the time come in this grand old commonwealth —a state
I am proud tocall mine by adoption — when intelligence, capacity,
executive ability, fitness to deal with important measures which
affect our homes, our schools, our churches — when these things
count for nothing against wealth? Many of us who are wage-
earners have gloried in the sense of independence from false and
artificial barriers here in Massachusetts. We have not been os
tracized socially, as women often are elsewhere when obliged to
support themselves.

A large majority of us are glad to live and work under the laws
which you men make. We have the confidence, based upon our
experience of your justice, that you have as sincere a desire to
protect our interests as your own, because you believe with us
that in our American society the interests of men and women are
identical. Whatever militates against the welfare of one sex is
detrimental to the other. For here, in our favored United States,
men and women are regarded as equal.

Now you, gentlemen, oppose class legislation of any sort for
yourselves. You oppose it because it is undemocratic, contrary
to the fundamental principles upon which a self-governing nation

hei ile:
WRU AIEEE

Mad

reo eieibod hit IT rh
HEL Uuh Aly

Caisse
rerio
RU ar

Re cath

Senesitebitian.«

oa

PARR IL PEE Hie aba

eeiiteniiiiideieeniaie —— — = = a a a ae ee
sii = 7 = og mine eee 4 a eee
ee ae ee ee ee DARREN SEE S
EASES Ee — - 5

we st hn etee

f te
ee A i
1s
}

   

~

exists. Yet you are asked to grant to a mere handful of women

(as compared with our whole number) a form of class legislation

which you would not consider for a moment if a similar request

came from men. By granting this request of a privileged class,
ef b }., you erect a barrier of caste feeling between the women who hold
cf | property and those of us who do not. ‘This is not only undemo-
mi cratic and un-American, but is a direct blow against the noblest

| ideals of manhood and womanhood.

Already there are too many false ideas concerning what con-
stitutes true success in the world. Already more than is good for
| us, money and political power are made the measure of a man’s

value to society. Shall we increase this false notion by placing
ee | on our statute books a law in favor of women of wealth, the most

: ) of whom, no doubt, inherit their riches from some man who toiled

| lf and sacrificed in their behalf? Shall the rest of us, who struggle

\

   
    
 
    
  
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
   

 

 

 

for ourselves and yet manage (we humbly trust) to be useful and
} helpful members of society, be set apart as a class debarred from
IN influence, because we do not possess houses and lands and stocks
q and a long bank account? Such distinctions are utterly repug-
, nant to every right-minded American. The assumption that all the
eo | power in this world comes either from the possession of wealth
L or of political influence, is pernicious in the extreme. We do not
) wish in this free country to build up an aristocracy of wealth.
‘ We sometimes hear it said that such an aristocracy now exists.
; | But, at least, we have not the shame of enacting laws to create
S | and perpetuate an aristocracy resting on a foundation so alien to
r | American ideals.
| What makes this proposed measure especially unfair to wage-
» pl earners is, that it asks for the creation of an artificial distinction
| between different classes of zvomen such as does not exist between
‘i | different classes of mez. To be just and consistent, if the ballot
is granted to women simply decause they are tax-payers, the same
restriction ought to control the ballot for men. A property quali-
fication for one sex and not for the other can hardly be called an
exponent of equal rights. And to ask that women tax-payers and
no others be allowed to vote, is to make the accident of wealth,
and not intelligence and character, the basis of political privileges.

e

Dg

dea Asie,
ees Bh ee |epeeecees Citetsnsest2ei22%50512-12itz ests ieistsestaraisieisesiassearitiessatserecise ESET ESE eseig sa eTeTeteT

i

We further believe, gentlemen of the committee, that the pro-
posed measure will be, in the phraseology of the suffragists them-
selves, only an entering wedge for granting universal suffrage to
women. ‘Therefore, we further object to it on this ground, for
this would shift the basis of our government from the family as a
unit to the individual. So fundamental and important a change
as this we believe would prove inimical to the highest interests
of the home. On this point, an editorial in the Mew York Times,
last August (1902), says : —

“That such a change would be in the interest of the extreme
form of Socialism, there can be no doubt. Is it not time that
American voters should consider seriously the question whether
they are prepared to shift the Republic from the solid basis on
which it was established by their forefathers, to the untried and
visionary grounds proposed by the Social Democracy of Europe?
It is to such a change that every measure in favor of giving polit-
ical rights to women tends.”

Year in and year out, for a whole generation, Massachusetts
has persistently refused to amend her constitution by eliminating
the word “male.” This repeated action by a State which is con-
spicuously fair and generous in its treatment of women — the
State which insures the most favorable conditions for us wage-
earners — is certainly most significant.

Moke) aula ae
Mista ee is

5

I can only affirm in closing that something is wrong in our
ideals, if we are not willing to trust our fathers, brothers, husbands,
and sons with certain of our interests. As John Bright once
said, ‘‘ If the interests of women are not safe in the hands of their
fathers and brothers, it is not the fault of our laws, but of our
non-civilization. (It is worthy of remark that John Bright is one
of several eminent men who, once having favored woman suffrage,
afterwards changed his mind.) . . . From my experience as a
wage-earner for thirty years, and from observation in various posi-
tions which have given me a somewhat wide range of observation,
I am ready to acknowledge the uniform kindness and courtesy of
American men, their readiness to listen to every reasonable ap-

a ee
a5
25
Pe
ise
‘2
yee
(tes
e
a
Mee
Z
i

Aes
AUT th Sia

Arak ist

mere settee inher ta
Nutr shochu tal

* nit 2 —_ eS ee ee a i hh
: io a BE BE a ee he
7 eae ep z= eS ae ee as :
ede ee hie ie le a ae ep ee a ae a ele E 5NYA Ta A ie FARR MO) gates 4

AMMO SN

“

Be
i
=<

a

PULA GAS BORE AAA SCANS

   

peal, to give generously and unselfishly the benefit of their wisdom
and experience in matters which they are more competent to
handle than we women are.

e e

So, gentlemen of the committee, I beg you to continue to resist,
as you have done year after year, this appeal of the few against
the many, and especially this undemocratic demand for class
legislation.

‘When the tumult and the shouting dies’
creasingly clear that the great silent majority of those of us who
belong to the remonstrants more truly represent the noblest and
safest ideals of government in free America. We appeal to your
highest manhood, believing that you will safeguard our interests

)

it will become in-

as sacredly as you do your own.
Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Extension of
Woman Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of
the Association,
Mrs. Ropert W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston:f ee re rs Pe rere ee ee ns Re ee ee ea a
i elesteeirsrseiterieses Sei soos te (RiStsesieeses Staisisiaes peeyeseresete teteietereiese tess

Extracts from the remarks of Judge
Edgar Aldrich, of Littleton, in the
New Hampshire Constitutional Con-

vention of 1902, upon the question
or. Woman Suiirace, im which he

brought before that body certain

paragraphs from an Address of the
late venerable Harry Bingham

ee ee Se ee ee a AE A aa AL eS Ae a a oa

  

caine ay a i 2 ie — > La EES 1:
isigie soe

   

ho, ie y

tht, ar

no
=
i
oS
eS
| by
Hes
a
ty
$3
30 G
a
i
Le
ft
ER
io.
i 37
iy
‘ <A
1S
a4
LES
} pipe
1 pea
ex
Ay 2
i 9 ces
ee
os
} a a
7 fit *
oe
| x
| A
my
ics
at ¥j
haa
“Al
Ate i
Ss
i Diss
Vex
Ady
Vers
125
By
o>
(Pex
Le
Pa
£5
3
4 Lo
a
dy
ideas
Ve
Ze
cae
i x
Se
Ess
as;
ax
t
4 ie
is
=

e
zi 3.
=
FA
ae
e
a
Si
ai
z

sh ade Ne

ont it
A RN‘=I
ay
et
-B
IE
ee
Ss
te
i
a
A

EHS

3

TM ALAT.
Ab ae Ue ty

"
rit he

MRD AG LG

i

Deer

MaKe Agi yi si
astPoe g Ss osssssescs Ce RE SEES EE SSR Te AA ci aaa : : 5
She Sie pedi te tees ee eet eed Seda deseStie Te Sele se ye sess Terese bese ie peter FEET ESOT ESE SORT eT ERC

Tt Ste ot a fe eee

Mr. Avpricu, of Littleton. Mr. Chairman, I deem
it a very great misfortune to myself that I am drawn
into:the discussion of this question this afternoon. I
deem it unfortunate for myself, being in opposition to
this measure, to be obliged to state my position in five
minutes, because if a man finds himself in opposition
to the women, even in the little things of life, it re-
quires more than five minutes to explain why he is
there. [Laughter and applause.] But to be serious,
the proposition is startling that a question which in-
volves the overthrow of one of the pillars of our civic
structure should slide through this Convention on
grounds of chivalry with a five-minute limitation upon
members desiring to state the reasons for their action
upon so important a measure. If I am in opposition
to the proposition to strike the word “‘ male”’ from the
Constitution it is not because I deem women as a class
less intelligent than men, nor is it because I deem the
sphere of woman less important than that of man.
[ accord to no man a higher appreciation of woman-
hood than I hold myself. My belief is that the sphere
of woman in the world is just as important as that of
man. The function of woman in working out the des-
tinies of the home, the destinies of the state, and the
destinies of the nation, is quite as important and more
exalted than that of man. Man receives his inspiration
from woman, and he governs his actions by the judg-

ment of woman, as he finds it in the home. I doubt
3

ee

ee

Fi
re
#3
by
£5
t
ibe
Fog

Pe ie St te oe ie ee ae SREB OTE STII OE TOE TR A PR ER Ml a1 dl

Son PA he ek i LaLa Lon
Te Aaa ici aru i

PLINY

é

MO es AH,

PUN cates U Mr, ot mAh»

ma mn

AAA Pres

CFE
\y 9?

ANALY SUAS PANNE YEN

  

   

whether the function of woman would be as important
in the affairs of life and the affairs of the nation if she
were thrust into the tumultuous turmoils incident to
the town meetings and the ward meetings. I doubt if
the world would get along as well as it is doing now
if the position of women in respect to the home and
to voting were changed. Woman’s sphere is not to
walk elbow to elbow with man into the strife and the
tumultuous turmoils of the town meetings and the
wars! Man’s inspiration, pride, and action largely
depend upon his respect and appreciation of woman.
I doubt very seriously whether man’s chivalric appre-
ciation of the inspiring and beautifying influence
of womanhood will remain through many generations
if woman shall relinquish her exalted position —her
supreme point of vantage — and come down into the
struggles of the country and city voting places. It
will lower the woman and antagonize rather than ele-
vate the man. It would disturb the serene security of
motherhood, and no insistence upon the idea of the
abstract right of women to vote can compensate for
such a loss as that. It must be remembered that con-
ferring the right to vote imposes the duty. If bad

DS

women exercise the right to vote, all women must, or
the equilibrium in voting will be wholly lost.

I shall not say anything more upon this question, but
I ask the attention of the Convention to a few para-
graphs from the address of a very distinguished and a
venerable man who sat in this hall for many years.
He was one of the grandest men I ever knew, one of
the most tolerant, one of the most learned and philo-
sophical. I refer to the late lamented Harry Bingham.
His respect for motherhood and the home was sublime.

4ei SIE SR is Lede s ESE eee Tee ETE SOEETE SEIU SESE SESE SEDUSS Pees Tes ere re VeeeT er ereses ee, PSESEIS,

we ees

I remember hearing him say that great nations were
impossible without great men, and that great men are
possible only where great and good mothers preside
over the childhood and the home. The address to
which I refer was delivered before the Grafton Bar
Association a few years ago, and I ask the Secretary to
read the paragraphs which I have marked, and I make
them a part of my remarks upon this question.
(The Secretary read :—)

There are some things that without doubt will always remain
for the men to do, while other things are left exclusively in the
hands of the women. Women will never be called upon to
carry the musket or to dig ditches: certainly not except in
extraordinary exigencies. The household, the home, the fam-
ily, are the proper dominion of the wife and mother. There
she should be supreme. War, invention, discovery, the subju-
gation of the wilderness and fitting it for civilization are the
business of the men. In a vast number of employments it is
not likely that a definite line of demarcation will ever be drawn
between what shall be done by one sex and what by the other.
No doubt some occupations always will remain open to both
sexes alike. No superiority of one sex over the other is im-
plied because in some matters the services of one are preferred
to the services of the other. The sex enabled by its peculiar
powers to perform a given work better than the other sex can,
is preferred and ought to be preferred.

There are questions more or less discussed at the present
time about the ballot ; whether or not that should be given to
woman, and whether or not her participation in such business
would be congenial to herself and tend to promote human
progress. ‘The class of women (to whom allusion has been
made already as of no account) prancing along on the divi-
sional line that society has fixed between the sexes as to man-
ners and costume, putting on mannish airs, garments, and head-

5

il ee al Ss rr ae. a a i
Se a ae
aE A Ee ee a ie a fan soe coae ,
PU a aA ar tartar

 

wae ry

Tet
thy hatha

cear, and exhibiting only faint traces of what would indicate

    
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

ff ‘ the sex to which they belong, are extremely urgent and vocifer-
a ous in their demands for the ballot. Although it must be
a ' admitted that there are some women and perhaps some men
i EE h of character endowed with large intellectual powers, who sin-
sf ff o cerely believe that the whole domain of politics and govern-
e | j ment ought to be thrown open to women the same as ItAS £0
E e men, that women ought to have universal suffrage and be eli-
E | cible to all the offices in all departments of the government,
E. ot and to all positions in every branch of business ; yet much the
A } . larger part of the sober-minded, sensible women do fot regard

it as their duty to seek such an extended opening for female
action. On the contrary, they denounce the idea and say that
it calls upon them to do what does not belong to them to do
é according to the natural and proper division of work between
iN the sexes, and that they might just as well be called upon to
carry the musket or dig ditches.

The propriety and rightfulness of thrusting upon women all
the turmoil, uproar, and unseemly strife that the carrying out
of such an idea would involve is certainly very doubtful. It
would not enable her to use her natural and legitimate influence
to any better advantage. On the contrary, it would place her
in an unnatural position and where she would not feel at home,

 

fc and thus she would. be compelled to exercise her wholesome
r and necessary influence at a disadvantage. Her influence to
. | be effective and useful must operate through the natural chan-

nels of female influence and in accordance with the laws of

her being. The suggestion that we ought to wait until the
. hf human race is further advanced in light and civilization before
ee we thrust upon woman the responsibility of the ballot fully
| 7) ear extended, and of running the government in all its branches,

is certainly reasonable. The intimate association of woman

VIAN Sp aa LSS NPA Tah

with children and youth, the deep interest she feels in their
welfare, and her special responsibility for them, have caused
everybody to agree that she ought to have a potential voice

6

 

TSE OTH)

"
eet bee

ahs

Bu

a Parga MN

=
=
:

ot

aEe LSteasi eis te Seerererertees etadeseserers sevese tote si seresetes ere rtet eter e

re

in their training and education. In accordance with this gen-
eral popular assent, a movement was inaugur
ago by which women have been mad

school meetings, and eligibl

ated some time
€ competent voters in
€ to the offices which have the
Management and control of the schools. .

