The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1880-09-02
IN RESPONSE TO L. D. BLAKE.

IN hBSPONSE 10 Il. d. BLAKE.
In this issue of the NEW NORTHWEST |
appears lengthy aud interesting letter
from the President Of the New York /
State Woman Suffrage Society, Lille /
Devereux Blake, 10 which she gives the |
reasons that prompt the suffragists Of
the Empire State TO support the Demo
cratic candidate for the Presidency, aud |
denies certain allegations against bis |
character and conduct.
We have carefully read this letter,
and must say that, while prone to ac-
cept the refutation of the charges pre- |
ferred ty the Chicago correspondent
against General Hancock, we are none
the less firmly convinced that he is not
q fit man for the Chief Excessive of the
Nation. His attempt to lead women to
believe that they are included in "the
people, Is rather unsatisfsctory-in fact,
quite "too thin" We do not find
"ALL" before ''the people" in his letter
Of acceptance, and think his effort to
make the phrase quoted cover the
Woman Suffrage question is a specimen
of cunning similar TO that displayed in
not mentioning several OF the promi-
nent issues of the day. His letter is a
mass of generslities, and does not give
his views clearly on any question before
voters, except that he considers "inviO-
liable" the amendments and laws to Sc
cure 'the fruits Of the war" (The per-
4 a. l.
are his supporters.) He is candidate
for the highest position in the gift of the
Nation, aud it is dishonorable in him to
refuse to allow "the people" to know
his opinions on any question before
them. Every campaign blusterer wastes
more or less breath about this govern
ment OF the people," yet women know
they are not included. The platforms
Of the parties always prate about the
rights OF "the people," yet women know
they are not comprehended. The Four
teenth Amendment to the Nations
Constitution says all persons born or
naturalizedin the United States are 'cit
izens," and the Fifteenth Amendment
says no 'citizen" shall be deprived OF
the right to vote, except for crime, yet
women know that they are not included
as ''citizens," and therefore are not part
of "the people' in the minds of men.
Only last week we heard the declaration
that the Democratic party favoTs ''equal
rights to all" from the lips of an orator
who, we personally know, is a bitter,
unreasoniDg, unlistening opponent Of
equal rights to women. In this day Of
fraud aud deception, we want an open
assertion by a nominee that he endorses
Woman Suffrage, or we wish him to say
that he opposes it.
We hold certain principles sacred, aud
they are antagonistic to those held by
General Hancock. We are working for
woman's Acknowledgement, but we are
not ready to pay any price for It, We
want il as a right, not as a purchase.
We cannot throw away all other princi-
Piles aud support General Hancock be-
cause be craftily insinuates that he en-
dOrses one question Of great interest to
u.s. We hold that the action Of the
Womsn SuffrAgists of the United States
in offering to support any party pledged
to Woman Suffrage is wrong In theory
and would be damnable In practice. II
Is bid TO induce the parties to do right,
and is on 8 par with an offer Of votes for
money. We hope that the Woman
,uifragists Of the Nation will adopt a
platform of principles in 1854 II this
platform is satisfactory to either party
faud il must meet the endorsement OF
one), women can then hope to have the
help Of that party. But we do not think
women deserve the ballot If their prin-
elples are so unsettled that they can
support one party as readily as another.
IN local politics, where issues are scarce,
n is we'll to drop partIsanship; but,
when principles are involved, women
should hold to their views.
II any woman's opinions lead her to
endorse General Hancock, well and
good. She should labor for his success.
II be is Woman Suffragist, she il
rot doing her duty If she does not use
aer influence in his behalf; but some
thing stronger than a reference to "the
people, IN his letter OF acceptance Is
needed TO convince US of his favor. Il
he is an advocate Of Woman Suffrage
let him admit IL; il he is opposed, lei
him say so. We have great respect foi
Garheld's action on this question, if moi
for bis views. We know how he stands
He voted while in Congress to allow
woman TO practice law before the Su
preme Court OF the United States. H
might point to bis record when asked j
he is ia Woman Suffragist, aud 1t "oui
make hfae annear better than Hancock
iBut hs has had the candor 70 boldly ss
that be Gid not so vote because ne % "a
vcred the Suffrage for woman =
open ASSERTION is bettsr tbau HapcccA
reference 70 8 letter. We prefer ap bon
est oPponent 70 . very dcubtfui friend