Thomas County cat. [volume] (Colby, Kan.) 1885-1891, 1889-06-27
TAXATION AND .vsxATloN.

S0VPOht W OOV0EOunOmt x06 O00b0Q
Eepresentation-ThsS lavish Conditlo1
Of Woman.
In recent letter to the Woman's
Journal. Rev. v. O. Gee, of Bowling
Green. Ky. says:
II am asked to give my position on
the subject of equal rights for men
and women / do so with pleasure.
! The natural rights Of both sexes I be-
| lieve to be identical. Each can sur
render certain rights by any formal re-
lation it enters into. By the marriage
VOW. both husband and wife act on this
principle. or at least should. according
to the divine economy. and surrender
in q measure certain natural rights,
each agreeing to keep the stipulation.
In entering into this covenant, volun-
tarily. OF course. there is only one point
of difference between the two; the wife
surrenders to the guidance of the hus-
band in controlling the general inter-
ests of the family whenever there be
an honest difference of opinion in such
matters. They both should 60 hand in
| hand. bearing and forbearing. consult
ing together o. all subjects pertaining
to their welfare and the welfare OF
those dependent upon them; neither
should keep from the other any plans
or designs contemplated. but be ever
free and open to each other, and when
decision has to be arrived at, affect
ing their common interests, and on
which there is an honest divergence OF
opinion. the husbands counsel should
prevail. as believe God has made him
the head of the family in this regard.
This does not teach the inferiority of
the wife. as conceive. but in all unions
or cooperative associations there must
be a head, and in accordance with
Gods plan this has been given in the
marriage covenant to the husband under
the conditions stated. This headship.
mark you. is confined strictly to the
family circle. family duties and family
interests. and only in the sense stated
There are other obligations outside
Of this relation of marriage, binding
upon both. and for the proper exercise
of these each is only responsible to God.
These obligations are of a religious,
social and civil character. The wife
should be as free and independent in
arriving at correct conclusions, when
ever any proposition affecting her du-
ties or relations in these directions Is
presented for her consideration, as the
husband is; just so she keeps inviolate
the VOW she made to him at the con-
nubial altar. She has duties to the
church, duties to society, duties to the
State. just as binding and obligatory upon
her as the husbands are upon him. and
whenever any of these rights are in
fringed, her rights. both from natural
and religious point of view, are tramp
led upon. So claim that if woman
should be deprived of the ballot, then
man should for the same reason. His
peculiar prerogatives in this matter are
altogether assumed and arbitrary.
Why should he have any better right to
make laws for the governing of woman
than she should have to make laws for
the governing of him? If she has no
voice in the enacting of law, then she
should rot be amenable to the law.
eve are. of course, here speaking Of
human and not divine law Else we
shall make her but serf and a slave.
! conceive it the worst kind of slavery
for an intelligent and reasonable being
to be amenable to law which it has
had no voice in making or determining;
and yet we boast of our free and great
country, the land of liberty! It Is a
land of freedom with q vengeance.
when one-half of the people rule the
other half And again, l would say
woman should either be allowed the
franchise or be exempt from taxation.
Taxation without representation or
voice in the government was the ground
of our severance as nation from the
mother country. Consistency. truly
thou art a jewel!
Il wish had the time to enter into
an argument, both from Scripture and
reason, for supporting the position here
taken. will in any event take the lib
erty of referring to one of the most
fimsy and silly objections. to my mind,
that is often raised against equal suf-
frage, and that is the indelicacy or i'm
modesty in woman's presenting herself
at the polls to cast her ballot, when the
same directors often 60 with their
wives and daughters to circus. and
there submit to all kinds Of crowding
and pressure, just to hear the droll
witticisms of a clown and witness in
delicate performances of various ma
lures; and these same people think
nothing OF ladies visiting theaters and
looking on at the ballet dances. To
me the two latter are much more OBJ
jectionable than the former; but, If
ministers and ladies could have the OPP
portunity of exercising more influence
on our politics, why could not the law
be so arranged as to allow q poll to be