Full text of "Common Sense as to Women Suffrage"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

oc 50'^3.a

HARVARD
COLLEGE
LIBRARY

N...

^ - «•«

•- •^

i ■

y^,:

t «

AS TO

V/OMAN SUFFMGE.

H O S r O N :
\V. r.. GRKKNE .\' CO.

i8Ss. /

/ :

^s TO

WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

BOSTON:
W. U GRKENE .^ CO.

II CoN..ar<jATr NAC Ifoi^r, Coknj:« of r«\rcM anh ixvir^.KT St*.

1885. ,

/ :

« ,

"'^cti;c-r-'-^

. J

i«

.•■

$MrljattJ (Collcse libtatg

THE GIFT or

SAMUEL ABBOTT GKEEH. M.D.

OF BOSTON.
(CUM of iSstO

•if

.ill

;• ••

•••I

II* ■ I »

«i i m i^aij^

,4'>~«aHB«niVWiWl^'*w«nM«n^H>>^a«H»f«

Jr,

zm .

^(XmjulJL G^ Sms2a^. Ov./:',

U>(2lL V

CuuJMm ¥^Ai

^AJ2JUJ^ /^V$-.

I. _ ....

1 I

::;: / o

COMMON SENSE

AS TO

WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

}{0 -^/>vu<A ")^ Lovcfco^-v^ '• xy x/>ct.^*o

BOSTON:
W. L. GREENE & CO.

19 CCWOMOATIONAL HOUSl, COKNSB OW BlAOON AKO SOMBUST STI.

1985.

»^ *-».Hte«i

"Soc B0H3.Q^

Y 1 1 ^ .1 .1 Y 1 11 U

r/;;air'G

v^"^. o ' .>/ . ^Lxi^i

Tke foUowing ten essays^ which ap-
peared Ediiorially in the Congregational'
^U 5 February — g -^/'''A 'haz}€ been
reprinted thus^ with slight revision^ in
response to many requests that the discus-
sion of a subject of deep interest which
they offer ^ may be made available for cir-
culation in a cheap and compact forpu

H. M. D.

g April iSSj,

[only Firnr copies printed.]

r"'

■■*<

!| .1. • .1. I

•1 !' I ■■ •

WOMAN SUFFRAGE— THE FACTS.

ME subject of the suffrage for women is one of very great
importance to the welfare of the State. From the high-
est considerations it ought to receive the utmost intelligence
and candor of treatment. And especially for the reason that
the step once taken would, in all probability, prove irrevocable, even were
its practical working found to be unfortunate, it should become our public
policy only after the most abundant and satisfactory proof of its essential
justice and wisdom.

Politeness toward the gentler sex is always alike a privilege and a
pleasant duty, but it does not o( necessity follow that because a particular
thing seems to be polite to them, it is therefore kindest and best for them;
since their welfare is inevitably and inextricably associated with that of
society. What is most just, prudent, and wise on the whole, and in the
long run, for the State as a whole, and for the family, must be best for
their female members. That the drift of public sentiment and of legisla-
tion has for more than two hundred years been steadily to ameliorate
woman's condition, and highten her privileges before the law, is undeni-
able. Whether that movement have gone far enough already, or, if not,
whether the admission of women to the right of suffrage be among fur-
ther beslowments which ought to be made, is a fair question to be decided
on evidence ; and which ought to be argued — and which surely can be
urgued — without predisposition or prejudice.
Let us first precisely understand the facts.

The Constitution of the United States ordains that those only may
vote for representatives to Congress who are qualified in any State to vote
for members of its House of Representatives ; but each State Legisla-
ture may prescribe who shall vote for presidential electors. Now, in
Massachusetts, the State Constitution limits to " male '* citizens of twenty-
one years and upwards, otherwise qualified, the right to vote for represen-
tatives to its General CourL So that a ch?.nge in the Constitution of the
United States, or of the State of Massachusetts, would be needful
before women can acquire right of suffrage for representatives in Con-
gress; while, as things are, the General Court could empower women to
vote for presidential electors. So, also^ under our State Constitution,

■^ W I I I I J

" ' I ' • I ..l>p<

»l» ■ ■ I » «

• .1 .. .' • .. 11

the General Court coald aathoHife wtxnbn 'lo TOte for county, city, an<!
town officers — because that Const itation*li sHent as to the qualifications
of voting for all officers other than Governor, Lieut-Governor, senators
and representatives.

Acting under this power, the General Court has already given to
women who pay a poll tax of fifty cents, the right to vote for members of
the school committee. It has also permitted women to practice as attor-
neys, and empowered the Governor to make any such attorney a special
commissioner of deeds. It could go on to give women the power to vote
for county, city, and Slate officers.

So, also, the State Constitution could be altered — it would take a
two thirds vote of the General Court in two successive years, confirmed
by subsequent majority vote of the people to do it — so as to give wo-
men the same power to vote for the higher State officers which male
citizens now have. Or the Constitution of the United States could be
altered — it would take a two thirds vote of both houses of Congress
ratified by the legislature of three fourths of the States to do that — so
as to empower women to vote for representatives and presidential elect-
ors. The practical question now is whether either of these possible
things — and if so, which — ought to be attempted ?

We do not regard it as of much consequence that choice l)e made
between such alternatives. The question is broader than either. If
women ought to stand on the same platform with men in the matter of
voting, they ought to stand there fully and without discrimination
against them of any sort ; therefore if any then alt barriers of legisla-
tion should be removed, and the two sexes be placed on an absolute
equality, in this respect, before the law. Such mu:»t, inevitably, be the
ultimate result of an acceptance by the community of the conclusion that
both sexes should have identical legal position ; for, once begun, there
could be no stopping-place till the full end had been reached.

We propose as briefly and clearly as possible, to contribute what
we can to the fair discussion and full understanding of the main question
thus awaiting dedsion.

II.

AS TO WOMEN'S WRONGS.

OMAN'S suffrage is advocated by some on the ground that
women — in comparison with men — are seriously wronged by
the law as it exists; and that the natural way to right such
wrongs is to give them the ballot. The former plea might be
true, without rendering necessary the truth of the latter ; but it may not
be unwise first to inquire how far women, as compared with men, are,
in fact, now experiencing wrong before the law. .

The old English common law underlies all New England legislation.
It had gradually grown up from the slowly developing needs of society,
beginning in the days when each man was obliged to hold himself at all
times ready to render armed service to his local lord and the king, and
when, in order to prevent this war-contingent on which the State de-
pended from diminishing, the son, to the exclusion of the daughter, on
the father^s death inherited his lands — subject to his obligations of
tribute and military service. Of course, in such circumstances, a man
was worth much more to society than a woman. Therefore if a woman
killed her husband — having slain a king's warrior — she was held to
have waged war against the king, and accordingly was punished as if
for treason ; while, if a man killed a woman, it was simple homicide. It
was a part of such a condition of things that the husband be held respon-
sible for most of his wife's crimes, and owned her properly — subject to
her debts.

This common law, except as Parliament had superseded or modified
it by special statute, was what our fathers lived under in England when
they came hither; and, so far as they could make that home system
apply to their changed position, it was natural that they should begin by
standing on a like plaiform here. Gradually, as their new life developed '
new needs, they sought to meet them by their colonial enactments.
Plymouth began, as early as 1633, with a law empowering the court to
provide for the widow and fatherless in case a man "die banktr-ouL**
Three years after the same Colony declared that the widow shall have,
during life, use of a third part of her late husband's lands, with a third of
his goods absolutely for her own. The ^lassachusetts Colony a little
later made similar provisions — the force of ancient English custom re-

■I ■ II - f ,1

■ HI ■ ■ ■■ ^.» - . . , .

'm i.

. ■ w-w^p^

fcaling Itself in the gift to the eldest son of a donble portion, in
dividing property among the family.

About forty years ago greater changes b»gan. Wives were first al-
lowed — by prc-marriage contract — to hold property to their separate
use, and to receive and devise as if unmarried; only not in trade or com*
roerce. Soon the married woman was empowered to carry on business
on her own account, and hold her earnings ; and her property was re-
lieved from her husband's control, and from liability for his debts. But
she must Iceep her property recognizably separate from his. Still further,
she may make binding contracts, and enforce them at law, and sue and
be sued, with and agiinst all persons, her husband alone excepted.
Either husband or wife can act as agent for the other in buying and sell-
ing. Both husband and wife stand on the same level before the law, in
the right to dispose of all personal property wiiliout the other's consent.
In the rajlter of real e^taie the wife has not yc!i quite as much freedom
as the husband.

In this connection, however, it is fair to remember that in several
particulars, as the laws stand, woman has advantage over man. She
may contract a valid marriage at the age of twelve, while the "man"
must wait till he is fourteen. She acquires a "settlement" in town or
city by five years' continacd residence without paying taxes, as men must.
She is free of militar}* and jury duly, and — except in actions for tort —
U exempt from arrest previous to judgment and execution. She is
obliged to pay no poll tax, with the exception of fifty cents, should she
desire to vote for school committee. If a widow or a spinster over
twenty-one she has advantage over man to the amount of $500, in
exemption from taxation. She can more easily than man acquire citizen-
ship of the United States. Her property is to a certain extent relieved
from the operation of the Statute of Limitations, and she has the advan-
tage of man in regard to policies of life insurance. Her husband is still
held liable for her support, although she may have more property, and be
making money faster than he; while, on the other hand, K he be a
pauper, and she a millionaire, she is under no legal obligation to support
him. The husband is often liable for criminal acts committed in his
presence by his wife — on the legal theory that she is acting under his
influence and control ; yet no counterbalancing liability exists on her
part. A father is bound to support his children during their non-age,
e\*eQ when they have property of their own ; a widowed mother is not
ander such obligation, unless she have sufficient means, and her children
have none of their owtu

We do not overburden these slight pages with foot-notes citing the
aothorities on which these statements are made ; but chapter and verse
can be given for ever}* one. The same remark holds good for all kin-
dred assertions following.

