fe

He
eo

feicierenss=
Bees

jai:

oti
buena’
HERG

ie

pee

oOo} bed oe toes Wig

S arlieley
sea

ie

reed

hares
a

 

ene
tens

BY

:: i
ibe
es
cyanea
ee

pt

hea

5 5
SSG) ASH SEEN FO? Ene Se CON AE Co

rider:
GY
EuKer
BNE
ete

in a democracy

Ee

Marion Institute =
/ Issued Quarterly S

ig iiPoE aE
TRS

Ny

OE Sa ores
SSS ea

Dus

oR ORRISE

 

Runes

La aihaie

Dab a

iy

ESSE ye
LESTE,

ian5Bae on ee

New Series = MoloVIiL No.8

BULLETIN

OF

| The Marion 3 Bustituts

MARION, ALABAMA.

gE Dik ecegipe AE page I a i MAS Sitar Scoala as eRe AN

_ AUTUMN BULLETIN |

OCTOBER, 1910

Yo inform public opinion is a capital function of every educational —

institution in a democracy

Published by the Marion Institute
Issued QuarterlyNew Series Vol. VI, No. 3

THE
MARION INSTITUTE

MARION, ALABAMA

BULLETIN

OCTOBER, 1910

ANNUAL DEBATE

 

AND ——

FINAL HONORS

 

 

ENTERED MAY 26, 1904, AT MARION, ALABAMA, AS SECOND;CLASS MAIL MAT-

TER, U NDER AOT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 10, 1894presences sasiepemens tome

HN
AANNUAL JUNIOR AND SENIOR DEBATE

MARION INSTITUTE
MAY 14, 1910

Pk O GR AM

WPL OU UC TORY 2 ee Se es ee ee Prof. J.P) MeCaor,

Subject: Resolved, That Women should be permitted to vote in
the United States under the same conditions
established for Men.

First Speech Atmrmative: 0.22.0 ses se vie Owen Barry.
Binge Speech“ Neeatives 26 6 ie ee ©. Hi.” Savage
Second; Sueech—-Afirmative = Mi BE. MeMillan.
Second Speech—Negative_____-__-___-------------- Mr J..H: Bomar:
WRG ag Se ee Se Misses Knight and Ellison.
irehied Snecch Admmmative 409 ae ee Db. Bs Goode.
Third Speech—Negative___------------------- Mr. Marion Rushton.
Rebuttal.

Judges Retire.

Nis ees eS ye ee ye SNL ISSeS Knight and Ellison.

Report of Judges: Prof. A. KF. Harmon, President of the
Alabama Educational Association,
Chairman.
Mrs. Daniel Partridge,
Honorable Daniel Partridge.

After considering the points discussed by both sides the judges
gave the decision to the affirmative debaters.a
is

2

eer ae

~
j
—EK. E. McMILLAN

 

EET EEE

 

OWEN BARRY D. B. GOODE

»

AP RIRVEMTIVE DEBATERS —TUNIOR €LAcs.FIRST SPEECH ON AFFIRMATIVE.
OwEN Barry.

Mr. Chairman; Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen:

The size of this gathering proves most conclusively the interest
shown in this vital subject: ‘Resolved, That women should be
permitted to vote in the United States under the same conditions
established for men.” This subject is only one of the numerous ways
of stating the world-wide question of Woman Suffrage.

This suffrage question is one of the most important questions of
the present day. It’s importance arises from the fact that thousands
upon thousands of women are held in political subjection and po-
litically are placed on the same plane with foreigners, paupers,
criminals, and lunatics. Does not this single fact alone warrant the
immediate attention of every thinking person?

Today, this question is in political platforms of nearly every
civilized nation, and we the people of the United States are being
rapidly passed in the march of civilization by allowing other coun-
tries to obtain liberal and deomcratic governments which surpass
our present one. Will the people of the United States break their
glorious past by being backward and hesitating in this great move-
ment?

Suffrage is the right to vote on any controverted question or the
right to vote for a person to fill an office of trust. But in our ques-
tion tonight, by suffrage we mean the right to vote in elections of
any kind which relate to law or law-makers in the United States.
From this it follows that the “Woman Suffrage Movement” is an
effort made by the women, (and let me add a great host of promi-
nent and influential men also), to obtain a right which they (the
women) ought long ago to have possessed. In short, this whole
movement is an attempt to obtain the right to vote in all the elec-
tions so that they (the women of the United States) might have
a share in the laws and government under which they live.

To understand this right more fully we must notice the change
in character and power of the vote.

A few years ago the average exponent of woman’s suffrage was
a woman apart; today, she is the woman we meet in society, in the
church, and in the home.

(5)soe

This change in the attitude of women and this increase in the
belief in universal suffrage in this country is a natural one. You
are all familiar with the usual reasons. Women have changed,
they have gained in mental and physical stature, they are better
educated, they are in business life, they are socially the compan-
ions and equals of men. Moreover, with the prevalence of peace,
the military requirements have become less exacting. These are all
important reasons, but there is one that is vital. The vote itself has
changed in character and value.

To realize the change in the value of the vote we must realize
what government is doing for us and to us that it did not once do.
Government has to say about the food we eat, the homes we live in,
the work we do, the children we rear, and although it cannot rule
the air we breathe; it can and does see that we get enough of it and
that the supply is pure. To what extent this government super-
vision may increase in the next few years no one ¢can tell, but that
it will increase, the present momentum of the government makes
certain. And with this increase in the power of government,
the value of the vote increases.

With this change in the value has come a change in the nature
of the vote. It’s field of operation is different. It is a more inti-
mate thing. Woman makes the home, and as government comes
nearer the home, and invades more and more the activities and in-
terests of the women in the home, the vote naturally becomes more
and more a factor which women must and will consider. The vote
has come within the field of woman’s activities, and men, to vote
intelligently, must vote with woman’s help.

We now review the qualifications for voters, in both the States
and the United States.

To vote one must be at the age of majority which is twenty-one
years. The residence qualification varies from six months to two
years. In thirty-three states a person must be a citizen of the United
States.

There are no qualifications which require possession of property
or capability of bearing arms or performing police duty.

The age limit is the same in the states as in the United States
qualifications, namely: twenty-one years. The residence qualification
varies, but the time usually ranges from six months to two years.
Here also there are no property qualifications.

In nine states there is an educational clause in the constitutions.

These are the various qualifications in brief of both the United
States and the States themselves.EG (ee

There is not one of these qualifications with which woman is not
able to comply.

We all agree that woman is able to comply with the age and resi-
dence qualifications. She is certainly capable of complying with the
eduactional provision in the nine states which have them, just as
much so as man. For the last few years there have been nearly
twice aS many girls in the schools and colleges as the number of
boys attending.

The vast scope and extent of this movement can be seen from
the following: There are suffrage organizations in Australia, Aus-
tria, Belgium, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Italy, Iceland,
Holland, Hungary, Normay, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzer-
land, and the United States.

There is equal suffrage in New Zealand and Finland, twenty-six
women sitting in parliament in Finland in 1909. Norway, England,
Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have equal suffrage in all elections
except for members of parliament. Sweden and Denmark have
equal suffrage with slight property qualifications. In the United
States; Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho have full equal suf-
frage.

After explaining the subject and showing its vast extent; it seems
proper, in order for you to better understand the question, to give
a brief history of the movement: First in some of the foreign coun-
tries and then in the United States itself.

Since 1893. the women of New Zealand have possessed the full
franchise on exactly the same terms as required of men. ‘There is
scarcely a dissenting voice in the distinguished testimony as to the
good effect of this on the women themselves and on the politics of
the country.

This situation is duplicated in Australia. ‘The six states united
in one commonwealth in 1901, and one of the first acts of the new
government was to give all women the full Federal franchise and
the right to sit in the National Parliament. At some elections not
only a larger percentage but actually a larger number of women
than of men have voted. In Tasmania last year women outnum-
bered the men at every polling station. And yet our opponents fear
that women don’t want the ballot and that they would not vote if
they could.

Prof. R. E. McNaughten of McGill University, Montreal, Canada,
who lived for some time in Australia testifies to the beneficial re-ENE

     

sults of equal suffrage in that country. He says: “‘More than ninety
per cent of the men of this country recognize and are willing to state
that the votes of women have been a real benefit to the state.
They have declared for all that goes to build up a great national

character.”

Hon. W. P. Reeves, agent general for New Zealand, in an address
given in London on “The Effect of Woman Suffrage in New Zealand
and Australia,” said in part: “The same arguments against equal

suffrage were urged there as elsewhere.

It was said that women

did not want the franchise and yet it was also said that when they
should get it they would become so enthralled, so enthusiastic, that
they would neglect all the duties of domestic life. But notwith-
standing all of these sad predictions, in social life things are now

much as they were. No one else can deny that the possession of the

ballot has begun to infiuence woman’s life and thought and brain

in New Zealand and Australia and that that influence is altogether

for the good.”

