Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-03-30

woman a. an inferior, or subject y
who h under his 'dlciailon," who
would be a "rebel" II che differed from
her husband in politics and did no,
render him "becoming submission" In
call the rotations Of liic," IL relic Of
barbarism, Of n state Of savagefy from
which mankind has nearly become
emancipated. The modern civilized
Idea IL that woman "a the companion
and partner Of the man, not his "sub.
Ject.n That she has a right 10 her ow n
opinions on all subjects, and Is no
more a "fobep n they differ from
her husbands views, than lac IL n
"tebel" because his differs from hers.
a woman has right to choose her
own religion, To worship God accord
Ing 10 the dictates Of her own con.
science, IA responsible individual
who win be Judged for her individual
acts. onthe same ground she has the
same right to her Individual political
convictions, and ia independent M to
her opinions as she 10 TO her Rppetites.
But we are told that tive concede
the right ofman to rule In the family
and that "by parity Of reason he
should rule IN the state" Exactly
Hut only In the same way. We do
not believe In the "rulo" which makes
the husband the autocrat and the wife
the "sublest" but, letting that pass,
the woman makes her choice Of
the man that IL 10 stand
as the head Of the family, and our
argument Ia that she should have the
same choice as to the head and officers
Of the State. We have offered no
objection TO "the same rule prevailing
In the State" On the contrary that IL
what We claim. Hut our assailant de-
mands a different rule, and while he
comedies woman's right to a choice Of
man ~ "ruler In the family" be de.
ME. II to her as TO the rulers In the
State. SO that all his would.be sar-
castle remarks on this point are merely
a boomerang and, once more, ian
argument against himself"
40 TO our reference 10 the Church,
II was simply In answer to his own
quotation from Paul, and therefore his
reflections about our mentioning tie
Church In connection with u 20.
liticsl subject come back In
his own face. hut he reminds
us that though women vote In the
Church "for iis officers at conferences, &"
"In council and priesthood meetings
where the real affairs pertaining to the
Church aro considered, women are ban
ished"
Are We TO understand then that the
voting at conferences and the aiiairs
presented there are unreal? That they
do not amount to anythingg Then the
election Of officers for the state and the
voting for them is equally unreal. And
II Is only In this to us real and im.
portant matter that we claim for wo-
man equal rights with. man. II il
woman suffrage, not oilte.holding or
executive powers, that is.in question.
II IA not whether women shall alt In
the councils Of the nation, or upon the
judgment seat, or figure In the oxecu.
ton Of the law, but simply whether
they shall have voice In Tho choice OF
the men who are to occupy those
positions. Thus the 'parity OF reason.
ing" once more Is against his position.
He il also mistaken In Jumping al
the conclusion that We had "refcrenc,
to the Mormon Church only" and
thus he has introduced an element into
the controversy that might as well
have been lett out. In most churche,
now -a-dhya women members ar,
granted vote In Church affairs, and
tho injustice Of denying IL to them 1,
fast forcing itself upon the minds oil
even the most illlbcral In those de,
nominations that have not 40 far adj
vancod. As to the abandonment" o
women from all matters pertaining t.
the government VI the Church, that 4
rather an extreme expression, and II Il
a fact that by the organization Of tn,
Relief Societies aud other Associations
womsn's capacity for government IL
her own sphere-smong her owl
sex and over Juveniles Of bott
sexer, is Officially recognized anC
given sphere Of action. Thu
the Church gives woman the suflrag,
and such offices ~ are suitable to hei
sex. That Is all we Rsk for her in ia,
state. But the present Issue goes M
further than woman suffrage, pur,
and simple, that IL, the rlgh! OF woman
to the ballot.
The writer assumed, that "womei
cannot act independently In voting
by which OF course he meant married
women, and we showed that "this Oh
Jecticn would deprive all men Of Ia,
suffrage who II might he alleged mr.,
not In circumstances to act indie
pendcntly." To this he replies, "S,
indeed 1t should" That Is, II /
Is alleged that some men canno
act Independently they should be de
prived OF the right Of suffrage. Thl
Democrats, then, have only 10 allcg,
that certain Republicans anu rice versa
cannot net independently, and thel
must be- deprived Of the ballot Oh
serye, It is only his assumption" tina