We submit, then, that times have changed in respect to this subject
so far that it is not altogether an easy thing to say on which side the

r
I

advantage lies, and whether man's "wrongs,** or woman's "wrongs,**
just now, preponderate.

But, however this may be, it is not at once apparent how the gift to
woman of the right to vote, in cases in which she has not yet received it,
can right any wrongs under which she may fairly be said still to suffer.
Any just consideration of that involves some previous inquiry how far
suffrage in itself is a right for man, or woman.

III.

REASONS FOR FEMALE SUFFRAGE.

1^5.

i:&

T is urged that suffrage ought to be conferred upon woman,
because she has a right to it ; because she is now the subject
of wrongs which would be redressed by it; and because the
welfare of society demands it. If these claims are legitimate,
ihcy surely have conclusive force, and, in any event, they should receive
candid examination.

Has woman a right to the suffrage? If so, it must be either one
natural, or conferred. Has she natural right to suffrage?

A right that is natural to man is one which inheres in the very fact
that he is human, and of which, therefore, so long as he remains human,
he can neither divest himself, nor be divested. Thus the infant and the
idiot have natural right to care, protection, and just treatment Cruelty
is wrong toward any creature, yet a kUten or a calf may be killed without
blame when the general good requires it; but people may not blamelessly
kill a baby, or a fool, under like circumstances. If, then, suffrage be a
natural right, infants and idiots, in sharing human life, acquire it, which
is absurd, and minors have the same claim to it before they come of age
as after. Moreover, since criminals do not cease to be human in becom-
ing criminals, if suffrage be a natural right they must retain it in the
penitentiary and under the gallows-tree, which is against the public con-
science and cannot be.

But we are told that "man's natural right to government for the
common good carries along with it the right to the ballot, by which gov-
ernment is organized." Government for the common good, to which, on
this supposition, every man is entitled, i; good common government.
But all government by ballot is not good common government There
are ballots and ballots. Some help. Some harm. Therefore, until it

(

•

first be made probable that, should he vote, a person's ballot will help
and not harm, it cannot become evident on this theory that he has
natural right to vote; inasmuch as it must be more for his welfare to go
without suffrage himself, if so he can enjoy good government from
others, than to suffer bad government by voting himself. The five
hundred or one thousand passengers who throng on board of a Cuiurdcr
from the landing-stage at Liverpool, may be said to have a natural right
to as speedy and safe a voyage as may be across the Atlantic; but very
tew of them would probably be disposed to insist that, by consequence,
they acquire the duty of superintendence either of pilot house, engine
room, or forecastle, or the responsibility of charting and ordering the
daily course. Good common government for that ship is best reached,
on the one hand, by the action of those who have the requisite knowl-
edge and skill, and by the cheerful acquiescence therein of the remaining
portion of the company, on the other.

We are perpetually driven back, then, from every direction of in-
quiry, toward the position that only when and where human life is
4 accompanied by suitable intellectual and moral capacity, does it take, or
can it hold, right of suffrage. Hut that is simply the old philosophy cf
the subject, which necessarily involves the conclusion that nobody — and
therefore not even woman — can have any mifural right of suffrage. It
may be added here, that the Supreme Court of the nation has agam and
again decided that suffrage is a civil and not a natural right; and this
where [Anderson vs. Baker, 23 Maryland Rep. 531] many inhabitants of
Maryland were disfranchised by the decision.

That no right of suffrage has as yet been conferred upon woman, is
made evident not merely by the common interpretation of the language
of the Constitution, but by the concession involved in the fact that the
great contention of the woman-suffragists now is for an amendment to
that instrument expressly to confer the right upon them — which would
be surplusage did that right already exist.

But, if woman have no right, cither natural or constitutional, to
suffrage, is she the subject of wrongs which right of suffrage would most
naturally and wisely redress?

We last week, with some care, examined the question whether, as
legislation now stands, women are at disadvantage before the law, with
result of discovering that — aside from this matter of voting — it is a
little difficult to conclude on which side the balance of advantage in that
matter between men and women now lies. The married woman ordi-
narily has not as much power in the conveyance of real estate as her
husband; surviving, she usually holds a less share in his estate after his
death than he in hers after her death ; and her power over property by
will is scarcely equal to his. On the other hand, the wife has advantage
— > in a facility to receive gifts from the husband which the law denies him
from her ; in a responsibility of his for some acts of hers which she has
not for his ; in a liability of his to support her, which does not hold coiv

;

versely; In certain exemptions from taxation, fire, military, and jury
duty, certain advantages in settlements, in naturalization, as to arrest, as
to life insurance, as to homestead and burial, as to holding property after
divorce, and in the matter of the widow's allowance.

If then — and so far as — woman is now behind man in the matter of
rights before the law, the remedy for such " wrongs ** would scarcely
seem to He through the indirect process of conferring suffrage upon her,
so much as through the straightforward method of raising her, in these »
respects, by direct legislation, to a condition of substantial identity with
man. Perhaps, on the whole, no good reason exists why buch legislation
should not l)e had — establishing both sexes as to all such matters upon
a perfect equality. If creditors of either would be more likely to be
defrauded then than now, with their eyes open they must proceed in
some way to hedge themselves about with greater practical precautions.

But if woman have neither natural nor constitutional right to vote,
and have no longer any civil wrongs which require the ballot for their
wisest correction, we reach the third point of inquiry, to wit : does the §
welfare of society demand that the ballot be conferred upon her? Be-
fore discussing that, however, there are one or two exceedingly plausible
arguments quite in the line of those we have been considering, which
demand attention.

IV.

HOW ABOUT THAT HALF?

fAlD a very intelligent person to us, "My instincts are conserv-
ative on this, as on most other questions, but I confess that it
staggers me to see one half of the entire community — a half
presumably not specially inferior to the other in general intelli-
gence, and therefore fully competent to vote — simply by the accident of
sex excluded from the franchise." And he went on to ask, ** How, on
the whole, docs this strike you?" We replied, "On the whole, it strikes
us that you have stated the case a great deal more strongly than the
truth will warrant, and that, could one get down to the solid basis of the
complete and exact facts, he would find matters looking somewhat other
than as you have put them." It Is our object now to seek for, and
suggest, these facts.

t. Our friend assumed that one half of the entire population !s
female; could vote were it not for that circumstance; and so is disfran-
chised "simply by the accident of sex." Let us see how these assump-
tions bear examination.

In tk-: first place, sex is not an " accident." It is part of the all-
wise and beneficent pLn on which human society is made possible, and
by whose conditions it is shaped. It, and all which is naturally involved
in it, is from God for man's good ; and the wise will so regard iL

In the second place, one half of the entire population is not female.
Of the SOi'SS»7^3 persons who when ihe last census was taken were in-
habitants of the United States, only 24,636,963 were females. That is to
say, Ihe entire female population, native, foreign-born, white, black,
brown, and red, including Chinese, Japanese, and Indians, lacked being
equal to the entire male population by a number equivalent to the total
inhabitants of the seven States and Territories of Arizona, Delaware,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming, with a few more
than all the residents of twenty counties in Kansas, and of the city oi
Taunton, Mass., added to that totaL

In the third place, less than one half of this actually existing female
population was old enough to vote, so that it is not true of them that
they are debarred from suffrage by the accident of sex, since they could
not vote if they were males. Of the total female population, the number
who were twenty-one, or over, was but 11,224.677 — or a number lest
than one half of that population, by more than the total inhabitants oi
the States of Maine, Rho<le Island, and Delaware, and the Territory oi
Wyoming added together. It follows, therefore, that, so far as sex can
be assumed to have any relation to the possession or non- possession of
the franchise, those who fairly come into that category, so far from being
fifty per cent of all the people, fall to the merest fraction over hctnty-iVM
per cent of the entire population.

2; But our friend further assumed that these excluded females not
only equal the males in number, but also in intelligence. Dogberry in-
sisted that " comparisons are odorous,** and it would 1)e very difBcuIt to
form any fair estimate, in this case, of the probable proportionate intelli-
gence of the two sexes. Hut, as a question by itself, we can shape some
just idea of the facts as to this twenty two per cent of women who might
vote were they men, and did they satisfy the law. Speaking in round
numbers, yet with approximate accuracy — of the less than eleven and a
quarter millions of voting age, near a million and a half are negro wo*
men, and more than two millions and a half more are foreign-born, very
largely Irish; reducing the white native-born female population, of
voting age, to a little over seven millions and a quarter, or less thany^
te€n p^r cnti of the whole. Furthermore, there is a large — though
unassignable — proportion of this remainder, who only escaped being
foreign-born by having been born after their parents landed in this

country ; and whose mental and moral conditions cannot widely separate
them from their kindred who first drew breath over sea.

We are not, let it be distinctly understood, here saying, or hinting,
attack upon, or disfavor of, the colored women of the land, or of those
Irish and other alien females, most of whom have brought to this coun-
try, as a necessary consequence of the misfortune of their previous
condition, a low grade both of intelligence and culture. We arc simply
insisting that facts ought to be recognized as facts, and that when, with
sweeping and tumultuous rhetoric, we are told that one half of the popu-
lation of the land, fully competent to the suffrage, is arbitrarily excluded
therefrom "simply by the accident of sex," it is important for those who
are candidly in search of the real truth, rather than merely hankering for
victory, to consider that, in reality, less than fifteen per cent are so
excluded.

