The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-19
SEATTLE. SUNDAY. JULY 10.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

a correspondent, whose letter is pub
Iished in another column, does not agree
with the views expressed in an article,
ssNot the Governing Sex" published in
last Sundays issue, that the great mass OF
women think themselves not fitted TO share
In the government of the state. Our repiyis
that IL the great mass of intelligent women
did think themselves fit to share in the
government to the increased advantage OF
the state the great mass of intelligent
women would be asking for the ballot, not
refusing to ask for it, and woman suffrage,
instead Of being weaker as it is everywhere
than it was ten years ago, would win at a
canter.
So far as our correspondent is concerned
she is not only willing but anxious to vote;
first, because she owns property, pays
taxes and deems herself as intelligent as a
great many of our foreign-born and colored
voters, and. secondly, because she is anxi-
Gus about her children and those of her
neighbors and believes that If Congress and
our state legislatures were half made up OF
mothers athe laws would be made more in
accordance with correct principles; that's,
she thinks as many women think, that the
world can be made not only orderly but
honest, temperate, chaste and wise by
legislation, rather than by education. As
an educator of children our correspondent
has doubtless done the world inestimable
service, but as legislator she would soon
find out that the world is not wicked for
any lack of good and well intentioned
legislation. If our correspondent was
given the ballot she would share it with
every bad woman as well as every good
woman and the chance of her correct
principles" being injected into
the statutes of the land would
not be increased over the present,
- the great mass of women would vote
with their men, good or bad, in matters of
ssay personal consequence to the men.
Ordinarily they probably would not vote at
Ill except in some sentimental matter, like
the Roason battle between the Catholic
and Protestant women on the school
board, or voting whether the rose or the
golden-rod should be the state flower.
But, seriously, since the question of any
enlargement of the suffrage, whether by
the admission of men or women. is ques-
ton not of primitive human rights, but of
mere political and social expediency. some
better logic ought to be offered for it than
was urged by the woman suffragist who
CREASED her husbands toes for the quinsy
on the ground that ''if it didn't do any
good, it probably would not do any harm"
The demand for the ballot for women as
the sacred right of every human being
rests on two fallacies, viz: THAT the
right to vote is natural right and that the
unit of society is individual, when, as a
matter of truth the right to vote is not
natural right, but is only contingent upon
the natural right to life, liberty, happi-
ness; and the unit of society is not the
individual but the family" No class
whose exercise of the franchise is
neither beneficial to the state or necessary
for its own protection has any Just
claim to the ballot. Because the unit of
society is the family the ballot is given to
man, not to woman; but If the great
mass of women who are mothers
would say today that the direct
force of woman's vote at the polls
was wanted to supplement- the best work
of women in the home and society, woman
suffrage would be granted. But the great
mass of mothers do not say ANYTHING of
The sort; they either do not care ANYTHING
about 1t, or are earnestly against il. To
expect society in country where the
majority rules to concern itself with the
eccentric aspirations OF a very few women
Tor the suffrage, is as unreasonable as il
would be to expect society To worry itself
over the fluctuations ana desires Of the
very small, If not awkward squad of
cranks who annually try TO persuade Con-
gress that the trainers of our constitution
by emitting the word God" and constitu-
tional prohibition from the text have
created "a long felt public want"
The argument that women who are pron-
srty holders ought to have the ballot on
Che ground that they are taxed without
representation has no force. for nroner,v
taxes are laid without discrimination and
women do not need the ballot for protection
against imposition or extortion in this re-
spect. Property is not the basis of suf.
mage In this country. Il is manhood. so
chat TO the cry of no taxation without rem
resentation we answer that taxes are 10
men the price of much more than the bal
lot. II is what we pay for the total protec-
ton of person and property afforded US by
the civil government, a protection that the
non.voter can have as etfectually as he
Who holds the ballot, A Chinaman has nc
vote. but he pays taxes and he has at least
as good legal protection for life, liberty
and property on this coast without the
ballot as the negro has in many, If not
most. sections of the South with the bal.
,ot A man disfranchised for crime is as
.afe In life, liberty and property as when
he endowed the ballot. We thrust the suf.
frage upon the negro under the stress OF
assumed political expediency, but We do
not thrust it upon We zen. because il is
not expedient, at least . il they welcome
II rather than repel its Q
Asan abstract natural INT suffrage be-
longs 10 neither MAJ mo- Foman. for the
ballot is only the chi q n artificial so.
,ial order, to be grants iog withheld as q