dations are more enduring than the opinions of men or women. 

 The}' exist in the great principle upon which our Republic is 

 founded, that government derives its just powers from the con- 

 sent of the governed. Standing on this principle we ask, " Why- 

 should not Municipal Suffrage be granted to women ? ' ' 



One objector answers, " Because women are not the equals, 

 intellectually, of men." As a man perhaps I must concede this 

 premise to be correct. Of course, Julia Ward Howe is not as 

 great a poet as Oscar Wilde. Elizabeth Barrett Browning was 

 not the peer of Martin Tupper. George Eliot was inferior to 

 G. P. R. James. Does this prove anything? Do we base the 

 right to vote upon intellectual superiority ? 



Says another, " Men and women may be equal, but they are 

 different, intellectually." President Eliot, of Harvard, is differ- 

 ent, intellectually, from Mr. Patrick McGuire, the great political 

 boss; Josiah Qnincy is different from John E. Sullivan; Benja- 

 min Harrison differs from Stephen Elkins ; bat these men are all 

 alike qualified to vote, and often the}' vote in the same party. 



Says another, "The women are reall}^ represented, their will 

 is expressed through the votes of husbands, fathers, brothers. 

 The ballot in the hands of women will simpl}^ duplicate the num- 

 ber of votes without changing the result ! ' ' Are we quite sure of 

 this? In 1882 the Democratic party in Massachusetts in its State 

 Convention declared in favor of an intelligent ballot for all, with- 

 out regard to sex, race, or color. Of course those of us who 

 supported that party at once began to discuss the situation. 

 Talking one day with a fellow-Democrat, I said, " x\fter all, 

 what is the objection to letting the women vote if the}^ want to ? " 

 His answer was almost literally this: ''If the women vote it 

 will carr}' ever^^ town in Massachusetts for no-license." 



It is said, too, that if the women vote and vote contrar^^ to 

 the wishes of husbands it will make differences in the family. 

 Can there really be anything in this ? Are political opinions held 

 as tenaciously as religious opinions ? Does the fact that the wife 

 may hold and express religious opinions that differ from those of 

 her husband destroy the family? Has it ever been argued in a 

 Christian land that a woman should not hold and express views 

 for herself in matters of religion ? 



It may be said things are well enough as they are, full justice 

 is done with the ballot confined to men. True, great changes 

 have been made in the laws affecting the rights of women, and 



changes for the better. A few years ago a man married a wife 



10 