Of course, this does not in itself justify the exclusion of that largely
reduced number. That is a question not of right — for we have demon-
strated that suffrage is never a natural right, whether for man or woman
— but of expediency, and of the general good. And that question —
whether it be for the general good that those females who have not yet re-
ceived the franchise because they were born women, and not men, should
now be admitted to it — ought to receive the kindest, yet gravest, and
most deliberate consideration.

(

WHAT SUFFRAGE IS.

T has been conBdently affirmed that to confer the elective fran-
chise upon woman would be at once, and of necessity, to remedy
the worst of our social ills ; and, in the words of a chief advo>
cate of the measure, beneficently to inaugurate "the broadest
and most sweeping reform that the world has ever witnessed." If this
claim be valid, woman suffrage demands immediate and universal accept-
ance. God knows, and men know, that there are in the world ills enough
which need remedy ; and if the enfranchisement of woman would bring
that remedy, or even ofifer large help thereto, in the name of imperiled
truth and righteousness let us have it without delay. But what if, instead,
it should cause a bad matter to be worse ? What, if, when too late, the

•■*•" •« — • ■^— .«* •» ,

little finger of the new way should prove thicker than the loins of the old,
and society be scourged with scorpions where before it had but been
chastised with whips ? Surely it is our right, and our duty, to ask for, and
if possible t) gain, beforehand, some reasonable security that to give th«
ballot to woman would make for righteousness.

The first consideration on our way to a full answer must naturally
be: what is this suffrage which to confer upon woman is to bring at once
to all <o nfRucnt a blessing? After wc have seen precisely what it is, we
can belter judge if the public good will probably be promoted by inviting
women to become participants of it.

Suffra^^ is the act by which a private individual tikes part in the
responsibilities of the administration of government. In every humaa
society there is a determinate body — somciimei*, as in an autocrac}% con-
sisting of one person ; sometimes, as in an aristocracy, ccr.sisting of a fevr.
supposed to be the wisest and the best ; sometimes, as In a democracy,
consisting of the whole body of citizens acting through a system of repre-
sentation and delegation of powers — whose laws the community obey.
This sovereign body — whether of one, more, or many — is popularly
called the government; and its underlying peculiarity of constitution
establishes the form of that government as being a monarchy, an oligar-
chy, or a republic

How governmeni first came about is not important to the inquiry
before us. We may, with Hobbcs, hold it to have been the result of an
understanding among men to keep the peace; or, with Ix)cke, regard it as
the growth of a common agreement ; or, as more broadly stated by others^
as resulting from a social compact; or, with still others, may see in it the
fruit of divine appointment; or we may rest content si.-nply to trace it
historically back to its earliest origins: in neither case shall wc afifect the
conclusion to be reached that, somehow, it holds, and ou^ht to hold, us
in its grasp, and that we cease to be true to ourselves no less than to our
fellows, in that moment when we ignore or pervert its sanations.

But what especially concerns the thing wc are now >ccking to know
is the fact that — however it came to be as it is — the Government under
which we live does practically control the State, incluJ'ng largely the
welfare of each member of the same. It makes conduct lawful or unlaw-
ful. It permits certain methods of action, and restrains from other cer-
tain methods. It digs or dams the channels of commerce. It orders the
courses of t rade. It compels education. It regulates lab'^r. It defines
the relations of individual liberty to public safety. It coerces for ir.oral
purposes. With a blunt and sharp-eyed jealousy for the public good it
scans and scrutinizes every man*s work, of what sort it is ; never hesitating
to prune a private right here, or lop off an individual privi!c3e there, when
it judges that to do so is to do what is best — [>erhaps is n:ces>ary — for
all. There is absolutely nothing on which, directly or in iirectiv, it may
not lay its peremptory hand; no consideration, whether of solitary wel-
fare or social advantage, with which it may not presume, as an expert, to

► "• V • • ■ »—►•.".■.*»""" •. *~. . — » ^ ' •« •-• « \' •

deaL Bj statute it maj iodirectlj doable the cost oC the food oo the
poor nu-i's tab!e, cot frt'Hn cnder his feet the wage-platform oa which he
vorks. 2.- J corjpel h:ni to attempt a new trade, or starve.

DeiJng thus with \rhat tooches haman welfare at every point, two
things Income if immeasorable importance to good goTcmment — and
thcrtfor* to every human being among its constituent subjects: that its
ac!mini>intion be wise, and that it be steadily trise. It is needed not only
tbat the ziost hcallhfql coor>es be always taken, but that all sudden
changes — almo>t inrariably freighted with disaster — be, so far as possi-
bic, avo'ivrd. To ibese ends it becomes of first importance that both a
pure ir.:£-^rity and a wise statesmanship be always in control. Nothing
must be Jane through strife and vain glory. Nothing through local pride
or cla:<s antipathy. Nothing through blind prejudice, or for purely selfish
ends. TzM. stream of pu?e, prudent, and wholesome legislation which is
to fertrirs and bless a broad people, cannot issue from the bitter and
roiled fc .ntains of fanatical, sectional, or pot-house politics.

To nake this practical, we must remember that every ballot cast in
the Unt.:d States helps to govern us, and, considered simp!y as a ballot,
helps or '.arms just as much as any other vote can do. So that Michael
O'Shau^-.cssy, Hans Dummkopf, or Cxsar Plalo Socrates Sambo^ to
neither c: whom through his unkempt hair or vrool has penetrated the first
idea as to the difference between any one theory of government and
aiiother, and who^e utmost notion of fidelity to duty at the polls is to cast
the bailee which the **boss'* bids; exerts as much direct influence upon
public polic}', to bless or to curse it, as does George William Curtis, or
William Maxwell Evarts, or Theodore Dwight Woolsey. Nay, it is even
true thi: the more disqualified for the franchise by shiftless and irresponsi.
blc poverty, ignorance, and vice, such a man may be, the more likely he is to
be led, through bigotry, blind zeal, or bribery, to cast his vote. Thus,
already, iections, parties and interests among us are so arrayed and im-
b'ttcred against each other that one legislature has adjourned without
being al'e to elect a Senator to represent its State in a seat just now
vacant Iz the upper House of the nation, while another bids fair to fol*
low su:L Moreover, the *Mobby" manipulates Congress to that degree
that mere real law-making is done in committee rooms, and at cham.
pigne pirtics, than in the halls of legislation ; while the Congress which
has just expired — peace to its worthless ashes — has been so paralyzed
by the piriable fear lest any good deed done by it might redoimd to the
praise of one party more than the other, as mainly to have refr^uned from
good detds altogether; not even daring to allude with healthy horror to
the dynimite diabolism, lest, forsooth, the Irish vote might be "alien-
ated I" The Irish vote I

This reminds us that it may help toward a just conclusion if we go
back an£ glance at the history of suffrage here ; that we may see in what
manner, and from what causes, we have sunk to that deplorable positloo
in this respect, which, as a nation, we now occupy.

VI,

WHAT OUR HISTORY SUGGESTS.

I /

'HE Plymouth men, although beginning with a selfmnde com-
pact, signed by nearly all their adult males in the cabin of the
Mayflower, as being, as Governor Bradford thought, *• under
their circumstances as fl.m as any patent, and in some respects
more sure," so soon as they became fairly equipped with a General
Court, admitted to their franchise but by that, and only those males of
oncand-twenty, or over, whose neighbors gave them a good character as
being sober, peaceable and orthodox in ihc fundamentals of religion, and
who had at least ;f 20 value of ratable estate in the colony. Full right of
suffrage belonged to these frcedmen alone, although in merely town
aCfairs other residents also were allowed to vote. The Massachusetts
men had received with their charter the light lo make as many freemen
under it as they liUcd, and on such terms as pleased them. Rut, when
fairly launched upon their difficult experiment, they agreed upon a law
at which it has been the fashion for later generations to sneer — restrict-
ing the condition of freeman to adult miles, members of the churches
within the Colony.

The simple truth comes out through these facts that the fathers of
New England were soon convinced that it would be unsafe to commit the
management of their dearest civil and sacred interests lo the hands of
indiscriminate, not to say incompetent, i>ersons, and were driven to the
conviction that their only safe course wa«, so far as possible, to make it
»are that all whose votes controlled their public affairs should have some-
thing at stake in them of value to themselves, and po-^sess at least some
good degree both of intelligence and moral worth. The idea of securing
this latter by requiring antecedent church membership was by no means
for them either so intolerant, or so unwise, as certain sciolists have pre*
ftumed to insist. Dr. George E. Ellis, one of the most profoundly learned
liring students of New Eng'and history, and who would Ik last lo lie ^^4-
pccted of any misleading tenderness towards the old dogmas, has put z
pregnant question never as yet answered [Lf€turn Ik/, LirofcU fnst.^ 61 J,

-J

What else, what less, than this, could they have done for their own
security ?

And so Dr. Palfrey [f/ist, JVi En^., i, 345] alike free from every suspicion
of favorable theological bias says :

The conception [of a State made up of regenerate members], if a
delusive and impractictb'e, was a noble one. Nothing I)etter can be
imagined for the welfare of a country than that it shall be ruled on Chris-
tian principles; in other words, that its rulers shall be Christian men —
men of disinterestedness and integrity of the choicest quality that the
world knows — men whose fear of God exalts them above every other
fear, and whose controlling love of God and man consecrates them to the
ino>t generous aims.

