The Washington times., 1914-04-01

small group Of women Of the past
generation who suffered rfdicule and
abuse, who 'moiled and toiled" for
the adoption Of the laws that give
the greatest advanta ges they enjoy
today? How many OF them realize
volved In securing the requisite mum.
Der of signatures to a petition 10
submit to a State legislature for
consideration and debate? Here II .
case in point:
In 1861 a pioneer suffrasist:
Ernestine Rose. Travelled up and
down the State of New York carry
ing a petition providing for q mar.
ried woman's right to hold real
estate in her own name. After
great deal Of trouble and much
abuse from the public. she secured
just five signatures TO her petition!
But No Gratitude.
Those heroic suffrage advocates
continued their work in this connec-
ton until 1888. when the New York
Legislature enacted the law which
granted to woman the right - keep
what was her own. No sooner did
it become legal than all the women
said: ''It Is only Just: we ought n.
ways to have had that"
Never one word Of gratitude to the
women who had achieved this vic.
tory for them. nor any expression OF
regret for their failure to help or
encourage those who had carried the
burden and brought some measure
Of independence to all the women OF
their State.
cent to hamper the Efforts OF those
the load Of a fellow-creature, while
acceuting all the advantages accru-
ing therefrom? Does II not show Q
lack Of wholesome thinking? Is II
not a crime to accept all and give
nothing?
Where Is Their Pride.
But" these women exclaLm. We
have our homes. our children. our
social duties, our charities: It would
be wrong to neglect them and med
die with public affairs"
Again. there Is evidence Of lack OF
thought. Inasmuch a. government
affects every department OF the
home: that good schools. clean
and milk, unadulterated food. fire
protection, all depend upon NUM-
cipal superyision, why should women
of wealth shirk their responsioaiities
and leave the solution of these I'M
portant problems to those whose
time and resources are taxed 70 the
utmost limit? Where IL their pride.
that they show no inclination to
lend a hand in turning the wheels OF
nrogress? Why do they insist upon
the world revolving around them ana
their narrow circle. while the re-
gard those on the outside AZ un-
worthy or non-existent!
predict that the time Will come
in this land of plenty for all when
chorjtv will hecome obsolete. It be-
hooves us, then. to prepare and Cd.
ucate ourselves for that bhssful
state Of affairs.
Leaveu of Cooperation.
To those women, therefore, whose
good work is now limited to char
ity- the best advice is that they In
fuse thu Ieaven OF cooperation into
their methods and lend their assist
ance to the promotion OF conditlons
which viii automa tically and bene-
ficently abolish class disuncuonS
and class antagonism.
ShonId this country encounter a
great revolution which would sweep
away the one thing that maintains
these thoughtless people. b. what
right could they then expect favors
al the hands of those who stand IN
such urgent need Of their help now!
Not charity. philanthropy. patron
ave-but the natural cooperation
demanded by the exigenciee OF our
time and the rapidly changing
course of events.
VII they he SO short-sighted a.
70 await a great national upheaval
before recognizing their responsioil-
tiles and learning 20 think trde-
pendently. Internationally. clearly.
and unselfishly?