That equal suffrage is proving a success in Finland is best shown

by the resolution which Parliament unanimously passed stating that
woman’s vote had been of untold benefit to Finland and that the

government could not do without it.

The movement grew into a warm discussion in England. In 1869
the municipal ballot was secured to women by an act of Parliament,
and later, the district and county vote was added. Every part of
the British Empire has some form of woman suffrage.

The storm center of woman suffrage has gradually moved across

the Atlantic from England until today it hovers over our own na-

tion.

This was the first country in which was made the experiment of
a representative government by men, and therefore it is natural

that it should be the first in which women ask representation.

In 1826, Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen published a paper
claiming entire equality of rights for women. Miss Wright lectured
for several years, being the first to bring the question of woman
suffrage before the public, where it met with universal derision.

I wish you to note that in 1826 woman suffrage was received with

universal derision, while today it is a question upon which many
addresses, orations, and debates are made. Since 1851 organized
work for woman’s rights have been carried on.

In the next few years after 1850, the Civil War put everything
aside, and the progress of the movement was thus momentarily stop-LENO Es

ped. After the war the women were faced by the vast complications
of the rights of the negro, and were compelled to yield their claims
to the negro men.

In 1869, women from nineteen states met in New York City and
formed a National Woman Suffrage Association whose sole object
vas to obtain a sixteenth amendment to the Constitution to en-
franchise women. From this time the cause of woman’s suffrage
has steadily increased in numbers.

We will now take into consideration the states in the United
States which have equal suffrage, and show how equal suffrage laws
have affected them. Possibly, the most conclusive way to do this
is to give a few testimonials of distinguished persons from these
states. :

Hon. Jno. W. Kingman of the Wyoming Supreme Court says:
“In caucus discussions the presence of a few ladies is worth a whole
squad of police.” It is evident from this that women insure order
and good conduct at the polls. Hon. W. E. Mullen, Attorney Gen-
eral of Wyoming states that: “The women of this state have al-
ways voted since the Territorial days, and it will be hard to find
anything that they have not had a hand in. We have not a single
good law that the women have not worked for.”

The benefits of woman suffrage in Colorado cannot be better
stated than in the words of Judge Ben B. Lindsey of the Juvenile
Court of Denver. “The results of women suffrage in Colorado, since
its establishment more than ten years ago, have been so satisfactory
that it is hard to understand how it encounters opposition in other
states. I have never observed one evil as the result. I have never
heard a criticism directed against woman suffrage that ever worked
out in practice, or, if it did, was not equally applicable to male suf-
frage.

“It used to be said that women would not vote, that they were
not intelligent. In no important election has less than forty per
cent of the entire vote been cast by women, and considering that
there are more men in this Western state it is more than fair to
say that the women are equally interested in the affairs of govern-
ment, and vote as intelligently and as independently as the men.”

“T believe that I only voice the general impression of the best in-
formed when I say that we owe this condition more to woman suf-
frage in Colorado than to any other cause.”

Now, our opponents may say that there have been many election
frauds in Colorado, nevertheless, during the first ten years afterLge

equal suffrage was granted, there was only one woman convicted
of illegal voting. If more women than men cheated at elections ;
it would be a fair point against equal suffrage; if the number of
men and women cheating were about the same, it would not be an
argument either way; but since experience proves that election
frauds are much rarer among women, this is distinctly an argument
in favor of equal suffrage.

Laws similar to those passed in other equal suffrage states have
been passed in Idaho.

Mr. J. A. Hawley, a prominent lawyer of Boise, Idaho, says:
“A number of laws were urged by women, and without such advo-
cacy they would not have been passed. For the passage of some of
them the women are absolutely responsible, because it was through
their efforts that the members of the Legislature were brought to
realize that a condition existed that made the passage of such laws
necessary.”

According to Governor Brady of Idaho: ‘Woman suffrage has
been an unqualified success not only in Idaho but in all Western
States adopting the principle. I am heartily in favor of the wide
expansion of Woman Suffrage.”

Governor Cutler of Utah, says: “Instead of being unsexed or
debased the women have been bettered and broadened intelectually
and socially through the study and practice of civic affairs entailed
by the franchise. Politically, the influence of women has been on the
side of peace at the polls and the selection of better officials. With
the experience that Utah has had, we should not think for a moment
of returning to the male suffrage system.”

After giving this history of the movement and the testimonials
from the states and countries which have equal suffrage let us next
discuss the benefits which women would derive from equal suffrage.

They do use the franchise in places where equal suffrage is grant-
ed, they discuss, read, listen, reflect, and do learn,—all of which
widens their lives, brightens their intellects, makes their lives fuller
and more useful to the country and none the less charming in the

 

domestic circle.

With the growing independence of women have come new liabili-
ties and with her liabilities the desire for equal protection—a pro-
tection that can only be secured by a voice of the government she
helps to maintain.

Of course there are some standing out from the ranks of the past
and present who have protected and do protect the women of theirown family. But what has the question to do with this handful
of self-contented men? What is a king without his subjects? Of
what value are generals with no army? How long would stand your
railroad magnates without the toilers of their vast systems? I
repeat, the question is not dealing with the few men who have pro-
tected and do protect their families, but it is dealing with the vast
multitude who do not protect their families by casting their votes
for the right. By equal suffrage women would obtain this protec-
tion.

Women are unlike men—they have different aspirations, different
needs, a different point of view, a different way of conclusiveness.
Feminine talents are invaluable every where else in life; then does
it not seem reasonable that they would be equally valuable and use-
ful in politics?

Women not only needs the ballot and would be benefited by it but
man needs woman's ballot.

Charles Edward Russell, who spent sometime in New Zealand,
states, on the authority of the men, that women’s votes has notably
improved political life and made good order at the polls; that the
women are supporters of beneficial reforms, both social and gov-
ernmental; that it interfered not in the least with home duties,
and that it caused no family quarrels or discontent, but rather
strengthened the family ties and interests.

Thus in places where equal suffrage has had a fair trial we see
that it has helped men in various ways.

John Mitchell, former president of the United Mine Workers of
America and the highest authority on questions of labor, said a
few months ago: “If women could vote the wages of women in
government and state employ would be raised and legislation im-
proving their condition in many ways would be quickly effected.’
This statement is confirmed by the fact that in the four suffrage
states in our country the women in state employ do receive the same
salary as men for similar offices.

The Ameircan Federation of Labor approves of equal suffrage
stating that it is necessary to the protection of the industrial in-
terest of not only women wage-earners, but of men, as well. Over
twenty state federations of labor and scores of working’s men’s or-
ganizations, national and international, have taken similar action.
Evidently some men are alive to the benefits which equal suffrage

erants.—12—

Plato puts it: “Neither a man as a man nor a woman as a woman
has any special function in the administration of the state, but the
gifts are equally diffused in the sexes.

Women need to give their help—men need to have their help,
and the nation needs to use their help.

And finally: ‘Equality for all, special privileges for none.”

BH. EY McMInnAn.

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen:

Our first speaker, among other things, has endeavored to show
the particular and separate needs of men and women for women’s
ballot. I wish to continue this line of thought by showing the
needs of men and women collectively, or the needs of society as
a whole of women’s ballot. As a government is instituted for the
needs of society, we wish also to prove that women’s ballot will bet-
ter our government. We believe too that justice itself demands that
our nation should place the ballot in the hands of women.

First. The basis of all society must rest finally upon the home,
and we shall endeavor to show that women’s votes will benefit the
home and its surroundings and home life as nothing else can do.

Our honorable opponents pretend to fear that it will interefere
with the home duties, or the so-called higher duties of woman.
What are the higher duties of woman, and what are the political
duties anyway? The so-called higher duties are the bearing and
rearing of children, and making a home for family and friends.
The political duties of man—which would be the same for women—
are informing one’s self on the state of the country, on politics at
issue. on candidates for office, and in going to the polls and deposit-
ing a ballot. There is nothing in the one antagonistic to the other,
but they are in the most perfect harmony, and it will not take wo-
man from her home duties to intelligently undertake the political
duties.

It cannot be argued that the responsibility which suffrage could
place upon woman would take her away from her home any more
than it takes the merchant from his store, or the lawyer from his
office, or the minister from his pulpit.pel has

You doubt that women would expr
vote as their husbands directed. Th
though in some cases possibly
our four states where w
Should vote asar

ess their own opinion, but would
at they would not do as a rule,
they would, is proved by experience in
omen vote equally with men. But even if they
ule with their husbands, this stil] could be no ar-
sument against giving them the ballot, for it would
an increased power over that of
floating population of bachelor
good of country and home.

give the family
a comparatively irresponsible and
8S, Which would certainly be for the
But women need the ballot to protect
the home. Laws guarantee or restrict your own personal liberties,
protect or jeopardize your health, your home, your happiness, regu-
late the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the books you read,
and the amusements you enjoy,—in fact, regulate your every action.