John Cotton [j'Jfts^ucr to Lord Say and Scaf, ffc, Hutchinson^ i, 436]
with great distinctness announced the pliilosophy of their action thus:

The liberties of the people of this Commonwealth are such as require
men of faithful intcf^rity to Cod and the State^ to preserve the same.
Their liberties, among others, arc chiefly these : (i) To choose all magis-
trates, and to call them to account at their General Courts; (2) to choose
such burgesses [used here in the sense of the modern word '* representa-
tives"], every General Court, as with the magistrates, shall make or
repeal all laws. Now both these liberties are such as carry along much
power with them, either to establish or subvert the Commonwealth, etc

Our nation started, then, with the fundamental idea that its safety •
must depend upon restricting suffrage to those who — as the rule —
should be presumably most competent to its exercise. And only gr?.du-
ally has that idea degenerated into the present license. When, ninety-
seven years ago, the Constitution of the United States came to be framed
and adopted, the conviction that it was unsafe to submit so grave a
responsibility as the election of the chief magistrate of the nation to pop-
ular suffrage, even as then restricted, was so weighty and- universal as to
lead to that provision of the Constitution by which the people simply
chose the electors, in the understanding that the electors would choose
for President — not, as now, the man whom the people had designated be-
forehand — but the man whom their own better judgment should approve,
whether the people had thought of him for the ofBce or not. And we
have the testimony of Alexander Hamilton [Federalist, No. LXVIII]
that this section of the Constitution was almost the only one "which
escaped severe censure, or which received the slightest mark of approba-
tion from its opponents; " while he himself urged that "a small number

\ of persons selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be

most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite.**

t In 1S4S, Mr. Webster said before the Supreme Court :

f Virginia — how long is it since she gave up freehold suffrage ? IIow

long is it since nobody voted in New York without a freehold qnalifica*
tion? There arc now States in which no man can vote for members of
the up|>er branch of the legislature, who docs not own fifty acres of land.
Kvcry State requires more or less of a property qualification in its officers
and electors ; and it is for discreet legislation, or constitutional provisions,
to determine what its amount shall be-

'^/•m^m^mi^m

We cannot talce space here to show in detail bow (he country has
drifted as to all this since Mr. Webster's day. It is enough to know that
there has been a strong and ceaseless current in the direction of larger
license, until the demagogical demand for the removal of every limitation
of suffiage has been so far yielded to, that now almost no alien can be so
witless, so miscellaneously incompetent, or so utterly without that pledge
of interest in the welfare of the State which the possession of a little
property needing protection affords, that a ballot cannot in some way l)C
managed for him. While, as the result of well-meant but reckless legis-
lation consequent upon the war, the entire adult male colored population
of the South — amass left by slavery stranded in ignorance and vice —
has been admitted to the franchise. Thus we have put ourselves in a
position which leaves us with an amount of incapacity, perversity, and
prejudice to be absorbed, digested, and assimilated, which, should success
be realized, mu:3t tax our national constitution to its utmost capacity, and
which, in view of frequent facts often awakens gloomiest fears of failure.

As matters now stand, we place those dearest, roost delicate and
weightiest public interests, which our fathers felt could be safely intrusted
only to a select few of the wisest and the best, into the hands of more than
twelve and three quarter miscellaneous millions of adult males; of whom
we know that more than three millions were natives of Europe, many of
whom can be scarcely more familiar with the genius of our affairs than
we are with the interior politics of Japan ; and that at least a million and
a half more were born and bred in a Southern slavery which has left the
majority of them incapable of all useful discharge of (he supreme duties
of citizenship.

We are in (he midst o( hard times. Our manufactures stagnate.
Our ships rot from the seas. Our farmers fail in the markets. Our rail-
ways earn scant or no dividends. Kvcry industry languishes. Some
people think it is because we have so much silver coined into lying
dollars, which insult high heaven by declaring their ** trust in God.**
Some say it is because we need free trade. Some are sure that a different
tariff would relieve all. And, as in (he theater at Ephesus, some cry
one thing and some another — all agreeing only in (he judgment that
Congress mu!>t come to (he na(ion*s relief. It must "do something.**
Do what?

Ah, (hat is the precise question ! And, in room of taking it as our
fathers would, and as the genius of our institutions prompts, to a body of
experts wise enough to form, and small enough to express and enact an
opinion into a law, we have reduced ourselves to the pitiable necessity of
taking it to twelve millions and three qu.trters of people, most of whom
know little or nothing about it, and have no other idea of duty with
regard to it than to "run in** to Con;^iess whomsoever the "party"
dictates.

And now we are urged to carry the matter still further, and to ask
every woman in the country over one-and-twenty — if, indeed, that age be

««« » * - »

not also " oppressive ** — what shall be done as to the tariff and the silTer
coinage, and the other vital questions. And we are left to infer that* i
until all the Bridgets leave their brooms, and all the Dinahs their wash-
tubs, to enlighten us, we must remain in our darkness and sorrow.

VII.

THE COMMON SENSE OF SUFFRAGE.

£ have seen that, when a citizen votes, he assumes and dis-
charges his part of the responsibility of (he administration of
kj\'/\i^J the government under which he lives. The act is momentary,
~ '^^ but its results may cheer, or curse, for centuries. It may be on
his part essentially mechanical and unintelligent, yet it may precipitate
consequences as to the wisdom of which the most sagacious publicists
have been in doubt for generations. Some "'prentice han"* — as Burns
phrases it — may, by the majority of his single ballot, elevate to a chief
place of power in the Commonwealth a wily, scheming, unscriipulous,
and consummately able demagogue, who, working adroitly with others,
and plotting skillfully to combine into a single powerful body all restless
elements of opposition to the good old Puritan ways, may end in forcing
upon us the Continental Sunday, the Parisian system of inspecting and
licensing houses of ill-fame, unlimited German beer-gardens, and Monte-
Carlo gambling casinos — with their associated provocations to, and
manifestations of, the world, the flesh, and the devil. Or — to bring the
matter, we are afraid, a little closer than even thus to the business and
bosom of the average citizen having a pocket — Mr. Henry George and
his busy collaborators may succeed, some dark day, in inflicting the phi-
losophy of Socialism upon us through all the forms of law, until the only
way left in which the "divide-even " policy can be staved off, and reason-
able rights of property conserved, may be through the violence and an-
archy of a revolution — the communistic camel having followed his nose
through the crack of the door until he has filled the house.

One of the ablest discussions of the subject of suffrage on record
occurs in the argument of Daniel Webster before the Supreme Court of
the United States, 27 Jan., 1848, in the case which grew out of the famous
" Dorr Rebellion." lie [IVorks vi : 223] says :

The right to choose representatives is every man's part in the exer-

■«^r*^iM-^^h * WT"

d*e of sovereign jMJWcr ; to have a voice in i», ry Ar h,is tht proper qualifi' •
cathiis, is the portion of political power belonj'ing to every elector. That
is the t)eginning. Tlul is the mo<Ie in which |>«nvcr emanates from its
.source, and gels into the hands of conventions Icgi^Iatnres, courts of law,
and the chair of the executive. It begins in suffrage.

Notice here how Mr. Webster expressly declares that this right of.
suffrage can l)clong only to those who have " the proper qualifications." ^
He returns, moreover, to that view of the subject, on the next page [224J,
to add :

The people often litnii themselves. They set bounds to their own
power. . . . They limit themselves, by all their conslitnlions, in two Iro-
portent respects; that is to say, in regard to the qualifications of eltetors^
and in regard to the qualifications of the elected. In every State, and In
all the States, the people have precluded thcm<telves from voting for
evervbody they might wish to vote for; they have limited their own right
of cfioosing. They have saul. We will elect no man who has not such
and such qualifications [^. V-» *^^ President must not be under thirty five
years of age, and must have been a natural born cili/cn; a senator must
nave reached the age of thirty, and have been nine years a citizen, and a
representative the age of twenty-five years, and been seven vears a citizen,
etc.]. We will not lote ourselves unless we have stieh aita such qualijiea^ \
ticfit, etc

This limitation of the elective franchise to those who are competent, 1
must surely Ik the first dictate of common sense in relation to the sub-
ject. When a man wants his will drawn, so that his reasonable wishes
may shape the disposal cjf his pro|)etty after his decease, he does no*
apply to his apothecary, nor his butcher, nor his shocmiker, but to his
lawyer, familiar with all conveyancing of proj>crty, and with the requisi*
tions of the probate statutes. If his little child l>e sr>rcly sick, he does
not call in the gr«Ker, nor the baker, nor the candlestick maker to prc-
scril>e for her, but that physician in whom he has most confidence as an
expert in regard to the diseases of children. If, by the hardest, he have
saved a few hundreds r)f dollars which he would fain invest so that \\t
may yearly have a little help from the interest of the money, and be fairly
sure of the principal should he need it in his sickness or his age, he seeks
advice in its investment from the most prudent and sagacious man of
affairs whom he knows. So, if he wants a house built, he goes to an
architect, and not to a circus-rider; if a new suit of clothes, to a tador,
and not to a harness-maker; if a new wagon, to a carriage-maker and not
to a confectioner. That is to say, common sen^e instructs him with
regard to all ordinary necessities to seek in every <lcpariment that his
work shall be done by those who best know how to do it —and not by {
bunglers, who, however wise and skillful they may be about other things
know nothing, or next to nothing, alH)ut that which he needs. In the
name of consistency how, then, can common sense fail to suggest to him
that, in regard to that grand and inclusive need of government — within
which all else that he is, lives, and moves, and has its l>eing, and wiihoat

whose reasonable prosperity nothing can mudi prosper with him — it is
requisite that, if not experts, at least the well-disposed and prudent, and
not blank blunderheads, blazing bigots, or \»tzy brutes, have the shaping
of it