Certain Rocky Mountain states and other We
imposed upon their women the responsibil
of taking an equal part with the men in administering the goy-
ernment in all its branches. This movement must be regarded
as simply tentative and experimental. We shall do well if we
watch it long enough to be satisfied as to its character. We
shall then be able to draw inferences that may aid us in deter-
mining what we ought to do. It will no doubt be a good dis-
position of this question if we leave it to |

stern states have
ity of the ballot, and

»€ determined by the
next generation. We have shown already what that generation
is expected to be. We have shown that in it and a part of it
will be the sons and daughters of mothers who are now girls
receiving training and discipline in our numerous institutions
for the higher education of women. We have a right to ex-
pect for this reason that the next generation will have the
capacity to judge in regard to this and all other questions more
wisely than we of this generation can. Also, facts bearing on
the question now unknown will then have come to light. The
results of the experiments now going on in the Rocky Moun-
tain and other Western states will then be known, and the evi-
dence presented to the next generation may remove all doubt
and make very plain the way this question ought to be decided.
What gives the question importance is the effect that its deter-
mination either way may have upon human progress. When-
ever it shall come to pass that the level-headed, sober-mminded,
sensible women substantially concur in the conclusion that

woman never will have her normal position in organized society
until she has the ballot and takes equal part with man in gov-
ernmental affairs, and that the welfare and future progress of
the race require her to assume those responsibilities, in the in-

wl

ee
ST ee
Uy

beeen een Ae

+

Ay

7

«elt eis

en Rae GA ALA aL
4 aH PB RIES ws

as

Sa ee ee
Se eee ee et oe

Paes = a 3 EI OE Tae
: Le a ee — aT - ;
oe al ha ‘KH

Jae

x
Vy

EHH

Deir pit

"

TRAE AIA A

AAMT AHAN,

Mkd

Rome

 
 
 

terest of harmony between the sexes which must be preserved,
it will then be necessary to inaugurate and try the experiment
without delay.

In settling this question and all other questions as to the

position each sex ought to occupy in society, let it always be
remembered that man and woman are partners in the business
of maintaining and improving the human race; that their
joint obligation to contribute to the progress of the race will
continue until mankind have advanced in knowledge, virtue,
and goodness as near to Divinity itself as the lot of humanity

will permit.

Mr. Atpricu, of Littleton. Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to be outdone by the gallant gentleman from
Bow [Mr. Baker] in chivalric devotion to the fair sex.
[Laughter and applause.] I havea wife and a daughter,
and they are both opposed to this proposition, and I
am bound in making up my judgment to consider the
sanctity of the home. Everybody is bound to do that.
Now, in voting upon my judgment, I vote against the
unqualified declaration to strike the word “ male’’ from
the Constitution, because, if the proposition prevails,
the impression will go out to the world that this
Convention, voting upon its judgment, has declared in

favor of woman suffrage.
* * * * *

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to further Extension of
Suffrage to women.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Asso-
clation,
Mrs. ROBERT W. LORD,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston,Bees SESE S ESE Sb oie sists! i2i-it2ia ists vatarscaietasssesesatsestatstesterseieiesestscacararatstee

OUGHT WOMEN TO VOTE?

REPRINTED, BY PERMISSION, FROM THE GUIDON OF MANCHESTER,
NE.

AMONG the questions to be submitted to the voters of New
Hampshire, on the roth of March, not the least interesting is the
one of woman’s suffrage. Ought women to vote? At the risk
of being considered ungallant and being forever included in the
class called “old fogy,” we answer that question, No.

We have read with a great deal of care the abundant literature
the suffragists have supplied during the last few months, and
must confess that to our minds the petitioners should be given
leave to withdraw, —with all the honors of war, however, for
they have fought a gallant fight, but they have not proved their
case.

The first argument usually adduced why women should vote is
that in intelligence they are equal to men ; that in conscientious
discharge of duty they are equal, if not superior; that in the
moral and economic condition of the country they have as much
concern as have their husbands, sons, and brothers. Granting
all this, still it does not follow that women should vote, It only
proves that they would do as well as the men, not better. We
still have the abiding belief that there is enough intelligence,

Rigs
ex
;
‘|
rl
5
ey
sn
23
3%
45
Aes
2
I
dss
ia
16
2
;

honesty, and morality among the male portion of the community
to regulate its affairs without having to call in the help of the
women, by giving them the unrestricted privilege of voting.

‘‘ Privilege” of voting ? we hear some one say, “the right,” you
mean. No, we do not mean the right. Those who set out to
have women vote achieved a master stroke when they invented
the term ‘“‘woman’s rights,” for where is there a living man who
will dare refuse woman her “rights?” And how many a doughty
champion she can enlist when her rights are endangered or as-

= es ae
7 a = “= SE RE Ps Rc EE PE
asian . . . ae - ee
- - ie 7 i a -
ale Kote NS RR ee ; 7SSM FADER DSTO

R
RNA ON ERAT ieee
PADUA DPD

(4

PARR AN MMS Pe

‘en,

a
eS
=
S
eI
be
be =

3

PTET

GR erm

}

|

sailed !. In such a conflict we, certainly, would not wish to be
numbered among the cads. We simply hold that voting is not
an absolute right of women nor is it an essential part of citizen-
ship. The constitution of our country guarantees to her citizens
only “the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Nowhere is it said that the right of voting is included. Univer-
sal suffrage never prevailed in this or in any other country. The
separate states may make and do make the conditions necessary
for voting. Sometimes the state requires the ownership of a cer-
tain amount of property as a qualification to vote ; sometimes it
is the ability to read and write ; then there are such conditions
as a residence in one place for a given time, registration, and the
like. If the state wishes to add the qualification of sex, this, in
itself, is no infringement on right.

But why should sex disqualify one from voting? Man and
woman God created us, and it is neither possible nor desirable
that we should overcome the barrier of sex. That sex is an ob-
stacle to voting is seen from the nature of woman and the con-
ditions required for civil government. The last resort of law is
force. Now, woman by her very nature is pacific and is incap-
able of maintaining those laws when necessity arises. Woman’s
peculiar attribute is that of maternity, and by reason of it she
enjoys privileges and immunities which are denied to men. Her
sphere is the family, and love, not force, is the source of her
power. She is exempt from the duty of holding public office,
from the discharge of judicial and police functions, and from
military service. None of these could be performed by women
without violating the proprieties and safeguards of female purity
and delicacy.

Aside from the question of right and of justice, there is the
question of policy and expediency.

It is alleged by those asking for this suffrage that women are
under certain legal disabilities which are unjust and burdensome.
We answer, men are by no means insensible to the rights and
privileges of their mothers and wives, sisters and daughters, and

are ready to redress any wrongs to which they may be subjecteden

in a legal sense as promptly and effectively as they would resent
any wrong inflicted upon them in the social or moral order.

It is claimed that woman, by her vote, would correct the great
evil of intemperance. We wish she could; that in itself would
be sufficient to overcome almost any objection to her claims to
suffrage, but we have no confidence in the promise. Men have
voted for prohibition before this, but they have not legislated
men into temperance. The suffrage of either men or women
or of both is powerless to restrain the animal appetites. Reform-
ation of society comes from elevating the moral tone of the in-
dividual, and herein lies the greatest power of woman. This
power is exercised in the home, not in political assemblies nor
at election booths.

It is urged that politics would be purified and elevated by
presence of women. In theory this is all very fine, but any one
who knows what practical politics are knows that these entail
the caucus and too often the bar-room. Instead of lifting men
up, she herself would be dragged down by such association.
Then there would be a new element of discord introduced into
the family. For the one woman who would vote from conviction
when that conviction was at variance with her husband’s, nine
others would follow blindly the dictation of their spouses, and the
consequence would be that the baser element of society would
prevail. We believe, moreover, that the vast majority of women
do not want to vote, nor would they exercise the privilege, were it
granted to them. For this is the case where a restricted suffrage
is already allowed them.

Our last appeal is to history. The suffrage movement is now
about fifty years old. During that time four states have given
women unrestricted suffrage. These states are Utah, Idaho,
Wyoming, and Colorado. A number of other states have ac-
corded them the right to vote for school committees, library
trustees, or some similar offices. Within the last six years
the suffrage cause has met defeat sixty times in twenty-eight
states. We naturally ask, What has woman’s suffrage accom-
plished in the states where it has prevailed? ‘‘ By their fruits

ae
2 3
es
Ae
‘
AE

nome
oar
Pa a ee

“pb beet eo

ne

ee a 2 ‘ Ee TN
a = <= : E . =~ p= ee Bs i a = = —
cI a ;:

ae ee

  

2 aT ie
Lit ein ¥
PIES err hieN E ahh

  
   
  
  
     
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
 
 

We AP it

tr ert Ai Mire. wi ie i, tobi

ye shall know them,” said a good Authority, many years ago.
Has this movement met the expectation of its friends and justi-
fied its promises? Utah still smells rank of Mormonism, though
women have been voting there for many years. Wyoming is

~~

TA MNCS hy

; cf by notoriously an ill-governed state, where gambling and vice are
CF | actually licensed by law. ‘The recent election of a United States

i ai ee : :

é B senator in Denver, where the members of the legislature sat with

A A

SA

revolvers on their desks, does not reassure us as to the prevalence
i of law and order in Colorado. Idaho has not, so far as we know,
any special claim for a model government. We have not heard
| of any emigration of women from other states into these Utopias

where their sex is expected to enjoy all the liberty and bliss
: promised from the exercise of unrestricted suffrage. But we

aA

 

7 | 5 have heard of election methods in these districts which make our

. i own campaigns seem like Quaker meetings. Our politics are

bi . bad enough, but if we would be spared this new misery let us

| :| add to our litany: “‘ From campaigns of hysteria, hatchets, and

)| hullabaloo, O Lord deliver us.”” We sincerely trust that on this
v 4 question of women’s voting, sensible men will vote No.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Extension of
cn Woman Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of
the Association,
Mrs. Rosert W. Lorp,
P. QO. Box 2262, Boston.

<TR

 

ep EC BT HE
LULL AAD dl

ey
pry

n _ a
Cie MMe On ir RNa on tery aSARLLSIULEICLELS Las sees gs Dose etead de Ped EeEsee TERT Tree eee eee peseseserese] ciege7 eaetsrerttes

/19,5u

EXTRACT FROM AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IN 1903
BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS FEDERATION OF
WOMEN’S CLUBS

BY MR HORACE ‘Gc, WADLIN

THE question most frequently asked with reference to the
wages of women is, “ Why are they not paid the same wage as
men for doing the same work?” Nevertheless, it is becoming
more and more the fact that, except in certain exceptional and
transitional cases and in certain employments requiring special
talent, professional skill, and extended education, women do not
do the same work as men, if the adjective “same” is used in the
sense of identical, as relating to the kind of work without regard
to its quality, and one of the reasons that women do not in gen-
eral receive so large wages as men is because they do not in
general do the same work. In many industries women do better
work than men and are preferable to men for various reasons.
They gravitate towards certain employments for which they are,
at present, better fitted. In these employments they drive out
the men previously employed, and while this operation is going
on, they compete with men for employment and undoubtedly for
wages ; but these are generally, under present conditions, em-
ployments requiring no particular skill nor extended training, and
therefore large numbers of women seek them. The time is ex-
ceedingly short in any industry during which women perform the
same work as men. The work best adapted to women becomes
not worth the man’s while ; he goes into other employments. For
the most part, therefore, women in industry do not compare with
men, but with other women, and this is one of the leading causes
of their lower wage level.

Again, the wages of women are affected by their lack of train-
ing and by the fact that the adult woman competes with the young

a

eT lty drht tiga
Wi Nab es

4 bi gS ER Da a
REE ANSE SE ESE a) ;eR et

 

SL ANPING) a

PRA OR RSM OA

4 oe mG ma
AveveuPLc ec ucusarelaialad ps

OEE AE

  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   

~

ae ee

as a rule, brings no larger reward to the
ainly open to her is mechanical
he fact that women have not

woman. Experience,
woman worker, for the work m
and routine work. Besides this, t
generally entered the higher positions of skill and trust operates
adversely upon their wage status. The man in industry has hope
of advancement; the woman, except to a very limited degree,
cannot as yet look forward to such preferment: she mainly looks
forward to marriage. Marriage generally takes her out of indus-
try. Not so with men. Women workers, too, are largely unor-
ganized, and are therefore unable to present the united front in
opposition to attempts to reduce or prevent the advance of wages
which to a greater or less extent is presented by unions among
men.

There is another economic reason for the lower wage standard
of women workers. Asa rule, wages, which constitute the price
paid for services, are fixed by the cost of production of such ser-
vices, and the cost of living for women is lower than for men, be-
cause, notwithstanding numerous exceptional instances, they do
not in general support others, and in many Cases the young
women constantly entering industry and taking the places of
those who through marriage leave it, are partially supported by
parents or relatives. More efficient training for the woman in
industry will raise the wage level of women workers ; the further
advance of women into the higher pursuits, operating as an In-
centive, will also tend in the same direction, and the industrial
organization of women workers will, in the future, do much to ad-
vance the sex industrially, as it will help to place them on an
equality with men workers who are already organized.

Printed by the Massachusetts Association opposed to Further
Extension of Woman Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of

the Association,
Mrs. Rospert W. Lorp, P. O. Box 2262, Boston.SALE Lil Cisse fe leisieae site ee aeie tases re feiegesiiesisseessy seartisieieistieiiresisretsratetsisepesesissarcrs2i32)- > ed

asaee
~s———
®

EXTRACTS FROM AN ADDRESS ON CO-EDUCA-
TION, BY ANDREW S. DRAPER, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNIVERSITY: OF <ILLINOIS, BEEORE ‘TEE
LPWENTIE-TE: CENTURY CLUB, BOSTON:

AxouT the only right our foremothers had was the right to live
and be our foremothers, Indeed, the law knew nothing of them
beyond keeping their marriage within the control of the king, or
the lord of the manor, until they took the step which conferred
upon us the high privilege of being here. After that, if by any
chance they had personal property, it became the husband’s abso-
lutely. So with real estate ; he could alienate it by deed or will.
Man and wife were in no sense equal before the law. Their lives
were legally merged in one, but the one was not a new creation:
the one remained the life of the man. And the law made him
about as troublesome to her after he was dead as when he was
alive. If he left any property when he died, she could claim the
income of one third of it, and no more, during the ordinarily brief
time while she remained his widow. If she had brought the
property to him when she married him, or if they had accumu-
lated it together, it made no difference. If he failed to sell it
or give it away in his lifetime, or neglected to dispose of it by
will, the law came in at his death, and considerately corrected his
oversight in his interest. She could not make a will at all. He
could give or will her property to his relatives. Her services and
earnings were his. She had no right of control over the children,
except in subordination to him; the income of their labor, as well
as of their mother’s, was his. He had the right to chastise not
only them, but their mother as well. Often the man was so sane
that he did not think of going to the limits of this insane law:
and sometimes the woman was so strong that he considerately
waived his technical right for considerations which were both
obvious and conclusive.

So long as all this could persist, no one, not even woman

—e

ae

=
25
25
te
bs
Be
ie
He

Sie

aia
EERE EE HO

aaa ein.

