The Washington herald., 1918-10-17

for we SUSPICION tnat tne very pro-
rressfve State of Idaho will see
enough good In Senator Borah to not
pay any great attention to what tho
women say.
Moreover we are convinced that
win work about as hard for the SEN
ator as some Of his most devoted
male friends -..,
Senator Nugent, who voted in favor
suffrage amendment win have q hard
er time returning to washing gton
than his senior colleague.
The more we go into the suffrage
matter the more we are convinced
that outside few thousand extrems
women Of the nation the grant of
equal suffrage will not bring about
any overwhelming change In our
elections
We have seen the State of wyo-
ming. the first State to grant equal
suffrage, remain wet while all OF the
States around her went dry. We
have seen Colorado, in spite of the
very pretentious female vote there,
tolerate for years one of the worst
forms OF government any State could
have. We have seen It fail to rally
to the cry of progressivism and we
have seen II fail largely because of
the failure of the women to take
any consuming interest in what was
going on
This reminds US that one of the
first cries made in many OF the States
in behalf OF equal suffrage was that
It would bring about a great change
in public sffairs-thst II would throw
light into the dark places, and that
all undesirable laws would speedily
be repealed and many laws never
passed would be enacted with extra
| ordinary promptness when the wom-
en- got the ballot.
But the women here have dropped
that slogan. They admit that no
great changes will take place imme-
distely when the women get the bal
/ lot They say they are entitled to 1t
on other grounds-and In the States
we agree with them-and that this
should not be the chief consideration
upon which the grant is delibersted.
We told a member of the Senate
once that while he was known to be
opposed to suffrage. We would not feel
at all concerned about his fate IL he
time he ran. composed of both men
| and women. We felt that he would
stand as good a chance with one as
with the other. and that his majority
would probably only be doubled II the
vote of the State were doubled
| through the extended grant of the
franchise right
The one change which makes most
"antis' ponder is the change equal
suffrage will bring upon the individ-
ual women-the homemakers and
mothers OF the land. The "antis" in
| sist that just the amount OF time the
women devote to politics will be taken
from the home. They reason that
while the Congress OF the United
States may legislate a change in time
| II cannot legislate an extension of
time. and that therefore the time
/ taken by the women in polite. can
never be made up with their home
affairs.
This is one fundamental block to
| suffrage. added to the fact that the
| thought of the participation of the
| women in politics is something they
| insist shouldn't be required OF
| them. anyway. Men chivalrous 10
| the utmost argue that II they can
| lOl NOle LOT lut Dtsl lHNtEtslS vi
! their wives and sweethears and
| mothers then 1t IS a deep reflec-
| tion upon them and II is something
| in fact, they do not relish, for they
| insist they can and will vote for
their wives and mothers and sweet
| hearts as long as they have feet
to drag them to the polls to attend
to that duty.
1t may have been a resentment
! toward this implied charge of lack
OF chivalry that brought SO many
! gallant Southern gentlemen into the
anti suffrage camp when the bill
was recently before the Senate
We suspicion that It was.
| But after all arguments are
made, we are frank to say there
are these considerations which are
uppermost and which should gov
ern the settlement of the question
| in the states:
Women who do not want to
vote need not do so. Men do not
| so why should women7
2-If no fundamental change Is
to be made by suffrage then why
| oppose its grant? A mere doubling
! OF the vote is not a sufficient rea-
| son to cast ii Off.
3. No one argues any more that
the women are not entitled to vote.
Why deny it then because some
women are not anxious to exercise
the right II it were given them?
T. II candidates fear the women
vote then they have something to
fear which would hardly bear repeti-
| ton to the male voters. Men who are
nil r. sfaI haI
with the female vote areEot entitled
to take their chances with the male
vote
5. II there is no reason against the
grant-even If there appear to be no
overwhelming reasons for its adop-
| tion-why not go ahead and give it?
Is not the granting OF the request to
few who want it equivalent to the
| opposition of those who do not and
| the neutrality of those who are not
interested either way?
1 These are the questions that must
be met. If they can be met sensibly
| and convincingly before the American
public then the chance of defeating
| suffrage as a nation wide reform is
| likely very good
But IL they cannot be met then we
| fear the reform Is due to come as
| soon as matters are arranged to
bring 1t about-which does not fix the
exact moment, you will take notice.
This, however, is not saying that
the grant is a war measure. We do
not believe it is-or if it is, we can
not see that 1t has FASTENED the
downfall of Prussian autocracy In the
least And that is what had to De
brought about in this war and things
done on the other side Of the At