CHAPTER XXVII

AN UNQUALIFIED NUMERICAL MAJORITY RULE IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH GOOD STATESMANSHIP

For wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life; and few there be that find it.—Matthew, vii: 13, 14.

Aspeciousargument in favor of manhood suffrage is sometimes condensed into the expression “Let the majority rule”; a popular catchword, misleading like most catchwords, and far from expressing a sound principle in politics. That our national polity does to a large extent recognize the legitimacy of a numerical majority power is true enough; but it neither does, nor ought it, declare the numerical majority opinion to be the only, nor even the final arbiter. No thoroughly enlightened scheme of government of a great nation can do so, for pure majority government is merely the rule of brute force. Wisdom and ability are usually in the minority in this world; and a better saying would seem to be “let the minority rule”; in other words, let patriotic intelligence, justice and efficiency bear sway, and let them as far as possible lead the majority into a better way. In the practical affairs of every day life, people do not seek to learn of the majority, but of the few. In the administration of justice the better opinion is that majority verdicts of juries should not be received; such verdicts are apt to be hasty and careless, and to lack that element of care and deliberation which the requirement of unanimity tends to produce. In a casual group of fifty men, the opinion of twenty-five, properly selected, or a majority of them, is worthfar more than the opinion of a chance majority of the total fifty. In nothing except politics is an appeal to the majority ever made; everyone turns to a small minority of men, or even to one single man, for guidance in every important conjuncture of life. When a serious disease attacks a man, he does not take a vote of the public or of his family, friends and neighbors as to the course of treatment to be adopted to save his life; he turns to one learned and trustworthy man, and puts himself in his hands. So in the navigation of a ship, whether in tempest or fair weather; the trained and experienced mind of the captain controls at every moment of the voyage; it is the same in the conduct of a law suit; of a business enterprise; of the construction of dwellings, bridges, railroads and tunnels; in military campaigns; in all the serious undertakings of life, guidance is never sought in the voices of the many, but in the opinion of a select few or of a still more selected one.

It is a fatal error in the manhood suffrage theory that it assumes that numbers rule, and are capable of giving the final sanction. Such is not the fact. Despite all that demagogues may do or say, no amount of vociferation, resolutioning, applauding, cheering, registering, and voting will serve to prevent or delay the operation of natural law. Mind and reason must govern in politics as elsewhere. The power that is best capable of establishing and sustaining governments and governmental systems is a combination of forces; including principally energy, intelligence and numbers, producing a sum total of effectiveness. When allowed free play to its powers, as in India for instance, an energetic and intelligent minority will often control an inert and ignorant majority. The basic cause for the recognition of the majority principle in government, is not a belief in majority opinion, but an assumption that the majority actually possesses sufficient physical force to master the minority, and that therefore in the last appeal the majority must rule. But true statesmanship distrusts majority opinion in everything; seeks to escape its interference, and to educate and guide it in the right direction. It yields to it at last withreluctance, and only as we all yield to any of the overpowering forces of Nature; to darkness, to the deadly frost of the poles, to torrid heat, to the desert; to each of which we give way only to the extent to which we are unable to circumvent them, and to prevent their interference with our enterprises. And so, astute politicians are often active in seeking expedients, to compel the often blind will of majorities to conform to reason and the inevitable. It is the ambition of real statesmen to drive the state coach; while the mere politician is content to climb up behind, or to run up and down at the heels of the populace, like a servile flunkey after a demented master, whose follies he dares not correct, and out of whose worst extravagances he is ready to profit. Political leaders realize that a majority vote does not always, perhaps not often, represent the weight of the effective public opinion of the state; that such a vote frequently not only lacks understanding, but also lacks any guarantee of future support for the politician who shall rely upon it. And so it is the part of statesmanship to mitigate or prevent pure majority rule; to manage public opinion; to muzzle, assuage or pacify it; to create and guide majorities; to soothe and placate them for the time being; and sometimes to divert their attention, till they melt away and disappear and reason resumes her sway.

The necessity of effectively curbing, moderating and checking majority action, was well understood by the framers of the Constitution, who erected various anti-majority or one might say anti-snap-judgment barriers. First, there was the existing property qualification for voters; Second, the fundamental guarantees for personal property rights, contained in the Constitution and intended to protect minorities against hasty majority legislation; Third, the immutable constitutional provision for the equal representation of the states in the Senate. This last is a clear flouting of the majority theory, since it gives a small state the same representation as a large one, and conceivably enables a minority to defeat a majority. Fourth, the creation of an electoral college to select the president; thusintending to deprive the people of all direct voice in his election; Fifth, the veto placed in the hands of a president not elected by popular vote; Sixth, the election of federal senators by the state legislatures instead of by the people; Seventh, the creation of a supreme court with power to nullify unconstitutional legislation; Eighth, the system of appointment instead of election of all federal officials.

Calhoun discussed the subject of majority vote in a very interesting way in hisDisquisition on Government. He there distinguishes between the sense of the majority of the community and the sense of the entire community; he recognizes the tendency to misgovernment by a numerical majority, and the necessity of checking that tendency by some means, and he proposes the creation of a countervailing “Organism” by which would be called into operation the sense of the community as a whole. This would merely amount to the adoption of an additional constitutional check on majority rule; and such checks are of course useful; but they are insufficient; they are directed against the operation of the mischief, but not against its root and origin. The political machine should be so constructed that the constitutional checks on its operation would only be needed on rare occasions, like the stops in an elevator, which come into play only in cases of accident when the machine gets beyond ordinary control. A vital error in the scheme of majority rule is pointed out by John Stuart Mill in his “System of Logic”; it lies in the vicious extreme to which it has been carried. All excess is mischievous. All systems of government are bound to be defective in results, and therefore none should be radically enforced. The so called French extreme logical application of general rules tends to aggravate imperfections. “In these, and many other cases, we set in motion a principle from which, while it is under control we derive signal advantage, but which, if it breaks loose and follows its own tendencies unchecked, is highly dangerous: of which we may say, as of fire, that it is a good servant but a bad master.” (Lewis on Authority, p. 239.) In other wordsthe doctrine of majority rule represents only one principle applicable to government: it contains only a part of the truth; and should not in practise be applied to excess, or as if it were the only principle involved; but its original operation should be combined at the very outset with that of other steadying forces such as intelligence, experience and morality. “The mere counting of votes (says one writer) is insufficient when parts of the nation are electing representatives for the whole. The parts must be arranged according to quality so as to guarantee the election of the best men, and to give due proportion to the intellectual, moral and material elements of the nation.” (Bluntschli;Theory of the State.)

