NAWSA Subject File Anti-Suffrage Literature The Red Behind the Yellow Socialism in the Wake of Suffrage Section of the Suffrage Parade, Washington D. C., March 3, 1913. ISSUED BY The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage 37 West 39th Street New York City The Real Danger of Woman Suffrage THE writer stood on Fifth Avenue one last night last November watching the Woman's Suffrage parade. It moved past him a giddy, fluttering mass of yellow, its bands playing popular airs, while the marchers kept time with their yellow jack o' lanterns hoisted on sticks. Their faces were wreathed in smiles, and now and again they broke into song as this or that popular tune caught their fancy. It was a veritable fairyland of dancing yellow. Suddenly the scene changed. The yellow was gone, and in its place was red–red sashes, red banners, red hat-bands, red dresses. The light, gay music had died away, and there burst on the night air the solemn, stirring strains of the "Marseillaise," the famous revolutionary anthem. Men and women were marching past now, hundreds of them in close ranks, with firm, steady tread, determination written on their grim, set faces. All was red, red, red, and, as the writer gazed, stunned by the sudden, weird transformation, he saw displayed on their red banner the inscription–EVERY SOCIALIST IS A WOMAN SUFFRAGIST. Behind that giddy body of yellow suffragists came the compact mass of red-clas Socialists. Just so in our whole nation to-day. Socialists are behind Woman Suffrage and, if they should succeed in getting it, as the red suddenly flashed out in place of the yellow before the writer's eyes in the parade that November night, so will the Socialist Republic and the Cooperative Commonwealth burst forth close in the wake of Woman Suffrage. Do you realize what this would mean? Do you appreciate what Socialism stands for? In the Economic Revolution, the Socialists propose to do away with private productive property. The State will then own everything, and every one will work for the State for a living. The Socialists call our present marriage ceremony "useless and ridiculous," and they intend to substitute for it "a mutual understanding" that can be terminated by "quick, easy divorce at the will of either party." People will then "live like birds." In the place of our homes of to-day, they will give us one kitchen, one laundry, etc., for many so-called families. They will even have State nurseries to take care of the children after they are a year old, while their mothers are out working for a living under the State. 2 Karl Marx, the Father of Socialism, speaks thus of the family and home life in "The Communist Manifesto": "On what foundation is the present family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoise. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of family among the proletarians (working class) and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital." Already the Woman's Suffrage Party of Cook county, Illinois, of which Mrs. Charlotte Rhodus is President, have officially declared that "the sanctity of marriage is meaningless." They have addressed an open letter to the Illinois Legislature which states: "Under the regime of sanctity, ninety per cent. of the race have become weaklings. Under sanctity, white slavery has grown to astonishing proportions. The Church should cease to enforce its designs by means of a civil law" ; and this same organization has made "easy divorce" its slogan. The increasing Socialist vote in suffrage States shows that the Socialists are right in identifying suffrage with socialism. And this is in pioneer communities, where Socialism makes a less powerful appeal than in the manufacturing districts and crowded cities of the East, where the Socialist gains would be even more rapid and startling if women were given the vote. The Socialists have already opened naturalization bureaus in New York City for the purpose of making citizens of foreign-born women so they can vote for Socialism if they get the ballot. They are conducting an extensive campaign among women to educate them in Socialism. Miss Jessie Ashley, who was Treasurer last year of the National Woman Suffrage Association, discussing the question "Who are the White Slaves?" in the April number of The Progressive Woman, a Socialist paper published in Chicago, says: "By its (Society's) false standards of morality, its cruel mandates of 'virtue,' its harsh rules of ostracism for the girl who is not chaste, its wage system and its marriage system, and its system of male supremacy, it is itself the criminal. It holds its women, rich and poor alike, in sex slavery, and its working class, men and women alike, in wage slavery, and this the whole world over. "Slaves, every woman of them to-day, whether prostitutes held unwillingly, or prostitutes gone willingly 'astray,' whether submissive wife or rebellious virgin. Slaves every one, because there is no freedom of choice, but only a blind, cruel, stupid master, the social system, that without reason and without sympathy enslaves its womanhood." 3 The Progressive Woman has this to say editorially: "GET SOMETHING DONE. Bring Socialism to the attention of women voters and suffragists. They are fighting for justice. And by fighting for justice they are fighting the capitalist system, which exists by injustice alone. ACT! MOVE! HUSTLE! for the realization of our slogan: A HALF MILLION SOCIALIST WOMEN VOTERS IN 1916, and a 50 PER CENT, WOMAN MEMBERSHIP in the Socialist party." Daniel De Leon, one of the most prominent American Socialists, says: "All the facts, all the reasoning, focus into one conclusion. WOMAN SUFFRAGE must take its place as AN INTEGRAL SPLINTER in the torch that lights the path of the SOCIAL REVOLUTION." There is no getting away from the fact that Woman Suffrage and Socialism are indissolubly linked. It is a state of affairs recognized by every serious student of political and social conditions to-day. Socialists like Inez Milholland, Mrs. Harriet Stanton Blatch, Alice Stone Blackwell and Jessie Ashley are prominent leaders in the Woman Suffrage party. All Socialists favor Woman Suffrage because they know what it means to their cause. We are indeed threatened by a red peril in a yellow cloak. Where do YOU stand? Are YOU in favor of it? Do YOU care to see private property abolished? Do YOU agree with Miss Ashley that wifehood is slavery? Do YOU think that the marriage ceremony is "useless and ridiculous?" Do YOU wish to have it done away with for "a mutual understanding" to be broken at the will of either party? If you want these things, then work for Woman Suffrage with the Socialists. But if you hold your family relations, your home, your religion, as sacred and inviolate, if you desire to preserve them for yourself and for your children for all time, then work with all your might against the companion, the handmaid, the forerunner of Socialism–Woman Suffrage. G. M. 4 POLITICAL. POLITICAL. POLITICAL. [*NY Evening Telegram Nov. 4 - 1911*] Shall Suffrage Mendacity Triumph Over the Truth? AN attempt to deceive the VOTERS is a form of political corruption. It strikes at the heart of honest government and democratic institutions. An attempt to deceive the TAXPAYERS is an effort to obtain their money under false pretense. It is with deep regret, and only because we recognize it as our duty, that we expose the falsehoods which the abundantly financed Woman Suffrage Party is spreading broadcast over the State in whole page advertisements. They are not ordinary misstatements, but deliberately figured out TO DECEIVE YOU, MR. VOTER. 1. The woman suffrage advertisements say: "In New York, the cost per voter is $1.60. In Chicago, 57c. So in Chicago a man and his wife can both vote for 46c less than a New York man alone." This statement is untrue. The cost per voter is $3.29 in Chicago, or $6.58 for man and wife. The cost per voter in New York is $2.20, as shown below. In 1916, Chicago's election expenses, officially estimated, were $2,500,000. (See Official Report, Board of Election Commissioners, City of Chicago, page 55.) In 1916, New York's election expenses, officially estimated, were $1,634,450. (See Official Report, Board of Election Commissioners, City of New York, page 10.) The official returns show that 759,750 men and women voted in Chicago in 1916. Divide this number into $2,500,000 and the cost per voter is $3.29 in Chicago. The total number of registered voters in New York was 742,751 in 1916. Divide this number into $1,634,450 and the cost per voter is $2.20 in New York. In Chicago there were six elections last year: A primary in February, a city election in April, a Presidential primary in April, an election of Judges in June, a general primary in September, and a general election in November. Many of Chicago's voters voted at all six elections. The suffragists have divided the election costs of Chicago by the total number of votes cast there at six elections, instead of the number of persons who cast these votes. And they compare the expense per vote in Chicago with the cost per registered voter in New York. All this, Mr. Voter, is to conceal from you the fact that Chicago's election expenses have doubled under woman suffrage. Don't take our word for it. Go to the Public Library. Get the Official Reports. Take pencil and paper and figure for yourself how they have deliberately tried to deceive YOU. Read what Dennis J. Egan, Chief Clerk, Board of Election Commissioners, City of Chicago, says about increased election costs due to woman suffrage. Here is a table from "Financial Statistics of Cities," published by the U. S. Census Bureau. Go to the Public Library and check these figures, Mr. Voter. They are on page 189: With woman suffrage: City Population Election Costs San Francisco . . . . 452,255 $222,829 Los Angeles . . . . . . 452,140 201,317 Seattle . . . . . . . . . . 313,039 112,373 Denver . . . . . . . . . . 245,523 94,565 Total . . . . . . . . . . . 1,462,947 $631,084 Without woman suffrage: City Population Election Costs Detroit . . . . . . . . . . 546,183 $106,057 Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . 457,723 108,834 Milwaukee . . . . . . . 419,589 74,312 Minneapolis . . . . . . 343,466 33,429 Total . . . . . . . . . . . .1,766,961 $320,632 You can see for yourself that each suffrage city and five suffrage cities taken together have nearly doubled the cost of elections. 2. The woman suffrage advertisements say: "If one man in nine changes his mind this year. Suffrage wins." This statement is untrue. The New York vote against woman suffrage in 1915 was 748,332. The majority against woman suffrage was 194,989. One-ninth of 748,332 is only 83,148, and twice this amount would not wipe out the anti-suffrage majority. 3. The woman suffrage advertisements say: "Look at California. No State tax there at all." Now for the facts: -- California has no State tax on general property. State expenses are met by taxes on business, industry, corporations and inheritances. General property is taxed by the counties. But California has the highest per capita cost of State government in the United States. (See page 68, U. S. Document, Financial Statistics of States.) 4. The woman suffrage advertisements say: "Since January seven States have given women the vote." How about Indiana? The suffrage extended to women last winter has just been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Why should the suffragists be afraid to tell the whole truth? How about Ohio? Do you not know that in Ohio the Presidential Suffrage bill passed by the Legislature has been referred to the voters and that, therefore, the women will not know whether or not they can vote until the matter is decided at the polls next Tuesday? If there were a Presidential election this year in Ohio the women could not vote. The same is true of Nebraska -- only in Nebraska the question will not be referred to the voters until 1918. All this doesn't make these "seven States" seem very encouraging for the suffragists. Why try to gloss over the facts? We do not see much evidence of the "purifying influence of women in politics" in this method of presenting a half-truth to the voters of New York the very eve of election. With such evidence of the unreliability of suffrage statements that are open to verification, is there any reason to believe their One-ninth of 748,382 is only 83,148, and twice this amount would not wipe out the anti-suffrage majority. 3. The woman suffrage advertisements say: "Look at California. No State tax there at all." Now for the facts:-- California has no State tax on general property. State expenses are met by taxes on business, industry, corporations and inheritances. General property is taxed by the counties. But California has the highest per capita cost of State government in the United States. (See page 68, U. S. Document, Financial Statistics of States.) In California, State government costs $12.17; county government, $20.67, and municipal government, $49.74 per capita. Total, $82.58 per capita. In New York, State government costs $8.27; county government, $4.09; municipal government, $39.49. Total, $51.85 per capita. Why do suffragists tell you that there is no State tax in California, when government costs $30.73 more a year for every man, woman and child in California than better government, without woman suffrage, costs in New York? Because, knowing it is impossible to prove that woman suffrage is worth anything, they are trying to make the voters believe that it would cost nothing. voters and that, therefore, the women will not know whether or not they can vote until the matter is decided at the polls next Tuesday? If there were a Presidential election this year in Ohio the women could not vote. The same is true of Nebraska -- only in Nebraska the question will not be referred to the voters until 1918. All of this doesn't make these "seven States" seem very encouraging for the suffragists. Why try to gloss over the facts? We do not see much evidence of the "purifying influence of women in politics" in this method of presenting a half-truth to the voters of New York on the very eve of election. With such evidence of the unreliability of suffrage statements that are open to verification, is there any reason to believe their statements that cannot be verified, such as the suffrage claim regarding the number of women who are alleged to have signed suffrage petitions? Other advertisements of the suffragists claim that England has agreed to woman suffrage. England has NOT done so, nor will England do so by a vote of the people. The same is true with regard to France and Italy. It is notable that in all these countries the suffragists' claim for success is based on the belief that they can obtain their desires from politicians, without regard to the will of the people. In all countries they are trying to take advantage of the war situation to further their political ambitions. If POLITICALLY AMBITIOUS WOMEN will use dishonest means to WIN THE VOTE, what can we expect from such women WITH THE VOTE? THESE ARE THE WOMEN who would be active in politics. THE MAJORITY of women do not want the vote, and will not use the vote, if forced upon them. 21,733 women and 2,539 men marched in the New York Suffrage parade in 1918. Only 9,859 women and 354 men marched in the Suffrage parade October 27, 1917. (Count sworn to by R. M. Shurtz, of the Buffalo Scale Co.) Without the ballot, even now, this comparatively small number of politically ambitious women CONTROLS AND LEADING POLITICIANS of all parties, even to the extent of inducing them to treat WITH CONTEMPT the expressed will of the people. In this very election, the suffrage issue is again forced upon the State by our WOMAN-RULED LEGISLATORS, despite its defeat only two years ago BY OVER 194,000 MAJORITY. With the ballot, through Women-Ruled Politicians and Women Congressmen, THESE WOMEN WOULD CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT. Men, use your vote; women, use your influence, TO PREVENT THIS IRREPARABLE CALAMITY! If Ever on Earth Government was Distinctly a Man's Job IT IS RIGHT NOW. Vote NO Yes NO X ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT No. 1 To place the Truth before the Voters, and to Defend the State against the lavish and misleading advertising of the Woman Suffrage Party, we need additional funds immediately. Wire or mail your contributions at once to LOUIS T. ROMAINE, Treasurer. Man-Suffrage Association 37 West 39th St., New York City. TELEPHONE MAIN OFFICE MURRAY HILL 3876 TELEPHONE TREASURER'S OFFICE BROAD 886 SOME FACTS ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S EXPERIMENT WITH WOMAN SUFFRAGE ISSUED BY The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage 37 WEST 39th STREET NEW YORK CITY WOMAN suffrage was imposed upon the State of California by a minority of the voters. Now the entire population, men and women, are feeling the evil effects of this dangerous experiment. It earnestly behooves every citizen– both men and women–of those States where a small minority is seeking the enfranchisement of women to read this report compiled from official records, newspapers and the letters of resident and visiting investigators in direct touch with the situation in California. The official election figures prove the contention of Anti-Suffragists that the better moral element among women does not vote. And the elections prove that many women of the "submerged tenth" do vote for undesirable and vicious measures. Suffragists contended that the women of California wished to vote, to have "a voice in the government" of the city, the State and the nation. It was on such representation of a few enthusiastic Suffragists that California women were enfranchised in October, 1911. "Women want the vote. Why not let them have it? It won't do any harm and it may do good," reasoned the majority of the minority of men who voted on this constitutional amendment. Do the women of California vote? Do they vote in city elections? In State elections? In national elections? Has woman suffrage in California done harm? Has it done good? The correct answers to these questions may serve to guide the action of other States confronting this serious problem in government. Because of its wider interest, let us first consider the national phase. The Bureau of the Census at Washington states that there are 920,397 males and 671,386 females of voting age in California. Eliminating the Chinese and Japanese, who have no vote, there should have been 860,794 men and 665,450 women registered (less those not naturalized, of whom there are more men than women). Secretary of State Jordan, of California, is authority for the statement that 802,000 men and 180,000 women registered to vote 3 at the Presidential election on November 5, 1912, a most interesting and important national election. These figures show that of those entitled to vote over 93 per cent. of the men registered and only a fraction over 27 per cent. of the women registered. And this at the first national election, when the tinsel had not yet worn from the Suffragists' toy! Beyond all shadow of doubt, then, at least 73 per cent. of the women of California do not wish to perform the duty of voting in national elections. This 73 per cent. does not include the many women who voted to offset the vote of misguided women–and not because they wished "a voice in the government." What then of the number and kind who vote in local or State elections? Just two recent instances: In Pasadena on March 20th, this year, a special election was held to vote on bond issues, some of which would enable the purchase of land for public parks and playgrounds. Out of a voting population of 16,324 (city clerk's figures), 4,672 voted. The votes of men and women are not kept separate, but it is clear that at least 50 per cent. of the women did not vote. In Los Angeles on March 24, 1913, there was a more important election, one involving radical and socialist changes in the city charter. A Citizens' Committee of 1,000 advocated in all the newspapers the carrying of certain propositions and the defeat of others. Sample ballots marked "Vote No," "Vote Yes" were distributed broadcast. Only 31,000 voters (men and women) out of 161,000 voted at all, and nine out of ten of the propositions advocated by the Reform Committee were defeated. The Los Angeles Time of March 26th says: "The vote of the women were disappointing. In some precincts it was a negligible quantity, while in others it was only about one-third of the total." Yet the Suffragists carried on an active campaign, attended and spoke at all-day meetings and even worked at their headquarters all Easter Sunday. Has woman suffrage in California done harm? The saloon question is one which Suffragists say women will settle when they vote. Their favorite attack is that the anti-suffrage campaign is financed by the saloon interests. Anti-saloon workers favor control of saloon