Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-04-13

reluctance to thrust the new RESPONSE
bility upon them.
Upon the above The Remonstrance
comments as follows:
What is true of Minnesota is true
Of all the states in which this question
Of woman suffrage is pending, directly
or remotely. The average man is
ready to do what he believes the
average woman wants. II he Is con-
WINGED that the majority Of women
want the ballot. he will vote to give 1t
to them. But, in the absence of such
proof. nothing else will serve-not
the suffragist prancing along the street
on horseback, nor her sister hiking
across country on foot, or haranguing
street crowds from soap-boxes. These
he regards as exceptional-perhaps
the more exceptional the better; 1t Is
the wishes of the mass of women
about which he seeks information.
And what stands in the way of such
referendum as that for which the st.
Paul Dispatch asks-a referendum
which would show conclusively where
the great majority Of women stand.
|
everywhere, it Is the suffragists who
resist every attempt to give women
chance to express themselves upon
this question. They profess to be
eager to have women vote, they even
profess to believe that voting is right
Of which women are unjustly de-
prived, but they are afraid to have
women vote upon the fundamental
question whether women shall have the
ballot.
Had it not been for this attitude Of
the suf1ragists, the men Of Massachu-
sets would not now be approaching
the settlement of this question at the
polls without any definite knowledge
Of what the women of Massachusetts
want. The Massachusetts, Antl-SuI-
frage Association went before the
Legislature last year with bill which
proposed to give the women or the
state a chance to express their views
upon suffrage. If this bill had passed.
and if a majority Of the women of the
state had expressed themselves in
favor Of suffrage, the way would have
been open for a speedy victory for tho
suffrage cause. Opposition would
have been Abandoned: and the sadop
ton Of a suffrage amendmentzto the
constitution would have followed as ,
matter Of course.
1.-THE suffragists would scarcely have
forfeited so great an advantage as
this, il they had believed that they had
the ghost of a chance of polling &
ma jority of the women OF the state
It was because they knew that theV
were hopelessly in the minority that
they fought the bill. Their motive
could not be disguised. and its signifi-
canoe will not be forgotten"
The latest evidence before the people
wholly refut;ng this old declaration OF
bigotry, that "the women do not want
the vote" is from the city Of Chicago
There, in spite Of the pretense that
women will not avail themselves OF the
ballot, nearly a quarter million women
took the first opportunity given them
to vote in mayoralty election. If they
did not want to vote why did they
swarm to the polls?
Anti suffragists ignore the facts and
like the liquor interests, go on making
the same old silly assertions that have
been discounted thousand times.
The nti-suffragists in their fear OF
an official vote by the legal voters
frantically cry that the suffragists fear
a referendum Of the women. They
seem to forget that the men Of a
household would be unlikely to vote
for equal suffrage if their women were
opposed to it. The ants resort to such
declarations as this: Always and ev-
erywhere, it is the suffragists who re-
sist every attempt to give women a
chance to express themselves upon
this question"
We respectfully beg to deny the as
sertion. Suffragists everywhere de-
mand an opportunity to express them
selves upon the question. All they ask
is a chance to prove whether or not
they wish to vote. In Chicago they
have just expressed themselves upon
the question. They a:e more than fair
in demanding that the voters them
selves have opportunity to decide
whether they may vote. They ask
only Of the various legislatures tina,
the voters may be allowed to decide.
The ants always approach the sub.
ject from the standpoint that women
will be OBLIGED to vote if granted
the franchise. Perhaps they will next
declare that $4,000 women the other
day voted in Chicago because they
thought they were obliged 10 do so.
We Judge Of the future by the past
Up to date, where women have beer
given the opportunity they have ac-
cepted the ballot. How senseless, then
is the repeated declaration that "the
women do not want the ballot?"
Do our anti-suffraglst friends be-
lieve that men want the ballot? Dc
they think the bother and expense oil
elections would be continued if it were
not for the purpose of gaining an ex.
preston of the minds of the most in.