We grant, of course, that the c must be necessary limitations to this
view, and that it would prove impracticable under such a form oC civil
life as ours to confine the shaping constituency of the government alto-
gether within the narrow limits of those who are experts in the science.
But it ought not to be impracticable to confine it to those who have sfitm f
fitness for doing their work as electors in a way for the common good.
Two things, at least, are not unreasonable, as conditions precedent to
the proper exercise of the elective franchise, viz.: (i) Some deposit — of
property, or otherwise — in the State, of value sufficient to make the
question of the l)est. management of government one that shall deeply
concern the elector, and (2) the possession by him of a degree of intclli-
gence, and nn amount of knowledge, which shall enable him to comprcr
hend the difference between the well or ill shaping of national politics,
and of the relation of practical affairs to them. With regard to the
former wc are reminded of a good story which has a direct bearing upon
it. An employer, not long ago, said to one of his workmen, whom he
had known to be a rather noisy advocate of communistic views: **It
seems to me I do not hear you say so much in favor of communism as
formerly." "No," was the answer, *'I have changed my mind; I think
communism to be a very bad thing." "Wliat changed your mind?"
" Well — if you must know — I have always been told that a divide-cveo
all round would give each man one hundred dollars, and I have already
cfif htiudrcii ami hvcnty-five in the savings-bank I "

Of course wc shall be told that all this would have looked well 10
the moonlight nights of the generation before the present, but that, how-
ever important it might have been for coi\s:dcration at that time, it is
obsolete in this day, when impecunious aliens, who have hardly gotten o9
the sea-legs of their first importation, are marched in droves into our
naturalization offices, and, by a corrupt collusion between the managers
of the men and the ra?jiagers of the offices, are empowered to rote — as
they shall be directed to do by their priest, or their overseer.

To which we reply that our common sense tells us that the w^orse a
bad matter may now be, the more important it becomes, if possrb!ea not
to add to the misfortune. And if this nation be now in grievous peril of
absolute shipwreck from having, to a degree, weakly and foolishly put its
helm into incompetent, if not unfaithful, hands, that fact cries out to us
all the more plaintively, and piteously, not to repeat and enlarge the
mistake. Such revolutions never go backward. It is unimaginable that 1
any logic or rhetoric, whether of words or deeds, can persuade the mill« -
ions now having the right to vote who are palpably unfit for its exercise,
to disfranchise themselves, and relieve the natfon of the incubus of their
presence at the polls. Let then commcn sense at least warn us not to

±o

ciiduw wiih sufTrngc ihc additional millions of females — a few of whoml
are clamoring for it — until it first be made clear that they have "the |
proper qualifications" ^nd that the public good will in reality be pro-
moted bj such a procedure.

VIII,

THE FITNESS OF WOMEN FOR

SUFFRAGE.

^ «v^i3-^E further aspect of the general subject invites attention before
-^^j ♦: we arc prepared directly to consider whether it be for the pul>.
^ lie good that woman receive the franchise. It respects her
* innate fitness for the same.
In examining this it becomes us to remember that the question asks
consideration in its usual, and not its exceptional, aspects. Joan of Arc
in the fifteenth century may have done a work for the armies of France pos-
sible to few men in her place; as a captain's widow in our time may have
safely navigated home the barque Ixrreft of the skill and courage of her
hnsband*s presence; without demonstrating — without even suggesting —
that it is commonly to be desired that women lead armies, or handle
ships. People accustomed to every luxury, during the siege of Pari^,
made shift to sustain life on vermin; and some of our heroic arctic
explorers have fought off starvation by the help of scraps of putrid fi^h
and old boots; yet no sane mind thinks of arguing therefrom that such
provender is really better suited to the human stomach than chops or
steaks, and to be desired like them to make one strong. The exact
question is — taking the ages through, taking her as she is when circum-
stances favor her perfectly natural development, and taking her as she U
to h; in *' the good time coming,'* and as the best good of roan requires
her lobe — how does woman stand related to the subject under discussion.
I. On our way to more vital considerations, it can do no harm to
remember that the enfranchisement of woman would involve incon- ^
veniences to the family often inconsi:>tenl with its best interests ; and this
to every woman ; for it is idle to contend that those women only need
vole who should desire to do so. That portion of the sex which it in
le.igue with the rum-seller and the gambler and the dance hall keeper, and
their kindred foes to the best interests of society, would lie »are to vot€

every lime ; and this would compel every good woman to vole — sick or .
well, willing or unwilling — by way of antidote, or our last state would
surely be worse than our first. But when it comes, in the city mansion,
to the lady of the house and all her servants leaving it with no one perhaps |
to tend the door ; and, in thousands of country homes, to shutting up the
premises, or trusting little children for hours with the risk of themselves
and of each other, in order that the father and mother may travel miles
to a caucus, or to the polls, the business takes on a serious look. We
say "caucus," because, if the women do not frequent the primary meet-
ings to shape nominations, it can do little good for them to go afterward
to another place to act upon them. It is surely of very doubtful utility
that every department of household affairs be brought to a stand-still,
every now and then, that a factitious duty maybe done — which, if all
think alike, is needless, and, if all do not think alike, may be perilous to |
family peace.

2. The intellectual peculiarities of women scarcely favor large
expectation of the usefulness of her enfranchisement If all end in her
casting often, or habitually, a wrong vote, society must surely be the worse •
for it. But, as compared with man, she has less Of that calmness of
research, that completeness of investigation, and that unprejudiced cool-
ness of judgment, which usually underlie wise political action. She is
apt to jump at conclusions. Often she can see little beside the red rag
of prejudice. While, at the same time, that she is illogical, incompletely
supplied with facts, or wholly astray from all the cardinal points of a
given subject, will be likely to make her more, rather than less, assured
and persistent. Nor is this peculiarity certain to be removed by high
culture, as a late occurrence may aptly illustrate.

On the 25th January last, in Washington, the president of the
Howard University preached upon Woman and Skepticism. lie argued
that when a woman becomes an unbeliever, she pitiably severs herself
from her own best friend, Jesus Christ. In the whole discourse there
was, as we are informed, no word against woman suffrage, nor even
covert allusion to the subject. But, so soon as the sermon was ended,
Mrs. E. C. Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony — who are surely among
the most highly cultured apostles of the new faith — rushed, in an
excited manner, upon the platform; one to say to Dr. Patton — in tones
which no true lady is accustomed to use — *'ihat his mother. If he had
one, ought to take him over her knee and spank him ; " the other to blurt
out her ironical "thanks for the discourse, as proving that — as she had
always claimed — the bitterest enemies of the * woman's cause * are to be |
found In the pulpit.'* After which the two flounced down and out The
entire procedure suggests how much of the quietness of candid good
sense, and the truthfulness of a scrupulous regard for facts, it might be
reasonable to expect even of fairly educated females, in the midst of the
furious disputes and fierce prejudices of a hotly contested election.

Many kindred suggestions might easily be added here, were it wise

to ezpaxid these brief saggestioos to the full coasiJcntiott oC tbc »«^c<i.
Ejt tbe real qoestSoa does not turn npon siich outxrictl poMnti as tV:«f^
b«t rasSer apoa ibc invard and eternal fitness of ihinjs, TKe fact tKal
tkat ■ Lass o' Lowric's *• did, and did well, a man's u\>ik m l\e cv^a^^^«ls
belps and ia nowise liJnders ibc exultation uiih which the ah»^«<«<ed
reader of Mrs. Puxncll's striking lvx)k rcgirds ihc result by whWh iht
girl rises oat of her unnatural mannishness into tho^ higher regions \if
strong and pure femineity, which she is sa fitted to enjoy and adv\tn as the
wife of the plucky overseer.

3. We plead, then, that woman's nature is ailjunctivc and cxMupJe*
mental, rvot sc!f-conip!ete, ii relative and iiulcjKndent, She was m>l
divinely planrnd to do alone, or to be alone, but to l< a help meet f*%r
man. She is his other half. It takes bi>th to compo!»e that idcjil human
entity of the f^imily, which, and not the individual, is the fundamental
anit from which the construction of society staits, and which should vv»te»
It is not affirmed to l)e every man*s or every woman's duty, or piivilcge,
to be married — exceptions occur un<ler, and contort with, all lulcs —
but it is to be insisted that, as the rule, marriag': is the natural, divinely
intended, and righteous estate of every human l>eing of average gifts and
capacities; that in a ])eifect millennial commonwealth tho»e tif either
sex living single would l>c as anomalous as paupers, or the tlcaf, duml\
and blind; and that, of the communities of the present those whcrt
households arc most abundant and their natuial influences nio\t predom-
inate, where marriage bears children, and mothers esteem it their highest
function, as well as dearest privilege, with prayciful, temler, and incesssnl
diligence, to rear their little ones for UNefu!neKS and holinevs — to \^
patriots and to be Christians ^ are tho^c which palpably l>ear the most
glorious fruits of all manner of prosperity. This view (>f W(tman*s natuM
and functions — which estcenis it her joy and t rown to l>c the wife «>f ont
man, to be well rejxnted of for good works, to have brought up chiMren,
to have used hospitality without grudging, to hive relieved the «niiited
and diligently followed every good thing — is inftnilcly n«ibler In lt»elf,
happier for her and more blessed for humanity, than thai which would
unwoman by seeking to make a »hatn man of her. Nor dt>et It loso her
influence from the ballni-box, inasmuch as the Intelligenro of tho good
wife usually has a part in her husband's vote.

