Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-02-24

Mrs. Julia Ward Howe was next intro
duced, and said she would talk principal,
to those Of her own sex, for, when sh
saw 30 many of them before her as sh
did last evening and to-day. she was con
WINGED they cared for and wanted sui
frage. She was afraid the trouble wa
with the other sex, who thought the.
knew what we wanted better than our
selves. This was trick of all trades AM
politics, for in the end we must wan
what they want US to have. There is
great deal of thinking to be done, and sh
would ask no woman to embrace thi
cause without consideration. After study
she thought the best reasons advanced
against it are the best for it. A graa
alarm was felt lest woman be unsexed b.
participation in public life. 1t should b,
remembered that she was so unsexed il
private life. The honor of a woma,
should be in her keeping no man ca,
keep it for her. 1t is said they must b
women. Are they the less women be
cause they can vote? As to the charge
that the advocates of this doctrine, by DR.
Lord, we're low company, let it be remem
bered that Christ and his apostles wer,
similarly called by the Pharisees. 1t wal
not their province to deal in SANDER, bu
to talk of things peaceful and happy.
Mrs. Bowles said that in reference t,
the low company it was composed of sucl
men as Henry Ward Beecher, Presiden
of the National Association, Chief Justice
Chase, Bishop Simpson, Rev. Mr.. Murray
Rev. Or. Clark, John Stuart Mill, and
others, while its leading female advocates
were Luoretia Mott, Clara Barton, Harriet
Beecher Stowe, Julia Ward Howe, anc
other ladies of eminent standing. L
these were low company, she prayed
Heaven to increase the flock.
Mr.. Garrison next addressed the audi
ence, and said that when in Scotland they
wanted to draw off dog from the chase
they trailed red herring in his path
and the remedy was said to be effective
So was the remedy resorted to in the case
of upbraiding Woman Suffrage. Many
of it's opponents resort to the red herring
trick. but they do not meet the question
in fairness, dealing generally in SANDER
and its advocates are thereby prevented
from giving the statements consideration.
In regard to DIR. Lords attack, in the
Montpelier Waterman &c Journal, he had
the paper before him. He was familiar
with such attacks against the abolition Of
slavery, when the abolitionists were
counted amongst the scum of the earth
and vilely slandered, that those in bond
age might go down to their graves with
out the hope of deliverance. The writer
of that article, Mr. Garrison remembered,
had no troubles of conscience as 10 the
marriage relation which he now deemed
80 sacred, when in the times OF slaveocra-
cy, he saw married women sold on
the auction block to the highest
bidder. He had then no qualms of con-
science when he saw the marriage re-
Gomorrah elevated. Suppose an advocate
of Woman Suffrage is free-lover, the
allusion to the fact is but Scotch red
herring. Such charges did not meet the
question. If there were those connected
with it who were not right in other mat
ters that had nothing to do with it. On
the matter of marriage we had never
allowed women TO have voice in saying
what shall be the laws of marriage and
divorce. In regard to depriving women
of such rights, the more we do SO the more
we take issue with what God has done,
and SO become impious. It is not with
men we quarrel, or women, but With God.
he was struck with the parallel of the
condition of the woman now and the for
mer slaves. The same inconsistent argu-
ments were used against the amelioration
of the conditions of both. The slaves
were punished for crime and the argu-
ment was that they were inferior by
nature, yet they were contented and hap
py with their lot. So now it was that
women were alleged to be contented and
happy with theirs, and don't want suf-
frage. But they should have it, and men
were bound to grant it them. st. Paul
was quoted by its opponents as an argu-
ment against this reform. He was quoted
as in favor of chattel slavery. 1t was
strange what charges were laid to Paul,
as by no other of the apostles or disciples
could these men attempt to prove their
doctrines. He must have heen a queer
apostle, if his name could be so used as
against every moral reform. But we got
rid of slavery. and Paul will never again
be quoted to prove it's divine origin,
and then, as now, believing that
all governments dsrive their power
from the consent of the governed, he ad.
vocated human freedom, Paul or 10 Paul
The rights of human being are his
being, and we had no business to go tC
any book to find his rights. We do not
come to battle with the Bible. 1t was, at
research had to him demonstrated, old
and new testaments, clearl with us in
this movement. But in either case, if he
thought the Bible sanctioned aggression
he would put it beneath his feet. whatever
might be claimed for it. II such is proved
by any book, it is bad for the book, fol
the man remains in the image of God
Mr.. Garrison closed his remarks by in
viting discussion with any one wbt
might be present and dissented from his
views, saying they would endeavor to re-
lieve such from all difficulties and per
plexities ON the subject, and that the meet
| ing was such that a freedom was guaran
teed to all to make dissensious So con
vincing, however, were thu arguments
advanced that none bad the b ,r'iihond Il
meet him on the issue.
Mrs. Lucy Stone aud her husband, Mr.
Ell. B. Blackwell. now appeared upon th,
platform, and she briefly addressed the con
| vantiop asking women to enroll tbpinselya