Ney eA ipscense a rence it

bays

ways A

NSS Se a

Leet

NAP le

ia ai i i ———————
_ es = g Om Sa a Nn arr
Ce aherself, could think of the education of woman. And it did per-
sist until democracy, without chart or plan or understanding of
what the end would be, merely obeying the conscience and using

i by the force of the mass, bore down the unbroken traditions of a

Te | thousand years. Our often-deprecated much legislation is en-
Si | . ry

em titled to the credit of it. The statutes of our many States, a

little here and a little there, copying and advancing upon one

another, have made the legal rights of woman about the same as
as those of man. Where not fully equal they will yet be made so.

No one can doubt the cause of this, for wherever democracy

ee has had any development in the world, even under autocratic or
a4 aristocratic forms, there the rights of women have been enlarged.
The opportunity has been so much larger and the advance so much

 

afk stronger in America than in any other land that we have become
| (A conspicuous in a world movement. But the movement is on all
} I over the world. It is one of the great strides to the high destiny
I of the race. Ill-advised selfishness was able to keep the mass in
: i} ignorance of natural right through long, long years, but the dawn

é of a glorious day came at last, and the sun of promise is now well
} ni up in the heavens.

Naturally there has been some illogical reasoning, some irra-
tional misconceptions about it all. Confusion about personal
rights and public duties has arisen. Because a woman has the
right and should have the opportunity to make the most of her-
self, it does not follow that she should serve in the army or the
jury box. It would be a brutal view that because she should
have the same opportunities as men for moral and intellectual

if advancement, she should be made to stand while a man sits in a

street car, or in any other way bear a man’s part in public places.

The opening of the advanced schools to woman has nothing to

do with imposing the franchise upon her.

fe Woman is by her very nature fitted for certain functions and

man for certain other functions in the social economy. Each

. | class of functions and the inherent rights of each sex claim as a

) ¢ right the best that the schools can give. But it does not follow

that each is to bear the same burden. ‘The essence of govern-

ment is protection. Voting, serving in the legislature, is sharing

ANIA NAS EPA)sRELLLITGSSe LL is Leds ded Les ST eee veTER ened ses epee Tey eee eee seigsisisizretissteraiseneserisiarstt:

in government. It is a burden, not aright. When it comes to
bearing burdens, man is to do what he can do best and woman

‘what she can do best. Man is the natural protector, the natural
voter. Physiological and social considerations come in. Be-
cause men do not always vote as safely as they ought, it does not
follow that women would do it any better. There is some reason
for fear that they might not do it as well. Because a few men:
and a few women want to change the political order of things,
and what seems to me to be the natural order of things, it by no
means follows that it should be done. When the majority of the
most substantial women want to take up the burden of managing
government, the majority of the men will doubtless be willing,
It is a matter of expediency, and if that time ever comes the men
will probably agree.

But natural rights are not. to depend even upon majorities.
They are to inhere in every one, and be enforceable by every one,
regardless of sex. Participation in government is not necessary
in order that woman may secure her rights. The sufficient proof
of that is found in the fact that the widest range of civic and
political rights conferred upon woman in all the world, or in all
time, has been given in this country, not by princes, or by judges,
but by the plain, common, blundering men. They do not always
blunder. Acting in the mass, and after discussion, they do not
often blunder. They have not blundered in this matter, for in
the social economy woman must bear responsibilities quite as
important to the common good, and claiming quite as high an
order of moral and intellectual aptitude, as the burden of pro-
tection against the external and internal enemies of the social
order which logically falls upon men.

ge

Se eeepc
Lue CTH Cant TT
sh NR RCEAUA HAR ted ge

prs

 

Printed by the Massachusetts Association, opposed to Extension of

Woman Suffrage.
Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of

the Association, ;
Mrs. Rogert W. Lorp,
P, O. Box 2262, Boston.

a = Se a a ae a
£ a a
Es —; m eat ea a = .
ee a eS as
pues ‘ Laer Gs 7 ed al Al mS y .
eS EE ee ee ee Lk SCREE aa aie
POA oe bie ae

we

Pr

HAA IA

AIA e-sa Ali atabraremhnse tt en tira.

a

<a
LAP

“aeeerics Te Parersrsi

Soedadidisissehd gidegs ogee is sisieter ies Geer eres eee ssasseaests pies sietereties

When Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the Rev. Phebe Hanaford, Clara
Bewick Colby, the Rev. Augusta Chapin, Mrs. Mary A. Livermore,

Mrs. Mary Seymour Howell, Mrs. Josephine K, eee Mrs. Robert

D
hea
MD
eal

C. Ingersoll, Mrs. Sarah A. Underwood, Mr: . Stebbins,

Trae tea)

Ne re a a ce ine a Sea
Ellen Battelle Dietrick, LVICIES « Cornelia Collj ins riussey, willie Devereux

~

—

Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage, the Rev. Sie Brown, Miss Frances

¥y
a

Bien Burr, Mrs. Chapman Catt: Mics Helen Ei Gardner, Mrs.

|

2
Mes
ee
34
3%
os
5
Ss
25
3
Hac
fa
re
2

Charlotte Beebe Wilbour, Mrs. Lucinda B. Chandler, Mrs. M.
Louise Thomas, Mrs. Louisa Southworth, Mrs. Martha R. Almy,

and other prominent women suffragists announced to the world that

te

hea

hey had constituted themselves a revising committee of the Bible,

~ ‘ Oo

Om

4

those texts and chapters directly refe tring to

C6

or at least to revise ‘
women, and those also where women are made prominent by exclu-
sion ;’’ claiming as a basis for their work that ‘‘ women’s political
and social degradation are but an outgrowth of their status in the
Bible,’’ no one deemed it more than the utterance of an illogical

disputant.

Be

renin

But ever and anon there crept into the press some article bearing

f fey
EON

reference to the fact that the revising committee was prosecuting its

feb

work. And yet the world wagged on in its old way without thought
of the tremendous effort going on in its midst. At last it took
orm and shape. The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse!
The woman’s Bible, or that part of it known as the Pentateuch, is
given to the public! In the introduction is a little fling at Bishop
Doane. He probably did not conceive that his name would go down

to posterity thus honored.

nea aay mena

Galas as
fa

salen

Fee a ce ce a a

Be ee ee ee eeeee

 

ey
soe

SSL ad

one

Sao

ane
Pew

,
Sp BMS Pom rae a near

Sg

be
’
2

 

 

   
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

 

see

The book of Genesis is the one first combatted. They claim

that when God said, ‘‘Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness’? that instead of the Trinity handed down to us there
were Father, Mother and Son. That if God created man in His own
image, male and female, then He combined Himself the properties
of both. It is said that the story that woman was created after man
and not simultaneously with him ‘‘ was manipulated by some Jew, in
an endeavor to give ‘ heavenly authority ’ for requiring the woman to
obey the man she married.’’ Mrs. Stanton says: ‘Tit tseevident
that some wily writer, seeing the perfect equality of man and woman
in the first chapter, felt it important for the dignity and dominion of
man to effect woman’s subordination in some way.’’ Mrs. Blake in
following out Mrs. Stanton’s idea says that in naming the mother of
the race ‘‘ ‘she shall be called woman’ in the ancient form of the word
womb-man. She was man and more than man because of her
maternity.’ (This is the point that the amti-suffragzsts insist
upon; and here is a law not laid down by man, incontrovertible, and
defining woman’s sphere in life as separate from that of man. )

The story of the fall is used to eulogize woman. Some “‘serious
doubt’’ is expressed ‘‘as to the forbidden fruit being an apple, as

none grew in that latitude.’’ But they console themselves with the

)

thought that some man says: ‘‘It must have been a quince,’’ as given
on page 24. Still, Satan had a profound knowledge of human nature,
and saw ata glance the high character of the person he met, ‘‘as he
did not try to tempt her by brilliant jewels, rich dresses, worldly
luxuries or pleasures, but with the promise of knowledge.”
‘‘ Compared to Adam, she appears to great advantage through the
entire drama.’’

We are reminded of a sermon we heard delivered by a country
pastor on the Prodigal Son, who was seen by his father on his
return, ‘‘ leaning on the picket fence, whereupon the father laid down
the newspaper he was reading, wiped his spectacles, and said,”’
ELC. 4Cte,

Mrs. Stanton comments bitterly on the cruelty and injustice of
Abraham and Sarah to Hagar, and Clara Bewick Colby takes her

to task for it; which shows that great minds do not always run inee ~

eG SSEGA Ss {SEL Csid igs less istsasses sid eda tie Sad eet eee ee eee eT eo

the same channel; but despite that, Mrs. Stanton goes on to say of
Rebekah that “she, too, is lacking in a nice sense of honor 2) amd
with a truthfulness that carries her beyond the littlenesses of sex,
she says of Rachel, her ‘‘ character for theft and deception is still
further illustrated,’’ and ‘‘ Potiphar’s wife surpasses all the women
yet mentioned in perfidy and dishonor.’’

The commandments are ‘‘ chiefly for men,’’ but the fifth one is

a surprise, as it refers to honoring the mother. Passing hastily on,

we notice that the ‘‘ chief point of interest in the parable of Balaam
and his ass, is that the latter belonged to the female sex.’’ Abraham
is summed up by Mrs. Blake in these words: ‘‘Like many a
modern millionaire, he was not a self-made man, but a wife-made
man,’’ as “‘ he gained wealth at the price of his wife’s dishonor.”
The promises of God of ‘‘ great fruitfulness ”’ suggest the statement :
‘Tf it had not been for polygamy and concubinage, the great har-
vest so recklessly promised would have been meagre indeed.’’ And
we find in closing this remarkable hyperbole: ‘‘’The utter contempt
for all the decencies of life, and all the natural personal rights of
women, as set forth in these pages,’’—the Bible—‘‘ should destroy in
the minds of women, at least, all authority to superhuman origin
and stamp the Pentateuch at least as emanating from the most
obscene minds of a barbarous age.’’

We think that the general reader will feel convinced that the
cause of woman suffrage will not be advanced by this effort of the
leaders to bring woman into prominence.

Apply for more papers to Anti-Suffrage Association, 13 Elk
Street, Albany.

es
=
By
#2
Fs
bid
=
oe
35
ee
a5
x,
Ss

pine.

Pete, "
bats

>,

, 2
oa ca ane tare
so I Sc SUR AR EOL

=

te

rely ie eT

Be SSSR

rs ; eS eee oe EL Aa et, el a ee
EE RE ee ee ee Ee aia 9MMA She

a eA PTAA ey ee PA
ANSP aA) Ai) saben,

LAA AP

ts}
et
E
o
ee
2}
iB
ies
53
a
4A

a
ee

Pe RET

»*
fier

SOUR et eR CAS

TaeGIES ASS E SES see EDDGS LSE hdeasaSaclds aELSL eras eee Seat eEEtaeee ete ete ee
/l0.3 (
A SUFFRAGE [ES
| AGE BESSON.
The Pittsburg ‘‘Chronicle’’ of January 19, 1897, contains the
following: a

Now that the women of Colorado have the ballot, they are
wondering whether it is worth much. A Colorado woman is quoted
as saying:

‘“The great advantage of suffrage is that it teaches women that
they are not one bit better than men. We've sat for years and told
men how corrupt their politics were, and men have smiled up at us
and told us how superior we are and how we should have suffrage.

b We've had a large and enthusiastic surprise party. Wewomen have
found that our politics are just as corrupt as men’s politics and
they’re just a little trickier. We’ve been at it two years, and we’re

scheming and making combinations and doing all the very things

we’ve been finding fault with the men for doing all these years.
“Ihe women of the better classes are getting disgusted and

drawing out of politics, just as our men have done, and the women

of the other classes have become enthusiastic and have gone into

politics just as their mankind have done.”’

Well, Well, Well! This is most suprising reading. So,

woman suffrage does not bring all the reforms, the joy and the
purity that were to be expected from the roseate views which were
expounded by advocates of giving women the right to vote.

that woman suffrage has developed even a trickier phase of politics
than was known when the game was played exclusively by men.

This is very sad. If it be true, it is manifest that the persons
who acted as though they were inspired when they arose to advocate
granting women the divine right to vote were not inspired at all,
but were singularly at fault in all their vaticinations.

Man is inclined to place woman on a pedestal and there adore
her, but if women will persist in going about predicting that granting
them the privilege to vote will effect the world’s regeneration and
then come out when the privilege is accorded with the confession
that politics under woman’s influence has gone from bad to worse, it
is feared that man will lose that absorbing affection he has always
felt for the other sex and will regard it as composed of very weak

and very foolish sisters.—Albany Levening Journal, January 27, 1897.

aenininution : en pgp 4 i we
GE NT a a a Nar amen .

LT iy
SPRL sds \ad Aygo AL

{

tainty Pieter LL ink T freer Jil

wt

ee
Geiss

ponerse

AY

tiie

Eble Metal emer

ry
ae

ca FRA Rene eee

Be SS REA Sos ueie 7 * :
ive vine baled

 

RN he
eke.

Leal iue

SR apapmaehiaty

¥

AA

a
=

a

h eteeers + fait val be Ai heRER TL. here
IRAN Pere Cen

”

a—

Pete te trict rigiviet:

ee

 

  

75, NO. 13

  
   

287 Fourth Avenue,

  
 
  
 

New York City

 
 

The

Outlook!

Saturday, November 28, 1903

 

The Women of America

Fourth Paper—Woman’s. Suffrage in Colorado

By Elizabeth McCracken

HE question as to the granting
to women of those political priv-
ileges now held chiefly by men,

of the imposing upon women of those
political duties as yet performed mainly
by men; the question of woman’s suf-
frage, in other words, unless it threatens
the immediate community in which we
live, is a problem regarding which a few
Americans, it is true, have the most
ardent possible convictions, either pro
or con, but in respect to which the ma-
jority of us in America, whether men or
women, are, if not indifferent, still some-
what neutral. This neutrality is the
result of a real perplexity. Mere pres-
entations of the problem fail to compel
our instant interest; do not succeed in
gaining our vivid attention.

We go to hear the suffragist’s speech ;
her burning words leave us cold. Why
has she not melted us to a belief as fiery
as her own in her solution of the problem?
The anti-suffragist, before the echo of
his antagonist’s words has ceased, replies

to her address. We hear appreciatively
his brilliant oratory; but why do we not,
illumined by its light, pledge allegiance
to his answering of the question? Open
to conviction, we find ourselves curiously
unconvinced; always ready to “listen
to reason,” involuntarily responsive to
it under other circumstances, we listen
to the very firmest reason concerning
equal suffrage, and are left but little im-
pressed, strangely unresponsive. Has
the abstract question so meager a vitality,
or do those persons to whom it is unmis-
takably a living issue err in their methods
of presenting it before audiences to
whose actual experiences it is unknown?
At a college settlement, one winter,
the girls belonging to a club in which I
was especially interested challenged an
Organization composed of boys of ap-
proximately the same age as themselves
to debate with them this subject: Re-
solved, That Women Should Vote.
Both clubs chanced to be unusually
interested in the question, and the chal-
737

oC
oD
e

PRICE TEN CENTS

:

   
    
           
    

OE “0

sindiieth teddies She dh ie. fi .
rod in Soe oe

a.