evils by means of local States the wind sets in their direction. And why not? At the cost of some space let me explain. When suffrage is granted to women only a small vote can be brought out in minor elections. But the class with personal interests at stake will vote. Those, too, do not neglect to vote who find their ballot has a money value. Note how many affiliated interests are pulling with the saloon interest. Hotels, clubs, restaurants, brewers and the people they buy from. Now their wives, their sisters, mothers, cousins and their aunts get out on the streets and bring their friends to the polls. As for 'the submerged tenth,' they had formerly no political strength. Now they can vote and use their influence, which is not benign." That this warning is not an idle one is confirmed by the information that Pasadena, which had been "dry" ever since it was founded, vote "wet" the first time women voted. John W. Foster, former Secretary of State of the United States, returned to Washington last month after four months spent in California. He writes the Washington Post: "My study of the subject, my intercourse with its people and my careful reading of the local press led me to the conviction that the amendment of the State constitution conferring the franchise on women was a serious error, and that so far in actual practice is not proving an unmixed blessing to the State, counties and municipalities. The amendment was adopted by a minority of the legal voters. I met many women who were opposed to it and quite a number who since its adoption have never gone to the polls. Some towns formerly 'dry' have, since the granting of female suffrage, voted themselves 'wet." So-styled reforms, adopted since the amendment, have proved impracticable or unwise in enforcement. * * * In a city whose newspapers I read daily the voters were being called upon to resort to the registry office, primaries, and being the polls four different times in thirty days. The result usually is that the busy citizen and the laboring man, finding it inconvenient to devote so much time to the affairs of State, stay away from the polls and leave the elections, in large measure, to the idle and such as obey the call of the political manipulators, and often the actual voters constitute a minority of the legal voters. The conclusion reached during my four months' stay in California was that it would be wise for the older States or ourUnion to await the result of the working out in practice of these 'modern" 6 measures of government by such adventurous States as California and other more recent members of the Union." A San Franciscan sees a reflection of the "baleful suffrage influence" in the increasing divorce rate in his own city. He writes: "San Francisco in proportion to its population grants nine times as many divorces as the City of New York. From a State report just published, there were in 1912 thirty-seven hundred divorces granted here." The San Francisco Chronicle sees in a proposed two-year State budget of $48,800,000 for 2,500,000 people an evidence that extremists are in control of the government. We have seen that the enfranchisement of women in California has done positive harm. Has it done good to offset this harm? Suffragists claim that the one great good accomplished was the defeat of race-track gambling. But we find that the race-track measure would have been overwhelmingly defeated whether women had voted or not. Because, as less than one-third of the women entitled to vote took the trouble even to register, and fewer voted, gambling could easily have been legalized had the men wished it. In view of the facts brought out in this article, is it not the part of wisdom to withhold the burden of the ballot from those who do not want it and will not use it, especially since granting the ballot to a few Suffragists imposes a burden upon the entire State? This Letter Won the $100 Anti-Suffrage Prize offered by the "New York Herald" The federal constitution very wisely leaves all electoral matters to the individual States, and the question of universal adult suffrage must be settled by each on the basis of its individual problems. Sparsely settled agricultural States find small difficulty in an increased electorate, even with added expense. States sheltering Mormonism find reason for desiring voters. Others, homogeneous in character, fare no worse than before. These facts do not constitute a safe basis for nation wide equal suffrage. In the South the illiterate male negro vote is a tempta- tion to corruption. Should these States assume the double burden, not offset by the increased intelligent vote? Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas and Texas, with many negroes, have no educational qualifications. There are six and one-half millions of alien males of voting age in the entire country and 45.6 per cent. are naturalized. Five years residence is required before naturalization -- a law often evaded. Of these aliens, coming largely from Southern Europe, few have any conception of American governmental ideals ;many are radical socialists. Eighty-three per cent. live in New England and the Middle West. The Far West has, therefore no negro and no alien problem, while New England and the Middle and Southern States face grave dangers. Moreover, only nine per cent. of the women of this country are seeking suffrage. The school franchise, already granted to women in thirty-six States, is used by only two per cent. of the women. Tax-paying suffrage is granted to woman in towns and villages of New York and is not always used. Women do not use the power they already possess. Will they do better with more? This is also a city problem. Twenty-two millions of our people live in cities, where electoral corruption presses hardest, largely because ignorance is exploited. In New York City 138,000 illiterate women, added to 92,000 illiterate men, in a State without educational qualifica- tions, would not materially advance the best interests of that State or city. American affairs should be settled, not upon the basis of what can be done in some foreign country, but with full recognition of the special dangers and difficulties which face us here and now. MRS. GRACE DUFFIELD GOODWIN Washington, D.C. Reprinted from the "New York Herald" of February 16th, 1913, by the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. Women Creators of Public Opinions In a Democracy constituted as is ours, and as, prob- ably, all modern Democracies will be, the unsolved question is, how can we counterbalance or minimize the power of the careless, indifferent, ignorant, partisan, sectarian and "cudgel" vote of special interests -- the labor vote, woman vote, liquor vote, etc. According to the present method of voting -- and this will apply to the women as well as to the men -- this vote threatens to overpower that of the thinking, disinter- ested minority, and may in part explain why so much of our legislation is carelessly drawn up, little consid- ered, and often the result of ephemeral conditions. The office of the minority has largely come to be that of blocking dangerous or unwise legislation, and keeping up a practically increasing fight for the better things. Now it has seemed to me that the place in the civi- lization of the woman who is out of the political arena, but stands with her feet firm in the realm of Ethics, has represented the ideal hope of civilization. We have seen during the past century, the coming into active service and representation of a highly trained body of women, who have contributed, through their opinions and their work, to the formation of what is called the Common Law. "Common Law" stands back of our Statutes, is the body of public opinion, which has been proved by experience to be a law of life or is contributory to the creation of better conditions. It is made in the home, at the cross-roads, in the market, and is the force which stands back of the enactment and enforcement of Law. Our great modern group of trained women is an im- pressive power, through the purity of its methods and its integrity and disinterestedness of intention. It rep- resents, as does nothing else in our civilization, the organization of a coherent group, whose power is not counterbalanced by ignorance or self-seeking partisan- ship. This great body can move on as intrinsic force debarred from all temptation to serve party, or to think all is done when a piece of paper is slipped into the ballot box. This paper is practically neutralized by that of the careless brother or sister. Not that the influence of woman will pass away if she becomes a voter -- one would be mad to say that, or ignorant -- but she will have thrown away, it seems to me, a great and entirely original attempt to create in the State a great group, which, through its intelligence, its untemptedness, will be the most enormous power to reckon with that the politician and the man of personal ambition will ever have faced. I know that a great many of our very best and most noble workers are long- ing for the ballot, feeling it is the logic and crown of their work; but, to me, the logic of their work is to go on in the well-beaten path, along which they have won the success and triumph which has made us their debtors. They are throwing aside one of the great instruments by which they have wrought. L. T. W. Perkins. Mrs. A. M. DODGE, CHAIRMAN of the Anti-Suf- frage Committee of the New York State Federation of Woman's Clubs in her report to the Convention last November in Buffalo, said: The constitution of our State Federation of Women's Clubs declares that the object of the Federation is "to bring into relations of mutual helpfulness the various clubs of women throughout the State, and to make combined action possible when deemed expedient." This "mutual helpfulness" and "combined action" have been powerful factors in crystallizing public opinion because we have not been divided into political camps, but have sought to promote the public good and have taken no heed for political expediency. Therefore it was a wise provision in the constitution of many clubs that the discussion of religious and polit- ical subjects should be barred from those clubs. On these questions there is room for reasonable difference of opinion, and club discussion of the same sows the seeds of dissension and of discord. On matters of true Progress and Reform there can be no difference of opinion save possibly as to the means of securing the results which all good women are agreed, desireable to obtain. The solidarity of Women's Clubs has been their dis- tinguishing feature. That solidarity is now attacked by the politics of woman suffrage. The discussion of that subject tends to array women in opposite camps and to hinder their co-operation in work ready at their hand to-day, because of the division into party lines. The question of Woman Suffrage will doubtless go to the voters of New York in the near future. Meantime the women of the State have ample opportunity to in- form themselves on both sides of the question through the educational work undertaken by the Suffragists and Anti-Suffragists, without bringing this discussion to the clubs and jeopardizing our solidarity as women working together for the common good. To the solu- tion of the question each woman is in honor bound to bring a clear mind, a tolerant heart and a serene tem- per. Let her take these to assemblies which are called for the express purpose of discussion of the suffrage question, but let clubs carefully consider the consequen- ces before they introduce the subject into their program. If either side of the question, however, is given a hear- ing, it is urged that, in the spirit of fair play, both sides shall be heard, though preferably not in the form of a debate, since that form of address tends to give much heat and little light. We realize that success has come to the Club women because they were not in politics, and that if all women are to go into politics the State must lose that quality which to-day gives women's work its distinction, the quality of disinterested service for the public good un- tainted by personal political ambition. Issued by THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE 37 West 39th Street, New York City Reprinted from THE WOMAN'S PROTEST, January, 1917. THE CASE AGAINST THE FEDERAL AMENDMENT By HON. OSCAR LESER In view of the renewed effort to bring about woman suffrage for all the States by the method of an amendment to the Federal Constitution, rather than by separate action of the individual States, it becomes important to point out the significance of the changed procedure by which the voting franchise is proposed to be enlarged. With the merits of woman suffrage this article will not deal, for it is intended as much for the consideration of those who favor the vote for women as for those who oppose it. Only those advocates to whom the end justifies the means--whatever they are--will refuse to weigh carefully the right or wrong of the particular means which are now sought to be employed to accomplish the desired end. When we find that suffrage by action of the State electorates has made practically no headway during the last four years; that it has been rejected in that period by thirteen States in sixteen popular elections--States which contain nearly one-half the population of the United States; and that during this period it has been adopted only by two States of small population (Nevada and Montana) it well behooves us to inquire into the processes involved in the attempt to accomplish by Federal action that which has apparently proved impossible to accomplish by action of the individual States. Article V of the Constitution of the United States reads thus: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Convention in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress." The joint resolution now pending before the Congress is in the following form: "Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States if America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein). That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures, shall be valid as part of said Constitution, namely Article... Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article." It will be observed, first, that three-fourths of the States (namely 36) can impose woman suffrage on all of the 48 States of the Union. Secondly, that if the amendment is adopted, women will be empowered to vote in all the States not only for federal officers but also for State officers and for officers whose election is authorized by the States--which embraces all county, municipal and other local officers. Thirdly, that action on the amendment is left to the Legislatures of the several States and not to the alternative agency permitted by the Constitution, namely, to conventions elected by popular vote to pass upon the question. Women suffrage, if accomplished by Federal Amendment, can thus be forced upon twelve States against their will, depriving them of the freedom to govern themselves in their own affairs in the manner desired by them and best suited to their own local conditions. Except in the Fifteenth Amendment, which as Senator Root has pointed out, was "justified only upon the same grounds which justified the war and the Emancipation Proclamation," no attempt has ever been made by the national government to interfere with the free play of each State in determining who shall and who shall not exercise the right of suffrage in each individual State. The very foundation of self-government rests upon this principle. The control of its own suffrage is perhaps the most important right still left to the States. In view of the methods which it was found necessary to employ to secure the "adoption" of the Fifteenth Amendment, there is every assurance that the people of the several States are alive to the value and importance of the State's right to control suffrage. Just as there are many discriminating advocates of woman suffrage who perceive the impropriety and danger of federal interference with the question, so there are many opponents of suffrage who would yield a cheerful acquiescence in a fair, free and untrammeled decision by the electorates of their States. The report of the Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted in 1913, while discussing the merits of the question, fails to advance a single reason why the States should be stripped of their jurisdiction to determine the matter for themselves. Even the right of the States to pass upon the federal amendment by popularly elected conventions is denied, since the joint resolution places the ratification with the State legislatures. Ratification by conventions would still make it possible to force suffrage upon States which do not want it, but it would at least carry the assurance that the ratification reflected the will of the people of the States which approved it. There is no such assurance in a bare majority vote of "those present" in the comparatively small groups of individuals composing the State legislatures. If we examine more closely the processes and rules governing an amendment to the Federal Constitution, we shall perhaps better understand why so much confidence should be expressed in the early accomplishment of woman suffrage by this means, in the face of almost unbroken line of defeats in the State campaigns in the last four years. In the first place it has been held that a federal amendment does not require a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of each House of Congress. The language of the Constitution might lead one to think differently, but precedent has sanctioned the rule that two-thirds of the "members voting," a quorum being present, is sufficient. A quorum consists of a majority of the members chosen and sworn. In the present House of Representatives, the full membership is 435. A quorum consists of 218, and two-thirds of this number is 146. In the Senate, with a membership of 96, two-thirds of a quorum would be satisfied by 33 votes. It would therefore be possible for Congress to propose a constitutional amendment by a vote of a little more than one-third of the membership. In the next place, there is no right of Presidential veto. The Executive takes no part in the proposal of an amendment. The veto power, in ordinary cases, serves as a wholesome check on hasty or unwise action, but here the President would have no voice, a circumstance that doubtless affords little disappointment at a present time to those who want this particular amendment. In the next place no time limit is set within which the several States are required to take action, once an amendment has been proposed by Congress. Nothing is said on this point in the Constitution (OVER) situation, and my own view is that it would be entirely competent for the amendment itself to declare that unless it is ratified by a sufficient number of States by a certain date it should be of no effect. The precedents of Congress show that when a State legislature has once ratified an amendment, it cannot revoke its action; on the other hand, a legislature which has acted unfavorably, is not prohibited from changing its mind later by voting approval. Thus the rule does not work both ways, but always and at every point, the way is smoothed for a favorable outcome. In the case of the Fifteenth Amendment three States which rejected it were permitted to ratify it later; while one State (New York) which had ratified it was not permitted to rescind its action. A remarkable illustration of the indefinite pendency of an amendment is found in the case of Ohio, whose legislature by Joint Resolution of May, 1873, ratified an amendment proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. There was an interval here of 84 years! The amendment in question regulated the power of Congress in 'varying the compensation" of Senators and Representatives, and while it has never been accepted by a sufficient number of States to make it effective, the Ohio instance affords nevertheless an illustration of the potential force of an amendment once proposed. Apparently there is never a time when an amendment is definitely out of the way, since the States which have rejected it can recant at pleasure while States not in existence when it was proposed can act upon it, and States which have voted favorably cannot recede from this position, no matter what change in conditions may make it wise for them in their own interest and in that of other States to do so. If the considerations already mentioned are not sufficiently valid and serious to inspire hesitation and caution on the part of Congress, and to prompt unfavorable action on the suffrage amendment, then such an attitude ought surely to follow when it is understood that the proposal of a federal amendment in this instance is nothing less than a device to thwart and override the popular will by avoiding a popular vote in the