The foregoing may serve to clear up the difficulty in the minds of many people, who have thought of the construction of a governmental machine as of a problem in mathematics, where only numbers are to be considered. As Mills the logician points out, the doctrine of pure numerical majority rule is not logical, and other considerations besides mere numbers must be given value in weighing the national verdict in political questions. In determining what those other considerations should be, it is obvious that property rights, and the qualities which create and preserve property, are of first availability and importance, and that the neglect and oversight of these rights and qualities constitute the most glaring defects of popular government. The property qualification is obviously that most readily applied to the electorate and its institution is a return to the natural and original practice of the American people.

The use of the property qualification as a corrective of the excesses attendant upon pure majority government is also recommendable on the ground of efficiency and practicability. It will effect a needed check on hasty, emotional, prejudiced and unsocial measures more easily and with less jar and racking than any of the other expedients in practise or suggested for that purpose. The marginal vote between right and wrong, between wisdom and folly, is often very small; sometimes five or ten per cent. It is safe to assumethat a propertied electorate would give enlightened verdicts in many cases, where the present inferior voting body renders barbarous ones; and such decisions would carry with them all the prestige of a popular vote. The constitutional expedients now in force to check majority action, or any which may be invented, should not be subjected to every day use, for they have serious drawbacks. They are not preventive; they are not final; at best they effect no more than delay, and they irritate the masses by opposing a technical and inferior power to theirs; a mere obstruction as it were, and that interposed by those whom they assume to call their servants. There can be no doubt that the logical and safe thing is to avoid and prevent mistakes of the electorate, rather than to allow them to be made, and afterward to attempt by extraneous means to offset them or to thwart their operation; and this especially when these means are such as to the masses may seem obstructive and oppressive. As the real difficulty in the case lies in this vicious constitution of the electorate, why not meet it there? The object is to prevent foolish, oppressive and fluctuating majority decisions. To effectuate this, the property qualification scheme, while accepting the fact that voting power rule is one necessary factor in republican government, creates at the outset a majority body of voters from which it has eliminated the politically worthless element. It thus furnishes an electorate containing, and capable of producing out of itself, a numerical majority which will also carry a preponderance in property, intelligence, public spirit and in political weight, prestige and power. Such a majority will never attempt to rule in defiance of justice and good policy; and the assurance furnished by its very existence will promote business confidence and general prosperity.

OF EDUCATIONAL AND AGE SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTERS

Aneducational qualification for voters would be incompatible with the theory of this volume, which viewing government as preeminently a business institution, prescribes as a preparation for the voter a practical business training, and demands the application to the proposed elector of the test of practical success in business life and of interest in business affairs. But were an educational qualification otherwise desirable, it would have to be rejected as totally impracticable. It might be possible under certain circumstances to exact a requirement that every voter should be able to read simple English sentences. But even that would be difficult to enforce; and if enforced would accomplish no more than merely to exclude the grossly illiterate; it would not provide a real educational qualification. Even to go so far as to require an examination on a few simple subjects would result in a merely nominal test; in practice absolutely ineffective, while to make it substantial would be practically impossible; no machinery exists or could be created for the purpose. The present class of election inspectors have neither the requisite courage nor sufficient knowledge to apply such requirements; they cannot themselves be expected to do much more than read and write, and do a plain sum in arithmetic; the very thought of such officials applying a real educational test to their neighbors, or to anyone else, is ludicrous. A board of college professors or men with similar attainments would have to be constituted in each district; the expense would be enormous; the examiners would be worked and worried to the verge ofinsanity; they would have to sit constantly all the year round; with the probable result after all of riots at each election and ten years’ litigation afterwards. No two men in the country would agree upon the subjects or rules for the examinations; whether English grammar should be required, or geography, or botany, or mensuration, or astronomy, or geology, or whether any of these should be admissible. Shall he who fails to spell “procedure” or “acquiesce” correctly be passed because he remembers the name of Hamlet’s mother; or shall the man who says “droring” or he who does not know the name of the governor of the state, be excluded, or shall both be admitted? Indeed, any thorough examination would result in the disfranchisement of nearly all middle-aged men except teachers and clergymen. In short, the idea of applying any book examination whatever as a test for political capacity is false and impracticable, because there is no real relation between capacity to remember the contents of school books, and that common sense and good judgment which is the foundation of all good government. But there is a practicable test of both these qualities, though book examinations will not afford it; it is that applied in daily life and in business, and is expressed in terms of property. The possession or lack of that good judgment and of that common sense is openly certified every day by the success or failure of business men. Their case is like that of students who during the whole term have been competing for prizes. Their records and certificates issued by the school of life are open to inspection; the ablest pupils have been marked, stamped as it were for public recognition. No examination or trial of any sort would furnish tests as valuable and accurate as those applied to every man day by day in the struggle of life.

There is no fear that any well-educated but unpropertied man will suffer injustice through being excluded from the polls. As it is to-day, all educated men who are not in active politics find the right to vote to be a hollow privilege to perform an empty ceremony; they learn that its value is nullifiedby the worthless men and frivolous women of the neighborhood, and by the sordid political organizations created by universal suffrage. No patriotic man desires the vote merely for his own gratification, or except for the general good; and how can it be for the public gain to let down the bars in his case, if a score of incapables thereby get through the fence and offset and defeat his vote twenty times over? It is probable that fifty undesirables will be excluded from the polls by a property qualification for every man of worth kept away because of his poverty; and the latter will be consoled and recompensed by seeing his class at last obtain an influence and a hearing. And, after all, the value to the state of the political judgment and opinion of such few electors as are able to pass an educational examination, and yet are not possessed of the equivalent of a reasonable property qualification, cannot be very great; probably all put together it is less than nothing. A man with all the advantage of a good education who is unable in this country to save enough money to put him on the roll of the thrifty, is presumably incompetent to advise the commonwealth; and it is perhaps one of the advantages of a property qualification that it saves the state from the ill counsel of his class.

The complete failure of mere school and college education to fit man for civic duties is recognized by the heads of our educational system, as well as by business men. In an address delivered at New Haven September 28, 1919, President Hadley of Yale University laid proper emphasis on this point, and on the risks attending undisciplined democracy. He said in substance that there is danger that our free institutions may break down for want of capacity in the voters, and admitted that the schools and colleges had proved incapable of creating a competent electorate. The “vision” which Hadley found lacking in the voters of today as contrasted with the Fathers, is the insight into life which a man may get in caring for property or in successfully fending for himself and family.

Besides the men of books without practical vision or judgment there is another type whose hands should be kept off the wheels of government; namely, those who have sufficient education and fluency of speech to give them sway over the foolish and dissatisfied masses, but who are themselves weak in principle and devoid of knowledge of political economy. As long as such a one enjoys a fortune he is comparatively safe; but let him be penniless and he is apt to become a dangerous agitator. The state is safest without such men in any part of its organization. A purely educational qualification system would give high place to the featherhead revolutionary agitators of Russia and France, Nihilists, Anarchists, Bolsheviki, Terrorists, political scoundrels and madmen. It must be steadily borne in mind that our civilization is founded on private property, and that the rights of private property cannot be safely disregarded by the makers of the modern democratic state but must be always held paramount if our fundamental institutions are to endure.