As ali questions either directly or indirectly affect the home in
the end, and wherever the home, particularly the women in the home,
women should have a voice in the making of all laws. Instead of
lessening the harmony of home life, as our honorable Opponents
would have you believe, it will strengthen the family bonds and
ties as nothing else could do. Hon. Hugh Lusk, ex-member of New
Zealand Parliament, voices the testimony of most of the leading
men and women of his country, as well as those of our four equal
Suffrage states, when he Says: “We find that equal suffrage is the
greatest family bond and tie—the greatest strengthener of family
life. When men found that they could take their wives and daugh-
ters to political meetings, and afterwards go home with them and
talk it over, it was often the beginning of a new life for the family—
a life of ideas and interests in common, and a unison in thought.”
This life of ideas and interests in common—a life of thought, is the
only true bond of society.

The ballot is the instrument by which society records its wants
and needs, and is what must determine the laws under which so-
ciety shall live By adding an educated and moral element to the
ballot, the votes of women will be of countless benefit to society.
That women would add an educated element to the ballot cannot
be denied. Our high schools today are graduating a far greater
number of girls than boys, our colleges are graduating equally as
many young ladies as there are young men who receive their di-
plomas, and the number of illiterates among the women now, ac-
cording to the last census, is a great deal less than the illiterates
among the men. So it would certainly add an educated element.
Statistics show also that of the foreigners who come to this country,ai

the women are by far the more educated class. I might add just
here that the proportional foreign vote would be diminished, as the
number of women emigrants to this county are not half the number
But while women have been educated along all

of men emigrants.
other lines equally with men, their education along political lines
has been neglected, and they are denied that school of experience
in political matters which is worth all others. We recognize that
women are lacking in political training, and right here is the rea-

son that there are so Many women that are not interested in the

movement for equal suffrage. But where women have been given

the ballot they have entered upon the enjoyment of this new privi-

lege with that ready adaptation that distinguishes American women.

They at once fit themselves for the best use of this new privilege

and power. In Colorado, within one month after women were given

the ballot, there were more books on social government and polit-

ical economy sold than for ten years previous, showing that women

conscientiously fitted themselves for the wielding of this power, and

no doubt soon became better fitted for easting an intelligent vote

than many men who had enjoyed this privilege for a lifetime.

We find women who do not want to vote only where they do not
have the privilege; and because they do not realize their condition
—the very inertness and ignorance of political matters, which lack
of the ballot has caused them—proves one of the clearest needs of
women for the ballot. Like all other injustices and slavery, its
worst effect is that it weakens, degenerates, darkens its victim, un-
til they no longer realize the harm done them: Wasted on trifies,
cramped by routine, lacking the strength and breadth which interest
in great questions gives, many women grope or flutter on, ignorant
of the real cause which saddens their lives, burdens their toils,
starves their nature, and sows their paths with thorns. Those
whom circumstances have lifted to broader views must not wait for
her request before they open to women the advantages by which
they have profited so much. Besides, we lose half of our resources
when we shut women out from beneath the influences of these ele-
ments of growth.

God gave us the whole race, with its varied endowment—man
and woman—one the complement of the other, on which to base Civ-
ilization. We starve ourselves by using in civil affairs only half—
only one sex. Just as literature made a great stride when woman
began to write and read, so politics will reap as great a gain when

she enters its field.acaitegaLs

It is hardly

hecessary to add that a more moral element would
be added. We

all know that as a whole woman is far more moral
than man. Where we find one virtuous m
virtuous women. Where we find one woman criminal, we find fifty

men—taking the whole U. S. which was the average for 1909. It is
an old French saying th

an we find one hundred

 

at the women make the moral of a country,
but this is not true as long as women have no voice in the making
of laws. When we give them a voice in the administration of our
sovernment, then they will have a large share in the marking of mor-
als, and the result will be in the whole U. S., as is now the case in
the four states where women do have the power to add a moral ele-
ment—that we shall have a moral sovernment, of which we shall be
justly proud.

AS the ballot will broaden the minds of the women, this
will in turn be felt by society for all time. The use of the bal-
lot demands that the voter shall continually make decisions. Frobel
Says: “Life consists in making decisions.” If this is true, then

women should not only be allowed to vote but should be encouraged
to express their opinions. If we deny them this right, we discourage
an essential element of life. No one makes a decision without be-
ing bettered for the effort. So the use of the ballot which necessi-
tates the making of decisions. Should be granted to women. The
mind of woman must be broadened by use of the ballot. The son
inherits the qualities of his mother, and anything which broadens
the mind or strengthens the intellect of the mother will be felt upon
the son. As long as we hold woman in subjection, classing her with
idiots, paupers and lunatics and deny her the freest use of her
mental abilities we not only injure the woman herself but we are
doing the future nation an unjustifiable and incalculable wrong.

As the needs of society demands that women should vote, so our
government demands equal suffrage, for government is instituted for
society, and in a democracy is according to the demands of society.
Our government needs the benefits of women’s intellectual and
moral influence, and this influence can only best be secured by means
of the ballot. It also needs the better laws which their vote will
put upon the statute books. Our first speaker has given such testi-
mony as is certainly sufficient to prove beyond a doubt that the
government of our equal suffrage states have been materially bene-
fited by women’s votes. The womeh 6% ,these stotes are, pot, different
from other American women, and’ the form >of governmeny iS prac-
tically if not identically the same. , We, naturally conclude that what
has been of untold benefit to these states will ke’oZ aqual ecévaniage
to the whole nation.Ro Gee
Then as a practical expedient, we should grant women equal suf-
frage with men.

Not only is it a practical expedient that women should vote, but
justice itself demands it. We do justice to women when we give
them the place God intended they should occupy at the ereation of
God created man and woman equal. “In the image of God
male and female, and God said let them have do-

But woman sinned, and also man sinned,

man
created He him,
minion over all the earth.”
God cursed both. He said to Adam: “The earth shall bring forth
thorns and thistles.’ To woman he said: “Thy desires shall be to
d. and he shail rule over thee,” and for six thousand

thy husband,
years or more of history he has done so. The declaration of the sub-

ordination of woman does not belong at all to the account of her
original creation, but was the result of sin, and no doubt, man has
suffered more from the latter curse than from the thorns and this-
The whole effort of Christ was to restore to man what was
“for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made

tles.
lost in Adam,

alive again.”

You probably heard a sermon recently delivered from one of the
pulpits in this place, by a man who has been a life-long student of
the Bible, in which he said that in all the teachings of the Bible he
has found nothing which supported the false idea that women
should in any way-be subordinated to man. Because God said to
man that he should be cursed with thorns and thistles, did he ex-
pect him to sit idly by and allow these thorns and thistles to grow
up as they would? No, He expected man to fight to overcome them.
And so he expects woman to overcome her position of subordination
to man, and if we do our duty to woman as well as God, we shall
help her gain the position which God intended she should occupy.
Like various other things, our honorable opponents find in the Bible
py taking isolated quotations, something to support their side of the
question, but to the man who reads further, and with just inter-
pretation, there can be found nothing but what will add weight to
Women are now given equal education and equal
way but politically, and when we have al-
ot until then, will they

our argument.
privileges in almost every
lowed them to take this last step then, and n
be the equal of man, and then they will be freed from that curse

under which they have so long suffered.
But we Go, not have to.go.td, tne Bible to see that women should
be the equal, of: men.«« Common «sense, as well as justice, dictates

that all women should have an equal voice with men in making lawsBagge

which govern both alike. Man has no more right to make laws for
woman than woman has for man. Taxation without representation
is tyranny. As long as the state has the right to tax a woman and
to hang a woman, she surely should have her preference recorded
as to how she shall be taxed and how she shall be hanged. The hu-
man being is two-fold, masculine and feminine. They together con-
stitute the human being. The units of civilized society are duai,
yet united, with unity of intellect and moral forces. The human
brain is two-fold, masculine and feminine. Men realize this, and
take unto themselves the feminine heart, and’so make themselves
complete men. ‘he government of the United States will be com-
plete only when it takes unto itself this other half. We want all
the brain, all the reason, all the intuition, that God has given us
to adjust the varied relations of the people in our country.

It is not just that she should longer be classed as an inferior. You
say women are inferior and you cannot give them the vote. But
our laws consider bad women the equal of men, and they are meted
out the same punishment. Would you deny to the women the privi-
lege of paying taxes? If they are murderers, is there any difference
in the law between the man and the woman? You cannot trust the
ballot in the hands of the teachers in public schools, but you give it
to men who cannot read or write. You cannot trust the ballot to
women who are controlling millions, and’ who are helping with their
taxes and money to support the country, but you give it to loafers,
and vagabonds, who know nothing, have nothing, and represent noth-
ing. You cannot trust the ballot in the hands of women who are
the wives and daughters of our heroes, but you will give it to the

ramp, or to many who are willing to sell it for a glass of beer.