 
   
  
  
  
  
    
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
 

,

tt eet
eg tg ein: om To a a i hs aby ea

  
   

a Paid nga

ied Ae pur 3tal Oa hie , of PPL f veel ee yt otD
Aco Mh LEIA RCMME MADAME IAN SIA

 

Sh rste Sere

~-

 

 

'
{
f
E
‘
f
4 }
;
lt
ji i
f
'

 

>

4 The Outlook

éJe

lenge was at once accepted by the boys.
Their eagerness to argue the negative
side—which was, needless to say, the
side apportioned them—the exultation
with which they found and read anti-
suffrage essays, addresses, and even ser-
mons; the enterprise they displayed in
collecting columns of unfavorable statis-
tics; in short, the zest with which the
boys undertook to debate this subject :
Resolved, That Women Should oz
Vote, stimulated not only the girls, but
more than one resident of the settlement,
to really strenuous exertions in the direc-
tion of framing arguments for the affirm-
ative side. One resident who had the
privilege of Miss Alice Stone Blackwell’s
acquaintance actually contemplated call-
ing upon Miss Blackwell for aid, after
hearing a rumor from one of the girls to
the effect that “one of the boys had
written to Dr. Lyman Abbott!”

The girls lost the debate; to their
chagrin, and to my great surprise. ~Ar-
cumentatively, they had presented a far
stronger case than the boys; as even
those persons in the audience whose
sympathies were entirely with the nega-
tive side -admitted. ‘Logically, the
affirmative side wins,” I said to one of
these.

“Yes,” she granted, “ but the advisa-
bility of woman’s suffrage isn’ta question
of mere abstract logic.”

“Why not?” demanded one of the
girls.

“ Because it contains certain elements
of sentiment,” replied her opponent.

“ Please explain,” I asked, in response
to an appealing glance from one of the
defeated side.

“J mean,” the anti-suffragist willingly
replied, “that the field of politics is a
battlefield, in which the ballot is the
chosen weapon of defense and attack.
There is, among certain men and women,
a deeply rooted instinct which, in the
face of the most irreproachable reason-
ing, still tells them that the military life
cannot properly be lived by a woman.”

The girls had gathered about her and
she paused, looking into their earnest
faces. “ You understand what I mean ?”
she said, inquiringly.

“Yes” one of them returned, “ but
why should they have such a feeling?

Pies hal Na

[28 November

Are they afraid the woman will! hurt the
military life ?”’

“No,” said the older woman, quickly ;

“they are afraid she may hurt herself.”
When, presently, she was preparing to
go home, one of the girls, after a slight
hesitation, detained her. ‘There are
other men and women,” she said, ‘ who
have the opposite instinct, who feel that
the military life caw properly be led by
a woman. Zv%ey are not afraid she will
hurt herself. Which side is right?”

The anti-suffragist smiled a little sadly.

‘* Which, indeed |’*she exclaimed. “ We
must wait to know. Time, perhaps, may
tell; argument never can.”

This reply, and indeed all the other
incidents relative to that debate at the
college settlement, frequently forced
themselves into the foreground of my
memory during the weeks I spent last
winter in Colorado. For ten years the
women of Colorado have had the use of
the ballot; for ten years they have
been—to use the phrase of the anti-
suffragist of the settlement—living the
military life. Have they been of value
on the battlefield of politics? Scarcely
a day passes in Colorado wherein this
question is not answered, in the affirm-
ative or in the negative. A singularly
clear-minded woman whom I met in
Colorado Springs explained to me that
this diversity of reply is not unnatural.
“ Ten years is not a very long period of
time,” she said; “by no means long
enough to-form the basis of but one true
answer to so grave and many-sided a
question. Women in Colorado, in the
use they have made—and not made— of
their political power, have helped, and
they have hindered.”

It happened that when I reached New
Orleans, several weeks after leaving
Colorado, the National American Wo-
man’s Suffrage Association was meeting
in that conservative city, and giving rise
to considerable discussion among the
people of New Orleans regarding the
desirability of equak suffrage as an aid
in solving the political problem of the
South. I heard many impromptu dis-
sertations and arguments in connection
with the subject, one of which I remem-
ber with particular clearness,

One evening a group of SouthernAo se ae

  

1903] The Women of Atmerca 739

women and Southern men, all of whom
chanced to be somewhat Closely allied
with public interests of no small impor-
tance, were discussing the matter with
eager interest and earnestness. Know-
ing that I had so recently been in Col-
orado, they asked me Many questions as
to its influence upon public life and mu-
nicipal affairs in that State.

When they had put to me quite as
many inquiries as they desired, and after
I had given replies to the full extent
of my ability, there was a momentary
silence. Then, before the “ ball of talk ”
could again be “tossed on high,” one of
the company, who throughout the evening
had listened much more than he had
spoken, said slowly: “You have all
talked a great deal about the influence
of woman’s suffrage in public life. But
what about private life? You have
argued at great length about the effect
of the woman’s ballot upon other people.
But what about its effect upon her? What
has it done to her, for her? Itseems to
me that’s a pretty important part of the
question.”

The speaker was not an opponent of
equal suffrage. As he frankly said, he
was, on the contrary, inclined to regard
it, as a theory, with distinct favor; but
none the less, he asked, as I have since
heard many other persons, whether in
Sympathy with the one side or the other
of the subject, ask: ‘ What has the bal-
lot of the woman done in Colorado, not
to politics, but to that woman herself ?”
Has she, as so many earnest persons
feared she might, hurt herself with the
weapon; or has she, as no less large
a number of equally earnest persons
believed she could, -used that weapon
without any personal injury whatsoever ?

A period of ten years is, no doubt,
too small to serve as a foundation for a
single, comprehensive, and unalterable
answer even to the smallest question as
to the actual resultant effect of equal
suffrage upon public affairs in Colorado.
A new political expedient cannot, per-
haps, be fully tested in ten years. In
the life of a State ten years form un-
doubtedly no great fraction of the whole;
but in the life of a woman, do not ten

years mean a great deal? In one year
a woman may work such injury to her-

self as to make even so immediate a
reparation impossible. That the major-
ity of those women in Colorado who are
actively engaged in politics have hurt
themselves with the ballot, and hurt
themselves very cruelly, appeared to
me, during my visit in Colorado, to be
sO unmistakably apparent as to leave
little room for that doubt concerning the
matter which I would have preferred to
retain.

It had seemed to me at once interest-
ing and significant that women in Colo-
rado not yet old enough, legally, to vote,
gave evidence of such slight interest in
their approaching political privileges.
I met a large number of girls of varying
ages in various places in Colorado ;
most of them talked to me with every
appearance of sincerity concerning their.
imminent public responsibilities ; but
only one expressed an enthusiasm for
the political situation in her State.
Many of them were indifferent; and
even more said decidedly that they were
sorry they lived in a State in which
suffrage had been granted to woman.
One of these latter added in explanation
that “it created so much excitement.”

Stir up agitation it certainly does—an
agitation that is too frequently an end
in itself. Public life in Colorado is
hysterical. That women have, by their
attitude toward their political duties,
helped to make it so, is to be feared,
The simplest discussion of the most
trivial matter is marked by a breathless
tenseness out of all conceivable propor-
tion to the occasion.

I very soon found, in Denver, for ex-
ample, that it was unwise to put ques-
tions to any woman whomsoever, regard-
ing any public issue, if another woman
at all likely to disagree with her chanced
to be present. Instead of hearing one
reply, or even two differing replies, I
was obliged to listen to a long, excited,
and chaotic argumentation between the
two women pledged to opposite sides of

the situation. Very much more often
than once, I was disconcerted by an
impromptu debate of this kind which I
had inadvertently instigated.

A woman whom I met one day in
Denver was, as I soon found myself
reluctantly obliged to admit, a typical

PSN TEE EO EEL GEER Ee ae Bie ae, Be a eat
a BR Ee i ak = SS Ss, WRT IN RS

PE ES Seuss SESS SUAS TE Te SET EL CT ELST TT eT TTT ee

~

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
   
  
  
 
  
     
    

nine denen
Mt tion

    
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
   

* a Hc JAPA lemme idl PLS Ire Je
PHOENICIA Dire Crurer weer Canter erent tat

Pia

     
   
  
  
  
   
 
   
   

ati
ee ar at aN
po

- pitta

oS EIR tlwe

WE
eit 24

BOS, ON PATA i Pn A TY Ay
Feary snabarenh sen aalbvb bisa,

mW
a

ce
LAY Me

<P

vw

Ann, WA AAA
HA eae

 

Oe

RR 4c a

~~

 

 

aT % 8
a es orhe ss pi et stra Sat

740 The Outlook

representative of that particular group
of women suffragists in Colorado who
would seem chiefly to be engaged in
what my young informant plaintively
described as “creating excitement.”
Political power had intoxicated her ;
she reveled in it, not as a means to an
end, but as an ex! hilarating indulgence ;
as one conversation, in particular, W hich
I had with her, revealed.

The shops in Denver observe much
the same rules relating to employees as
the shops in New York, Boston, and

Chicago; hours, vacations, and other

kindred matters were very similarly
regulated. Merchants in New York,
Boston, and Chicago, as most of us

oe have not only agreed without ill-
feeling or resistance to ordinances better-
ing the circumstances of their employees,
but have in many cases been foremost
in suggesting and assisting these and
other reforms. Why might not this have
happened in Denv er? That it had not,
the woman who exulied in her posses-
sion of the ballot evidenced.

“ Have you been in to any of our
shops?” she asked one day; and when
I replied that 1 had, she continued :
‘Don’t you think our shop-girls are well
treated ?”

Grateful to her because she had intro-
duced a topic of such especial interest
to me, I agreed with much warmth.
“ How did you bring it about?” I then
questioned.

“ By the ballot,’”’ she began in an ora-
torical tone of voice. “* We women said
to the shopkeepers, ‘ You must amelio-
rate the state of your employees ;’ and
they didn’t dave to refuse. If they “ad
refused, we could have made them
=e because we have the ballot !”

“But why were you so strenuous?” I
asked, in genuine amazement. ‘ We
said to the merchants in the East, ‘Why
don’t you improve the condition of your
employees?’ Merchants are not neces-
sarily inhuman and unprincipled, In
the course of time many in the East did
what they could. Our saleswomen are
very well treated—”

“ You haven’t the ballot,
rupted.

“No,” I admitted, ‘‘ but we have shops
as admirably éonducted as yours—”

7?

she inter-

[28 November

“Qh,” she interposed, “I grant that
you may have influence, but we, we have
power we

She was, of course, perfectly correct;
but in the instance cited, has not infu
ence been quite as effective as power,
and perhaps also a little less crude, and
more than a little less rasping ?

The proprietor of a not unimportant
shop in Denver could scarcely speak of
the part taken by women in instituting
labor reforms in that city without irri-
tation. “They threaten, and call names,
and stir up such a needless commotion,”
he said. The owner of a large estab-
lishment in Boston said, on the other
hand, that he considered the State of
Massachusetts to be peculiarly indebted
to its women for help in improving the
conditions under which women and chil-
dren worked. ‘In the very nature of
things, women are more able than men
to offer practical suggestions on these
things,” he said, emphatically. In Chi-
cago another merchant, and in Cleveland
still another, spoke in equally enthusi-
astic terms of the beneficent influence
exerted by the women of the respective
cities upon labor legislation. The exer-
cise of political power on the part of
that woman in Denver who reminded
me repeatedly that she had the ballot
may have given to her a melodramatic
thrill not athetwise obtainable, but has
it made her any more useful as a citizen
than her co-worker in Boston, Cleveland,
or Chicago, who has not the ballot? and
has it not perhaps made her a trifle less
womanly? Has she not hurt herself a
little with the fascinating weapon ?

She has, it is true, brought upon her-
self a lesser misfortune; beyond the
weakening of her personal dignity, and
the blunting of her sense of taste, she
has crippled herself little further. Un-
fortunately, as one of her acquaintances,
a suffragist, told me, neither this par-
ticular woman, nor any other member of
her group, is representative of the most
powerful ee of women politicians in
Colorado. “She lacks s&7//,” said her
acquaintance; and then she pointed out
to me another woman, who, she said,
possessed skill.

As to the nature of that skill, I was,
needless to say, exceedingly interested.The woman in possession of it was of
unquestionable importance in the public
affairs not only of her city, but of her
State as a whole. Her friends referred
to her in phrases which, if vague, were
yet undeniably indicative of unqualified
admiration, ‘“ Whatis it that she does ?”
I asked.

‘“ Everything !”’ was the expansive re-
ply.

“In what way ?” I inquired.

“In every way!’ came the instant
answer.

When I had all but begun to despair
of receiving any more definite informa.
tion, one of the political enemies of this
woman, whom I was beginning to admire
for her obviously great interest in phil-
anthropic affairs, said to me, by way of
comment upon my somewhat enthusias-
tic tributes to so large an active interest
on the part of so otherwise overworked
a woman: “ Oh, but that’s a part of her
campaign plan. She does it to get
VOLES. «

This accusation I repeated to a friend
of the woman against whom it had been
made, in order that she might refute it.
To my astonishment, she said: “ Cer-
tainly! The people she helps will, of
course, vote for her! For whom else
should they vote? She has been kind
to them; she will continue to be kind
to them. It is for their own good to
give her their support.”

“ But, granting that,” I said, ‘isn’t
being friendly to them in order to secure
their support a sort of bribery? Isn’t it
Luying votes—with kindness, I know,
but still buying votes ;

“Well,” said my companion, “she
must “ave votes! You wouldn’t have
her buy them with money, would you ?”

She gazed at me in evident perplexity.
“If you prefer people who. are doing
charity work for the mere sake of doing
it—’’ she began. Without finishing,
she went quickly across the assembly-
room in which we had happened to
meet. After a few moments, she re-
turned, followed by a sweet-faced woman,
with the introducing of whom she con-

cluded her interrupted sentence. “ Here
is a person of that type!” With which
she abruptly left us.

An expression of bewilderment came

a Se

Bi NaS leo Ee a

Pigto ts tee tes tte ye sere se yrs Elere es te ters pe cote eerste pivieeese tete te teieie ts ete

  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
   
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

The Women of America 74]

into the face of the person of that type.
‘Do you know what she means ?” she
asked me, looking after the other woman,

“That you are doing charitable work
—I think,” I ventured,

My new acquaintance laughed, in
Some relief. “Oh! yes, I try to do al!
P can,” she sad. (oir isn’t much.
Charity work is hard to do in Denver ;
harder than in most cities,”

“Why ?” I inquired, in surprise.

‘‘ Because one’s motives are distrusted
so often; and that is a hindrance.”
She looked at me thoughtfully. “ Shall
I explain ?” she asked.

‘I think I understand,” I said.

Before I left Denver I understood
still more clearly. The woman who had
offered to explain to me the nature of
her difficulties in giving aid to those
who needed aid, told me a little concern-
ing her work among the poor of the
city ; but it was principally from other
persons that I learned how faithfully and
against what odds she labored. “You
see,” one of her friends said to me, sire
is handicapped all the while by the prej-
udice of the people she tries to help.
Half the time she can use for their bene-
fit she has to take up in overcoming their
very natural suspicions as to her possi-

ble ulterior object.”

One day, when I was calling upon a
family living in the tenement district,
to whom the woman who did charity
work for the mere sake of doing it had
shown herself more than once a true
friend, I said to the mother of the fam-
ily, “ Your friend is very good to you,
isn’t she ?”

