The Washington herald., 1914-11-29
By IDA Hustled HARPER.

The eloquent obituary OF the Progress
sive party pronounced by one Of its near
kin, Mr.. Amos Pinchot. will give but cold
comfort to those women suffragists who,
forsaking the nonpartisan principles Of
their organization, rushed into it head
long in 1872, at the risk of alternating
Democratic and Republican support of
their pending constitutional amendments
in five States. They expected to be car
ried straight to victory on its broad pro-
pelleFs, but instead It turned turtle and
they are now crawling out from the
vrsckage. Far shall 1t be from the stand
patters-those who stand pat for the suf-
frage free from all party affiliations-to
greet them as they emerge, with any i'm
polite remarks. The Progressive party
was one Of the two great factors that
made woman suffrage a national ques-
tion; the other was the very large num-
ber Of women who would vote at the fall
election, and this in itself was the con-
trolling influence that caused the Pro-
EresSives had not set the pace. The appar-
their just dues, however. for many of
them honestly believe that no program
Of social reform would be complete that
did not include the enfranchisement Of
women.
Those nearly 100000 women voters
were largely the cause of woman suf-
fraEe planks in various State platforms
in 1872 but they could not have had this
effect in the Eastern States II the Pro-
gressives had not setthepace. The appar-
ent elimination of this party is detriment-
al to the advance of woman sunrage' as
none of the other third parties holds the
balance of power and neither of the
dominant PARTIES wants votes for
women. These are not likely TO
be secured anywhere at any time
through one party alone, but they VIII
be gained in the future, as they have
been in the past, through the progressive
elements in all parties. That Is what
women should most earnestly desire IN
candidates and policies. This spirit OF
independence" according to Mr. Pinchot.
never did become dominant in the Pro-
gressive party which stood for
nothing more concrete than a general as
piration for democracy"
shattered by Roosevelt.
Even this aspiration is rudely shat
tsred by Mr. Roosevelt in a recent ar
ticle when he says: No man is Mt TO
be the free citizen Of a free republic
unless he is able to bear arms and serve
with efficiency in the army" The physlc-
allv imperfect, therefore, no matter what
their fine mental quallncatlons' IheT III
teErity, honesty, patriotism, are not nj
TO be free citizens. What should be
done with them-should they be deprived
Of their liberty? This is one Of Mr..
Roosevelts frequent hasty, ill-digested
utterances that will not bear analysis
but IL gives much aid and comfort to
the anti-suffragists, whose defences are
tumblinE about their heads. Aha,
SAYS Mrs. John Martin, quoting the above
assertion, Mr.. Roosevelt has inadvert-
antIy given away the case for woman
suffrage, and since women are unable to
bear arms and serve in the army they
are clearly unfit for citizenship" But
what disposition shall be made of that
article in the national Constitution which |
SAYS: IAN persons born or naturalized
in the United States are citi-
zens Of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside?" Mr. Roose-
Welt knows too much to try TO deprive
the lame. the halt. the blind and the
invslids Of citizenship-he simply would
not allow them to be free" citizens.
Mrs. Martin probably would concede citi-
Zenship to women to the extent of reQuir-
ing them to obey the laws and pay taxes
but not to the extent of permitting them
to help make the laws and expend the
taxes.