PROF GOLDWIN SMITH
| AND HIS SATELLITES
IN CONGRESS.
BY NT R S Nºſ. TO D D.



： ~~~~


PROF GOLDWIN SMITH
A N ID
HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS.
By MRS. MARION TODD,
Author of “Protective Tariff Delusion,” and Associate Editor of
Chicago Express.
-
BATTLE CREEK, MICH,
WM. C. GAGE & Son, PRINTERs.
1890.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the gear 1890,
By MRS, MARION TODD,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington,

| PREFACE.
THE favor with which the following series of arti-
cles upon Prof. Goldwin Smith’s “Woman’s Place
in the State,” in the Forum were received, as they
appeared from week to week in the Chicago AExpress,
has induced me to withdraw them from further weekly
issue, and comply with the numerous urgent requests
to publish them in book form. They are submitted
without finish, and with the usual haste accompany-
ing newspaper articles.
Perhaps no one could have written upon the same
subject who would have attracted greater attention
than Prof. Goldwin Smith. His position, learning,
and reputation place whatever he has to say in much
prominence. But for this fact his article would have
been considered unworthy of much notice, being too
far in the rear of human progress. Because of the
author, however, his arguments were given to the
public as coming next to divine authority.
(3)

4. P R E F A C E.
Prof. Smith's article was published at the expense
of the government for the education of congress, that
its members might be fortified when the question of
the admission of Wyoming as a State, with a woman
suffrage provision, came before that body for discus-
sion. Congress presented the pitiful spectacle for
posterity to behold in coming time, of men arrayed
against a people asking for the enjoyment of inherent
rights, and at the same time whose party banner
floated the motto of popular sovereignty. There were
congressmen who quoted this article, swore by it,
and voted accordingly. -
This is my apology for devoting so much time and
paper to the present professor of history in Cornell
University. THE AUTHOR.

CONTENTS,
CHAPTER I.
Page.
That Government for which Man is so Well
Fitted—The Man who Claims the Earth–
The Great If.” - - - - - 9
CHAPTER II.
Woman a Complement of Man, but not a Com-
petitor — Law-Making and Wife-Beating
Power Based Upon the Same Intellectual
Foundations—Afraid of the Laws Women
Might Make—Women would Vote for Pro-
hibition and Flabby Sentiment—Law that
fixes the Age of Consent not Flabby—What
Man Expects as a Recompense for Mar-
riage. - - - - - - - I7
CHAPTER III.
The Long Tenure of Republican Robustness—
Sample of Government use of Muscle—Our
Vice-President a Robust Example–It Vis-
its Starvation. Upon Children, and Aban-
doned Lives Upon Girls—Woman's Abuse
of Power—Effect of Municipal Suffrage. . 4 I

6 C O N T E N T S.
CHAPTER IV.
Page.
The Citizen “Satisfied of His Right”—The
Safeguard and Popular Vote—The Court a
Slave—Offices will not go Around—Presi-
dent Harrison's Overproduction of Prom-
ises—Sympathizers in Congress—Frills and
Flounces, Bonnets and Bustles, Might Be-
seige Washington – Iniquity of a New
Departure — Woman's True Empire – A
Happy Discovery. . - - - - 59
CHAPTER V.
Integrity and High Sense of Honor Lacking
in Woman – Idiot Voting in Indiana–
Inherent Rights ºs Political Privileges –
Would Protect Dower Woman could not
be held Responsible—Removal of Women
from Office–How the President Treated a
Committee of Women – Mrs. Suratt and
Jefferson Davis—Mrs. Garfield's $5. ooo, . 85
CHAPTER VI.
A Military Genius—Her Literary Works—
Could not be Trusted “ In Peace or in
War”—Our Great Women Inventors and
Scholars Would Endanger the Country. . 99

C O N T E N T S. 7
CHAPTER VII.
Page.
Kate Shelley, the Heroine—Queen Isabella, of
Castile, Refused to Receive the Inquisition
—St. Cyril and Hypatia—John Calvin and
Servetus — The Fifty-five Tortured and
Hung. - - - - - - - II9
CHAPTER VIII.
A Firm with but One Member in Authority—
The Privilege of Whipping his Partner
With a Rod no Larger than his Thumb–
The Fruit of the Partnership—Who is the
Possessor—Woman Sold in Open Market
With a Halter round her Neck. - I 35
-
CHAPTER Ix.
Bound up in Affection—Prof. Smith Indulges
Women in Bicycles—Primrose Dames Take
Advantage of Lord Salisbury's Feminine
Weakness—They Resolve to Corrupt the
Lower Classes by their Fascinations—The
Righteously Endowed. - - - . I 49
CHAPTER X.
One or Two Legs, Single or Double Teeth No
Test to the Right of Ballot—Occupation of
Lawyer or Chaplain to our Washington
Den of Thieves does not Disfranchise—The
Age Demands Women Workers. - . I 55


CHAPTER I.
THAT GOVERNMENT For wFIICH MAN is so well FIT-
TED — THE MAN who CLAIMS THE EARTH – THE
GREAT “IF.”
-
woman element from political life, is a pitiful
effort which will prove as fruit/ess as it is un-
worthy. For many centuries woman has been gain-
ing light and liberty, and devoid of prophecy is he
to-day who cannot sense the inevitable, namely,
woman’s final emancipation. Such are way behind
in the line of onward march, unable to read the
signs which blazon the horizon. We may desire
with all our hearts; we may act with all our energy;
but it will not stay the mighty hand which has risen
to smite that civilization or government devoid of the
essential attributes of justice. Governments lacking
in these attributes have reigned for many years, but
all things have their day, and the culmination is yet
to follow.
Prof. Goldwin Smith contributes an article,
“Woman's Place in the State,” to the January
T. attempt of a certain class to eliminate the
- (9)

IO PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Æorum, In which he makes an argument against the
franchise for woman. Once Prof. Smith advocated
the doctrine. The Chicago Sentinel, referring to the
author of said article and John Bright, of England,
says: “Both of these eminent advocates of woman
Suffrage in their maturer years changed their views
and as strongly opposed the measure as they had
previously urged it.”
In their “maturer years,” indeed! In other words,
these men in their “dotage" forsook the principles
for which they contended in the prime of manhood.
So much the worse for their “dotage.”
It is not the only principle once advocated by
John Bright which he forsook. In the strength and
glory of his manhood he advocated the cause of the
tyrannized Irish, but when he became old and de-
crepit in body and mind, Gladstone and his friends
forgave him for the cruel things he said and positions
he assumed against this same people. They covered
him with their mantle of charity and loved him for
those noble principles for which he once stood.
John Bright was a grand character, and I care
not what he said in his last days under the heel of
disease. I know that if he could speak to us now,
freed from clay, he would advocate human justice.
Prof. Smith says: “The question is not, how-
ever, whether the intellectual gifts of woman are equal
in value to those of men, . . . but whether her
understanding and character are as well fitted as his
for the special functions of politics and government.”
And by whom, pray you, is this question to be
settled? Why, man, to be sure, for it is not at all

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. II
likely that she will be allowed the franchise to vote
upon the question. She might possibly vote herself
“in” instead of “out ’’ in this case, thereby declar-
ing her “fitness.” -
If it be true, as is claimed by a popular class,
that women do not care to vote, no danger need be
anticipated by those who are opposed to woman suf-
frage in allowing her the privilege of expression; and
upon the other hand, if she should avail herself of
the opportunity, the discovery that she desired the
ballot would save the advocates of said theory further
strain upon this point. - * -
If this popular class is really in favor of freedom
for ALL, they ought not to oppose such a measure,
since the experiment is in keeping with that precious
boon of freedom.
It matters not how few or many women might
visit the polls upon such an occasion, it would never
do to draw the line here. All men are not obliged
to vote, and those who are unqualified through ignor-
ance and lack of patriotism can be counted by the
many thousands.
There are many shallow and insipid women who
do not want the ballot, and we would place them as
an offset against a class of men whose superiority
consists in the “sex’’ and not the brain. A sort of
credit and debit business, you know.
We feel sorry for both of these classes, but it
should not militate against the demand of those
women who possess sufficient depth of intellect to
realize the necessity of liberty at the polls, and can
give a reason for their faith in a free ballot.

I 2 PROF. GOLD WIN SMITH
We are informed by the professor that it is not
a question of intellect in this matter of the ballot.
Of this we are aware. Our schools and institutions
of learning everywhere attest the fact that whenever
woman has had an equal opportunity she has averaged
Æeffer than her brother.
Prof. Smith continues: “Neither the intellect of
Newton nor the character of John Wesley would be
disparaged by saying that they were not fitted to com-
mand a fleet or to perform a surgical operation.”
Certainly not, since they were ignorant upon said
sciences; but if those men were living to-day, and
Prof. Smith should tell them that they were not
capable of acting in this capacity because of their
general make-up; that they might possibly have in-
tellect enough to grasp the theory, but were not
“well fitted to put it into execution’—then, with
the superior power of the ballot control them—
these men would have just cause to consider them-
selves deprived of their liberty.
Newton and Wesley were unfitted for the busi-
nesses mentioned, simply because they had not made
these branches a study, just as woman would be un-
fitted on the same ground, and not because they
might not have excelled by proper application.
Prof. Smith will have to advance a better illustra-
tion to meet the case, or we shall not believe we have
lost a great general in the advocacy of equal suffrage,
and will be obliged to decide that he is not “well
fitted * to discuss its merits. -
Prof. Smith says: “If government requires a
masculine understanding or temperament, and if the

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I3
practical character by which political questions are
likely to be best settled resides in the man whose
sphere is the world . . . that is a reason for
preferring such government and legislation.”
Oh, that terrible “if”! If it were only out of the
way there is no telling to what logical heights the
professor might soar. “If the moon is made of
green cheese,” and “if men were gods,” constitute
harmless sentences in the subjunctive mode, and are
a waste of words, for men are not gods and the
chances are against the moon being made of the
above material, but an argument based upon such
suppositions would be in keeping with that of Prof.
Smith's when he launches forth with “If the govern-
ment requires a masculine understanding,” etc.
This is indeed profound discussion, which, if origi-
nating from a lesser light than Prof. Goldwin Smith–
a woman for instance—might be referred to with the
appropriate title of £waddle.
The question whether a government can be better
served by man answers itself so far as disreputable
government is concerned. Woman would not think
of disputing the superiority. An observer of men
and things need not ask the question. Administra-
tive sin and shame for more than a quarter of a
century have become apparent to those who read as
they run.
The last presidential campaign is an excellent
illustration of the depths of corruption into which
men high in place and power entered to control the
nation. Bribery ran rampant. Bargains and sales
by “blocks of five ’’ were no secret.

I4. PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Where is the man with sense enough to find his
way to the polls, who believes in his heart that Har:
rison was elected upon any other basis?
Where is the man who does not believe that Har-
rison is perfectly familiar with the kind of ladder
which enabled him to crawl into the White House?
Our would-be honorable senate is a blotch upon
the escutcheon of the nation. Here is where foul
laws are born and good ones meet their death. The
only obstacle in finding a seat in this body is the lack
of a big bag of gold, and the principal transaction,
when once within its arena, is to protect what is left
and swell it to greater proportions.
The assumed throne of justice is not free from
taint, for, alas ! there are judges arrayed in ermine
more guilty than was Lord Bacon, whom England
dragged from his proud position, bestowed in confi-
dence, fined and imprisoned.
The wisdom and honor of a Portia are too often
missed upon the judicial bench, but that government
for which man is so “well fitted '' is apparent.
Legislative control by this “well fitted '' class has
driven an army of American citizens into destitution
and crime. -
Special privileges by the few have enslaved the
people. Poverty is the basis of this slavery, beside
which negro slavery was vastly superior.
The key to rights and opportunities has been
turned against the many, and trusts, combines and
monopolies have full sway, holding the forts which
were designed to protect the entire people.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I5
This reign of terror has disarmed the American
voter by the thousands of that mighty weapon, the
ballot; intimidation and absolute want threatening
freedom of action.
Since this great burlesque of election was enacted
the cry for a reform ballot has come up from the peo-
ple protesting against the iniquity, and in several
States steps have ...een taken in this dircction. Many
voting slaves have been aroused to an understanding
of the degradation which has come upon them.
This is the “practical character’ of the “poli-
tics” to which the professor alludes, and for which
men are so “well fitted " and which politics ‘‘ are
likely to be best settled by man * in the future. Such
administration is fully as “practical” as one could
wish, in disarming men and obtaining their ballots as
from automažoms.
That women are not adapted to the “practical
character ’’ of such politics, the professor offers as a
reason why the ballot should be withheld from her.
It would be unfair to interpret the professor as
favoring corrupt politics in his article, but neither
does he draw the line. He speaks of government
without qualification, and which has long since be-
come the synonym of all that's corrupt.
It is barely possible that the professor is innocent
as to “the ways that are dark” in the politics he so
highly commends. If this be true, we are not so
much surprised to read his mind upon “Woman’s
Place in the State,” but in that case must insist that
he requires a guardian and certainly unfit to decide
where woman belongs.

I6 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
The professor says: “The man whose sphere is
the world.” I have heard of men who wanted the
earth, but never expected to hear of one who claimed
it. We feel quite willing to forgive the professor in
his claim, however, for we know that his possessions
exist only in his mind, and that even this title will
fade away in time. Greater equity will some day
reign. Then we expect the professor will respond,
after reforms have become established, as have many
before him, “I told you so.” -
That class of clergymen who fought so hard to
maintain African slavery upon the Bible as an insti-
tution ordained of God, with outstretched arms to-
day, after their freedom has been sealed in the blood
of soldiers, invite you to “behold the work of the
church in the emancipation of the negro.”
And so we may expect to hear a class of philos-
ophers in the rear of reform exclaim in the future,
after trammels are loosened and woman is set free,
“Behold the work of man in the emancipation of
woman.” -
Then the negro can congratulate the intelligent
white wife and mother that she has risen to that plane
of rights and privileges which he enjoys, and none
will be found who would not be ashamed to admit
they ever advocated the doctrine of privileges for one
and not for another.

CHAPTER II.
WOMAN A COMPLEMENT OF MAN, BUT NOT A CoM-
PETITOR-LAw-MAKING AND WIFE-BEATING Power
BASED UPON THE SAME INTELLECTUAL FOUNDA-
TIONs—AFRAID OF THE LAws WOMEN MIGHT MAKE
—WOMEN WOULD VOTE FOR PROHIBITION AND
FLABBy SENTIMENT—LAw THAT FIXES THE AGE OF
CONSENT NOT FLABBy—WHAT MAN ExPECTS As A
RECOMPENSE FOR MARRIAGE.
ROF. SMITH says that man and woman are
“two beings whose spheres are different, and
who are the complements but not the com-
petitors of each other.”
The professor was not born in vain, since, but for
him how would woman ever have discovered the fact
that she was not a competitor rather than a complement.
However keen the intellect of woman, she never
could have unraveled this thread. For the unfold-
ment of this great secret, the professor has earned
our undying gratitude.
The difference between woman's sphere and that
of man's is now plain. The poor widow struggling
2 (17)

I8 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
to keep the wolf from the door, and at the same time
educate her children, is not a competitor in the field
of labor. Though she is cut down to starvation
wages by the influx of pauper immigration, brought
over here to enrich protected monopolies, yet against
these laborers she is not a competitor. It may be a
little difficult to place this woman, since he who was
her complement, lies under the ground. It is enough
to know, however, that she is not a competitor. If,
like many of her kind, this widow has one consolation
in her bereavement and battle for existence, it is in the
fact that although robbed of her complement, she was
not robbed of her maintenance, but on the other hand
has one less to support, and no danger of adding
unto her dependents in her poverty.
If this widow is not obliged to take her eldest
daughters from the school-room and place them in
some death-dealing workshop or factory to help swell
her paltry wage and lengthen out her miserable crust,
she is one of very many.
From two to five years of factory life, and con-
sumption or disease in other form, has set its fangs
upon robust health, and helpless girls are laid away
long before their complements are ready to receive
them. Nevertheless it is a great consolation to know
these girls were not competitors, and would have
been the complements of the opposite sex, perhaps,
if they had not been murdered in keeping within man-
made industrial regulations, or had not chosen single
blessedness instead. - .
It is too bad the professor did not more fully
explain that unjointed system which places so many

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I9
obstacles between woman and her complement. But
we would not ask too much of the great professor.
He has already left a legacy to woman, the profound
philosophy of which she will remember.
We will now begin to comprehend that the woman
lawyer pleading at the bar of justice is not arrayed as
a competitor against the attorney for defendant, but
merely a complement stating her case to the court by
which she expects to obtain a divorce for her client
who has been knocked down and dragged out by her
complement—otherwise husband.
This philosophy is getting quite clear to us. We
understand more fully the position of the wife whose
daily lot in life is to meet upon the door-sill her
drunken husband for whom she has to take in wash-
ing to support. This wife is not a competitor of the
male laundryman next door, bless your heart, but
merely a complement to her beautiful beast of a
husband who does her bossing and balloting for her,
and looks after her interest in public life so much
better than she could herself. Also the woman
teacher, performing her daily task better than her
brother, is not a competitor, but will be the comple-
ment of some man if she does not die an old maid,
working for less wages and rendering superior service.
Again, the woman physician, who has overcome
the obstacles, which have, because of sex, been laid
in her pathway, and because of merit displaces a man
in the same profession, relegating him to the sphere
of hod-carrier, were possibly now and then one of
them might find their “proper sphere,” is not a
competitor but only a complement to some man

2O PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
either living or dead, of whose whereabouts she
might not happen to know. The relegated physi-
cian, however, might not consider her so much of
a complement, and weaken in his great faith in the
survival of the fittest. There is scarcely a doubt but
he would join the professor in claiming “ the sphere
of the world,” and that she should be confined within
four walls whether presided over by her complement,
infuriated with drink, degraded in ignorance, or by
none at all.
If it were never designed that woman should be
a competitor, then we have only to arraign man gov-
ernment for thrusting competition upon her. This has
been done in the most cruel and ignominious form.
If we can arrive at any rational conclusion, it is
that man and woman were designed to be the com-
plements of each other. I believe in this, and when
they are indeed the complements of each other, it
is of God and divine—a condition out of which the
soul can blossom.
The sacred relation of such a marriage I have
witnessed in many instances. I know they exist,
but I also know that many more exist that are of
the opposite character, whose foul atmosphere is
daily breeding moral pestilence.
To say it would be no better under a woman
administration, is begging the question, and con-
stitutes no legitimate counter-claim against a one-
sided and unjust government.
Prof. Smith asks the question, “Why has the
male sex alone made the laws?” Perhaps it would
be pertinent in the solution of the question to ask,

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 2I
Why men beat their wives? It is true all men do
not beat their wives, and upon the contrary, some
wives beat their husbands. Neither does the male
sex alone make the law. Fifty thousand women and
more voted in the last municipal election in Kansas,
and Lyman U. Humphrey, Governor of the State,
says: “We are very proud of our State, its natural
resources . . . and progressive spirit of our peo-
ple as shown by the just spirit of our laws touching
the political and property rights of women. -
Kansas does not go backward in anything. Trusting
that the ladies of Kentucky may succeed in securing
just recognition as in Kansas, I am, yours very re-
spectfully.”
For twenty years the women of Wyoming have
had full suffrage, and a new constitution has just
been adopted by a vote of 8 to I, with woman suf-
frage incorporated. It seems not to have terrorized
the men from voting to continue the same. We have
the best of testimony as to decency and order at the
polls, and effect generally. -
Thomas H. Woods, Chief Justice of the State of
Mississippi, says in answer to a letter of inquiry: “I
can best answer your inquiry by saying that no evil
results have followed the full emancipation of woman
as to her property rights in the State. It is difficult
to imagine evil following in the wake of natural right
and exact justice. I have never heard a suggestion
from any man in Mississippi of a return to the hard
and unequal common law rules.”
Twenty-three thousand women of Boston voted
last year for school committee, and the 50, Ooo women

22 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
of Massachusetts who are petitioning for suffrage
together with an army in other States, will ere
long be voting also. But what is needed is a larger
suffrage based upon broader principles. Before
woman's power for great good can be felt, she must
be fully emancipated. -
The professor answers his question in these words:
“Because law with whatever majesty we may invest
it, is will, which to give it effect must be backed by
force, and the force of the community is male.” He
then clinches this argument by quoting Gail Hamilton
as saying that every “ballot is a bullet,” or, in other
words, the ‘‘ ballot” is that force.
If, as we are informed, and do not deny that law
“is will,” which to give it effect must be backed by
force, and the force of the community is male, and
if the ballot is equivalent to a bullet or said force,
put this ballot in the hands of woman, and the force
of the community will be female as well as male, and,
behold, we have that qualification so necessary in gov-
ernment.
But the professor refers to another force which
cannot be divorced from law without the law be-
coming ineffectual. He says: “But the fact is that
muscle has a great deal to do with the matter.
Muscle is the coarse foundation on which the most
intellectual and august fabric of legislation rests.”
In other words, muscle is necessary in government;
man possesses the muscle, therefore man should
govern.
The wife-beater makes his argument along the
same line. His complement, otherwise wife, re-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 23
quires punishment; he possesses the muscle, there-
fore he should punish, but it is all for her good,
even as is the withholding of the ballot from her.
She is loved too much to be allowed to mix in filthy
politics. A large freedom is demoralizing.
Prof. Smith says: “Suppose the women, when
invested with political power, were to make the laws
which they threaten to make in their own interest and
against that of man, would the men execute the law
against themselves? Would men obey? If they did
not, what but disregard of law and consequent con-
fusion would ensue?”
In other words, the professor is fearful he should
not like woman administration, and it is quite a suffi-
cient reason that she is unqualified to administer and
that it should not exist. This is not a very broad
basis upon which to establish individual rights.
There may be something of the baby pleading in
it all, but, it is certainly broad enough for Prof.
Smith.
I am sorry the professor has such a poor opinion
of women. I fancy that when women are allowed
to help govern, they will still have some interest in
their husbands and sons. I cannot believe such
privileges would change her motherly instinct—that
she would not love her baby boy the same, and guide
him with her best instruction until he is ready for the
ballot-box, as she is given the credit of doing at pres-
ent. Casting a piece of paper in a box cannot pro-
duce such a transformation performance as to blot
out the mother love, and all sons have mothers or
possessed them once. None believe such unreasona-

24 PROF. GoLDw1N sMITH
ble and disgusting stuff, save those who are sadly in
need of some wholesome woman’s influence.
Woman will not expect to do all the voting when
clothed with the ballot. She has never advocated the
theory of disfranchising her brother. She is not in
favor of a one-sided government as man has been.
Our laws, when women vote, will be subjected to a
masculine ballot as well, and man should be willing
to submit gracefully to a rule of the majority, which
he advocates with such refreshing fairness. I hope,
that when the majority rule dawns, the professor
and his heretofore orderly brothers would not think
of breaking the law, disturbing the peace, creating
“confusion,” because not to their taste. For such
offenses Anarchists are hung in Chicago, and agita-
tors who would encourage a disobedience of the law
are severely dealt with. I will venture to say that
Prof. Smith constituted himself judge and jury in
sentencing the late noted Anarchists to the gallows,
and unless he considers the present methods applied
to disorderly conduct under man “too arbitrary,” he
ought not to complain if he is treated likewise for the
same crime when women vote and a majority rule.
We quote from the Bystander the professor's own
words of indignation against the very spirit he threat-
ens to display should women make laws which he
don't like. He says: “There has arisen a set of
labor agitators and writers of labor journals who
make it their trade to instill venom into the heart of
the artisan. . . . whew; this industrial embit-
terment is everywhere going on simultaneously with .
a political revolution by which political power is being

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 25
transferred into the hands of the masse and independent
authority is ceasing to exist. Who can feel sure that
we have not stormy times before us?”
The professor really forgot to say a word against
those laws which this “independent authority” has
foisted upon the “masse,” betraying their confidence
and leaving them plundered. His only anxiety con-
sists in the fear that political power may get into the
hands of the plundered “masse.”
We hear men who claim to be statesmen say that
to obey the law is evidence of good citizenship, but
when the professor talks of disregarding law because
he is not pleased with it, it almost makes us feel like
rebelling on the same principle. If men of his stand-
ing can afford to loose their good name in disobeying
law made by a majority of voters, certainly a woman
can afford to rebel against law when made by a class
of men in the interest of a very few, leaving the larger
portion of their own sex virtually without expression,
as well as womankind.
If women break the peace at the next election by
casting an illegal ballot, the professor will be unable
to ever realize how much credit will be due him as
the motive power; the accessory before the fact. A
retroactive law might have to be passed, as in the
case of the Anarchists, to meet the emergency; but it
could easily be done, and Prof. Smith might hang.
The professor must have doleful forebodings when
he says, “Suppose the women, when invested with
political power were to make laws in their own inter-
est and against that of man.”