States, and forcing woman suffrage through a sufficient number of the legislatures. It may be assumed that in all of the eleven Western States which have amended their constitutions by adopting woman suffrage, the ratification of a federal suffrage amendment would represent the popular wish. These States represent about 9 per cent. of the country's population. In all of the other States the wishes of the people would be subjected to the hazard of legislative action, which, on a question like this, is peculiarly liable to be governed less by the will of the majority of the electorate than by the exigencies of politics; personal pressure; giving way to the line of least resistance, caucus rule; accidental majorities; log-rolling; the influence of committees, not to mention the influence -- proper or improper -- of lobbies. Then again it has not been uncommon for measures to pass through legislatures by the skilful application or non-application of parliamentary rules, such as the "counting of a quorum" at an opportune moment or the failure to record the vote correctly or the refusal to entertain an embarrassing motion. Let it be remembered that a bare majority vote is all that is required. This means a majority of the entire legislature to ratify, so that the vote would not even theoretically reflect the wishes of a majority of the people. Consider also the unequal apportionment under which many legislatures are constituted and it will be readily seen how even a vote of a full majority with each member acting in good faith and voicing the genuine sentiment of his particular con- stituents, would not necessarily reflect the wishes of a majority of the people of the whole State. However reliable a State legislature may be in registering the sentiment of the State on other questions of federal amendment, the question of woman suffrage offers peculiar reasons for securing the sense of the State in some other way. There are so many issues at State elections, that members of the legislature would rarely be chosen with regard solely to their attitude on suffrage. Other matters may be of such overshadowing importance that a constituency opposed to suffrage might return member favorable to it. Other members may not have declared their position on this issue. Still others may "change their minds" after the election. It is an observed fact that a very small percentage of legislature men serve more than a single term, and the tendency is not toward increasing this percentage. The failure to interpret (or to interpret but not carry out) the wishes of the constituency must be set down as one of the more important reasons for this tendency. It is small consolation for a State merely to be able to retire its representatives after they have voted to double the electorate against the wishes of their constituents. There are always persons who have no intention of seeking re-election. Of these there will be some who will not care to resist the pressure which can be exerted upon them in divers ways in behalf of questions like suffrage or prohibition, when the appeal is to the emotions. That the possibilities of the situation have not been overdrawn will appear from the fact that in the last four years 19 legislatures, which, in 13 States, have approved suffrage amendments to their State constitutions, have been repudiated by the people on this question. In the following States it required the favorable action of two successive legislatures before the amendment referendum could be held: Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota and West Virginia it required action by a single legislature; while in Wisconsin the referendum was on an Act of Assembly and not on an amendment. In Ohio the question was twice submitted, first in 1912, by the constitutional convention (when it was voted down by 87,455 majority) and in 1914 by the legislature (when the adverse majority was increased to 182,905. In spite of a defeat by 91,478 votes in Wisconsin in November, 1912, the next legislature within six months again passed a suffrage act (which under the constitution required a referendum). This bill was vetoed by the Governor in a strong message characterizing the action of the legislature as not consistent "with a proper respect for the deliberate judgment of the people of the State, so recently and fully registered." New York State furnishes a similar example of legislative misrepresentation and cowardice. In November, 1915, the people recorded their disapproval of the suffrage amendment by a majority of 194,984 against it. In spite of this emphatic proof that the legislatures of 1914 and 1915 had failed to sense the public will, the legislature of 1916 again voted in favor of a suffrage amendment. In the face of these actual examples of legislative misrepresentation, the believers in popular rule, which includes believers in Constitutions which represent the wishes and sentiments of the electorates, are justified in insisting that the question of woman suffrage shall be settled by the States and by the people of the States at the polls. ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE Address, THE WOMAN'S PROTEST, 37 West 39th Street, New York City. 206 "A Great Movement Must Be Judged By Its Leaders" -- The New York Times "Leadership is a fair test of a question' -- Mrs. C.C. Catt MRS. CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT President National American Woman Suffrage Association, Says: "What is Feminism? A world-wide revolt against all artificial barriers which laws and customs interpose between women and human freedom." -- Signed Article, Woman's Journal, Official Suffrage Organ. DR. ANNA HOWARD SHAW Honorary President National American Woman Suffrage Association, Says: "I believe in woman suffrage whether all women vote or no women vote; whether all women vote right or all women vote wrong; whether women will love their husbands after they vote or forsake them; whether women will neglect their children or never have any children." -- Signed Article, Special Suffrage Edition, New York Evening Post. MRS. NORMAN deR. WHITEHOUSE President New York State Woman Suffrage Party. Says: "Many of us have left our children at home in the care of their fathers, and now we don't have to hide that." -- Speech at Suffrage Banquet in Her Honor, November 21, 1917 (This statement, says the New York World, "was greeted with applause and laughter.") CHARLOTTE PERKINS STETSON GILMAN "Unquestionably the first feminist writer in America," and a speaker on suffrage platforms for twenty years. Says: "The woman should have as much to do in the home as the man -- no more. * * * Who, then, will take care of the sick baby? The nurse, of course. * * * If the child is not seriously ill the nurse is as good as the mother; If the child is seriously ill the nurse is better." -- Signed Article, Woman's Journal, Official Suffrage Organ. BEATRICE FORBES ROBERTSON HALE Leading Suffrage Speaker and Author of "What Women Want," Says: "A woman whose temperament has urged her into an irregular union may be obeying her own inner law, and may be, in all but conventional reputation, a highly moral person. Feminists are inclined to believe that marriages should be less lightly entered into than at present and more easily terminated. My own view is that divorce without detriment to the standing of either party is the solution towards which we are drawing, and I find this view shared by the great mass of feminists with whose words or writings I have come in contact." -- In "What Women Want." "THE BONDWOMAN" A Pamphlet Issued by the National American Woman Suffrage Association, Says: "It is the free woman's concern to see to it that she shall be in a position to bear children if she wants them without soliciting maintenance from any man, whoever he may be." "THE CASE FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE" A Bibliography of Suffrage Literature Published by the College Equal Suffrage League and Sold by the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Says: "Too many advocates of woman suffrage insist that when woman is enfranchised she will be no less 'womanly' than before, whereas, in point of fact, perhaps the chief thing to be said for the suffrage is precisely that it will make woman less womanly, in the commonly accepted sense of the term. * * * One cannot argue logically on woman suffrage without facing this fact." -- Page 64. MAX EASTMAN Revolutionary Socialist, Editor of the suppressed "Masses" and the originator and first secretary of the New York Men's League for Woman Suffrage, says, on the importance of woman suffrage to socialism: "We have the opinions of hundreds in the States and nations where women vote to support our reasonable expectation that their influence will favor rather than retard this achievement." (Socialism). --"Is Woman Suffrage Important?" "WHAT TO READ ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE" A standing advertisement in The Masses for over a year, by The National American Woman Suffrage Association, was headed by Max Eastman's pamphlets ridiculing the "home and mother sentiment." IN APPRECIATION OF "THE MASSES" And the work done by this revolutionary magazine for the cause of woman suffrage, MRS. NORMAN deR. WHITEHOUSE The Crowned Leader of the New York Suffrage Movement, Signed the following statement in an appeal for financial support of The Masses: "In cartoon, in verse, in editorial, in story, The Masses has stood for us all along the line as no other magazine in America has. When we fight for suffrage, for economic freedom, for professional opportunities, for scientific sex knowledge, there stands The Masses, always understanding and always helping. "Max Eastman, Floyd Dell, Art Young and the rest are genuine warm-hearted feminists. They like us and want us to win." -Signed Statement, The Masses, February, 1916. Compiled and issued by The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage [*Anti*] THE TRUTH ABOUT WAGE-EARNING WOMEN The often repeated misstatement of the Suffragists that there are 8,000,000 wage-earning women who need the ballot for their protection has been corrected time after time, both in the PROTEST and by our speakers from the platform. But the statement still persists, for some reason or other, either because the suffrage brain is impervious to facts or else Suffragists do not regard facts as essential elements in a controversy. We are driven to the necessity therefore of putting these facts in such a form that the veriest child can understand them and even a Suffragist may not escape them. A PRIMER Question--How many women are employed in the U.S.? Answer--There are 8,075,772 women ten years of age and over employed in gainful pursuits according to the last census Question--Are they all wage-earning women? Answer--About 13 per cent. are business women who own their own business and employ other women, or they are professional women, i. e., doctors, lawyers, ministers, teachers, artists, etc.; 18 per cent. are agricultural workers who are at work on home farms of their brothers, fathers, sons or husbands and are not paid wages. Question--How many of these wage-earners are employed in factories, stores, laundries, hotels or in occupations generally covered by labor laws? Answer--There are 2,646,329, or less than one-third of all women employed. Question--Would the ballot in the hands of these women benefit them? Answer--No. They would be hopelessly in the minority even if they all could and would vote. Question--How many of these are of voting age? Answer--1,266,559, or 15.6 per cent. of all women gainfully employed. Question--Has the ballot in the hands of women every benefited the laws for working women? Answer--No. The best laws are to be found in male-suffrage States. Question--How many women are employed in domestic service where their employers are women? Answer--2,530,846, or 45.1 per cent. of all wage-earners, are domestic servants, laundresses in private homes or are engaged in other occupations of a domestic character. Question--Would not women's vote improve the conditions in laundries and like places of employment? Answer--No. Even if the vote could improve conditions there, the majority of women would not vote to that end. There are only 79,000 women employed in laundries, but there are 546,000 women, or nearly seven times as many, laundresses employed in private families where women could raise their wages and diminish their hours of toil without recourse to the ballot if they desired to do so. These facts can be verified by reference to the Census Reports, Vol. 4, 1910 ISSUED BY The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage 37 WEST 39th STREET New York City 206 The People's Verdict OVER FOUR TO ONE MAJORITY REGISTERED AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN 36 REFERENDA “We have now come to the time when we no longer want a referendum, when we no longer will take a referendum and when we, therefore, ask for a Federal amendment." -- Mrs. C.C. Catt, Hearing Before Woman Suffrage Committee, January 4, 1918, Page 35. WOMAN SUFFRAGE AT THE POLLS Defeats (14 in 30 Years (22 in 8 Years) Victories Majority Majority Against. For. 1890 Wyoming (endorsed with Constitution when territory became State). 1893 Colorado . . . . . 6,347 1896 Idaho . . . . . . 5,844 Utah . . . . . 23,618 1910 Washington . . . . 22,623 1911 California . . . . .. 3,587 1912 Ohio . . . . 87,455 Oregon . . . . 4,161 Wisconsin . . . 91,478 Arizona . . . . 7,240 Michigan (November) 760 Kansas . . . . 16,049 1913 Michigan (April) . . 96,144 1914 South Dakota . . . 11,914 Nevada . . . . 3,678 Ohio . . . . 182,905 Montana . . . 3,714 North Dakota . . . 9,139 Nebraska . . . . 10,104 Missouri . . . . 140,206 1915 New Jersey . . . 51,108 Massachusetts . . 133,447 Pennsylvania . . . 56,686 New York . . . 194,984 1916 Iowa . . . 10,341 South Dakota . . . 5,219 West Virginia . .. . 98,067 1917 Maine . . . . 18,234 New York . . . *102,353 Ohio (Repeal) . . 146,120 1918 Arkansas (unofficial) . . 15,500 Michigan . . . 34,506 Louisiana . . . .. 3,504 South Dakota . . 20,328 Oklahoma (Election Contest) 1919 Texas . . . . 25,029 Total majority of Total majority of ballots against. 1,387,344 ballots for . . . .244,380 Taking only the most recent vote in each State that has voted more than once: Total majority of ballots Total majority of ballots against. . 990,868 for . . . .244,380 Ratio: OVER FOUR TO ONE MAJORITY AGAINST. *Woman Suffrage was imposed on New York State by the Pacifist-Socialist vote of New York City, aroused by Morris Hillquit as a mandate to open immediate negotiations for peace.” Outside of New York City, woman suffrage was defeated throughout the State. New Jersey granted woman suffrage in 1776, but withdrew the right in 1807. Reprinted from THE WOMAN PATRIOT [*Steel Cabinet 2 Drawer 2 File A Anti argument*] THE MANN ACT NOT SUPREME MORAL LAW THE DOUBLE STANDARD WHENCE AND WHY IS WOMAN SUFFRAGE A REMEDY? BY A BAPTIST LAYMAN Published in the Commercial-Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., February 1, 1914. To Commercial Appeal: I request the privilege of commenting on the two-column article of your woman correspondent, A. Y. T., in your Sunday issue of recent date on the Mann Act. She quotes from the Bible to sustain her views, and I propose to use the same high authority freely in my comments. And as she begins at Eden, and starts with a grave misconception, I will begin at Eden also. The Bible shows that the first man when placed in Eden, a wonderful three-fold being with body, spirit, soul, was upright, sinless, pure, and a free-agent. God gave him a law in simplest form, with penalty, to make him know who was his king and lawgiver, and also that his highest duty was obedience. God said, "Use freely the garden and its fruits, except that one tree in the midst. That thou shalt not touch; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The man Adam was then alone in the garden. God said, "It is not good that man should be alone," and He put Adam into deep sleep, and took from his side a rib, closed up the flesh, and of that rib He made woman; the most beautiful creature of her sex that ever stepped upon this green earth, for she came right from the hand of God, who never made anything imperfect. God brought her to Adam. Is it any wonder that Adam received her with delight, recognized her as "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh," and loved her with the first surpassing love of a true man for his true and most beautiful wife? He told her of the law God had given concerning the fruits of Eden, and of that one excepted and forbidden tree. She understood it well, and knew the penalty. But woman, even in Eden, began to stray from the side of her strong, protecting husband. And so the great liar and deceiver found his opportunity. With subtle and plausible falsehoods he persuaded her that God did not mean what He said, and that to eat of that fruit would make man himself like God. So she took of the forbidden tree and ate. The only atom of extenuation for Eve was, and this a weak one, that her great affection for her husband led her to desire his exaltation to be like God, as the lying enemy had assured her would be the result. Alas, for her fatal credulity! She took the fruit to Adam and told him all. Adam was not deceived by Satan's lies. He knew the awful penalty, but his absorbing love for his wife, unwilling to part from her, led him to share her fate, whatever it might be. He took the offered fruit from her hand, and did eat. Now for the result. God said to Adam, "Because thou hast harkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast done the thing I commanded thee not to do" -- therefore God drove Adam from Eden, put a curse on the ground for his sake, and sentenced him to earn his food by the sweat of his face, instead of plucking it from the trees without labor, as in Eden. We know this sentence holds against his descendants to this day; for we, too, bear it. To Eve, God said: "In sorrow thou shalt bear children; thou shalt be subject to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." And God made man larger and stronger than woman, that he might enforce his rule and headship over her. But he added a gracious promise, that her seed should bruise (or crush) that vile deceiver's head -- the first promise of The Christ to come. The rule of man over woman grew harsher as the centuries rolled by, especially among the Godless nations which rapidly sprang up, and she was treated by them as a plaything, a chattel, a servant, a slave. But in due time the Christ and his religion came, and lifted woman up from under man's feet, and placed her in her rightful position by his side, his other half, to be loved, protected, and honored as the mother of his children. Oh, what a debt of fidelity does woman owe to the Christian faith! When the princely crown of motherhood was conferred on woman and she was made queen of the home, though to be marked with short pain and sorrow, but followed with joy, the Great King then gave to woman a higher influence over the destinies of mankind than to man himself. For, from the time the babe first sees the light of life, the mother holds almost undivided control over it. She remains at home (or should) to order the house and control the children; the father goes abroad to provide food and comforts for them. Of all young living things the child is most easily shaped by the nearest controlling influence; and here comes in the true mother's opportunity and duty. The first vital lesson to be taught the child is obedience to parental authority; for the parents stand in the place of God to the child, and their word must be its law until it reaches years of self-control. The mother's control of the child holds almost fully for the first eight or ten years. If she is faithful in that time and uses her switch freely when needed to enforce her authority and exact obedience, the habit of loving obedience in the child will be pretty fully settled. After that the father may take a hand, but will hardly need to, if the mother has been wise and faithful and truly loving. This training must not forget the Christ and His teachings -- a vital part. The command for this training is plain and clear in the sacred word: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he grows up he will not depart from it." "Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou chasteneth him with the rod he shall not die; and thou shalt deliver his soul from hell." "He that spareth the rod hateth his son." Correction of a child, when needed, is the highest proof of parental love. What is the result of this faithful training? The child early learns subjection and obedience to parental authority; as it grows older it readily comprehends the justice of all rightful authority; and it becomes, when full grown, a law-abiding citizen. Moreover, he will incline to look up and reverence the authority of the High God, of whom his faithful mother has told him, and will bow in submission to Him as the source of all rightful authority. He will become a Christian and band with Christian men. What a supreme honor is conferred upon woman thus to train immortal beings, her dearest, for happiness and safety! Sons so raised and trained will become the ruling spirits among men, will sway their councils and shape their laws. Need mothers, or women, fear injustice from the rule of such men whom they have raised. Need they forsake the high honor their God and Maker has conferred on them, turn their backs on His decreed order, abandon their homes and children, become mannish after suffrage and try to forget their sex in mingling in man's affairs? Would woman seek to become masculine, reaching for such unseemly things, and lose all her soft and gentle attractiveness for man? And will man surrender his manhood by grating them? What but confusion and disaster can then ensue, hastening the end that is coming fast enough anyhow? Your correspondnt complains bitterly of the double standard of morals, so called. Who established it, and why? When the glory of motherhood was given to woman, with all its honors, she, not man, was ipso facto, made responsible for the integrity and purity of the race. For this reason she owes strict fidelity to one husband, and is hedged in by penalties if she transgresses. In any country and people of honor the married woman who fails in purity brings quick vengeance upon the man who has dared to cross that "dead line," and upon herself. The unmarried woman who yields the precious jewel of her virtue to love's, or lust's, unmastered importunity cannot, under the law of her sex and in the course of nature, long escape exposure. She is scorned by her own sex, pitied and avoided by the sterner sex. It is the penalty for bringing a bastard into the world, and thus debauching the purity of her race, which it is her sacred obligation to protect. But the guilty man is not subject to such an exposure. It is not the law of his being. He may even pose as a gay Lothario, a lady-killer, and be admired by other corrupt men and fool women. But will he escape punishment? Do not believe it. If male kinsmen of the woman do not speedily exact from him justice or vengeance, yet he will hardly escape the lashings of conscience here, and in the hereafter the doom of "everlasting destruction from the presence of God and His Glory," for the Word says, "No adulterer or fornicator shall enter the kingdom of heaven." The gentle Christ, then to be the inflexible judge, says that he himself will pronounce that sentence of banishment: "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (See Matt. xxv: 4.) Many persons may smile with incredulity at these tremendous truths. It is their privilege to smile. There is no compulsion to believe them. Men neglect to read God's word and law. They may continue to neglect and take the consequences. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. God lays His truth and law before us. He gives us intelligent minds to understand and obey, if we will; but we are free-agents. He will compel no unwilling faith or service -- will accept none. Whosoever will may come, and whosoever will may stay away. It is for each to choose which to do. But the day is coming -- may not be far distant -- when the betrayer of weak women, and the disobedient unbeliever, will curse their folly and will call on the rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the face of God and His wrath. The Word says so. And the glaring indications, so plain to the thoughtful, Bible reading Christian, show that day to be rapidly rolling near, and it will burst on the terrified world like a thief in the night. (II Peter 3:10.) And will lovely woman stoop to folly in more ways than one? Will she seek to rival, antagonize, embitter man, instead of standing in her divinely appointed place by his side as wife and mother, to comfort, encourage, inspire him? Will the queen of the home abdicate her high honors and privileges and wander after false fires, the Ignis fatuus of suffrage? And will the man stand by indifferent, or aid them in these follies to their own dishonor? It has already gone much too far in this direction. Woman's leadership or partnership with man, except in the God-appointed way, means moral ruin, as it did in Eden. The Mann act is a laudable effort toward better conditions, and will be enlarged and strengthened as experience may indicate. Your correspondent, A. Y. T., is altogether extreme and unfair in her estimate of man's greater responsibility for moral evils. Such faults cannot occur without involving both sexes. While women are weak, yielding -- and too often inviting; and men are made of flesh, not wood or iron -- who shall measure responsibility? There is but one law competent to restrain and cure these evils, and that law is found in God's words. BAPTIST LAYMAN. AN ANTI-SUFFRAGIST'S REPLY TO MR. BRYAN'S REASONS FOR ADVOCATING WOMAN SUFFRAGE In giving his reasons for openly espousing the cause of woman suffrage, Mr. Bryan mentions, first, his conviction that "woman has proved herself equal to every responsibility imposed upon her, and will not fail society in this emergency." What "emergency" does Mr. Bryan refer to? He seems to speak as if some dire calamity were impending over the nation which men alone were incapable of meeting and so are driven to call women to their assistance. One could understand routed Republican leaders turning to such a forlorn hope, and one can quite understand the struggling Rooseveltians falling into such counsel of despair, but with the Democratic Party in control of affairs and Mr. Bryan himself at the helm of State, it is difficult to discover the cause of a "C.O. S." cry thus sent across the waters to women to save the country in its emergency." Nor do we Anti-suffragists see any reasons so long as there are still sufficient able-bodied men left in the country to continue pulling their half of the load, why the burden should be imposed upon women. Mr. Bryan declared that above all other arguments he places "the right of the mother to a voice in molding the environment of her children." But in a proper division of labor "environment" i. e. the conditions of the outside world into which his business naturally takes him, it is man's task to "mold." Woman has done her share when she successfully "molds" the immediate environment of her children -- the home. It is too much to expect of her -- the molding of two worlds. When she has prepared a man-child for the world it is up to him to "mold" the world when he gets into it. That is what he was prepared for. Woman cannot do it all. He has to justify his existence. Leave SOMETHING for him. Woman should not try to be the whole thing. It is absolutely true, as Mr. Bryan declares, and one cannot but admire the acuteness of his observation, that men and women are "co-tenants of the earth," and must "work out their destiny together." But in the light of modern science, which declares that all progress throughout evolution has been accompanied by an INCREASING SPECIALIZATION of function, it is no less evident that the best way to work out their destiny "together" is to work it out separately i. e. along their separate lines. Again, one cannot but note the benign and beautiful trustfulness with which Mr. Bryan anticipates the rapid approach of that day when the physical force of the male will no longer be needed in the administration of affairs, but the laws will be obeyed solely "because they are the expression of public opinion." The secretary's sanguineness is the more remarkable in that almost at the moment of his penning these words news from Colorado described a condition in which government and obedience to law "as an expression of public opinion" had completely broken down, and the voting women of the State with one accord were loudly screaming for Federal troops, MEN (with guns in their hands) to come and stay and restore law and order! Taking a contrary view from that favored by Mr. Bryan, Mr. Fredric Harrison, the eminent English moralist, holds that the control of government (not the knowledge or discussion or study of government but the CONTROL of government) should remain in the hands of men for the obvious reason that it is men alone who CAN control it. In his work on "Realities and Ideals" Mr. Harrison writes: -- "Men, and men only are entitled to political control since, in the last resort, it is their muscular force which has to make good and defend it." To the woman absorbed and fascinated by the multitude of domestic pursuits, Mr. Bryan rises to heights of unconscious humor when he suggests that woman might find the participation in politics a "restful variety" in her life! Whatever else may be said of our politics, it is seldom that one hears them described as "restful." And it must be a very dull woman indeed in her home, one who very tiresomely and dejectedly fulfills her functions there, who would welcome the opportunity to exchange them for the noisy stupidities of political strife. Those who could by no manner of means find anything "restful" in the crazy din of political campaigns -- have they or have they not a right to choose? If, as Mr. Bryan believes, women are intelligent enough to vote, why aren't they intelligent enough to know whether they want to vote or not? In passing, it may be remarked that while there is no visible reason why any woman who so inclines should not "discuss with her family the art of government," thee is every reason why she should not be permitted to compel to such discussion by reason of the moral obligation which the franchise imposes, other women (a large majority be it remembered) who have neither the time nor the inclination for it. In a manner all too common to-day, Mr. Bryan assumes that the whole "Woman's movement" is synonymous with "progress." He is apparently quite innocent of any knowledge of how grave are free doubts which are being cast upon such an assumption. Apparently it has not yet occurred to him to connect the falling birthrate, the increasing rate of celibacy among the nation's finest women, the decay of family life, the prevalence of prostitution, the damaged health of working women, the growing aversion to motherhood, the ousting of men in some industries, and other manifestations of deep- rooted social disturbance -- with the severance of woman from the family, her departure from her home, and her forced entrance into industry in competition with men. Again Mr. Bryan would appear to be ill-informed when he asserts that organization and enthusiasm exist only on the suffrage side. The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage and the officers of the various State Associations could tell him a different story. With a slight effort of memory I can as I write hear the cheers of an audience which packed the Belasco Theatre in Washington to its roof, still ringing in my ears. But if, in general, it is true that the Anti-suffragists' methods are more quiet, yet the steadfast devotion to their leaders and the firm determination in a trying situation ae a full offset to the "enthusiasm" of suffragists. The most extraordinary feature, however, of Mr. Bryan's statement is his abandonment for this occasion only, of the fundamental democratic doctrine concern- ing the rule of the majority. On this question alone, affecting women closely and personally, the will of the majority (of women) is not to be permitted to obtain. "Why," asks Mr. Bryan, "should any mother be denied the use of the ballot to safeguard the welfare of her child, merely (sic) because another mother may not view her duty in the same light?" Now nothing is more certain than that the large majority of American women do not want the vote. Either by silence which gives consent to the present order of things, or by active organization in opposition to change, they have signified in an unmistakable manner their belief that by the present arrangement (which entrusts politics to the men of the nation and hold them responsible for results) the welfare of their children is better safeguarded than by dividing the responsibility between the sexes. Have they not the right to prefer safeguarding the welfare of their children in the manner which seems to them most efficient? Have they or have they not a right to their opinion on the subject? And if, as is the case, they are in a majority, has this majority, or has it not, the right to prevail? If a liquor dealer believe that he can best "safeguard the welfare of his children" by license and a full money box, would Mr. Bryan say that his voice should be heard above a majority of anti-saloon leaguers? Or if only one voter desires to safeguard his loved ones by means of free silver, must he be allowed to have his way against a majority? Apparently Mr. Bryan is of the goodly company of sentimentalists who habitually lose their heads when it is a question of giving woman anything she (if there be only one of her) asks for, but his benignance, however amiable, fails to upset our faith in the principle of majority rule, of which none other than he is a more fervent exponent. PRESTONIA MANN MARTIN ISSUED BY The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, 37 WEST 39TH STREET, NEW YORK CITY. Prominent Anti-Suffragists Among the prominent opponents are former Ambassador Bryce, Rudyard Kipling, Mrs. Humphry Ward, Lord Curzon, etc. in England, and Elihu Root, Cardinal Gibbons, Henry Cabot Lodge, Mrs. Thomas J. Preston, Jr., Mrs. William Howard Taft, the Misses Lansing, etc., in this country. The opposition to woman suffrage in England was led by Mrs. Humphry Ward, probably the best known woman writer in the world today. In America, the leadership of Mrs. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., daughter of John Hay, Abraham Lincoln's secretary and Secretary of State under McKinley and Roosevelt, is something of which any movement in America might be proud. And in comparing prominent persons who oppose or advocate woman suffrage in this country, the fair-minded observer will be struck with the following fact: The men who oppose woman suffrage are out of politics as a rule, and swayed only by their honest judgment of the merits of the question. The men who advocate woman suffrage are usually in politics or trying to get in by women's vote. The women who oppose suffrage are as a rule the wives or daughters of prominent statesmen, familiar all of their lives with what politics means, and sincerely sacrificing their own money and energy to protect their sister women from the evils of politics. Missy Anti folder This ought to be a good "text--" for Something. over SEP 9 1918 From Howard Patriot. ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE HON. ELIHU ROOT, BEFORE The New York State Constitutional Convention, ON August 15th, 1894. ISSUED BY The New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. 29 WEST 39TH STREET, NEW YORK CITY. I am opposed to the granting of suffrage to women, because I believe that it would be a loss to women, to all women, and to every woman; and because I believe it would be an injury to the State, and to every man and every woman in the State. It would be useless to argue this if the right of suffrage were a natural right. If it were a natural right, then women should have it though the heavens fall. But if there be any one thing settled in the long discussion of this subject, it is that suffrage is not a natural right, but is simply a means of government; and the sole question to be discussed is whether government by the suffrage of men and women will be better government than by the suffrage of men alone. The question is, therefore, a question of expediency, and the question of expediency upon this subject is not a question of tyranny, as the gentleman from Cattaraugus has said, but a question of liberty, a question of preservation of free constitutional government, of law, order, peace and prosperity. Into my judgment, sir, there enters no element of the inferiority of woman. There could not, sir, for I rejoice in the tradition and in the memory and the possession of a home where woman reigns with acknowledged superiority in all the nobler, and the higher attributes that by common, by universal, consent, determine rank among the highest of the children of God. No, sir. It is not that woman is inferior to man, but it is that woman is different from man; that in the distribution of powers, of capacities, of qualities, our Maker has created man adapted to the performance of certain functions in the economy of nature and society, and women adapted to the performance of other functions One question to be determined in the discussion of this subject is whether the nature of woman is such that her taking upon her the performance of the functions implied in suffrage will leave her in the possession and the exercise of her highest powers or will be an abandonment of those powers and on entering upon a field in which, because of her differences from man, she is distinctly inferior. Mr. President, I have said that I thought suffrage would be a loss for women. I think so because suffrage implies not merely the casting of the ballot, the gentle and peaceful fall of the snow-flake, but suffrage, if it means anything, means entering upon the field of political life, and politics is modified war. In politics there is struggle, strife, 2 contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement, agitation, everything which is adverse to the true character of woman. Woman rules to-day by the sweet and noble influences of her character. Put woman into the arena of conflict and she abandons these great weapons which control the world, and she takes into her hands, feeble and nerveless for strife, weapons with which she is unfamiliar and which she is unable to wield. Woman in strife becomes hard, harsh, unlovable, repulsive; as far removed from that gentle creature to whom we all owe allegiance and to whom we confess submission, as the heaven is removed from the earth. Government, Mr. President, is protection. The whole science of government is the science of protecting life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, of protecting our person, our property, our homes, our wives and our children, against foreign aggression, against civil dissension, against mobs and riots rearing their fearful heads within this peaceful land during the very sessions of this Convention. Against crime and disorder, and all the army of evil, civil society wages its war, and government is the method of protection, protection of us all. The trouble, Mr. President, is not in the principles which underlie government. Men and women alike acknowledge them and would enforce them, honor and truth, and justice and liberty; the difficulty is to find out how to protect them. The difficulty is to frame the measure, to direct the battle, to tell where and how the blows are to be struck and when the defenses are to be erected. Mr. President, in the divine distribution of powers, the duty and the right of protection rests with the male. It is so throughout nature. It is so with men, and I, for one, will never consent to part with the divine right of protecting my wife, my daughter, the women whom I love and the women whom I respect, exercising the birthright of man, and place that high duty in the weak and nerveless hands of those designed by God to be protected rather than to engage in the stern warfare of government. In my judgement, sire, this whole movement arises from a false conception of the duty and of the right of men and women both. We all of us, sire, see the pettiness of our lives. We all see how poor a thing is the best that we can do. We all at times long to share the fortunes of others, to leave our tiresome round of duty and to engage in their affairs. What others may do seem to us nobler, more important, more conspicuous than the little things of our own lives. It is a great mistake, sir, it is a fatal mistake that these excellent women make when they 3 conceive that the functions of men are superior to theirs and seek to usurp them. The true government is in the family. The true throne is in the household. The highest exercise of power is that which forms the conscience, influences the will, controls the impulses of men. and there-to-day woman is supreme and woman rules the world. Mr. President, the time will never come when this line of demarcation between the functions of the two sexes will be broken down. I believe it to be false philosophy; I believe that it is an attempt to turn backward upon the line of social development, and that if the step ever be taken, we go centuries backward on the march towards a higher, a nobler and a purer civilization, which must be found not in the confusion, but in the higher differentiation of the sexes. But, Mr. President, why do we discuss this subject? This Convention has already acted upon it. A committee, as fairly constituted as ever was committee, has acted upon it, a committee which had among its members four who were selected by the women who lead this movement, which had a much smaller number of gentlemen who were known to be opposed to it, the great body of which was composed of men whose ideas and feelings upon the subject were utterly unknown, has acted upon it, and reported to the Convention. The Convention has, by a unanimous vote, decided that it will not strike the word "male" from the Constitution. Now we are met, sir, by a proposition that instead of performing the duty which we came here to perform, instead of exercising the warrant given to us by the people to revise and amend the Constitution, we shall have recourse in a weak and shuffling evasion, and then throw back upon the people the determination which they charged us to make in this Convention. We are asked to do it. Why? to do it from good nature, to do it because my friend from New York, Mr. Lauterbach, is a good fellow; to do it because it will please this lady and that lady, who have been importuning members about this hall for months; to do it, heaven knows for how many reasons, but all reasons of good nature, of kindliness, of complaisance, opposed to the simple performance of the duty which we came here to discharge under the sanction of our oaths. Mr. President, I hope that this Convention will discharge the duty of determining who shall vote; discharge it with manliness and decision of character, which, after all, the women of America, God bless them, admire and respect more than anything else on this Earth. 