“Yes,” agreed the mother. “I don’t
jest see why she is, though,” she added,
in a puzzled tone of voice; “she ain’t
runnin’ fur no office.”

It is not too much to say that had she
been a candidate for any office, the re
cipient of her sweetly given assistance
could not have been persuaded to a
belief in its sincere unselfishness. By
making coin of that most lovely of all
human virtues, charity; by regarding
the rendering of deeds of kindness as
the spending of so much coin for politi-
cal support, women in Denver, promi-
nently engaged in politics, have not only
lowered their own standards; they have

OE SO FO ee
= ee ee geod ha,

  

Ae ete be tele Ley.
A ih tar tab BP Aa “

      
 

  

 
    
   
  
   
    
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 

ie . jihad ais belied dite
plaka eed Se, ee beth et

mm
iO meena

ab

pear aan

sits

a A ao wt

ree

Oyo
pate ny . Citas

ns gail

er a

=

HP

ei
i=SDL YE

KORE TAME UNMIS aabal

“ ats reed , ;
WN, Rae A oe P : a A Le Sy Ake i
LV at asar tates i N i iN amy
ar rhe \ ‘ ; b,
oe s iM me
ag ail

LAE ETRY MTT NAAT Re
PTAA Saar OlL

SETA

 

~:

—
Rr ene =

i
.

 

2 morte pte thte =

&

742

lowered also the standards of the less
fortunate, the less protected women of
the tenements, who so sadly need, not
only aid which is not self-seeking, but,
as leaders in public affairs, women whom
they may revere.

“One must secure votes,’ I was told
again and again by women in Denver to
whom I spoke regarding this unlovely
method of securing even one vote.
“Would you have them bought with
money ?” I was frequently asked.

No other manner of obtaining the
political support of the poor was even
remotely suggested. ‘Ten years is but
a brief period of time. Perhaps at the
end of twenty years a new method may
be evolved. ‘To-day the less favored
women of Denver are skeptical with
regard to the single-mindedness of those
more fortunate women who offer them
friendship; and of these women who
have help to give, many—too many—
give it, as their friends are the first to
admit, with dual motives. These women
may or may not have hurt the city of
Denver and the State of Colorado; but
themselves—have they not wounded
themselves very deeply with the weapon
which they have chosen to wield ?

Also, by perverting the most tender
of human feelings to a hard and practi-
cable political use, they have become
less fitted to guide the children growing
to manhood and womanhood in their
State. I was present one day when a
large group of children learned an un-
consciously taught political lesson.

I was visiting an orphan asylum in
Denver, in company with many other
persons. Among these was a woman
deeply and unselfishly concerned in
public charities. As we went into one
of the rooms in which children of various
ages were gathered, she impulsively took
a little fatherless and motherless baby
in her arms and caressed it, with tears
in her eyes.

“ How sweet she is with that baby !”
I said to a woman standing near me.

“Ves,” replied the woman, with a
sudden accession of interest and curios-
ity, “she is. And I hadn’t supposed
she was looking for a new office !”’

A number of older children were so
near us that they overheard these words,

 

The Outlook

   
  
  
 
 
     
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
 
  
 
  
  
   
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
   
   

[28 November

They looked at the speaker, then at the
woman holding the baby; then they
smiled knowingly.

Until I went to Colorado I had sup-
posed that, whether women should or
should not have the ballot, women who
desired that ballot desired it because
with it they believed they could be more
efficient in public affairs than without it.
This I found to be by no means invari-
ably true of the women suffragists whom
I met in Colorado. I conversed with
one woman who has frequently, both in
her State and elsewhere, been men-
tioned to me by prominent suffragists
as one of the National leaders in the
movement. She said much that was
very interesting and clever regarding the
equal suffrage movement—which she
told me she regarded as a “sacred
cause.” Knowing that I was interested
in labor reforms, she recounted to me
the many ways in which a woman might
employ her ballot in the interest of such
reforms. “Strikes, for example,” she
said. ‘Had women in Pennsylvania
had the ballot, the coal strike might
have been avoided.”

The next day the newspapers bore
headlines announcing the strike at the
smelting works in Colorado City, I
immediately went to Colorado City, and
through the kindness of a school-teacher
made the acquaintance of the wives of
several of the strikers. They were
unanimous in declaring that the votes
of women in Colorado, whatever such
votes might do in Pennsylvania, had in
no appreciable measure helped to settle
labor difficulties.

One of these women, whose husband
was closely involved in the strike, asked
him to give me his opinion of the matter.
He reflected for a moment, and then he
observed, pointing out the window as he
spoke to the military encampment at the
foot of Pike’s Peak. ‘ Two hundred
and fifty armed soldiers is campin’ out
yonder; there’s a report that the strik-
ers is goin’ to blow up the smelters with
dynamite; there’s a hint that Cripple

Creek is goin’ to strike too; the Gov-
ernor’s comin’ over to arbitrate. All
them things is happenin’, but how many
women has been over from Denver to
look round and get ideas on how to vote; r Se ee ee ee a 5 Baa oP en
cs te tataPerseaterss sises2 DoLel tS eee seseeseeisecce

1903]

So as to Stop strikes +
one.”

This was his opinion and his entire
opinion. After giving it he went again
down to the village street, leaving me
alone with his wife.

‘“Some of the women in Denver will
perhaps come later,’ I said to her.

She smiled a trifle cynically, but said
nothing. I was in Colorado City once
each day, and occasionally twice, during
that first distinctly exciting and gravely
important week of the strike at the
smelting works. No women came from
Denver.

“Why do none of them come 2” I
asked the man who had so succinctly
described the situation in Colorado City.

“They ain’t got no personal feelin’
‘bout it,”’ he replied; “ it’s too far off.”

“Itis in their own State,” I returned.
‘Bach one of them can cast a vote af-
fecting the entire State—”

“Oh, yes,” he assented ; but ¢#az¢ain’t
what they’d call a personal feelin’. It
don’t touch sem, it only concerns us
over here.”

When I suggested that a personal
feeling in this very direction might not
be impossible on the part of the women
voters in Denver, the wife of the striker
said slowly: ‘No; but it ain’t probable.
Politics ain’t run that way.”

‘“‘ Not even when women are in them ?”
I questioned.

“No,” said the woman.

“Women don’t change politics as
much as politics changes women,” put
in her husband.

The longer I remained in Colorado,
the more truly did this remark seem to
describe the result in that State of the
use of the ballot by women.

That large public affairs are consid-
ered of moment by the women of Colo-
rado is unquestionably true; but that
these women are more absorbed in the
ballot itself than in the public service
they may render by means of that ballot
would seem also to be true. I found
that women in Colorado accepted with
difficulty, or not at all, the theory that
a woman could possess an interest in
public problems without being also in
possession of a desire for the ballot. I
discovered, too, that they were disposed

There ain’t been

reece

PSS ge Se bese eee SaaS eee eee Ee ee ee ee ee

The Women of America

PE ea Be ee eS

743

to repudiate the possibility that Ameri-
can men who do not believe in woman’s
suffrage are not therefore uninterested
in public affairs, but are no less anxious
than American women who hold that
they are entitled to the ballot that such
affairs should be conducted honorably
and efficiently, and to the end of secur-
ing the greatest good to the greatest
number,

The campaign policy of even those
women who are regarded in Colorado
as the most worthy, and who indisputably
are the most influential, representatives
of woman’s suffrage, is but too evidently
marked by self-interest. One woman
told me frankly, when I asked her what
argument or persuasion had inspired
her to so fervent a faith in the efficacy
of a vote, “ With a vote, a woman is of
consequence in public affairs.”

‘“ But may she not be, even without a
vote” I asked. “Qh, no doubt ce
turned the suffragist, “but she doesn’t
reap any personal good from it.”

Another woman, living in the tene-
ment district of Denver, who had been
telling me that she never had voted, and
to whom I had said, “ Having the ballot,
I should think you would consider it your
duty to use it,” replied greedily: “Do
yer think I could git enough out o’ usin’ it
ter pay fur the bother I’d have doin’ it 2”

When I spoke of both these circum-
stances to a third woman, she said, with
a short laugh, “ Politics, my dear, are
not conducted along altruistic lines—”
and she quoted a remark to that effect
made by a well-known Tammany man.

‘‘ But surely,” I found myself replying,
“the women of Colorado are not in
sympathy with Tammany methods!”

‘Most certainly not,” she said hastily.

‘‘Judge Jerome; do you regard his
political theory and practice as so lack-
ing in altruism ?”

‘Jerome |” she exclaimed, impatiently.
‘He is so extreme! And, bésides,”
she added, “ he is so blind to obvious
facts! He doesn’t see that the remedy
New York needs is the woman’s ballot !”

“ But—” I began.

“Don’t talk to me about William
Travers Jerome,” she interrupted. “He
bores me.”

‘“T should think he would particularly~

 

744 The Outlook

jd
e528

ind especially interest women actively

engaged in politics,” I could not forbear

12
adding.

« Vo one opposed to the ballot inter-
ests women who are in favor of the
ballot !”’ was the rejoinder.

Not the battle, not the battlefield,
but the weapon, is the chief subject
under discussion—unceasing discus-
sion—-among women in Colorado. he
ballot is used indeed as. a weapon, of
defense—personal defense ; and Ot at-
tack——even more acutely personal attack.
Into every incident, however slight, it
enters. Sometimes the entrance has a
diverting quality. One of the very few
amusing things which happened to me
while I was in Colorado occurred in this
connection. One day, as I was about
to buy a ticket from Denver to Colorado
Springs, two ardent women suffragists
whom I had met chanced to enter the
railway station. They kindly recom-
mended to me two respective routes,
dwelling upon the comparative pictur-
esqueness of each in such glowing words
that I hesitated in my attempt to make
a satisfactory choice between such an
embarrassment of scenic riches. ‘‘ Mad-
am,” said the ticket agent, in a voice
which betrayed a background of many
a curbed impulse of exasperation, “if
you spend much more time deciding
which of these two trains you will take,
you won’t have any time left in which
to take ezther of them !”

“When I repeated this to my two coun-
selors, they exclaimed in one breath:
“ He wouldn’t have dared to say that to
TESS

“Why not?” I. asked
pected.

“ Because we have the ballot, and
could revenge ourselves !”

Whether that ticket agent surmised
that I had not the ballot, and could not
revenge myself, I do not know; but |
do know that he was the only ticket
agent in the United States whom I found
guilty of rudeness. I cannot censure him
very severely; the waving of the ballot
is not exactly an incentive to suavity.

as they ex-

 

 

To the end of vindicating her right to
the ballot, and of assisting women in
other States to secure a similar political
privilege, more than one woman whom
I met in Colorado felt justified in using
very strange means. One woman, who,
in the strongest terms, had made to me
several statements in regard to condi
tions in Denver, which statements | after-
wards found to be incomplete, replied,
when I asked her why she had not more
fully described to me the matters in
question, “Could I be expected to give
you so excellent an argument against
the cause for which I stand?” Truly, as
I had been told in Colorado City, women
change politics less than politics change
women.

An earnest advocate of woman’s suf-
frage, to whom very recently I was tell-
ing something of these things in connec-
tion with the use of the ballot by women
in Colorado, assured me that the prin-
ciple underlying the question was not
thereby affected. If it be true that suf
frage is one of the natural rights of every
human being, thenits abuse in particular
instances does not make it less unalien-
able a right. If, on the other hand, it
be true that the ballot is a political ex-
pedient, it becomes a menace when it 1S
used to the ill of the State or of the
individual.

However suffrage may be regarded as
an abstract problem, it is not to be
denied that in Colorado its use by
women has, whatever else it may have
done or failed to do, brought grave dis-
aster upon those women. ‘The posses-
sion of the ballot, and the employment
of that possession, have hurt the woman
of Colorado as women can least afford
to be burt. Her ideals have been low-
ered: the delicacy of her perception of
right and wrong has been dulled. What-
ever good she may be able to render to
her State and to the Nation by her vote,
can that good, however great, compen-
sate for the injury which she has wrought
to that State and to the Nation by rea-
son of the blow she has dealt her own
womanhood ?eR

=

ESTERS Se ee eR ee ee eee ae ee IRE REE eta a ares a sig ils eens
3 CindeE Sc siSEl Sede se ese st eS eeS yey S145 eee re See gt STeLET Ese TESS eT eT ETE TTT CT eee Tee

WHY WOMEN DO NOT WISH THE
SUFFRAGE

BY

REV LYMAN ABBOTT, 7p

REPRINTED, BY PERMISSION, FROM THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, For THE
MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE FURTHER
EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN

Cetedee 4 05

SIS ET ie ee ee eee ers =

a Sao eee ee
aa ee a a

 

nO Srterrereys ri render tropa PET Ee terme
Py Ma ahr i se AAT RCH UCM nae aur ec Cea

~
mere ere mere ao

<_

PIT a ey TH
Lib hal Ra Met era r nt Eee

[)Ry eee,
Lait wena

em ava ne tat
toe

 

is aN \

ra Re
AAP ite

LAT RN
‘ ere

et ad

5 iG
ie
ee
ic]

‘T

Las

xt

Serene eucvon

Bi PUGRnean ae MME Ae EU Mba PA ep ‘ a5.

a

CATA EA»

Peers,
Rery

icicle ieicisie yest seit

WHY WOMEN DO NOT WISH THE SUFFRAGE.

In 1895 the women of Massachusetts
were asked by the state whether they
wished the suffrage. Of the 575,000
voting women in the state, only 22,204
cared for it enough to deposit in a ballot
box an affirmative answer to this ques-
tion. That is, in round numbers, less
than four per cent wished to vote ; about
ninety-six per cent were opposed to wo-
man suffrage or indifferent to it. That
this expresses fairly well the average
sentiment throughout the country can
hardly be questioned. There may be
some Western states in which the pro-
portion of women who, for one reason or
another, desire the suffrage is somewhat
larger; on the other hand, there are
Southern states in which it is even less.
Certainly few men or women will doubt
that at the present time an overwhelm-
ing majority of women are either reluc-
tant to accept the ballot or indifferent
to it. Why this indifference, this reluc-
tance? ‘This is the question which in
this article I seek to answer. Briefly,
I believe it is because woman feels, if
she does not clearly see, that the ques-
tion of woman suffrage is more than
merely political; that it concerns the
nature and structure of society, — the
home, the church, the industrial organ-
ism, the state, the social fabric. And
to a change which involves a revolution
in all of these she interposes an inflexi-
ble though generally a silent opposition.
It is for these silent women — whose
voices are not heard in conventions, who
write no leaders, deliver no lectures, and

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
   
  
  
  
  

visit no legislative assemblies — that I
speak ; it is their unspoken thought and
feeling I wish to interpret.