Concerning all this we venture to quote a mo<kt effective paisagt
from the argument of Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney, the other day, beforo the
committee of the Massachusetts legislature, as to the movement under
discussion. She insists that the question »houId l>c taken In behlrul all
mere surface considerations, to be looked at in the light of the force and
finality of the central fact. She then proceeds 1

What is the law of woman-life ? What wis she made woman f»ir,
and not man ? Take this for the starting point ; it it the key.

Within, behind, antecedent to all result in action, are tne plac« and
office of tbe woman — by the law of woman-life. And all que»tion of her

* —

deed and duty should be brought to this test. Is it of her own, interior,
natural relation, putting her at her true advantage, harmonious with the
key to which her life is set ? I think this suffrage question must settle
itself precisely upon this ground-principle, and that a'4 argument should
range conclusively around it. Judging so, we should find, I think, that
not at the polN, where the last utterance of the peep!e*s voice is given —
where the results of character, and conscience, and intelligence are fhown
— is her best and rightful work; on the contrary, that it is useless here,
unless first done elsewhere. Hut where little childien learn to think and
spcnk — where men love and listen, and the world is forming — is the
r'tTice she has to fill, the errand she has to do. The question is, can she
uo both ? Is the»e need that she should do both ? Does not the former
and greater include the later and less ?

We deem it impossible to answer such questions faithfully in any
manner which does not frown trpon woman suffrage as an unnatural, and
therefore unwholesome and really monstrous thing.

It might not, in some cases, in the least harm the tenderest woman-
hood. It might, now and then, furnish a grateful stimulus to a life cor*
ctous of opportunities to do good. Certain families might, for a time,
thoroughly enjoy it. But, taken year by year, and with families as ihey
average, and with women in the mass ; being essentially a reform against
nature, woman suffrage would first languish, then repel, and in the end
prove a burden too grievous to be borne.

IX.

THE GENERAL GOOD.

! ?Ti*t-->fl^ h3.\'t seen that, before the law, woman is already in some
I ^vr?y7.-) respects better off than man ; and that as to anything in which
i S^A/i^ *^® ™*y ^^^'' ^ behind in point of legal privilege, suffrage

offers neither a necessary, nor the wisest, method of relief, i
We have seen that to vote is never a right natural to man or woman ;
always a matter of expediency, and the general good. We have seen that
the claim roughly made that *' one half of the intelligence of the nation it
now arbitrarily excluded from the polls by the accident of sex " is founded
upon misapprehension — in point of fact sex not being an "accident,"
and probably less than fifUcn per cent being by it excluded. We have
seen that with us suffrage lies at the base of good government, and that
our fathers judged the vitality of this relation to be such that the only

I safety of the Republic lay in strictly confining the ballot to the compart-
tively few who have a property stake in the general welfare, with those
who by intelligence and culture are competent to (he resi)onsibility. We
have seen that, under the stress of demagogism and civil war, we have to
departed from their idea as to imperil our institutior.s by admitting to the
polls a crude mass of millions of the alien-born, and the slave-born, to
large as to render it uncertain whether our national constitution can
prove equal to (he amazing task of its digestion and assimilation. We
have seen that, as to other matters, common sense instructs us to commit
difficult work only to expert hands. And we have further found, while
in many respects woman is poorly fitted for the duties of political life,
that such life is likely to react harmfully upon her, and must be Incon-
I genial with, and damaging to, the divinely ordained and essential idea of
the family.

Now, then, we front the exact main question : Dots fAr public good
require that women zofef If it does, then all ]>rciiidice should 1^ yielded,
all difficulties bravely invited, all opposition cease, and the franchise lie
granted them; since what is really best for society, and for all its mem*
bers, should be done. Hut with our light, we are compelled to answer
the question in the negative — among others, for the following reasons.

I. All ct)nsidcrati<>ns urged in behalf of woman suffrage break down
when closely examined. At the risk of repetition here and there, we will
glance at the chief points usually insisted on as conclusive in its favor.

Wc are told that suffrage is a natural right, and that it is therefore
injustice, fraud, and oppression to withhold it from woman. Dut we have
seen that suffrage is not a natural right, because infants, idiot% minors,
and condemned criminals must then have it, in virtue of being human,
which is absurd ; while the most eminent publicists have uniformly re-
\ garded it as a matter of political ex[)ediency and not a connate preroga-
live of man. We are told that that progress in female education which
Is a marked feature of our time demands that woman acquire the fran-
chise. Hut the majority of (he most faithful friends and promoters of that
higher female education — in the language of one of them — not only
f doubt this, but oppose the franchise as ** imperiling the influence she
already possesses.** We arc told — vaguely yet confidently — that t
majority uf women desire the ballot; and, in proof, are assured that thit
year, in this State, for every thirty who have i)etitioned for it, only one
has remonstrated against it Hut — since (hose who want a thing ask for
it, while those who arc content as they are say nothing — a much more
accurate way of reaching the facts wotild l>e to consider that, of the 443.*
091 women of Mas^-achusetts who are over oneaitdtwenty, only 15.935
have asked that right of suffrage 1>e granted them; whence it appeart
that, with all the stimulus of continual agitation through cot*vcntiont
irany, and lectures many, ami publications many, and "sufTrage socit*
itles** without number, the sleepless stirrers up of this ''nfurni" have
succeeded only in procuring the signatures of but few more than tkreg

and a half per cent of those women of Massachusetts who would be ed-
titled to the franchise, to petitions asking that it be granted them.

We are told, as single women and widows possessing property are
taxed for the same, that, without right of suffrage, they are wronged
precisely in the manner in which our Revolutionary fathers were wronged,
by ''taxation without representation.'* But this is only a skin-deep
resemblance, and covers a glaring sophism. In the beginning of the last
quarter of the eighteenth century there were thirteen American Colonies,
including hundreds of towns, with many thousands of inhabitants, all of
whose political, civil, and commercial rights were at the absolute disposal
of a king and parliament three thousand miles over sea; without the
privilege, on the part of the colonists, of so much as a solitary representa-
tive to speak for them on the floor where took place those deliberations,
and were reached those conclusions, which vitally affected their entire
temporal welfare, and scarcely with even a next friend to plead their
cause. It is foolishness to claim any honorable likeness between this
and the condition of women among us whose property bears its fair share
of the common expense of social self-preservation, although they do not
vote. Reference was made at the State House to'a woman who thus
yearly pays $ii,ooo in taxes in Crookline. But she is surrounded by
nciglibors and friends who do vote. She can make her desires known
through them. And she receives from the town equitable returns for
what she pays, like those around her who have the franchise. She is an
exception, due to the fact that it is better for all, and therefore better for
her, that her property be left without a direct vote, than that, to avoid it,
all the ills of indiscriminate female suffrage be let loose to afflict society.
Her case is precisely analogous to that of the male heirs of great estates
during their minority; and it has been estimated that there are probably
five, if not ten, such young men temporarily debarred from voting where
there is one such woman. It is not, and never was, and probably never
will be true, that every tax-payer acquires, from that circumstance, right
of franchise. There are hundreds of great corporations in the country
which, by the taxes they pay, contribute immensely to the expenses of the
State, yet which have, and can have, no vote. It is indeed said that this
parallel with the case of male minors is unjust, because they will soon
emerge into voters. But this overlooks the fact that— with the con-
tinued growth of the State — for every minor who thus emerges, morei
than another takes his p^ace. The condition of minority is as permanent
among us as the condition of womanhood, and if not to vote be a hard-
ship in the latter case, It must be also in the former.

Perhaps there never was a more plausible utterance of folly than that
famous dictum of Garibaldi on this subject, when, in April, 1880^ he told
the Italians that, "Those who obey the laws ought to make them."
Fancy the gambler, the pickpocket, the prize-fighter, the liquor-seller, and
all their carrion tribes, who^ for society's good, must be held to strict

> ' \" •

obedience to the laws, for stKiety's gfxxl fiumtnoned to make ihem !
Fancy a local congress — for convenience — held in a State's prison I

Again we are tohl that the presence of woman would purify the polls. |
This is sheer assumption. Nobody knows it. Nfany of the l)cst of the
gentler sex fear a vastly greater probability that politics would contam*)-
nate woman, th.in that woman could disinfect politics. \Vc predict that,
were women admitted to the polls, the danger of what is known as
" repeating " would be immeasurably enhanced ; since, di5guised by
different bonnets and veils, a shrewd woman might safely ri^k detection
in voting a dozen times under different names, where a man could risk it
once. Mrs. Stone and Mr. Ill.ick\\e)l blandly insist that if all the good
mothers and female teachers and church -members could only add theirs
to the votes of the good men, it would perpetuate **a vast and safe
majority ** for goodness. Rut there is no proof of this. It is a fallen
world, and women are no more unanimous for goodness than men are,
while they are {Kculiarly expo5ed to deterioration from the abrading
influences of political life ; and there arc many %vho not only fear but
believe that thus to extend the franchise would prove — lake ihe country f
through — the re-cnforcement of the worst, rather than of the best, ele-
ments of our politics. And, even were the issue to be in some placet
helpful to the success of legislation, in favor of the restriction of liquor-
selling and other forms of vice, it can never be wholesome to overturn •
the foundations of society, and subvert the divine order of things, lo
meet a temporary exigency. It is not, surely, self-evident that society as
now constituted could be expected to rest quietly under galling legal
restraints known to be due to the vote of one sex as against the other.