The qualification age of voters should be advanced from twenty one to twenty five years. The age of twenty one has by common consent of most civilized people been selected as that at which the tutelage of a youth shall cease, and he shall become a free man with the right to regulate his own life and dispose of his own property. In point of fact this theory substantially accords with the truth in the majority of cases; the average boy ends his schooling at about seventeen years of age, and after four years spent at college or in learning the rudiments of some business, trade or calling his period of training for manhood is usually ended. And so, on the theory that suffrage is a natural right of a man it might well be said that the vote should be given on attaining manhood; but starting with the correct theory that suffrage is a function of government, for which the school of life is a preparation, it is clear that a proper additional period must be granted for that preparation. Ordinarily, the four years from the age of twenty-one to that of twenty-five, represent the period of the youth’s first experience in making his own living, in managinghis own property, in planning and selecting his own career and associates, in making and executing his own decisions, and generally in the actual exercise of free and uncontrolled manhood. There can be no doubt that these four years thus spent have a great effect on a young man’s character; and that ordinarily he who was but a youth at twenty-one is found at twenty-five to be a man, with a stock of manly ideas and experience all acquired in the last four years. Four years apprenticeship to actual life is none too long a preparation for political duties, and the necessity of this requirement will no doubt be acknowledged by most young men over twenty-five years of age. In the case of those who have inherited property, it is plain that a four years’ acquaintance with its management, and of actual contact with the taxing power, will give to their votes a weight and value which are usually quite lacking to those of the ordinary youth of twenty-one years.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN THEORY

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.(I Timothy, ii; 13, 14.)

Therebe those to whom the words of the great apostle to the Gentiles speak with power and authority; who believe that Holy Writ will be read and heard with reverent faith long after the claptrap of to-day has been replaced by a later folly and is utterly forgotten; and there be those also who disdain St. Paul as one far inferior in deep sagacity to themselves. The precept of the ancient text will no doubt be valued by each reader as belikes him. The beauty of the landscape is in the eye of the human spectator; there is reason to believe that neither the grazing donkey nor any of his fellow quadrupeds has yet felt its fascination.

Woman suffrage has been steadily gaining ground in the United States for the last ten years, and the leading politicians have recently taken it up. It is a corollary and a sequence of manhood suffrage, its most fatal and noxious derivative. It is distinctly Bolshevik in its tendencies; it represents an absolute negation of the rights of property and the claims of capacity in government, and it threatens the severest blow which democracy has ever yet sustained. It implies the past failure of democracy as a governing power and is destined if accepted, to confirm and complete that failure in the future. Its adoption by a number of states of the Union is a disgrace and a dishonour, because it implies that the men of the nation are unfit to govern it. The implication is necessary and conclusive, but the charge does not rest on mere implication; the suffragettes have repeatedlymade it on the platform and in their literature. Yes, to such depth of shame after three generations of its odious operations, has manhood suffrage brought our people, that our women are able openly to accuse our men of incapacity to govern the country. And by adopting woman suffrage in sixteen states the men have admitted the charge; for if they were competent to govern, if they were even as competent as the women, there was no excuse for calling in the latter to interfere. They have been called in, and the male electorate thereby stands a self-confessed failure. And yet the charge of incapacity made against our men is false; they are competent to manage the state and to manage it well, but the politicians who have been permitted to grasp the helm of state are not competent; and so after one hundred and forty years of independence and male government we are told by a parcel of fools and fanatics that the manhood of the country is not and never has been fit and able to conduct its affairs. Disguise it as you will, that is what woman suffrage means. It is not merely an open affront to American manhood, but it is also an aspersion at once upon its training and its intelligence; for it is a declaration that after over a century of actual participation in business, in war, in politics and in government, our men are so incapable, that their women who have none of this experience, are more competent than they to counsel and direct in all these important matters. In vain will the nincompoops and sentimentalists who gave us women suffrage attempt to avoid this plain conclusion by references to a few superior and exceptional women, such as their favorite wonder, Mme. Curie. The invitation to vote was not confined to the exceptional; we have called in the whole adult female population, black and white, from the most intelligent and refined lady in the land down to the vilest negress from the slums. The obvious effect was and is to offset every man’s vote by a woman’s vote; and thus practically to disfranchise the men of the country. The votes of the banker, the lawyer, the physician, the business man, the farmer, the manufacturer, the architect, each ofwhom has spent most of his days in learning lessons in the actual struggles of life, are to be negatived by the votes of their wives and daughters, who have passed their existence in sheltered homes, and who are so ignorant of the business of life and politics, that they do not even know its terms or its language. In every family, in every occupation, in every quality and grade of life, the same absurd and degrading performance is to be repeated year by year, as long as men will subject themselves to the futile humiliation of appearing at the polls. All the way up and down the scale our women are notoriously inferior to our men in business and political knowledge and judgment; and all the way down and all the way up, all the votes of such of the wise and experienced males as may hereafter trouble themselves to vote are to be negatived and nullified by those of the ignorant and inexperienced females. To say that no such result is intended is to say that the promoters of woman suffrage acted without reason or logic, which is probably true. They did not realize the meaning or effect of a great deal of what they said and proposed; but yet, whether or not they are capable of understanding it, woman suffrage must, if it does anything, modify or lessen man’s authority. Some of the suffragette leaders saw this, and the literature of the movement is well peppered with sharp aspersions on the capacity of men to rule the country. Indeed, if male government was satisfactory, why was a change proposed? The entire argument of the movement was that masculine rule is not satisfactory, and that therefore it was proposed to supersede and supplant it by a mixed government of men and women, now and forever. This change in management is inexcusable, unless it is intended to produce practical results in legislation and administration; and each of these practical results cannot be or mean less than an overruling of the male power by the female power, and a public and formal assertion of superior female capacity in government.