26 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
The professor has a great talent for substantial
logic. His argument based upon that terrible, “If
the government requires masculine understanding,”
etc., is an illustration based upon depth of mind, and
does him much credit. It reminds us of the over-
whelming anxiety of that maiden lady who burst into
a flood of tears one day as though her poor heart was
torn into shreds, and after earnest and pressing en-
treaty as to her great grief, stated that she had just
been thinking, “Suppose she should get married,
and suppose she should have a house with a grate in
it, and suppose her eldest born should fall in and get
burned up, what should she do?” The professor's
anxiety is equally as pitiful as that of the maiden lady.
Will the professor tell us how women could make
laws in their own interest and against that of man?
There is nothing more certain than that if women
make laws in their own interest, they must neces-
sarily be in the interest of man as well, since the in-
terest of one is the interest of the other; and when
man builds a government founded upon rights and
privileges for himself, extending toward woman such
as he considers she is “fitted '' to enjoy, regardless of
her demand for equality, he is not acting in his own
best interest. Companionship ought to be the rela-
tion existing between the sexes, and the basis of this
relation was discovered by many before us.
Daniel DeFoe, two hundred years ago, said per-
taining to the elevation of women: “I have often
thought of it as one of the most barbarous customs in
the world, considering us as a civilized and Christian
country, that we deny the advantage of learning to

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 27
women. . . . And herein it is that I take it upon
me to make such a bold assertion, that all the world
are mistaken in their practice about women. -
In short, / would have men take women for companions
and educate them to be ſit for it.” -
Compare this sentiment with that of the early
bishops of the church, who decided when printing
came into vogue that women should not be taught
the art of reading, as it would interfere with their re-
maining good and docile housewives. The latter
sentiment is in full keeping with Prof. Smith's and
others, that the ballot would interfere with domestic
relations, and set men and their wives to fighting.
But women have learned to read, and behold they
are better housewives, and when they are clothed
with the ballot, it will continue to add unto the order
and sanctity of the household. If we would educate
men and women, we must educate them in the line
of companionship.
The ballot is an expressed opinion. The expres-
sion of opinion is educational. It begets thought.
When the negro was enfranchised, we were told
emancipation and the ballot would help his igno-
rance. This argument is as applicable to-day as ever,
but our government is not willing to demonstrate it.
So long as a reign exists which imposes such a
poverty upon women as forces them to sell them-
selves by the day, month or for a life-time to some
man for support; so long as poverty distills hypoc-
risy in the pulpit; so long as the shibboleth for the
election of our president and congress of this great
nation is money, money; so long as the orphan's cry

28 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
and widow's wail are smothered in the unholy scram-
ble for place and power, and the common herd of
men are driven like cattle in their necessity; so long
may we look in vain for that beautiful relation of
companionship, except in rare instances. To beget
this boon requires intellectual, moral and social inter-
course one with the other. None other but the at-
mosphere of freedom can blossom this choice flower.
Association of this character will lead to equality and
the ballot-box, and prove the most elevating school
of education known.
Man requires such relationship though he know it
not. The lack of it to-day is the secret of our un-
happy homes, blighted hopes and domestic hells.
Give a man a companion and he can rest his soul in
peace, but without it there is an unceasing restless-
ness. He thirsts for that which he cannot name, if
he never tasted of its blessed waters and wanders out
in false directions. There is but one road leading to
this beauteous spring, and that the road of justice.
It is needless to search for it by seizing hold upon
government and controlling because of “muscle.”
This course smothers the better part, not only of the
oppressed but oppressor, and is the kind of soil from
which weeds and thistles spring. We need but to
open our eyes and they lie scattered all around, and
at every step a thorn pierces our feet.
Prof. Smith says that “the tendency of a State
governed by women would be too arbitrary, and
sentimental legislation can hardly be doubted. Pro-
hibitionism, in its most extreme form, would almost
certainly carry the day.”

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 29
It is very likely that prohibition would become a
law if women voted, but not wholly upon the basis
of “flabby sentiment.” There is a disposition upon
the part of some men voters to prohibit drinking,
which does not partake of sentiment in the least.
When railroad managers prohibit their employees
from this habit, either on or off duty, it resolves
itself into a case of cold dollars and cents—a view
of the principle aside from “flabby sentiment,” and
also aside from broken bones and mutilated men and
women. As it is, railroad companies are injured
thousands of dollars every year because of that drink
which it is so difficult to prohibit absolutely.
Yes, professor, you stand in danger of having to
walk the earth minus the refining companion of drink
when women vote, but it's barely possible this soli-
tude might enable you to write a more respectable
article upon “Woman's Place in the State.” Per-
haps not; it may be that to some other and deeper
cause must be attributed your disgusting travesty on
logic.
I am inclined to think all those women who were
boiled to death under the engine of a drunken en-
gineer in an accident last October south of Chicago,
if they were in the form again and could vote, would
cast a ballot for prohibition, not altogether on the
sentimental side of the question, but the very prac-
tical side, that of protecting their bodies from the
terrible and untold tortures of being cooked to death
by a drunken man at the helm.
Perhaps they might have been polite wine-bibbers
in their lives, but experience would have taught them

3O PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
one lesson, namely, that drink is a vicious murderer
licensed by the nation, and can perform its bloody
deeds, its sickening horrors, even though legalized
by a debauched public conscience.
As with public highways, so with many other
branches of business in which prohibition is de-
manded, where the motive is money vs. sentiment.
Why the professor would object to sentiment in
making laws, seems a little unnatural. He refers to
it in contemptuous terms. Subtract sentiment from
the will which makes law, and we have a shell with-
out soul, a form without beauty. Subtract sentiment
from our daily walk and conversation, and we have
but husks to feed upon, which nourish alone the brute
creation.
In sentiment there is life. It is the spark that
lives on and on, and glows and glistens, and in-
creases in power and beauty when death shall have
swallowed up all else. Indeed, we would engraft
sentiment in our law, in the affairs of government.
It is the disinfectant which alone can revive a people
overpowered by a stench which has for years con-
tinued to arise from the seat of administration and
from legislative halls in all directions.
As one of the features of legislation, a majority of
voters of both sexes might decide that a commodity
which benumbs the moral sensibilities is not fit
nourishment for legislators. We would not take
undue advantage of the professor, but admit frankly
that voters would probably decide that a commodity
which insanely destroys life, which renders travel
unsafe, which enters the family circle and with

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 3 I
deadly fangs smothers the love in the heart, and
fire upon the hearth, should no longer glory in its
victims, but be obliged to be chained from that time
forth in outer darkness. -
And who but the selfish would say that it were not
better that the few who could use this commodity
with discretion, should be deprived of it rather than
that the many more who could or would not, should
be allowed to destroy the hopes, happiness and lib-
erty of others by its use. The greatest good to the
greatest number is the theory of this government, as
promulgated by the professor.
We admit that the prohibition of the liquor traffic
would be arbitrary; but if the professor objects to
this law because of its arbitrary nature, he must ob-
ject to all law, since all law is arbitrary. The essence
of all government is arbitrary. I hardly think the
professor would consider it desirable to abandon all
government.
When we become imbued with that justice which
forbids us to impinge upon the rights of others, then
we shall have arisen to that happy and hoped-for
state when government can be abolished. This lies
in the germ of the future in answer to higher aspira-
tions. But so long as a small portion of one-half the
race controls (and some of them actually claim the
sphere of the world, as does our dear professor), we
are far from that era.
Before the professor condescends to bestow the
ballot upon woman, he should consider whether it is
better to eradicate the moral sentiment of the hus-
band, father and legislator with drink, which does

32 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
not require one to become a drunkard to accomplish,
since what is called moderate use is deadening to the
better part of human nature, or whether it should be
legislated out of the way; in other words, whether it
is better to have more of whisky than of justice in our
laws.
The people have a right to demand the best laws
capable of being made, and whisky cannot enter as
an ingredient in this case. No doubt, professor, the
women would vote the removal of the whisky shop
from the rotunda of our national capital, and in its
place substitute a little “sentiment.”
While the professor complains of arbitrary law
which women might make, he is evidently not dis-
turbed over laws which have actually been born, ex-
isting alone through theft, and infecting the entire
nation with its pestilential breath. Our national
banking law is one of this character, carrying pov-
erty, vice and crime in its train, rearing immense
fortunes for the few and degradation for the many.
This institution is unconstitutionally performing a
function belonging to government alone.
A few men said: ‘‘We would like to get rich sud-
denly; this cannot be done by honest toil. We will
filch from the wealth producer. We will get congress
to pass an act, however unconstitutional—the people
will not know the difference—by which the govern-
ment shall issue notes to us at I per cent, which we
will loan to the people at a big rate of interest. We
will induce men guiding the ship of State to curtail
the circulating medium which regulates prices, to
call their greenback paper money in, and burn it up

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 33
that we may have full sway with our notes which the
government shall back.”
The philosophy of a scarcity of money which re-
duces prices and enhances interest, was thoroughly
comprehended by the ringleaders of this conspiracy.
They have it now their own way, and when the
farmer, the merchant, the mechanic, the wage-worker
require money with which to exchange their com-
modities and transact business, they are obliged to
pay homage to this blood-thirsty institution.
The banker's price is paid, and then the miserable
victims are told that “it is the best banking system
the world ever saw,” and there are ignoramuses who
believe it, simply because the era of wild-cat State
bank notes is past. It is the “best system ever
known '' for absorbing the wealth of the nation. The
many avenues of this institution for gathering in the
result of honest toil cannot be mentioned at this time,
but we hear not a word from the professor on this
“too arbitrary” and unconstitutional enactment.
Now the people have the right, through congress,
to make their own money and issue it to themselves,
but instead of doing this, we find many a man voting
to perpetuate a system that robs him daily. If a man
should conduct his own private affairs upon such a
basis, his friends would consider him too much of an
imbecile to protect his property and could have a
guardian appointed over him to prevent him from
wasting his wealth, and if it was a woman making
such idiotic use of the ballot, Prof. Smith would
hasten to tell her that it was the best evidence that
3

3+ PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
she did not know enough to vote, and it would be
true.
There might be many evidences of her unfitness.
If a body of women legislators should make such a
spectacle of themselves as has the present Iowa legis-
lature, they would disgrace the nation and prove
themselves unfit for any public trust. Six weeks
session and seventy ballots fail to elect a speaker.
What is the matter with our political superiors?
Why, one man, Allison, who has shamefully sold
the people of his State many times, wishes to be re-
turned to the United States senate, and what is the
interest of the people compared to the interest of this
political knave? Money can flow freely, for can he
not again sell the people he represents for plunder?
You men voters, who have to foot the bills for this
idle legislature, how free you are! No doubt many
of you are more free than enlightened. In either
case women could do no worse as voter and legislator.
Arbitrary law, indeed! We do not hear anything
from the professor about that law, which, if only arbi-
trary, could be overlooked. He does not remind us
that only a few months ago, in the State of Kansas,
an august legislature of bearded men were discussing
a bill which was designed to become law, and which
had the sanction of the most influential men in that
body and State, and whose names are recorded as
voting for it.
What was this bill, you ask? Listen, you helpless
mothers of the land. Listen, you little waif-you
motherless and unsophisticated child, if your baby
mind can fathom a tithe of the diabolism with which

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 35
it was freighted. It was a bill to lessen the years of
consent of girls to twelve. In this manner these men
were voting to protect the opposite sex, thrusting
consent upon them, rendering it so very unnecessary
for them to engage in filthy politics.
Now, it is because of the filth of politics that
women must engage in it. The mothers of the land
are trying in their crippled manner to raise the age of
consent, but the kind of government that ſessens the
age holds high carnival.
Recently a respectable man, so considered, visited
the Boy's and Girl's Aid Society in Oregon, and took
home with him a frail girl of twelve summers for the
sworn purpose of giving her a home. After a short
stay she was brought back emaciated and reason
gone. The examining physician stated that her con-
dition was the result of the brutish passions of the
man who took her to protect. And Oregon has no
law to meet the case. Why? Because mothers do
not vote, and the voice of men with moral principle is
drowned.
The pitiful suicide of a girl sixteen years only, has
just been committed to cover up the shame thrust
upon her by a man who is so well adapted to protect
her interests. Sixteen years! Oh! how rich in ex-
perience are the sexes at sixteen years.
The case of the People Øs. Dorhing, Fifty-ninth
New York, is an interesting one for the encouragement
it gives in the practice of such iniquity. A girl of
fourteen years is secured alone, her ruin accom-
plished, and the court of last resort sustains the vot-
ing culprit on the plea of consent. Don Moran z's.

36 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
The People, Twenty-fifth Michigan, is another marked
illustration in which the supreme court of the State
could give no redress nor even disfranchise the villain
which would disgrace the gallows. He continues to
cast a ballot for the protection of women. Long
columns could be filled with such cases.
Woman has been protected much as the wolf pro-
tects the lamb, as the tariff tax protects the wage-
worker, and the banking system protects the farmer
and the wealth-producer generally.
The villainous inconsistency of an entire mascu-
line assembly voting consent upon a sex not permitted
to be heard, reaches the climax of all that’s foul.
The consent thus obtained is the kind the cannibal
obtains from the missionary while arranging his fag-
gots for a dainty morsel, and the shark from the little
fish which chance to come within reach of its death-
dealing jaws.
It might be a little “arbitrary” and presumptuous
in the estimation of Prof. Smith for women to inter-
fere with the prerogative of man in passing laws of
consent upon mere babies, which they have held so
long, but the chances are they will dig a grave both
wide and deep for those twin devils, liquor and licen-
tiousness, which devour the daughters of this fair land.
I would again introduce the reader to the writer
of that famous article “Woman’s Place in the State.”
Behold what a standard-bearer have these crawling
serpents, liquor and licentiousness, two in one, and
born of each other, in the person of Prof. Goldwin
Smith, the great teacher in Cornell University. Let
us prostrate ourselves before him.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 37
The professor says: “At present the franchise
is sought in Great Britain only for unmarried women
and widows. . . . Nor is it intended that the
movement should stop at spinster and widow fran-
chise. . . . The abolition of subordination in the
family . . . of its head, and of everything that
tends to merge the civil personality of the wife in that
of the husband is the prime object, . . . which
would be achieved if man and wife could be seen
fighting against each other at elections.”
I wonder if the professor and his wife would fight
each other at the “elections,” and if so, might he not
be in the wrong instead of his wife? If there would
be danger of a battle, and he wishes for peace, it
might be wisdom for him to remain at home while she
went to the polls. She could do the voting for the
family as he had been doing so long, and perhaps
quite as well, especially when it comes to the election
of legislators who were inclined to vote consent upon
her twelve-year-old daughters. If he insisted upon
doing his own voting, he could pass to the polls
alone. I merely make this suggestion to the pro-
fessor that he may see his way out, for he seems to
be a little weak in providing ways and means. When
the eventful moment arrives, and the professor de-
sires a fight, no doubt he can have one. It might be
a stroke of policy to make one to order, just to dem-
onstrate the total depravity of men with their wives
at the polls, putting a little piece of paper in a box.
If the professor had only thought far enough, I
am sure he might have gathered together some sort
of a fight in Wyoming, where men and their wives

38 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
have been voting for years. Anything would have
done out of which to manufacture a statement. He
certainly might have “supposed ” a case, for which
he has proven himself so capable. We are usually
armed for whatever lies within. If we carry a club
in the heart, it materializes without. Inward canker
gnaws to the surface.
While the professor can have a fight if he wants
one, I’ll venture to say that if he attends strictly to
his own business and does not attempt to boss, there
will be no trouble at the elections. It may be a diffi-
cult thing for many husbands, having voted for their
wives so long without leave or license, to keep within
their own “proper sphere,” but it would be an ex-
periment worth while if more harmony is desired at
home. They who are so anxious for harmony should
try to produce a little of the commodity themselves.
The professor is alarmed lest “the subordination
and civil personality of the wife in that of the hus-
band ” should dissappear from the face of the earth.
No doubt it will be a melancholy affair for the
autocrat of the family when his throne begins to
weaken, and the uplifted hand of authority falls
powerless in his attempt to enslave; yet just how a
woman can be out of order in trying to free herself
is a little hard to understand.
We must remember, however, that whether woman
is right or wrong in the attempt to free herself from
subordination and from being swallowed up in her
husband, is not the question. The only question at
issue with the professor is, Does he wish to swallow
her; does he wish to make her subordinate. We
hope we shall not wander far from the text.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 39
The professor says: “A man, when he marries,
takes upon himself the heavy burden of maintaining
a wife and family; he expects as his reward a loving
partner and a happy home.” Yes, men take upon
themselves burdens, but they do not all carry them
to the end. There are many who are continually
assuming responsibilities, and casting them aside
without a sting of conscience. Many a wife is
carrying burdens that a miscreamſ so readily took
upon himself at the altar. To take upon one's
shoulders burdens is one thing, and to faithfully
carry them is quite another.
One would judge from the professor's recital that
woman, who bears man's children, rears them, and
presides over his household, assumes no burden, no
responsibility. Certainly it would seem that for these
labors she had earned her board at least. She could
earn her board and wages for services, unmarried,
which wages she is not entitled to as wife in half the
States in this Union, on the basis that the husband
owns the wife and her services.
The wife's services for a life-time ought to be
placed in the balance against the “heavy burden’
assumed at marriage by the husband, and if this
were done, we would come to realize that the average
wife supports herself, and the heavy burden of the
average husband is susceptible of diminution.
We realize fully the terrible self-sacrifice man
makes in entering the married state, but perhaps it
may furnish some consolation to these martyrs to
know that occasionally a woman offers herself up
as a sacrifice also.
Children bring responsibility, it is true, but inas-
much as they are not often thrust upon the husband

40 PROF. GOLD WIN SMITH.
in his helplessness, he should heroically bear it, or
refrain from the luxury of possessing children.
When men learn to govern themselves—let alone
govern women—there will be no heavy burdens in
the way of children, suffering and starving. They
will enter our household a joy, bringing no burden.
We are told what man “expects” as a reward
for “heavy burdens,” but we hear nothing of what
woman expects. Is it because she is devoid of ex-
pectations? Has she learned better than to indulge
in this luxury; or is it too small a matter to consider?
Will the professor please explain?
The professor warns us in these words: “Make
marriage too onerous and unattractive to man,
whether in regard to property, or in regard to the
civil status of the pair, and what will follow?
License which the legislator will be powerless to
repress.” This is to say that man will license him-
self to commit any deed of revenge, if marriage is
made unattractive to him. Oh, ye gods! What a
protector woman has had for these long centuries.
“Marriage unattractive to man!” Is there but
one party to the contract, or is this other party dumb
to unattractive marriage? If not, perhaps the pro-
fessor could advise woman as to her best course,
when marriage becomes “too onerous and unattrac-
tive" to her. I fancy his prescription would read:
“A little more sweetness and docility upon the part
of woman, that man may not be driven to license
and oppression in his desperation.”
Oh, lofty sentiment! How it thrills the soul with
its power of justice!

CHAPTER III.
THE LONG TENURE OF REPUBLICAN ROBUSTNESS –
SAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT USE OF MUSCLE – OUR
VICE-PRESIDENT A ROBUST ExAMPLE – IT VISITs
STARVATION UPON CHILDREN, AND ABANDONED
LIVES UPON GIRLS – WOMAN's ABUSE OF POWER
— EFFECT OF MUNICIPAL SUFFRAGE.
HE professor explains why America is more
conservative upon woman suffrage than Eng-
land in these words: “ More is due to the
conservative instincts of the territorial democracy”
and to the “superior robustness of Republicans, who
have had a long tenure of political power.”
We are very willing to agree with the professor
when we can. We admit that said condition of the
nation is because of the “long tenure of Republican
robustness,” and this “long tenure " has been very
“robust,” even to the superlative degree. All that
“muscle’ demands in the process which is the
“foundation of that intellectual fabric,” the govern-
ment, has been brought to bear. Plans of subjugation
from the lips of our great generals are read. Gens.
Sherman and Mollineau, but a few years ago, quite
- (41)

42 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
explicitly dilated upon the ways and means which
could defeat the people, should they attempt to rise
against this “long tenure of Republican robustness.”
And now steps forth one Peter Hepburn, ex-con-
gressman of Iowa, solicitor for the United States
treasury, defeated in the eighth district in 1886,
because of the people's indignation at his treasona-
ble statesmanship, and says: “Judging from the
action of the Knights of Labor at Atlanta, Ga., it
will not be long before the soldiers will be compelled
to shoulder their muskets again.”
What had these Knights of Labor done to excite
alarm? They had declared their right to organize
and discuss their many grievances. To pursue this
course might lead to serious results. Discussion
leads to thought, and thought directs to the cause
of discontent, of wrong, of abuse. To insure peace
under the present reign of “robustness” requires
much ignorance; therefore, agitation must cease, and
to accomplish quiet and restfulness, the military acts
like a charm. There is naught so convincing as a
request backed by a bullet. If it does not absolutely
convert, it pretty thoroughly silences the disturber,
which answers every purpose.
We have a forcible illustration of the power of the
bullet argument in the case of the Tulare farmers, of
California, a few years since. These foolish men had
conceived the absurd and unreasonable idea of pro-
tecting their homes from the “robust’’ clutches of a
railroad corporation which has been begotten of this
“long tenure of robustness.” In the effort to protect
their years of toil, and shelter their wives and babies,

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 43
these men were shot down like dogs, upon their own
threshold, by bullets placed in the hands of United
States officials. Many men were driven from their
farms, and for resisting were tried, condemned, im-
prisoned and fined. This may seem too strong a
statement to be true, even under the most “robust"
government. But, all I have to say is, acquaint
yourselves with the facts, and you will agree with
me that the infamy cannot be portrayed in words.
The progeny born of this “robustness” are look
ing for desirable spots to plant the evidences of their
power. A piece of land was offered the government
not long since, lying near Chicago, for military pur-
poses. It is thought best to be fortified with this
“robust " power within the vicinity of such a center,
for here are men inclined to speak quiet freely their
ideas of freedom or slavery. And yet we are at peace
with all the nations of the earth, the only conflict now
brooding being that between legal highwaymen within
our own borders and their miserable victims. This
“robustness” has flooded our highways and byways
with tramps, and reduced men, women and children
to destitution. Detectives, thugs, military power and
corporate greed can do no more.
A pitiful tale is now being told of a woman of sixty
years, of Jackson, Mich., who preferred suicide to
starvation. A life of constant toil had earned for her
but the Potter's field.
This ‘’ long tenure * has become so very “robust’”
that notwithstanding the mighty resources of this
country, its vast domain and colossal wealth, it is
more than a match, laying hold of the production of

44 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
labor, and pressing the life from out many of its
victims.
Under this “robustness” the machinery of justice
has become one of chicanery, and our grand and petit
juries a burlesque. The Chicago 7 ribune of February
24, SayS:—
As the Zºribune has frequently pointed out, the
character of our popular grand juries is little less
than scandalous. Some men seek to become grand
jurors for blackmailing purposes. Others are put on
to prevent the enforcement of the law. Groggery-keep-
ers are selected for service to prevent the indictment
of fellow groggery-keepers who sell liquor to minors
and drunkards. Bummer politicians have been drawn
as grand jurors to prevent the indictment of those
efficient political allies of the present city administra-
tion, the gamblers. The respectable men are in a
minority in most of the grand juries drawn nowa-
days. The disreputables, being in the majority, try
to make their temporary positions profitable.
It has been frequently stated—and the statement
has not been denied—that thirteen members of the
last grand jury which indicted the gamblers, were
wined and dined in the resort of the most notorious
gambler of Chicago, during the term of that same
grand jury. The host of the occasion and those of
his clique escaped indictment. Some of the county
commissioners who are well known to be under the
influence of the gamblers and ringsters draw such
grand jurors as the ringsters and gamblers want.
The petit jurors are not much better than the
grand jurors.
I would have it understood that women do not
vote nor sit upon juries in Illinois. This cauldron of
rottenness is kept boiling by men alone, who are con-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS 45
tinually looking after the best interest of our senti-
mental women at the polls
I wonder what effect “sentiment’’ would have
as a medicine introduced into our grand-jury room,
professor? It might not work so bad. What is true
of this center of the West, is generally true of all
to-day.
We are indeed a “robust" nation. What but
“robustness” and a “long tenure " of that, could
have secured for the vice-president of this great
country the exalted position of proprietor of the
Shoreham with a buffet attached. Were it not for
his robust high calling, he would be in danger of being
called the proprietor of an ordinary grog-shop by the
uneducated and vulgar, since it is a little difficult for
the unsophisticated to so readily distinguish the dif-
ference between whisky clothed in the glamour of
robust positions, and no glamour at all. But, we
must remember, there is always a class ever ready to
deny the miraculous power of position. There are
those who would deny their Savior. We hope this
spirit will not disturb our sensitive vice-president in
his official duties in the interest of the people.
No one should be surprised at the business of Mr.
Morton. It is one in which our government takes a
deep interest. It builds warehouses for the storing
of the distiller's liquor, and there is an uncollected
revenue due the government now of $46, ooo, ooo, the
use of which is generously extended to the business.
As if it could not do enough for Mr. Whisky, it
gives the distiller a receipt which is negotiable,
which enables the distiller to borrow money upon