4 Some Reasons Why We Oppose Votes for Women Because the basis of government is force-its stability rests upon its physical power to enforce its laws; therefore it is inexpedient to give the vote to women. Immunity from service in executing the law would make most women irresponsible voters. [*Men exempt-but vote-women in armies-mexico*] Because the suffrage is not a question of right or of justice, but of policy and expediency; and if there is no question of right or of justice, there is no case for woman suffrage. BECAUSE IT IS THE DEMAND OF A MINORITY OF WOMEN, AND THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN PROTEST AGAINST IT. Because it means simply doubling the vote, and especially the undesirable and corrupt vote of our large cities. Because the great advance of women in the last century-moral, intellectual and economic-has been made without the vote; which goes to prove that it is not needed for their further advancement along the same lines. Because women now stand outside of politics, and therefore are free to appeal to any party in matters of education, charity and reform. Because the ballot has not proved a cure-all for existing evils with men, and we find no reason to assume that it would be effectual with women. Because the woman suffrage movement is a backward step in the progress of civilization in that it seeks to efface natural differentiation of function, and to produce identity, instead of division of labor. Because in Colorado after a test of seventeen years the results show no gain in public and political morals over male suffrage States, and the necessary increase in the cost of election which is already a huge burden upon the taxpayer, is unjustified. Because 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 requires 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. Because it is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who represent 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 US in the corn-field, on the battle-field, and at the ballot-box, and we THEM 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 suffrage adopted, contrary to the judgement of the many. We do, therefore, respectfully protest against the proposed Amendment to establish "woman suffrage" in our State. We believe that political equality will deprive us of special privileges hitherto accorded to us by law. Our association has been formed for the purpose of conducting a purely education campaign. If you are in sympathy with this aim and believe as we do in the righteousness of our cause, will you not send your name to us and pass our appeal on to some one else? NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO WOMAN SUFFRAGE 35 West 39th St., New York City. Equality of Suffrage Means the Debasement Not Only of Women But of Men By JOHN R. DOS PASSOS ISSUED BY The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage 29 WEST 39TH STREET. NEW YORK CITY. I never could bring myself to discuss earnestly the question of woman suffrage. I have always run away from it, hoping secretly that it would die out naturally as many other agitations. But it now looms up in such great and, to me, dreadful proportions that I believe one can no longer abstain from regarding and treating it as a vital political and social issue. By marvellous worldwide organizations, by enthusiasm approaching a religious or frantic frenzy, the women who advocate female suffrage have brought the subject into the front row of public questions. And its opponents have done practically nothing -- hoping I suppose, as I have, that the movement would die out -- but it will not down. I approach the question with all predilections in favor of woman's rights as one willing to go even to extreme lengths in her behalf, and I therefor enter into this field of discussion as her advocate rather than as her opponent. Preliminarily, I regard it as extremely unfortunate that the friends of female suffrage should have raised the questions at this epoch in the history of the English-speaking people. It is not propitious. It is precipitate. The time to open it is when some great wrong is about to be committed against her-when her property or her personal rights are being violated-when some ruthless and unjustifiable intrusion upon womanhood is attempted-then she might come forward and truthfully say: "Our situation calls for radical remedies." But no such conditions exist. There never was a time in the history of the world when the rights and property of women have been so safeguarded. She not only stands before the law as equal in position and influence to man, but she is a preferential subject, so to speak. She enjoys more privileges and for all practical purposes she ranks higher before the law and in society than a man. But it is answered that this is based upon sentiment and she even disdainfully rejects sentiment -- she wishes equality by statute. But in this connection she makes a fundamental mistake. The aim of government is the happiness and prosperity of its people. If they are protected without written law 3 so much the better. A nation cannot be judged by its laws. The gist of the inquiry is––are the people contented and protected in the enjoyment of their rights and property? If that proposition can be answered affirmatively it matters very little under what form of government they live––they have attained the substance of social organization. The greatest prop to any government is the moral sense of the people–– sometimes called "sentiment." It is preferable to govern a nation by a vigorous healthy sentiment than by discordant laws. I maintain, therefore, that at this juncture in our history there is nothing to justify women in advocating political suffrage for the sole purpose of protecting her rights. Indeed it may be termed (without offense) ungrateful. She should be thankful for what she has––not claim more. It must be remembered also in this connection that if she be victorious, she will inevitably lose many advantages and privileges which she now enjoys. The very fact that she does not enjoy full political suffrage can always be used for her advantage. But if she gain political equality she can enjoy no privileges which sentiment now confers upon her––which hangs over her like an aureola. And she must inevitably accept political equality. Accordingly, as a mere practical proposition, her victory will mean her defeat, and with it, I am equally sure, will come the destruction of her moral, social, domestic and sentimental influence, far more important than full political rights. Another preliminary thought is this: That the movement in favor of suffrage has not been inaugurated or sustained by any considerable body of women. The weight of numbers and of intellectual and moral character is against the demand. I grant that since the movement began many true and noble (but, I add, I hope without offense), misguided women have joined the ranks, but taking the active propagandists of the movement as a whole, I affirm that they do not fairly represent the great body of American women. The latter do not want suffrage, but on the contrary they positively reject it. This demand for female suffrage is forced; it constitutes in no sense a revolution. It is not a popular uprising. It has none of its aspects. It is an immature political growth. Commotion and pageants should never be mistaken for a general and natural uprising. And hence I pay very little attention to displays of that description. 4 Burke has well illustrated this thought by a reference to some farm land enclosed by a high fence. A passer-by could hear the chirruping of innumerable grasshoppers which, keeping up a continuous and discordant noise,, gave the impression that they were the sole occupants of the field, but looking over the fence into the enclosure one saw a large herd of noble cattle silently grazing upon the pasture and treating with indifference, if not with contempt, the noise made by these ceaseless croakers. The music of bands and the dulcet voices of the oratorical sufiragists proclaiming their demands, represent but a small portion of the women in this country; and so far there is no practical arguments in favor of the movement. When these master suffragists are authorized to represent a majority of the women of the land; when they leave the domain of ad captandum argument and come upon the broad ground of social right, the claim to full political equality can be made with greater force. Coming to the merits of the question, looking it directly in the face, treating it as a relevant, timely issue, I am utterly opposed to granting women the right to vote. But in stating my opposition so positively I wish at the same time to make to its advocates an important concession, one which can and has been disconnectedly used with great effect. It is this: I firmly believe that the participation of women in our elections would in the first stages be beneficial. I believe they would do the right thing. I am convinced that they would with their perennial and overflowing enthusiasm and natural love of right and justice materially check the efforts of low politicians and office-seekers to promote selfish or bad measures. But this would be sporadic, ephemeral and exceptional, and in a little while they would be mixed up with the political parties, and become as bitter partisans, if not more so, than men. It will, besides, take many years to train women to the occupation of politics and in the meantime, as a whole, they would become the dupes and tools of designing politicians of both sexes. Nor can the argument for suffrage rest either upon logical, social or political grounds, for if it can be claimed, as a matter of right, then those who obtain it must also accept its corresponding duties; for example, to act as soldiers; to become a part of the posse 5 comitatus and to assume all of the responsibilities which attach to full citizenship. Else their argument would be a non sequiter. But the great fundamental objection arises from the physical, moral and natural difference of the two sexes and in the missions which they have to perform in Anglo-Saxon civilization. This aspect of the subject is delicate and although frequently presented is perhaps abstruse- but a little serious reflection, it seems to me, will carry conviction of its absolute truth. The objection mainly rests upon the natural separation of the sexes and the physiological and fundamental reasons which cause it. Any step which impairs the efficiency of a woman to bear children or diminishes her influence as a mother is a direct blow at civilization. Anglo-Saxon society is built upon the integrity and undiminished strength of the domestic relation- with the mother as the distinctive head and inspiration of the moral and physical education of the children- a task demanding most of her time and all of her thought. As a true friend of woman- a much better one than many of those who boisterously demand suffrage- I can see the dire effects of a political commingling of the sexes as plainly as I can discern objects through a pane of undimmed window glass. I am not considering the present. I am looking into the future and I behold disaster and ruin to both sexes by their political amalgamation. It will not be seen at once- its ravaging work will be slow, but in half a century the political equality of men and women will change the whole basis of social organization and both men and women will become in every way distinctively lowered. The smothered brutality of both sexes will be fanned into a blaze and the results easily imagined. All of the nice and refining barriers which now separate the two sexes will disappear and a common, vulgar and even savage basis of life and intercourse will be established between them. After all the veil of civilization which keeps men and women within decorous bounds is not very thick. A correct analysis of human nature, passions and learning is authority for this view. The profoundest observer of human nature, Bacon, has graphically portrayed the quickness with which human becomes beast nature- he says in speaking of Orpheus' theater "where all beasts and birds assembled and forgetting their several appetites some of prey, some of game, some of quarrel, stood 6 all socially together listening to the airs and accord of the harp, the sound whereof no sooner ceased or was drowned by some louder noise, but every beast returned to its own nature; wherein is aptly described the nature and condition of men who are fully of unclaimed desires of profit, of lust, of revenge, which as long as they give ear to precepts to laws to religion sweetly touched with eloquence and persuasion of books of sermons, of harangues, so long is peace and society maintained; but if these instruments be silent or that sedition and tumult make them not audible all things dissolve into anarchy and confusion." With full political equality and full political responsibility how long will it take to wear off the thin skin which now hides and controls their real natures and the effect produced which Bacon so graphically portrays, Equality in politics distinctively means the debasement not only of women, but of men. One step will lead to another- first suffrage, then office, one barrier after another disappearing and then promiscuous commingling. The women of this age should not undertake to solve this great social problem hastily, nor should they for one moment trust the question to the care and guidance of a few dashing, brilliant women, some of them very young, most of them without any experience in actual life, and all of the relying upon emotion instead of history and philosophy; nor should they follow the counsels of a thoughtless class who handle the great social problems with the dexterity of jugglers of glass balls. The question of the bestowal of political suffrage upon women constitutes one of the profoundest which can arise in human government. And answering every question which the suffragists put, in the affirmative, such as. "Are not women intelligent enough to vote? Has not property the right to full protection? Are they not superior to many men who now enjoy suffrage?" I say, answering all of this class of questions in the affirmative, they do not touch the fundamental objection to the affiliation of women in politics, i. e., that nature, human nature, forbids it; real Anglo-Saxon liberty rejects it, and these natural influences cannot be altered any more than the course of the planets can be changed by a fine-spun technical argument. The gains which the suffragists have made are already beginning to produce evil results. Women are fast becoming 7 masculinized. In their dress, habits and speech. Many of them are already loose in their dialects - others are disregarding or abandoning those delicate charms of manner which, while not fundamental or deep, yet, by the respect which they inspire, constitute woman's principal defense against attacks upon her virtue or refinement. This question cannot be settled by logical argument because it is so largely sentimental. Political suffrage is and has always been arbitrary. The foibles of women are now her strength. It is astonishing that she deliberately disregards this potent fact and places her claims for suffrage upon grounds of pure technical right. Especially is it astonishing when we know that the whole doctrine of political suffrage is more or less arbitrary. Why, for example, should not all of the young men over 18 claim the right? The schools and colleges are full of students far more capable than many who now enjoy the right. The answer, I repeat, is that suffrage is peculiarily arbitrary. The movement of female suffrage can no longer be laughed to scorn. It must be seriously and ably opposed and killed by the same weapons which are used to advance it. As between female suffrage and an absolute monarchy or despotism I should unhesitatingly choose the latter. I should for myself rather abandon suffrage than confer it upon women with all of the inevitable and horrible evils which it will engender. - (Pittsburg Leader.) 8 The Case Against Woman Suffrage Published by the NATIONAL ANTI-SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION P. O. Box, 2617, Boston, Mass. ANCHOR LINOTYPE PRINTING CO. 144 HIGH ST., BOSTON, MASS. THE CASE AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE PUBLISHED BY NATIONAL ANTI-SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION P. O. Box 2617, Boston, Mass. OFFICERS President, HON. CHARLES S. FAIRCHILD, Cazenovia, New York Treasurer, HENRY B. THOMPSON, Wilmington, Delaware Secretary, PROF. M. W. JACOBUS, Hartford, Connecticut Executive Committee, The above-named officers, JUDGE OSCAR LESER, Baltimore, Maryland, and FRANK L. BABBOTT, Esq., New York, N. Y. FOREWORD The question of adopting Woman Suffrage - making women part of the electorate, charged with the duties and burdens of government - is awakening renewed discussion in Congress and in many States. No more important question has ever been submitted to any government for decision. It profoundly concerns the future of the Nation and of every man, woman and child within it. In this little pamphlet are presented some of the many reasons for the belief that WOMAN SUFFRAGE IS WRONG IN THEORY AND BAD IN PRACTICE. We ask you to read it carefully and then make your decision on this question AS YOUR CONSCIENCE DICTATES. Do not forget that POPULAR INDIFFERENCE IS ALMOST WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADOPTION OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN CERTAIN STATES OF THIS UNION. Let us not allow INDIFFERENCE to continue the deciding factor in this discussion. Woman Suffrage, in its final analysis, is a proposal to change what has always been regarded as the natural social order and to establish a new principle as the basis of the State. NO MAN CAN AFFORD TO BE NEUTRAL ON SUCH A QUESTION. It touches every home and every family. It may affect the stability of State and Nation. We appeal, therefore, to the citizens of the United States to study the question and to take sides on it. THE ISSUE IS TOO BIG, TOO VITAL TO THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PEOPLE, TO BE DETERMINED BY A MINORITY. NATIONAL ANTI-SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION, Boston, Mass. P.O. Box 2617. 2 The Case Against Woman Suffrage 1. The vote is not a question of individual "right," or what is best for the individual or for any class, but SOLELY A QUESTION OF WHAT IS BEST FOR THE STATE. 2. The net result of Woman Suffrage wherever tried has been A LOSS TO THE STATE AND A LOSS TO WOMEN. 3. The vote is demanded by only a small minority of women. 4. To force the vote upon the great majority of women to satisfy a small minority would be UNDEMOCRATIC AND UNJUST. 5. Men and women were created different and designed to work in different spheres for the common good--to cooperate with and supplement each other and not to compete. 6. The vote would deprive woman of her non-partisan power which enables her to do for the State what man is unable to do because he is bound by political party obligations. 7. The basis of government is PHYSICAL FORCE, and the physical power to enforce the law, without which the vote is useless, is NEITHER POSSIBLE NOR DESIRABLE FOR WOMEN. 