The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1872-03-01
TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN.
CTo be continued.l

EDITOR NEW NORTHWEST:
As 1 am deeply interested, as well as
vitality concerned, in the principle of
Woman Suffrage, and having thought of
the idea of womanis enfranchisement in
all the multifarious bearings in which it
has been presented by those who per-
sistently oppose the movement, will
offer few thoughts in reply to a series
of articles which 1 find in the late
numbers of your paper entitled, "What
will you do with it?" in which the
author, in his various windings and
turnings, seems to have entirely lost
sight of the principles of justice.
In article No. find the following /:
''Every member of the commonwealth,
no matter of what sex, what color, or
where born, Qtree from the tuteldge int
posed by the domestic relations, should
have the right to vote or hold office, if
morally and mentally qualified to do so"
Now, while l freely admit that the
author of the above is much more lib
eral than many Of his sex, yet his con-
cessions are not sufficiently broad to sat
isfy our reasonable demands for political
freedom.
He further says: 81 think you will
agree with me that no person should
vote who is not free TO vote their own
opinions and sentiments" l have many
times heard of men who dared not when
at the polls "vote their own opinions
and sentiments" for the reason that
their employers, who held opposite
opinions, had threatened, should they
vote contrary to their wishes, to dis
charge them from their service, thereby
rendering them helpless to supply them
selves and families with bread. Is il
possible that the author of No. enter
tains the idea of DISTINGUISHING meI
thus compelled to vote the "opinioni
and sentiments" of another. According
to the last quotation it would be just
But perhaps our author will regard thOs,
employers as tyrants.
Just what he means by ''the tutelag
imposed by the domestic relations i
expressed in this: az object to giviny
the ballot to a woman under the tutelag
of a husband, 1st, because n persol
bound by her religion to obedience il
'all things to her husband or tutelary
and who cannot by law dispose of eithe
her person or property without his con
r sent, cannot be free voter-therefor
should not vote"
AS the author does not inform us exceI
= by inference what particular religion tn
wife is held by, 1 conclude by that il
' ference that he has reference to tha
l taught in the Scriptures. The Bib
= teaches obedience to husbands, and W
e shall see, further on, in that manner til
admonition to obedience is applied to I
by the Author of that Holy Book. BU
e 1 inquire, are there not wives all ov,
e our land who are devotedly attached {
I their husbands, and whose love is reciI
rocated by those husbands, who do N
e recognize obedience to husbands as an
= part of their religiOn9 Would OF
l. author prohibit such wives from voting
g There should-especially in our land
Y freedom of conscience on this point
5, well as Others. Again, may not Il
l. everything mentioned in the Seri
fl lures, have reference to matters strict
10 private between the husband and wife
1t Might not the man-made law, of whiC
is our author speaks, prohibiting the wi
)r from disposing of her person or proper
)r without the husbands consent-therel
id destroying the freedom of her vote
$ made, with equal justice, to turn up,
d husbands as well as wives? 1t is fl
ut quently alleged and dwelt upon with {
he fecting pathos by men, that gre
he many husbands are so effectuaIly rul
E. by their wives that they dare not dispo
n of any article of property, be it importa
d. or trifiing, not even daring ''to vo
ly their own opinions and sentiments
without first obtaining the consent
IS their respective wives. Now will Il
he our author attend to the immediate d
a. franchisement of husbands? Accordi
to his rules expressed in the quotatio
1ff above, it would be perfectly just
ad ''2d, to allow women so bound to VI
would in effect be giving two votes