Move from your minds all superstititon and prejudice, and our
honorable opponents will have nothing upon which to base their argu-
ment. The only way they can hope to win this debate is by arous-
ing these unfounded fears, superstitions and prejudices rooted in
the mind by long years of unjust practice. Why should we any
longer keep hold of a convention which no longer squares with our
genuine insight into life, and be slow to support a movement which
will improve the life about us, because it shocks an obsolete ideal?
The man who is mentally or physically in bondage is ever eager to
hold slaves. The free mind grants freedom to all so far as one per-
son can grant it to another. Women will never be free until they
can perform the offices of a free citizen, and this they cannot do

without the ballot.

MB 2og

— a ne Ie ey
- i
a ae eat eee crm echeeeeeieree alee ie a OT ee TE
eae nse _ eee oe .

een ee et ae eee ee ee

 

pee

 
 
 
 
 
  
     
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   

Woman’s office is to elevate, her presence to purify, and this is
true in politics as well as in the home and in Society, and when her
presence is added to our state and national politics, we shall have
purer politics, purer laws, and a more elevated and purer govern-
ment.

 

mr

THIRD SPHECH ON AFFIRMATIVE.
DaAvip B. Goope.

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen:

My colleagues have given you something of the history of the
movement for equal suffrage, and have given you some idea of the
rapid strides made in its advancement within Recent, years. — Phe
conditions under which men vote in the United States have been
stated, and it has been shown that women are able to comply with
every condition placed upon men—and more. We have endeavored
to show you, what is becoming more and more generally recognized

 

by the leading thinkers of the age, that our women need the ballot;
that the men need their ballots; that society needs their ballots ;
that our government needs their ballots; that the American nation
needs their ballots. We have shown that equal suffrage has proved
and is proving a success tod: y wherever found, and have given espe-
cial attention to the beneficial results in our four equal suffrage
states. The results in these states have confirmed every single point
and reason brought out in our argument. We hope that by giving our
reasons always supported by fact and act 1al experience we have
aroused in your minds an appreciation of the fact that we can only
do justice to ourselves, to our government, and to one-half its citi-
zens—the purest and noblest half—by giving this one-half a voice in
the government which they support.

We believe that besides being the most expedient thing our gov-
ernment could do in granting women this privilege, that in withhold-
ing it we are depriving them of one of the most sacred rights of an
intelligent, patriotic, and liberty-loving citizen. But our honorable
opponents say that this citizen has no right to vote; that to vote
is merely a privilege, and a privilege which only men should possess.
How many of you men here tonight, I wonder, really believe that
your right to vote is merely a privilege and nothing more? We

agree with our opponents that it is &@ privilege, but we believe it iseee

a privilege which every citizen should possess, and so we believe it
isa right. If it is a right at all it must be a right of the people, ora
citizen’s right, and not a right of one-half the citizens only.

It is interesting to note that the founders of our government
never thought of suffrage as other than an absolute right. In the
whole history of our Revolution, which began with the first attempt
of England to take away from the colonies their “power of consent,”’
or their vote, and ended with the surrender of Cornwallis—cover-
never is the suffrage named as

 

ing a period of about forty years
other than a right. The Continental Congress in its petition to the
King, said: “We do not solicit the grant of any new right, but the
foundation of liberty and free government is a right of the people to
participate in their legislative council.” It seems incredible that
any one could assume that the early colonists regarded the ballot as
other than a natural and absolute right. Thomas Paine wrote:
“The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by
which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to re-
duce man to a state of slavery, for slavery consists in being subject
to the will of another, and he that has no vote in the election of
representatives is so in this case.” So we see that the principle for
which the Revolutionary War was fought, and which is now forever
decided, is that suffrage is a right. Our Supreme Court also has
declared suffrage a right, and unknowingly perhaps, have declared
that women are entitled to the enjoyment of this right. The Su-
preme Court, interpreting the constitution in the famous Slaughter
House Case (16 Wallace Reports), uses these words: ~The negro;
having by the Fourteenth Amendment been declared a citizen of the
United States, is thus made a voter in every state of the Union.”
The court thus decided that the possession of citizenship carried
with it the right of suffrage. Citizens of the United States, accord-
ing to the Fourteenth Amendment, are “all persons born or natural-
ized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs. Happersett (21 Wal-
lace Reports), said. “Sex has never been an element of citizenship
in the United States. In this respect, at least, men have had no
advantage over women. The same laws apply precisely to both.”
So, according to our Supreme Court, the highest authority in the
land, all citizens should have the right to vote—and by the same
authority, and by the constitution of the United States, women are
citizens. The conclusion is irresistible—women in being denied the
pallot are deprived of one of the dearest natural rights of mankind.—20—

When men in any territory or state elect a convention of male dele-
gates, and they frame a constitution, and in this they limit the suf-
frage to males only, and then it is submitted to a vote of men only,
and declared adopted, they have violated in the most brazen man-
ner the rights of representation, which is the right of every citizen.

From a logical and ethical standpoint women have exactly the
same right to a voice in their own government that men have. The
reason they do not possess it legally and constitutionally is because
that in the beginning man arbitrarily monopolized this citizen’s
right, and by keeping all legislative and judicial authority in their
own hands they have held it. In every succeeding generation of
women the sense of this injustice has grown stronger. They real-
ize today as never before that they have just as much at stake in
the government as men have: that they share equally the advant-
ages of a good, and suffer equally the disadvantages of a bad ad-
ministration; and they understand as never before their utter pow-
erlessness without the ballot.

Kven if men governed women with Supreme wisdom and fairness
their usurpation of power would be none the less a violation of the
natural rights of these people governed without their consent. But
they have not so governed, and not on the statute books of any
state without equal suffrage will be found laws which govern women
with exactly the same justice as men. This is true here, in the
United States, nothwithstanding the fact that we have laws more
favorable to women than any other country in the world. The only
permanent safety of any class lies in its ability to defend itself;
and this ability to defend themselves women can only have by
means of the ballot.

You say you believe in a democracy—‘‘a government of the peo-
ple, by the people, and for the people.” We also believe in democ-
racy, and that is why we believe in woman suffrage. You know
that of all governments those which more nearly approach perfec-
tion are those which have placed the largest power in the hands of
the people. Government has advanced just as the people who are
governed have been given a freer voice in the making of laws by
which they are governed. The advance of democracy has been slow
and painful, but the gains made by the people have been marked by
Steady progress, until now we have our present democracy. As far
as we have gone we have done well. But our democracy is yet in-
complete. We have entirely ignored one-half the people. In this
respect, our government which governs women, but which excludesADA

them from their rightful share in governing, is a part of the old
feudal idea of government against which progress and democracy
have watred for the past two hundred years. It is almost the last
surviving relic of the old belief that the right to a share in the
government under which we live is sent down from Heaven like
manna, and is granted to only the few, and those few superiors. But
now the whole fabrical nonsense of the unequality of men has been
broken to pieces, and nominally and politically at least, every man
is regarded as the peer and equal of every other man. And just as
surely as the old superstition about the right of the few to govern
the many has merited to be ground to powder under the advancing
wheels of civilization, so surely does the other superstition—stiil
more ridiculous—that man has any right to govern woman—merit
destruction.

Toward this goal of a genuine instead of a pretended democracy
the race started when it made its first revolt against autocracy and
class rule. Every battle that has been fought, and every life that
has been sacrificed for the cause of freedom has made for this end
at last. Every blow struck anywhere against any form of tyranny
or superstition has weakened the force of this fantastic and super-
stitious barbarism that still denies equal rights to one-half the peo-
ple. Every time the franchise has been advanced from the priest
to the noble; from the noble to the land owner; and from the land
owner to the man of income; and from the man of income to the
toiler, there has been brought still nearer the day of justice for all
women as well as for all men. We have advanced in democracy
from the rule of one man to one-half the people, and each step in
this advancement has been marked by needed reforms and beneficial
laws governing society. Our next step, which will make a com-
plete democracy, and which is no more to be feared than any for-
mer extension of the franchise, is to place the ballot in the hands of
this one-half so long debarred from their rights. This proposition
of democracy means that all the people and not one-half of them
shall govern, and is irreconcilable with government by any class,
big or little, and is so logical that it seems to us beyond refutation.

One of the great obstacles to a true democracy is the fact that
a great many people do not believe in democracy at all. They may
not be willing to make public their views, but their actions reveal
their creed nevertheless. They entertain doubts as to the intelli-
gence of the common people, and believe that government should
be restricted to the good and the wise—like themselves. ‘They be-} ‘ ne a
ee a ee ce ee eT a EO FS ee ee oe

heme ee ea a eee ee

aT Pe a oe

_opey
~e and

      
  

lieve that we have already “too much” suffarge, and that instead of
enlarging the franchise it should be restricted to only the good and

the wise—like themselves.
women are at heart the enemies of democracy itself.

So that the first enemies of votes for

They are not

in favor of votes for anybody except themselves, and so far as they

are concerned, we are back in the dark ages, fighting for the first

principles of democracy.

The essence of the right to a share in the government is that one

shall be governed. If one is governed, then he has the right to take

part in the government which governs him.