46 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
his whisky deposited, and also upon that value which
three years of government care has produced. The
farmer, in dwelling upon these privileges, thinks it a
little hard that he cannot obtain aid from the govern-
ment, at the biggest rate of interest, upon the very
best of hypothecated real estate. But these slow-
thinking farmers must not forget in their apparent
grievance that farming is one kind of business and
saloon traffic quite another, the philosophy of which
to the clear-minded patriot is thoroughly understood.
When a nation becomes robust the people need not
be surprised at any feat performed; rather may they
be surprised that President Harrison has not been
seeking a license also for the buffet business, since
his paltry salary of $50,000 per year cannot be ex-
pected to keep him comfortable.
It is only by comparison we can realize our great-
ness as a nation. When we look back from our
present height a number of decades, it bursts upon
us in all its glory. We quote from Pomeroy's Ad-
zance 7% ought, of New York, the following pertaining
to our present growth:=
It is a matter of public notoriety that the Re-
publican party, soon after it came into power, ar-
ranged for a harem seraglio or sub-rosa house of
ill-fame, by outsiders known as the treasury depart-
ment, but, till the present administration came into
power, no president or vice-president of the United
States has engaged directly in the business of making
drunkards on the road between the White House and
the Capitol. It was at this new gin-mill that C. E.
Silcott, cashier in the congressional paymaster's de-
partment, with one of his mistresses, spent their fleet-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 47
ing moments and a portion of the $72,000 he stole,
ere taking the train for Canada. . . . Yes, this
is a great country and a high-toned administration,
with Levi P. Morton as vice-president.
It is only by comparison that this robust nation is
appreciated.
Corn sells for from 8 to Io cents; whisky, 15 cents.
Oats sink to II and 12 cents; whisky continues at 15
cents. Farmers are selling their corn and oats below
cost of production, and are tariff-taxed upon their
blankets and castor oil for the express purpose of
enhancing the price of their produce and supporting
the government. The government, on the plea of
necessity, gathers in from the oppressed farmer more
than is required for this purpose, and instead of re-
turning it, or shutting down upon the tax, makes the
use of it a present to the national bankers to the tune
of millions of dollars, who loan it to the people who
have been thus robbed at a big rate of interest. And
those money manipulators have compelled the farmer
to borrow of them because of the scarcity of money,
which they have made scarce for the express purpose
of loaning at usurious rates. No well-informed per-
son would attempt to dispute the professor's claims
of “robustness.” It is probably the only nation on
the earth to-day which could perform such robust
feats and live. It has had every opportunity of
developing that “ muscle" which is the “fabric of
intellectual and august legislation.”
It might be well to mention a few more illustra-
tions of its “robustness.” For instance, the ability
with which it so robustly devours the virtue of its

48 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
daughters, leaving them to wretchedness and de-
spair. It slaughters 20, Ooo every year in Boston.
Mr. Wright, commissioner of labor, says that 20, Ooo
girls go to the bad every year in said city because of
poor wages. This state of affairs may seem a little
strange in the face of that beneficent device, a pro-
ſective fariff, for the benefit of labor and cure for such
low wages as produce paupers.
The pastor of Paternity Church, New York, once
stated in the pulpit, that 20, Ooo girls went to the bad
every year in New York because of poor wages; that
there were five or six trades in the city employing
between 200,000 or 300,000 girls, none of which gave
living wages. Then what is the inevitable? Prostitu-
tion in all its hideousness must follow, and great
enough to satisfy the most robust ambition.
We would invite you to the capital of our great
nation, where it is estimated that nearly 4, ooo houses
of ill-fame are planted; where over 300 houses of as-
signation are sustained; and where robust statesmen,
sitting upon the floor of a $12,000, Ooo legislative
building, favor bills for the suppression of polygamy
in Utah, while nightly making merry the above men-
tioned places of resort.
In this city of Washington, where 500 churches
point heavenward, and over 20,000 victims of deg-
radation can be numbered, not one house of refuge
stands. When we consider that investigations into
the causes of abandoned lives inform us that not
one-sixth are such because of choice, it will furnish as
strong an illustration as weak words can convey, of
the “robustness” of our nation. Indeed, the annual

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 49
number of children which starve to death in the city
of New York are to be congratulated that death over-
takes them rather than be subjected to the great
chances of incurring a worse fate. It is estimated that
10,000 starve to death every year in that city. The
New York Board of Health, in 1884, reported this
number as dying annually for lack of proper nourish-
ment. I take it that lack of proper nourishment,
though it be a smoother term, means starvation.
Better meet death in babyhood, than grow up, as
do the Ioo, Ooo children in New York, unacquainted
with the school-room—forced out by the thousand for
lack of building conveniences, or because compelled
to enter some workshop or factory for bread.
When babies are dragged from the nursery and
school-room, and put to work in some stifling work-
shop or factory to earn the little they consume, the
evidences of “robustness” are conclusive. The pro-
fessor hath not spoken beyond bounds. The open
jaws of the cannon's mouth are tempered with mercy
in comparison.
Our nation has become great upon the face of the
earth. Its “muscle" hath made it equal to any and
all occasions—the smothering of virtue and visita-
tions of starvation not excepted.
The tenure of this “robustness” has been secure
for many years, but said holding in the future has a
precarious outlook. A sign is in the heavens. Our
bankrupt farmers, Knights of Labor, trades unions,
Greenbackers, Prohibitionists, labor organizations,
and (let me whisper it softly), woman suffragists
4.

50 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
are meeting in council. Their vision beholds the
sign which, translated, reads, “Combine your forces,
and be delivered from bondage.”
In view of that wonderful “robustness '' of the
nation, which is revealed at a glance and in every
quarter, it need not be a subject of wonder that
women are not clothed with the ballot. To enfran-
chise them might militate against the interest of this
“robustness,” and it is because of this “robustness,”
the professor tells us, that woman suffrage is not
looked upon with as much favor in this country as in
England. To quote his words again, “ More is due
to the superior robustness of Republicans who have
had a long tenure of political power.” It would
probably break the heart of the professor to permit
woman’s sentimental ballot to undermine the rock of
whisky, bribery, legislative robbery and prostitution
on which the “robustness' of the nation is founded.
It was upon this sentimental basis that ejected the
women directors from the Ohio Board of Directors of
work-houses. A bill granting this right to women
had been passed by the legislature. One of two male
directors, under charge of misappropriating funds,
raised the question of the constitutionality of the bill.
While the prosecuting attorney and three judges con-
nected with the case stated that it was a proper place
for women, and their duty called them there, yet,
they were legally unfitted, because they were not
electors.
To misappropriate funds is a slight offense, but a
woman elector might lead to fighting at the polls and

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 5.I
destroy the present and future happiness of her lib-
erty loving “ complement.”
It was this same sentimental basis that proved
those women on the New York School Board so un-
fitted for the place, and for which they were so bit-
terly complained of. Instead of controlling, as man
had done for years, they attempted to cleanse the
surroundings, and to purify the atmosphere in which
their little ones were obliged to live.
These women did not find a saloon in the school
building, but they did find “a festering mass of filth
in the basement.” The janitor complained of the
abuse of power by women in these words: “I have
always thrown rubbish in there, and no committee-
man, in the fourteen years I have been here, ever
complained of it.” These women who are coarse
enough to want to vote were really looking after the
interest of their children. It is hardly to be believed
that these same women when allowed to vote, would
not continue to look after their interest, and yet we
are told by the Smithites that the ballot performs a
marvelously sudden miracle—a sort of presto, change,
performance—transforming women into fiends at the
polls who are ready to scratch their husbands eyes
out. Cleanliness upon the inside depends largely
upon cleanliness on the outside. The air we breath
and the substance of which we partake, helps to mold
thought.
A besotted man is unclean in sentiment, as well
as body. Health is a stranger to foul air. Nature
performs no miracles. She is true unto her fixed laws.

52 - PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
There is a town in Kansas which gives testimony
to the cleanliness of woman’s administration. The
Journal of Agriculture says:–
Down in anti-boodle towns in Kansas, the radical
sawnees let the women vote, and they put in a woman
mayor; and women aldermen; and put down fees;
and made an anti-boodle government; and cut off
useless fees and abolished do-nothing salaries, and
taxes went down, and, horrible to tell, Mr. Street
Loafer, and Mr. Beer Bummer, and all the boodlers,
that lay low for the farmer boy's money, the whole
tribe of idle, lazy boodle bummers had to go! To go
to The women had no use for the beer-guzzling
boodle. It is all wrong. The women should go
down, and the taxes go up. What are the farmer
and his boys good for anyhow, but to pay the interest
and taxes, to the white-aproned boodle gentry, who
want their money? Let the women go right down
and the taxes and interest go up. It is all wrong.
Letting women vote? Nonsense.
Unaccountable as it may seem to the professor,
no voting mother neglected her children, and no
brawls were recorded as taking place at the polls.
There might have beeen one if the professor and
wife had been living in that locality.
The following is clipped from a Topeka, Kan.,
special in The Chicago Tribune, of March 16:—
The granting of municipal suffrage to women has
proved a grand success in Kansas. It is going to
play a more important part in the approaching spring
election than ever before. It is a strange fact that
the increased effort on the part of the woman suf-
fragists is marked by a corresponding apathy on the
part of male voters. Up to the present time there
-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 53
has been no agitation, no canvassing, no excitement
over the tickets.
It is claimed that the able conduct of affairs where
the fair sex has ruled, the entire absence of com-
plaint, and the cessation of all talk of corruption in
office and turmoil over contracts and appointments,
are the causes of the apathy of the male population,
in regard to municipal politics in the villages. The
example set there is having its effect in the cities, as
is seen in the case of Atchison.
It is noticeable that the women care little for
partisan politics, but select the best men put in
nomination and vote for them. In this city men
will scarcely accept a nomination unless petitioned
to do so, and before the election, the candidates of
the two parties, especially for the mayoralty, are
summoned before the executive committee of the
Equal Suffrage Association and forced to make a
plain statement of their position.
The Champion, of Atchison, Kan., records woman’s
administration in these words:–
The woman city council of Cottonwood Falls,
Kan., by a system of rigid economy, has so con-
ducted the affairs of that municipality, that there
will be no tax levy this year for city purposes. Im-
provements have been made, and the affairs of that
little burg put in most excellent shape. Here is a
practical illustration of the wisdom of the law con-
ferring the right of suffrage upon women.
A special to the Chicago 7 ribune, of April 2,
Says:—
Municipal elections were held in Kansas to-day
only in cities of the first and second class. In
Topeka the election was the quietest ever experi-
enced, the aggregate vote being about 33 per cent
of that cast last spring. The female vote was light,

54 PROF. GOLDWIN. SMITH
a fact ascribed by the president of the Equal Suffrage
Association to the unexceptionable character of every
candidate. Partisan politics finds no sympathizers
among Kansas women. The leading spirit among
the suffragists said to-night that he believed if both
parties nominated good men, the women would not
vote at all. The most active workers were the wives
of the leading men of the city and of the candidates
themselves—ladies of culture and refinement, in some
instances the young daughters of leading citizens.
At the close of the fourth election in Kansas in which
women have participated, the feeling in favor of equal
suffrage is stronger than ever before.
The only lady who ran for office was Mrs. M. P.
Garrettson, a member of the present school board,
who is re-elected by an overwhelming majority.
The Hon. W. Kelly, of Kansas, member of con-
gress, says: “The assistant attorney-general of the
State of Kansas to-day is a woman, and she has
entire control of the legal department of the State
of Kansas, because the attorney-general of the State
of Kansas, who, if present, would have that control,
is absent from the State, and has been for some time.”
The Chicago /nter-Ocean speaks well of woman's
administration in school matters in these words:–
This is no experiment in Illinois, but an acknowl-
edged success. In 1873, the law was passed making
women eligible to all school offices. At the next elec-
tion ten ladies were elected county superintendents
of public schools, and a large number of ladies have
since served as school directors.
A county superintendent who served nine years
in one of the leading counties of the State, made an
especial study of the work of women directors, and
arrived at these conclusions:–

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 55
I. Do more visiting of schools, and thus become
more intelligent concerning their workings.
2. They pay more attention to details, are quicker
to defeat unhygienic conditions and other deficiencies
about the school premises, and show more mother-
wit in remedying them.
3. They are more economical; they are not so
liable to be talked into buying needless things to
get rid of agents; they take more time to examine
anything offered, and decide on its merits. On the
other hand, they are more quick to detect and ready
to purchase what is really needed in the school-room.
4. In visiting the school they get at the real con-
dition of things more accurately than men do.
Another thing noted with confessed surprise was
their ability to grasp and handle the financial part of
the board’s work. A number of instances were cited
in which the women on the board straightened out
many snarls. One of these was on the board of a
small city, where the books and accounts were in
such inexplicable confusion that the board actually
talked of burning them and beginning anew. At this
juncture the wife of a leading merchant was elected
director, and soon was made clerk of the board. She
took the books and accounts in hand, spent weeks
of hard work upon them, but succeeded in bringing
order out of chaos, and until her removal from the
place several years subsequently, kept the books in
excellent shape.
John Burns, well known in the cause of human
advancement as an advocate in the interest of labor,
Says: —
The male opponents of woman suffrage are stupid.
They say that women are not qualified intellectually
for positions that govern social interests. This comes
badly from men who consult their wives and even
their daughters on the smallest things, because men

56 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
know that women are shrewd and have finer percep-
tions than men. Women display great discrimina-
tion, and possess the greatest share of that faculty
called common sense.
It is merely a question of time when women
shall enter parliament. Education will remove the
popular supposition that if women were in parlia-
ment they would waste the time of the house in
frivolous talk. Experience shows that in England,
at least, the contrary is the case. Women as poor-
law guardians, members of county councils and
school boards, are most assiduous in their work,
and free from verbosity and frivolity. The fact is
that public men are far more addicted to these vices
and meannesses, popularly attributed to women, and
are without their virtues. These are Cardinal Man-
ning's words, and if his eminence were not cardinal
he would be prime minister of England. “Of all
English speaking women, I look upon Mrs. Annie
Besant as the ablest by far.”
We have the words of the historian, Freeman, as
follows:–
When statesmen who pride themselves on a
certain air of dignified infallibility make light of a
question or a movement, when they scorn it, when
they snub it, when they call it “sentimental,” when
they rule it to be “beyond the range of practical poli-
tics,” we know, almost as certainly as we know the
next eclipse of the moon, that the question will be
the most practical of all questions before long.
By way of variety in municipal affairs, where male
muscle and “robustness” have long stood sentinel
over the interests of the people, I would invite your
attention to an extract from the Twentieth Century, of
April Io:—

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 57
The building trades section of the Central Labor
Union has asked the Fassett committee to investi-
gate the police department of this city. The docu-
ment presented to the committee says that nearly all
the departments are as “rotten" as the sheriff's office
was, and the police department is “a menace and
disgrace to the city.” It says that the police force is
composed of 3,000 men, whose maintenance costs the
people about $4,000, Ooo a year; that policemen as
a rule, are dishonest, brutal, and criminal, 3,900
charges having been preferred against them in a
single year, four being in Sing Sing for murder and
a great many for robbery; that they have reduced the
art of blackmailing to a science, and maintain a
system of terrorism over certain classes of the com-
munity; that they regularly levy tribute on every im-
moral den in the city, street walkers paying toll to
them, saloon keepers and gamblers paying for pro-
ºtection. Policemen are ostensibly for the protection
of life and property, to keep the peace, to prevent
crime, and punish criminals. They are really, how-
ever, a terror to nobody but innocent citizens and
criminals who will not, or are too poor to, pay them
for protection. The police force make many forms
of crime safe and easy that would disappear if there
were no policemen.
If the professor still insists that womanly senti-
ment is not sufficiently robust for political manage-
ment, we take pride in presenting the case of one
Margaret Lane, of Gainesville, Tex., who has proven
herself amply qualified on the plan of muscle, having
(as stated in that wonderfully bright and instructive
paper, the Woman's Tribune of Washington) “re-
sented the fine imposed upon her husband by knock-
ing flat the policeman, the city attorney and the
mayor.”
58 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
This display of muscle will excite the admiration
of that great exponent of said commodity which he
considers so necessary in good government, unless
perchance the enchantment vanishes because of
sex. It is to be hoped the exhilaration may not
prove too great a pleasure and serious results follow,
because of his enlarged heart.


CHAPTER IV.
THE CITIZEN “ SATISFIED OF HIS RIGHT *—THE SAFE-
GUARD AND POPULAR Vote—THE COURT A SLAVE
–OFFICEs will NOT GO AROUND–PRESIDENT HAR-
RISON’s Over PRODUCTION OF PROMISEs–SYMPATHIz-
ERS IN CONGREss—FRILLS AND FLOUNCEs, Bon NETs
AND BUSTLES, MIGHT BESIEGE WASHINGTON.—IN-
IQUITY OF A NEW DEPARTURE –WOMAN’s TRUE
- EMPIRE–A. HAPPY DISCOVERy.
ROF. SMITH says: “ The American citizen,
P satisfied of his right, is not infected with that
feeble facility of abdication. . . . A great
safeguard is furnished by . . . the popular vote.
The people . . . are not afraid of making an
enemy in advance of any possible vote of the future.”
It is of no consequence whether woman is “satis-
fied of his right,” nor whether she might care to have
him abdicate The whole gist of the argument turns
upon man's perfect satisfaction with himself. Prof.
Smith should be placed among the gods, for his
delicate discernment of right and ability to admin-
ister justice brought about all because of his sex
(59)

6o PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
more especially, than because of his noble person-
ality. “Satisfied of his right.” So the James boys
were satisfied of their rights, and were “not infected
with that feeble facility of abdication.”
Sometimes, however, brigands are forced to ab-
dicate, and in the future it is quite as likely to be
that respectable class of brigands who plunder indi-
viduals of their ballots, as of that class confined to
that more innocent and insignificant plunder of pelſ
alone.
“The great safeguard funished by . . . the
popular vote” referred to, is a “guard ” that smothers
the expressed opinion by ballot of one-half the popu-
lation of the nation, and it is “popular" because it
is pleasing to those men who are “satisfied of their
rights” and do not care to abdicate. Words could
never be made to lie more villainously than the
phrase, “safeguard furnished by . . . the popu-
lar vote,” applied to the present political situation.
That the professor and his kind “are not afraid
of making an enemy in advance of any possible vote
of the future,” shows their perfect assurance in the
continuance of ballot monopoly. They have no fear
of a woman constituency to appease in the years to
COIn le.
If the professor should ever become so fortunate
as to hold an elective office secured to him by woman's
ballot (which occurrence is decidedly dubious), he
will be among the first to crawl at the feet of said
constituency. He who can advocate liberty for him-
self, and not for another, lacks the courage of man-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 6I
hood, and is capable of crawling. Injustice and
cowardice go hand in hand.
If the professor is upon the earth when woman
suffrage becomes a fact, we shall have his great moral
support, and, no doubt, if votes are desired, she will
be appreciated beyond the power of words to express.
The professor informs us that “nobody could
imagine that the nation in passing the fourteenth
amendment meant to introduce woman suffrage, and
a court must be the slave of verbal technicalities,
indeed, if it can hold that, by the mere use of an
unguarded phrase, a community has entrapped itself
into a transfer of half the sovereign power.”
Does the professor mean to tell us that woman's
political superiors are unguarded in their language
when making laws? This is what might be expected
from women legislators, but not from men, who are
so well qualified for existence, and “whose sphere
is the world.” Such a revelation from Prof. Smith
comes like a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky. We
can forgive them for this mistake, however. We feel
it was a blunder not intended, and we take no offense
at the “unguarded '' construction. It is the law that
is guarded, about which we feel so unforgiving.
It would be a supremely ridiculous thought to
suppose it was intended to confer suffrage upon
woman by this amendment, but since Christian men
who are so well qualified for life avail themselves of
like technicalities, it seems a little hard that woman
is not permitted to reap of the same harvest. Still
it might be cruel to insinuate that the professor's
course of justice is not from on high. I presume it
--

62 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
would be better to fasten the fetters upon woman
still stronger, and throughout coming time, than that
a “community” should “entrap itself into a transfer
of half the sovereign power,” when so completely
“satisfied of its rights.” I am sure that woman
feels too tender toward this “satisfied community” to
“entrap' it. Yet we have in an unguarded moment
been vulgar and heartless enough to wish we were not
entrapped, and that this “satisfied community” would
feel satisfied sometime, though it be in the dim future,
to open the door of our entrapment that we might
breathe the air of freedom.
But to think of the court becoming “ the slave of
verbal technicalities.” Now, this is too bad. I’m so
sorry for the court. Why, it is enough to melt the
heart of a stone to think of the court in such a
dilemma. This should never exist in this land of
freedom. What matters it though woman's shoul-
ders have to bear the burden, though it engulf half
the “sovereign power of the nation?” The court is
at stake, and who is so vicious as to ask sacrifices from
a “community satisfied of its rights,” and ‘’ not in-
fected with that feeble facility of abdication.”
It would undoubtedly be a fatal blunder to invest
with the power of the ballot one-half our population.
Privileges might be expected and solicited, and there
are already more applicants than can be appeased.
When we read the fears of the professor in his
own words, we feel like resigning all future hope of
emancipation. He says. “Power to elect, implies
power of being elected.” Yes, professor, herein lies
the mischief. A woman with the legal qualification

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 63
of the ballot might be standing in your shoes some
day and outstrip you in the election to office, for
“ power to elect, implies power of being elected.”
This would make bad work. There are not enough
offices now, with only half the population voting, to
meet the demand.
For this lack, Harrison was abused, but he did
the best he could. He made all sorts of promises.
He was extremely generous in this direction. He
even lent an ear to Chairman Quay, who helped him-
self, it is claimed, out of the Pennsylvania State
funds to the tune of over half a million, that he might
be elected president and redeem his promises.
He fortified himself by a promise to that Sunday-
school man, Wanamaker, and while this promise
brought him $100,000 toward his election to use in
“blocks of five,” or any other way as Lieut. Dudley
might in his wisdom plan; yet, propped up as he was
with money upon the one hand and religion upon the
other, it was impossible to fulfill his contracts.
The special committee appointed by the National
Reform League to inquire into the matter of office-
holding, report that replies from members of congress
state, that “fully one-third of their time is consumed
in attending to the distribution of public offices.”
Is it any wonder that we get so little legislation,
and that what we do get is of bad odor? You see our
legislators are pressed for time. They were trying to
redeem the word of their administration, but it was
impossible. Out of the number of bills presented
during the last congress, more than II, Ooo were
never reported by their committees.

