The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1894-02-22

pIeases her, she tells him he can and must take
his blanket aud depart" But where can he
go: into another household?" asked some one.
Yes. if they viii have him; or he can go back
to his mother"
The Secretary protested that prohibition was
necessary, but she laughed with Us when the
jolly Suffragst told her, lyon women can't
cure this trouble with your prohibition. 1t
will only be like driving the measles in"
s"s
And as they talked l wondered at the differ
ence between them and the "short-hared,
strong, minded, rampant, unwomanly woman
that is so often fancied typical Of the WON
ans Rights woman" The Secretary looksd so
exquistely feminine as she sat there. Her dress
reminded one of the deepest violets; the wide,
fur-edged velvet collar that turned away was
fastened with dainty brooch, and her throat
was white and roand and womanly. The
dress was Reform dress" too, in some ways,
namely, IL had Mother stays nor belt nor nigh
collar; but tho color was rich, the dress hung
well. tho velvet and cloth were matched
perfectly, and it was beautiful gown alto
gether.
80
But the Jolly SufFagi5t was theorizing some
more, and she was bright and soft-spoken
and kindly, that we all wished to hear her.
Really, think the fable of the kite and the
doves was written by a Woman Sufragist.
Woman at first, by virtue of her maternity,
had entire control of her children and the
home and property. And the fable? Well, you
know, there was once a community of doves
living very peaceably and comfortably, when
kite came along, told them that they needed
a protector, and offered to be their king, and he
finally persuaded them to accept his PROPOSE
ton. They took the oath of loyalty to him,
and he swore a royal oath to protect and cher
ish them. So the bargain was made. However,
my lord the kite soon explained to them that
one of his rights was to eat dove occasionally
when be so desired, and that this privilege ex-
tended to all of the royal family-namely, the
other kites. And az they awaited themselves
of their rights, the lot of the doves was not for
long happy one"
Yes, they charge Us with thrashing the
same old straw, but they wont give rs any new
straw, and what are We to do?" The main
arguments have always been the same There
is the orthodox. tbs physical and the political
or social.
The orthodox argument quotes Paul:
Let your women keep silence in the
churches; for it is not permitted unto them
to speak, but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law
And if they will learn anything, let them
ask their husbands at home: for it is shame
for women to speak in church"
This, of course. is subject to various inter
pretations. The Pres5yterians interpret it lit
orally, but the Methodists and Quakers have
always encouraged their women to speak in
church. One of the uncanouical books of the
Bible is THE Acts of Paul and Thecla" In
this there is an account Of woman, ThecIs.
who journeyed and worked with Paul. was
his companion, and prayed, preached, and con-
verted as he did.
m1x
Another argument, the physical one. that
women are physically inferior to men is not
necessarily true, nor valuable. The third, that
politics are so impure that womanly purity and
gentieness could not, without injury, come in
contact with Them, is nice argument for
politicians to make. And again, the fact that
women are voting without becoming un-
wemaay is brought up for disproof
So
One hears very little about "claukinp
chains, "tyrant man," slavery of women" or
violent sentiment in the convention speeches.
Occasionally there is shrek for liberty, but
usually the discourses are quiet, reasonable.
and witty.
1t is delightful to find so many women who
are not bored to DEATH All the Saffragsts
seem alive and busy.
IS
AaAA