To say that none of this is to happen, that after all this hullabaloo about woman’s wrongs and rights, the women aregoing to vote in obedience to the directions or wishes of the men of their respective families, and that man’s government control and management will therefore remain unaffected by the triumph of their cause, is to make the whole movement futile and ridiculous. Not only that; but such a nullification of the women’s vote would add to the mischief of the affront already put upon the men by putting a separate affront upon the women. Far better for them to stay at home, and make no pretence of political action, than to go out to the polls, and pretend to do the part of freewomen, while really acting the part of puppets. If therefore a practise of proxy voting is to be the real effect of woman suffrage, and there is good reason to suspect that it is so in many instances, let it be done openly and straightforwardly. There is already too much fraud and humbug in politics; let the law be amended so that for instance, when a manufacturer with a wife and four other women in his family puts in six votes for a protective tariff it can be done openly; let him cast the six votes himself, without resorting to the troublesome expedient of having these five women, much against their will, trained and required to take a mean part in a sham transaction; first carefully instructed to vote the straight ticket and then taken to the polls and compelled to go through the tiresome form required by the man-made election law. Indeed, if men were permitted to vote by proxy for their women, the probability is that female attendance at the polls would before long become unfashionable and shrink almost to nothing. If, however, the female voters, inspired by the suffragette dreams, change their natures so far as to want to use their new powers in complete independence of the men, then will be seen the interesting picture of our women, publicly exercising their ignorance, and in defiance of all claims of loyalty and gratitude, trampling under foot family ties, assuming hostile attitudes towards the men, and negativing the votes of fathers, brothers and husbands whose bread they eat, who protect and care for them and whose business and political experience and wisdom isten times their own. Imagine the theory of woman suffrage plainly and fully in effect, and see what it would mean. Picture, if you will, the assembled men of a hamlet or village voting “yea” on any proposition; say to build a school house or a sewer; to pass an ordinance, to favor war or peace, or to select a public official; and imagine the women in like separate assembly overruling the word of their men and voting “nay.” Would not this be to affront and dishonour the men of the community; and is there any doubt as to which body would be in the right in whatever decision had been made? Yet that or nothing, is the effect of this measure. Of the woman who favors woman suffrage it can therefore be said that she wishes to see the dearest opinions of her experienced father, her brother and her husband overruled not only by herself but by every gossiping wench in the neighborhood. Truly a noble movement! For the men who have acceded to it the most charitable excuse is indifference. The long continued operation of rotten politics has eaten into the civic fibre of our manhood; we have for generations seen elections turned into farces, public offices bargained and sold, and a vulgar oligarchy of rogues native and imported ruling this land, till our best men have almost ceased to care who votes or who is elected. If the male “suffragist” doubts this to be his real mental attitude, let him imagine the women of his family overruling him in a business transaction, or one of personal friendship, or any other matter in which he is really concerned, and wherein he is better informed than they; and he will realize, that his willingness to submit to having the exercise of his citizenship nullified at the polls, by the vote of an uninstructed woman is due to his contempt for politics, his indifference to political results, and his realization that the suffrage has been already degraded so that it is practically worthless.

Not only is woman suffrage a dishonor and a disgrace, but it is a danger, for it threatens the existence of the state; it is a weakening of the foundations at a time when we aremenaced with attacks by every band of the rapidly organizing enemies to property and to the social order. Is it fit when the day of stress comes that the power of this country should be in the hands of women and woman-led politicians? If we will not take counsel of common sense, let us be warned of our fears, to step backward while there is time, for the precipice is directly in our path.

The progress of the cause of woman suffrage, like to that of manhood suffrage a century ago, is due to the apathy of half the population and the failure of the other half to understand the question. And just as manhood suffrage was adopted without serious discussion or any real study of its tendencies, so woman suffrage is rapidly making its way in a careless, stupid and bewildered electorate, of which a large portion and that the most intelligent has long ago abandoned politics as hopeless and disgusting. No doubt, the adoption of the manhood suffrage theory prepared the way for this result, first by promulgating the false doctrine of a natural right to vote, and second by weakening the electorate. When the principle of a qualified electorate was abandoned, we lost the only sane and safe basis on which a democratic government can possibly exist; once reject the rule of fitness, and there is no valid reason why all the deficient and worthless should not have their say in government, and the way is laid open for rule by ignorant and incapable numbers instead of by knowledge and capacity. The admission of women to the voting booths is merely a new and wider application of the former doctrine of the right of the ignorant and unfit to govern. Let it be conceded that no voter can be excluded from the polls for incapacity shown by failure in life, and it becomes difficult to exclude for similar incapacity resulting from sex. The abolition of all qualifications for male voters, and the admission of a horde of male incompetents to the ballot box, has prepared the way for the granting of the privileges of the ballot to a sex almost universally incompetent for the exercise of the franchise.

And further, manhood suffrage not only smoothed the path for woman suffrage by weakening and degrading the electorate who were to pass on the question, but incidentally by driving out in disgust great numbers of the wise and worthy from active participation in politics; with the result that the body politic has hardly, if at all, power or virtue sufficient to save itself from the assaults of that clamorous band of female fanatics and triflers who seek diversion in public affairs. The adoption of woman suffrage at the command of this noxious horde is the most degraded performance of and the most mischievous transgression by the manhood suffrage system since its establishment.

The ruling politicians of both parties, who were at first afraid of woman suffrage, and next doubtful or lukewarm, have now generally come to favor it, and are quite ready to welcome an influx of new voters still more ignorant and emotional than those they had already learned to master. They might, of course, have defeated the movement; but they had no motive to exclude from the polls masses of women, mostly ignorant and gullible, and often sordid, who with a little change in methods, may be purchased, deceived and controlled, even more easily than the nondescript men who have heretofore constituted the sure following of the bosses. Besides, the politicians cannot safely or consistently advocate or countenance the establishment of any qualification whatever for the exercise of political functions; the leaders and their instruments being notoriously unfit for the offices and their followers for the voting booths.

That the great state of New York should be one of those to grant full suffrage to women strikingly illustrates and proves the incapacity of the manhood suffrage electorate. The state’s vote in that behalf could only have been given by a constituency grossly stupid, or so neglectful of its duties as to be indifferent to the grotesque scandals already produced in New York by the operation of manhood suffrage. And now, its voting mass, which already was far inferior in intelligence andefficiency to what it should be, has by its own decree provided that hereafter it will be still more ignorant and inefficient. The fact is, that the whole American electorate, especially in states containing great and absolutely machine ruled cities, has become demoralized by manhood suffrage to the extent that it has ceased to study the philosophy of government and finds itself totally unprepared to discuss the suffrage question intelligently. A few cheap catch words such as the “majority must rule” and “every citizen should vote” constitute nowadays the political creed and sum up the political knowledge of the ordinary American. The women suffragists utter mere claptrap; but claptrap perfectly suits the popular ear, and is all that any one has needed to utter on political platforms ever since manhood suffrage was adopted; they press upon the voters their superficial argument that as no qualification was required from a man, none should be required of a woman; they contrast the good respectable women who are refused the suffrage with the miserable male sots, loafers and ignorant boors to whom it has been granted; and they urge that nothing can be worse than our present political condition. In this, by the way, they will find their mistake as time goes on; for Uncle Sam, like the man who is made shaky on his legs by two glasses of whiskey, will not be steadied by doubling the dose that disabled him. However, in these and similar arguments, there appears to the superficial mind so much plausibility that on the strength of them, millions of women have been put on the voting lists; most of them absolutely ignorant of business life and of the practical workings of political institutions built up by men year by year in the centuries gone by; most of them besides almost totally devoid of any realization of the tragedy of the situation, of the tremendous interests involved, or of the dangers to which a nation is subject, which goes drifting along without firm, strict and competent masculine governmental management and control.