64 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
And now Governor Hovey, of Indiana, who was
commissioned during the war to recruit Io, Ooo men,
is bitterly crucifying the president for his broken
promises to the Union soldiers. The Mationa/ ZY-iā-
une, of Washington, a soldier's paper, complains of
the present administration in these words:–
Many more than half of you owe your seats
directly to the votes of veterans, which votes you re-
ceived because of your distinct and definite pledges
to support the legislation they favored. What explai
nation can be given of this singular neglect to fulfill
your pledges given so freely before election? What
possible reason exists for this unaccountable delay in
doing the thing which you were elected to do, and
which, in your speeches and other acts before the
election, you assumed to be your paramount duty?
Before the election you held that justice to the veter-
ans was the first consideration—that it must take
precedence over everything else. Why has every-
thing else been allowed to take precedence over it?
Why have you not at least given some earnest of
passing at least one of the measures which the vet-
erans have demanded as their rights?
In consideration of the fact that there are fifty
union veterans of good military records, and some
with splendid ones, in the poor-house of Cook county,
Ill., at the present time, and 20, Ooo others in the
various poor-houses of the country, together with the
many thousands outside of poor-houses in distress,
we can forgive those who would complain if they are
a little unreasonable, but they should remember there
is a limit to human endeavor, and the Harrison prom-
ises got the start of the administration.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 65
It is a little surprising that such an instance should
have occurred under the “long tenure of Republican
robustness,” but, it is one of those rare occurrences
which is liable to happen under the most robust gov-
ernments.
Now think of the calamity if women had been
added to the list of voters, and Harrison had been
obliged to have placated them also with promise of
office. The trouble in which President Harrison
found himself was caused by a pitiable lack of offices.
No doubt he would have made many more places if
he could; but it was easier to make promises. Thus
an excess of promises found themselves on the market,
and, of course, like an excess or over-production of
all things else, they had to meet the ordeal of depre-
ciation. Because of this depreciation, Mr. Harrison
had to meet the fate of being burned in effigy, and that
at the hands of his heretofore devoted followers in
the sacred precincts of his home. Now some might
argue that President Harrison should have counted
noses before so lavishly promising, or that his de-
voted followers were following for the office appar-
ently in sight; but this would be cruelly unkind, for
it is barely possible that Mr. Harrison might not
have been elected in said case, and what would the
great common people have done without him. Such
reasoners loose sight, also, of the great responsibility
assumed, and the deep and sleepless interest taken in
the people by the officers whose willing servants
they are.
5

66 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
One of the greatest objections to clothing woman
with the ballot is that offices would not increase with
the increase of the ballot, and “power to elect, im-
plies power of being elected ” Now as a good citizen
should always desire to serve his fellowmen, and can
only do so when in office, and as woman suffrage
would not increase presidents and senators, the cab-
inet nor the list of custom-house and postal-depart-
ment offices, the objection should lie against her
enfranchisement, at least until offices shall increase.
Prof. Smith says: “Exclusion from the legisla-
ture and from political office would be a grievance
not less exasperating than the present exclusion from
the polls.” In this extract there is a glimmer of hope.
Does the professor mean to convey the idea that if
women would only be satisfied with the ballot and
not struggle for office, he might look with more
complacency upon the scheme of suffrage? Perhaps
there is a silver lining after all to the dark side of
the professor's logic. Well, then, my dear professor,
we are willing to assure you, if you will give us the
ballot that we will not get exasperated as you fear,
when excluded from office, that our husbands and
children shall not suffer from our violence, but will
follow the praiseworthy example of your sex, and
vote for Żure princip/e, without a single struggle for
position. --
For the consolation of the professor, I take pleasure
in quoting from one Mr. Oates, of Alabama, of the
house of representatives, who sympathizes with him
in the fear that, if women are allowed to vote they
may creep into office, thereby diminishing the num-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 67
ber of offices for the heroes who have had such a
“long tenure of robustness,” and who are so well
“satisfied of their rights.” In a speech on March
26, upon the admission of Wyoming as a State, the
constitution of which contained a woman suffrage
provision, Mr. Oates as did all of the members op-
posing the demand for Statehood, took their various
texts from the noted document of Prof. Smith’s
“Woman’s Place in the State,” which was lavishly
thrown about to convert those weak-minded men
who might favor its admission.
If, then, we leave our professor for a moment
to discuss the attitude assumed, we will not be seri-
ously digressing from our text, since the arguments
made by the opponents of the house were based upon
his famous article. Mr. Oates says:–
Should we ever reach universal suffrage, this gov-
ernment will become practically a pure democracy,
and then the days of its existence are numbered.
Under this clause of the Wyoming constitution,
making women eligible to all offices in this pro-
posed State, how long may it be before a woman
may be sent here to sit in this body or in the senate?
And then you would have the State of Wyoming
performing the unparalleled act of sending here a
representative on this floor who is not a gentleman.
[Laughter.] This not only secures to women the
right to vote and hold office, but the right to sit on
juries, and unless these rights are equally enjoyed,
the proceeding, whatever it may be, will be uncon-
stitutional.
Mr. Oates certainly could not have intended to
imply that he would have none but “gentlemen"

68 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
upon the floor of congress. He could not have
realized, I’m sure, how such a regulation would de-
populate its legislative halls.
The free knock-downs in the senate, and innocent
indulgencies in the house, to say nothing of needful
legislation, would cease at that rate, and the sudden
transformation might disturb the earth in its daily
revolutions.
No doubt he spoke under excitement. We have
a second sympathizer in the house, the Hon. Mr.
Barnes, of Georgia, who expressed horror at the
thought of women being elected to office in these
words: “To say that women . . . may be elected
as representatives in congress or as United States
senators, . . . I say that a constitution and such
a form of government was never contemplated.”
It is evident this hold upon congress will not be
surrendered easily. The deep interest in the welfare
of the people in general, and women in particular, is
too anxious a charge. They can sing with the poet,
“A charge to keep I have.” The second line of the
stanza, however, would admit of the following trans-
lation, “A man to glorify.” Inasmuch as man is
God’s agent in the disposition of woman, the sub-
stitution of man in the place of God is quite appro-
priate.
That Prof. Smith may feel fortified as well as com-
forted in his exalted fear, I would quote the words
of Hon. J. E. Washington, of Tennessee, who says:
“If Wyoming should be admitted with Art. 6, Sec. I
and 2, of this proposed constitution in force, it is not
impossible, or improbable, that in the future some

AND His SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 69
woman will sit in the chair now occupied by the
delegate; she will come with frills and flounces, with
bonnet and bustle.”
Now, it would be dreadful enough for women to
be elected to office, but just think of her coming with
frills and flounces, with bustle and bonnet. Why this
would be almost as funny and contemptible as when
men but a few years since entered public life with
powder and wigs, and corsets and knee breeches.
Bustles and bonnets upon the floor of the house as
representatives would be a disgraceful and heartrend-
ing sight; better let them remain in the gallery, where
they are winked at by handsome but innocent men
from below. Bonnets and bustles in their “proper
sphere * in the gallery, are indeed worthy institutions.
I would quiet Mr. Washington's anxiety by saying
that even if women were elected to the house, she
would not go there probably robed in bustles, for
they have gone out of date and their future reign in
all reason will never dawn in his lifetime. Should
such a reign return sooner than is expected, our
women with ballots in their hands might be good
enough to allow him to remain at home where bustles
could not afflict him. There certainly could be no
danger of affliction to Mr Washington at the sight
of bustles in his quiet home, upon the street, in the
theatre or at church, and he might be left to seek
refuge with bustles in their “proper sphere.”
In regard to bonnets, we cannot promise so much.
I'm afraid women would feel obliged to wear them to
congress, inasmuch as Mr. Washington might object
to their wearing men's hats, and it would be a little

70 PROF. GoLDw1N sMITH
uncomfortable as well as unbecoming to be seen
marching to the national capitol bareheaded. But,
when it comes to bustles, frills, and flounces, they
could be dispensed with, without loss of health. You
see there is nothing particularly artistic about them,
and they would not be considered as coming under
the head of necessaries of life. But, however useless
or ridiculous they may be, they do possess the ex-
cellent qualification of being harmless as well. They
could not make bad laws nor insult the speaker; they
could not obstruct legislation however good, nor sell
a vote to corporate greed. They could not give away
the people's land to railroad kings, syndicates and
foreigners, nor bond their liberties to a privileged
clique. They could not get drunk until they tum-
bled down in their seats and broke up the session in
chaotic disorder, according to the graphic description
of Senator Frye on the floor of congress in 1886.
Upon the other hand, while these frills, flounces, and
bustles would be powerless for harm, we admit they
would be equally powerless for good, but it is
hardly a question, inanimate and powerless as they
are, whether they might not better occupy those seats
in the house rather than should their present occu-
pants. It is hardly a question whether no law at all
—whether the doors of the capitol building might
not better be closed forever, than open to men who
legislate slavery upon their fellows, planting discon-
tent and rebellion in their hearts, and filling the hills,
valleys, and plains of our beautiful land with misery
and crime. I am quite inclined to think that a just
and disinterested party, one who can ignore the pos-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 7I
sible fact of being elected to remain at home by
woman's vote, would give the preference to frills
and flounces, bustles and bonnets, in considering
the best interest of all concerned.
Great objection was made in this discussion, be-
cause the woman suffrage provision was a new de-
parture. One honorable said: “I believe, sir, that
it had its origin with certain strong-minded women
who overcame a lot of weak-minded men.” There is
nothing surer than that unfair measures should not
be taken in obtaining man’s consent to woman suf-
frage, such as overcoming them by means of hypno-
tism, psychology and the like. Reason and justice
alone should be applied. If there is an occasional
one who cannot be reached by these weapons, they
should be left to their God and growth. The delicate
and susceptible mind of man should be protected.
While we should pity and protect these men so
easily overcome, the fact must stand out in bold re-
lief that they are not sufficiently strong-minded to
assist in legislation, and should be disfranchised and
take their place along with idiots, criminals, women
and children, unless there exists some saving property
in the sex of a weak-minded man, which quite pos-
sibly exists.
We quote the following as a severe case of weak-
minded man. I. R. Detwilder, Topeka, Kan., as
reported in the New York Voice, says:—
In reply to the inquiry of your correspondent, I
will state that during the call of the house, when the
submission resolution was pending, a Democrat
member was induced to change his vote from the

72 PROF GOLDWIN SMITH
negative to affirmative by the influence of his wife.
This action turned the tide from defeat to victory,
and the redemption of Kansas from the curse of rum
may be properly credited to the fair queen of the
home. The affirmative vote, as finally made up and
recorded on the house journal, is as follows: Repub-
licans, 66; Greenbackers, 16; Democrats, 6; total,
88; required two-thirds, 86.
Now, we submit that a man who does not know
his own business better than this legislator, should
exchange positions with his wife. In other words, a
legislator who lacks sufficient force of character to
either bulldoze or resist the influence of his wife, be:
longs to the feeble-minded.
Mr. Oates (I mean the Hon. Mr. Oates, since the
logic and especially the moral side of it deserves the
title, and should be carefully appended to all of the
above mentioned names), said: “But this is a new
departure. No new State, so far as I have been
able to learn, has ever come into this Union with such
a provision in its constitution, insuring the right to
vote and hold office to its female population above the
age of twenty-one years, the same as the males.”
Here we catch unlooked for light on the subject of
woman suffrage. If the citizens of Wyoming had
stopped to think, they never would have been guilty
of such an inconsistency as a new departure, I'm
sure. What an oversight; a new departure! This is
sufficiently idiotic to warrant the disfranchisement of
the male voters who favored the scheme, notwith-
standing all the natural fitness which inheres in the
SeX.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 73
One might be led to suppose that our colonies
giving way to States, was a new departure; that rail-
roads, telegraphs, telephones, and inventions, all of
them, were a new departure from the good old way.
Not so. There is in reality no new departure which
should ever be engaged in. We might be led to sup-
pose that the first man was a new departure, and be-
cause of his grand success, be perfectly resigned to
risk our salvation on new ventures. But, this is
faulty reasoning. Let us be warned in time. We
should read again the lesson, and remember that a
new departure was born with the first woman. God
was not satisfied with his complete creation, man,
and sought to experiment in a new line and made a
woman. He should have let the perfection alone, as
all will admit. We all know the result.
Adam, perfect as he was, must have been a little
weak-minded, however, for Eve overcame him, just
as a few strong-minded women overcame a few weak-
minded men in Wyoming. Durance vile should be
pleaded against these women. Man's happiness on
earth, and hope of heaven, has been placed in jeop-
ardy by this new departure.
Woman’s demand for the ballot is another new
departure which will prove as disastrous as her crea-
tion. As members of the house declared, no one
could forecast the direful “ consequences” of “such
liberty.” There is nothing like being able to deter-
mine what will transpire in the future. One beauty
of man's liberty is, that we are able to prognosticate
future events. We can know about those “ conse-
quences” which will come to men with “such liberty.”

74 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Senator Thurman told us what to expect in the
future, while a member of the United States senate,
when he said way back in the seventies: “I have
now been here nine years, and if any measure has
been passed in the interest of labor and the producer,
I have been too obtuse to discover it.”
You see, it is not so much in the fact that labor
has not been benefited and will not be in the future.
The point lies in the satisfaction of being able to fore-
cast future measures—the disposition of men's or
women’s “liberty.”
The Hon. Mr. Barnes, of Georgia, said: “I be-
lieve that there have been incorporated into the consti-
tution of Wyoming, features relating to the subject of
female suffrage and the right of females to hold office
under the government which, under my judgment,
are antagonistic to republican institutions, and were
never contemplated by the fathers in the formation
of this government.”
If the fathers in the formation of this government
were only now alive to decide on this question of
woman suffrage, its opponents would know just what
to do.
Oh, for a few fathers! If we could only endow a
few from age to age, that members might be accom-
modated during every session of congress. How
members of that den long for an ancient patriot's
advice. This longing is not based upon our fathers'
wisdom and justice so much, for even fathers are sup-
posed sometimes to live and learn, and the thought
of one age not always the exact thought of another;
but our inspired legislators could gather some new

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 75
light on the question of a new departure and the bet-
ter satisfy its evil advocates. Certain it is that what-
ever our fathers did or did not assent to, either through
ignorance or enlightenment, should be studiously imi-
tated by us.
In the same breath in which the Hon. Mr. Mansur
speaks “ of the priceless rights of citizenship,” refer-
ring to the educational qualification in the constitu-
tion, which “would be objectionable and unjust to
those of foreign birth '' wishing to vote, the Hon.
Mr. Springer of Illinois, said:—
The first amendment we propose, provides for the
election of a convention to be composed of delegates
elected in the usual way, just as was done in the
cases of the two Dakotas and of Montana and Wash-
ington, and the submission of the constitution to the
people. Then, if in this way, through the action of
the male voters, they choose to have female suffrage
it will be their business and not ours. But I deny
your right to force it upon them, just as you threaten
to do by the passage of this bill.
There is no State in the Union whose constitution
contains such a provision as this. No gentleman
upon either side can predict the consequences which
will come to this country if this principle is admitted.
In other words, while a new departure is out of
order, still if men voting alone shall decide that
women may vote, they would accept the situation.
It is not enough that a male legislature conferred
the right of suffrage. A convention is called for, as
remarked by one member, that “all” may vote, and
yet all women are to be excluded and the final adjust-
ment arrived at by a majority of men, no matter how-

76 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
ever small. One can readily comprehend the pro
digious estimation in which man holds himself. Man
embraces “all.” Anything further is surplusage.
To this religion we have the mighty and corrob-
orate testimony of Prof. Goldwin Smith, and he
says, “The sphere of man is the world.” As we
know of no sphere other than that of the world, I
conclude that woman is merely surf/usage, and could
be done away with, without impairing the essence of
existence, man.
With the advice for such a convention, it is re-
freshing to read the Hon. Mr. Mansur's pitiful words,
lest the voters of “foreign birth” shall be deprived of
the “priceless rights of citizenship º' by an “educa-
tional qualification.” It would indeed be sad, if
these men of “foreign birth" should be obliged to
know how to read and write, before voting, and
representing intelligent and educated native born
American women.
Heretofore women have been told that when their
sex wanted the ballot, and manifested the desire, they
would be willing to grant it, and now they propose
to settle the demand of the entire women of the Ter-
ritory by submitting it to men alone, and that in a
land which has tried the experiment for twenty years.
If this plan for an election by male voters succeeds,
all that will be necessary will be to call Dudley, mem-
ber of the Republican national committee, noted for
his “robustness” in politics, arm and equip him and
send him into Wyoming, and his lightning process of
conversion will work the relief necessary, especially
as there would be no women to contend with who are

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 77
more difficult to persuade of the error of their ways.
Mr. Springer is very obliging, in not wishing to force
the ballot upon women, but in his sympathetic desire
that woman shall not be subject to force, I hope he will
not make the terrible mistake of withholding the ballot
from her. You see, it is not a ballot with force she
is asking for, but a ballot with liberty, the same lib-
erty and ballot that man enjoys without force. She
would prefer to regulate all force to be applied just
as man does. Now, as Mr. Springer has shown a
disposition not to wish to compel women to vote, but
would favor her exercising her own free will in the
matter, we expect to hear a different tune from the
gentleman, when he is better informed as to her will.
It would not be surprising if some men should at:
tempt to force the ballot upon her when she comes
into the possession of it.
Long years of control will be hard to surrender.
Some other feature of the same dominating spirit will
likely have to take the place of the absolute control
of the ballot for a time, until the wound of surrender
is healed.
Let us remember that bad habits are hard to cure
suddenly, and withal dangerous, and that small doses
of the same character of habits may have to be re-
sorted to as an antidote. As an illustration of such
needful resort, I would refer you to the small dose,
or tapering-off process, so necessary in effecting a
cure from those harmless diseases of whisky and
tobacco, which seems to have a special affinity for
our voting population. I said harmless diseases.
Now, of course, there are a few cranks who argue

78 PROF. GOLD WIN SMITH
that they are dangerous, destroying the nerves and
brain, and interferring with the functions of the body,
really unmanning men, though the disease be slight.
But this decision is both stupid and cranky. It takes
more than whisky and tobacco to upset a man's ability
to vote or render him unclean. It might be other-
wise, but for his especial fitness. Upon the contrary,
there is something rather manly about these diseases,
quite the opposite from weak and feminine.
Hon. Mr. Dockery, of Missouri, said : “Mr.
Speaker, no theory of the doctrinaire, no demand
for expedience, can subvert the great law of nature.
Woman is not ‘ the lesser man.’ Woman is man’s
companion and helpmeet, but her true empire is not
his empire. Her sphere is in the home and in the
heart. Her physical and moral constitution, as well
as the authority and the Scriptures, furnish evidence
why she should not be dragged into the arena of
political strife.”
If nothing “can subvert the great law of nature,”
what is all this anxiety about? If this cannot be done,
then woman will remain right where she belongs, and
man will not need to trouble himself about her “true
empire.”
Would Mr. Dockery be good enough to tell us
where he obtained his information as to her “true
empire,” and who gave him the right to compel her
to occupy it? We hope it will be better authority
than his brother statesman, or the Bible, for neither
one would be acceptable evidence that woman should
be despoiled of her rights.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 79
You see, man has stood as a volunteer interpreter
between the Almighty and women for many centuries.
He enlisted for life and was willing to extend his serve
ices throughout coming time, represented after death
by his august sex, but now we would excuse him. A
rest will be beneficial to all concerned Man needs
a change of occupation to develop all there is in him,
besides it is said that soldier life is rather demoraliz-
ing, followed too long. We would hear from God
alone upon this matter. -
We do not wish to hear him speak through man,
when he lays down the law to woman. We conclude
if God can speak through man, he can speak also
through woman, and we need not take it second-hand.
So we would retire this interpreter from the field on
furlough, or leave of absence, that shall endure as
long as their sex exists.
From this time forth, hearsay evidence will not
be allowed as sufficient or competent. Unless we
can hear direct from the supreme bench, we shall
conclude that woman's testimony as to her “true
empire’ is as good as man's, and that all man can
attend to, if he attends to it well, is his own “true
empire.” In the absence of such information, we
are inclined to decide that the immutable laws of
nature are not in need of his assistance nor advice in
their operation; that the same law that planted the love
of home in the heart of woman will continue its sway;
that the same law that planted maternal affection in
her breast will compel her to care for her children in
tenderness, and that when the mandates of natural

8O PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
law are subverted, man will be as likely to be found
roaming outside of his “true empire’ as will woman.
The only trouble has been that man, not content
with ruling in his own “empire,” has usurped control
of woman's as well, and the sickening failure of such
an attempt, demonstrates beyond doubt, that even
man cannot subvert the great law of nature, but that
it sweeps right on in cold disdain visiting the severest
penalties.
Mr. Dockery would not have woman ‘‘ dragged
into the arena of political strife.” Humane indeed!
Woman will undoubtedly appreciate his kindness of
heart, which really amounts to a tenderness quite
uncommon. You see, Mr. Dockery, it will not be
necessary to drag her. She is not asking to be
“dragged into the political arena.” It is the ballot,
together with civility, she desires. Women would
prefer to walk or ride into the “arena,” just as man
prefers to do. -
If you did not understand the soul of women in
general better than in this one particular line, you
could not so well represent her best interests in
making laws for her to obey. The idea of dragging
women to the polls, was born within the sanctified
territory of man’s “empire,” not woman's, and illus-
trates man’s ability as God’s vicegerent to legislate
and represent woman.
The Hon. Mr. Washington, said: “We hold,
Mr. Speaker, that the home, and not the forum, is
the place God intended woman to fill. With her
gentle voice and her tender hand, she smooths the
troubled brow. Her refining influence, her watchful

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 8I
care at the fireside, molds the mind and forms the
character of her sons and of her daughters.”
So long as the “forum ” does not rob Mr. Wash-
ington of his desire for “her gentle voice and her
tender hand,” I will guarantee that it will not rob
woman of her desire to bestow those same sweet
and loving attentions.
The same institutions which tear down woman’s
shrine of tenderness and love, will also lay waste the
house of desire in man for “her gentle voice and her
tender hand.” Nature produces no miracles. It will
take more than the “forum ” to destroy the essence
of the soul. If this can be done, it can only be
brought about by such visitations of want, poverty,
and distress, as leads to crime and perdition. An
unjust and one-sided domination has already brought
forth these conditions.
The footprints of Prof. Goldwin Smith are seen
throughout the entire discussion, and Mr. McAdoo
planted his two feet into them quite accurately. He
continues in almost his identical language in these
words: “Woman does not belong to a class or a
clique; she represents a sex with elemental and
mental characteristics entirely different from those
of men.” -
The inference is that a class or clique might have
a grievance if treated as women are treated, but be-
ing a sex, the discrimination is legitimate. How
much better for women to have been born a class or a
clique. No doubt the degradation of our sex is such
as to warrant any measure of discrimination; never-
6

82 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
theless, we have struck for liberty on the earth, since
strikes are in fashion, for we know when we leave it,
we will have to meet our just fate. Of course we do
not expect to escape God’s curse, but object to the
additional curse of man, and if we can steal a march
on this favored sex, whom God has endowed with all
the good things, we have resolved to do it.
Since penning the above, it is beginning to dawn
upon me that man represents a sex as well as woman,
and while woman “represents a sex with elemental
and mental characteristics entirely different from
those of man,” so man “represents a sex with ele-
mental and mental characteristics entirely different
from those of woman.”
This involves a grave question. Who knows but
that this difference lies in woman’s favor? Hereto-
fore we have been wont to argue that rights belonged
to man, because woman was different from man; but,
alas! we discover that man is also different from
woman. Happy discovery.
Now, this very basis of difference would seem to
be as plausible an argument in her behalf as his.
Who can say but that herein lies the secret to rights
and privileges above man. Who knows but that God
designed this difference—should clothe woman with
the ballot and exclude man? It is possible the secret
lies in the sex, as we are informed, but, oh, dear,
what a revelation if we should ever live to learn that
it was man who had been doomed instead of woman.
We would be grateful for a little more light on
this point. Should such a fact ever dawn, I hope
woman may not be blamed for God’s plans. Man

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 83
should accept the inevitable with grace. Neither
should woman blame man for innocently taking con-
trol, when under the impression God designed that
he should. No doubt it was a disagreeable duty to
perform and would never have been undertaken had
man possessed a less obedient spirit toward his maker.
Mr. McAdoo, of New Jersey, said: “Yesterday
I learned that several of the graduates of our
highest female colleges, admirable and talented
young women, have taken their culture and their
learning down into the very slums of New York, are
spending their lives among the poor there, helping
them—not talking woman suffrage or politics to them,
but preaching the gospel of baths, clean morals, and
good food, and in that way doing more for those poor
people than woman suffrage can ever do. [Applause.]
God bless woman in a mission like that ’’
To preach the gospel of good things to those in
the “slums” when unable in any industrial form to
lead them out, is but little better than an aggravation.
Our civilization, which Mr. McAdoo helps to
make, keeps classes in the “slums,” but it will for-
give the missionary for converting its victims to
“baths, clean morals, and good food,” with none in
sight, and can afford to bless them in words if they
do not aspire to the power which may bring it about
and disturb the ability of men to determine the re-
sult of their “liberty” in the future.
This philanthropic representative of women, chil-
dren, and idiots, continues in these words: “It is
proposed that we shall no longer consider woman as
fair, and pure, and gentle, but shall consider her as

84 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
robust and manly, and at times, in political contests,
probably vulgar.”
No, Hon. Mr. McAdoo, you are mistaken It is
not proposed that you “shall no longer consider
woman as fair, and pure, and gentle,” except by
yourself and friends, who must shoulder the responsi-
bility. We may feel like dying without hope of im-
mortality to know that such embodiment of intellect,
morality and pure conception as your honors should
so propose, but we will commend our bruised hearts
to God, and live on in the hope of educating our neigh-
bors’ sons to look upon us as tolerably “fair, and pure,
and gentle,” and not altogether “manly and vulgar.”
We would say to you honorable gentlemen, that
you will think of women just what you are capable of
thinking. If it is “vulgar,” or of a low character, it
will but reflect your minds and morals. If you will
remember this principle, it may screen your unwhole-
some reflection in the future.
The question is not in what light a man or men
may consider woman, if she pursues a certain course,
but, is that course right, and is Mr. McAdoo, or the
race of McAdoodles, mentally or morally qualified to
consider the question at all?

