The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1902-12-12

the proposition, and who were the
women that should say them nay?
She thought the question was not so
much the desirability of women
voting as to have it thrust upon them.
On the negative side Mrs. w. j. Frad
read an interesting paper that pre-
sented some good thouhgts for the
Woman's side Of the case. She declar-
ed woman was in closer touch with
higher things in life than the average
man, and as for not caring to vote
She thought they would take as much
interest as the men did IN the recent
election, since she has read of a
certain candidate in the county who
deplored the fact that so many stayed
at home that it would be the means
OF reducing his salary.
Prof. f. Fl. Hoff had the affirmative
side Of the question. Concerning
the Indians laziness he said that this
individual had simply proftted by
what the white man had taught him
in providing for his wants, and that
he had risen as high as he had been
permitted. Women in general, be
declared, did not take sufficient in
terest in election matters, and that
they would much prefer to take up a
copy of the Delineator and read Of
the fashions than to peruse a news
paper to ascertain something of how
the election went. 1t is her nature
to look above politics, and she is
needed as safeguard between
politics and religion, without which
man would go to destruction. She
did not need the ballot, he averred,
and in fact, had more power in that
direction now than she could use.
He thought the negro more eligible
to the ballot after he is educated
because he then took an interest such
things.
DR.. E. F. Reamer was a strong
negative man, and he and his house.
hold stood together on the PROPOSE
tion. He believed that woman
stood higher in the scale than man
and on that ground alone she was
entitled to the recognition. He
wondered how many negroes and
Indians had read the presidents
message.
Rev. D. R. Tomlin said that while
there were many women who were
qualified to vote, yet there were
hundreds over the state who were
lacking in the essentials to cast the
ballot, and did not think that the
right ought to be extended to the
many to satisfy the few. His CONVEX
sation with individuals who had lived
in states where women had the ballot
did not lead him to believe that con-
ditions were any better than right
here IN South Dakota, and they did
not bring about all the reforms that
were held forth as arguments for en-
dowing her with the right Of franch-
Use.
Mrs. J. S. Wilson, who spoke for
the negative, said that she had been
told that women did not want to
vote as they had all the privileges
they cared to enjoy. She referred to
the condition of women 10 years ago,
whose privileges were exceeding few
and wondered if the women Of today
cared to submit to such indignities
from the head of the household.
Rev. R. N. Kratz for the afirmat-
| i've referred his hearers to Gods
Revelations in which it is declared
that the family is the unit and the
good that comes to the world comes
from the family. Man is the recog
nized head of the family, and it was
plain that no provision was made for
woman along the lines discussed.
W. A. Barber for the negative side
attacked the arguments OF the other
speakers, and declared that if woman
had the right to vote he was positive
they would become interested. They
took interest in other things and
why not in the ballot. He said
that disfranchisement of woman was
relic of seni-civilization, if not
| barbarism.
Mrs. W. a. Barber spoke for the
fi10ntinup6 IN Siyth naUa !