Let it be clearly understood before proceeding further, that it is not within the scope or plan of this book to discuss what iscalled “feminism,” or even to go into the whole case against woman suffrage, but merely to apply to the female suffrage problem, the reasoning herein applied to the manhood suffrage institution. The inquiry here is merely whether or not women may be expected by their votes to contribute to the public welfare. It will be well, however, just to mention the principal points made by those opposed to giving the franchise to woman, which are additional to those included in the argument herein presented, so as to make it clear that the failure of the writer to urge them in detail must not be taken to indicate any disregard of their value; they are not dwelt upon only because outside of the scheme of the work. These miscellaneous points made by the anti-female suffragists are as follows:

That the ultimate sanction for every political decree is force; modern force is expressed in naval and military terms; women are incapable of military or naval service, they cannot back their votes by force. To say that because they can nurse the wounded they are therefore combatants is like saying that the man who blows the organ is a musician. We have also the objections founded on mental or moral deficiency; that government needs creative energy, and that women are not as creative as men, no supreme work of genius for instance having ever been created by a woman; that woman is inferior to man in strength of intellect, in power of concentration and moral perception; that she has no larger view than man on any subject, but on many subjects a much narrower view; that women are more subject than men to passion and prejudice; that they have less public or civic virtue, and that in order to overcome their inferiority in these particulars they would have to pass through all the developing experience of men in all the past centuries. Another: that women are usually dependents, whereas no voter should be a dependent. Also, that the State does not need women except to raise children; all other services, such as agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, military and naval duties, construction, shipping, engineering, finance, literature, science, invention, etc., being better performed by men. There are also biological considerations of great force operating generally against the feminist theory of the natural equality of the sexes; and which though not sufficient to forbid woman’s casting a vote, are effective reasons against her going into political strifes and contests. There are, for instance, the physical weaknesses incidental to their sex, the importance of maternity and of all the functions appertaining thereto; the need in the interests of humanity of guarding the mothers of the race present and future from all undue physical strain and burden; the danger as a result of feminism of the evolution of a type of woman expressing masculine characteristics, and incapable of arousing the passion of love, thus depriving men of the beauty and charm of women, imperiling the comeliness of the race, abolishing the lady and ladyhood, and drying up the source of poetry; then there is the argument that the biological development and evolution of woman, and of the race, is destined to come by means of the growth of greater and greater differences between the sexes, and not by women copying men; that feminism in all its aspects is hostile to marriage; that the years necessary to feminist training would bring women to an age too advanced for the best marriages; that women and men are not equals, there being no equality in nature; and that women need the maintenance and protection of the male for their best advantage and that of their children, whereas the tendency of the woman suffrage movement and of all feminism is clearly towards separation of the sexes and female economic independence.

Having thus merely mentioned these points which have been often presented and discussed by other writers, we may proceed to apply to the question of woman suffrage the same test already applied to manhood suffrage, by propounding the query whether it is for the benefit of the state? And here we find that every objection already urged in this volume to giving the vote to unpropertied men, applies with increased force to giving it to women of all classes. As there is no natural right in man to the vote, so there can be none in woman; and inthe light of reason, woman suffrage stands condemned on every ground urged in this book for the condemnation of manhood suffrage. In whatever respects manhood suffrage has in this book been condemned as injurious, woman suffrage is more injurious. In short, the theory upon which woman suffrage is advocated by its supporters is entirely incompatible with the theory of suffrage advanced by the writer, and indeed with any theory on which a property qualification can be imposed upon voters. In dealing with this subject therefore, instead of treading again ground already gone over, the writer prefers to call attention briefly to the doctrines of the woman suffrage creed already dealt with and confuted by him in his discussion of manhood suffrage, as follows:

Woman suffragists adopt the manhood suffrage theory of a natural right to vote, and seek to widen its application; the writer and those who agree with him condemn that theory, and seek to narrow its operation. They insist that political voting is a natural right; we, that it is a public function. They regard the vote as cast for the benefit of the voter; we insist that it be given solely for the benefit of the state. They affirm that the present suffrage is not wide enough; we say that it is too wide. They seek a remedy for misgovernment by going further in our present course; we propose to retrace our steps. They demand that all adults be invited to participate in government; we insist that all but the well qualified should be excluded. They say that the adult population in the mass is competent to pass upon candidates and policies; we say it is not; that a much more competent and honest body for the purpose is furnished by the successful men of business, evolved by the process of natural selection. They seek political counsel of everyone; including the weak, the inexperienced and unreliable; we reject all but that of the strong, experienced and trustworthy. They consider the polling booth as a preparatory school for triflers, fools and the ignorant; we regard it as a seat of judgment from which those three classes should be strictly excluded. They speak of “liberty” and “selfgovernment” as ideal products of universal suffrage; we say in the first place that “liberty” and “self government” are impossible in a civilized country; and second, that instead of “self government” manhood suffrage has produced and can only produce machine and ring government; and that the votes of women given under universal suffrage will and must strengthen these rings and machines.

Summarized in the fewest possible words, the gist of the previous chapters, as far as they affect both sexes, women as well as men, is, that voting is not a natural right but a public function, to be exercised solely for the benefit of the state; and that the suffrage should be entrusted only to those who have shown themselves to be duly qualified, and never to the weak, inexperienced or dependent. These simple propositions, accepted or considered established, the question of granting or refusing the vote to women is much simplified, being narrowed to one of political expediency, dependent upon their proven capacity to function as voters.

It is manifestly not a question of the capacity of some, but of all women, for unless the quality of the entire female electorate is politically superior to that of the entire male electorate the former should not be introduced into our political system. Nor is it a matter of comparison of any other than civic or political quality; it is immaterial whether women are morally superior to men, or better church goers or more sentimental; the question is whether they are politically as capable; that is whether they are as capable of selecting the directors of the state, or of directing her themselves, and of shaping her policies as the men are. But of the answer to this there can be no possible uncertainty; no one doubts male superiority in these capacities; to deny it in the face of the well-known characteristics of the human male, as well as the notorious advantages that men have over women in point of business and political training and experience, is to defy common sense. Government is an institution established for a kind of work which is essentially masculine. It is designednot only for the prosecution of great business enterprises in peace, but of foreign wars great and small, for national defense, and for that diplomacy which is armed and threatening. Political capacity requires mental power, courage, firmness of character, determination, physical strength, military capability, business training and experience and ability to rule. These are essentially masculine qualities; and while few men have them all highly developed, yet those attributes or some of them are moderately present in most men and to a considerable extent in some men in every community; whereas most women are almost or quite destitute of all of them. Sensible women fully recognize their difference from men in respect to those qualities, and for that reason they especially value them, and seek for them in selecting their husbands, lovers, lawyers and physicians. It is apparently conceded even by the female suffragists, that most public offices should be filled by men rather than by women, on account of this masculine superiority in political efficiency. Now, it cannot surely be expected that women who are notoriously lacking in firmness, courage, determination and good judgment, will as voters be as expert as men in weighing these qualities, in appreciating their extent, or in discovering their presence or absence in the various male candidates for office presented for a choice.