CHAPTER V.
INTEGRITY AND HIGH SENSE of Honor LAckING IN
WOMAN–IDIOT Voting IN INDIANA INHERENT
RIGHTS z's. PoliticAL PRIVILEGEs—Would PRO-
TECT DOWER—WoMAN Could NoT BE HELD RE.
SPONSIBLE – REMOVAL OF WOMEN FROM OFFICE
How THE PRESIDENT TREATED A CoMMITTEE of
WOMEN – MRs. SURATT AND JEFFERSON DAVIs
—MRs. GARFIELD's $5, ooo.
E would not fail to mention one very serious
objection presented upon this important ques-
tion by the Hon. Mr. Oates, who says:–
An inborn love of liberty, integrity, superior cour-
age, steadiness and fixedness of purpose, and a high
sense of honor are the characteristics which must
exist in those, or at least a majority of those, members
of the community, States or nation in which the gov-
erning power should be vested, in order to secure
wise, and beneficent republican government. These
qualities may be heightened, sharpened, and made
more active in the school-room, but they are not
acquired there—they are God-given. All of these
qualities are found in women only in rare instances.
All of these qualities are not at all essential to woman
(85)

86 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
to enable her to fill the sphere assigned to her by a
wise Creator.
The high courage and masculine qualities of Joan
of Arc, Elizabeth of England, and Catherine of Rus-
sia, command the applause of men, but it is the timid,
affectionate, effeminate, and confiding womanhood
which commands our love, makes our hearts and
homes happy, produces and matures the best and
wisest of men. I like a woman who is a woman, and’
appreciates the sphere to which God and the Bible
have assigned her. I do not like a man-woman.
She may be intelligent and full of learning, but when
she assumes the performance of the rough duties and
functions assigned by nature to man, she becomes
rough and tough and can no longer be the object of
affection.
This member should have informed us of this
cruel discrimination of the Almighty years ago. We
have been begging man to remove mere political dis-
crimination all this time, and now we learn that our
disqualification exists in the very marrow of our be-
ing, planted by the will of God.
We shall try and submit gracefully to this start-
ling revelation and hope we may not lose faith in this
just God.
Just how far woman may be able to “appreciate
the sphere to which God and the Bible have assigned
her,” is hard to tell. We will try, however, and be
as “appreciative ’’ as possible. -
All women may find it difficult to give voluntary
service to a God seemingly so compassionless as to
speak her kind into existence devoid of the qualifica-
tions of “integrity or superior courage, steadiness or
high sense of honor,” mentioned by this honorable

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 87
member, which endow “woman only in rare in-
stances.” Still, we have man’s assurance that this
God is worthy of all worship for our having existed at
all. If man is posessed of those “qualities of integ-
rity, superior courage and high sense of honor,”
which are lacking in women, his word should not be
doubted in anything.
It seems that these ‘‘high qualities” are not only
lacking in woman, but we are informed that they are
not all of them “essential to woman to enable her to
fill the sphere assigned to her by a wise Creator.”
Now, as women are the mothers of sons as well as
daughters (however detrimental it may be to the
sons), and as good and “high qualities” can be
transmitted from the father, it would seem that the
Almighty took great chances in endowing woman so
poorly lest God’s special creation (man) in some un-
guarded moment might partake of his mother's entire
dishonor rather than of his father's nobility.
If the over-ruling power should ever forget itself,
and natural law should take advantage of the oppor-
tunity, the mother's great lack of those qualities
which constitute a voter might be transmitted to her
son, and this terrible discovery would probably dis-
franchise him. Men of a “high sense of honor and
steadiness” could not brook a lack of “integrity” at
the polls.
But for the very fact that many of our great
statesmen and political managers are not disfran-
chised, one would be led to believe they had inher-
ited their possessions from their mother's side of the
house, that the Almighty had been off duty and

88 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
natural law had been infracted. Were it not that
nature is always struggling to establish an equilib
rium and strike a balance, woman might have cause
to complain, but we find that however lacking in
manly qualities, an adjustment is brought about, by
any amount of womanly “timidity, affection and con-
fidence.”
Now it is a balm to our wounded spirits to know
that the “timid, affectionate and confiding woman
commands the love” of this worthy member of the
house, that he does “not like a man-woman,” one
who assumes “rough duties,” becoming “rough and
tough,” and “no longer the object of affection.”
Such consideration as this ought to balance any mal-
formation of body, mind or soul. We will try in the
remaining years of our life to be as “timid" as pos-
sible. We will regulate our “affections” to the
proper depth, and be “confiding ” in all things.
If “rough duties” are assumed they will not be
taken on as heretofore, merely as a pastime and
pleasure, but from stern necessity to support hus-
band and children, as a last resort, and hope to be
pardoned for the offense of being made “rough and
tough '' thereby.
Mr. Barnes argued that suffrage was not an inher.
ent right in these words:— -
So far as inherent rights are concerned, we are
entitled to share them equally, but when it comes to
political rights it is impossible that we can share
them equally

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 89
The speaker must necessarily exercise more polit.
ical power than the individual member upon the floor.
The governor of a State must necessarily exercise
more political power than the citizen who merely casts
his vote. Each exercises a share of political power,
but if the right were inherent each would share it
equally. That is the law of nature. That is the law
which the God of nature has imposed upon us.
When was that “citizen who merely casts his
vote” looked upon in such an insignificant light be-
fore? Is this depreciation of the value of the ballot
made to persuade women that their disfranchisement
is a trifling circumstance?
The theory of our government is that the speaker,
governor, president, congressman, and all men elected
to office, are servants of those “citizens who merely
cast a vote,” chosen by them to do their bidding–
that their position is in the keeping of the people.
Even their discretionary power is but such power
bestowed by these citizens, and could only be exer-
cised by their permission. 'Tis true, our officers laugh
at theory while they dethrone “the citizen who merely
casts his vote” and usurp “political power,” but this
will never become other than treason, however familiar
the process. Indeed, when advocates proclaim so
boldly the shameless doctrine that men dependent
upon the people for their election can in right or de-
cency exercise greater power than the people who
elected them, it is a clear indication that we are in
the clutches of traitors whose statesmanship cannot
be expected to recognize the right of ballot for woman.
We need not be surprised that such domination places
paupers, idiots and criminals in the lead of intelligent

90 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
mothers, as is done in this country and illustrated by
the constitution of Indiana. One of Mr. Barnes's
voters in a late election in Indiana, was an idiot,
taken from the poor farm of Indianapolis, and when
asked who he was, said he was Jesus Christ. A large
portion of our voters who are not better qualified to
vote and legislate, hold themselves in like estimation.
If suffrage is not an inherent right, but a privi-
lege conferred by the State, then the State, which is
born of suffrage, is an illegitimate production, since
there was no government or State to confer this priv-
ilege before the privilege was taken in forming the
State, but it was usurped without due authority. Then
it follows also that the right which our constitution
gives us to change our form of government is mean-
ingless, since with the overthrow of government we
are bereft of the privilege which government alone
can bestow to rear another form of government.
It is said of Samuel Adams in “American States-
men,” page 259, that he indorsed the principle which
reads: “All men have a natural right to change a bad
constitution for a better, whenever they have it in
their power.”
We quote from the “Life of Madison,” “American
Statesmen,” page 91, these words: “All men, it was
argued, going back to a state of nature, are equally
free and independent; and when a government is
formed, every man has an equal share, by natural
right in its formation, and its subsequent conduct.”
Our fathers based their logic and action upon the
natural rights to be heard in government. -

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 9I
Our present form of government is complained of
by a continually increasing army. Now, in order to
change it, according to the theory of the ballot as a
privilege, our government would have to confer the
privilege of the ballot in order to establish a new
government, for the State is born of suffrage, and the
suffrage is a privilege granted by the State. Would
a government be apt to confer a privilege which
would destroy its own rottenness? If not, the possi-
bility of reform by ballot would be out of the
question. It is at such times that men possessed of
inherent rights often rise and exercise them.
How our advocates of the ballot as a privilege
dispose of the suffrage which brought the first State
into existence before there was any State to grant the
privilege, we are not informed. We very naturally
conclude that inherent right took the place of con-
ferred privilege.
In this way our government was established, and
our constitution gives us the right to so establish
another The privilege argument leads us into a
dilemma from which we cannot extricate ourselves
with any show of reason or justice. If suffrage is
not an inherent right, a man has no cause of com-
plaint when disfranchised by government, for it was
not a right he ever possessed. To argue that he
should enjoy it equally with others, carries no moral
weight. It matters not with what political privilege
others may be clothed, he has been robbed of no
right whatever, and should not grieve in not being
allowed to share in the privileges or plunder of his
fellows.

92 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
If suffrage is not an inherent right, no power can
clothe man with it. Governments can bestow privi-
leges, but not rights.
A republican form of government is supposed to
protect man's rights and destroy privileges. Privi-
leges form no part or parcel of a free government. It
is privilege that has brought disaster upon us as a
nation. Privilege sits to-day upon a throne gazing
upon misery with a fiendish appetite. Its harvests
are red with the blood of its victims.
It was the legislation conferring privilege to which
the noble Antigone referred, when he said: “What
are these laws? Jove did not-make them. I follow
the laws which antedate the laws of men.”
We should be willing, as was our sainted Lucretia
Mott, to substitute “truth for authority and not
authority for truth.”
Sovereignty abides among the whole people. Gov-
ernments existing but to extend political privileges
have no place on righteous ground. Law should pro-
tect rights and not extend privileges.
The citizenship of women is not denied, but it
would be as consistent to make the denial as to with-
hold the rights of a citizen. There is but little com-
fort in citizenship deprived of its belongings.
Amid other profound objections uttered by the
Hon. Mr. Oates, of Alabama, we read:–
Lord Coke said: “These three things the law
favoreth–life, liberty, and dower.” The right of
dower in the deceased husband's lands will be stricken
down by this provision.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS, 93
Thoughtful words, indeed! This protecting spirit
should be commended by all women. Let us protect
dower by all means.
What is individual liberty worth compared to the
revenue derived by some widow out of several hun,
dred thousand by dower. Countless thousands of
wives may be robbed of the possibility of dower by
foul means, to the one widow who ever secures it:
still dower possesses such a charm when attained that
it repays the sacrifices.
When it comes to dollars versus liberty, dollars
should always be made to surrender, except in the
remarkable instance of dower. Wé may even cry
liberty or death with consistency, but never liberty
versus dower. The unselfishness of our representa-
tive in the interest of timid, affectionate and confid-
ing women is remarkable. We find a few good pupils
in Washington.
The lesson sought to be inculcated by the lavish
distribution in congress of Prof. Smith’s “Woman’s
Place in the State,” which was published at govern-
ment expense, and made a part of the minority re-
port, has born fruit, the flavor of which is anything
but delicate.
To proceed with this famous document, Prof.
Smith says: “The belief that women will impart
their tenderness and purity to politics is surely
somewhat simple.”
It is not to be expected that men given over to
the doctrine of muscle could have faith in the weak
gospel of sentiment, “tenderness” and “purity" in
the affairs of State. They are not qualities sufficiently

94 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
robust to meet these minds. A tenderness that shall
beget justice and a purity that shall disinfect the filth
of politics, are but ghosts which melt into thin air.
There is no “robustness” in them whatever. Such
conceptions should be squelched before allowed to
materialize into a trial by a good, strong robust gov-
ernment The poet has sung–
“The bravest are the tenderest
The loving are the daring; ”
but “Woman’s Place in the State’” had not yet been
written.
The professor says: “The feelings of the sexes
toward each other must have greatly changed, before
woman can like man, be held strictly responsible for
the performance of official duty and punished for the
breach of it.”
It would seem that it is because of a disposition
to shield women from a “strict responsibility” that
the ballot is withheld from her.
You see, if woman voted, office might be thrust
upon her as it is upon man, and then she might be-
come corrupt and betray her trust, just as he has
done, until the people might become unwilling to
believe in her official honor as they are unwilling to
believe in his to-day, and then she might be held
“strictly responsible" for a “breach " of her great
trust, just as he is held.
When I think how “strictly responsible for the
performance of official duty” men are held, or at
least some men, I feel that we have been better
guarded by this “popular vote ’’ than we ever knew.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 95
The severe chastisement of our star-route con-
spirators, the credit-mo/i/ier traitors, the salary-
grab designers and others of their kind, as an illus-
tration, should be a terrible warning to the dishonest
official, as has also been the dreadful punishment
meted out to our senators and representatives, who,
like that famous statesman, cast an “anchor to wind-
ward,” by placing a price upon legislative action.
Women should be warned that a breach of public
trust is a serious matter.
Really, professor, were you not joking when you
insinuated that men were brought to justice and pun-
ished for the breach of official duty in this country?
There are little offenders without money and in-
fluence who are made a shining example of every
day, but our big ones have such a happy faculty of
seeing the right man at the right time and under the
right circumstances! The ballot would in nowise in-
convenience woman in being held to a “strict respon-
sibility,” if she could only be as happily situated.
Even the corruption of men's conscience and their
ballot, a ſa Dudley, Quay and Wanamaker, is easily
atoned for, manipulated with power and dignity, for
instance, with the banner of freedom unfurled and an
overflow of patriotic utterance.
It is plain that the professor is in the dark. Evi-
dently he was in the dark when he began to pen his
great article on “Woman's Place in the State,” and
there was no break in the clouds when he had finished.
The facts are that seldom is woman found derelict
in her official duty, and it would not be generous to
hold her responsible for offenses not committed. In

96 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Washington, where hundreds are employed by the
government, we ask the professor to count upon the
fingers of his right hand the number guilty of a breach
of trust. He can do this, and have fingers to spare.
Then upon the fingers of his left hand count the men
who are guilty of a breach of trust. He might pos-
sibly require more fingers than he would be in pos-
session of. It goes without saying that women officials
are honest. In France, where so many are employed in
banks, their record is clean. This class of help in
our country is not continually seeking an abiding
place in the balmy atmosphere of Canada. Women
are oftentimes removed from positions of public
trust, but, we would inquire when they were re-
moved for breach of “official duty?”
As I understand it, punishment is not an absolute
necessity irrespective of cause. Unless there be a
demand for it, other than pleasure, it need not be
indulged in.
We quote the following from The Chicago /nter-
Ocean : “Mrs. Maria Mulligan retires gracefully from
the pension office, leaving its affairs in an excellent
condition. She has been an efficient and faithful
officer.” Of this retirement Gen. M. M. Trumbull, in
the Chicago Zeader, says:–
Mrs. Mulligan is the widow of a soldier, killed in
battle while fighting for the preservation of the Union.
The death of Gen. Mulligan was dramatically heroic,
and his dying words to his men, as they were carry-
ing him wounded from the field, “Lay me down and
save the flag,” have become part of the immortal
classics of the war.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 97
Mrs Mulligan was worthy of her husband, she is
a lady of refinement and intelligence, a woman of re-
markable executive and administrative powers. She
has performed the duties of pension agent at Chicago
in such a courteous and efficient way as to afford con-
vincing proof of woman's capacity for official station.
She has been loyally and magnanimously turned out
of the office to make room for a “ male '’ claimant
with a caucus record. The tyrannical eviction of
Mrs. Mulligan is tenderly softened by the court
newspapers into the pleasant announcement that
“Mrs. Mulligan gracefully retires.” It must go
that way for the present, but the chivalrous men
who evicted this “efficient and faithful officer,” will
disgracefully retire in due time.
If Mrs. Mulligan was an “efficient and faithful
officer,” according to the testimony of this Republi-
can authority, why was she thus rudely driven from
office? Surely, this must have been done without the
knowledge of the president, because during the cam-
paign he promised to be the devoted guardian and
defender of the “efficient and faithful,” especially if
they should happen to be the widows of soldiers
killed in battle With so much pious fervency was
this done, that a religious halo was thrown around
the political harlequin, called civil-service reform.
There was a moral severity, worthy of Mr. Pecksniff,
in the tone of candidate Harrison reproving the
wicked practice of turning out of office for political
and party reasons the “efficient and faithful.” His
professions come to an ignominious anti-climax in
the removal of Mrs. Mulligan.
Mr. Mamer, collector of internal revenue, has re-
moved three women clerks lately, the only complaint
made against them was that they were not voters and
they must give way to voters with influence. The
manipulators of this “spoils system ’’ inform women
7

98 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
that they have as great influence in political life as
though they possessed the ballot, beside being relieved
of the filthy process of casting that ballot. The above
illustration is singular corroborative testimony.
We quote from the Woman’s Journal the words of
Sarah Hackett Stevenson, member of the woman’s
club committee, sent to interview the president upon
this matter: —
On Thursday morning April 3, at Io o'clock, we
were ushered into the presence of the president. He
remained standing and allowed us to stand also. I
knew it was not allowable to sit in the presence of
royalty, but I did not expect to stand in the presence
of a Republican president. If that is etiquette, the
sooner it is abandoned the better, for it makes all
concerned ill at ease. We did not read the petition,
but the interview took the form of an informal talk.
The president did not see or would not admit that
he saw the point. He insisted that he had no right
to interfere in the appointment of employes—a thing
we did not even suggest, but we wanted to know
whether the administration intended to uphold this
discrimination against women. On this he declined
to express an opinion. He said he would look into
the matter, and thereupon bowed us out.
The “spoils system ’’ must recognize voters, and
the fewer the less trouble in dealing out party reward.
A party is an exalted institution if sufficiently robust.
We will say to the professor that the only “breach
of official duty” these women were guilty of, accord-
ing to Mr. Mamer, was the lack of a vote.
The anxiety and inconvenience connected with
the necessity of punishing women for the “breach of
official duty,” should they become voters, I fancy will
not be as great as the professor fears.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. 99
In 1889, in this country, embezzlers got their
clutches upon $8,562,753, but there is no account of
women having a hand in the transaction among the
hundreds and thousands continually handling money.
The National Prison Reform Association states
that there were, at the late conference, 54,000 per-
sons in the penitentiaries of the United States, out
of which there were but 5,000 women. Now, there
are more women in the world than men to put into
the penitentiaries, although there are more of the
male persuasion born, the cause for which need not
enter into this discussion.
I suppose the professor would attribute the lesser
number of women in our penitentiaries, compared to
men, to the magnanimity of men who are willing to
suffer for her offenses and shield her, because of “the
feelings of the sexes toward each other.” When men
are capable of keeping themselves out of State's prison,
we will have greater confidence in their disposition
and ability to keep women out.
Prof. Smith has not made out a clear case. He has
failed to persuade women they are not held to answer
for their crimes, and also for such crimes many times
as should be placed upon the shoulders of men.
Women have not forgotten that men hung Mrs.
Suratt for treason, and gave Jefferson Davis his
freedom. They have not forgotten that Mr. Davis was
found guilty, and that Mrs. Suratt was never found
guilty. They cannot forget that the “scarlet letter,”
that brands woman seldom, if ever, burns its imprint
upon the breast of one guiltier than she; that the pillory
of public sentiment to which woman is condemned

IOO PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
never reacts equally upon man, and which public
sentiment man helps to make.
There are extraordinary examples of generosity
toward women, outside of official life, which the
professer would claim, no doubt, indicated a dis-
position to shield her from strict responsibility of
any description.
A good illustration is found in the person of Mrs.
Garfield. The government gives her $5,000 per year
for the loss of her husband. Is this annual pension
given because it is needed? We will let Freeman
G. Willup’s “New Era in Republican Government”
answer. He says:— -
She has $300,000 in government bonds, the result
of subscription. Her husband's life was insured for
$50, OOO, which she promptly received. She also re-
ceived the president’s salary for the unoccupied first
year, about $20,000; then add to that $30,000, the
value of Garfield's estate: That makes $400, ooo.
The income from this will not be far from $16, ooo
a year. Most people would think that a comforta-
ble income. Now, you men who labor, take notice.
After having all the doctors' bills paid, this woman
is given $5,000 a year pension, which is $13.79 per
day for every day in the year.
Now we submit that the government's generosity
in this instance was not of the right character.
Mrs. Garfield may have desired this pension, but
it is very evident she did not need it. Her estate
could have been cut up into several comfortable for-
tunes without a pension. Why were these men of
ficials so liberal with the wealth-producers' money

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. IOI
which had been gathered from them with the avowed
purpose of supporting this great nation? Was it be-
cause she was a woman? Was it because she was a
wife? Moſſ at alſ, otherwise any woman or any wife
might consistently expect the same consideration,
and with the greatest of assurance, when penniless
and in want. No, we can set it down for a fact that
it was not because Mrs. Garfield was in want, that
it was not because she was a woman or a wife; it was
simply because she was the wife of a noted man.
Had it been Mrs. Garfield who had died, think
you the nation would have pensioned him on the
basis of his loss? The nation would not have con-
sidered he had been damaged to the extent of a
pension. It would have been a woman who died,
and men are not supposed to be damaged in the
loss of their wives, as are wives in the loss of their
husbands. Mrs. Garfield receives her pension be:
cause she happened to have been the wife of this
In a 11.
You see it was because this nation wanted to do
honor to a man after all, and this was attempted by
heaping unnecessary support upon his widow. Re-
member there are widows and widows and widows,
and then there are ſhe widows who are such because
of the renown of their husbands. The widows fare
sumptuously, while others are left uncared for in
distress to shoulder the strictest responsibility as
bread-winners, to answer for official breach of trust,
and to bear offending public sentiment.
I O2 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
Mrs. Garfield is a woman whom we all respect,
and I make use of her name but to demonstrate a
principle which it fittingly illustrates.
There are thousands of women driven to physical
and moral death every year, because of shameful in-
dustrial laws and regulations, and the disposition to
shield woman from the “breach of official duty,”
would as likely manifest itself in working relief in
other quarters.


CHAPTER VI. |
A MILITARY GENIUS–HER LITERARY WORKS-COULD
NOT BE TRUSTED “ IN PEACE OR IN WAR’’—OUR
GREAT WOMEN INVENTORS AND SCHOLARS Would
ENDANGER THE COUNTRY.
has said in regard to woman’s responsibility,
still the scales of justice cannot be balanced
at this cheap rate. To screen a woman from public
responsibility and offset the favor by withholding that
which belongs to her, will never square the account
between the sexes. This basis seems to be quite
broad enough for the professor, and may explain why
congress has, up to the present writing, ignored the
petition of that great woman, Miss Anna Ella Carroll.
Miss Carroll, during our rebellion, was clothed in
official capacity but was not guilty of a “breach " of
trust. Now according to the professor, Miss Carroll
should be content if her rights are cut off, because
had she happened to have been guilty, she would
not have been “held strictly responsible for the
performance of official duty, and punished for the
\"." the professor is correct in all he
(IO3)

IO4 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
breach of it,” for what does it matter in principle
whether it be the right of the ballot which is cut
off, or some other right? Such a course of action
might afford a woman guilty of official misconduct
consolation and lend a charm to others in comfort
whose thoughts of justice are yet unborn; but Miss
Carroll's old age, sickness, and poverty rebels against
such ethics. -
This woman has earned the right to greater con-
sideration than she has ever asked of congress. She
has earned for herself support in her declining years
and should have the undying gratitude of our people.
Miss Carroll was the guiding star—the transcend-
ent military genius—who planned the Tennessee River
campaign of 1862, and saved this nation. This is
the woman who is abandoned by the nation she served
so long and well, to die in her old age, helplessness,
and poverty. Miss Carroll has reached the age of
seventy years, and but for the tenderness of a loving
sister, who daily labors for her own support, might
be seeking entrance to some alms-house in her in-
firmity. For years she has asked assistance from the
government, based upon services rendered, and while
none can deny her labors, yet the aid and pensions it
has to bestow, is reserved for the widows of noted
men whose service to the nation consists only in be-
ing a good wife to a big man.
Mr. and Mrs. Root, of Detroit, Mich., have just
given a page of history to the world which has been
due this neglected woman so long. The Woman's
Tribune, of Washington, D. C. says: —

AND HIs SATELLITES IN CONGREss. IO5
Mr. and Mrs. Root have gathered up, condensed,
summarized, and authenticated the aggregate infor-
mation before scattered and inaccessible to the general
reader. . . . The painstaking method of the true
historian has been followed. . . . Every possible
source of information has been sought, and every as-
sertion has been carefully verified. Miss Carroll has
long been an invalid, and has been supported by the
faithful ministrations of her sister, who works in a
department position during the day to provide their
support, and then resumes her place as watcher and
comforter by the lonely couch where the life of a
patriot is fast ebbing away.
This history should be given to the world by pen
and voice, until the nation is ashamed to withhold
justice from its brightest and most loyal patriots, and
our little men with proud positions, diseased with the
malady that their “sphere is the world,” and woman's
confined within four walls, shall be healed mentally
and morally, or at least show signs of convalesence.
The following is a short extract from Mr. and Mrs.
Root's history:—
When historian Headley learned of Miss Carroll
as author of this plan, he wrote to her under date of
February 6, 1873: “I never knew before with whom
the plan of the campaign up the Tennessee originated.
There seemed to be a mystery attached to it that
I could not solve. I could find no reference to the
origin of the charge of plan. Money cannot pay for
the plan of that campaign.”
A letter written by historian Lossing, dated No-
vember 11, 1889, and now on our table says: “If I
have been quoted as having given credit to General
Halleck (with General Grant and Commodore Foote)
as originator of the enterprise, it is an error, for I
apprehend he had but little to do with the matter,
-

Ic6 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
except to give his official sanction to movements
suggested by others. . . . I had no knowledge
of the efforts of Miss Carroll when I prepared my
History of the War, and have not been made familiar
with her services.”
These are clear examples of the lack of informa-
tion on the part of historians, the cause of which is
made apparent by the following facts:–
For prudential military reasons the authorship of
the plan was not made public at the time, though it
was known to a few friends in and out of congress,
they having seen and read her plan. Among these
were Lemuel D. Evans, afterward Chief Judge of the
supreme court of Texas; Judge Whittlesey, of Ohio,
First Comptroller of the Treasury; Thomas A. Scott,
Assistant Secretary of War; Attorney-General Edward
Bates, and President Lincoln. Some of these reasons
were tersely expressed by Secretary Scott, who said:
“Jealousies existed in such a formidable array among
the officers and men of the regular and volunteer
corps, that if it was announced that a civilian had
planned this, the whole might fall to the ground.”
And President Lincoln exclaimed: “Great God!
if they knew it was a woman's plan, the whole army
would resign and the confederacy be an established
fact.” (Col. T. A. Scott's statement.)
President Lincoln said of her, May 12, 1862:
“This Anna Ella Carroll is the head of the Carroll
race. When the history of the war is written, she
will stand a good bit higher than ever old Charles
did.”—H. of A. Misc. Doc. 179, 44th Congress, 1st.
Session.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. IO7
Samuel T. Williams said: “I know of no in-
stance in which a woman not born to sovereign sway
has done so much to avert the impending ruins of
her country, and that not by cheap valor, but by
rare mental ability.”
Also on June, 1874, he wrote to Miss Carroll:
“You would have had your substantial reward long
ago, but for the very absurd opinion that by some
fixed mysterious law of nature, the labor done by
woman is worth less than precisely similar labor
done by men. You should persist in your just
claims.”
Judge A. S. Divan, in the House of Representa-
tives, January 22, 1862, after speaking of Miss Carroll's
marvelous solution of obstruse military and judicial
problems, says: “The French revolution discovered
great political minds in some of the French women,
and I am happy to see a like development in our
women.”
Another has said: “Her genius and culture are
embellished by purity of character and unsullied repu-
tation.” -
Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, in-
dicated the special access to the administration
which Miss Carroll had, also his own personal con-
sideration, in the following letter:=
WASHINGTON CITY, March II, 1861.
My DEAR MISS CARROLL:—I will be pleased to see
you to-morrow, at any time convenient to yourself,
after 9 o'clock. I am not seeing anyone just yet on
the matter to which you refer, but of course will see
you. You have my grateful thanks for the great and

