The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1874-10-27

GOODWIN SMITH ON THE WOMAN CUES
TIOn.-The error of Mr.. Smith and of those
who agree with him is the supposition that
the political liberty of women would in some
manner conflict with the natural feminine
charm or function. They must be candi-
dates and officers and orators and ward poll
ticians, it is said, and how can the delcacy of
womanhood bear the strain? But is the del
icacy OF womanhOod the creation of law or
custom, or is it part of the nature of things?
The great multitude of women in the most
highly civilized countries are compelled in
the discharge of their family and most nat
ural duties to chatter and sharpen wits with
tradesmen of every kind. They do this with
no necessary sacrifice of the charm fwoman-
hood. But if they may associate with men
in the market without feminine loss, why
not in spheres Of a nobler interest? Mr..
Smith asserts that the women whose public
Judgment would be most valuable would be
generally excluded from public life by conju-
gal and maternal duty. Does he not, then,
so far dispose of his own objection? Such
women would still have, as they have now,
interest and intelligence in public affairs, and
their good judgment would certainly prevent
their voting for woman merely because of
her sex.
Mr.. Smith evidently has Mrs. Jellaby in
constant view as the result of the political
liberty of women. But why not Florence
Nightingale? And why suppose that women
must of necessity wishj to be Lord Raglan
rather than Florence Nightingale? Larger
liberty does not make men meaner, but more
manly, and why should it be feared as the
ruin Of women, however much it may destroy
false ideal OF woman? Mrs. Jellaby is a
picture OF what foolish woman may become
in the absence of political responsibility; and
the public women who justly disgust Mr..
Smith and his friends, and who seem to them
to represent women as they might, could,
would, or will be, were they politically en-
franchised, are on the contrary, the very phe-
nomena which the political disability of
woman produces. In the amusing little par
lor farce of The Spirit of '76 female Judge is
the most lndicrous of figures. Yet the court
OF women in Siam, of which Mrs, Leonowens
fair young Judge IS not Rtra Rtha ess sthSHeh one &
Shakespeare's women," the women of the
hearts ideal.
Those who appeal so constantly to human
nature and the radical differences of sex
should at least trust them little. Political
ambition, however strong, is not the MASTER
passion OF human nature. How absurd and
how revolving, exclaims some shuddering
soul, the spectacle of ahusband and wife each
the candidate Of an opposing party for Gov
ernor of a state! Yet is a son often an op-
posing candidate to his father, or brother to
a brother? Not often. 1t seems hardly
worth while to torture the fancy to figure pos
sible troubles. If such conflicting candi-
dacy involves grief and confusion to the fam
lily, is an affectionate wife likely to counte-
nance it more than fhe husband? II the
right of wife to a separate property and to
her own earnings does not abolish the family,
her equal right to an expression of her polit-
lcal action. can not harm II ssTho opl,,
difference between the sexes is SEX" says DR..
%. 81. Clark, in hfs address at Detroit on s'the
building of abrain )" and he adds, ''but this
difference is radical and fundamental" Then
1t should seem that as the liberty Of women
to acquire and own property has not ended
in driving men from the entire management
of great corporations, there is no reason TO
fear that their equal political liberty will
lead them to occupations for which the Grad
ical and fundamental" difference of sex units
them.-Editor's Easy Chair, in Huper's
Magazine for November.