8. Woman Suffrage is demanded by Socialists and Feminists as "a means to an end"--the end being "a complete social revolution." * * * * * Such is the indictment of the Woman Suffrage movement. The proof in the briefest outline follows: The Suffrage Solely a Question of What Is Best For The State. The cornerstone of the Woman Suffrage movement is the argument that the vote is a "natural" right from the enjoyment of which women are "tyrannically excluded by men." Miss Anna Howard Shaw, for years president of the National Woman Suffrage Association, said in the New York Evening Post of Feb. 25, 1915: "I believe in Woman Suffrage whether all women 3 vote or no women vote; whether all women vote right or all women vote wrong; whether women will love their husbands after they vote or forsake them; whether they will neglect their children or never have any children." In Miss Shaw's statement of the case there is no pretense that the State or anybody in it will benefit by giving the ballot to women. SHE WOULD HAVE WOMEN SUFFRAGE THOUGH MATERIAL AND MORAL EVIL FOLLOW IN ITS WAKE! The Vote Not a Natural Right. Is there any such thing as a natural right to vote? All the legal authorities say NO. The Supreme Court of the United States says NO. Common sense says NO. "The granting of the franchise," said Chief Justice Marshall, "has always been regarded in the practice of nations as a matter of expediency and not as an inherent right." "Suffrage," said Judge Cooley, in his work on the Principles of Constitutional Law, "cannot 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." The Cyclopedia of American Government says: "That the suffrage cannot be a natural right is obvious from the fact that no community can ever enfranchise all its citizens." And as later will appear THE SUFFRAGE LEADERS THEMSELVES ONCE ABANDONED THE CLAIM THAT THE VOTE WAS A RIGHT AND DEMANDED IT ONLY ON THE GROUND OF EXPEDIENCY. A Privilege With a Heavy Obligation. The franchise is our instrument of government carrying with it a heavy responsibility, and it is given to those to whom the State for what it conceives to be its OWN HIGHEST INTEREST, sees fit to give it. If the franchise were a right, like the right of every one to protection of life and property, the government would not be justified in withholding it from any sane, law-abiding individual. 4 That it is not such a right common sense alone teaches. The minor, the alien, the soldier or sailor in the service of Uncle Sam, the citizen of the District of Columbia, each has a right to have his person and his property protected. But he has no vote. From each of these groups the ballot has been withheld on the ground that its "participation in government would be for the disadvantage of the State," the reasons for taking that ground being, of course, different in each case. In the case of women, it was a question solely of how they could best serve the State, and it was decided that women can best serve the State outside the realm of political contention. It is clear, therefore, that the case of Miss Shaw and the National Woman Suffrage Association falls of its own weight, since it is based on something which does not exist. NEITHER MAN NOR WOMAN HAS A NATURAL RIGHT TO VOTE. The Question for the Voter. Since the question of "natural right" is not involved, the question every man should try to answer to his own satisfaction before he decides on Woman Suffrage is: Will the public interest be better served, on the whole, by an electorate composed of men and women than it is by an electorate of men alone? This question is FUNDAMENTAL. If it can be demonstrated that the State will benefit by Woman Suffrage, Woman Suffrage should be adopted, for what benefits the State benefits all within the State. But it should not be adopted until that has been shown BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. [*out*] What the Suffragists Must Prove. It isn't enough for the suffragists to attempt to prove that no harm will come to the State by doubling of its electorate. THE BURDEN UPON THEM IS TO PROVE THAT 5 "VOTES FOR WOMEN" WILL RAISE THE STANDARD OF GOVERNMENT AND MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT. They must prove, therefore, that on the average, women will vote MORE INTELLIGENTLY, MORE DISCRIMINATINGLY, MORE REGULARLY AND MORE UNSELFISHLY THAN MEN. They must prove that, on the average, women will be WISER AND BETTER electors and legislators than men. Woman Suffrage means greatly increased outlay of time and money devoted to elections, and to government. It means diverting woman from her natural duties. This is a direct loss to the State. The suffragists must prove that women's votes will bring to the State SOME GAIN THAT WILL MORE THAN COUNTERBALANCE THIS LOSS. WHAT IS THAT GAIN TO BE? The Net Result of Woman Suffrage a Loss To Women and To The State. It is generally agreed that the greatest menace to government is not the corrupt or ignorant vote, but the voter who fails to do his duty on election day. And this menace is tremendously increased by the addition of women to the electorate. A small minority of women may be able to induce men to force the ballot on an unwilling majority of women, but no power has yet been devised to make an unwilling majority of women vote. Certain voters, male or female, can always be depended upon to go to the polls. These are the voters who are led by bosses or by private interests. The influence of such voters can be offset only when the rest of the electorate likewise goes to the polls. Woman Suffrage will double the number of voters who will vote as they are told. But it will not double the number of independent voters, because the great majority of women whose votes would count against the bosses and selfish interests will not go to the polls. WOMAN SUFFRAGE, THEREFORE, WILL GREATLY INCREASE THE DANGER OF BOSS-CONTROLLED AND INTEREST-CONTROLLED LEGISLATION. 6 How Women Have Used The Ballot. Proof of the foregoing is found in all states where women have either full or partial suffrage. In Massachusetts women have had the school vote since 1879. The Suffragists asked for it then as a test of what women would do in politics. Here is the result. In the last 18 years there has been in Massachusetts an average registration of 4.8 per cent. of the legal women voters, and an actual vote of 2.1 per cent., or less than half the registration. IN MANY MASSACHUSETTS TOWNS YEARS HAVE PASSED WITHOUT A SINGLE FEMALE VOTE! According to the Chicago Tribune, a suffragist newspaper, which made a careful estimate just before the Chicago election of April 6, 1915, there were in that city at that time 512,657 men and 501,384 women eligible to register and vote. The vote on April 6, as officially recorded, was: Men . . . . . . . . 434,277 or 82.7 per cent. of the total number of legal male voters. Women . . . . . . . . 250,404 or only 49.9 per cent. of the total number of legal female voters. HERE WE HAVE 50.1 PER CENT. OF THE WOMEN OF CHICAGO NEGLECTING THEIR POLITICAL DUTIES WHILE ONLY 17.3 PER CENT. OF THE MEN ARE GUILTY OF LIKE NEGLECT. In 1912 there were six Woman Suffrage states- Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and California. The combined vote of men and women for President in those states was 47.9 per cent of the men and women over 21, while in the adjoining states of Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Nevada, South Dakota and Missouri, where only men voted for President in 1912, the vote was 69.1 per cent. of the men of voting age. The male and female votes of the double suffrage states are not kept separate, but if the percentage of men voting in those states was as large as in the adjoining male suffrage states, then ONLY 19.1 PER CENT. OF THE WOMEN WENT TO THE POLLS IN THE DOUBLE SUFFRAGE STATES. On the other hand, if more than 19.1 per cent. of the 7 women voted in the double suffrage states, then less than 69.1 per cent. of the men in those states voted. From which figures one of two conclusions is inevitable: Either women do not vote as generally as men when given the opportunity, or the fact that women have the ballot causes men to lose interest and neglect their political duties. And in either case THE RESULT IS AN INCREASE IN THE STAY-AT-HOME PERCENTAGE AND A DISTINCT INJURY TO STATE AND NATION. The High Cost of Government. One of the largest items in the high cost of living is the cost of government. Twenty years ago the annual cost of town, state and federal government for the average family of five was less than $100. Today, according to the United States Census Bureau, it is almost $300. According to the New York Times, which made an exhaustive investigation, the New York State election of 1914 cost $4,079,171.42, or $2.83 per voter, $2 of which came from the public purse. The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a suffragist, estimates that the doubling of an electorate adds at least 50 per cent. to the cost of elections. On this basis, if the cost in other states is approximately what it is in New York, Women Suffrage means an additional expense of at least $1.40 per voter at every election. Figures filed with the secretary of the United States Senate show that the expenses of candidates for the Senate in 1914 were more than three times as great in the Woman Suffrage states as in Male Suffrage states of approximately the same population. Those who do not count the cost will not consider this an argument against double suffrage. But the poor man is forced to count the cost. He is counting it now in all Woman Suffrage states, and he is counting it in Australia and New Zealand, double suffrage countries which are known as the champion debt-ridden countries of the world. UNLESS YOU WISH TO PAY A HIGHER TAX ON YOUR PROPERTY, WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE MUST VOTE "NO" ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE. 8 The Colorado Object Lesson. In its gross mismanagement of the miners' strike of 1913-1914, Colorado furnishes one of the best object lessons of the evil results of the Woman Suffrage. As a result of indifference and neglect of duty on the part of the feminized electorate, the liquor and mining laws in the strike region had become inoperative. In twenty years of Woman Suffrage no attempt had been made to secure a Workmen's Compensation Law, the establishment of an efficient board of arbitration, or any other action that might have prevented trouble, while the forces of law and order had been allowed to degenerate into a brutal gang. Thus the male and female Colorado electorate tolerated conditions that bred violent hatred between capital and labor, and found too late that it had neglected to provide adequate means of controlling the situation. During a period of six months, WHILE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE BEING KILLED AND ANARCHY REIGNED, the electorate turned a deaf ear to suggestions for a special session of the Legislature; and finally, the state militia having added to the reign of terror instead of suppressing it, THE STATE CONFESSED ITS INCOMPETENCE, ABDICATED ITS SOVEREIGNTY AND SENT FOR FEDERAL TROOPS! Federal troops have seldom been called upon to deal with strikes in male suffrage states, except strikes threatening interstate commerce and the safety of the United States mails, and therefore properly subject to federal interference. TWICE IN TEN YEARS COLORADO HAS BEEN OBLIGED TO CALL UPON UNCLE SAM TO QUELL RIOTS IN ITS MIDST AFFECTING STATE ISSUES SOLELY, AND IS THE ONLY STATE IN THE UNION HAVING THAT UNBELIEVABLE RECORD. [*out*] Reason For Colorado's Disgrace. In its belated special session in the spring of 1914, the Colorado Legislature acted precisely as a Legislature chosen by a weak and indifferent electorate might be expected to act. "The wranglings at Denver," said "The Nation," commenting 9 commenting on the situation at that time, "ARE A MOST SIGNIFICANT COMMENTARY ON THE BLOODSHED AND ANARCHY IN THE MINING DISTRICTS. "IMPOTENCE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LAW * * * HAS BEEN MERELY A REFLECTION OF THE LACK OF THAT KIND OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT UPON WHICH THE INTEGRITY AND THE POTENCY OF THE LAW EVERYWHERE DEPEND." The President of the United States sent an official protest against the "INACTION OF THE COLORADO LEGISLATURE." Every incident of the State's handling of the strike clearly proves THE WEAKENING INFLUENCE UPON THE ELECTORATE OF TWENTY YEARS OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE. [*out*] Woman's Vote a Confessed Disappointment The obvious failure of Woman Suffrage has forced many persons, once ardent believers in votes for women, to admit that their hopes have been disappointed. Some of these still profess to believe in suffrage, on the ground of "natural right." Others frankly declare that they would vote for its repeal if they had the opportunity. Here are a few of these fatal admissions: JUDGE LINDSEY of Denver (still a suffragist): "The women are as free of the power of the Beast as the men are -- and no freer . . . . Their leaders in politics are politicians . . . . Women in politics are human beings . . . . and they are unable to free us because they are not free themselves." - EVERYBODY'S MAGAZINE, May 1910. "Where is our adult probation law? We are a suffrage state. Massachusetts is not, but they have an adult probation law. Where is our home finding society? We have suffrage, but our dependent children are put in homes for dependent children instead of being given the rights of family ties. "WE ARE TWENTY YEARS BEHIND MASSACHUSETTS IN SPITE OF SUFFRAGE." From an address delivered at a Susan B. Anthony banquet in Denver, Col., 1915. * * * * * MRS. R. C. CAMPBELL of the Colorado State Board for the Care of Dependent Children: "We did believe, of course, in our hearts that women in 10 public life would purify politics and would make for a higher moral and political standard. AFTER TWENTY YEARS WE ARE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT HUMAN NATURE IS DISPLAYED BY WOMEN IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THAT DISPLAYED BY MEN, AND IF THE APPEAL HAD BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND OF UPLIFT OF POLITICS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISPROVED BY THE FACTS." * * * * * JUDGE W. H. SNELL, of Tacoma, Washington: "I favored Woman Suffrage in Washington and voted for it. But . . . . I am so greatly disappointed at the way it has worked out that I would today welcome an opportunity to vote for its withdrawal; and I believe if it were resubmitted to the people of Washington, and every man, and woman of voting age were compelled to vote upon it, Woman Suffrage would be defeated by an overwhelming majority." -From the Boston Post, March 31, 1915. * * * * * MRS. FRANCIS W. GODDARD, one of Colorado's most prominent and respected women: "For years I believed in Woman Suffrage and have worked day in and day out for it. I now see my mistake. . . . The experiment is a failure. It has done Colorado no good. It has done women no good. The best thing for both would be if tomorrow the ballot for women could be abolished." * * * * * MISS ANNIE BOCK of Los Angeles, Cal., former secretary of the California Equality League, addressing a committee of the United States Senate: "I gave without remuneration over a year of my life, working for suffrage. IF I HAD TO DO IT OVER AGAIN I WOULD WORK TWICE AS HARD, IF THAT WERE POSSIBLE, AGAINST IT. . . . I have had more than ordinary opportunity to observe and watch the workings of suffrage, and I CONSIDER THE RESULT NOT ONLY UNSATISFACTORY AND DISAPPOINTING, BUT DISASTROUS." A large volume could easily be filled with testimony of this kind from men and women who are not afraid to look facts in the face. THE TIME TO THINK OF THIS IS NOW, NOT AFTER Woman Suffrage has been adopted. 11 The Divorce Evil and Woman Suffrage. The statistics of divorce prove that this great social menace is more prevalent and increasing faster in the Woman Suffrage West than in any other section of the country. For purposes of comparison, let us take adjoining male and double suffrage states. Colorado, with Woman Suffrage since 1893, has 409 divorces to every 100,000 of married population, while adjoining Male Suffrage Nebraska has only 226. The divorce rate per 100,000 of married population is 513 in Washington, 347 in Idaho, 368 in Oregon and 361 in Wyoming, all Woman Suffrage States; while in Male-Suffrage Missouri, North and South Dakota the divorce rate per 100,000 of married population is only 281, 268, and 270 respectively. Although not yet so far advanced along the line of "easy divorce" as the Woman Suffrage countries of Scandinavia, where divorce is simply a matter of mutual consent, the divorce mills of some of our suffrage states are sufficiently notorious for all practical purposes. Rev. Martin Hart, Dean of the Denver Cathedral, in the issue of "The Chronicle" (a religious paper) for February, 1915, says: "HERE IN DENVER WE HAD LAST YEAR 1265 DIVORCES OUT OF 2500 MARRIAGES." It may be argued that the increasing prevalence of divorce in Woman Suffrage states is due, not to the fact that women are in politics, but to the fact that these states are inhabited by a comparatively unstable people, who hold the marriage bond much more lightly than their more conservative and perhaps more religious neighbors. Well, which horn of this dilemma do the suffragists want to take? DOES WOMAN SUFFRAGE INCREASE DIVORCE? or DO NONE BUT UNSTABLE RADICAL PEOPLES ADOPT WOMAN SUFFRAGE? The fact is that both these questions should be answered in the affirmative. Woman Suffrage does increase divorce, because divorce has increased faster under woman Suffrage than it did before; and only radical peoples, with 12 comparatively elastic notions about marriage, adopt Woman Suffrage, because it has yet to be accepted by any state which has not proven an easy prey to Mormonism, Socialism and other radical doctrines. We should oppose Woman Suffrage at every opportunity and PROTECT THE HOME FROM A NEW AND POTENT ELEMENT OF DISCORD. Suffrage States Mere Imitators. [*out*] That Woman Suffrage states have been mere imitators in the march of progress is admitted by all fair witnesses. William Hard and V. D. Jordan, trained investigators with a leaning for suffrage, say in the July number of EVERYBODY'S MAGAZINE: "Women henceforth can gain no NEW right, financial or educational or occupational or in any way PERSONAL, which can be compared to the value with the rights men have already given them. "The BIGGEST revolutions in the standing of woman before the law have all been accomplished. "And we will go farther, having just insured our lives. We will say that when Woman Suffrage is introduced it brings in nothing NEW in the way of legislation. . . . "In other words, WE DON'T SEE WOMAN SUFFRAGE DOING ANYTHING THAT MEN HAVEN'T DONE ALREADY." HERE WE HAVE, ACCORDING TO THESE SUFFRAGIST INVESTIGATORS, TWO SEXES DOING THE WORK OF ONE AND NOTHING WHATEVER GAINED. Social Welfare Laws First Enacted In Male Suffrage States. Every one of the following kinds of legislation was first conceived and advocated by men, and first enacted by male legislators elected by the votes of men alone. Limiting the hours of women in industry to 54 a week and to 8 a day. Prohibiting night work by a woman in industry and prohibiting the employment of women too soon before or after childbirth. 13 Compensating widows and children of workmen killed in industry. Securing the property rights of married women. Conferring equal rights of guardianship among women. Red-light abatement laws and laws against white slave traffic. Providing for effective birth registration (a law essential to the reduction of infant mortality). Limiting child labor and establishing juvenile courts. SOME OF THE FOREGOING KINDS OF LAWS-- NOTABLY THE LAW PROHIBITING NIGHT WORK-- HAVE NOT YET BEEN PASSED IN WOMAN SUFFRAGE STATES. [*out*] Woman Suffrage and Industry. We are told the woman in industry needs the ballot to protect her interests. Well, she has had the ballot a good many years in some States. Has it helped her? Can it help her? The answer to these questions is found in the fact that Male Suffrage States lead in legislation for the benefit of women in industry. If women in industry could help themselves with the ballot they would have helped themselves in Colorado and other states where they vote. THAT THEY HAVE NOT HELPED THEMSELVES WITH THE BALLOT PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT THEY CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES WITH THE BALLOT. Woman Suffrage and Equal Pay. "Equal pay for equal work" is a very misleading slogan. It implies that women working as many hours and as efficiently as men are discriminated against in the matter of pay on account of sex, and that this would not be so if women had the vote. In the first place, there is little if any such discrimination. In the second place, the woman's vote could not do away with it if it existed, because work and wages are regulated by the universal law of supply and demand. 