New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-09
A sUFFRAGIsT REToRT
Reply to a Mans Arguments Against
Woman's Voting.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: Some time ago there appeared In
one OF the Sunday newspapers an article
written by a prominent lawyer OF New
York City, an ardent anti-suffragist VIII
you kindly grant me sufficient space In
your publication for the purpose OF point
ing out the utter lack Of logic in his So
called argument?
He declares that after this unrest among
women will have ceased they will cooper
ate with men, each In the sphere allotted
them by nature (sex) to make this bet
ter world. (Iis definition OF nature Is
sexD BY what authority does no allot
to woman her sphere and retain for him.
self the right to govern? Certainly not
because allotted BY her sex" as he as
serts.
Had he lived 100 years ago sex would
not have allotted him a vote; property
alone would have given him the ballot.
Had he lived 1875 years ago his sex would
have been equally Intellectual; all but free
holders were denied the suffrage. Dur
ing our Colonial period not sex but the
Church allotted the franchise; the ballot
was withheld from all but church MEM
bere
For his right Of suffrage he is indebted
10 mems continuous struggle throughout
the centuries0to their repeated. pro-
longed, determined and united efforts
which enabled them 10 rise gradually from
their condition OF AFFECT slavery to that
OF their present political freedom. They
- 20 hat aUafpgt the
opposition. against precisely the same
arguments. which are used to-day against
votes for women.
lie declares that IL women are en-
franchised they will forsake their homes
TO enter upon the strife OF politics political
committees will beset them urging them
20 march in political professions, TO at
tend primaries and political meetings; the
wife OF the Democrat will be urged to vote
for the Republican candidate and vice
versa burdens and responsibilities Will
be imposed upon many women who do not
desire the franchise.
The query naturally arises how often
does he forsake his business 10 enter upon
the strife OF politics"? How many times
during the year does he march in political
processions7 How frequently is he beset
by committees urging him 10 vote con-
trary 10 his convictions?
It ia dlf1cult TO understand why he OBJ
jects TO women attending political meet
ings but makes no objection TO their fire.
quent presence at the opera, theatre, con-
certs, clubs or 10 the numerous outside
interests which now claim their atten-
ton and which necessitate their frequent
absence from home. Voting is not com
pulsory. Why does he assert that bur-
dens and responsibilities would be imposed
upon many women who do not desire the
franchise. as no woman need vote unless
she wish? But Ia II Just to deprive Of
their right thousands OF women who desire
the suffrage because other women are
opposed or Indifferent? Hundreds OF thou
sands OF enfranchised men In this country
do not wish TO vote. they never do vote.
but that does not debar all men from the
polls.
II Is said that a woman in the business
world without the ballot Is as helpless as
would be soldier in a battle without a
bullet In this country to-day more than
eight million women are self-supporting
but without power to regulate the condi-
lions under which they labor. Yet he as
serts that women do not need the vote
that II would not add one jot to their
power.
II that be true why does he retain his
right of suffrager lie asserts that that
right interferes disastrously with bust
ness; imposes great burdens and RESPONSE
bilities; tempts one TO forswear convic-
tons. Yet he endures all Of these inflic-
tons for that right for which he has ne
need" and which does mot add one jot
TO his power" for II the vote is useless
for women Il IL equally Intellectual for
men. CAROLINE CLIFTON KNAPP.
New York, Nov. 4. 1912