Not only are the majority of women destitute of capacity to take a personal part in government themselves, but they have no taste for politics, nor desire to become proficient therein; they usually dislike to read or to seriously discuss political matters of any kind. One would like to be able to say, that none of them care to take part in the vile intrigues or acts of violence, which are the unfortunate incidents of certain low political work, but this cannot truthfully be said, in view of the ballot box stuffing in Colorado, the picketing of the White House, the insults to and assaults upon high officials here and in England and the numerous petty crimes committed there by militant suffragettes or their hirelings. But for high or abstract politics, the study of political questions, statesmanship, political history and political economy, women have very little taste, if any. It is the general opinion that the great majority, probably three-fourths of the women of the United States do not desire the vote at all, never have desired it, and have no idea what to do with it. The suffragette leaders are not politicians nor political students, but agitators; being impelled to that vocation not by a taste for politics but by a love of money and notoriety. The only recorded case of a census of women’s opinion on female suffrage which has come to the writer’s attention was in or about 1908, when a Mr. Bray, a member of the legislature from some city of Wisconsin, took a ballot of the women in his district, about eight thousand in number, for his private instruction upon this subject; with the result that not a single ward, city or village returned a majority for suffrage. In a certain working people’s ward, the vote was from three to seven against the franchise to one in its favor. Most teachers, older scholars, librarians, nurses and dressmakers voted “Yes.” A large majority of bookkeepers, stenographers, clerks, factory girls and hotel employees voted “No.” Of the whole eight thousand women, fully two-thirds voted “No” on the question. That is to say, two-thirds of the women agreed that not only they themselves but also the other one-third were unfit to be voters. The fact that the other third considered themselves competent is of little consequence; probably they excel the others in nothing more than self-conceit, and that supremest ignorance which is unaware of its own want of knowledge; but even if this third were eager to vote and would make a good use of the franchise, that fact would not justify the admission to the electorate of the other two thirds, who by their own admission are certain to misuse it. A sensible man will not eat an entire apple of which two thirds is rotten or unripe, and whoever does so is likely to pay the penalty.

In the United States or the communities of the United States where women at present vote, it is presumable and the best evidence obtainable shows that most of those who really expect advantage from the suffrage are political adventuresses, socialists and female cranks; the remainder exercise the vote without any real understanding of what they are doing; some because they are paid or coerced, others reluctantly and only from a mistaken sense of duty, or upon the advice or direction of some husband, father, brother, lover, clergyman or friend; or in gratification of some spite, passion, fad or caprice which has possessed them for the time being. Most of them, even those who pretend to intelligence, are less fit to vote than the grimy day laborer, whose daily talk in the beer saloon is largely of the practical politics of the district.

Some suffragettes, while acknowledging the existence of this notorious political indifference and ignorance of women, say that it is but temporary, and will disappear with time; that with the incentive of the vote women will by degrees acquire a taste for politics. This is the same hollow “harper” argument herein already punctured, that was used to justify the giving the ballot to the Southern freedmen in 1866 with disastrous results. It offers a very poor outlook for the state; presenting at best a dim hope that the quality of the female vote may aspire some centuries later to equal that which we have already obtained in the male vote. Meantime the country must suffer while the women practise and learn; and after all the result will only be to bring us up to our present standard and that some generations hence.

But in fact there is no such hope; the women will never learn politics because they will never study it; the incentives offered do not appeal to women with sufficient force to induce them in the mass to enter into politics; their indifference thereto is incurable; it amounts in many cases to positive aversion, and proceeds from causes which are likely to continue to operate for an indefinite period, and which are sufficiently permanent in their nature to justify a strong apprehension that if woman suffrage prevails the national fabric may sometime be endangered thereby. Foremost among these causes is the compelling power of Nature herself,who gave the woman an organism, instincts, and ambitions of her very own; who ordained that she should be something better and more precious than a cheap echo and imitation of man, and that she should have her own pleasures, her own tastes, her own loves and hates, her own life, and a capacity for higher existence than grovelling in the muck of universal suffrage politics. One of these natural instincts requires, and always will require, healthy minded women to make it their first object to please men. Now, the female politician is odious to most men, and the display of masculine qualities by a woman is apt to provoke them to something like disgust. This, the female suffragette leaders fail to realize; they themselves are rather peculiar than typical; some of them are eccentrics who imagine themselves superior when they are merely odd, and are or pretend to be devoid of that instinctive desire for male admiration and to be charming, which is the inspiration of the best in woman. But they will never be followed by the mass of loving and practical women into the dreary abode where they pass their cold and shrill existences. Already the women voters in States where woman suffrage is established are deserting these female agitators; they are being deposed from leadership, and male politicians are rapidly taking command, and replacing them by their own lieutenants, usually women who avoided the suffrage agitation; often the wives and sisters of these politicians. So that it is already coming to pass that female politics, instead of representing woman’s political independence, will strengthen male bossism; thus affording one more instance of the operation of Nature’s fiat that certain jobs are exclusively for men, and that one of them is the job of governing the world and every part thereof.

Not only is it true that women as a class have no natural liking for politics, but they will never become acquainted with it for want of proper opportunity. Such opportunity is in the nature of things confined to the men of the nation, and comes from mixing with other men, and with the transactions and business of other men day after day. A slight acquaintancewith it may be acquired by reading, or instruction, but not nearly as much as by the constant, never-ending intercourse of men of affairs with each other, on the mart, and in the business places of the city and country. Our standards of life are such, that women, even if their natural tastes did not disincline them to it, are necessarily excluded from that intercommunion with business men; therefore, the information and experience thus obtained by men are not within the reach of women, even of those employed by men in stores and offices, most of whom are further debarred therefrom by their being in subordinate employments. Nor are women, even so-called business women, as a class, engaged in the acquisition of property; even when employed in business or a profession, their proficiency being inferior to that of men, they do not often earn sufficient to enable them to make substantial accumulations; and they seldom make a life career of any employment in which they are engaged. Of the comparatively small number of women employed in mercantile pursuits or in the business part of manufacturing, the practical knowledge possessed by most of them, of the effects of legislation in government administration, of the tariff for instance, taxation, corporate law, banking law, etc., is so small as to be negligible.