IO8 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
patriotic service you have rendered, and are still ren-
dering, the country in this crisis. I have the honor
to be your friend and servant, S. P. CHASE.
(See Congressional case, No 93.)
“The historians of the civil war concede that the
movement of our armies from Cairo and Northern
Kentucky to Northern Mississippi and Alabama along
the Charleston Railroad, decided the results of the
rebellion. It sapped the base of supplies of the
Confederate forces along the Mississippi, thus ren-
dering the destruction of their operations inevitable.
“The organization and consistency of the Con-
federate States, in the autumn of 1861, were such that
their military force was impregnable on any line of
operation contemplated by or known to the national
government. The rebel power, with a little time to
create war supplies, for which it had abundant in-
tellect, natural resources, and wealth, could have re-
sisted indefinitely if not wholly destroyed the Union.
Nothing but the breaking up of the intimate interior
connections of the Confederacy could destroy its in-
dustrial system and ability to create war supplies.
With the Mississippi River under its control, the
South could have defied the North. General Win-
field Scott, the greatest military authority of his
time, perceiving that a centralized force of twelve
millions of people, with unbroken lines of communi-
cation, were an overmatch for eighteen millions sur-
rounding them, retired to West Point apparently
despairing of conquering the rebellion. General
Sherman gave up command of Louisville for lack of
resources, as he said. For six months the battles

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. IO9
had been steadily against the Union, except in Vir-
ginia. The enemy was arrayed in strong force along
the Potomac, effectually closing its navigation, and
thence on a line westward through Bowling Green
to Columbus, on the Mississippi. He was holding
Richmond and Vicksburg at a tremendous sacrifice of
Union life and treasure. To him time was power
and every day's delay a continuous victory, while it
increased the difficulties which were closing around
the National cause. Our armies had no decisive point
of operation. Before them were a divided North,
and a focalized and well entrenched enemy. Behind
them were the powers of France and England, pos-
sessing fleets larger than the entire American navy;
the first intent on gaining territory in Mexico, the
other pushed by its suffering operatives, clamoring
for supplies of cotton, till both were upon the eve
of raising the blockade and declaring for the Con-
federacy. With a debt of $500,000, Ooo, a depleted
treasury, and an expense of $2, ooo, Ooo a day, with
our forces carried farther and farther from their base
by every advance made; with our means of com-
munication to be protected along hundreds of miles
of river and coast lines; with discontent at home and
among the men under command; with no time for
experiments or the education of generals; with exi-
gencies so trying as to compel the appointment of a
committee on the Conduct of the War, there seemed
no salvation at hand.
“During this gloomy period Anna Ella Carroll
was in the West watching every movement and writ-
ing on the most vital questions, whether of political

I IO PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
diplomacy or military strategy. Her views were
sagacious and as broad as the field to be occupied;
and here she conceived a plan that saved the Union,
brought victory and peace to our Nation, made gen-
erals heroes, crowned humble men with honors, and,
in purse and health, left her poor indeed. She had
watched the failures of our armies through the early
months of the war, seeing the danger increasing
daily. About the middle of November, being in-
tensely alarmed by the battle of Belmont, she says:–
It sickened my heart, and a conviction fastened
upon me that there was a way of escape. I meant
to find it out. The thought flashed on me that either
the Tennessee or the Cumberland might afford the
needed depth of water for the passage of the gunboats
into the heart of the South, and here was the true
way to the solution of the military problem. I was
greatly excited at this thought, and Judge Evans for-
tunately calling at that moment, I inquired of him if
such a movement could not be made. He concurred
that it could, and, after reflecting a moment, he said,
“That's the move,” and I said, with some emphasis,
“It shall be done; I will have it done.”
“In selecting the Tennessee and Cumberland
Rivers, instead of the Mississippi, she set at naught
the opinions of civilians and of military and naval
men. Her fertile brain caught by electrical intuition
the significance and value of every operative force
about her, and flashed upon the darkening picture
of our disrupting Union a light of revelation so clear
as to thrill the hearts of our leaders with surprise,
with admiration, and with hope.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. III
“Having brought her ideas to the consideration
of ex-President Fillmore in Buffalo, he urged her to
lose no time in pressing them upon the authorities.
She hastened to Washington, and on the 30th of No-
vember, 1861, with maps, diagrams, and specifica-
tions carefully drawn, she laid all before the War
Department in the person of Thomas A. Scott, Assist-
ant Secretary of War. He was much excited and
said earnestly, ‘Will you give me this?' She ex-
plained to him in detail how our forces should advance
* the Tennessee instead of down the Mississippi;
should cut the Confederacy in twain, thus severing
the arteries of supplies to the fortifications along the
great river. This would not only compel the enemy's
evacuation of his strongholds well-nigh impregnable
to our advance down a current having a velocity about
equal to the best speed of our gunboats, but also
would put us in condition to most seriously menace
the enemy in every position held by him, and thus
give us hope of a quick and victorious end. The
same evening all this was laid before President Lin-
coln by Colonel Scott, who said he never saw a greater
manifestation of pleasure than Mr. Lincoln expressed
as soon as he saw Miss Carroll's solution of the mighty
problem of the War. So fully was her plan accepted
that the colonel was himself soon dispatched to the
West to give his personal supervision to the execu-
tion of it, which in the main was done. Such con-
fidence was inspired that the committee on the Con-
duct of the War announced in congress, in answer
to the clamor of relief, that in a few days events
would be accomplished to turn the tide, astonish

II 2 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
the world, and soon end the war. That the full
prediction was not accomplished in 1862–3 is no
fault of the plan, but of a diversion from it, since
the merit is in the conception rather than in the exe-
cution. The author of the plan, observing this de-
parture, addressed the War Department, through its
assistant secretary, Hon. John Tucker, inclosing a
map which she explained in detail, together with
methods to accomplish the desired result. Miss
Carroll continued to outline necessary movements
as changes transpired. To realize the enormous
difficulties which she had to overcome, one needs to
bear in mind that the average student of the com-
mon school of to-day knows more of the geography
of the South than prominent men in Government
knew thirty years ago. Andrew Johnson declared
then that the river bearing the name of his State
was not navigable for gunboats.
“The government comprehended the transcend-
ent importance of Miss Carroll’s suggestions, accepted
them, inaugurated the campaign upon them, and the
grand consummation is briefly summed up as follows:
The decisive blow was struck which cut the Confeder-
ate power in two; coerced the evacuation of the for-
midable fortifications on the Mississippi; ayerted
European intervention and consequent war with the
United States; removed the visible and growing dis-
content in the great Northwest; revived the National
credit; hurled the enemy back to the Vicksburg and
Meridian Railroad, and brought the national forces
in contact with the slave population of the cotton
States, turning four millions of people, until then a

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. II 3
source of strength to the enemy, to be a support of
the Union, thus making it impossible for slavery to
longer exist.”
“But one phase of Miss Carroll’s service to the
Union cause has been set forth. A study of her
literary efforts in its behalf shows them to have
been as effective as were her military plans. Years
before the war she began writing. Her “Great
American Battle,” her masterly “Review of the Ad-
ministrations from Washington to Pierce,” “Review
of Pierce's Administration,” “Which? Filmore or
Buchanan,” “Star of the West,” “ Union of States,”
“Relations of the National Government to Revolted
Citizens,” “Reply to Breckenridge,” “War Powers
of the Government,” and other works in the libraries
of congress, show the keen, practical grasp of her dis-
ciplined mind. She discussed with the precision of
the historian and the logic of the statesman, events
making our nation's glory and its shame. She un-
veiled the sophisms by which the leaders of the re-
bellion sought to justify their disloyalty. She clearly
defined methods necessary to the continuance of the
Union. Her letters to Gov. Hicks, of Maryland,
were the acknowledged power that held that State
in the Union.” And this is the woman who is beg-
ging congress to do her only partial justice in the
way of a few hundred dollars, and to whom congress
up to the present time, has turned a deaf ear in her
poverty and infirm old age.
But we would not forget that Mrs. Garfield asked
not in vain for her $5, ooo per year. We would not
forget that one petitionerw as needy, and had earned

II4. PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
a Żhousand times more than she asked, while the other
was not needy, and had earned nothing for which she
should have received a penny from the government.
We would not forget that in the former case there
was no man to honor through his widow—in the
latter case there was the memory of the president
of the United States to be glorified.
Had Miss Carroll been a man, and performed the
same service, his widow might possibly have petitioned
congress in vain, as has Miss Carroll, but not as likely,
and this favor would not have been granted on the
basis that man is held “strictly responsible for the
performance of official duty,” while woman is screened
from guilt.
After reading the record of Miss Carroll, we ask
the reader to consider the words of Prof. Smith
which read as follows: “It would be impossible to
allow questions of peace and war to be decided by
the women’s vote.”
What the professor means is, that it would be
impossible for an administration controlled by men,
although imbued with those characteristics of “in-
tegrity, superior courage and a high sense of honor,”
to which Mr. Oates, of Alabama, refers as an in-
heritance of man and a necessity in government to
do justice to woman. Men opposed to women suf-
frage should not feel proud to wear the epulets of
honor belonging to woman. We can expect but
little, however, from voters who are not brave enough
to be just.
Think of the damaging circumstance of Miss Car-
roll's ballot, either in “peace ’’ or in “war.” The

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. II 5
professor could not allow it in the adjustment of any
question. In “peace” it might lead to “war,” and
in “war ’’ it might lead to an ignominious “peace.”
It would never do. You see, God endorses man’s
Opinion that woman should not vote, and nature and
the Bible also favor man’s elucidation of the woman
question. The evidence is simply overwhelming—
all on the side of man. How obliging of these powers
to stand by our voters. Man should be grateful.
Our terrible rebellion was caused by man, but a
woman closed it in victory.
Would a ballot in the hands of Harriet Beecher
Stowe have worked greater damage than did Uncle
Tom’s Cabin? Could her voice have been trusted,
either “in peace or in war P” Mightier than the
sword of man was the power of her brain. Had
woman been as free in 1618 as in 1861, a cruel
thirty years' war, which man begun, might have been
averted.
In the language of Jas. Rodes Buchanan, “It is
not extravagant to believe that when the voice of fully
developed woman is heard in the determination of
national policy, neither walls, nor forts, nor steel-clad
navies will be required, for nations will no longer be
as dangerous as the wild beasts, and the ten millions
now under training for homicide will learn, as they
are dismissed to peaceful industries, that they are
human beings but not international assassins. The
end of war will also be the end of starving want.”
Beside the opinion of the professor's we place
Abraham Lincoln's tribute to woman. He says:
“I am not accustomed to the use of language of

II 6 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
eulogy. I have never studied the art of paying
compliment to women, but I must say, that if all
that has been said by orators and poets since the
creation of the world in praise of women were ap-
plied to the women of America, it would not do them
justice for their conduct during this war. I will close
by saying, God bless the women of America.”
These women, Prof. Smith thinks, could not be
trusted to use the ballot either “in peace or in war.”
I suppose the professor could also say, “God bless
the women of America,” if they would only cut their
garments after his pattern of a woman; but opposition
is better than such a narrow and ill-fitting garment.
Let those wear it who can.
Imagine a Maria Mitchell wearing such a dress—
a woman who was professor of astronomy and director
of the Observatory of Vassar College for years—who
never knew selfish ambition and whose private plans
which might have yielded her great fame and reward
were put one side, for the exclusive good she might
do; who raised $5,000 toward this institution as an
endowment fund, and but for failing health would
have done more. This great woman lived to be
aged, as has Miss Carroll, and both without their
natural “complement,” which “complement” should
so completely recompense woman for the deprivation
of liberty, in the estimation of Prof. Smith.
After reading Prof. Mary W. Whitney's pamphlet
on the life of Maria Mitchell, one could hardly believe
that her vote could have been such a calamity either
in “peace” or in “war,” had not Prof. Smith so de-
clared.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. II 7
. Imagine Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady
Stanton arrayed in such a garb in the place of that
true womanly courage which enabled them to bear
the brunt of pioneer work in Kansas in 1867, and
which placed their feet upon the same platform and
same soil on which John Brown and sons had stood
years prior, fighting for the freedom of flesh and
blood. How humanity would have cause to mourn
with a vote from these women either in “peace ’’ or
in “war.” How such a mantle would have trans-
formed the sainted and intelligent Lucretia Mott, and
changed a Florence Nightingale to a “timid confid-
ing and useless creature,” while the poor soldiers
of the Crimean would have frozen to death. There
may be much use for a timid and confiding woman,
such as Prof. Smith would seem to admire, but these
qualities would never cut their way through all “or-
ders and red tape,” command and obtain entrance for
the relief of the sick, suffering, and dying. Florence
Nightingale was both timid and confiding—too timid
to allow humanity to suffer within her reach, and too
confiding to betray her trust. Upon the battle-field
and in the hospital we find her pure and modest, but
what a blotch would have been made upon character
and country could she have cast a vote either in
“peace” or in “war.”
We have women as inventors whose vote might
be a danger, either “in peace or in war.”
If the author of the cotton gin were living it would
probably be unsafe to allow her to vote in any case.
Mrs. Catherine Greene, wife of General Greene, of the

IIS PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
revolution, was its author, and it blessed the industrial
world. -
It was a woman that invented a horse-shoe ma–
chine, which turns out completed shoes.
A California woman invented a baby carriage from
which she realized $50,000.
A woman, Mrs. Ann Manning, of Plainfield, N. J.,
conceived the idea of the reaper and mower, and also
a glove cleaner.
A woman, Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, of New Jersey,
invented an improvement upon the reaper and mower
by which the knives could be changed without stop-
ping the wheels.
A very difficult and complicated machine was in-
vented by a woman to manufacture re-enforced bottoms
on paper bags. Miss Maggie Knight was its author,
who has become wealthy through this machine and
others of the same character, and which are looked
upon as very wonderful conceptions.
A valuable street-sweeper was invented by a woman
of New York City.
A woman, Mrs. Mary B. Walton, invented a ma-
chine for deadening the sound of car wheels. A ma-
chine for this purpose had been attempted by the
most noted machinists and inventors of the country,
but had failed. A woman's brain proved more than
a match for them all—her machine was adopted and
is now realizing a handsome reward. -
The professor would not hesitate to permit these
noted machinists who failed in their attempt, to cast
a ballot either “in peace or war,” but a vote from

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. II9
this woman inventor might throw society into a state
of great turmoil.
Miss Lillian Blanche Fearing was the only lady
graduate in this year's class at the Union College of
Law, in Chicago. She was one of four who stood
so nearly equal in their examination that the scholar-
ship prize of $50 was divided among them. Miss
Fearing is totally blind. What a foolish vote she
would be apt to cast beside her brother graduates
to be sure.
We have several women lawyers in Michigan,
among which numbers the brilliant Martha Strick-
land, in active practice, located in Detroit, and whose
victories before the supreme court has compelled the
respect and admiration of men with brains and in-
formation.
We also have Mrs. S. E. V. Emery, of Lansing,
Mich., who has written a work upon the abstruse
question of money, which is educating men in the
art of voting by the thousand. This little book is
but two years old, but a hundred thousand copies
have been called for by strong men who have been
representing her at the polls. One would naturally
suppose that these women might cast quite a re-
spectable ballot, if allowed.
Miss Anna Felton Reynolds has just graduated
from the Boston Dental College. She was the only
woman in a class of twenty-six men. She took two
prizes—one of $25, for the best examination, and an
annual prize for passing the best examination through-
out the course; but this girl would be a bold and
vulgar failure “in peace or in war,” when it comes
-

I2O PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
to casting a bit of paper in a box beside those whom
she outstripped in scientific study.
Miss Harrietta Dreyer has just won the first gold
medal in the Grand Conservatory of Music of New
York. Edward M. Westbrook drew the second medal.
Perhaps the grand victory won by Miss Phillippa
Fawcett at Cambridge University, England, recently,
may soften the heart of Prof. Smith. We quote from
the Pal/ Ma// Gazette the following:— -
Much of this result must have been due to that
signal nerve and self-control which is said to have
been noticed in Miss Fawcett. She seems to have
entered upon the long and exciting contest of the
examination with the same quiet, deliberate sense
of mastery with which she had all along been fitting
herself for the struggle. The whole picture is the
very antipodes of the hysterical girl student of tradi-
tion.
The generous enthusiasm at Cambridge over the
triumph of a woman is a most pleasing feature of
the occasion. It is not confined (writes a corre-
spondent) to the university, but seems to be shared
by the townspeople, who regard themselves as having
a vested interest in Miss Fawcett. Porters, people
in shops, and all sorts of people remark, “What a
pity it is that her father is not alive”—to share the
success of the daughter whose talent he had watched
developing with the greatest interest and pride.
Prof. Fawcett was himself a high Wrangler, and
was at one time expected to be senior. But, as re-
lated in the well-known Life by Mr. Leslie Stephen,
he became so excited during the contest that he
lost an entire night's rest, and so fell behind. His
daughter, by the accounts of her friends, took the
struggle in a much calmer and more business-like

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I 2 I
spirit. She was pressed to take a brief holiday away
from Cambridge on the eve of the Tripos examina-
tion, but declined, on the ground that she preferred
going in for it “in the swing of one's ordinary work.”
About the same period, at that time when the ap-
proach of the fateful day is generally supposed to
render life not very distinctly worth living, Miss
Fawcett was asked by a sympathetic friend whether
she did not “wish it was all over?” “No,” was the
uncompromisingly cheerful reply, “I do nºt want to
have three weeks taken out of my life!” In fact, in
the regularity and self-control which have governed
her work throughout, Miss Fawcett has offered a
complete contrast to the conventional picture of the
lady student, whom Mr. Grant Allen and others have
loved to depict as a hysterical, overwrought, and nerv-
ous being, who, after a few years of morbid applica-
tion, prepares to sink into an early grave.
The reading of the lists at the Senate House is
always rather a trying performance for the ladies
concerned, as their names are reserved till the end.
On this occasion there was a good deal of noise and
disorder from undergraduates on the floor of the
house, and the name of Mr. Bennett, the senior
Wrangler, was received with great cheering. After
the names of the men had all been called, came a
slight pause, and then the word “Women” was heard
over the Senate House, to which the chivalrous un-
der-graduates replied with mingled yells of “Ladies,”
and “ Hats off.” When silence was restored, the
clear tones of the examiner uttered the words, “Above
the senior Wrangler.” The name which followed
was drowned in the uproar, at first confused, but
speedily resolving itself into the cry, “Miss Faw-
cett,” “Miss Fawcett.” No less moved were the
women students, who lined the galleries, and
testified to their joy by clapping. Mr. Bennett,
who had worked in the same class with Miss
I 22 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
Fawcett at University College, during their pre-
paratory course, and had been neck and neck with
her in successive examinations, hurried up at once
to the gallery to shower upon her the most gener-
ous congratulations. The Vice-Chancellor himself
followed suit. When the enthusiasm had somewhat
subsided, the Senate House was partially cleared,
and the heroine of the day was seen descending the
staircase, leaning on the arm of Miss Clough, the
revered principal of Newnham. There was a rush as
the ladies passed slowly out. They slipped through
a side door to escape running the gauntlet of a cheer-
ing crowd in cap and gown, but were pursued with
such an ovation as even those historic walls have
rarely rung with.
Imagine Miss Fawcett's male class-mates request-
ing her for the good of her country, “in peace or in
war,” to steer clear of the ballot box!


CHAPTER VII.
-
KATE SHELLEY, THE HEROINE–QUEEN ISABELLA, of
CASTILE, REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE INQUISITION.—
ST. CYRIL AND HYPATIA—John Colvin AND SER-
VETUs–THE FIFTY-FIVE TORTURED AND HUNG.
F Prof. Smith would be generous enough to con-
sider the valor and heroism such as we read of
in the heroic age, and which has never been ex-
celled, if equaled, we would refer him to the history
of one Kate Shelley, of Iowa. This girl at fifteen
years immortalized herself by a deed which would
have justified the stoutest heart; the bravest general
to have refused to act. It was an instance which
should have aroused for her not only the admiration
of the nation, but secured recognition for her un-
selfish sacrifice in a more substantial manner than
was manifest. She was left to struggle against
great odds in privation and want, and lift a mort-
gage of $500 from her widowed mother's home,
until now. An effort was made very recently
to obtain aid for her by public subscription—just how
(123)

I 24 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
much has been gathered is uncertain, but the delay
is unpardonable.
Upon the roll of honor, Kate Shelley's name should
lead the rest. From the purest impulse of her soul
she dared the jaws of death without a thought of self
—her only anxiety was the thought of other lives in
danger.
Her bravery runneth thus, which is extracted from
the Chicago Tribune, of April 5, 1890: –
One has said that Kate Shelley was a heroine.
It was at this point in the family history that her
heroism began.
The father was dead—killed while working for the
Northwestern Railway company. Mike, his eldest
son, had been drowned in Honey Creek, under the
railway bridge.
So there was nothing left—nothing but the light-
soiled farm with a few acres of arable land and the
rough little hills with the scrubby trees on the surface
and the worthless coal underneath.
Of course there was the widow, and Kate and
Maggie and Mamie and John. John at that time
was a little chap scrambling round on the floor.
And the farm work had to be done. There was
the ten-acre oatfield on the north hill and the five
acres of corn land was there as well. Then there
were three acres of potato land and cabbage land
and land for garden stuff.
And who did all this work?
Kate Shelley.
Thinking of this, one need not fear to say frankly
that she was a heroine even then.
She hitched up the old gray horse to the plow and
turned up the sod of the oatfield; she plowed over
the corn land and the patch of ground where the

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I 25
garden stuff was grown. Mrs. Shelley was ill then,
and this twelve-year-old girl did all the work.
There is fine Old-World heroism in that; one
thinks of this curly-headed, determined little girl
toiling away and half forgets the cynicism of every-
day life.
A brave little girl undoubtedly; not for one year
but for three years she kept this up.
“I could do everything pretty well,” she said
to the Zºribune reporter, “except marking corn. I
always got the lines crooked.”
One might explain that “marking corn” means
sketching out in the fresh upturned soil the lines in
which the corn is planted.
And so this little household lived; the mother
feeble and broken in health; Kate toiling on the
farm; Mamie and Maggie and little John growing
up into youngsterhood. Poverty came closer day
by day; there was little to eat at times; the old
brown colly had no bones to pick; the white horse
was sent out to graze his living on the hillside.
But Kate, although she was hard at work on the
farm, had a feeling for other things.
She sent the young children to the prim red
schoolhouse in Moingona. She did the work and
they studied the lessons. But at night, when the
day’s plowing was over and the cows were foddered
down, she sat with them in the little sitting-room
and scratched her head over their lessons and helped
them and—learned herself. Long after the small
sisters were in bed, Kate sat over their books and
puzzled over compound fractions and objective cases
and one knows what not.
In the early morning she was afield, following the
old white horse and the plow.
But nevertheless Kate was something of a student;
she read all sorts of books; quaint old books, for in-
stance, that told the legends of the brave men and the

I 26 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
brave women who had strived hard to save Ireland.
There she learned the lesson that life is less than
love.
COLLAPSE OF HONEY CREEK BRIDGE.
Kate was fifteen—she would be sixteen in Sep-
tember.
July 6, 1881, fell on a Wednesday. A storm had
been brewing all day; the clouds hung low and dull
over the Boone hills. Now and again the rain came
down in sudden, windy dashes; it had been raining
for many days, and all the waterways were swollen.
The Des Moines River pushed its way along in a
flood; under the bridges it tossed the yellow foam
up thirty feet in the air.
Honey Creek was as bad. A week before a child
could have forded it. Now it was a torrent. This
stream from Boone to Moingona is a treacherous,
twisting, uneven affair. Many little rivulets wander
down the hills and feed it and add to its fury when-
ever a rainy storm comes down. That night—the
night of July 6—it rose to its highest.
Between Boone and Moingona is a difficult bit of
railroading. The grade is steep and the curves twist
in and out. There are twenty-one bridges on the
way—five miles.
Of these twenty-one bridges eleven alone stood
the shock of the rushing waters that night. The
others were swept away.
At Moingona a number of engines are stationed
to assist the trains over the grades east and west.
Ed. Wood was the engineer on one of these. He
got this telegram from the train-dispatcher at Boone:
“Wood, Moingona : Run to Boone and return to
Moingona regardless of trains.”
The object of the order was, of course, that the
track might be examined.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I 27
Wood took with him his fireman, George Olm-
stead; Adam Ager, brakeman; and Pat Donahue,
east section boss.
“The engine I had was old No. 12,” said Wood
a few days ago, “and I ran her out with the headlight
behind instead of front. We got over the Des Moines
River bridge, near town, all right, and went on slowly
to the bridge that spans Honey Creek. Donahue was
on the tender; he signals me with the lantern and
shouts to me:–
‘‘‘ Go on,’ he says; the track's here and every-
thing's all right.”
“So I let her go easy and we had nºt gone ten
feet when the timbers began to crack and snap. I
was on the tender at the time and I made a jump
into the cab and threw on a full head of steam. The
engine she behaved beautiful; it was n’t her fault,
poor girl. Why, when the crash came and she
plunged down into the water she screamed just like
a lady.”
This is Wood's story. The engine was dashed
to pieces; Donahue and Olmstead were drowned.
Wood and Ager clung to an uprooted tree that had
come down with the driftwood. -
When No. 12 went down “screaming like a lady,”
Kate Shelley was sitting with her mother in the little
cottage along the edge of the creek.
The storm had risen so rapidly that it had flooded
the barns, and the first thing this young heroine had
to do was to drive the pigs, the cow and the calf, and
the white horse out and up the hill into the oat-field.
Then into the little house again; the night getting
darker; the lightnings coming at intervals; Honey
Creek roaring down with its loads of driftwood.
At last came the crash of the broken bridge and
the hissing of the hot boiler as it plunged into the
Water.