Unless we wish to go

back some centuries and swallow at once the whole doctrine of di-

vine right, there is no just cause for government without the con-

sent of the governed; and you cannot reconcile this simple truth

with a condition in which one-half the people are governed without

their consent, unless you go back still further and readopt the fine

old doctrine that man is an infinitely superior, and woman an infin-

 

itely inferior being

a doctrine born in the jungle, which sprung up
in the brains of naked savages, and which

Should have no more

place among a people with a vestige of civilization than the diet of
the digger Indians. Or, unless you accept the doctrine of our hon-

orable opponents who insist that the family is the unit of govern-

ment, and that only the males of this family should represent it.
They say the unit of government is the family; that the husband

represents the family; and that when he votes he votes for the fam-
ily; and they believe that with such logie all advocates of equal

suffrage should be crushed into silence.

Suppose instead of the

family as the unit, we take a million people to vote and represent

the rest. Then about ninety men can elect the president of the

United States, and save us all the bother.

There is exactly as much

Sense in that as there is in the idea that the family is the unit and
should be represented by the husband, ignoring the wife and mother.
If in a democracy one person can properly vote for any other per-

son, he can just as properly vote for a million other persons. Wen-
dell Phillips dispensed with this absurdity of women being repre-
sented by men in a democracy by asking this question, “Is she like
man?’ He Says either she must be exactly like man or she must
be different. If she is like man, so much like him that he knows
just as well how to vote for her as she does herself, then the very
basis of the ballot being capacity—she being the same as him, has

the same right to vote.

If she is so different that she has a differ-
ent range of avocations and powers and capacities, then it is neces-dea) Se

Sary that she herself should vote, and with her own voice Say what
She wants, because nobody else is able to interpret her. You may
choose, Honorable Judges, which horn of the dilemma you please,
for on one or the other the question of the right of women to vote
must hang. As a matter of fact, we believe women are different
from men. God made the races and sexes the complement of one
another, and not the identical copy. This world would be barren
and uninteresting if it were not for the variety of capacities and
endowments with which God has variegated the human race. We
believe woman is different from man, and by reason of that differ-
ence she should be given the ballot to protect herself, whose posi-
tion and views men are incapable of representing even if they
wished to do so.

If we ever have a true democracy we must admit women to the
ballot box. We cannot believe in democracy unless we believe with
Lincoln, who said: “I go for all sharing the privileges of their govy-
ernment who assist in bearing its burdens, by no means excluding
women.” Or, as Tom L. Johnson puts it: “Democracy is not a
matter of sex, but a matter of the people. The more perfect the
recognition of the common rights of all the people, the more perfect
and the more just the democracy. A truly enlightened and demo-
cratic form of government must recognize the equal rights of wo-
men.” I say, again, if you believe in democracy, you believe in
equal votes for women.

We believe in equal suffrage first of all because it is a right. The
ballot is a citizen’s right, and this alone should be sufficient. But
we have other reasons. We cannot believe otherwise in justice to
woman herself; in justice to society and government; and in jus-
tice to our nation, ourselves, and our posterity. We believe that
women should vote in the United States under the same conditions
established for men, because they are able to comply with every con-
dition placed upon men. Because it is fair and right that those
who must obey the laws should have a voice in making them, and
that those who pay taxes should have a vote as to the size of the
tax and the way in which it shall be spent. Because the moral, ed-
ucational, and humane legislation desired by women would be got
more easily if women had votes. Laws unjust to women would be
amended more quickly. Because disfranchisement helps to keep
wages down. Equal suffrage will increase the proportion of edu-
cated voters. It will increase the moral and law abiding vote very
much. It will add to the efficiency of our political parties, as wo-A ee eee
ir aa at i Te OE SS Te ee Te EE SE

a a Te a LE eee

ene

er ae eee net Cpa! ec a tecnica tm on pao iowpe

  

men do not blindly identify themselves with party, and so act as a
check upon them, causing better nominations. Legislation for the
protection of children would be secured more easily. Because it is
the quietest, easiest, most dignified, and least conspicuous way of
influencing public affairs, and the indirect method is against the
American principle of: government. Because women’s influence is
always for good, and this influence will be increased. It will help
those women who need help the most.: It will lessen the propor-
tional foreign vote; it will lessen the criminal vote; lessen the ig-
norant vote. It will cause women to be more highly respected. It
is the only course consistent with democratic principles. Because
for every reason that-men should vote, there is exactly the same
reason that women should vote.

Because all experience has proved it good—an ounce of. fact is
worth a ton of theory.

FIRST SPEECH ON NEGATIVE.
CHARLES H. SAVAGE.

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen:

In arguing the principles that underlie the Woman Suffrage
Movement, there are two points that we wish to emphasize. First,
we are not arguing to impugn the motives of their leaders, for we
think that some women have hastily espoused a cause with which
they have never been affiliated because they suppose that they are
thus contending for the freedom of their sex. The second point is
that we do not intend to argue that the intelligence of woman is in
any way inferior to that of man, but we believe that in many cases
their intelligence is above that of man’s. Our position is that we
believe that the intelligence of man and woman is equal, but that
their functions are so entirely different that women should never
even desire to vote.

And I need not dwell upon the fact that it is from the good com-
radeship of men and women that has brought to pass the present
enlightened conditions.

In 1848 the Woman Suffrage Movement was organized in the state
of New York. The leaders of the movement thinking that by using
our Declaration of American Independence that they would gain
additional influence with the people of America, wrote out and adop-i WH. BOMAR

Ee rete aL onws Say

 

G. He SAVAGE MARION RUSHTON

NEGATIVE DEBATERS—SENIOR CLASS.ted a parody on the declaration. Some of its so-called “slight
changes” can readily be understood from the following extract is
read. The Woman’s Declaration begins thus: “When, in the course
of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family
of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different
from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the
laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
that impel them to such a course. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that governments long established should not be changed for light
and transient causes and accordingly all experience hath shown
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffera-
ble, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
were accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpa-
tions, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to re-
duce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off
such a government, and to provide new guards for their future Sse-
curity. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under
this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains
them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.”

In the Woman’s Bible, written about the same time, Mrs. Stan-
ton says: “The correction if this (the misinterpretation of the Bi-
ble as concerns woman), will restore her and deprive her enemy,
man, of a reason for his oppression and a weapon of attack.” Dis-
guise it as they may to themselves and to others, the Suffrage
Movement is compelled to claim that man is woman’s enemy and the
antagonism of the sexes is the basic principle of the suffrage belief.
This alone is enough to defeat this question without further con-
sideration.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in the face of such a declaration as I have
just read, am I to be blamed when I say that the foundation of the
Woman Suffrage Movement is antagonism? Such a declaration as
this, were it not so absurd, would be sufficient grounds for the or-
ganization of some radical Socialistic movement and not one which
deserves even the consideration of our people.

After this prologue, the leaders of the movement being anxious
that their parody should be as exact as possible, have searched
through all the old statute books, church uses, and worn out customs,
to find exactly eighteen grievances that women have against man, to
be compared with the eighteen grievances that our oppressed colony
suffered from an inconsiderate master country. In such solemn fash-—256—

ion did they work out a travesty on one of the most august utter-
ances ever penned.

The Fathers in 1776 were met to dissolve the relations that bound
their land politically to a foreign power, and to form a separate
and equal nation. The Mothers were met to dissolve the relation
that bound their sex politically to man and to form a separate and
equal organization. The Fathers proposed to free men, women, and
children from the yoke of Hngland. The Mothers proposed to free
women and girls from the yoke of men.

The Fathers of the Revolution began their protest by saying, “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, That all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”

The Mother’s Rebellion adds nothing to the meaning, but in fact
gratly detracts the force of its expression. These women, of all
in America, were the first to belittle themselves by seeming to as-
sume that in a revolutionary document that was promulgated to de-
clare a determination to wrest from tyranny the liberty that was
an inalienable right for all, they and their sex were excluded be-
“ause the generic term “man” was employed in relation to another
inalienable right, which was about to be set forth—that of revolu-
tion against intolerable tyranny. The Americans who framed that
instrument would have been the last men in the world to assert that
women were not equals of men. They were not discussing abstract
human or sex conditions, they were met to “institute a new govern-
ment,” to free our people from despotism. If women were ruled by
despots they would have had a perfect right to meet and “institute
a new form of government.” Certainly if Woman Suffrage should
prevail, the foundation principles of Democracy would have to be
overthrown and a new government instituted.

Since 1848, the Woman Suffrage Amendment has been passed in
only four states, they are, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and Idaho.

Utah Territory was the first spot in this country in which the
measure gained a foothold, and that was not believed by its intro-
ducers to bea part of the United States. The Mormons who founded
Salt Lake City, supposed themselves to be settling in Mexican ter-
ritory, outside of the jurisdictions of American law. Woman Suf-
frage was almost coincident with its beginning and it came as a
legitimate part of the union of State, church, communism, and po-
lygamy. The dangers that especially threaten a Republican form
of government are anarchy, communism, and religious bigotry. Twone),

of these found their fullest expression in Utah, in the Mormon creed
and practice. Thus the introduction of Woman Suffrage into our
borders was not only undemocratic, but anti-democratic.