14 Samuel Gompers says women get less for their work than men because they ask for less. That is true in a sense. But it is far from being the whole story. The fact is, that unless they put a small price on it themselves, and unless it is of inferior quality, women are not paid less than men when they sell their WORK. It is when they sell their TIME that the difference between men's and women's pay appears. And this is a matter the ballot cannot change, because it is controlled by the physical facts of nature. In the general recognition of woman's need of special protective legislation we have the proof that women are weaker than men physically and cannot compete with men in industry on a footing of absolute equality. Employers of labor pay for skill and experience, for quantity and quality of output. THEY DO NOT PAY FOR SEX. The question of the difference between men's and women's pay, therefore, is fundamentally a physical question. IT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH POLITICS. How It Works In Practice. "The vote," says Samuel Gompers, "doesn't mean a job, and equal suffrage doesn't necessarily mean equal pay for equal work"-- Boston Traveler, May 14, 1915. Mr. Gompers ought to be a good judge. He is a Suffragist. He has been interested in labor for many years. He has also had the ballot. His word, therefore, ought to be accepted as pretty conclusive evidence of what the ballot can't do in the field of wages and work. In Colorado women have voted for nearly a quarter of a century. Has the ballot raised women's wages in that state? Has it given them "Equal Pay For Equal Work?" In her book entitled "Equal Suffrage," Dr. Helen Sumner says: "TAKING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AS A WHOLE, WOMEN IN COLORADO RECEIVE CONSIDERABLY LESS REMUNERATION THAN MEN." In the United States as a whole, according to Dr. Sumner 15 women receive 55.3 per cent. of the average of men's wages. BUT IN COLORADO, WHERE WOMEN VOTE, WOMEN RECEIVE ONLY 47 CENTS FOR EVERY 100 CENTS PAID TO MEN IN WAGES. Clearly, therefore, the ballot has NOT helped the Colorado wage-earner to improve her economic status. DOES ANY ONE THINK IT WILL DO FOR THE WAGE-EARNING WOMAN OF OTHER STATES WHAT IT HAS FAILED TO DO FOR HER COLORADO SISTERS? A Married Woman's Question. The question of how the suffrage affects woman is, after all, a question that concerns not a particular class of women, but THE AVERAGE WOMAN. AND THE AVERAGE WOMAN IS FOUND IN THE HOME WITH THREE OR FOUR CHILDREN, DOING HER OWN HOUSEWORK AND ROCKING HER OWN CRADLE. Business and industry are, as a rule, mere incidents in women's lives. The instinct of the normal woman is NOT to work for somebody for wages, NOT to compete with men in business or the professions, BUT TO FORM A LIFE PARTNERSHIP WITH SOME MAN AND RAISE A FAMILY. It is for this reason that women remain in industry but from five to seven years on the average, when they GRADUATE INTO MATRIMONY. Fortunately for her the interests of the industrial woman are NOT SELFISH interests. If they were she would be HELPLESS, with the vote or without it. Her REAL INTERESTS, on the contrary, are COMMUNITY INTERESTS, and the community takes care of them as a matter of self protection. The question for the voters, therefore, is NOT how the vote will affect woman in industry, but HOW WILL IT AFFECT THE AVERAGE WOMAN, WHO IS A MARRIED WOMAN WITH THREE OR FOUR CHILDREN? Woman Suffrage and Prohibition. Has Woman Suffrage helped the cause of temperance? Are women generally opposed to the saloon, and will they 16 vote it out of existence if given the opportunity? Suffragists vary their answers to these questions according to the class of men whose votes they are seeking. Let us consider the facts. Nineteen states have adopted prohibition. Of these, six have Woman Suffrage. But one of them, Kansas, adopted Prohibition in 1880, thirty-years before it adopted Woman Suffrage. So that of the States that have adopted prohibition, FOURTEEN HAVE ADOPTED IT, WITH MEN ALONE VOTING, WHILE ONLY FIVE HAVE ADOPTED IT WITH THE AID OF WOMEN'S VOTES. The State of Maine, which has defeated every attempt to introduce Woman Suffrage, HAS HAD PROHIBITION SINCE 1850. North Dakota, which defeated Woman Suffrage at the polls in 1914, HAS HAD PROHIBITION SINCE 1889. NOT A SINGLE STATE WENT "DRY" WITH WOMEN VOTING BEFORE NOVEMBER 3,1914! On May 4, 1915, the women of Reno, exercising the franchise for the first time, VOTED AGAINST THE PROPOSITION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SALOONS FROM 80 to 40, and were publicly thanked by the liquor interests for standing by them. After 46 years of Woman Suffrage, THE STATE OF WYOMING IS STILL "WET." Colorado, Woman Suffrage since 1893, adopted prohibition Nov. 3, 1914, but the city of Denver gave a majority against it. California, Suffrage since 1911, DEFEATED PROHIBITION IN 1914 BY NEARLY 200,000 MAJORITY! In Montana before the election in 1914, THE SUFFRAGISTS REFUSED TO PERMIT THE W. C. T. U. TO MARCH IN THEIR PARADE. The facts prove beyond a doubt that THE LIQUOR INTERESTS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR AND THE TEMPERANCE INTERESTS HAVE NOTHING TO EXPECT FROM WOMEN'S VOTES. The Crowning Proof of Suffrage Failure. If any further evidence is needed of the utter futility of double Suffrage, it is found in the almost complete abandonment by Suffrage Leaders of the "practical results" argument in their demand for the ballot, and their return to the exploded theory of "natural right." 17 It was upon the theory of "right" that the original demand for the vote for women was based. But when the Supreme Court had ruled again and again that no such right existed, the Suffragists abandoned the theory and rested their "cause" on the alleged wonders the woman's vote had worked in states where it existed. As late as 1914 the Suffrage campaign manual explicitly stated that Suffrage was "not a natural right." The argument for Suffrage then, as it had been for years, was that it would purify politics, reduce infant mortality, wipe out the social evil and make happier families. "Look at Colorado!" was the Suffragist challenge to every doubting Thomas. The government of Colorado had not yet broken down. And as most people were thinking of other things than votes for women, no serious attempt was made to prove that the rosy pictures of alleged conditions in Colorado were not pictures of actual conditions, but pictures originating in the imagination of their suffrage painters. BUT THE GOVERNMENT OF COLORADO HAS SINCE BROKEN DOWN. With the strike of 1913-14 came the nightmare of anarchy, due to the impotency and indifference of a feminized electorate. THE COLORADO SUFFRAGE ARGUMENT HAD BECOME A SUFFRAGE BOOMERANG. The House of Cards. When the house of cards built by the Suffragists upon the sands of Colorado fell about their ears, they were forced to seek another foundation for their unstable edifice. And there was only one available- the abandoned delusion of "natural right." The thing that wasn't so, according to the Suffrage campaign manual of 1914, became the corner stone of the Suffrage movement before the campaign manual was off the press! "Back to Susan B. Anthony's 'rights' argument" was the verbal life-line thrown to the drifting and bewildered suffragists. And Miss Anna Howard Shaw, gave this message to the country: "I contend that we should not answer our opponents when they argue along these lines, because facts as to the results of Equal Suffrage, or the 18 number of women who want Suffrage, or the reasons they ought to want it, have no bearing on our question." Miss Shaw still stands on that ground, and the Suffrage associations, state and national, stand there with her. FACTS NO LONGER COUNT! Although female Suffrage has been on trial from five to forty-seven years in nine States in the Union. THE SUFFRAGISTS REFUSE TO STAND ON THEIR RECORD, but base their demand for the further extension of the Suffrage on grounds ABANDONED AS UNTENABLE MORE THAN A QUARTER CENTURY AGO! IS IT POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE A MORE CONVINCING CONFESSION OF THE FAILURE OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE? Only a Small Minority of Women Demand the Ballot. The Woman Suffrage movement is the only movement having for its object the extension of the electorate that has ever met with organized opposition from those it was proposed to enfranchise. THIS IS A FACT OF TREMENDOUS SIGNIFICANCE. It is a danger signal that must not be ignored by those who wish to do even-handed justice to all concerned in the settlement of this question. The Woman Suffrage fight is not a fight between men and women. It is a fight between women. It is not a question of women's rights. It is a question of WHICH women's rights- the fancied rights of those who demand the ballot as the alpha and omega of all things temporal and spiritual, or THE REAL RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO WISH TO REMAIN FREE FROM POLITICAL STRIFE. The Three Tailors of Tooley Street. There are in the United States 24,555,754 females of voting age and over. Of these, 2,097,954 live in the eleven full double Suffrage States, and 1,567,491 live in Illinois, where the Legislature gave women limited Suffrage without the consent of the people. The Suffrage associations of the country claim a maximum of approximately 800,000 members. 19 Thus, with the women of voting age in the Suffrage States and in Illinois, taking the suffragist claims at their face value, we have a total of only 4,465,445 women in the United States who are either suffragists or women entitled to register and vote, leaving over 20,000,000 women of voting age WHO ARE NOT ENFRANCHISED AND NOT SUFFRAGISTS. It is a safe conclusion, also, that only a comparatively few of the 2,097,954 women in the eleven double suffrage states are believers in Woman Suffrage, since less than one-third of 1 per cent of them are enrolled in any suffrage organization. Suffragists are fond of demanding the ballot in the name of "the women of the United States." But in view of their numbers THEY HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO PRETEND TO SPEAK FOR THE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES THAN THE "THREE TAILORS OF TOOLEY STREET" HAD TO PETITION PARLIAMENT AS "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM." To Enfranchise Women Against the Will of the Majority Would Be Undemocratic and Unjust. While less than 10 per cent of the women citizens of any state express a desire for the vote, the most undemocratic act of which the men of that state could be guilty would be to approve a Women Suffrage amendment. The fundamental principle of democracy is the consent of the governed. This implies majority rule. And as at least 90 per cent of our women citizens, so far as we have any evidence, consent to our form of government, and express no desire for a change, it is clear that the interests of democracy demand that their wishes be considered, rather than the wishes of the 10 per cent, who are in revolt against our government and demand that unwelcome and injurious burdens be placed upon their sisters. The demand is for "justice for women." Very well. But for WHICH women? For the 10 per cent who DEMAND? Or for the 90 per cent, who PROTEST, or who SAY NOTHING? Let us by all means be just to women. But let us be just by respecting the RIGHTS OF THE 20 MAJORITY WHO CONSENT TO OUR GOVERNMENT, for in this way we shall be just to the State and to ALL WOMEN, even -- though they may not know it -- TO THE MINORITY WHO ARE IN REBELLION. Women Suffrage and Taxation. "But," we are told, "it is unjust to tax women, without giving them the vote." This is a variation of the old "Taxation-without-representation-is-tyranny" slogan and no more fallacious argument has ever come from the Suffrage propagandists. WOMEN ARE NOT TAXED WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Every woman taxpayer gets for her taxes what every male taxpayer gets -- public improvements and protection of life and property. And she is represented by all the male taxpayers in the community, because they cannot represent themselves without representing her. [*Miss Ribby!?*] Their interests as taxpayers are identical. Furthermore, as a much smaller percentage of women than of men pay taxes, Woman Suffrage would greatly increase the percentage of non-taxpaying voters; and thus, if there were a relation between taxation and the ballot, votes for women would leave the woman taxpayer, as well as the male taxpayer, in a much worse position than before. The fact is, however, that taxation and the vote have no connection whatsoever. A man may own property in every city and town in the State except the one where he lives, yet he can vote only in the one where he lives. Minors and aliens are fully taxed on their property, but are excluded from the franchise. A system of government based on property would give the rich man a power over the poor man that would DESTROY DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND GIVE US IN ITS PLACE A PLUTOCRACY. It was because of its INHERENT INJUSTICE that the property qualification for voters was abolished in many States of this Union years ago, and THE DEMAND THAT IT BE REVIVED NOW IN THE INTEREST OF A FEW WOMEN IS SO EXTRAORDINARY THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW ANY ONE CAN BE DECEIVED BY IT. 21 Two Kinds of Taxes. [*out*] In an article quoted in The Unpopular Review for January-March, 1916, Dr. Rossiter Johnson shows very clearly the reason for manhood suffrage and why women who cannot vote are not unjustly treated in being required to pay taxes on their property. "There are two kinds of Taxes," says Dr. Johnson, "a money tax and a service tax. **** The service tax is levied on men alone. It calls for jury service, police service, military service, and every man takes his chances on it. *** Representation goes with this kind of taxation, and not with the other. Property is protected by the government, as women are; but property, whether man's or woman's, has no representation. "**** Mr. Astor has one vote, the sweeper has one vote and I have one vote. And the reason is plain and unanswerable. It is because Mr. Astor can carry one musket, the sweeper can carry one musket, I can carry one musket. Mr. Astor enjoys his great property because the sweeper and I are ready to shoulder our muskets to protect him in it; the sweeper is secure in his little earnings because Mr. Astor and I are ready to stand by him with our muskets, and I find it worth while to be industrious because Mr. Astor and the sweeper make it dangerous for anybody to molest me. "Without this protection our possessions would be of no value; this protection we contribute in equal measure, man for man; and this same protection we extend to our sisters, our cousins and our aunts. "THE WOMAN SUFFRAGISTS, SO FAR FROM SUFFERING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, ARE ASKING TO BE REPRESENTED WHERE THEY ARE NOT TAXED." The Sexes Were Created Different and Designed to Co-operate, Not to Compete. The demand for "Votes for Women" is based largely upon the extraordinary assumption that "what holds true between man and man must therefore hold true between man and woman." 22 But the establishment of this principle would mean "a fair field and favor to none"--THE LAST THING IN THE WORLD FOR WHICH WOMEN SHOULD ASK. The whole trend of modern legislation is toward further special privileges and protection for women. Their nature demands it. The interests of society demand it. MOTHERHOOD POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL, MUST BE PROTECTED IF THE RACE IS NOT TO PERISH FROM THE EARTH. There is no question of superiority, inferiority or equality involved in this discussion. To say that men and women are "equal," or that one sex is "superior" to the other, is as senseless as to say that air and water are equal, or that one is superior to the other. EACH IS SUPERIOR IN ITS OWN SPHERE. BOTH ARE ESSENTIAL TO LIFE. But they are ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT AND CANNOT BE COMPARED. To ask women to assume the burdens of government is to ask her to neglect her natural functions for a wasteful duplication of effort in a field for which nature did not intend her. THE DUTY OF MEN IS TO PROTECT WOMEN FROM SUCH WASTEFUL AND UNNATURAL BURDENS. The Ballot Would Rob Woman of Her Non-Partisan Power. How can women best serve the State? Can they serve it best by entering into Political contests with men, or can they serve it best by leaving the turmoil of Politics to men and directing their gifts along lines denied to men by partisan Political ties? The ballot is not a panacea. It is not a spiritual influence. It is merely an instrument of convenience in the transaction of the business of government. Thus reform begins, not in the ballot box or in the halls of legislation. BUT IN THE CRADLE, IN THE NURSERY, IN THE SCHOOL, IN THE CHURCH, AROUND THE FAMILY FIRESIDE. And there, WITHOUT THE BALLOT, woman can do more toward making a better world than anything men or women can possibly accomplish through politics. 22 Legislation is merely crystalized public opinion. And in the creation of such public opinion women now have a tremendous influence--an influence due to the fact that they can approach public questions as WOMEN interested solely in the good of the community. With the ballot, women deal with questions as men now deal with them--not with an eye single to the public good, but with one eye on the public good and the other on the political party good. They work as members of some political party, and the State loses this great non-partisan body, which is one of the essential checks and balances of party Government. WE SHOULD OPPOSE WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO PRESERVE FOR THE PUBLIC WEAL THE NON-PARTISAN POWER OF WOMEN. The Basis of Government is Physical Force. Woman Suffrage violates the basic principle of all government the principle that the electorate must possess the inherent power to execute its sovereign will expressed in legislation. The gift of the ballot would fail to clothe woman with any real political authority, for the obvious reason that there would be NOTHING BACK OF THE BALLOT. Law is the expression of sovereignty, and sovereignty rests ultimately upon PHYSICAL FORCE and upon nothing else. Not that "might makes right," but that MIGHT MUST EXIST TO MAKE RIGHT SECURE. Our statute books are filled with laws to protect us in our right to life and property; but our real protection is not in the law, BUT FIRST IN THE STRONG RIGHT ARM IN THE GUN AND CLUB OF THE POLICEMAN, and ultimately in the majority of male voters who would be called upon to back him up with force of arms if necessary. The lawless element of the community is kept from lawlessness, not by statutes, but by the fear of men clothed with authority to enforce the law. To create an electorate lacking in the ONE INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY would be to undermine the foundations, not only of government, but of the social order. 24 THE WOMAN'S BALLOT WOULD BE A BLANK- CARTRIDGE BALLOT. Woman Suffrage, Feminism and Socialism. All the facts bear out the statement that Woman Suffrage, Feminism and Socialism are marching hand in hand toward "a complete social revolution." "ONE MILLION SOCIALISTS WORK AND VOTE FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE!" was the slogan inscribed on the red banner carried by the socialist contingent in the big Suffrage parade in Washington, D.C., in March, 1913. Every Socialist and every Feminist is an Ardent worker in the cause of Votes For Women. The Editor of the Woman's Journal, the national Suffrage organ is an AVOWED SOCIALIST, having said in an interview in the Boston Post, December 26, 1911: "I became converted to socialism through reading Socialist newspapers." "Woman Suffrage," says Daniel De Leon, one of the most prominent American Socialists, "Must take its place as an integral splinter in the torch that lights the path of the social revolution." Radical Socialists and Feminists, like Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Inez Milholland-Boissevain, Winifred Harper Cooley and Max Eastman, are engaged as speakers on Suffrage platforms and their most radical Feminstic and Socialistic utterances are published, advertised and sent broadcast by the National Woman Suffrage Association as arguments for Votes for Women. So close is the partnership between Woman Suffrage, Feminism and Socialism that in order to dissolve it, this is what the Suffrage associations would have to do: Drop all their Socialist and Feminist Officers, speakers and writers, withdraw from circulation all the Feminist and Socialist literature published and sent broadcast by the National Woman Suffrage Association in the effort to gain Suffrage converts, and pass resolutions repudiating the doctrines of Socialism and Feminism. Imagine the violent upheaval in the UPPER CIRCLES OF SUFFRAGISM that would inevitably follow a serious movement on the part of Suffragists to adopt such drastic measures of reform! Yet they must be adopted before the Woman Suffrage movement can come before the people free from the stains of Socialism and Feminism. 