The herald., 1896-03-29


state is 10 b. voted on at the next general cleo
ton. Contributions to this department. must
not exceed SOD words written legibly on one
side OF the paper only.
Woman Argument
EDITOR HERALD: My critic, for no per-
son can be Opponent who persistently
evAdes and refuses to answer the question
in dispute. and attempts to carry on po-
litical controversy over points OF law, by
unwise and somewhat Incoherent asser-
tons that tall the sections from Alpha
to Omega of the national constitution and
statutes will not alter one jotor title of the
present status of woman, or have any
bearing upon the constitutional amend
ment to be voted upon by the male citizens
of California this poll"
1t is remarkably shortsighted policy for
my critic, as the representative OF the
state and national Woman's Suffrage asso-
citation in this controversy, to thus bluntly
call public attention to the association,
disbelief in the male voting citizens per-
sonal honor and political integrity of pur-
pose. as we'll as thus boldly question her
mental capacity and ability to read and
understand the text and meaning of either
state or national constitution and statutes.
The one grave mistake made by the
prominent agitators of woman suffrage has
been their custom of making charges and
Wholesale assertions regarding constltu-
tional points of law, as we'll as about law
interpreters, without proof or good author
ity to substantiate them.
These advocates of what is called "a
higher, more progressive and elevated life
for women" seem very unwilling to admit
that we have, as people, national, con-
additionally established manhood and
womanhood, OF that the fundamental
principles of our republican form of gov
eminent are based in the union of the
sexes, and purely domestic life, as it is
tod hy bo
(Article 8, Section p between the national
and state governments
My critic makes a grievous social
blunder when she sets up before
the well-read and conventional do
nestle world of womanhood 1.-THE
. crude, one-sided idea of statute laws and
constitutional limitations, by boldly assert
ing tina: tine articles and sections have
used to build up my argument on "a woman.
married to a citizen of the United States"
claims of qualified electoral rights are
'smere technicalites," and that "the issue
before the voters of California in the COM
ing campaign is not based upon the literal
interpretation of the word citizen, native
born or naturalized according to sections
1894 and 2OO4."
If I am not very much mistaken, the
suffrage rights of citizenship is q legally
acquired privilege, and can be obtained by
all resident inhabitants of the United States
by declaring an intention to become a cit-
zen, and an actual compliance with all the
requirements of the national laws of nat
uralization. Sections 1894, 2165, 2167,
2172.
1t appears to me, that when any female
teacher, or association of political educa.
tionaI women, be it in public or private
life, make it a part OF their educational
code to sneeze at the national constitution
and laws, and keep up persistent attempts
to teach the people to trample upon and
break down the fundamental principles of
our national form of government, (the life
long union of the sexes) as it is represented
by the constitutional contract, lin article
z, section l, section =, volumes l and -,
between the national and state govern
ments; then are they blind leaders of the
blind, and dangerous false prophets.
My critic seems to be unwilling to admit
the undeniable fact, that there is, and can
be mo intended or implied action in law
that the text of all laws must be construed
''literatim VERBATIM" or else they are not
legal statutes.
views, or to conform to our blind preju-
dices and distorted imaginations; we must
accept them as we find them; and if we
would be true to our highest ideas of truth
and honor, we must teach them as they
stand on the statute books.
was thus taught by my political mas
a
political library and law school in the
world.
If this Controversy has savored too
much of personal differences" it is neither
my fault nor intention that it should drop
to that low-bred level, but if l am not
grievously mistaken my critic herself
opened the doors and entered the contro-
versial field, welding q pen of resentful
personal differences.
/ regret that my critic, as reformer,
does not take the field as a woman, fem
mime. womanly woman, one who not only
fully recognizes in the rights due to wo-
man that one great and divine right of
sexhood, which is the sacred claim of de-
pendent wifehood, protected and defended
motherhood; and in the rights she claims,
is due to mankind, while knowing no color
or nationality. She does not, and will not
recognize that there Is, must ever be. a
radical difference in sex, in public
political rights and equal business priv
ile0es: that womans only legitimate pub
lie or private work and mission in life is
one thing, while mans legitimate bust
ness. work and mission in the public poiit-
ical field of duty is quite another.
This fact of public business and physical
difference was fully recognized by the
Rev. Charles Parkhurst in his aggressive
warfare on Tammany Hall, New York
city, and the downfall! of that powerful po-
litical home domestic slave system of
WOIndH u6SrduatlCu
This fact of political difference between
the sexes was fully recognized by the
wives, mothers and dauahters, the society
protected and home defended domestic
element of the state of New York. When
Mrs. Lyman Abbott of Plymouth church,
Brooklyn. representing the socially refined
and mentally cultured women of the state
of New York, joined issue with the prom
inent advocates of women's rights to seek
public Office and hold political appointive
positions, Susan B. Anthony, president
National Woruen's Suffrage association !;
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lille Devereau
Blake, etc., ETC., and defeated the contem-
plated emasculation and hermaphruditism
of the state constitution, and retained
the state male autonomy in all its virile
mental citizenship, strength and physical
political vigor of purpose, thus fully illus
trating the business fact that the power
behind the constitutional judicial throne is
united domestic family life, represented
BY the wife and mother, sister and daugh-
ter.
The all-wise Father of us all separated
the sexes into two distinct races, each race
radically different in physical conforma-
ton and business functions. We must
perforce recognize this fact, and try as we
may, say what we please, claim all the
physical rights and political privileges of
the male citizen, we cannot change our
physical and mental makeup; disguise our
real sex and race, even by expurgating the
obnoxious word "male' from article 2,
section 1, of the state constitution of Cali
lornia. Mrs. j. w. CROKER.
March 25, 1896.