Woman Suffrage was secured in Wyoming by means that bring
dishonor upon a Democracy, for according to the Suffragetist own
“History of Woman Suffrage,” the records show the fact that the
measure was secured in the first territorial legislature through the
political trickery of an illiterate and discredited man who was in
the chair. A bill was passed repealing the suffrage act, but was ve-
toed by the governor on the ground, that having been admitted, it
must be given a trial. An attempt to pass a repeal over his veto
was lost by a single vote. Certainly the entrance of Woman Suffrage
into Wyoming was not a triumph of democratic progress and prin-
ciples.

The Suffrage Amendment was passed in Colorado by only five
thousand majority out of two hundred thousand votes cast, and
after having been twice put before the people.

In Idaho it was carried after having been made a plank in the
Free Silver populist platform. Though a majority of the votes
cast on the Woman Suffrage question were in favor of it, yet not a
majority of all the votes cast at the election. The Supreme Court
of Idaho acted different from any in any other state and decided
that a complete majority was not needed.

I have given you the account of the Suffrage movement in these
four states where it has been passed. Among the states I failed
to mention New Jersey, for Woman Suffrage has so long since been
abolished from that state that few people know that it ever was in-
troduced there. However, on July 2, 1776, the provincial assembly
of New Jersey conferred suffrage upon women; in 1797 seventy-five
women voted and in the presidential election of 1800 a large number
availed themselves of the privilege. In 1807 a special election was
held in Essex County. At this election the women availed them-
selves of the ballot in the following manner: It was found that
they voted not only once, but as many times as by a change of dress
or complicity of the inspectors, they might be able to repeat the
process. “One woman voted three times. Her real name was Mary
Johnson, and she cast her first vote under that name. Afterwards,
as a somewhat stouter looking woman, she voted as Mary Still, and
later in the day as a corpulent person whose name was Mary Yet.”

The legislature set aside the election as fraudulent, and the whole
state was so disgusted that an act was passed restricting the suffrage
to white male citizens twenty-one years of age.Sr eteres ety

 

eat Qs

The foregoing history was the culmination of thirty-one years of
Woman Suffrage in New Jersey.

The Woman Suffrage question has been dealt with lately by two
states, that represent republican policy at its best. The states are:
Massachusetts and New York. In the latter state a constitutional
convention gave an impartial hearing to the subject and decided
not to submit to the people an amendment striking out the word
‘male’ from the State constitution.

Massachusetts, at its state election in 1895, asked the people to
vote upon the question of extending municipal suffrage to women,
and the answer was given in a heavy adverse majority. Fewer
than four in every one hundred women qualified to vote on the sub-
ject, voted in its favor and half a million women declined to vote
at all. Does this look like the women want suffrage or would take
part in politics if they were allowed? Some may say that this is
not a fair example, for in Utah and Wyoming the test was different.
But compare will you the four states side by side—Utah and New
York, Wyoming and Massachusetts. Which of these states do Amer-
icans hold up as their models? In which have women made the
most progress and showed themselves most likely to understand their
rights, privileges, and duties?

There are several other states in which municipal and school
suffrage is granted to women, but this has little to do with the
question which we are discussing. In fact the history of school
suffrage affords another proof of the inability of republicanism and
constitutional suffrage for women.

There are a few foreign countries that have Woman Suffrage.
If you will trace it back far enough you will find that it is given
in statistics as one of the chief reasons for the fall of the Roman
Hmpire, the greatest republic the world has ever known. I have
no time to take up Woman Suffrage in the foreign countries of today
but suffice it to say, that in studying the History of Woman Suf-
frage of foreign countries, one is lead to see more clearly the evils
of Woman Suffrage. Let us profit by the experiences of our sister
countries and avert this unnecessary and uncalled for cry of Woman
Suffrage in order that America may still hold its chair.’ The land
where the homes are purest.”

My colleagues will show you that in the states where Woman
Suffrage has been adopted, that no special benefits have been de
rived. Bacon, in one of his essays, says: “It is good also not to try
experiments in states, except the necessity be urgent, or the utilitySe

evident.”” Now Honorable Judges, Is not Woman Suffrage more an
experiment than a necessity, or do you think that the utility is evi-
dent?

In considering this question, it should be constantly borne in mind
that an act investing woman with the duty of voting, with all it im-
plies, once passed, can never be repealed. Our opponents must prove
that the advantages of Woman Suffrage are great enough to justify
such a great change, and the arguments should be strong indeed to
induce us to undertake so vast a revolution. Undisputed facts show
that the great advance of woman in the last century, moral, intel-
lectual, and economic, has been made without the vote which goes
to show that it is not needed for their further advancement along the
same lines.

If in course of time Woman Suffrage will be needed for the good
governing of our country, then I Say, and not until then should the
states admit Woman Suffrage into their constitutions. In the words
of Gladstone, “In such a reign it is far better as between opposite

risks, to postpone a right measure than to commit ourselves to a
wrong one.”

SECOND SPEECH ON NEGATIVE.
JOHN HARLE Bomar.

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies, and Gentlemen:

Many people, on first considering the question of Equal Suffrage,
decide in favor of it because they think that it is the inborn right
of women to vote. But it can easily be seen that this is not so.
The suffrage is a privilege, not a natural or inherent right. A citizen
enjoys such rights of holding office and of voting as the constitution
allows. If the suffrage were a natural right, there could be no
qualification for it—every man, woman, and child, every foreigner,
criminal, and lunatic in the entire country could vote. It is clear
that this would never do, and so every nation has given the suffrage
only to those persons who are best fitted to use it. It is my purpose
to give five capital reasons why it is not expedient that the United
States should extend the vote to women.

That a majority of the states of the Union consider the change
to Woman Suffrage too great a one to be risked—as my colleague—30—

number one has just explained—is shown by the great number of de-
feats which the advocates of votes for women have suffered in recent
vears. I will give a partial list of these defeats, and then try to
eretent some of the main reasons why there have been so many. In
the ten years since 1899, bills favoring Woman Suffrage have been
defeated 133 times, or one defeat every twenty-eight days. In 1900
there were seven defeats in various states; in 1901, eleven, Alabama
being one of the number which rejected it that year; in 1902, eleven;
in 1908, eighteen; in 1904, seven; in 1905, seventeen; in 1906, twelve;
in 1907, twenty-three; in 1908, thirteen and fourteen in 1909. In
this time also Constitutional amendments to confer suffrage upon
women have been defeated forty-three times. Of course there were
many reverses given to the suffrage movement before 1900, but it will
not be necessary to name them.

According to Lyman Abbott, the question under discussion is fun-
damentally ; “Ought woman to assume the responsibilities of govern-
ment and not its difficulties and hazards?” To vote intelligently is
to think and act in the imperative mood. So we see that if votes
are to do any good they must have force behind them. We all
know that great harm is being done by the existence of laws which
the government cannot enforce. Law rests on force, and a govern-
ment without force is a farce. A good example of this is found in
the history our own country. For a while after the Revolution was
over, it was attempted to run the government under the Articles of
Confederation. Under them Congress had a right to make laws, but
the several states had not agreed to give up to the National govern-
ment the power of enforcing them. Therefore the experiment was a
failure. But, as soon as the new Constitution was drawn up and the
states had agreed to abide by the laws which Congress should pass,
then the United States really began, and from that time on it has
grown in strength until it is the powerful nation of today. The suf-
fragettes may claim that man has been a usurper and a tyrant, but,
as Goldwin Smith puts it, “Man has held political power, not as a
usurper, but because he alone can uphold the government and enforce
the law.” Women may claim, justly or unjustly, equal moral or
mental strength with men; but never with any show of reason can
they claim equal physical strength, and in the last analysis, it is
physical strength that is the power behind the ballot, as we have just
seen. A majority of women could not enforce a law that a minority
of men refused to keep. Rossiter Johnson aptly names the ballot of
a woman, “The Blank-Cartridge Ballot.’ He clearly shows that thesae

right of any person to vote depends on his ability to enforce what
he may decree. The millionaire, the ordinary business man, and
the day laborer all enjoy the privilege of voting because each is able
to shoulder a musket when necessary in order to uphold the law and
to protect the property of others. The votes of men are good be-
cause they have security, so to speak, behind them. The ballots of
women would be as useless as bills or notes with nothing to back
them. All voting must ultimately feel the pulse of a national and
vital force back of it and women cannot be that force. In al] ages
it has proven useless to give the franchise to persons who lacked
the power to enforce it, therefore we say that it would be useless
and inexpedient to give the vote to women today.