Open an acorn : in it we find the oak
in all its parts, — root, trunk, branches.
Look into the home: in it we shall find
the state, the church, the army, the in-
dustrial organization. As the oak is ger-
minant in the acorn, so society is ger-
minant in the family. | Historically, the
family is the first organization ; biolog-
ically it is the origin of all other or-
Abraham builds an altar,
and his wife and children and servants
gather about it for the evening sacrifice :
the family is the first church. The
herds and flocks are driven daily to
their feeding grounds by his sons and
servants: the family is the first labor
organization. He counsels, guides, di-
rects, controls the children and servants ;
the power of life and death is ‘in his
hands: the family is the first govern-
ment. ‘The brother is carried off in a
rasd by robber bands. Abraham arms
and organizes his servants, pursues the
robber bands, conquers and disperses
them, and recovers the captive: the fam-
ily is the first army. Moreover, it is out
of the family that society grows. As
the cell duplicates itself, and by redu-
plication the living organism grows, so
the family duplicates itself, and by the
reduplication of the family the social
organism grows. The children of the
family come to manhood, and marry the
children of other families. Blood unites
them ; the necessities of warfare, offen-

~ ~ ¥
AR a CREE

ene

ganizations.

mee eterna

as

URE HEU Ce aera

Bae a 2 are

ie Ba Soic il

ew
hath
ver auc

ee E weeeeyers

  
   
   
  
   
   
    
  
 
 
   
   
  
 
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
      
    
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
    

oe
a
CVn

Un Ae

ee erhe

SE

ORTON

.
ay

_ Pw

qi

Ee moO a

Rah A eg

ie

 

~

 

Fe ee 3 3 ete

 

 

 

- i

2 Why Women do not Wish the Suffrage.

sive and defensive, unite them; and so
the tribe comes into existence. For the
united action of this tribe some rule, some
authority 1s necessary ; thus tribal, state,
national government comes into exist-
ence. These families find it for their
mutual advantage to engage in separate
industries, and exchange the product of
their labor: thus barter and trade and
the whole industrial organization come
into existence. These families thus
united by marriage into one tribe, ce-
mented by war in one army, bound to-
gether by the necessity of united action
in one government, codperating in one
varied industry, find in themselves a
common faith and common aspirations,
in a word, a common religion, and so
the church comes into existence.

Such, very briefly stated, is the de-
velopment of society as we read it in
the complicated history of the past., His-
torically the family is the first social
organization. Organically it contains
within itself all the elements of all future
organization. Biologically, all future
organization has grown out of it, by a
process of duplication and interrelation-
ship. In the family, therefore, we find
all the elements of a later and more
complicated social organization; in the
family we may discover written legibly
the laws which should determine the
structure of society and should regulate
its action; the family, rightly under-
stood, will answer our often perplexing
questions concerning social organization
—whether it is military, political, in-
dustrial, or religious.

The first and most patent fact in the
family is the difference in the sexes.
Out of this difference the family is cre-
ated ; in this difference the family finds
its sweet and sacred bond. This differ-
ence is not merely physical and inciden-
tal. It is also psychical and essential.
It inheres in the temperament ; it is in-
bred in the very fibre of the soul ; it dif-
ferentiates the functions ; it determines
the relation between man and woman;

it fixes their mutual service and their mu-
tual obligations. Man is not woman in
a different case. Woman is not man in-
habiting temporarily a different kind of
body. Man is not a rough-and-tumble
woman. Woman is nota feeble and pli-
able man.

This difference in the sexes is the first
and fundamental fact in the family ; it
is therefore the first and fundamental
fact in society, which is but a large
family, growing out of and produced
by the duplication and interrelationship
of innumerable families. For it must
ever be remembered that as the nature
of the cell determines the nature of the
organism which grows out of the cell,
so the nature of the family determines
the nature of society which grows out of
the family. And the fundamental fact,
without which there could be no fami-
ly, is the temperamental, inherent, and
therefore functional difference between
the sexes.

Because their functions are different,
all talk of equality or non-equality is but
idle words, without a meaning. Only
things which have the same nature and
fulfill the same function can be said to
be superior to or equal with one another.
Things which do not fulfill the same
function are not thus comparable. For
of two functions, each of which is essen-
tial to the life of the organism, neither
can be said to be superior to the other.
One branch may be equal or superior to
another branch; but it cannot be said
that the root is superior to the branch or
the branch to the root. One eye may
be superior to another eye, but the eye
cannot be said to be superior to the ear,
or the ear to the eye. Whichis superior,
a soldier or a carpenter? It depends
upon whether we want a battle fought
or a house built. Which is superior,
Darwin’s Origin of Species or Brown-
ine’s Saul? This is like asking which
is larger, — half an hour or half a yard.
Gallantry will bow to woman and say,
“You are superior.” Egotism will lookeel

— Te + -- =e

Why Women do not Wish the Suffrage. 3

with lordly air on woman and say, ‘ You
are inferior.”” But neither gallantry nor
egotism will be rational. These twain
are not identical. They do not dupli-
cate each other. Man is not an infe-
rior woman. Woman is not an inferior
man. ‘They are different in nature, in
temperament, in function. We cannot
destroy this difference if we would ;
we would not if we could. In preserv-
ing it lies the joy of the family; the
peace, prosperity, and well-being of so-
ciety. If man attempts woman’s func-
tion, he will prove himself but an inferior
woman. If woman attempts man’s func-
tion, she will prove herself but an inferior
man. Some masculine women there are;
some feminine men there are. These
are the monstrosities of Nature. She
sometimes produces such monstrosities
in other departments, — grotesque varia-
tions from and violations of the natural
order, — not that we may follow them
and attempt to reproduce them, but that
we may see by contrast what Nature
really is and rejoice the more in her.
This distinction between the sexes — in-
herent, temperamental, functional — is
universal and perpetual. It underlies
the family, which could not exist if this
difference did not exist. It is to be
taken account of in all social problems,
—problems of industrial organization,
religious organization, political organiza-
tion. Should society ever forget it, it
would forget the most fundamental fact
in the social order, the fact on which is
built the whole superstructure of society.

It may not be altogether easy to de-
termine the exact difference in function
between the sexes ; in minor details those
functions may differ in differing civiliza-
tions. But speaking broadly, it may be
said that the work of battle in all its
forms, and all the work that is cognate
thereto, belongstoman. Physically and
psychically his is the sterner and the
stronger sex. His muscles are more
steel-like; his heart and his flesh are
alike harder; he can give knocks with-

@

ti PSPS rere ret Stsrsrsisiicse Sb ye Se eee ee eee ee ean — :
Stk 4S de SSL ELE LS Se ears $2535 SSSSIS ESSE Spe Te eee te eee ste es Sects c sei ee ie to ete ress

SE BA

PESTO ERSE ESTEE Ie Ee

  
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
    
 
  
   
  
 
  

out compunction and receive them with-
out shrinking. In the family, therefore,
his it is to go forth and fight the battle
with Nature; to compel the reluctant
ground to give her riches to his use. It
is not for woman to hold the plough, or
handle the hoe, or dig in the mine, or fell
the forest. The war with Nature is not
for her to wage. It is true that savage
tribes impose this unfeminine task upon
her; true that modern nations which
have not yet fully emerged from barba-
rism continue to do so; true, also, that in
the cruel industrial competitions of mod-
ern times there is, in some communi-
ties, a relapse into this barbarism. But
whether it is the Indian squaw digging
in the corn patch, or the German Frau
holding the plough, or the American
wife working the loom in her husband’s
place, — wherever man puts the toil that
is battle and the battle that is toil upon
the woman, the law of Nature, that is,
the law of God, written in her constitu-
tion and in the constitution of the family,
is set at naught. This is not to say that
her toil is less than man’s; but it is dif-
ferent. It may be easier to be the man
with the hoe than the woman with the
needle ; it may be easier to handle the
plough than to broil over the cook stove;
but these tasks are not the same. The
ceaseless toil of the field requires exhaust-
less energy; the continuous toil of the
household requires exhaustless patience.
Being a man, the exhaustless patience
seems to me at once more difficult and
more admirable than the exhaustless
energy. But they are not the same.
For like reason it is not woman’s func-
tion to fight against human foes who
threaten the home. She is not called to
bea soldier. She is not to be weleomed
with the volunteers nor coerced into
military service by the draft. It isin vain
to recite the story of Joan of Arc; it is
in vain to narrate the efforts of the Ama-
zons. The instinct of humanity revolts
against the employment of woman as a
soldier on the battlefield. No civilized

BALA A LLRAN

*
Se

aay

‘
AWA

    
    
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
    
   
  
   
   
  
    
   
  
  
  
  
  
 
   

Se Ne
MUA

Lat

SERPAOLOLANL gE ee

A

y

ARS

e

es

ee

AP AGAMA

Oa Poe

Bee,

AA,

RS

~-

 

Lge EE

 

Why Women do not Wish the Suffrage.

man would wish to lay this duty upon
her; no civilized woman would wish to
assume it. This is not to say that her
courage is not as great as his. Greater
is it in some sense, — but it is different.
For the Spartan mother to arm her son
and send him forth with the injunction
to come home bringing his shield or borne
upon it, and then wait during the long and
weary days to know which way he is to
come, — this requires, surely, a heroism
not less than his: but it is not the same
heroism ; higher in some sense it is — but
it is not the same. In his courage are
pride and combativeness and animal pas-
sion, sometimes well-nigh devilish pas-
sion; a strange joy in giving and recelv-
ing wounds, a music that grows inspiring
in the singing of the bullets, an almost
brutal indifference to the wounded and
the dying all about him, which she could
never get and remain woman. ‘True to
her woman’s nature is Lady Macbeth’s
prayer, —
‘* Come, you spirits

That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here.”’
For until she had been unsexed, until
she had ceased to be woman, she could
not play the part which her destiny and
her ambition assigned to her.

For like reason society exempts wo-
man from police functions. She is not
called to be sheriff or constable or night
watchman. She bears no truncheon and
wears no revolver. She answers not to
the summons when peace officers call for
the posse comitatus. She is not received
into the National Guard when bloody
riot fills the city with peril and alarms.
Why not ? Is she not the equal of man ?
Is she not as loyal? as law abiding ? as
patriotic? as brave? Surely. All of
these is she. But it is not her function to
protect the state when foreign foes attack
it; it is the function of the state to pro-
tect her. Itis not her function to protect
the persons and property of the commu-
nity against riot; it is man’s function to
protect her. Here at least the functional
difference between the sexes is too plain

to be denied, doubted, or ignored. Here
at least no man or woman from the claim
of equality of character jumps to the il-
logical conclusion that there is an iden-
tity of function.

This much then seems clear to me,
and I hope it is clear to the reader
also: —

First, that the family is the basis of
society, from which it grows.

Second, that the basis of the family,
and therefore of society, is the difference
between the sexes, — a difference which
is inherent, temperamental, functional.

Third, that the military function, in
all its forms and phases, belongs to man ;
that he has no right to thrust it upon
woman or to ask her to share it with him;
that it is his duty, and his exclusively,
to do that battling with the elements
which wrests livelihood from a reluctant
or resisting Nature, and which is there-
fore the pre-requisite to all productive
industry ; and that battling with the ene-
mies of society which compels them to
respect its rights, and which is therefore
the primary condition of government.

For the object of government is the
protection of person, property, and repu-
tation from the foes which assail them.
Government may do other things: it
may carry the mails, run the express,
own and operate the railroads; but its
fundamental function is to furnish pro-
tection from open violence or secret
fraud. Ifit adequately protects person,
property, and reputation, it is a just gov-
ernment, though it do nothing else; if
it fails to protect these primary rights, if
the person is left to defend himself, his
property, his reputation by his own strong
arm, there is no government. ‘The ques-
tion, “Shall woman vote?” is really, in
the last analysis, the question, ‘“ Ought
woman to assume the responsibility for
protecting person and property which
has in the past been assumed by man as
his duty alone?” It is because women
see, what some so-called reformers have
not seen, that the first and fundamentalen

Why Women do not

function of government is the protection
of person and property, and_ because
women do not think that they ought to
assume this duty any more than they
ought to assume that police and militia
service which is involved in every act
of legislature, that they do not wish to
have the ballot thrust upon them.

Let us not here make any mistake.
Nothing is law which has not authority
behind it ; and there is no real authority
where there is not power to compel obe-
dience. It is this power to compel which
distinguishes law from advice. Behind
every law stands the sheriff, and behind
the sheriff the militia, and behind the
militia the whole military power of the
Federal government. No legislature
ever ought to enact a statute unless it is
ready to pledge all the power of govern-
ment — local, state, and Federal — to
its enforcement, if the statute is disre-
garded. A ballot is not a mere expres-
sion of opinion ; it is an act of the will;
and behind this act of the will must be
power to compel obedience. Women do
not wish authority to compel the obedi-
ence of their husbands, sons, and brothers
to their will.

This fact that the ballot is explicitly
an act of the will, and implicitly an ex-
pression of power or force, is indicated
not only by the general function of gov-
ernment, but also by special illustrations.
Politics is pacific war. A corrupt ring
gets the control of New York city, or
Minneapolis, or St. Louis, or Philadel-
phia, or perhaps of a state, as Delaware,
Rhode Island, or Montana. The first
duty of the citizens is to make war on
this corrupt ring. The ballot is not
merely an expression of opinion that this
ring ought not to control; it is the re-
solve that it shall not control. A capi-
talistic trust gets, or tries to get, a mo-
nopoly which is perilous to commercial
freedom; or a labor trust gets, or tries
to get, a monopoly which is perilous to
industrial freedom. A vote is not a pro-
test against such control, —it is not a

SARIS LS ISI LIELESE SS Tes daa ase gis es) st sees terest

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 

es

asi seceiesstcie se ses besees eo edee Ggeg caSeeres taeal

Wish the Suffrage. 5

mere opinion that it ought not to be al-
lowed. It is adecree. The voter Says,
‘“We will not suffer this monopoly to
continue.”’ His vote means, in the one
case, If you do not dissolve this capital-
istic combination, in the other case, If
you do not cease this interference with
the freedom of non-union labor, we will
compel you to doso. If the vote does
not mean this, it is nothing more than
a resolution passed in a parlor meeting.
The great elections are called, and not
improperly called, campaigns. For they
are more than a great debate. A debate
is a clash of opinions. But an election
is a clash of wills. One party says, “ We
will have Mr. Blaine President;” the
other says, ‘“‘ We will have Mr. Cleveland
President.”’ Will sets itself against will
in what is essentially a masculine en-
counter. And if the defeated will refuses
to accept the decision, as it did when
Mr. Lincoln was elected President, war
is the necessary result.

