The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-08-07
ASSERTION NOT PROOF.
A Reply to n. II. 2. It's Recent Remarks
With Refercnce tn Incic.n

A Reply to N. r. z. It's Recent Remarks
With Reference to " Logic"
Editor IVomdn'S Column, Morning Call i:
/ am somewhat surprised at the view taken
by your correspondent. n. r. p. T., OIL my
recent communication. [ can only con-
clude. however, that she read the same a
little carelessly-a dangerous practice, by
the way, for one who would be public
teacher. We are dealing. however, with
ideas, not personalities, and therefore, being
honestly DESTROYS of some light on this very
complicated question of human rights VS..
wOman's sphere, which her letters have
raised, | venture to try again to win an eluci-
dati0n OF her position.
N. r. p. I. SAYS: 81, an opponent of
woman suffrage, tell them (women) that
they must retreat into their own homes if
they would combat the evir' (of unjust gov
ernmenD.
She speaks Of the advancement of woman
as march 'out Of her own divinely circum-
scrlbed sphere, no matter what name may
be evolved out of language and given the
movement" in so positive a way that one
cannot but suppose that she knows whereof
she speaks, but she makes no attempt to
demonstrate the true nature OF this sphere,
or how she can be so certain that it was
"divinely circumscribed by which phrase
it is to be presumed she means it was cir
cumscribed by the divine Beings will.
Now. to say thing that is not logical is one
thing; to hope the person taking a stand
Will bring forward logical defense of the
same is another and altogether different
thing.
N. r. P. It's stand may be rooted and
grounded in logic, but how are we to know
that SO long as she contents herself with
bare assertions and gives no clew to the
chain of reasoning whereby she arrives at
her conclusions? | regret that my modestly
expressed desire to know something of the
evidences" of the manifest faith that is in
her should so have offended the lady.
What does she mean, too, by her assertion
regarding the present writer's 'tangling
herself up so confusedly with sex lines and
the barbarous ages, the animal kingdom
and my common-sense remarks all at once
and many times overP l find in my COM
munication one allusion to 'the age of brute
force" closely and logically related to what
goes before II; nothing whatever regarding
1.-The animal kingdom" save as human be-
ings belonging thereto are treated OF, and
question as to what other creatures do
with the sex line in the ordinary pursuits of
life, and, besides these, plain, direct ques-
ton, which she declines to answer, regard
ing the human application of this same sex
line"
Now, the ground being cleared for action.
let US return to n. r. 2. It's letter of July
I'd, from whence arises this controversy
Since she has deemed it worth while to
make certain assertions that provoke query,
1t Is to be supposed that she will also deem
1t worth while to make some explanation of
how she arrives at these assertions. The
TACT that she has such manifest contempt
Tor this writer's mental powers should in no
way initiate against her desire to SO far
help the world.
To refer again to her first proposition,
which is. fully stated
women suffragists tell women that they