The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1895-07-18
s Z E E r A G. E.
KENOSHA LADY YIELDS HER
PEN FOR WOMAN'S RIGHTS.
AN INTERFERING ARTICLE
IN which MANY Good Points Are Scored.

Let us try to blow away some of the
smoke of prejudice and habits of
thought on this subject and see, if pos
sible, if truth and right are enthroned;
or if they have been showed into the
rubbish heap and might has vaulted
into their places.
Is the fact Of manhood, in itself con-
sidered, the one sufficient thing, with
out which nothing is enough ? What
says history? How far have govern
ments been for the people and by the
people? The memory runs over ages
of time and finds that only here and
there has there sprung up democracy.
and how came this about +? Was it be-
cause the self constituted rulers were
seized by spasm Of tender love for the
down-trodden people? or did the
people," goaded by their wrongs,
wrest from tyranny their rights? Were
they ready for self government? Why
did they not retain it? A volume
would scarce suffice for the careful con-
sideration of these questions. We
know that the people" and their in
terests have been largely left out of the
questions of government until within
about a century, except as. money
might be wrested from them by laying
on more and more heavy burdens Of
taxation. Only grudgingly has the
franchise been extended, even in con-
stitutional, christian England. By this
we see that the "rights" of manhood
have not always included self govern
ment. Nor have the rights of life, lib
erty and the pursuit of happiness, how
ever inalienable, been always within
their power. In other words, the mat
tiers of right and the matters of fact
have not been synonymous. Are we
willing to agree then that might makes
right? that possession is nine points Of
the law? You will all say no! to this.
Here, in this republic of America,
which has wrenched itself free from the
tl rannies of monarchy, the franchise
has been dealt out with more gener-
Gus hand than the welfare of the public
would guarantee. Illiterate men, and
men without property; foreigners, who
are un-American, and have scarce been
here a year, may dictate how their
neighbours money shall be used, and
who shall govern the nation. Who
shall say that the fact of their possess
ing the ballot proves their right (? Let
us admit then, that some who should
not vote, may and do. The possessing
or not possessing the franchise does not
settle the question of right. Upon what
then may we rest our judgment in the
matter? Do not common sense and
reason agree, that the fitness of the
person for many if not for every reason,
to exercise this prerogative wisely for
the general good should be the cri-
terion? Would not many women meet
these conditions as fully as their broth
ers and would not their fitness grow
with practice? That so many women
are seemingly Indifferent to the affairs
civic and national, and uniformed, is
largely because they are excluded, and
DOU LOOpOAOAOAO'
1t has been said that because women
cannot enforce laws, therefore they
should not make them. Are, then, all
law makers, law enforcers How often
is it said that the laws are we'll enough
if they were only enforced. Are not
the laws enforced with firmer hand in
a monarchy? Shall we therefore aban
don our republican form of government?
1t has been said that because women
are untitled for warfare, therefore they
should not vote. Is the ballot with
held from men equally disqualified I?
Besides, let us hope that largely
through the peace-loving influence Of
women, in this day of advancing civili-
cation, wars shall cease and arbitration
be universally substituted. Still, ifyou
insist, there have been, and are ANA
IONS, who have made creditable rec
ord You may find very interesting
modern instance of this in From the
Darkness of Africa to the Light. of
America" by an African prince.
The possibilities of anarchy, rebellion
or revolution have not been sufficiently
before the minds eye of the "powers
that be, !" to prove an efficient menace
to bad government. Only when the
governed have shown themselves
stronger than their rulers have they
been needed. Yet there are forces at
work in the world other than brute
force, and God has permitted women to
move the affairs of nations by their in
fuence.
Why has the thought of man put a
period after male man in this question
of government Does it prove that
right ends there? Do they forget that
when God made his lords of creation,
that male and female created he them,
and when Christ is questioned in re-
gard to divorce, He answered: For
the hardness of your hearts he (Moses)
Al IN,r%F @J,o