Passing, because it speaks for itself, the case of the millions of negresses to whom it is proposed to give the ballot, and considering that of the white women only, we find that to the vast majority of farmer’s wives, female servants, factory girls, dressmakers, sewing women, waitresses, shop girls and the like, the very word “politics” conveys no exact or correct meaning; by far the most of them are not only lacking in acquaintance with the subjects of political economy, finance, constitutional law, foreign trade relations and treaties with foreign nations, but they are unable even to correctly define the names of those subjects. Then coming to a better read class of women, such as teachers, stenographers, bookkeepers, cashiers, typewriters, etc., while many of them would be able to give the definitions alluded to, their knowledge would scarcely go farther. Veryfew of them ever read the newspaper political articles; still fewer have ever read or heard discussed a work of any sort on politics or political questions. Why, indeed, should they read works which deal exclusively with matters belonging to masculine life? In fact most women belonging to the classes above mentioned, except such factory girls as are socialists, have refrained from taking part in the suffrage agitation and from any demand for the ballot. Most good women who believe in woman suffrage, hope to become instructed in politics through reading books, newspapers and magazines; and it is noticeable that the female suffragists constantly talk and write as though intelligence enough to read were sufficient qualification for a voter; they assume that one can learn how to vote by merely reading the newspapers; completely ignoring the qualities and training which will enable the voter to properly understand and weigh the newspaper statements, and to discard newspaper lies. Mere general intelligence is not a sufficient endowment for a voter; otherwise an entire stranger in the community could cast a wise vote at its elections; he needs as well that good judgment and firmness, that knowledge of actual life, of business needs and conditions, of local circumstances, and of the motives and reputation of public men, which women can never hope to acquire in the same degree as men. No subject can be mastered merely by reading, and politics least of all; and it is of all branches of knowledge the one which women are least fitted to acquire. For politics is concerned with the doings of men in their pursuit of money and fame; and in modern times especially with their business doings. The pursuit of money and fame are essentially masculine vocations; it is impossible for women even to attempt to compete with men in those undertakings, nor to understand their conditions, nor with rare exceptions do women ever really wish to do so. As a branch of knowledge politics includes such subjects as history, finance, economics, foreign trade relations, war, legal principles, constitutional law, naval affairs, the study of men and of their prejudices and capabilities. Few men have time orinclination to study these matters in the abstract sufficiently to enable them to properly estimate important political measures. But this defect in men’s education is corrected to a very considerable extent, by daily practical experience. Business men are experts in innumerable activities of which their women are absolutely ignorant, and they are thus made capable of understanding the language of many of those subjects. They have besides, the inestimable advantage of actual contact with men and groups of men, in their daily business life, who are more or less interested in these matters; of hearing their opinions directly or at second hand; with the further advantage of experience direct or indirect in the results or effects of political action. All this is part of the atmosphere and circumstance of a man’s business life. An appreciable portion of this information is constantly being spread and distributed by business men, and find its way from them into the minds of the farmers, mechanics and other men similarly interested. The result is, and has been, to set up among active and thrifty men a current of practical information concerning public matters, and to create a taste for politics, and for the subjects cognate to politics, which is practically universal among men, and is almost utterly lacking in women, who not only do not possess it, but do not realize its existence. Many a village boy of fifteen has more curiosity about politics, and more real knowledge thereof than any women in the community.

Having thus it is hoped without too much prolixity, presented our argument against female suffrage, let us take up one by one and reply to the principal points made by its friends in its favor in their publications and other public utterances.

A.The “Nagging” or “Henpeck” scheme.This is a theory or explanation of the intended operation of woman suffrage, offered by many suffragists, who apparently realize some of the manifest dangers and absurdities likely to attend upon female legislation and administration. They deprecate any idea of abolishing man’s supremacy in government, or of subverting his time-honored institutions; they insist that female suffrage doesnot mean the introduction into politics of a new political power, nor even a modification of the present masculine régime; it is no more than a convenient method of placing at the disposal of the governing males a source of female wisdom of which they have heretofore been deprived. The female politicians are merely to recommend and urge such measures, mostly in family and sociological matters, as the governing males may happen to overlook; it being assumed, no one knows why, that woman’s knowledge of these subjects is intuitive, inborn, at any rate superior to man’s. Under this plan, the men are of course to be free to reject the advice of the new women; otherwise they would be in the position of an East Indian rajah to whom the British government has assigned an “adviser,” and who if he should refuse to profit by his “advice” would be quickly brought to book by the British military power. The theory then is, that the male officials are not to be exactly subject to the female bosses or leaders who may become their monitors; but it is understood, of course, that they are likely to listen respectfully to counselors, who though they may roar, look you, as gently as a sucking dove, will be backed by an earnest and somewhat excitable and vociferous petticoated constituency. No doubt in order to get what they want, these ladies will soon find means of persuasion, of which the least urgent will consist of the process known to some unfortunate husbands as “nagging,” and to the derisive neighbors as “henpecking.” So, though the general superiority of the male governmental faculty is conceded, the male governing officials are not to be allowed to go on quite as they have been doing; the women will be there to “advise.” In plain words the proposition is to henpeck the public officials and other politicians into giving offices to the female bosslets, and into the adoption of their ladylike fads and frills. The picture in “Pinafore” of a high political dignitary on his official rounds with a squawking company of women at his heels, is to become actually embodied in American political life.

This suggestion of pressure upon government by harmlessnagging and henpecking is certainly shallow and unpractical, and is probably insincere. If this is all that was intended, it was worse than folly to force the general suffrage upon millions of reluctant women. Those women who wished to nag and agitate were always at perfect liberty to do so. They were always free to talk; and if they wanted to be clad with formal authority to represent these few matters in which they claim a special interest, that too could have been provided for; representative women could have been elected or appointed to advisory boards or committees, commissioned to present their views to the public officials in an authoritative manner; leaving the latter to act in their discretion. But no; the suffragettes demanded, and are demanding, nothing less than a full and equal share with men in actual government, with equal responsibility for the results. The talk about women merely acting as advisers or proposers is sham and nonsense. Under the new régime, the female spirit is to take possession equally with the male, of every part of the body politic, with the obvious result of dislodging half of the masculine element in our governmental system. A vote cast by a woman is not a mere suggestion; it is an act of government; once deposited in the urn, it counts equal to and effective with a man’s vote. And each woman’s vote must either cancel or confirm the vote of some man. There is no logical or practical escape from this situation. Woman suffrage can have no actual effect except such as involves a defeat of masculine government; a nullification to some extent of what men are doing or have done. If it is to operate in mere confirmation of the rules or decrees of man, it is unnecessary, and will be ineffectual; its only possible effect must be in contravention of man’s political control. It is either this or nothing. As for womanly counsel, whatever of that was effective under a male suffrage polity, will with woman suffrage established, necessarily be replaced by female political coercion and intrigue. When men are in supreme power, a deputation of benevolent ladies urging some remedial measure or charitable modification, is sure to receive consideration frompublic officials; but what politician will be foolish enough to give ear to non-political ladies offering mere womanly counsel on any subject, when his female constituents are thundering at his door with contrary demands, which they have the power to enforce by political methods? The effect of woman suffrage is thus to completely destroy the political influence of all ladies who are not political workers, and to replace it by the domination, meddling and intrigue of female politicians, who will speedily learn from the men to invent reforms with jobs attached, to swap political support for graft, and to market moral issues.