From such an encounter of wills wo-
man instinctively shrinks. She shrinks
from it exactly as she shrinks from the
encounter of opposing wills on a battle-
field, and for the same reason. She is
glad to counsel; she is loath to com-
mand. She does not wish to arm her-
self, and, as police or soldier, enforce her
will on the community. Nor does she
wish to register her will, and leave her
son, her brother, or her husband to en-
force it. If she can persuade them by
womanly influence she will; but just in
the measure in which she is womanly, she
is unwilling to say to her son, to her bro-
ther, or to her husband, “ I have decreed
this; you must see that my decree is en-
forced on the reluctant or the resisting.”
She does not wish that he should act on
her judgment against his own in obedi-
ence to her will; still less that he shall,
in obedience to her will, compel others to
act in violation both of their judgment
and of his. / And yet this is just what
suffrage always may and sometimes must
involve. The question, Shall woman

gta

= iat Saas
ieee UA ee meee ele ERR
CA ea rere SUCCESS ara rrr cy hr Raa ema a

Ane Aa

THC LCia| UA

Meter St
Nak, Shed a

cul

eaesiner meres Dnt bad ofrh
: Nasi ad As

Dede ane:

HHH ie

SSH

ea
i eee ES
NOE Ede HHS

Phd

ail Sa
, Re CR

a2 Pe 4 .- Mel
oP ieeebe iad i
S cial L Aird J j

 

wean,
ts,

 

AAA a

POPE RE

a

Tey
~

AML OAD AOL

rr
LAMM DONNY

.
i

Att

ROLLIE Rt EN fy

se
RR

ro

 

  
     
  
   
    
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
   
  
    
   
  
  
  
   
   
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
  

   

6 Why Women do not Wish the Suffrage.

vote, if translated into actual and practi-
cal form, reads thus: Shall woman de-
cide what are the rights of the citizen to
be protected and what are the duties of
the citizen to be enforced, and then are
her son and her brother and her husband
to go forth, armed, if need be, to enforce
her decision ¢ | Is this where the func-
tional line between the sexes is to be
drawn? Are women to make the laws,
and men to enforce them? | Are women
to decree, and men to execute? Is wo-
man never to act as a private, but only
as a commander-in-chief ? Is this right ?
Is it right that one sex shall alone enforce
authority, but the other sex determine
when and how it shall be exercised ? Is
this expedient? Will it promote peace,
order, prosperity? Is it practicable ?
Will it in fact be done ? Suppose that
in New York city the women should
vote for prohibition and the men should
vote against it; is it to be expected that
the men would arm themselves to enforce
against their fellow men a law which
they themselves condemned as neither
wise nor just? To ask these questions
is to answer them. ‘The functions of
government cannot be thus divided. In
a democratic community the duty of en-
forcing the law must devolve on those
who determine what the law shall be that
is to be enforced. It cannot be decreed
by one class and enforced by another.
It is inconceivable that it should be de-
creed by one sex and enforced by the
other.

This is the negative reason why wo-
man does not wish the ballot: she does
not wish to engage in that conflict of wills
which is the essence of politics ; she does
not wish to assume the responsibility for
protecting person and property which is
the essence of government. The affirma-
tive reason is that she has other, and in
some sense, more important work to do.
It is more important than the work of
government because it is the work for the
protection of which governments are or-
ganized among men. Woman does not

wish to turn aside from this higher
work, which is itself the end of life, to
devote herself to government, which ex-
ists only that this higher work may be
done. Nor does she wish to divide her
energies between the two. This higher
work, which is itself the end of life, is
Direct Ministry to Life.

What are we in the world for? The
family answers the question. We marry.
Children are given to us to protect, gov-
ern, nurture, train. ‘They grow to man-
hood, and in turn they marry, and to
them in turn children are given to pro-
tect, govern, nurture, train. The first
parents linger a few years that, as grand-
parents, they may have the pleasure of
the little children without the responsi-
bility for them, and then they die. Their
work on earth is done, and they go for-
ward to we know not what work in a
life to come. The end of life is the
rearing and training of children. As
the family is historically the first organ-
ization, as it is biologically the unit out
of which all other social organisms are
formed, so its protection and mainte-
nance are the objects for which all other
social organizations have been called into
existence and are maintained. Struggle
for others, as Professor Drummond has
well shown, is an even more vital element
in human progress than struggle for self ;
and in the family this struggle for others
receives its first and finest illustration.
Political economists have told us that
self-interest is the mainspring of indus-
try. Itis not true. Love is the main-
spring of industry. It is love for the
home and the wife and the children that
keeps all the busy wheels of industry re-
volving, that calls the factory hands early
to the mill, that nerves the arm of the
blacksmith working at his forge, that in-
spires the farmer at his plough and the
merchant at his desk, that gives courage
to the soldier and patience to the teacher.
Erskine was asked how he dared, as an
unknown barrister, face a hostile court
and insist on his right to be heard. “Iz

_———

: ENCES SSS GSU CAESAR ca Os
Si tisde isis JeliiEae se levee meee tates: ise

; ———ee
ee tei et etess

+
2

2s

Why Women do not

felt my children,” he replied, “ tugging
at my robe and saying, ‘ Here is your
chance, father, to get us bread.’” It is
this vision of the children, dependent on
us, that inspires us all in the battle of
life. It is for our homes and our chil-
dren we maintain our churches. They
are not spiritual restaurants where we
pay for our own food passed over the
counter to us by an attendant priest;
they are the instrument, which some of
us think God has created, others of us
think man has devised, to help us endow
our children and equip our homes for
life. It is for our homes and our chil-
dren we tax ourselves to maintain the
public school; for our homes and our
children we maintain government, that
our loved ones may live in peace and
safety, protected by law, while we, their
natural protectors, are away earning the
bread wherewith to feed them; for our
homes and our children we fight when
peace and safety are endangered, and
government is assailed by foreign foe or
domestic violence. Whether we culti-
vate a farm, or operate a factory, or man-
age a store, or build and conduct a rail-
road, or paint pictures, or write books,
or preach sermons, or enact and enforce
laws, — whatever we do, the end of our
activity is the nurture and training of
children in this primary school, which we
call life, in preparation for some life, we
know not what, hereafter.

In this work of direct ministry to the
individual, this work of character-build-
ing, which is the ultimate end of life,
woman takes the first place. The higher
the civilization the more clearly is her
right to it recognized. She builds the
home, and she keeps the home. She
makes the home sanitary ; she inspires
it with the spirit of order, neatness, and
peace; she broods it with her patient
love, and teaches us to love by her lov-
ing. Her eye discerns beauty, her deft
fingers create it, and to her the home is
indebted for its artistic power to educate.
If she has not the artistic sense, no pur-

Wish the Suffrage. "

chased beauty, bought of a professional
decorator, can supply the vacancy. She
instills into the little child the love of
truth and purity, the subtle sense of
honor, the strong spirit of courage and
high purpose. If her home duties do
not absorb her time and energy, she seeks
the field of charity or education, or ae-
cepts the invitation which these fields
offer to her. She becomes a director in
or a visitor to some of the innumerable
charities in which life is ministered to
the unfortunate, the feeble, the incom-
petent. If we accept Micah’s definition
of religion, To do justly, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with God, then
we may say that, with rare exceptions,
woman chooses to leave to man the stern-
er task of administering justice, and de-
lights herself in the ministration of mer-
cy. She does so because in these unpaid
ministries of mercy, sometimes in insti-
tutions, sometimes in private and unor-
ganized service, is the direct imparta-
tion of life which is her highest joy. If
she has no home in which she can and
does minister, she instinctively seeks the
schoolroom as her field, and there, sub-
stituting for the mother, imparts life,
and endows with intelligence, and equips
with culture the children intrusted to
her charge. If necessity drives her or
ambition entices her to other fields,
her womanly instinct still asserts itself.
If she enters the law, it is generally to
be a counselor rather than a combatant ;
if literature, her pen instinctively seeks
the vital rather than the materialistic
themes. She isaminister to life. And
when mistakenly ambitious women would
persuade her to leave this ministry for
the woodman’s axe, the farmer’s plough,
or the policeman’s truncheon, she does
not even entertain the proposition enough
to discuss it. When she looks out of the
window of her home or her school and
sees the platoon of policemen on a run
to quell a riot, or a fire engine dashing
by to extinguish a fire, she has no wish
to join them; the boy’s eager request,

\y

PRR

one

ra
3
2
1
5
Ss
ex
Bs
3
aes

Oy

4
4
x
x

a DE TR BE EE ES ee Ee ee
riled s os R

a ey a~~

 

 

 

:

i fats
jz Ki
\ t
i
(

 

 

ond eat cecrryby: Mihai

?

i Bd, ARs —™

Pv
A

%

geeeei ete!

8 Why Women do not Wish the Suffrage.

2)

“May I go, mamma? May I go:
awakens no like desire in her. For in
her subconscious self is the knowledge
that she is doing the work which makes
it worth while to quell riots and extin-
guish fires. She is more than content
that her sons, her brothers, her husband
shall protect the life to which she minis-
ters, and shall determine how it can best
be protected, if she is left to minister to
it directly, in peace and safety,

And she is right. If she were to go
into politics, she would leave undone
the work for which alone government
exists, or she would distract her energies
from that work, which she knows full
well requires them all. Can she not do
both? No! nomorethanmancan. He
cannot be at the same time in the mar-
ket winning the bread, in the forum
shaping the public policies, and in the
home ministering to life. Nox can she.
She must choose. She may give her
time and thought and energy to building
a state, and engaging in that warfare
of wills which polities involves ; or she

 

may give her time and thought to the
building of men, on whose education and
training, church, state, industry, soci-
ety, all depend. She has made her

‘choice and made it wisely. Necessity,

born of an imperfect industrial system,
may drive a few thousand women into
battle with Nature in bread-winning vo-
cations ; ambition may call afew women
down and out from the higher vocation
of character - building to participate in
public debate before the footlights ; the
clamors of an ill-instructed conscience
may force a few more to leave the con-
genial work of directly ministering to
life, that they may undertake the more
indirect ministry through village or city
boards, state legislatures, and the Fed-
eral Congress; but the great body of
American women are true to themselves,
to the nature God has given them, and
to the service He has allotted to them,
— the direct ministry to life, — and will
neither be forced nor enticed from it by
their restless, well-meaning, but mistaken

 

sisters.

 

Printed by the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension

of Suffrage to Women.

Pamphlets and leaflets may be obtained from the Secretary of the Association,

Mrs. Ropert W. Lorp,
P. O. Box 2262, Boston.meee
a

° EYE Yre re Se i %
SESSA AS TOL SIE SESE Le este gaa ee ere Te ee oe re re rere eee eer ere ee re rere es Se ee eR eee .
- dese ceie ete esate ete s es : eise ree ce beds $e eed ee eee oes {32 ee pe iv isn toes EL TESFEE

 

WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION. .OF SEX SUPERIORITY.

BY ANNIE NATHAN MEYER.

ONE of the most charming of the women orators in the late
municipal campaign in New York, in a burst of eloquence for
which she was applauded, pointed to the lady who stood as the
emblem of the Fusion party, and to the tiger of Tammany, and
asked if it were possible to hesitate in the choice: “'The lady or
the tiger confronts you. Which shall it be?” Fortunately, the

EC Ga a

Hilt

“Annie Nathan Meyer has taken an active interest in
all matters relating to the improvement of the position and
condition of woman in America. Some years ago she was
one of the leading speakers at the meetings of the Association
for the Advancement of Women and of the Women’s Interna-
tional Council, but latterly she has preferred the press to
the platform in the prosecution to her public work. | Barnard
College —the woman’s college affiliated with Columbia Uni-
versity —of which she is still a Trustee, was founded through
her untiring efforts. Mrs. Meyer’s name is well known to
readers of the magazines as the author of stories, essays and
reviews. She projected and edited the volume entitled
‘« Woman’s Work in America,’ which is regarded as the
authority in its special field; and among her other writings
are two novels, “ Helen Brent, M. D.” and “ Robert Annys:

Poor Priest.”’—[WVorth American Review, January, 1904.

Paar eso SS Sa

 

a rN A Ge Tee Ey Sh ie a ae aa: a
_— ee ere PE a ee EM Se LT SEE a tt ae ke ee ae aL Pe SF eeBs wy
4 Leh ALE
EN ea

  

a

   

mS On eo
BESS AI Aaa ae eye
AIR at ct lr SLE Rly es nth Sait, i ited

a te

) t , APS i~
AVA arsiewreey ai

Aw

AYIAP

LA em
eer

SLA a

POTOSI Ap LARS LT OAD

A YA

3
~
E
aor
cA
ee
ie
fre

ee

ee
Pa Wavals

 

=

 

8 Why Women do not Wish the Suffrage.

“May I go, mamma? May I go?”
awakens no like desire in her. For in
her subconscious self is the knowledge
that she is doing the work which makes
it worth while to quell riots and extin-
guish fires. She is more than content
that her sons, her brothers, her husband
shall protect the life to which she muinis-
ters, and shall determine how it can best
be protected, if she is left to minister to
it directly, in peace and safety.

And she is right. If she were to go
into politics, she would leave undone

ot

I
he work for which alone government
exists, or she would distract her energies
from that work, which she knows full
well requires them all. Can she not do
both? No! nomorethanmanecan. He
eannot be at the same time in the mar-
ket winning the bread, in the forum

chanina the nublie pnolivies,. and in the

may give her time and thought to the
building of men, on whose education and
training, church, state, industry, soci-
ety, all depend. She has made her
choice and made it wisely. Necessity,
born of an imperfect industrial system,
may drive a few thousand women into
battle with Nature in bread-winning vo-
cations ; ambition may call afew women
down and out from the higher vocation
of character - building to participate in
public debate before the footlights ; the
clamors of an ill-instructed conscience
may force a few more to leave the con-
genial work of directly ministering to
life, that they may undertake the more
indirect ministry through village or city
boards, state legislatures, and the Fed-
eral Congress; but the great body of
American women are true to themselves,
to the nature God has given them, andSete er ee SSeS Sere ee eee - See re re ee ee re pe ee ees — ty "
IRE SE ILIELESE LE TES eae ae TEE ste" Adlggsiidics is iisesesis ese iss eee gr este eres Eeestsesees sage seas reteset

WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION. .OF SEX SUPERIORITY,

BY ANNIE NATHAN MEYER.

 

ONE of the most charming of the women orators in the late
municipal campaign in New York. in a burst of eloquence for
which she was applauded, pointed to the lady who stood as the
emblem of the Fusion party, and to the tiger of Tammany, and
asked if it were possible to hesitate in the choice: “ The lady or
the tiger confronts you. Which shall it be?” Fortunately, the
audience was with the speaker. Questions are admittedly danger-
ous political weapons. The picture of the voter trembling before
the gates was cleverly drawn: yet it might have been awkward
had one ventured to suggest that it was not at all certain before
which gate one would more violently tremble. It is not difficult
to imagine circumstances in which one might pray for the tiger.
My own experience is somewhat limited—on the side of the tiger.
But I fancy an angry tiger kills quickly.

I am quite sure that, in the political arena, I should dread the
advent of women as voters and office-holders a little more than
that of the tiger. Of course, to the speaker, Woman typified and
summed up all that was honorable, pure, noble, uplifting. To
her, even the fact that the emblematic “ lady ” referred to was
really a goddess was in no way disconcerting. It was assumed by
many campaigners that the interest taken in the campaign by the
women was in itself a conclusive arraignment of Tammany, was
in itself a proof that the Fusion party stood for honest govern-
ment. Of course, such an assumption when it is made by a man
is not to be seriously challenged ; but when it is made by a large
proportion (still, I am persuaded, happily, by a minority) of
women, then it becomes worth while to examine woman’s claim
to moral superiority, to examine it soberly and seriously.

The exercise by woman of the power to vote has been held up

ieleheaeirin eR eG

TIC Hie, {
OMI as ar ate te

Z)
rr

rz
34
34
os
34
ez
J»
e
a
to

OESa eae ey = As ?
; ‘ ij ae i ia
“eR ENC aera We i Sie EN sede
Al be ,
m ne

 

SREP DO NY

ey

~~ *
IS emai

iro

CARRERA BA

A
ae,

G8

edd

betters te earns

  

=

 

~

‘ tain
AD

 

 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
  

9 WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY.

by these women again and again as a panacea for the chief evils,
if not all the evils, that now threaten to undermine the moral life
of America. As even these women must be aware that in voting
the majority prevails, this is clearly an assumption that the ma-
jority of women may be counted upon as a force that would make
for political righteousness. It is strangely difficult to keep this in-
ference before the public. The popular method of argument is:
“Mrs. Thus-and-So is a splendid woman; would she not give us
a more intelligent vote than the ignorant hod-carrier?” The fact
that the vote of Mrs. Thus-and-So will be pitted against that of
Mrs. Hod-carrier, never seems to be considered. It must be re-
membered that the suffrage—at least in America—is almost cer-
tain to be refused to all women, or given to all women; that a vote
to one woman will be a vote to all women, vicious and virtuous,
ignorant and educated, lowest and highest.