25 Woman Suffrage and Feminism. Woman Suffrage, according to Mrs. Beatrice Forbes- Robertson Hale, noted suffragist, is "an essential branch of the tree of Feminism." "Feminism," she says in her book on the subject, "is gradually supplying to women the things they most need." And among these things she mentions "EASY DIVORCE" and "ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE." "Easy divorce," as Feminists explain it, is "DIVORCE AT WILL." It would permit a wife to cast off her husband and take another without consulting the courts! "Economic Independence" is the theory that wives must engage in gainful occupations outside the home in order to be independent. FOR A WIFE TO BE SUPPORTED BY HER HUSBAND, IS, ACCORDING TO FEMINISM, TO BE A "PARASITE." Feminism, therefore, would compel wives to compete with husbands in business and industry! It would make marriage a farce and the home, as we know it, a thing of the past! Feminism is a revolt against nature and Christian morals. Writing in McClure's Magazine for March, 1913, Inez Milholland-Boissevain, a prominent Suffragist, foresees with delight "The beginnings of a breakdown of the artificial barriers in the way of a more natural observance of the mating instinct." In other words, "Free Love." In the "Forum" for April, 1915, Lottie M. Montgomery says, among other things too indecent to quote: "In the future, woman will make the sex laws which govern herself and they will not be uniform or written into the statutes as they are now. EVERY WOMAN WILL BE A LAW UNTO HERSELF.... To substantiate my statements I refer to the leading spokeswoman of the Feminist movement i. e., Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Ellen Key, Emma Goldman, Mrs. C. G. Hartley, and to Bernard Shaw and Ibsen." "The Case for Woman Suffrage," a bibliography of Suffrage literature published by the College Equal Suffrage League and sold by the National Woman Suffrage Association, sneers at the "old-fashioned" Suffrage arguments and 26 gives the highest meed of praise to the radical writings of the most radical Feminists and Socialists. "Too many advocates of Woman Suffrage," says is enfranchised she will not be less 'womanly' than before, whereas in point of fact perhaps the chief thing to be said for the Suffrage is precisely that it will make woman less womanly, in the commonly accepted sense of the term... One cannot argue logically on Woman Suffrage without facing this fact." This is the unwholesome and destructive doctrine of the Feminist. It is not the doctrine of the normal man or woman. "There is no difference," says Rabbi Joseph Silverman, "between Woman Suffrage, Socialism and the present Feminist movement. The one means the other, and no matter which cause wins first, disaster to matrimony and the home will follow." If, as Mrs. Hale says, "Woman Suffrage is an essential branch of the tree of Feminism," then Woman Suffrage must be destroyed in order that the tree of immortal Feminism may not grow. TO PROTECT THE HOME AND SOCIETY FROM THE FEMINIST MENACE, WE MUST FIGHT THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT. Woman Suffrage and Socialism. That Woman Suffrage is ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF SOCIALISM is the claim of the most enlightened Socialists. One of the cardinal principles of Socialism is that the interests of husband and wife are different, that the INDIVIDUAL and NOT THE FAMILY should be the unit of the State, and the enfranchisement of woman, as Mrs. A. J. George has so clearly pointed out, is necessary to put this principle into operation. "There are just two ways," says Mrs. George, "in which a married woman can vote--either with her husband or against him. If she votes with him she merely doubles the vote without changing the result. If she votes against him, then the family ceases to come in contact with the State as a unit --which is exactly what the Socialists want." Socialism is the avowed enemy of modern civilization. 27 IT WOULD ABOLISH MARRIAGE, BREAK UP THE FAMILY AND GIVE THE CHILDREN OVER TO THE CARE OF THE STATE. In all Woman Suffrage countries Socialism is rampant, and in this country it prevails out of all proportion in states where women vote. Socialists want Women Suffrage in order to advance Socialism. They believe it is the only weapon with which they can break up the home. IF WE DO NOT WANT TO HELP SOCIALISM, WE MUST OPPOSE WOMAN SUFFRAGE. Economic Independence. What is to become of the home and the children under "economic independence" the Feminists do not seem to know definitely. Some suggest "communal homes." Other suggest institutions. BUT all Feminists agree that a wife must be independent of her husband, free to go and come as she pleases without consulting his desires. Dora Marsden in "Bondwomen," a pamphlet attacking marriage and characterizing wifehood as a species of slavery, says: "The free woman's concern is to see to it that she shall be in a position to bear children if she wants them without soliciting maintenance from any man, whoever he may be." "BONDWOMEN" WAS PRINTED AND CIRCULATED AS A CAMPAIGN DOCUMENT BY THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION! Charlotte Perkins Gilman, leading Suffrage speaker and writer, in an article in "The Woman's Journal" says: "The woman should have as much to do in the home as the man---no more.... Who, then, will take care of the sick baby? The nurse, of course.. If the child is not seriously ill, the nurse is as good as the mother. If the child is seriously ill, the nurse is better." It is clear from this that if the Suffragist-Feminists have their way, wives who do not go out into the world to earn their own living WILL NOT BE RESPECTABLE, but will be known as "PARASITES" and "BONDWOMEN!" "It is UNWHOLESOME," says Mary Ware Dennett, 28 "for ANY WOMAN TO BE SUPPORTED BY ANY MAN." Mrs. Dennett was formerly an officer of the National Woman Suffrage Association, and is now on the board of directors of the "Birth Control League," a race suicide organization recently formed in New York. According to this theory, THE HUSBAND MUST CEASE TO BE THE PROVIDER AND THE WIFE THE HOME-MAKER! Otherwise, their relations are UNWHOLESOME! It is for the workingmen to consider how the operation of this abominable doctrine, apart from its destructive effect upon the home, would be likely to affect the labor market. WHAT DO THEY THINK WOULD HAPPEN IF ALL MARRIED WOMEN, IN ORDER TO BE RESPECTABLE, WERE COMPELLED TO GO OUT AND LOOK FOR JOBS? Remember. It the vote is given to women they will be IN DUTY BOUND TO USE IT. The vote is a PUBLIC TRUST, and those who have it and fail to use it are NOT GOOD CITIZENS. Suffragists who say, as most Suffragists do, that "women who do not want to vote can stay at home" are counselling a very grave dereliction of duty, and are giving THE MOST CONVINCING PROOF OF THEIR OWN UNFITNESS FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES THEY WOULD FORCE UPON THEIR UNWILLING SISTERS. ***** The enfranchisement of women means political organization for women. It means women candidates for any and every office. It means POLITICIANS WHO CAN STRIKE MEN IN THE MOST UNFAIR WAY IN A POLITICAL CONTEST, BUT WHOM MEN MUST NOT STRIKE IN RETURN. The vote for women MEANS WOMEN ON JURIES. Don't forget that. They say women jurors will "Purify the atmosphere of the courts." Perhaps. But they can't purify the testimony to which they must listen in the jury box and which they must discuss with strange men, often through long hours of the night, behind locked doors of the jury room! ***** When they show you the suffrage map and boast that 49 per cent of Uncle Sam's territory is Woman Suffrage territory, just remember that: 29 New York state has approximately one million more inhabitants than all the full double suffrage states combined, yet New York has 20,000 fewer square miles of territory than Washington, the smallest of the suffrage states! Less than 9 per cent. of the population of the United States is in states that have full suffrage for women. There are nearly three times as many people in the four great states that defeated Women Suffrage at the polls in 1915 as there are in the eleven double suffrage states. It is not area that counts on election day, but POPULATION. THE SUFFRAGE MAP IS A FRAUD! Woman Suffrage is Going, Not Coming! It met its Waterloo in 1915, with overwhelming defeat at the hands of the people of four great Eastern states, and rejection by the Legislatures of seventeen others. Ohio defeated Woman Suffrage in 1912 and again in 1914--the FIRST TIME by a majority of 87,455, but the SECOND TIME, after the voters had awakened to the menace, BY A MAJORITY OF 182,905! Michigan defeated Woman Suffrage in November, 1912, and again SIX MONTHS LATER--the FIRST TIME by a majority of only 760; the SECOND TIME BY A MAJORITY OF 96,144! Woman Suffrage was DEFEATED in Wisconsin in 1912 by a majority of 91,479; in North Dakota, 1914, by a majority of 9,139; in Nebraska, 1914, by 10,104, and in Missouri, 1914, by 140,206. New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania defeated Women Suffrage at the polls in 1915--New York by a majority of 194,984, Massachusetts by 133,447, New Jersey by 51,108 and Pennsylvania by 55,686. The vote on the suffrage question in Massachusetts was unprecedented, being 91.2 per cent. of the total vote for Governor, while the vote for Governor was the largest ever cast in any election in that state. The facts all show that the great majority of men and women everywhere, when their interest is aroused, are against the double electorate. POPULAR INDIFFERENCE IS THE BEST FRIEND OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE. 30 SUMMARY The foregoing statements prove that the vote is not a "natural right," but a grave RESPONSIBILITY involving many BURDENSOME AND DISAGREEABLE DUTIES. That Woman Suffrage is not only a COSTLY AND FUTILE EXPERIMENT, but a DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT, since it increases the stay-at-home vote, brings a new element of discord into the home and lessens that respect of men for women which lies at the root of Christian civilization. That the demand for the vote is a demand of a SMALL BUT NOISY MINORITY. That Woman Suffrage is BAD ECONOMY, being a proposal to compel TWO SEXES, whose interests are identical, to do a job that ONE can do at least as well. That men are ESSENTIAL to government and WOMEN ARE NOT, man alone possessing the PHYSICAL POWER to enforce the law, without which the ballot is useless. That the natural relation of the sexes is one, NOT OF EQUALITY, but of DIFFERENCE, and that men and women were designed to work in DIFFERENT spheres for the COMMON GOOD. 31 That women can best serve the State OUTSIDE THE REALM OF POLITICAL STRIFE That the Woman Suffrage movement VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY in its bold attempt to force the will of a small minority upon the great majority of women. That it is SOCIALISTIC AND FEMINISTIC in its tendency to make the individual and not the family the unit of the State. That it is based on a feeling of SEX ANTAGONISM and is therefore a MENACE TO THE HOME. That it is an INSULT TO MEN in its false declaration that they have failed to protect the interests of their wives, sisters and daughters. That it is UNNATURAL in its dream of a "NEW FREEDOM" for women, and a DISTINCT INJUSTICE TO THE GREAT MASS OF WOMEN, who do not want new burdens thrust upon them, but WISH TO BE LEFT FREE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE DUTIES WHICH ARE THEIR NATURAL INHERITANCE AND WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED IF THE RACE IS NOT TO PERISH. Please think this over carefully and then see if you do not agree that THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND NATION DEMAND THE DEFEAT OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE. OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE. THOMAS JEFFERSON: Nature has marked the weaker sex for protection, rather than the direction og government. The Hon. ELIHU ROOT, United States Senator: I am opposed to granting suffrage to women because I believe it would be a loss to women and an injury to the state * * * IT IS A FATAL MISTAKE THAT THESE EXCELLENT WOMEN MAKE WHEN THEY CONCEIVE THAT THE FUNCTIONS OF MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO THEIRS AND SEEK TO USURP THEM. The Rev. LYMAN ABBOTT, D.D., Editor of The Outlook: If man attempts woman's functions, he will prove himself but an inferior woman. If woman attempts man's functions, she will prove herself but an inferior man. Some masculine women there are: some feminine men there are. THESE ARE THE MONSTROSITIES OF NATURES. JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS: Women is queen, indeed, but her empire is the domestic kingdom. The greatest political triumphs she would achieve in public life fade into insignificance compared with the serene glory which radiates from the domestic shrine, and which she illumines and warms by her conjugal and motherly virtues. Bishop JOHN H. VINCENT, Founder of the Chautauqua: When about thirty years of age I accepted for a time the doctrine of Woman Suffrage and publicly defended it. YEARS 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 SOCIETY. RABBI JOSEPH SILVERMAN: There is no difference between Woman Suffrage, socialism and the present feminist movement. The one means the other and, no matter which cause wins first, disaster to matrimony and the home will follow. At all hazards we must oppose these movements; they are subversive to the best interests of the child and will destroy all that God and man have in the past years built up. I call upon you to rise in your might, to use every means at command to grapple with this, the greatest enemy we have today, and sweep it from the face of the earth. DANIEL WEBSTER: It is by the promulgation of sound morals in the community, and more especially by the training and instruction of the young that woman performs her part toward the preservation of a free government. "Taxation Without Representation" BY JULIA T. WATERMAN ISSUED BY The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage 37 West 39th Street New York City "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" We still hear the argument that taxation without representation constitutes an injustice in the case of women. As a matter of fact, the exemption which American women, both married and single, possess from any legal obligation to support their families makes of them the most privileged class on earth. Taxes are not paid to insure a vote, but to secure certain advantages to property holders. Women pay a large share of the taxes because, thanks to their privileged position, they control an immense amount of property. No one will claim, I suppose, that women have earned, amassed, or even managed this property which is theirs. It is mostly inherited and is largely theirs because of liberal marriage laws and because in America it is customary for boys and girls to inherit equally from both father and mother. The greater part of women's property is in the hands of trust companies, and it is still quite exceptional for women with large interests to manage them themselves. It is impossible to see how, from the democratic standpoint, the fact that a woman owns immense values in inherited property can constitute a reason for bestowing the ballot upon her. On the other, it is the Suffragists' avowed intention to abolish all advantages to women, and this means, of course, a considerable reduction in her financial power, because it means that she will have no claim on man beyond her actual market as a business partner and creator of wealth. That is to say, we do not suppose that sentiment will cease to rule, nor men cease to enrich women. (It is obvious that there would be few other uses that men would be apt to find so satisfying as to make some woman happy and to relieve her from struggle or care.) But we foresee that the security of the married woman under the new regime will depend entirely upon her value as a worker or her charm as a personality, and we would like to preserve more security than that for all women, because, unfortunately, woman as a worker is subject to break-downs and periods of inferiority and woman's charm as a personality is not necessarily eternal. Moreover, there are women with great charm who, if the law recognized no other fixed and inviolable principle 2 would only have to appear in court to carry all before them. We are suffering from all the exercise of charm in politics at present, with an object behind it, and for that reason we are fighting to preserve the rights of woman as wife and daughter and mother against the encroachments of Socialism, which recognizes her only as worker, business partner or breeder. We are not interested at all in the "parasite" who can be trusted to take care of herself with or without laws in her favor. Neither do we concern ourselves about the rich independent woman who has no vote. We think she might manage to forego that extra privilege rather than risk the advantages that hundreds of years of slow-growing wisdom and knowledge have found it necessary to give to the sex which bears the heaviest burden-a burden which cannot be divided. Women as a whole do not desire the patronage of other women, nor the well-meant commiseration of philanthropic reformers. They want to keep their status as conscious human beings, willingly doing their share of the world's work and often the biggest share. They appeal to men to see that it is preserved and to remember that inactivity in public generally implies, where women are concerned, a greater and more conscious activity elsewhere. It is neither right nor just that because many women cannot neglect their own business in order to walk in self-advertising parades or rush from city to city on whirlwind speech-making tours their interests should be forgotten. Many of the very most devoted women have never even had the time to become aware of what is at stake. They have trusted to men the making of laws which will protect the legal and material interests of women and they are satisfied that they have been duly considered in these laws. Women who are giving their devoted services to home and family do not want these laws altered to suit the women of independent means or the ambitious wage-earning woman. These latter constitute a minority and a small class and see things narrowly from a personal, self-interested standpoint. To them votes mean one thing--more power and larger salaries--and to secure these advantages to themselves they are willing to jeopardize the position of all women. It is unjust, thoughtless, and undesirable. It is in men's power to see that this does not happen, and we trust that Suffragists have not yet successfully convinced them that they owe no protection to the women who bore them, nursed them, made them 3 what they are and sacrificed in so doing perhaps their health, youth and wage-earning power. Suffrage offers men an easy escape from duty and chivalry to women which we are still old- fashioned enough to hope they will resist. Ulysses advised the sailors to put cotton in their ears when passing the Isles of the Sirens. There are some points which men should be able to judge for themselves and on which it is wise to distrust persuasion, and their duty to women is one of these. The charming, pliant young Suffragist who now symbolizes the cause of woman is too frequently merely exerting her natural talents and lover of power as the tool of a party which offers her this outlet. Men of to-day would do well to remember Ulysses, not in their own behalf, but because they owe a duty to a woman who is not there to defend herself and who trusts that her interests will not be forgotten. There are always two types of woman -- Lady Hamilton and Nelson's wife -- and the question now is which shall prevail. In public life the success of such women as Lady Hamilton is certain. Is it actually believed that Nelson's wife could benefit by her success? There are, and always have been, two types of women. Suffragists are striving now to make only one -- to take all advantages, even her home, her children, the security of her marriage, her legal property rights, from one type of woman in order that the other type may have a wider field and more power over men. Will this be permitted? 4 Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.