Consider the unescapable facts, and note the silliness and fraud of the pretence that the women in politics will be no more than gentle advisers to the men in certain matters. In the woman suffrage states women vote with the men, and at the same elections, for president and vice-president of the United States; members of Congress, senators and representatives; governors and other state officers; members of state legislatures; mayors of cities; city and county officers, etc. etc. In every election contest there are usually two principal candidates for each of the above offices; say a better fitted or superior candidate A and an inferior candidate B, the interest of the public being to select A. Now if the majority of each sex favors A he is elected, but to no more purpose than he would have been without the woman vote. How then in that first case, have the women aided or counselled the men? But if as will certainly happen in most elections one of the candidates A or B is defeated by the woman vote, what difference is there between the effect of each woman’s vote and that of each man’s? Can anyone say that the women merely counselled with the men, that they did not overrule them? If a candidate is defeated by aid of the female vote who would not otherwise have been defeated, are not the men overruled? The question is absurd; as well say that the men merely advise the women, as that the women merely advise the men. The same reasoning applies to votes on legislative proposals;the woman’s vote will in every case either overrule the majority male vote, or it will be totally ineffective. There is absolutely no escape from the logic of the case.

The pretence that certain women have some secret and mysterious knowledge to impart to lawmakers and law administrators is preposterous. It is the offspring of the conceited minds of some well-to-do idle female faddists, who want to get into public notice. Some of them pretend that this private knowledge concerns factory girls, whose cause they pretend to espouse, but who in fact hate and despise them and their officious meddling. When working women have anything to say to public officials, they can say so directly or hire a lawyer to do it for them, as the men do. Some of those busy bodies pretend that they have the secret of the proper treatment of fallen women; but legislation will never help these people; it has not needed the vote to enable most women to be cruel to them in the past, nor is the franchise needed to-day to qualify good women to be charitable to them or to any other human beings in the future. Truth is, that in the entire domain of sociology the female suffragists have nothing whatever to propose except what they have borrowed from the socialists; and that we had already, and knew to be worse than worthless. Their talk about superior ability to care for the children is more prattle; one of the best feminist writers, Mrs. Gilman, has called attention in strong and plain language to the record of notorious incapacity on the part of women in the care of children (Women and Economics). The best that a woman can do for her child when ill is to take advice from the best available male physician. The administration of foundling asylums, children’s hospitals and homes is safer in the hands of men than in those of women. Most real reforms and improvements in medicine, surgery, ventilation, diet, architecture, drainage, plumbing, and other branches of hygiene and sanitation have come and will come from the male intellect and will be and are best enforced by masculine administration.

Under the régime of universal suffrage it is safe to predictthat the “Naggers” will have little influence in government. They will interest themselves as the “Watch Dogs” do, and sometimes they will collide with the “Watch Dogs,” whose ideal is to save public money, while that of the “Naggers” will be to spend it. Their sympathies will probably tend towards the cranks, or “Yellow Dogs” of politics. They will very much enjoy meddling in all sorts of things of which they know nothing; and now and then they will get something through, over which they will crow and chuckle. But the female masses will make but little response to independent appeals of “Naggers,” “Watch Dogs” or other similar bands of insurgents. They will be quite under the control of the machines of the respective parties; their votes will be cast for the machine candidates; and so political ignorance and corruption doubly supported will flourish more and more.

To conclude with the “henpeck” project; this notion of sending the weak and incompetent to hinder or modify the counsels of the strong and capable on pretence of giving them advice, is one of the most foolish of many foolish products of the untrained intellect. It is a childish subterfuge of those who are ashamed to say outright that their fathers, husbands and brothers are inferior in political capacity to their mothers and sisters. But that assertion is just what is implied in female suffrage, which by reducing by one half the value and force of the ballot of each male voter, will have the actual effect of a moiety disfranchisement of the men of the country.

B.Man-made law.One of the silliest claims of the female suffrage agitators, is that they want political power, in order to repeal what they flippantly call “man-made law.” As well sneer at man-made geology, man-made mathematics or man-made astronomy; man-made they are indeed, and so are all the arts and sciences, industries and philosophies. Of the fact that law is a great science with its roots deep in the history of the past ages; of the immensity of the great body of the law, with its scores of divisions and branches, and hundreds of subdivisions, these chatterers seem to have nosuspicion. When they undertake to specify the defects in the great juristic achievements of our law givers past and present, they point with scorn to two or three instances of ancient British legislation affecting the family relation, which like all really useful and practical law represented the customs and ideals of the time. Those ideals have since been modified, and the law has been changed accordingly; in one case for instance by a statute passed about 1850 by which married women are permitted freely to dispose of their separate property. But this measure, of which the suffragists always speak as if they had put it through, was adopted upon the suggestion of men long before women had any political power, and entirely without their aid. The results of that act have not been altogether happy; it is nothing to boast of specially; it was not a tribute to higher ideals, but a concession to human weakness, and has enabled many a rascal to cheat his creditors by putting his property in his wife’s name. The old common law ideal was much the higher one; it conceived of the family as a unit; and placed all its property in one common fund in the name of and under the guardianship of the husband, as the head and representative of the house. Its motto was like that of the Three Musketeers, “One for all and all for one,” which is a much more noble and lofty conception, and much more likely to promote family happiness and family success, than any represented by the Woman’s Separate Property Act, or by all that has been so far offered to the world by all the women suffrage associations put together. Under the old common law, a knave could not, as now, shelter himself from his creditors behind his wife’s skirts, and keep her and his family in base luxury while his trusting creditors suffered.

C. The legend “No taxation without representation” is one of the suffragist catchwords. Just what is meant by this nobody knows; but if it be offered as a political maxim derived from our ancestors, the answer is that they never understood or interpreted this saying as justifying woman suffrage, or any other right to vote than that of the propertied classes.By taxation, they meant direct taxation on tangible property; and as to representation, they considered that the women and children as a class were politically represented by their men. If, however, by this saying, “No taxation without representation,” the suffragists mean that every taxpayer has a right to vote, that proposition has already been answered herein by the true doctrine that suffrage is not a right at all, but a function of government, to be performed by those classes whom the state may select as duly qualified. Nor does taxation ever confer a right to vote; taxation is justified not by the franchise, but by the protection given by government to the taxed property; property owners pay the tax as a return for that protection; and therefore not only women but non-residents, resident aliens, and children owning property in the community are justly taxed, though not allowed to vote.

Back to Index Next