St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1902-08-20
Judge Ross and the Referendum.


The letter by ex-senator Jonathan Ros
about Vermont women voting for the rel
erendum, which was first published II
the CALIFORNIAN, has elected much com
ment throughout the state. Here art
some newspaper opinions of a varied
character:
Judge Ross expresses the opinion that
the legislature may if it so desires give
the women chance to vote on the CUES
ton of high license local option bill
If this should be done there is no ques
ton that such bill would meet an over
whelming defeat Barton Monitor.
1t might be entirely proper to allow
the women to vote on this question, but
it would be peculiar, to say the least, to
give them the privilege to vote on a
referendum and nothing else Brattle-
boro Phoenix.
II the party means to act honestly with
itself and the people, it will not pursue
such a course as Judge Ross advises.
Had it been considered best to include
the women of the state in the referen-
dunn, it would have been so decided and
plainly stated in the ante election dec
laration. To adopt such plan, as an
atterthought, would be to play fast and
loose with the political honor of the
party, which is no less sacred than indi-
vidual honor.
If the referendum could be constitu-
tionally invoked to get prohibition in, it
will occur to most people that it can be
invoked in a like way to test public sen.
timent now. Anyhow, the republican
party is squarely pledged to attempt it,
and there should be no ttifing with
honor, no attempt to defeat plainly set
purposes by subterfuges. - Randolph
Herald and News.
Judge Ross thinks the women of Ver-
mont should be consulted if there is to
be referendum on the liquor ques-
ton. Thus another complication arises
through the effort to have the constitu-
tional law making power of the legis-
lature turned over to the people, where it
was never intended to be placed.
Why shouldn't the women vote? They
are as much concerned in the matter as
the men. If the legislature is to abdi-
cate it's functions why should any line be
drawn as to who shall exercise those
functions? If the state is to depart from
the general course of law making in this
instance is there any reason why it
should not depart from the general course
of voting when the time comes for the
ultimate decision? If the women take
up this matter they will! claim with truth
that they are as much interested in it as
the men and that there ought not to be
decision in which they are not heard.
1t will be a hard matter for the advo-
Gates of referendum to meet their argu-
ments.- Montpelier Argus.
This we'll known authority on consti-
tutional law gives it as his opinion that
there would be nothing unconstitutional
about such a transaction. This should
settle further controversy on this point.
The honorable gentleman, it seems,
strains ligament of his mind when he
expresses the opinion that women can
be allowed to vote on the question. The
right of franchise has yet to be given the
good ladies Of the state, before they are
permitted to cast a ballot for any candi-
date on any issue. Up to allowing the
regularly constituted voters of the state
an opportunity to say they will stick to
prohibition or cast it aside Judge Ross is
sound. When he strains a point and
would allow women who have never
voted before the privilege OF the ballot
box on this question only, he makes a
slip Of judgment that is unworthy of
him Il Burlington Clipper.