Let me say right here, as emphatically as possible, that while I
challenge the assumption that women as a sex could contribute
a regenerative force to the body politic, yet I do not deny the fact
that there are many fine, true women who could be relied upon to
cast their votes every time for the right. That I further think
that most of these women do not wish the suffrage, that they have
a clearer idea of their sex as a whole and a profounder apprecia-
tion of their real duties, does not concern us at present. The
question, shorn of all disingenuousness, of all sentimentality, is
just this: What could the sex bring to the service of the state to
offset the degeneration of public life, to offset the indifference, the
sloth, the moral cowardice, the greed, the dishonesty that are
seriously menacing the moral life of our Republic?

When a man is chosen by his party as a candidate for office,
his career is scrutinized, the question is asked, What has he done
in his private career that implies a promise of success in a public
career? Similarly, when women offer themselves for political
duty (and in no spirit of humility, but with smug self-satisfaction
and assumption of superior virtue), is it not just to scrutinize
their past, to ask, What special character, what special force, what
special talent have they shown in fulfilling their apportioned
duties in the past? Is there anything to warrant a faith that
they would discharge this new duty faithfully and ably? It is
idle for women to say that it is not fair to scrutinize their past,
because it was not a past of their own seeking; to claim that in-Tees Be Seas es see tesscs sess 5 Sere Le ee es Te
ae AR SE LE ESE IELES EE TE are eae se yeesi eee

WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY. 3

competency in domestic life bears no relation to incompetency in
political life, that the shirking of disagreeable duties would not
mean the shirking of (supposedly) agreeable ones. Idle, and
futile, I say, because we are probing deeper than that! We do
not wish to know if their heads are equal to the problems of gov-
ernment ; it does not concern us if they are not fitted for domestic
duties—if they dislike them ; 1t is not brains, nor aptitudes, nor
even ability that is vital, it is character. Character is the one
force needed in American life to-day. And character may be
more safely judged from the way in which we perform disagree-
able duties than from the way in which we perform agreeable
ones. ‘The question is not so much whether certain tasks allotted
to women in the past have been well or ill performed ; but it is—
it doubly, trebly, is: Having been confronted with these tasks,
in what manner have they approached them? Have they shirked
them, or have they done their best? Have they done the work
they found to be done, willingly, conscientiously, patiently, un-
complainingly? Have they been satisfied to do it without ap-
plause, without public reward? Have they brought to bear on this
work the best they had, the best they could become? Have they
never reached forth to grasp the more spectacular work of others,
while turning their backs on their own? In short, have they any
claim to such characteristics as, if contributed to American pub-
lic life to-day, could purify and ennoble it?

I have spoken of the lack of character as the real lack in Amer-
ican public life to-day. Is there any question of this? To what
is due the general neglect of the disagreeable part of political
duty, but to a lack of character? What explains the too common
custom of paying for concessions instead of fighting for one’s
just dues, but a lack of character? What, the yielding to black-
mail, the seeking of the line of least resistance? What, the
venality, the greed, and the acceptance of a double standard of
honesty—political and commercial? What does all this signify,
but a lack of character?

Perhaps the enlarged opportunities enjoyed by women during
the past forty years have qualified them in some directions for -
the suffrage. Certainly, their mental qualifications will not be
so sweepingly questioned as when the subject first arose for
debate. But it is my firm conviction that the development of
woman’s character has by no means kept step with that of her

a
a
4
Py
ex
&
iy
;
Fy
i
=a
~
5
<]
34
=
a
oF
ra
Es
Es
3
xy
=
es
>
Ba
rs
FS
BY
;
52
35
=
zx
ay
=!
cea
x)
t=
Fea
ee
te!
Eas
a
eo)
Ex
By
3
oy
#5
z
Sy
2
ESS
re
=
Urs
eZ
rs

pe mete
Qe H b

bal eT

MURR ata

eer ek il eel
abs Late td ed)

MART tres
bere a(t
WER

PATEL SL reel eee 7
ANN ree ie

aN

a
cS
at

i waren Ege Ee SO Se pe ae: = < SSS
er ee Pe ee PaRRRCUESmea

2 ACW ort

ene ere re.)

j
a
PAREN

APN) hen Asan
OP Ue we nat de tins

vm

nm

* R A
WALA Aig)

 
   
     
  
  
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
   

~

 

ee anaes
(aga

ortth roth? at see.

     
   

4 WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY.

intellect. I think this is a serious arraignment of the women’s
colleges, one to which several of the leading colleges are awaken-
ing, and to the correction of which the best friends of woman’s
education are addressing themselves. There is no longer question
of the capacity of woman’s brain to be trained to wield the suf-
frage. But, alas! it can never be repeated often enough that it
is not brains that are needed just now. There is a cry welling up
from the surcharged hearts of those who tremble for the steadfast-
ness of American government: but it is not a cry for brains—it
is a ery for character.

“Put United Womanhood,” they say, (a resounding phrase
much made use of—as if all women could be united on anything
save puffed sleeves or pocketless skirts!), “ Put United Woman-
hood into politics, and we shall have character. You will no
ionger see the Boss one instant the epitome of all that is evil,
and the next, worthy to fold his legs under your mahogany.” But
is this true? Is there even a shadow of truth in it? Have
women, then, as a sex been so brave in fighting the conventional
standpoint? Show me that more than a handful of women have
the courage to ostracize the “ great catch ” that they know has no
right to associate with their daughters, and I shall take heart.
Give me the slightest inkling that women will fight the tyrannous
hand of the Labor-Unions, now stifling the manhood of our
business as well as of our laboring world. Give me the faintest
hepe that women will refuse to pay for what should come to
them freely, that women will resist all favoritism, all unfairness!
What is there in the past that can vouch for the future? Will
the woman who quails before the departing cook, stand firm be-
fore the District Leader? Will the woman who submits to the
tyranny of her volatile dressmaker, resist the voluble walking
delegate? Will the woman who has made a mess of the domestic
question, straighten out the tangles of the industrial and finan-
cial world? And, finally, will a woman who has shirked the
noblest duty on God’s earth, not shirk the lesser duties to
which she, strangely enough, aspires? I hope I am not unduly
severe. J am not more severe than are the women themselves
who decry the moral weakness of the average man. In the very
charge of inferiority launched against men by the women,
they present the strongest possible indictment of their own sex.
These men, who are so weak, so corrupt, so far below the stand-WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY. 5

o
ard of the women—had they no mothers? With so many
grafters, sc many “ respectable ” tools of a machine, is it possible
that a great many women have not betrayed their trust? Do
not tell me that the casting of a bit of paper in a box once a year
can offset the daily influence of a mother, or that votes can he
better gained from a political platform than at the home fireside.

I fail to see in women any evidence of the character that is
needed in our public life. I fail to see that they are even on the
right track to attain it. I think there is no school so eminently
unfit for the development of character as that of the public
platform, which women are seeking more and more. I think there
is a grave danger to the moral force of womanhood in woman’s in-
creasing participation in organized effort, in public life. To Say
nothing of the wire-pulling, of the unscrupulousness in attaining
an end, of the unfairness, of the love of otfice, of the in-
cIncerity which reveal themselves in the large organizations of
women, with discouraging and startling resemblance to the
methods of their weaker brethren, I hold that there is certain to
come a deterioration which I like to name “ Platform Virtue.”
One who feeds on applause learns how easily it is gained, grows
Impatient of any task which does not win it, is apt to scorn such
work as is not in the public eye. The most subtle moral danger
lies in the fact that it is so easy to be noble, to be generous, to be
unselfish, on the public platform,—in one’s typewritten Confes-
sion of Faith. How is the strength to be given to work on, to
fight on quietly, unknown, uninterviewed, unrewarded, certainly
unapplauded, when the enunciation of a few well-rounded periods
yields such delightful recognition! An audience is the most good-
natured, indifferent censor in the world. It seldom probes below
the surface ; in the rare cases in which it does, its memory is con-
veniently short. Just as the kindergarten methods, in the opinion
of some educators, have lost for our children a certain sturdiness,
a certain grim power of overcoming difficulties, so the platform
habit, the club habit, the President and Secretary habit have en-
tailed upen our women serious losses. The daily uncomplaining
attention io household details that make for comfort and a restful
home atmosphere; the tender, unseen care given to the children;
the brooding over, watching and painstaking upbuilding of char-
acter; the brave, inspiring encouragement of the wearied wage-
»arner—for these things has not taste been lost ?

he
Pe

Re NLY

TERT

“4
iz
34
25
as
z
25
25
3
eH
=
§2
eS

—
; Jere
RH FOS

ae iad ee a weasel
pit ER

ee = 6 EK oe a4 ; cs a ER Oe opereonet srry
er ae oe aa ae are pees Li" ee ee Ee FEE BE a re oe ee Fae ele SF = nae
ee aie ee Lie ae al Sas :a
Phe

yer eae ay

M4

5
en

ALONG a UML ye a

 

Ti,

~~

 

   

6 WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY.

It is so perilously easy, on the one hand, to be an angel of
loving-kindness to some class of wage-earners in whom one is
publicly interested, and, on the other, in the privacy of
one’s home, to withhold from one’s servants the most ordinary
human consideration. It is so easy to appeal on the platform to
the highest, purest motives, to implore others to do their duty,
and in the home to shrink from the most elementary duties, not
only of motherhood, but of wifehood. It is so easy to be suave
and delightful, gracious and inspiring, on the platform, and at
home nervous, unstrung, impatient, fretful. The hardening proc-
esses of the age may be exemplified most strongly in the evolu-
tion of the very newest new woman. She who, twenty-five years
ago, refused marriage in favor of her so-called “ career,” at least
was willing to make a sacrifice of her emotional needs. She of
to-day has no idea of renouncing marriage, but remoulds its old-
fashioned idea of obligation — at times with an overriding of
nature that would be comic if it were not tragic.

Are we, then, to throw over entirely our cherished idea, that
woman is the morally superior sex? Well, I think the women
have been banking a little too heavily upon certain claims.
Probably, if they had lived for centuries in the same free-
dom and under the same temptations as men, they would have
shown far less self-control and power of resistance; and this
opinion might find support in some of the conditions known to
exist in the social life of our own community. Perhaps some
brave twentieth-century Fielding will arise and write an up-to-
date parody of “ Pamela”: it will be instructive.

Even of so masculine a vice as drunkenness, there is something
to be said. The assertion of sex superiority is not proven because
there are fewer drunkards among women than men. Dare any
one affirm that, since women have entered into industrial competi-
tion, into public life with its drain on the nervous strength, there
has been less drunkenness than before? On the contrary, every
one knows that the use of stimulants among women is increasing
rapidly.

Notwithstanding the usual tone that pervades the speeches at
a Woman’s Rights Meeting (and there is a degree of bitterness, of
contempt, of positive enmity against men that is not dreamed of
by the average person), I believe that the work now done by the
men would not be improved by being done by women.ARS SSESOSCLELELES2 1b Se se oe ese ede age re tes Peeve Tete SadEISSESELs 20 Sng See ESE SS ESTEE SS PETE DoS Scare iets gene

WOMAN’S ASSUMPTION OF SEX SUPERIORITY. 1

It may seem so on the surface, but I am not wholly reactionary.
I do not think that all virtue or all character is buried in the
graves of our ancestregses. There is much that may be gained
from all the discussion, all the unrest and change of the past
half century, if only the trained women who should be the leaders
will take their covetous eyes from the careers of the men, and,
casting them backward over the past, will say: “Let us see how
much better we can do the woman’s work in the future. Let us
see what training and science can do to make that work more help-
ful and more intelligent.” I have hope for the future, because I
know there are many strong women working quietly for this end.
They are not the women who are supposed to represent us; they
are certainly not those who periodically assure the Legislature
that they do. They are seldom found on a platform. They are
not presidents of clubs. They are not be-badged “ chairmen ” of
committees; they do not belong to Mothers’ Congresses, but they
are accomplishing their end in a sincere, an unspectacular, the
only lasting way, through the weight of personal character, the
effect of personal example, through the divine influence that is
so dangerously slipping away from this organization-worshipping,
this number-idolizing, world of ours—I mean, the impulse of the
personal touch. I have hope, because many of the excesses of
women will be righted after women have grasped a little longer
the baubles they have yearned for, after they have seen how value-
less are these baubles in their hands. Then, I cannot but think,
they will learn to value the things they have so blithely let go.

ANNIE NatHAaN Muyer.

EA
pae
ea
oes
e-2

5

Lain abl rt hd
MUR tae Salta CEL lcd ud besos han kas

revue
MMR TPediriortea J
Rett UH eas +e

RET py

hope Nat (Ti
ee

UUM aE
TENS na

feaaHeiels
at

fea

a

ere
Pea)

Di kedbevtht

aye iy wn
Pe } Wat
Oe a pastors

aoo ae
TWA Caer

 

 

fe
“4
f /
PY.
\
ve
\
(Reprinted from the North American Review, January, 1904)
i Ek Copyright, 1903, by the

North American Review Publishing Company

 

All Rights Reserved

PLE ELT

a

r
.
-

be

‘ Ray ak Did

Oeee
ft

Cee esr Teer reer Te Sere Te errr eee Esei8
Shin te i SiS ie eese Ses eaeS ESSE a ete ey ert ease

SU LAL

s
tx
=
r
E
Ea

SONMOEN oY.

A

an ee SR ea) goes 4 hn aA ee Ay Benda ak
TA aah Nie, staan haba tlbyi tr. oie i, bath

1

     
 
 
 

at

ne sits 4 va ) he

AREAL IRN a ulate ee LEM Oe eel aie Hep ee iq ral
Pease ate PA RPA Ate aye ap

tag eon

———

os yom
DS

Sete re tay
SSRIS

PRM yo

DdSe sett ie iret
Pi pede SESE LE
c yak 5

 

ee

eae te eey

cya

4

&

 

—

ae
rr
See SGeeS
a

 

— Fe ae.
pede se ae ee eee

aan

oe
pT isee ees

a 3
Ee eS

ToL,

s
¢
e
&
&
.

i
i
i

A

aei i at

° nat 4
para par va ert .

APA a Spe OPN, cote Mt, 04 innit

eee ye

x

PLEASE RETURN TO
ALDERMAN LIBRARY

hm

AFA 1 NA TRAIT SA Toh Oey we
SAR apt tomarhrAD H, 4

 

DUE

Ae
oe

ES
ie
i
iG
ee
(ot
=
4

TEL

Ap ssonsls

ATR

 

ya be Be A\ WEEKS

vaenied \F
}
jped date

j pis

 

 

DX GOO S93 5b

     
     
  
  

  
 

Har

Tren
rea)