I 28 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
“The bridge is gone,” Kate cried, “ and the
pusher is in.”
“'Tis worse than the night father was killed,”
said Mrs. Shelley. -
Then Kate Shelley said: “Merciful God, mother!
It will soon be time for the passenger. I’m going to
Moingona, mother—I must stop the train.”
And she went. -
A JOURNEY FULL OF PERIL.
There was the framework of an old lantern in the
house, and Kate, being a ready-witted girl, soon rigged
up a sort of miner's lamp that took the wind well.
She tied an old shawl about her head and slipped out
of the house. Her way skirted the bluff, drenched
now with water, cut into gullies, and choked with low
underbrush. Once she was lost in the woods; once
she stumbled into a slough, but managed to scramble
out with her lamp still burning.
And so she made her way to the broken bridge.
She crept out through the twisted ruins to the last
tie yet hanging over the wreck in the water beneath.
She clung there, a little rain-beaten, wind-blown bit
of humanity, with a white, set face, and swung her
lantern and called to the two men.
“Who’s there?” she asked.
“It’s Wood and Ager.”
“I’m going to Moingona. I’ll bring you help.”
“God bless you!”
Then she crept back over the ruins to the track.
Down this she ran to the long, high bridge over the
Des Moines River. There is a new bridge there now
—a graceful affair of iron and red paint. The old
bridge was a dangerous wooden structure with ties
three feet apart. It was this Kate had to cross.
The river swept over its banks and sent the yellow
foam over the bridge. A sudden gust of wind put
out her flickering light, and the brave little girl

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I29
faced the long bridge in the darkness. Now and
again came a flash of lightning, but it only blinded
her. She got down on her hands and knees and
crept painfully across the bridge—600 feet long.
“Yes, I was frightened,” she says frankly, “espe-
cially when the river carried the driftwood against the
bridge. I could feel the bridge shudder. Then the
water came over me and I was cold. My hands and
knees were cut and bleeding, but I did nºt have much
time to think of that.”
After crossing the bridge she had a quarter of a
mile to go to the station. She ran the whole dis-
tance, and stumbled into the telegraph-room and told
her story.
Her news came none too soon. There was time,
and just time, to stop the passenger train.
A rescuing party was got together and started on
an engine to the wreck. Kate went with them. At
the wreck it became necessary to reach the opposite
shore. Once more the little heroine played her part.
None of the men knew how to get across. Kate put
herself at the head; led the way through the darkness
by a slippery path, overgrown with brush and close
to the bluff-edge, overhanging the stream. This
brought them through the oat-field and down to
another bridge below the house.
Once over this, the work of rescuing the two men
—Wood and Ager—was not difficult. They still
clung to the driftwood amid-stream, and were got
out safely.
This, then, was the little heroine's nightwork, and
a worthier work was never done in this old world that
has so many fine and noble actions to boast of.
By that perilous trip she saved the lives of two
men; she saved the passenger train, loaded with men
and women and children, from plunging to an awful
fate. She went alone. For duty's sake, for love's
9

I3O PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
sake. She risked her young life a score of times to
save the lives of those she did not know.
And her reward?
Kate learned that virtue is to its own reward.
Doubtless a valuable lesson.
A MORTGAGE ON THE COTTAGE HOME.
Had not that passenger train been stopped scores
of lives would have been lost; it would have cost the
Northwestern probably $100,000 at least.
And the Northwestern gave Kate Shelley the
price of a broken car-wheel or a little more. One
might as well be exact. She received $100, a half-
barrel of flour, a half-load of coal. There is an
economical beauty about this “half” business.
Thrift undoubtedly is praiseworthy, but it looks
rather mean and shabby beside the fine, unselfish
courage that risks life for others.
It is pleasant at all events, to recall that one of
the passengers on that train that Kate Shelley saved
was not forgetful. This was Dr. Henry D. Cogges-
well. He erected a monument in Dubuque. It is a
handsome affair, with a square granite pedestal.
The inscription runs:–
PRESENTED BY
D R. H E N R Y D. COG G E SW E L L,
A CITIZEN or SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.,
TO
THE CITIZENS OF DUBUQUE,
AND DEDICATED TO
MISS KATE SHELLEY, WHO, ETC.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I 3 I
There is an originality in this way of showing
gratitude to one's savior that is distinctly precious.
The State of Iowa commemorated the brave deed
by presenting Kate with a handsome gold medal—a
medal that she wears worthily and is justly proud of.
Then her life slipped back into the old groove.
“I worked on the farm,” she explained, “and
went to school and studied at night. My sisters-
were growing up and the farm didn't pay any longer,
so I prepared myself for a teacher. I passed the ex-
amination and got a school in the Eureka district. I
taught there for three years.”
“At what salary?”
“Thirty-five dollars a month; but that doesn’t
leave much after board and clothes are paid for.
Still we lived on it and the girls and Johnnie went to
school.” -
“But there is one thing I want to do,” she added.
“And that is?”
“Pay off the mortgage on the farm. Mother can-
not leave it now—she has lived there for twenty-three
years.”
“And how will you do it?”
“I don't know—I have tried very hard,” she said,
and then added, more brightly, “but I’ll succeed.”
She is a straight, strong-built young woman of
twenty-four, with resolute eyes and a thoughtful, de-
termined face. She is not puffed up with conscious-
ness of her brave deed. She speaks of it frankly and
with perfect simplicity. Altogether, she impresses
one as a quiet, true woman who would walk into fire
if she thought duty led there.
Her heroism is not only ready for a sudden emer-
gency, but it is of the every-day sort that plows and
teaches school and keeps the family pot boiling.

I32 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
HEROISM AS A FINANCIAL INVESTMENT.
Kate Shelley only got a few hundred dollars for
her prompt and daring act, but at least $1,000, Ooo
worth of poetry has been written about her.
This, then, is all; a life of patient labor and pov-
erty, lighted only by one heroic deed that flashed like
a torch; to be sure, there is a mortgage on the floor,
and Johnny's boots are out at the toe, and there is lit-
tle enough to eat at times. That goes for little. At
all events, she has a medal.
Perhaps some day the Chicago & Northwestern will
give her a pass to Dubuque and she can go and look
at the monument that Dr. Coggeswell has erected to
her memory—and his own.
From a financial view-point she might be war-
ranted in thinking that heroism is not a particularly
good policy. VANCE THOMPSON.
This girl, whose greatness has been tested,—who
was found equal to the bravest of daring unknown to
man in this country, or any other, robbed of every
incentive which might point toward a recompense of
money or glory, is left to poverty and hard labor—
a labor which is better performed for less pay than
would be expected of those men she saved from death
by risking her own life.
Brave deeds have been bought for glory; valor
exhibited for pleasure; lives have been risked for rec-
ompense; vanity has been recorded high upon the
scroll of fame, but that ready sacrifice of self, made
without a thought of name or comfort, is of rare
OCCurren Ce.
A nation incapable of appreciating such nobility
of character must indeed be given over to “robust-
ness” of character.

AND HIS SATELLITES - IN CONGRESS. I33
Prof. Smith should not forget that but for a woman
(Queen Isabella, of Castile) his services might not
have been demanded as teacher in Cornell University.
If the professor should feel inclined to retort that this
queen was cruel, that she had expelled the Moors and
Jews from Spain, sanctioned the Inquisition, and de-
stroyed her daughter Juana, we refer him to her vin-
dication by Judge C. B. Waite, of Chicago, who has
summed up the evidence for and against her, from
which we clip the following:—
Prescott would have been fully justified in his
estimate of Isabella, basing it upon the verdict of
the historians who had preceded him. But he went
further. He made a most searching investigation
into the original sources. He translated, digested,
and compared, with the utmost care and assiduity.
After spending eight or ten years in preparatory work
of this character, he commenced writing his “History
of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella; ” and was
engaged seven years more in its composition. It
was at once accepted by the literary world as authori-
tative.
The author was elected corresponding member of
the French Institute, and a member of the Royal So-
ciety of Berlin. The “Encyclopaedia Britannica,”
ninth edition, at the close of the article on Isabella,
refers to the history by Prescott, where, says the en-
cyclopedist, all the authorities will be found collected.
Thus Prescott’s “History of the Reign of Ferdi-
nand and Isabella” became authority, being the result
of many years of hard labor. It has been authority
ever since it was published, and it is to-day the best
authority upon the subjects of which it treats, not
only of all the works in the English language, but of
all the works in the world. And what has Prescott

I 34 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
to say of Isabella? After speaking of her gracious
and dignified manners, he says:–
“Among her moral qualities, the most conspicu-
ous, perhaps, was her magnanimity. She betrayed
nothing little or selfish in thought or action. Her
schemes were vast, and executed in the same noble
spirit in which they were conceived.
“She seconded Columbus in the prosecution of
his arduous enterprise, and shielded him from the
calumnies of his enemies. . . . Her heart over-
flowed with affectionate sensibility to her family and
friends. She watched over the declining days of her
aged mother, and ministered to her sad infirmities
with all the delicacy of filial tenderness.
“For her children she lived more than for herself,
and for them, too, she died; for it was their loss and
their afflictions which froze the current of their blood
before age had time to chill it.
“She conducted her kingdom through a long and
triumphant reign, to a height of glory which it had
never before reached, and left behind an illustrious
name, unrivaled in the subsequent annals of her coun-
try. . . . When she resigned her last breath, it
was amidst the tears and universal lamentations of
her people.”
Prescott was a sincere and enthusiastic admirer of
fsabella of Castile. It was the result of much his–
torical study. He closes a long and glowing eulogy
by saying that the most enlightened Spaniards of the
present day dwelt with enthusiasm on Isabella's char-
acter, as the most truly great in their line of princes.
–Prescott's History of the A’eign of Aerdinand and /sa-
&e//a, zºoſ. 3, Ž. Z.97–205. -
Such is the verdict of history in regard to Isabella,
of Castile.
Those who may wish to pursue the subject further,
are referred to the following additional authorities:–

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I35
AEmg/ish. — Hume, Maria Callott, and the Ency-
clopaedia Britannica.
American. —Irving, Abbott, Harrison, Charlotta
Young.
German. — Friedrich Noesselt, whose account of
the relations between Isabella and Columbus sub-
stantially agrees with that of Wernicke.
French. —Bayard, Comines, Moret, Clemincin.
Italian. — Palo Giovio and Guicciardini, who eu-
logize Isabella as the most unexceptionable woman
in her manners, and the most distinguished ruler of
Spain in the qualities of magnanimity and prudence.
Also Francisco Tarapha and Gomecius.
Spanish. — Florez, Pulgar, Navarrete, Martyr,
Oviedo, Navagiero, Mariana, Sempre, Llorente,
Quintana, in fact, all Spanish writers.
In our days, and in our country, an attempt is
being made to set aside this verdict of history which
has stood for four hundred years. The attempt is
based, principally, upon the general charge of cruelty,
and of this the chief specifications are four.
The nature and character of Isabella, instead of
being cruel, were exactly the reverse. She opposed,
at first, the revival of the Inquisition, and even after
the papal bull had been issued, she suspended its
execution until milder measures could be tried. She
freed 500 slaves who had been sent to Seville to be
sold—she mitigated the horrors of war, on every pos-
sible occasion, and when, after the fall of Granada,
some of her officers, exasperated at the desperate
defense, wished to put the garrison to the sword, she
absolutely refused to permit it. “The humane heart
of Isabella,” says the historian, “revolted at such
sanguinary counsels; she insisted that their triumph
should not be disgraced by cruelty.” (Conquest of
Granada, p. 392, et seq.) And as one of the crown-

I36 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
ing glories of her reign, she was the first to establish
camp hospitals in the army.
Queen Isabella did not expel the Moors. The
Moors had conquered Spain and the war had been
begun by her predecessors.
The Inquisition had been established 200 years
before her reign in Castille, and had been concocted
by individuals of the masculine persuasion. When
Ferdinand desired to receive the Inquisition into his
States, Isabella's refusal was the only obstacle, and
her consent was only obtained by others bringing
such a fear to bear that alarmed her conscience and
caused her to look upon it as a religious duty. If
she was weak and cruel, then men were responsible.
Then what shall we say of St. Cyril, bishop of
Alexandria, who ordered his mob of monks to strip
the great Hypatia and drag her naked through the
streets, at the close of which demonstration they en-
tered the sacred church of God, where Peter the
reader, killed her with a club. No doubt they knelt
before and after the sacred service.
What was the offense of Hypatia? She was a
Greek lady of science, commentator of geometry, and
Ptolemy's syntaxis, and wrote commentaries on Ap-
polonnis, the inventor of conic sections, and Dio-
phantus the inventor of algebra, and also calculated
extensive astronomical tables. She lectured upon
the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, and her dis-
courses were always thronged with the intellectual of

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I37
her age. St. Cyril said, “Religion and science are
antagonistic and we must kill this woman.” -
What shall we say of John Calvin, who appre-
hended and convicted of blasphemy, Gruet and Mi-
chael Servetus, both learned and excellent men, and
burnt them at the stake in 1550, because they denied
the doctrine of the Trinity? Servetus had written a
book entitled, “ Christianity Restored,” and was a
physician and brilliant thinker.
What shall we say of the New England clergy, in
1692, who led the witchcraft tortures, outdoing John
Calvin?
Will the spirits of Revs. Mather and Paris answer
to the questions referring to the fifty-five tortured and
hung? No woman was engaged in this disgraceful
and bloody work, only as she was called upon to step
forth and be tortured. It was the church, and the
church was man.
But this is a man's government. What else can
we expect of a reign that excludes half the race? In-
justice is the rock upon which the government has
been builded, and as its foundation, so must be its
rearings. Thus we are not surprised that our nation
pensions wealthy widows for no other reason than
that they were the wives of men whose names were
great, and we are not surprised that a girl whose her-
oism has never been equaled in the land, and Miss
Carroll whose transcendent genius planned a cam-
paign which snatched our banner from a gaining foe,
are left to want.
I38 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
But, after all, when we consider, that had these
women been placed in office and proven guilty of
official misconduct, they would not have been “held
strictly responsible for the performance of official
duty, and punished for the breach of it.” I suppose
we should feel quite satisfied for that little justice
already bestowed, and thankful for that privilege
which permits some to starve. The ballot in the
hands of our Kate Shelley's might work mischief.


CHAPTER VIII.
A FIRM WITH BUT ONE MEMBER IN AUTHORITy–THE
PRIVILEGE OF WHIPPING HIS PARTNER WITH A ROD
No LARGER THAN HIS THUMB–THE FRUIT OF THE
PARTNERSHIP-WHO IS THE POSSESSOR-WoMAN
SoLD IN OPEN MARKET WITH A HALTER ROUND
HER NECK. -
HE professor says: “Woman, as a rule, has not
been the slave. . . . The relation between
the sexes has been that of partnership in a very
rough and imperfect world.” This is a virtual ad-
mission that woman has been a slave at some time,
but under a partnership, as of marriage, she has not
been a slave usually.
This learned professor must have studied common
law to good effect, which, in the absence of statute
law, exists to-day in this country, with the exception
of a few States, where the civil law obtains.
This partnership “between the sexes,” was an
unusual one, entirely unknown in any other kind.
Under common law, it sank the personality of the
wife in that of the husband. It was such a partner-
(139)

I 40 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
ship that invested all the wife's personal property in
the husband at once, and her title ceased absolutely.
She could neither sell nor give it away, and in case
of his death, she received no title to any portion of it
again, nor did she receive any portion of his person-
ality.
This is a partnership with a vengeance—a partner-
ship of one. The absolute control of her real estate,
when married, centered in her husband, and he was
entitled to all the rents and profits, and if she left
him a widower, he could control it during his life-
time, continuing to receive its rents and profits.
Common law did not permit her to make a will,
nor to receive a legacy. He could punish her as he
saw fit, but as the common law provided him with
“a rod no larger than his thumb,” I suppose she
ought to have been thankful that the rod was not as
large as his arm. Was there ever such a peculiar
partnership heard of before, where the legitimate and
lawful business of one of the firm was to whip the
other, whenever he thought best, with a good-sized,
lawfully regulated rod?
Blackstone says of this partnership: “The hus-
band and wife are one, and that one is the husband.”
Kent says, Vol. 2, page Io9: “The legal effects
of marriage are generally deducible from the principle
of the common law, by which the husband and wife
are regarded as one person, and her legal existence
and authority lost or suspended during the continu-
ance of the matrimonial union.”
Again he says, in Vol. 2, page 127: “The disa-
bility of the wife to contract, so as to bind herself,

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I4 I
arises not from want of discretion, but because she
has entered into an indissoluble connection, by which
she is placed under the power and protection of her
husband.”
It was this protection and partnership existing be-
tween the sexes which constituted the husband the
whoſe concern, which Lord Brougham declared “a dis-
grace to any heathen nation,” and which existed
everywhere in this country, until but a few years ago.
Kent, Vol. 2, page 33, and Bishop, pages 492 and
581, sets forth this partnership between the sexes
which is sanctioned by Prof. Smith. It is shown
how a guilty husband, in case of divorce, can bank-
rupt his partner, leaving her in want, it being discre-
tionary with the court whether the innocent wife shall
receive either alimony or money, to sustain the suit.
Many theories of woman's origin places her under
obligation to man. In the old familiar Phoenician
myth of Pygmalion and Galatia, the goddess Aphro-
dite answers to the prayers of Pygmalion, and endows
his statue of ivory with life. According to the Greek
theory, recorded by Hesiod, Zeus ordered Vulcan to
make a creature out of clay, and persuaded the gods
and goddesses to endow her with all the worst quali-
ties, the result of which was a treacherous and shame-
less creature, and pronounced it woman.
Woman's origin has varied according to the situa-
tion. We read of a man of ancient times, after hav-
ing eaten of forbidden fruit, who was punished for
his disobedience with a boil on his leg, out of which,
when it burst, emerged a woman. His first inclina-
tion was to throw her to the pigs, but he thought

I42 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
better of it and married her This is somewhat
similar to the origin of Eve, but instead of spring-
ing from a boil, she sprang from a man's rib. This
woman behaved so badly, according to the story, that
she was not only a curse to Adam, but the entire race
of men. It's barely possible the severity of the com-
mon law upon woman was based upon the theory of
her low origin and bad conduct.
Reference has often been made to the exemption
of woman from punishment for crime, under common
law. There was a time when a wife was not punished
for a theft committed in presence of her husband, on
the ground that her moral responsibility was sunk in
her husband—all having disappeared in the partner-
ship which was composed of one person. The only
thing the wife did not sink in this relation was the
fear of her partner. The screening of woman from
public punishment for theft, Prof. Smith would look
upon as her share of the profit and a recompense, no
doubt, for that which she had surrendered in the
name of the firm. But this was not exactly all profit,
so long as the same law that screened her from public
punishment gave her partner the privelege and luxury
of punishing her in private “with a rod no larger than
his thumb.” It would hardly have been showing
woman proper tenderness to have punished her twice
for the same offense.
The more we look into this matter of partnership
between the sexes, the more interesting it becomes
Think of a partnership whereby a husband could sell
his wife, or partner of the firm, in open market, lead-
ing her with a halter round her neck. In 1750, a man

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I43
sold his wife for an ox, and the man with whom he
exchanged lived at Parham, in Norfolk, and he re-
ceived her with a halter round her neck, and the
bullock was exchanged, which was afterward sold
for six guineas.
In 1766, one Huggins, a carpenter, of Southwork,
sold his wife to a brother chip at an ale house. In
the year following, a man sold a woman who was not
his wife, and received in pay a quarter guinea and a
gallon of rum.
Three men and three women went to the Bell Inn,
at Birmingham, and made the following entry in a
toll-book which was kept there: “Samuel White-
house, of the parish of Willenhall, in the county of
Staffard, this day sold his wife, Mary Whitehouse, in
open market, to Thomas Griffiths, of Birmingham.
Value one shilling, to take her with all faults.”
A man at Tuxford Market Place, in 1805, sold not
only his wife, but child. He was well satisfied with
five shillings as the purchase price of the two. In
the next year following, John Gawthorpe brought his
wife with a halter round her neck to Hull Market,
where he sold her for the handsome price of twenty
guineas.
In 1807, John Lupton, of Lenton, purchased the
wife of Mr. Waldilove, innkeeper of Grossington, for
one hundred guineas. Down to the beginning of the
present century, in some parts of Cumberland, a cus-
tom called Zeffing a woman was adopted. It was not
uncommon to read as an advertisement, “A woman
to let.”

I44 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
In 1788, a manufacturer in the Midland counties
took a lease of his deceased wife's sister, and the
lease-hold property assumed the rank and position of
wife.
The above instances illustrate a peculiar partner-
ship between the sexes in an earlier day, many of
which heathenish features exist now. This relation
gave the children (the fruits of this partnership) to
any other woman as well as to the wife belonging to
the firm, the husband reigning supreme over them.
The case of Rex. V. Greenhill, where the father took
his children from a wife, innocent of any crime, and
placed them in the custody of a woman with whom
he was disreputably living, is an illustration.
Such privileges at last stirred up a little moral
principle, and an English statute was passed in 1839,
to meet such brazen iniquity, but not until 1839, re-
member. -
We read in Blackstone that “a mother as such is
entitled to no power, but only reverence and respect.”
What a comfort to a woman robbed of her children
by a disreputable monster, to know that although she
possesses “no power” to remedy the worse than liv-
ing death, she is reverenced and respected.
As an illustration of our own time, I quote from
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in the Woman's Zºrić-
tºne, April 5, 1890: –
Public attention was again aroused to this subject
by the McFarland-Richardson trial, in which the
former shot the latter, being jealous of his attentions
to his wife. McFarland was a brutal, improvident,
husband, who had completely alienated his wife's af-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I45
fections, while Mr. Richardson who had long been a
cherished acquaintance of the family, befriended the
wife in the darkest days of her misery.
She was a very refined, attractive woman, and a
large circle of warm friends stood by her through the
fierce ordeal of her husband's trial.
Though McFarland did not deny that he killed
Richardson, yet he was acquitted on the plea of in-
sanity, and at the same time made the legal guardian
of his child, a boy then twelve years of age, and
walked out of the court with him hand in hand.
What a travesty on justice and common sense? that
while declaring a man too insane to be held responsi-
ble for taking the life of another, he might still be
capable of directing the life and education of a child.
And what an insult to that intelligent mother who
had devoted twelve years of her life to his care, while
his worthless father had not provided for them the
necessaries of life.
She married Mr. Richardson on his death-bed.
The ceremony was performed by Henry Ward Beecher
and Rev. O. B. Frothingham, while such men as
Horace Greeley, Oliver Johnson and Joshua Leavitt,
witnessed the solemn service.
Though no shadow had ever dimmed Mrs. Rich-
ardson's fair fame, yet she was rudely treated in the
court, and robbed of her child, though by far the
most fitting parent to be entrusted with his care.
It is the exceptional mother who is not better
fitted to care and rear her children than the father.
If either is obliged to remain in ignorance, it might
better be the father. If authority must vest in one,
at the exclusion of the other, it might better vest in the
mother. There is that in the instincts, the intuition,
the soul of woman that posterity and civilization re-
quire for their betterment. Harper's Bazar says:–
IO

I46 PROF. GOLD WIN SMITH
Let her remember that in all ages she has stood
at the altar of life, the high priestess of humanity;
that in the face of all accusations of weakness and
inferiority she has gone with dumb lips and brave
eyes again and again into the shadow of death to
make her sacrifice for the race; and that in these
latter days of knowledge, biologists, after profound
study of the phenomena of being, announce that it
is she who is the trunk of the tree of life, and the
males but a subsidiary force in the world of genesis.
The scientific data from which such conclusions have
been drawn have not been entirely hidden from popu-
lar apprehension, for certain facts of heritage are
matters of proverbial acceptance. The sons of great
men are rarely great. Great men have nearly always
mothers of powerful character and mind. The dig-
nity, freedom, and strength of a nation are usually
in direct proportion to the liberty and dignity of its
women, and so on, with like facts all tending to the
same conclusion. It is undoubtedly proved that in
America, where the women are famous for their
originality and the freedom of their intelligence, the
men are noted for the highest development of the
same qualities, and the nation moves with prodigious
strides toward the full perfection of existence. Let
the brillant works of women be glorified, and cried
upon the house-tops with trumpets of silver; but let
it not be imagined that these works are the end for
which she lives, admirable as they may be in them-
selves. Her real mission is greater and wider than
all this, and these pictures, books, scientific discov-
eries, learning, and commercial successes are but the
means by which she works toward the lifting of the
whole race. Motherhood grows more glorious with
every step she takes upward in the scale of being,
and her offspring, like the whelps of the lioness, shall
be brought forth heirs of her own kingdom of power
and dominion. Since she has caught up the torch of
wisdom and learning, ages of darkness are no longer

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I47
possible. Men of races may be destroyed and oblit-
erated by lower forces, but woman is eternal. War
and barbarian influx pass by and spare her, and
whatever social or political convulsion may attack
our present civilization, it cannot be wholly destroyed,
like those of old time, since of this one woman holds
the secret.
Prof. Jas. Rodes Buchanan says:–
The nation that tramples on its women goes down
with them in the valley of ignorance and humiliation,
losing its honorable ambition and public spirit, sink-
ing in social disorder, poverty, crime, and pestilence,
until some stronger nation becomes its master. It is
the nature of woman to suffer uncomplainingly—to
die in silence out of a world that would not shelter
her. She starves, but does not strike for wages, as
men do—she submits to masculine brutality and con-
ceals the crime of her oppressor. Every great city,
even in our own land, has numberless stories of op-
pressions. And in all nations women have been
crushed under that form of slavery which is baser
and more degrading than all other forms—the slavery
of lust. In ignorance, in starving poverty, in friend-
less helplessness, they are dragged down and crushed
as loathsome creatures by the enormous power of a
hard-hearted society, led by the millionaire, the
Pharisee, and the hoodlum. And this wide-world
wrong must continue until in equality, in justice, in
honor, and in financial independence, this great crime
shall become impossible.
When will the world be wise enough to discover
that “there is nothing so unprofitable as injustice P’’
Smother the influence of our women and that higher
development, and none are more deeply defrauded
than our husbands and sons. It produces an impover-
ishment of soul, that purse nor position can disinfect.

