The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-03-14

of Scranton so that II covered two
States large as Pennsylvania
which would he reproducing wyoming
eonditions-and that then the women
would still continue to be ''womanly.
The unhappy part of il is that these
. Western States can give us httle IN
dication of what woman suffrage
Iwould mean in such CenterS as RUS
burGh, Philadelphia. Boston, and New
York. The only comparable conditions
! where women vote are IN ILLINOIS,.
under partial woman suffraCc-and
the recent primary in chicago proved
! a sore disappointment to the friends
of woman suffrage. as every one
knows. and even prosuffraCe editors
| have frankly acknowledged. No one
would contend that the women voters
| of Chicago have not lowered their sex
in popular estimation by allowing
I their ballots to count on the side OF
a wide open town. in city that is
/ already INDUCING the municipal lati-
tude of saloons. cabarets. theaters and
business houses open on sunday. II
| Chicago is opened any wider by the
votes of women, it is hard to see how
| it will escape plunging into the chasm
| thus made, to the place of high tenn
peratures, which English clergy
man humorously located under the
| City by the Lake"
| Danger to the Family.
How would woman suffrage affect
! the family" Well, of course, this is
one of the basic principles in the plea
for the vote-individual representa-
tion-which is in itself blow at the
unity of the family.
| Right here, some suffrage speaker
| injects the assertion that she has
never heard of a family being broken
! up on account of feminism. rail
| road official in Chicago can resign
! because his wife disgraced him ana
| herself by exercising equal rights
10 study" the effect or rmDibing too
much drink in 4 saloon. and New
York man may apply tor a divorce
on the grounds of too much suf-
frage" agitation on the part of his
wife-without affecting In the least,
such suffrage assertions that the vote
and its getting cannot cause complI-
| cations between husband and wife.
| \ nttle reflection shows us that at
| present. with manhood suffrage, we
have almost precise family represen-
tation at the polls-one vote for each
! family. This is brought about by two
! facts. First. because over 80 per
cent of all men over IL are
! married. and represent the majority
| which rules: and second. beCam" as
| nearly every on" knows. bachelors
! are more transient. less inclined TO
meet electoral qualifications as to per-
| mancncy of residence. and manifest
| less interest in politics anyhow.
| comparison Of the census figures for
! married men. with tho election re-
| turns. which any one may make. Will
! establish this beyond any Contro-
verSy.
Now. there is not much that = mans
| wife is politically interested ia that
| docs not also concern her husba nd.
He wants good schools, pure food.
etc. as much rs she does With male
| Sufra &c. on" vote for one family. We
| have 4 Democrat" unity in the home.
! and government representing the
! family. the normal and necessary In
! stirution which completes the social
efficiency Of mon and women.
with woman suffrage. on the con-
! trary. family representation will he
/ almost entirely neCatiVed. The man
| whose wife j. sick on election day
and the point must no; he lost
sight Of that women are NOR" often
| i'll than Inen-haS one vote. The
| father Of four lusty daughters over
81. may have six, Another point:
! every family that votes alike has
| double sUffraCc-snf where husba nd
and wife vote direrently absolutely
checks itself. In other words, If your
! lt'll4I lttl opponent tdH t'A N'AA w liz
TO disagree with you, he has thrc" 10
| your one.
Some Possibilities Amusing.
Some of these possibilities are anus
inR-but II does not take solomon
I TO see what il means within the fam
lily itself. Neither does it take a con-
sriturioual lawyer to figure out what
/ the woman would lose who was pur
I suaded to vote for free trade tariff
/ hy some low cost OF living agirator-
while her husbands business or wages
! depend on maintaining protection
I against foreign pauper labor
! OF course. here again, the suffra
Cists say that 'on such a principle.
men who vote differently should he
disfra nchised. and SO should those
/ who vote alike This is rather far
/ fetched answer. as all must realize
! who consider the difference in rela-
. tiuuship between man and man. and
man and woman. when united by mar
! riagc. The family is not an accident.
! hui an evolution: to- mans duty to
: support his wife and represent her
political interests in the outcome of
centuries of experience in the division
/ Of labor. not a theory founded, on
any assumed superiority" by men.
( Mud logically. women cannot con-
! riuue to perform their own duties
well. while assuming an equal right
! to interfere with the carrying out of
| their husbands duties. and proba bly,
/ checking or preJudfc,ng mems ahff-
! ity to support them. Therefore women
| would lose in two distinct ways-by
! sacrificing Of time to politics that
| they might better employ IN other
! fields child "rvation-for IN
stance. and by creating another bone
! of contention" in the home over the
| manner in which the franchise is eX-
| ercised. with one vote. we have both
! IN" theory and tho actually Of fam
! NV representation With double sur
! frauc. "" have the family unity
! thrown 10 the winds. in favor of
/ either cancellinC or multiplying its
! political relation to all other fam
lies
IGFNFRu g viii HAW