The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1873-09-26
Is Universal Suffrage Expedient 2
BY MRS. HARRIET S. EDMoxDs.


BY MRS. HARRIET $ EDMoSDs.
Some things are lawful that are not
eXpedient, but nothing is expedient
which should not be lawful. The ques-
tion whether universal suffrage is right
and eXpedient is much thought upon
and discussed at the present day.
Thinking men and women are earnestly
pondering whether it would be for the
bettering Of the legislation and morals
of the country. Good men and states
men are in a quandary. The question,
whether all classes Of people governed
by law should or should not have a
voice in making the laws by which they
are governed, is laid before them for
their consideration. Some say, mo,
there is no need Of it.n Others say,
"Yes there is-the right demands it,"
The old fogies and lovers of tyranny
and slavery take the negative-every
man, woman and child of them-and
this, of itself, is pretty good argument
for the other side. For our part, as we
claim to be on the progressive side, and,
as we think, on the right side, we take
the affirmative of this question. We
say, "Yes," all classes of people mot i'd
iOtic or criminal) governed by law
should have a voice in making the law.
14lt EAIULk SLOulu uOL uEsllG 10
tyrannical power over the weak. The
time for brute force is past. Might no
longer makes right, here in free Amer
lea. And with what pride may we look
upon our free institutions when one
more clause is added to our Constitution,
making clear the fact that woman as
well as man may have a voice in max
ing the laws by which she is governed
Where is the justice Of taxation with
out representation 1t was on this
rock that our forefathers split off from
the mother country. But, learning
nothing from theirown experience, they
dealt out the same injustice to their
wives and daughters.
But, to return to our subject, would
society be bettered by women being al
lowed to vote? We will not say by be-
ing allowed the right to vote, for we be-
lieve they already have that; but man,
because he has the power, stands in
phalanx strong, and keeps woman from
the ballOt-bOX, that great conservator OF
the rights Of the people. Now, why is
this ? Why are men afraid that uni
versal suffrage would be deleterious in
its effects upon society? Why do they
think that casting vote at township
precinct, in company with a father, hus-
band, or brother, would corrupt our ma
tional politics, or bring discord into the
family circle? Answer me, We who are
afraid to trust your lady friend, your
wife or daughter to go with you TO the
polls on election day?
Where woman is the friend and COM
paniOn Of man, harmony and concord
prevail; but wherever man, because OF
his physical strength, considers himself
the master, making woman virtually a
s,H 81, ar
borne upon every passing breeze, and
earth groans because she carries upon
her bosom the despised tyrant.
We plead the right of suffrage for
woman because all other classes OF citi-
Zens of our commonwealth are already
allowed the privilege. The foreigner, of
whatever land or cline, whether he can
so much as read our Constitution and
statutes, is allowed his vote, if he de-
clares his intention of becoming an
American citizen. And this may be
right. The governed should have a
voice in electing their governors; but
are educated, intelligent women less
competent than these ignorant foreign
ers Taxpayers have right to the
elective franchise; aud il should make
no difference whether the tax is paid by
a man or woman. Have we not thOus-
ands of honorable widowed and maiden
women who pay yearly into our county,
State and National treasures ? And
where Is the person who can rightly
argue that such women ought not TO
have the elective franchise?
England has already given up that
taX-paying women have a right to vote
And the tax-paying women who have
no one 10 represent them do vote.
But right here | presume the gentle
men Of the negative will think they
have an argument. They will say il is
not always convenient for ladies to 60
to the polls, and that therefore they will
represent them. Well, it may not al
ways be cORUenient, but that has moth
ing to do with the right. If il is right,
the inconvenience has nothing to do
with the question. Sometimes men find
u very lnconvenient TO 90 TO the polls
themselves. Business is sometimes eX-
ceedlngiy pressing; the old, the lame
and the blind, can scarcely get there at
all; and yet they would not consider
these inconveuiences any reason for
their disfranchisement.
You might just as well argue that it is
not always convenient for ladies TO go
10 church. The little children are to be
taken care of, and home duties TO be
seen 10, and as religious services are
held so much oftener than elections,
would it not be better for the men to
represent the women at church also :?
Is there any one who would fail to see
the absurdity of such an argument would
be that woman has no soul, or, if any,
very small one, and therefore they
will just represent them in heaven.
Or, If they have any souls worth saving
at all, they can have q little Paradise
all to themselves, out at one side be-
heve history tells us of a country or two
where they hold to something like this
doctrine, and what good society they
hsVe there! Scholars and travellers tell
US something about the kind of govern
nlenI they have among those nations
VINO treat women as inferior beings, or
slaves. But surely American gentle
men DO not wish to be cIassed with
cross-legged Turks or the beathen men
OF India or China. Their self-rasDacf
would cry out against il.
Now, where is the valid sens;hto -
gument that our opponents can Co..
against universal suffrage? will tbo.,
say if women vote they will want office5
Well, do not suppose they will All
want Office. Not quite all the gentle
men covet such positions, but thew can
all UOte.
Wives and mothers would be none
the less true TO their homes and families
because of their acknowledgements; but
the reverse. A feeling of ennobIement