The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1872-12-06
Easy Chair on Woman Suffrage.

If the principle that there shall be no
taxation without representation be cor
rect, there is not, and there never has
been, n sound argument for the disfran-
chisement OF women since they have
been property holders. A woman might
own all the real estate upon the chief
street of the village, yet she cannot vote
for road overseer. Plainly, If her sex
incapacitates her, being mature and in
telligent, for controlling her property, it
should certainly incapacitate her from
owning it. The law that authorized her
to earn, hold, and devise property lifted
the lid from the ballot-box. And all
that the Massachusetts, Convention has
done is to say, Certainly it did"
The Convention said that it was the
opinion of the party; but that, as We
said, We shall now see. We have roth
ing to do with the party, but this Is a
question Of all parties, especially il, as
the scofiers say, every wife will vote
with her husband. OF course they al
ways agree in religious matters, so il
may be supposed that they will in po-
litical. Indeed, there are never any
differences between wives and husbands.
The husband has only to take snuff, and
the wife sneezes. The Spratt legend is
foul libel upon matrimonial tastes.
| her husband, shall she therefore not
have the right to vote? Most youths Of
4 twenty-one vote with their fathers
shall they also be excluded from the
polls? Shall the rule be extended, and
anybody who votes rs anybody else
votes be disfranchised for that reason Z?
! Or shall only those be permitted to vote
who can give q sound and satisfactory
reason for their ballot? If a wife may
not vote because love for her husband
would lead her to duplicate his vote,
then, of course, all men whose votes are
influenced by personal regard and re-
spect for some one else must be set aside.
Indeed, 1t is chiefly when men begin to
argue the question of suffrage for women
that a grave doubt of their own COM
potency to vote arises.
But if wives are to be excluded be-
cause they will vote with their hus-
bands, upon what ground shall we dis
franchise those who have no husbands
to vote with? Shall we deprive them
of the ballot as punishment for not
having husbands TO deprive them of ii ?
The same excellent argument would
apply to their property; and we ought
to eOniiscate the earnings of spinsters
because they have no husbands to man.
age their money for them. Indeed, the
arguments all tend to prove that women
should be in q perpetual prostratiOn OF
gratitude that men suffer them to exist
upon any terms whatever.
Certainly no really great movement
ever proceeded so steadily and swiftly
in the face of curious difficulties as that
of woman suffrage in this country. Ii
has had the most whimsical and often
absurd and repulsive advocacy. 1t has
often seemed to be the very politics OF
the moon. Extravaganza and folly
have beed so hopelessly combined in its
behalf that many of its truest friends
have wondered that il was not pushed
from decent and candid consideration.
But such friends cannot too constantly
remember that 1t is the history OF every
movement which is an appeal to pure
reason.
There are no guns or clubs behind the
demand for this extension of the suf-
frage. 1t is conducted wholly within
the domain of intelligence. And If rid
died with ridicule, let any sceptic recall
the beginnings Of Methodism. Read
Sydney Smith, and wonder how an in
: telligent and liberal man could deride
some of the nOblest and best men that
ever lived. The history of the move
ment for tire extension of suffrage Ia
women, like all the other great move
ments in this country, shows to every
youthlthat he who is hospitable to a lib
erty which is ridiculed entertains angels
unawares. 1t is safe to heed the counsel
of Condorcet, "Do not choose a man
who has ever taken side against the
liberty OF any portion of mankind. y
Editors Easy Chair, ia Hdrper's Nag
d=ine for Norember.