2. While the reasons commonly urged in favor of granting the fran-
chise to woman thus break down when examined, the reasons against it
have a substance of truth which cannot l>e set aside. It is an objection
to woman suffrage which cannot be set aside that the vast majority of
thinking women do not want it, and that many of the wisest and best
women protest against it. It is an objection which cannot be set aside
that to give woman the ballot would be to break up the natural and har-
monious gradations of our form of deputized government — in which the
husband and father represents in the town meeting (he individuals who
compose the fundamental corporation of the family ; next, the representa-
tives, duly chosen by those towns, act in the State Ixgislatare for the
corporations of those towns with their constituent families and their con-
stituent individuals ; and last, the Representatives and Senators duly
chosen in and by those Slates, act in the National Congress for the cor-
porations of those States, wiih their constituent towns, families, and
individuals. No good reason has )et )>cen given why this well*graded,
symmetrical, and coherent system shouhl be shattered in that very foun-i
dation testing upon which it has securely done its work so well for, sub-
stantially, more than two hui>dred years.

It is an objection against woman lufTrage which cannot be set askic

>mt i fonm a n 1 t •«. .

that it would tend to subvert that wise division which centuries have
sanctioned of the labors common to humanity, which assigns the lighter
work of- the kitchen and the nursery especially to women, and the heavier
and more public toils of farm, forest, ocean, battle-field, town meeting,
and legislative hall to men. It is an objection which cannot be set aside t
that woman has not the physical power — should need require — to defend
and secure the execution of her vote, by those police or military arms of
strength, which, in exigent moments, stand savingly between society and
anarchy. It is an objection which cannot be set aside that it is needless
to risk overturns and harms in order that women may vote, since, as the
rule, their interests arc fairly and even tenderly represented by men ~
all of whom are born of women, and bound to them by the sweetest and
holiest ties; and, if there be occasional exceptions to this, better ways
can be found for their remedy than to overturn society from its founda*
tions. It is an objection against woman suffrage which cannot be set
aside, that she can do a more useful work for the welfare of the State
without voting, in the quiet training of young citizens at home, than she
can hope to accomplish by unsexing herself in the rough and tumble of |
clashing interests at the polls. It is an objection which cannot be set
aside, that, were she to vote, her influence would be all too apt to be
thrown in such manner as to increase those often well-meant but uncon-
sidered and in the end pernicious class laws, and sectional legislations,
which already sufHcicntly threaten the steadfastness of the Republic
Can any person in his senses for one moment believe, for example, that,
under the skillful pilotage of the Romanist priests, the more than 200,000
votes of Irish women that would be made possible in Massachusetts by
giving woman the franchise, would not be so cast as to pay the bills of
Romanist schools from that public treasury which is filled most largely by
Protestant taxation ?

Siill further, it is an argument against woman suffrage which cannot
be set aside, that the experiment of it where tried has never yet so •
resulted as to convince the world of its beneficence. Much is said of its
assumed success in Wyoming and Washington Territories, but it is fairly
to be remembered that, when the last census was taken, the entire popu-
lation of both those Territories only exceeded by 172 persons the aggre-
gate population of yf^'^ only out of the twenty-five wards of Boston, and
that civil arrangements often work well in the beginnings of a new and
small community, which experience demonstrates to be perilously inap-
propriate to the mature conditions of older ones. An egg-shell may float
triumphantly for a week upon the calm surface of a sheltered pond,
while, at the same time, the captain of a steamer of ten thousand tons
may be straining every nerve to prevent her from foundering in the far
stormy Atlantic Furthermore, we quote from a debate in the Senate of
the United States, as to the success of this movement in another Terri-
tory:

If female sufTrage is to be incorporated Into the lavrs of our country,
with a view to ihc amcliuration of our moraU or our political sentiments,
we stand agliant at the s|>ectac1e of what has been wrought by its exercise
in the Territt>ry of Utah. There stands a power, supporting the crime
of polygamy through whAt they call a divine inspiration, or teaching from
God, and all the j)ower of iljc judges of the United States, and of the
Congress of the United States has been unavailing to break it down.
Who have upheld it? Those who in the family circle represent one hus-
band to fifteen women I

And, once more, it is an argument against woman suffrage which can-
not be set a<ide, that to grant it would involve a step In our legislation
which however disastrous might be its results, could never — short ol
revolution — be retraced. Only a popular vote could reverse it, and it It
Inconceivable — human selfishness remaining as It is — that a majority
would ever ri^c to that sublime hight of goodness which should disfran-
chise themselves for the public good.

3. And, finally, we respectfully urge upon the most ea "nest consider-
atlon of every thoughtful person, and especially of every Christian of
either sex. the consideration that to give the suffrage to woman would be
to aim a blow in danger of being fatal at that chief safeguard of society
— the family. Everybody knows that late agitations for " women'i '
rights" as matter of fact, have harmed It. That agitation creeping into
houses and leading captive silly men and women laden with sins, and
tempted by divers lusts, has .ilready broken up thousands of happy homes
by the wicked and disastrous divorce mania, with that preliminary reck-
less entrance upon the married state which it favors and furthers. What
Is needed now for the public welfare is not enhancement of that malig-
nant centrifugal force which tends to whirl society apart Into Individual!
laden with sc])arate rc^^ponsibilities, but rather all possible endeavor to
highten that wholesome ccntripet.il tendency which shall lead husbands
and wives iKnignly to sit together under their own vines and fig-trees,
with children around them whom they are training for the State and fori
heaven — a!l with trustful affection looking toward the husband and
father as their strong one to act, and their wise one to vote, for the house-
hold; and all ever filled with a spirit which would say of the subject
before us as an eloquent Senator said In Congress 1

If there is any revolutionary claim in this country. It is that of wcnaa
suffrage. It revofutioni/cs society. It revolutionizes religion. It revo-
lutionizes the constitution and laws. And it revolutionizes the opinions
of th<tse so old fashioned among us as to Ivlieve that the legitimate and
pro|)er sphere of woman is the family circle, as wife and mother, and not
politician and voter — those of us who are proud to believe that t

' A woman's DobWu ttalioa m rvtrvsl |
Her (alreU virtues fly from pablk sighlt
Domcslk worth thai shaat too uroog a ^gkL**

THE BIBLE INDORSES COMMON

SENSE.

N nine articles we have examined the question of woman suf-
frage from various sides, and been led to the conclusion that \
common sense is against it. The discussion would, however,
be in no sense complete, did we not glance at the aspect toward
it of the Word of God. We arc painfully aware that many are indifferent
to the views of revelation concerning it ; and that some, who, in general,
look upon the Scripture as having divine authority over human life, accept
its teachings in a sense so vague and timid that they are easily ovcrrid-
den and neutralized by human fancies. There still remains, however —
let us hope — a considerable number of thoughtful, conscientious, and
influential people who have not yet bowed the knee to Baal, and with
whom the distinct teaching of the Bible is the end of all strife. To such
I^crsons, especially, we now appeal, and with the more confidence because
the case is so perfectly clear, and the result so impossible to be misunder-
stood by a reverent mind. And that we may do the fullest justice to the
views of the sufTrngists on the question, we will be guided in our exami-
nation by an address of a certain reverend gentleman before the Massa-
chusetts Woman Suffrage Association, whose object it was to prove that
the Bible favors that "cause." Three points were made: first, that that
subordination of woman to man which seems involved in [Gen. iii: i6]
"and unto thy husband shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee,"
was due to sin, and the fall, and does not, therefore, set forth the divine
ideal of the relation of the sexes. Second, that all said by Paul in hit
Epistles which apparently suggests the subordination of woman to man is
to be put aside and made of no account, on the assumption that the apostle
was writing, " not from the platform of rights, but from the higher plat-
form of love," and cannot, therefore, really mean what, confessedly, he
seems to mean. The third is, that, in general, the fundamental principles
of the Bible assert and maintain the sacredness and responsibility, in all
cases, of individual rights. This remarkable reasoning let us a little
examine, in detail*

I. As to the beginnings. Man had been created. He had become

acquainted with his Maker. His intellectual faculties had passed from
the passive and receptive to the active and responsive state. lie bad
had a first lesson in speech, when Go<l spake to him of the trees of the
garden and his right relations to them and their fruit. He had had a
second, when, at Gud*s suggestion ami by His help, he had given names
to all the cattle, the fowl, and every 1>cast. And now he stood erect,
complete, the essential unit and representative of the human race; in
this original unity the counterpart of the divine unity — niunarch of all
that he surveyed, as God was monarch of him. But s|>ecch suggested
somebody to s{>eak to. And so God says: "It is not good that man «
should be alone; I will make a htlp-mftt for him." Here is struck —
before the fall, before the creation of Kve, even — the key-note of the
divine intent as to the female nature. The word used is significant. It
is rr^r, coming from the verb to "bring aid, or succor, to.** We submit
that it involves a certain natural implication of sccondarincss and tub* .
ordination. Thus [i Kings i: 7], when Adonijah exalted himself to be
king, Joab and Abiathar, his inferiors, "aided, following him." Calvin
says :

One thing is to be noted, that, when the woman is here called the

help <>f the man, no allusion i^ made to that necessity to which we are

reduced since ihe fall uf Adam; for the woman was .ordained to be the
man's helper, even although he had stood in his integrity.

Adam had seen by actual survey the ranks of created beings below
him, and, while he had named them, had ob>crvcd that none rose to capa-
cities with which he could have rational fellowship. And so he was pre-
pared to feci the need of what the Lord was about to do ; when, causing
deep sleep to fall upon him. He builded a woman from one of hit ribs.
As to this transaction Dr. Murphy says:

The original unity uf man constitutes the strict unity of the race.'
The construction of the rib into a Wi^man establishes the individuality of
man's person before, as well at after, the removal of the rib. The selec-
tion of a rib to form into a woman constitutes her, in an eminent sense, a
help-meet for him. ... At the same time, the afier-building of the part
into a woman determines the distinct personality and individuality of the
woman. Thu% we jKrccive that the entire race, even the very first mother
of it, has its es:>cntial unit and representative in the first man.