I48 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Ruskin imbreathed God’s truth when he said:
“No man ever lived a right life who had not been
chastened by a woman's love, strengthened by her
courage, and guided by her discretion.”
As also Bishop Simpson in the following: “I
believe that the great vices in your large cities will
never be conquered, until the ballot is put in the
hands of women.”
This partnership between the sexes, spoken of so
flatteringly, will not bear honest, sober thought, with-
out condemnation. The victims of subjugated rights,
mutilated bodies, and broken hearts, sacrificed upon
this altar, will ever remain untold.
A Chicago judge says that five women apply for
divorce to one man. This is a significant fact, even
under a more liberal marriage partnership. Had
divorces been granted under common law as easily
as under statute law, divorces would no doubt have
been more numerous.
As women become more educated and enlightened,
their demands will become louder and more numerous,
until some day marriage “partnership ’’ will not be
the synonym of lust and property owning. Thus the
warfare of sex will continue and grow stronger, until
it reaches the climax when women shall go free.
We clip the following from Áaže Fie/d's Washing-
ſon, which illustrates the combat:-
THE WARFARE OF SEX—A DRAMA.
SCENE I.
He—I like you!
She-And I like you! (They embrace.)
Aſe—I want more of you! -
She-You’ve had enough!

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I49
:
//e—But I want more!
She You can’t have it! -
He—I'll take it! I'm the biggest!"
She-You sha'n't! (They fight.)
SCENE 2. '
He—I like you!
She-And I like you! (They embrace.)
Aſe—I’ll hunt for you!
She-And I’ll cook for you!
Aſe—Carry this beast!
She-I don’t want tol
//e—You must!
..She I won't!
Aſe—I’ll make you! I'm the biggest!
She-You sha'n't! (They fight.)
SCENE 3.
Aſe—I like you! -
She-And I like you! (They embrace.)
He—You're so pretty in the house!
She-I like to be pretty!
Aſe—You mustn't go out of the house!
She-Oh, but I want tol
He-You mustn't!
She I will!
Aſe—I’m the biggest, and I'll keep you in!
She-You sha’n’t! (They fight.)
SCENE 4.
He—I like you!
She-And I like you! (They embrace.)
Aſe—You are lovely, but wicked!
..She I know I’m wicked!
Aſe—You are an angel—and a fool!
She-I know that, too!
He—You are my queen—and my slave!
..She That is self-evident!
He—I may do as I please, but you mustn't!

I5O PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
She I will
Aſe—I am the biggest, and I'll make you behave!
She-You can't! (They fight.)
SCENE 5.
Aſe— (feebly)—I like you!
She- (wearily)–And I like you! (They shake
hands.)
He–Keep behind me! Don't push so!
She-Oh! You hurt! I want to get out!
He–You mean, you want to get ahead!
She-I don't! I want to get even!
He–Horrors! You don’t belong even! You weren't
made even! You can’t get even! You are a fool—I
mean an angel! Here, go back! You're a slave—I
mean a queen! Get behind, I tell you! Heavens and
earth, woman! Don't you understand? You were di-
vinely ordained to stay behind; you were naturally
evolved to stay behind; you look much better behind;
you are far happier behind; you are more—ahem—
convenient behind; you are constitutionally incapaci-
tated for anything but staying behind; it is absolutely
impossible for you to get out from behind; and there-
fore I will fight till I die to keep you behind! But if
you’ll only stay behind and keep quiet, we'll be good
friends. See?
She-I want to get out!
Aſe—You sha’n’t!
She I will!
He–I’m the strongest, and I’ll keep you behind!
She-We'll see about that! (They fight awfully.)
SLOW CURTAIN.
There will be an end to the severe combat in due
time. Wyoming has taken the lead, and it is but the
beginning of greater victory in the future.
Upon the admission of Wyoming, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton says, in the Woman's World:–

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I5 I
The admission of Wyoming as a State into the
Union, with a provision in her constitution for woman
suffrage, is our second Declaration of Independence;
as much more important in national life than that of
I776, as the moral status of woman in nature, exceeds
that of man; and as the fulfillment of a principle ex-
ceeds its proclamation. This marks a new epoch on
the horology of time, in which we are to witness the
realization of the Poet Laureate's prophesy:-
“Everywhere
Two heads in counsel,
Two beside the hearth,
Two in the tangled business of the world,
Two plummets dropped, to sound the abyss
Of science and the mind.”
The history of the past has been one struggle for
supremacy between man and woman, with alternate
success and failures. They who assert that woman
has always been in subjection and always will be, are
equally at fault as historians and prophets. Women
were recognized equals in government and religion in
ancient Egypt, in ancient Rome, among the Aryans,
the Persians, and in Germanic history we have a full
account of the Matriarchate, or Mother-age, when
woman was the head of the family, owned the prop-
erty, the children, the name and descent were wholly
in her line, and fatherhood was an unknown relation.
For the protection of herself and her children, woman
made the first home in caves of the earth, then huts
with trees, in the sunshine. She made the first ex-
periments in agriculture, raised grain and fruits and
herbs, which she learned to use in sickness. She
was her own physician. All that was known of the
medical art was in her hands. All there was of family
life centered round her. The men were hunters and
their social relations were promiscuous. A long time
elapsed before they assumed any responsibility of
home and family life. The women cultivated the

I52 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
arts of peace and the sentiments of kinship, and all
there was of early civilization grew out of the neces-
sities of motherhood, when woman was compelled,
not only to protect herself and her children against
the wild beasts of the forest, but against man, the
wily, cruel hunter also. Careful historians now show
that the greatest civilizing power, all along the path-
Way of natural development, has been found in the
wisdom and tender sentiments growing out of mother-
hood.
These facts add dignity to our past and inspire us
with brighter hopes of the future. We see clearly
the dawning of the new day that is to usher in the
mother-age once more. The forces are gathering
from the north, the south, the east, and the west,
and the new gospel of woman's equality is heralded
around the globe, from pole to pole.
In his last speech given at Harvard college Wen-
dell Phillips, our prophet orator and seer, in speaking
of the destiny of woman said, “The first glimpse we
get of Saxon blood in history is that line of Tacitus
which reads, “In all grave matters we consult our
women.” Years hence when robust Saxon sense has
flung away Jewish superstition and Eastern preju-
dice, and put under its foot fastidious scholarship
and Squeamish fashion, some second Tacitus from
the valley of the Mississippi will answer to him of
the seven hills, “In all grave matters we consult our
women.” This prophecy, made only nine years ago,
is already fulfilled. The statesmen of Wyoming have
indeed echoed back from under the very dome of our
capitol that “in all grave matters we consult our
women; ” yea, more, beyond the valley of the Mis-
sissippi they have planted a republic where the Ma-
triarchate, or Mother-age, shall be realized once more.

: CHAPTER IX.
BOUND UP IN AFFECTION.—PROF. SMITH INDULGEs
WOMEN IN BICYCLES-PRIMROSE DAMES TAKE A D-
VANTAGE OF LORD SALISBURy’s FEMININE WEAK-
NESS—THEY RESOLVE TO CORRUPT THE LOWER
CLASSES BY THEIR FASCINATIONS THE RIGHT-
EOUSLY ENDOWED.
ROF. Smith says: “There runs through all these
arguments . . . the fallacious assumption
that women are a class apart. . . . But
women are not a class, they are a sex . . . bound
up in affection and living in the closest communica-
tion with the voting and governing sex.”
‘‘Bound up in affection!”
Last week a woman crossed my path with bleed-
ing nose and two front teeth knocked out. She was
fleeing from her affectionate husband and protector
who was in hot pursuit. I learned from the police-
man, who came to her rescue, that this was the
fourth or fifth time he had to look after this man, and
the cause of the last assault was that she threatened
(153)

I54 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
to have him arrested, if he ever laid violent hands
upon her again. This was more than his masculine
flesh and blood could endure, and that “muscle”
which constitutes the foundation of all good govern-
ment was applied. -
“Bound up in affection!”
My little friend, seamstress, labors all day for fifty
cents, whenever an opportunity opens, and upon her
return home her loving “complement” is in attend-
ance to demand the whole, or most of her wages, that
he may enjoy himself round the corner.
There is not the slightest doubt but that this wife
“is bound up in affection,” or ought to be, for what
other object could she have in life?
“Not a class, but a sex.”
This startling and overwhelming argument we
would not attempt to dispute. It is altogether be-
yond the grasp of woman’s intellect. We have only
to say that if it be a mark of superiority to be “a
class,” instead of “a sex,” we are unable to appreci-
ate the situation. We are quite willing however to
continue on “a sex,” especially when clothed with
that wonderful privilege of living “in the closest com-
munication with the voting and governing sex.” To
be able to look upon a voter daily, and to be bound
up in affection unto him, ought to be an unspeaka-
ble joy.
The professor says women are advancing; that
she has already “made her way to the smoking-room
and has mounted the bicycle.” No doubt women
have been unmindful of many concessions. It is ex-

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I55
tremely kind of the professor and his brethren to in-
dulge us in bicycles.
It was really more than we were looking for. It
is a great liberty, and yet while acknowledging the
favor and realizing that this obligation must rest
upon us forever, we must say that with all the many
fine points of a bicycle, there is something lacking.
The aching void is not completely filled. It does not
exactly meet the soul. All aspirations will not down
at its sight. There are chords in our willful hearts
that fail to vibrate in unison with this vehicle. The
iniquity within is striving to mount to greater heights
than a bicycle can afford. In the matter of making
our way to the smoking-room, I hope there will be no
unpleasant reflection cast upon us. We would have
heroically denied ourselves this delight but for man,
who introduced the custom.
In this case, we plead the mitigating circumstances
that we have been obliged to meet this delicious and
fragrant herb everywhere, at our homes and in pub-
lic, upon the streets and in private parlor has it been
thrust upon us, and when we visit the polls it will be
there to greet us with open arms. Many have learned
by years of sad experience in becoming acclimated,
to love the weed and enjoy the smoking-room.
Women and children do learn from example.
We agree with the professor when he says that
“after all, nature made two sexes.” That nature
selected a certain sex to do the voting is not so
clear to us.
In fact, if it is true that only one of the sex were
designated by our Creator to be crowned with the

I56 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
ballot, we would like to know by what authority he
asserts that it was not woman so designated instead
of man. It would be serious to make a mistake about
so important a matter. There is scarcely a doubt but
that Prof. Smith knows the laws of evidence, and yet,
all he has produced thus far has been insufficient,
incompetent, and irrelevant.
In referring to Lord Salisbury favoring equal suf-
frage, the professor says that he is very apt to rush
impetuously into positions, that “on the occasion
when he was hurried into the particular leap, he
was addressing an assembly of primrose dames, who
are supposed by bringing their fascinations to bear
on the lower classes of voters, to have rendered great
service to the parties in the elections.”
England’s primrose dames should not take advan-
tage of Lord Salisbury's impetuosity, or any other
feminine weakness.
Primrose dames, what have you to say to these
charges thrown out by your countryman? Have you
the pleasure of his acquaintance?
How did he happen to fathom the secret motive
which prompted your political action?
Did you meet in convention and resolve that you
would bring your “fascinations to bear upon the
lower classes of voters?”
Was it this resolve and promise that “hurried
Lord Salisbury into that particular leap,” when “ad-
dressing an assembly of primrose dames?”
I am a little curious to know how the professor
became informed of your intentions to convert the
lower classes by your fascinations, for he speaks as

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I57
one having authority, and who feels the terrible deg-
radation to which you have fallen.
Let women write down these words that they may
not forget them. The great Prof. Smith hath spoken
them. He hath fathomed the secret spring of your
ambition, namely, to corrupt low men still lower by
your fascinations; but, remember, these low men,
however low, are voters. Many a man in the lower
walks of life has been held to ignominiously answer
for a lesser insult.
Prof. Smith says: “To man, as he alone could
enforce the law, the sovereign power, came naturally
and righteously.” But the professor in speaking of
this power says: “Let him see whether he cannot
make a just use of it . . . before he sends in
his resignation.”
Here the professor implies that man has not made
a just use of his power; it is certainly a startling as-
sertion if man is “righteously ’’ endowed.
If man has yet to test his ability to be just, the
claim to “righteousness” may be a little premature.
Our great teacher says that “man would neither
be inclined nor bound to treat with tenderness, nor
forbearance, the being who was fighting and jostling
him in all his walks of life.” It would not be ex-
pected of the professor that he treat “with tender-
ness” a woman who should jostle him in all his walks
in life, nor even one of them, and the chances are
that she who would jostle him would not be seeking
his “tenderness,” so neither the professor nor the
woman jostler would be inconvenienced. But it is a

I58 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH.
little strange that he should expect women to jostle
him on their way to the polls.
All men do not jostle him, though their political
complexion may vary. There is no necessity for
trouble among beings engaged in the same line of
business. All that is required is politeness based
upon common decency.
This should be expected of men “righteously ’’
endowed.
Tenderness is an ingredient not actually demanded
in the case. Common civilities, however, are apt to
accompany “righteousness.”
ºù,
<āºº
%3;gº.
º,”/ -
º
º
-*N Sº
º -* §
—#3- \G
-
is,

CHAPTER X.
ONE OR Two LEGS, SINGLE OR DOUBLE TEETH NO
TEST TO THE RIGHT OF BALLOT OCCUPATION OF
LAWYER OR CHAPLAIN TO OUR WASHINGTON DEN
OF THIEVEs Does NOT DISFRANCHISE—THE AGE
DEMAND's Wom EN WoRKERs.
HE demand for woman suffrage is not made by
queer, ignorant, and demented women. Nei-
ther is it made through spite, and a desire to
produce inharmony. It is the result of calm and
serious thought, with a determination to fight it out
upon this line, though it takes a life-time.
Though it were possible for men to represent
women at the polls, they should spurn such repre-
sentation upon general principles. The claim that
women are represented at the ballot box does not
comport with the claim that if women did express
their opinion by a vote, there would be “fighting at
the elections.” What would they be fighting over if
they are represented? A party seldom fights at elec-
tions, or any other place, when satisfied.
(159)

I6o PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Woman may visit public halls, where political
speeches are made, by special invitation—handbills
nearly always reading, “women cordially invited.”
She can carry one of these handbills right along with
her, and retain it much longer than she would a
ballot. She may get excited over every lie uttered,
which has become the stock in trade of politicians,
who vote to represent women.
She may be allowed, without being considered un-
womanly, to resort to the streets, and follow up
political torch-light processions with flaming banners,
which read something like this: “Harrison and Pro-
tection,” “A Government by the People,” etc.
She might meet one of her masculine voters rest-
ing against a lamp-post, with bleared eyes, whisky
breath, babbling speech, and a Republican badge of
“robustness” upon him, and yet she is not defiled by
associations, nor complained of for wandering from
home and neglecting her husband's shirts.
She can share in the curiosity and excitement of
election returns, and shout ever so loud for victory,
or wail because of defeat, but the polls should never
be approached, though open only in the broadest
daylight. Bad women and drunken men might be
met there. There is not the same danger in meeting
them upon the street, or public hall, it seems.
THE RIGHT TO VOTE, Zies not in sex, color, race, nor
occupation.
Man’s choice of business does not interfere with
this right. He may be a lawyer or a chaplain to our
Washington banditti. He may be a dishwasher or
body servant, table waiter or tape measurer.

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I6 I
Blue, black, or green eyes, are no test. One or
two legs, single or double teeth, five or six feet in
stature; but in the secret of that natural right to
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all
who have a brain to develop, a stomach to feed, and
a heart to love. Until Prof. Smith can establish the
fact that the stomach of one is not subject to the
same law of hunger as another; the brains not sub-
ject to the same law of growth, and the heart to the
same law of love, he is not placing himself in an
enviable position, when he would discriminate be-
tween stomachs, brains, and hearts.
The lesson cannot be absorbed too soon, for the
good of all concerned, that a woman’s right is freedom
equally with her brother, and should be held accounta-
ble and subordinate only unto that higher power be-
fore which man must bow as Zozo, as woman.
Hon. William Dudley Foulke says:–
Now, I am utterly opposed to every form of doing
good to people against their will. I am opposed to
every sort of divine right, whether of a king or an
aristocracy, of a single race, or of a single sex. If
women did not suffer from this absence of political
power it would be the only instance in history where
a class deprived of political rights have not been the
worse for this disability. In the progress of civiliza-
tion, from despotism to constitutional government,
one class after another, one race after another, found
that some share in the government was necessary for
the protection of their rights. The barons wrested
it from King John, the wealthy burghers in parlia-
ment acquired the right to share with the barons the
power to make the laws. Gradually, through the
various strata of society filtered this divine right,
I I

I62 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
this right of sovereignty, this right of suffrage, until
at last it has been extended even to the poorest. So
in America; first it was the property qualification,
then it was the race qualification. Step by step has
the franchise been extorted from its exclusive pos-
sessors, until now it embraces practically the entire
human family of the male sex; and if the principles
upon which these advances have been made are true,
the movement cannot stop here.
Men call us dreamers, but it is the dream of this
generation which shall be the truth of history in gen-
erations to come. Thus has it always been, and thus
will it always be. Amidst the corruptions of declin-
ing Rome, men dreamed of a purer deity than the
old gods of Greece. Neither the tortures of Nero's
gardens, nor the flaming eyes of the tigers of the
ampitheatre, could stifle the spirit of these dreams.
Dreams that were born in the darkness of the cat-
acombs, dreams that made the dreamers brave and
pure and just amid the universal corruption and de-
bauchery around them; dreams that rose with their
pure spirits from amid the circles of the howling
amphitheatre, and led them along the bright path of
the sunlight of God’s love. These men dreamed, and
lo, the new faith in which they put their trust, spread
over all the earth, and buried beyond hope of resur-
rection the darkest superstitions of antiquity.
We can hardly remember it now, but there was
a time that we ourselves have seen in this our free
America, when human flesh was sold upon the auc-
tion block in this very city, when stripes and curses
were the only payment offered for the negro's toil;
when women with children at the breast followed for
days and weeks, among the swamps and morasses of
the South, that one star, the star of the north, of
liberty, the only friend that they had on earth. Then,
too, men dreamed, dreamed of the time when this
great curse should vanish. In season and out of

AND His SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I63
season they preached their glorious gospel of eman-
cipation. They were reviled of men; the jeers of the
populace, the hootings of the mob, and even the rope
of the hangman, was their portion; but the flame of
war passed over us and the curse has rolled away.
Garibaldi, in his island home, dreamed of united
Italy, and lo, before our very eyes the deed is done.
And men dream still. Amid the snows and darkness
of Siberian winters, they dream of that liberty for
whose sake they wear the chains and bear the stripes.
Dream of a great resurrection of holy Russia, when
the song of the peasant shall no longer be freighted
with the sadness which generations of oppression
have poured into its cadences; and where even to
them shall be given some measure of the divine right
to make the laws which they must obey. And their
dreams, too, shall become a living certainty.
And woman, too, has dreamed; dreamed of the
time when equal with her brother in the least jot and
tittle of every civil, social, and political right, she
shall have the power to exercise jointly with him that
right of sovereignty, that right of suffrage upon which
the security of every other right depends.
The question of woman suffrage will be settled
according to the order of progress. It is one of the
rounds in the ladder by which another height is
gained, and useful on/y in gaining that height when
we shall have outlived its usefulness.
And it is coming. Intuition, the queen of prophecy,
asserts that an administration founded upon class and
sex discrimination, must perish, for error and injus-
tice are death. There must be a law that rights all
wrong, and inspired with such faith, I can wait for
order to evolve from out the present chaos of crime.

I64 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
Truth cannot always “hang upon the scaffold,” and
falsehood always “sit upon the throne.”
Hannah Whitall hath told us: “Keep your top
eye open; it is the sky-light of the soul.” The light
along this line will guide the seeker after truth, and
it will continue to shine in upon the soul if we stand
strong for truth, and do not permit the lips to perjure
the understanding.
It is an unpleasant duty to teach the truth at all
times surrounded by error, custom, and prejudice,
but it is satisfaction to realize that no scaffold can be
built high enough to strangle it; that it continues to
grow brighter and brighter amid its persecutions,
until its last enemy is overcome.
We may not live to witness the burial ceremonies
of abject ignorance and falsehood, but others will
celebrate their death. It is not for personal reward
that we should labor. In this there is selfishness,
and possesses no merit. The love of truth should
envelope our entire horizen. Mahabaratata sounds
the right key in these words: “He that desireth a
return for his good deeds, loseth all merit. He is
like a merchant bartering his goods.”
We may expect falsehood to scorn, and often our
friends may chide us, but as Emerson has said: “It
is better to be a thorn in the side of your friend than
his echo.” When that grand old warrior Victor
Hugo said: “The nineteenth century belongs to
woman,” he sensed as few sensed the incoming tide
of progress, for his soul was ablaze with justice.
Yes, it belongs to women to render such service
to the present and rising generations as can only be

AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I65
rendered by freedom's environments. This is the soil
that evolves the plant of womanhood.
Emile Ollivier, in the 77-ans-Atlantic says:
“Women should be given a part in universal suf-
frage. Just as a cultivated woman talks better than
the most eloquent of orators, a woman who has not
deteriorated in soul, who has been refined by reflec-
tion, elevated by the natural progress of devoted
and pure life,’ brings to the appreciation of political
facts and theories a rectitude that many men weighed
down by their materialistic prejudices have lost.
Among the people the mental and moral superiority
of woman over man is constant. God stamps his
blessing on the individual in the companion he sends
to his fireside; why should he not send it upon society
by the reviving influence that women would have
upon public morals?” -
Geo. Fredrick Parsons, in the Atlantic, says:
“There is nothing so cruel, nothing so brutal, noth-
ing so uncivilized, in American politics to-day as the
dominance of the spirit which refuses a voice in the
government to that sex upon whose virtues, piety,
and long-suffering every worthy hope of this nation
depends.”
Mathew Arnold said: “The first desire of every
cultured mind is to take part in the great work of
government. A citizen of brain and heart must natu-
rally so desire.”
For women not to demand it, is not to be cul-
tured, and for our women not to be cultured is woe
unto the race of men.

I66 PROF. GOLDWIN SMITH
The age demands women workers. Their service
is needed in the cruel and sickening struggle between
labor and capital, between the high and the low,
the mendicant and millionaire. As Abigail arrested
David and his army coming from down the mountain
to destroy Nabal, his flocks, and vineyards; as De-
borah, before whom the children of Israel came for
judgment; as Joan de Arc inspired her warriors to re-
new their courage, to press on, and they should enter
the city of Troyes in a few hours; as Cornelia, the
mother of the Gracchi, at whose feet students and
philosophers knelt to gather words of wisdom; as
Miss Carroll inspired this nation with her military
genius which saved our country from a gaining foe,
so this terrible rebellion of wrong against right, will
be overcome only by the inspiration and generalship
of noble women as well as noble men.
Great obstacles are to be surmounted, garrisons
are to be subdued, and we must utilize our best ma-
terial, regardless of sex, which is a stranger to genius
or intellect, justice or necessity. The heights to be
scaled may seem insurmountable, but remember, the
nearer we approach the base of our mountain, strength
accumulates for the ascent.
When Napoleon started for Italy, he was asked,
“How will you cross the Alps.” He replied, “ There
shall be no Alps.”
The magic word which always drew forth the
blazing enthusiasm of the Greek was Maraſhom. Let
the magic word which shall lead us on to nobler at-
tainment be, Ziberty, not only for woman, but brow-
AND HIS SATELLITES IN CONGRESS. I67
beaten, plundered, and enslaved men groping for
deliverance, whose wails are borne to us upon every
breeze of heaven; whose blighted hopes and disap-
pointed expectations lie scattered all about them,
and let us prove as worthy in the struggle as that
Spartan general who fell at the very moment of vic-
tory, but exclaimed with love and pride for those he
left behind, “Sparta has conquered.”
-
>3
%
#:
§
:
2/ -

i
º