Women have great direct influence on laws today. Everyone knows
that women have done much toward getting good laws passed and
will continue to do much without the ballot. The advocates of suf-
frage declare that voting will give women more influence. We say
that it would lessen her influence, for now women are the only non-
partisan citizens, and if they were given the ballot they would neces-
sarily vote with some political party, thereby depriving the country
of its non-partisan workers, which are it best workers. In the words
of Miss Clara Leonard, ‘‘Woman’s power is greater without the
ballot, when, standing outside of politics she discusses great ques-
tions on their merits.” So we see that women possess far more
influence for all moral and unselfish purposes without the ballot than
they would have with it.

One of the men in this town, whom we all know, gave as his rea-
son for opposing Woman Suffrage, “Politics is rotten and I do not
want to see women in it.” They will only make matters worse,
instead of purifying politics, as the suffragettes argue. ‘The princ}-
pal causes of political immorality are the desire for power, for
“spoils” in money and office, bribery, craft, party and personal preju-
dice. Is it reasonable to suppose that women would escape these de-
moralizing elements? The loss of self-control of the suffragettes
themselves when they hissed President Taft in Washington recently,
would seem to show rather that women would not be able to with-
stand the temptations which the stronger sex has yielded to so often
in the past. Women can no more reform polities by voting than
you can make a bad barrel of apples good by putting in good ones
around the edges. We have nothing to show that politics is any purer

in the four suffrage states than elsewhere. Judge Lindsey, in his
recent articles in Everybody’s Magazine, “The Beast and the Jun-pe
ek DO

gle,” certainly has shown most conclusively that public affairs are
thoroughly corrupt in Colorado under Woman Suffrage. When I
asked my friend what were his hopes for purifying politics, he re-
“The mothers, who by their eareful, loving work at home so

plied.
at the men themselves will desire these

educate popular opinion th
reforms.”

Another of our reasons for opposing Woman Suffrage is that it

ote, especially the undesirable and cor-
The vote of the ignorant man imimi-
sh, but Woman Suf-

means simply doubling the v
rupt vote of our large cities.
grant after becoming naturalized is bad enou
frage would add the vote of ignorant foreign women, who know and
eare absolutely nothing about public affairs. The Commissioner
Jeneral of Immigation, says, “Tt is not unreasonable to assume

that at no time in the near future will the number of persons na-

turalized annually fall before 50,000, and it may within a few years
considerably exceed that number.” Evidently then, there is already
great danger from ignorant votes and we do not want to double this
danger if we can possibly keep from it. As some one has said, those
who take an active part in our government today stand in the ratio of
two to one—good women and good men against bad men. If women
were alowed to vote it would be two to two—good men and good
women against bad men and bad women, which would certainly not
have as great a tendency toward good government as the former
ratio has. In other words, we have already suffered many things
at the hands of Patrick, Woman Suffrage would add Bridget also.
It is the cry of many that Woman Suffrage would bring reforms.
This may be all right in theory, but the results in the states where
‘t has been tested do not show that it has been the case. “here are
now, I believe nine states which have statewide prohibition, and
Idaho is the only suffrage state among that number. It might rea-
sonably be expected, however, that Woman Suffrage would not
bring prohibition, since there are great many corrupt women who
would vote against it as good ones who would favor it. Neither is
Colorado the only state having a Juvenile Court, as many people
suppose. There are twenty-one other states, where women do not
vote, which have such a court, Judge Mark being as successful with
his in Chicago as Judge Lindsay in Denver. Eix-President Roose-
velt and Blihu Root, Secretary of State, have both said that they
are unable to see any good which has accrued from Woman Suffrage
in the four states which have it. President Alston Ellis of Ohio

University, who was a resident in Colorado at the time when theBG

Suffrage amendment passed and who, with many others, voted for
it in the hope that it would bring needed reforms, says, “Without
going into details, I would say the hope of those for a betterment
of affairs through Woman Suffrage has not been realized in any
measure.”” The same testimonials come from all the suffrage states,
and the women who live in them have even gone so far as to write
to Mr. Bok, editor of the Ladies’ Home Journal, “Don’t be fooled by
what these agitators say of the great work done by women’s votes
in our states. The great work does not exist, except in the minds
of those agitators themselves. The code-books do not show it,
neither our civic nor our moral condition shows it.”

Bishop John H. Vincent, the venerable founder of Chautauqua,
who in the early part of his life was a strong advocate of Woman
Suffrage, writes: “When about thirty years of age I accepted for
a time the doctrine of Woman Suffrage, and publicly defended it.

Years of wide and careful observation have convinced me that
the demand for Woman Suffrage in America is without foundation
in equity, and, if successful, must prove harmful to American so-
ciety.

I find some worthy men defending it, but the majority of our best
women, especially our most intelligent, domestic, and godly mothers,
neither ask nor desire it. The basal conviction of our best manhood
is against it. The instinct of motherhood is against it.”

A distinguished woman advocate of this suffrage movement says:
“We need the ballot to protect us against men.” When one sex is
compelled thus to protect itself against the other the foundations of
society are already crumbling.

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

Woman can, through the votes of men, have every right to which
She is entitled. It is his glory to represent her. To rob him of
this right is to weaken both.”

My first colleague has given a short history of the suffrage move-
ment in the United States, and has shown that it is incompatible
with the Republican form of government. He has also explained

3 MBLees

that the change to Woman Suffrage is too great a one for the United
States to risk at the present time. As the second speaker on the
negative, I have given as some of the more important objections to
the movement :—first, that women would not be able to enforce what-
laws they should make; second, that it would lessen the great
ood which women exert on the government today;

ever
infiuence for g
third, that it would not purify politics; fourth, that it would double
the ignorant and corrupt vote of our large cities; and fifth, that it
would not make better laws, or bring about reforms, and if it would
be detrimental not only to woman’s own progress, but also to the
progress of the nation, we see’ no reason why the United States
should attempt this great change and give the ballot to women to-

day.

THIRD SPEECH ON NEGATIVE.
MARION RUSHTON.

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Judges, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am here to oppose what is called the Woman Suffrage move-
ment. Yet I hardly think it should be called a movement, because
the demand for it is so limited and so few of the women have shown
that they want it. Don’t you know, ladies and gentlemen, that if
women had wanted the ballot; if they had felt the need of it. if it
had been necessary to her happiness, if, in justice, she had demanded
it, that she would have had it long ago.

It is not to man’s interest to deny any good thing to woman; nor
will he; and that fact, coupled with the fact that in this world have
lived such good people as our mothers and fathers, who never feit
the need of woman suffrage, makes me believe that there is no neces-
sity for it.

When our forefathers fled from Europe to escape political and re-
ligious oppression, they founded a new free republican government.
The foundation stone of that government they professed to be ‘life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is conceded by the world
that if there ever was a free and just government, it is this great
republican form of government of ours. And yet the men who
founded it—such true men as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Ham-
ilton—did not declare that women should vote. For reasons of theirLe

own, they declared that she should not vote. It is for our opponents
to prove that these men were fundamentally wrong in their concep-
tion of government. I do not envy them their task.

If this thing is so important, so vital to our welfare as the suf-
fragists would have you believe, it strikes me as peculiar that the
good men and good women of this community have never said any-
thing about it before. As a matter of fact, when I asked several of
the leading men of this town about woman suffrage, none of them had
thought about it enough to give me an answer. ‘The reason is that
the movement has been defeated so many times and involves such a
“reform against nature’ that most people have never given it more
than one serious thought.

The great mistake which underlies the woman suffrage belief, and
is the cause of its so many failures, is that the suffragists think that
the relation between man and man is the same as that between man
and woman. They forget that an injury to a man’s wife is an injury
to him; and that when a daughter is discriminated against, her
father, her brothers, her friends are discriminated against also.

One of the fundamental arguments of the Suffragist creed is the
old Revolutionary War Cry, “No Taxation Without Representa-
tion.” By that, the Suffragists mean to say that women, who have
to pay taxes for the support of the State and must obey the laws of
the State, should have a direct vote in its government.

For people who are accustomed to see only the surface of things
that argument may have some force, but it will not bear the light
of a more thorough investigation.

Granted even that enough women have been thrown out into the
world on their own resources to make the revenue from women’s
taxes large enough to argue about it, still this argument that women
should vote because they pay taxes, fundamentally, is wrong. If we
adopt the Suffragist attitude, “I pay taxes therefore I should vote,”
the logical conclusion is that “everyone who pays taxes should
vote” or we have as the Suffragists say, “a very tyrannical form
of government.”

The absurdity of this is readily evident when one realizes that
the tax-paying qualification for all votes has long since been abolish-
ed. Negroes pay taxes, yet I never heard one of our opponent says
that negroes should vote. Corporations pay taxes, still they do not
vote. The tariff is a tax on every man, woman, child, in the United
States, citizen and alien alike; yet they don’t vote. Obviously, then
there is no such connection between tax-paying and voting as our
opponents would have you to believe. In fact, the only connection—36—

between taxation and suffrage is the poll tax, and since the women
don’t pay that, it is hard to see wherein the justice of our oppoh-
ent’s claim lies.

