EDITOR'S TABLE. 



703 



rare when the authority of law has 

 to be maintained by force, and cor- 

 rectly draws the inference that it 

 would be dangerous to mix up with 

 those who, by their votes, make the 

 laws a large number of non-combat- 

 ants. We do not find, however, as 

 distinct a recognition as we could 

 wish of the fact that not only are 

 laws founded in the last resort on 

 physical force, but that, in the inter- 

 est of liberty, it is desirable that they 

 should be so founded that physical 

 force should be fully in view as the 

 final arbiter between those who favor 

 a law and those who are opposed to 

 it. The reason is obvious: if a law 

 may have to be fought for, and if 

 there is nothing to deter those who 

 object to it from fighting against it, 

 if it seems unduly to infringe their 

 1 iberties, and provided they feel them- 

 selves strong enough, there will be a 

 reasonable parsimony in the passing 

 of laws, and individual liberty will be 

 the gainer. If, on the other hand^ 

 the idea of armed resistance to any 

 lav/ which has once been passed dies 

 entirely out, there will be no bounds 

 to the tyranny of majorities. This 

 is the condition of things which the 

 sharing of the suffrage equally be- 

 tween men and women would tend 

 to bring about. Even to-day laws 

 are being passed, in this country par- 

 ticularly, in vastly too great number, 

 precisely because the instinct of re- 

 sistance to unjust or unnecessary 

 laws is already weaker than it should 

 be. If we could be sure that it 

 was always "the common sense of 

 most"' that kept a "fretful realm in 

 awe" there would not be so much 

 reason to complain ; but we have no 

 reason in many cases to suppose that 

 there is anything more than a com- 

 mon desire on the part of a majority 

 to have their wishes and fancies im- 

 posed upon others. Men seem to be 

 approximating to women in their be- 

 lief in compulsion: add the female 



vote, and liberty, in any wliolesome 

 sense, is at an end. 



We trust that Woman and the Re- 

 public will be widely read and deep- 

 ly pondered. One advantage which 

 the suffragists possess is that the ar- 

 guments they use, though very su- 

 perficial, are specious in their sim- 

 plicity. It is so easy to ask whether 

 women are not as good as men, 

 whether they are not as cultivated, 

 whether they are not ag intelligent; 

 and when affirmative answers are 

 given to these and similar questions, 

 it is so easy to draw the infer- 

 ence that they ought in that case to 

 have equal voting power. The result 

 is that unwary persons are apt to be 

 carried away to an acceptance of the 

 suffragist position. Many men, and 

 some of no mean note, have been so 

 caiTied away; but the remedy for 

 the error is to look deeper and con- 

 sider society in its organic character. 

 Prof. Goldwin Smith, as quoted by 

 Mrs. Johnson, expresses the fear lest, 

 through the " feeble facility of abdi- 

 cation" which prevails in a revolu- 

 tionary era like the present, men may 

 give way to the demands that are 

 being made by the woman-suffra- 

 gists. Mrs. Johnson shares the fear, 

 but sees also a source of danger in 

 "the very tender-heartedness of the 

 men of our time," adding that, " so 

 far from desiring to hold the slight- 

 est I'estriction over the women of the 

 republic, they may rush into an at- 

 tempt at abdication of a sovereignty 

 that did not originate in their will, 

 but in their environment, in order 

 to prove the sincerity of their desire 

 that woman should not even ajypear 

 to be compelled to obey." For our 

 part we share both fears; but our 

 special dread is lest the intellectual 

 superficiality of our time should lead 

 to the acceptance of arguments which 

 move, as it were, in one dimension 

 onl}^, the dimension of abstract rights. 

 Any logic chopper can deal with ab- 