All this in the primeval innocence. When God came to pronounce
judgment for the first sin, he said to the woman who had led off in Irans-
gre>?>ion, " The determination of thy will »hall Ik yielded to thy husband,
and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee.**

Now it is quite needless toinijuire in what degree the consequence*
of this may be removed by redemption. Inasmuch as we have seen that
the original unit was the first man, and that the c:nceptlon of a certain
inferiority, secondarinc«s, and sulx>rdi nation entered into the fundamental
and unfallen Idea of the helpfulness of woman to roan ; which no sabee*
quent fall, or rising again, can reasonably be ex|K€ted esKntlally to
modify.

2. We are told that Paul's language cannot be taken to mean what
he says, because it is the " apotheosis of love." But what does Paul say?
He speaks directly upon this to three different churches, :;nd to Timothy
and Titus.

To the Corinthians [i Cor. xi : 3-9. 13-1$; xiv : 34, 35J, aside from
all specific directions as to cunduct, he lays down the general principle
that •*th2 he id of the worn in \i the min," which he supports by the two
considerations: (i) that woman was secondary in origin, and (2) ancillary
in intent. He therefore explains that their female members should keep
si4cnce in the churches, for **it is not permitted unto them to speak."
Some of the best New Testament critics judge this to mean more than
** I do not permit," namely, '* I forbid ; " and the use of the same Greek
verb in John xix : 38, Acts xxi: 39, xxvi : i, xxvii: 3, and xxviii : 16^
lends indorsement to that view ; while the reference which he adds here
[" as also saith the law "] to the fact that the Old Testament, by its gen-
eral tenor dating from the creation, and by not allowing women to do any
ministerial office in the Temple, prescribed silence on their part in the
Church, has surely a special significance.

To the church at Ephcsus [v: 22-24, 33] ^^ confines himself to the
single suggestion that Christian wives should recognize the fact that their
Christianity, so far from releasing them from obligation of due subjection
to their husbands, rather indorses and vitalizes the same, from the high
consideration that "as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives
also be to their husbands in everything." In this connection it is notice-
able that the Greek verb with which the chapter is closed — " let the wife
see that she [/>Ao^e/ai] /ear her husband" — naturally expresses the feel- «
ing with which an inferior regards a superior, and this not merely !n its
classical use by i^schylus, Sophocles, Plato, Xenophon, and others, bat
in its New Testament employ — in Luke xviii: 2; .xxiii : 40; Acts x: 2,
22; Col. iii: 22; i Peter ii: 17; Rev. xiv: 7, xv: 4, and the like.

To the Colossians the apostle condensed his counsel on this subject
into the single precept [iii : 18] : " Wives be in subjection to your hus«
bands, as is fitting in the Lord." This "as is fitting " [an^Jto] is used only
twice beside in the New Testament [Eph. v : 4 ; Philemon 8], and, in
thf connection here found, most emphatically expresses the sense o£ "that
which is suitable to, and congruous with, Christianity."

When Paul came to give Timothy general directions for the future guid*
ance of the Christian churches, he repealed, as to this [i Tim. ii: Ii-I5]»
his former precepts of silence and subjection [" I permit not a woman to
teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness "], sup-
porting the same by the two arguments : (1) That woman was second-
ary in origin ; and (2) was first to fall. To Titus [ti : i, 5], the same
apostle named as a part of the " sound doctrine " which was to be taught,
and to which obedience was to be required, that women be " in subjection
to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed."

NoWf when a man argues concerning these and their kindred pas-

< I ■■ I »

%^^^ !^-it 'J*.^ were mrtrten "nol from the platform of rights '^ut from
iKt y glcr F'.i'f >rm of love," uc admit hi» prcfhiir, but <!ci»y the con-
c'*>''.n mVcb he f%o-:'J draw from it. Paul in lhc»« Irxi* mrjnt ju^l
w>-»: he *a"J. !Iis tcac!i"ng of the subordtrution of %»omjn, ui»«!cr l»«4h
Ia» *-Jg »7>t\ was f.- iridcd as much in love aj in ri^jlii; and the pVa,
w:«Mi to tl« Ga'A'.iins [i i: :SJ he declared that "thrrc can l>e iteitlter
Jcv •• r Greci, :hcrc can !>c neither bond nor free, iVtrc can l)e no ma'c
ari f:m'e: T :r yc arc all one man in ChriH Jous** that he meant to
arim i^jc c;-i.';:y cf the icie.* under the Christian d .«>pen^aiion, vani»hct
in- 3 :>.in a'r «!:cn it is ^een itiat he is not talking about ** rights ** of any
k'til. bu: cf C'jc alis>j*..te identity of all clasps and conditions uf men as
s'cr ;.-* before th; cros>«.

r -t «rt c IS! no: fcrgct — althoagh the reverend gentleman forgot —
iV-i! Fcir •ei:'-ci on this subject, as well as Paul. He sars [i PcL lii :
i-r] '.I-a: -a". 14 cc^jht t> be in subjection to their hu:-bands. What this
tnrji* c-ii ci.j'!y be liccftalr.cd from the use of t!'.e same Greek \rord
[i C.r. \\ : z^l t> cxp:e;*4 ll^e mediatorial 5u'x)rdinatian of Christ lo the
K^-'-'^r, a->: [i Pet. ii: iSJ the natural relation of the servant lo the
ri^^tr. .' - ] Pe'er further >ays that women ou^ht thus lo be subject lo
ib.'r L->* L li Icc-iiis^ the ho!y women of old «ierc "in subjection to
tht':«.sin l:>:i:d*. ... As Sirah obc)ed Abraham, calling him lord."
K-!*rt!y i-j »yr.;.iihy «ith this is his direction, in the next verse, lo the
It:.! ird tog'ie honc^r lo the woman, as "the weaker vessel;* or, as the
mxr^'na! xtrf^r'rg cf ibc Revised Version pots it, "unto the female
ve?>t\ as ncalcr."*

V.*e do rjU Inov kow to inltrprel language just!y and reverently, if
all I'lzfc pi».s:^rs lalei together — and it Is to be ren.embcred that ihera
arc r r.e cf xz cpjyoii'^ spirit — do not alurra that weman stands in the "^
reln';no( a ctriain irfcnorlty and subordination to man ; a relation no
try ''c drrv-il.ry to t^.-; trc»nian than the condition cf minority throogh
scTrTi c!t%er.:!s cf the average Tfe of man is derogatory to the child; a
re'i'\:'n «^'C>, tihcn djtiricd and beautified on go>pcI principle^ insures
th; Lx;7>t: p3-s.»:b!c family life.

y. Tie £tr;ral j'>a that the teachings of ihe Bible cmphasite the
ri;\*j of i\i *::ic!'vidaa! Is but partly true, but might be granted without
afTrc'ng lie q'-:s:ion unicr discussion. The Bible principle simply li^
git* :3 eac2 t'e rigVts which lo him, or lo her, belong ; and, as ihere Is
coc rnr.--->n either in the sodal justice or bencvotence of the gospel,
sor^rih^r Is i.'^re in t: any hint that God made a mistake when lie so'
crea':d Etc ir.d her daughters that [Eph. vt 23] "the husband U the
heaJ of ibe w fe.*

E:2t tbe New Tcstiment has tvo lessons more 00 this general sub-
ject.

Tbe fjM is that remarkable declaration of Paul [l Tim. iit 15] that
tbe so Vest a:: J most perfect realiiatioa ol woman's possibilities P»er
*'salTaiIcQ*] is bot tobe looked (or, or found, in an Imitated manhood

)

but Ihrough the truest Tulliltmenl of her mo^tij (auction and duliei in
her allollcd sphere of home.

The second Ii in Iho use of thai very peculiar Icnn [funo/iMrni]
which Paul [i Tim. iii : C] applies lo some vorDCD. It ii used but once.
It is in Ihe neuter gender, and it is aa a'.ienaitJTe; bolb facts suggesting **
degradilion and degeneracy. The term is tnm:3led "»i11y nomen."
Ii Buggesls in nhil manner error has ofren spread — the etroiists creep-
ing inio houses, and taking caplire silly v:cMn laden nilh sins, led awaj
by divers luils ever learning and never aKe to come la ihc linowledge
of the truth; and these ^f>(a(:{Jr/^, by their uaJous p! am lb: lilies, templ-
ing others. Jerome [E/h. ad Cfei.] aZ'.i 3;ieitiftn lo ihe fact that Simon
Magus had his Helena: Nicolas ol Aii:l«:7i arid Marcion of Rome their
man- womanish helpers; Apel'es bis Fhrusein; MooUniu hii Prisca
and Maximilla; Atius the sister of FrL-mp;, acd Donitus his Lucilla.
Contrast these unnholcsome and ma:a<:il d i.::^i fitii the normal Chris-
tian woik of such women as LjdTa a.rd DjrcK, and Piijcilla, and Phete
and Pcrsis, and the later Ubndina, atd Fe:pe:aa, and Mosica aud Paula,
and their sain'ed sisterhood, wli", in th;ir p-ics as helpers have washed
Ihe saints' feet, icliered the al3ic:eJ, act! dit'^eatlf (ollaned every good
^ ttotk within the lines of the divTnc scVJidlijlIon of Ihe lei ; and we
shall find history joining' her voice viih ib- ioices of reason and Scrip-
ture, to plead irilh our mothers and daig^Ecrs and sisters not to unsex
themselves by spoiling good women to raXs tad men, of whom ihere are
enough already.

393

J. I

■ /

V .

»*r

— * *i .

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Common Sense as to Women Suffrage"

See other formats