Taxes are paid for protection, for police, for firemen, for good
roads, but not for votes. Now who in the United States is better
protected, or more carefully guarded than all women; regardless of
whether they pay taxes or not? Who is it that the soldiers and
police strive most to protect? Who is first rescued from places of
danger by the firemen? Who is it that is given always the place of
honor and ease by the chivalry of the men of America? Is it not
the women? And yet our opponents would say that men willingly
and willfully cheat her out of her rights?

The other part of this same argument is that “women have to
obey laws in the making of which they have no voice.” But, Ladies
and Gentlemen, the women do have a voice. What woman is there
here who has been refused any good thing when she asked it if her
brother, her husband, her son, her friend? What are the men for,
if not to attend to the needs of the home as told them by their
mothers, sisters, wives, and friends? If a law is made that dis-
criminates against a woman; it discriminates against her father,
her brother, her son, her friend,—indeed against the very nobility
and chivalry of the community in which she lives. This force is
far too strong to brook any infringements on the rights of woman.

And what are the laws which men have made for woman? They
are by no means harsh.

A husband is liable for his wife’s debts, for articles bought
on credit by his wife.

In case of divorcee, whether partial or absolute, even when
obtained by the wife, the husband is required to pay alimony
for her support during the rest of her life even if she should
remarry.

The husband is, in all cases, responsible for the misdeeds of
the children.

In some states of the Union the laws are so extraordinary
protective of women that it is hazardous to transact business
with them other than by cash payments; for, in case of de
fault of credit, no suit could be brought against them. Indeed,
the laws are so lenient that often a fraudulent husband, be-
coming bankrupt, for instance, turns all his available propertyue

over to his wife, thus is not compelled to pay his debts, sets
up in business anew, and probably mokes more money than
ever before.

All courts of justice are partial to women. Lawyers and judges
agree that the hardest cases to win are those against women. The
difficulty most often is not for woman to get justice against men,
but for men to get justice against women.

When God created man and woman, he gave them separate and
distinct spheres; one was not inferior to the other; both were equal
and supplementary. They were never intended to be separated; but
to work in union one with the other. As Tennyson has so well ex-
pressed it:

“Woman is not undeveloped man,

But diverse. Could we make her as the man
Sweet love were slain, whose dearest bond is this:
Not like to thee, but like in difference.”

The sphere of the man is public life; that of the woman, the
home. He is the world’s executive, she, the world’s educator.

The woman suffrage movement is part of a general attempt to
change a relation which has existed from the founding of the world,
to overstep the bounds of these natural, God-given spheres and to
make woman the competitor instead of the helpmeet of man. Sir
James Bryce, England’s distinguished and learned ambassador to
America, and authority on our political question, has well expressed
the result. Allow me to quote at length:

“There are some people, who, confounding together the different
characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings
not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same func-
tions, impose on both the same duties and grant to both the same
rights; they would mix them in all things—their occupations, their
pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that, by thus
attempting to make one sex equal the other, both are degraded;
and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing
could result but weak men and disorderly women.”

It has always been the tendency of civilization through all the ages
to elevate woman and now her position is high above that of man.
But, through all these changes her sphere has remained the same.
The ideal woman, as Dr. Bomar so forcefully showed in one of hissie

sermons about a month ago, is not the Amazon who can fight and
force her way to the front, not the Roman woman who, as Gibbon
assures us, measured time by the number of husbands she divorced,
not the French woman who, as Napoleon thought, was the mother of
the most children; but the woman who trains her children to be the
best and most honorable citizens. It was a realization of this that
led the famcus Dr. Suess to write:

“To me there is no more sublime, elevating spectacle in the whole
world than that of a mother who gives herself up to the fulfillment
of her duties; no other aim should be placed before her sex.”

Let me read you part of a letter which I received from one of the
good women of our own great state:

“T am opposed to woman suffrage. I do not believe that there is
any necessity for it; nor do women want it. I think I have enough
to do in taking care of and educating my children without trying to
take care of the State and the Nation also. I leave that to the
men. That is their business. I shall count myself as doing my full
duty to the State if I make good, honest, clean men and women of
my children. If my boys become good, sensible voters, I shall count
myself fully represented in this State.”

Women can do more for the world by training the men to vote prop-
erly and to make good citizens; and good citizens, loyal and patriotic
will take good care of the women. A man who has a wise mother
and a good wife knows better than to deny any good thing to women.

It is woman’s function to train men to vote, and as the Govern-
ment Day Orator of this year said, “When women teach men how to
vote properly and thus prove that they themselves are fitted to have
the ballot, man will give it to her. Not before.”

And finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, the vast majority of women
don’t want suffrage. As soon as they do, they will have it, regardless
of what you and I have to say about it. And that is the great rea-
son for opposing it. The women don’t want it.

In Montgomery recently I met Dr. Charles Stakely, a man who
needs no introduction to this audience. In the course of conversa-
tion, I asked him what he thought of Woman Suffrage. He gave his
reasons for opposing it, and then said:

“Woman Suffrage is wrong because the women don’t want it.”
I said, “Yes, Doctor, I realize that, but how do you know that the
women don’t want it?’

“Well.” he said, “if they had wanted it, they would have had it

9

long ago.”A Ot,

The true woman needs no vote. Her influence is enough. What
we Southern people call chivalry has set her up on a higher plane
than man; to draw her down by thus throwing men’s duties and
burdens upon her, would be a sacrilege.

“Her might is gentleness, she winneth sway
By a soft word and a sober look,
Where she, the gentle, loving one hath failed,
The proud, the stern might never yet succeed.
Strength, power, majesty, belong to men;
They make the glory native to his life;
But sweetness is a woman’s attribute.
By that she has reigned, by that she will reign.
There have been some who, with a mightier mind,
Have won dominion, but they never won
The dearer empire of the beautiful; sweet sovereigns
In their natural loveliness.”

—Schiller.

Here’s to woman, whose position is the highest, noblest expression
of the Anglo-Saxon civilization. May she retain that position for-eg

PROCEEDINGS OF COMMENCEMENT.
17th MAY 1910.

PROGRAMME.
Processional
MTirnsy eel OUD eee ae eI ee es Rev. W. R. Carruthers
Music—Vocal Solo—At the Making of Hay___------+-- Liza Lehmann

Miss Annie Cunningham.
Award of Honors and Prizes.
Award of Certificates and Diplomas.

Music—Voeal Solo—Magnetic Waltz Song____-______-______.- Arditi
Mrs. J. B. Hatchette.

Baccalalredte vAGCUTeSS: oH. oe ee Rev. J. I. dosser, D. 2D.

PBeTCOIChONet a 2L a ee ee Rev. P. V. Bomar

Recessional.

WINNERS OF PRIZES.

(ae Aieee bela Eri Zea ye ae ee ee Robert E. Campbell!

THE ENGLISH PRIZE.

RalphnG: elershom=s 2220 First Section.
Freshman 4 Robert Hi: Campbelle.. = — = Second Section.
MO MIMONIO Res.) Vella OR LO ee aa ee Walter C. Lusk.
RULER eae orem ee eo ig 6 AY a ep a io David B. Goode.
BSS OTRO) Tne pee ed LR ea ROI eae Marion Rushton.
SiO IWebave: Prize: ails teams ye fab ee Emmet Harl McMillan.
GRADUATES.

Graduates who attain Grade A, 95-100, are graduated Summa Cum
Laude; those who do not fail below Grade B, 90-95, are graduated
Magna Cum Laude; those who do not fall below Grade C, are grad-
uated Cum Laude.Lea

Graduates in Arts Couwrse.

John Earle Bomar, Marion Rushton________ Summa Cum Laude.
Walter Hillman. Hager, i Austill Pharr. 150% Magna Cum Laude.
Hrank George: Mullen. same No ee Cum Laude.

Walter Huston Heath, Charles Henry Savage.

Graduates in Science Course.

vonn Warle Bomar, Marion mushton= | 92 2055 2 Summa Cum Laude.
Walter Hillman Hager Be Austith Pharr. 22. 2 Magna Cum Laude.
Henry Gants) Wain, Krank Georve Mullenis 2) 22-2 a2 Cum Laude.

Claude Dean, Walter Huston Heath, Fred B. Moss.
Charles Henry Savage.

GRADUATES IN ARMY AND NAVY COURSES.
J. L. Vaiden (Annapolis) W. W. Wynne (West Point)
CERTIFICATES.
In the Business: COuUrse. ees ae ee Walter Harvey Dumas.
In the School of Bookkeeping: Henry Moody Crowder, Henry Grady

Petrey, Charles Monroe Varner, Jr.

SCHOLARSHIPS.

Erarvard: | UMIVersi tyes ao ee Henry Gants Fain.
University of Pennsylvania > etn ee H. Austill Pharr.
Pulames ‘Ee niVyiGRSit yo eee a ee ee ea Frank George Mullen.
Washington and. Lee University 22) 2.2. oe Walter H. Eager.
Wniversity: Of Virginia’ .2 00. oe oy sk ee Marion Rushton.

Alon SGHOUESD Di (ene ee eee ee ek John Earle Bomar.