The Washington herald., 1918-04-14
THE OPEN FORUM
SUFFRAGE DOESN'T SUIT HIM.
Political Expedieney" Prompts Edi-
torial Support. Says Correspondent.

torial Support. Says Correspondent.
To the Editor of The Washington
Herald: In your editorial entitled.
The Senate and Suffrage" you urge
the passage Of the suffrage amend
Nment as a matter Of political expedi-
ency. I At the same time you declare
that the passage of the amendment
by the Senate does not directly en-
franchise women. and that 1t Is prob
lematical as to how long IL would
take for three-fourths Of the States
to ratify the amendment. but that the
sooner 1t is done, ''the better for the
country" in The Herald's opinion.
The Herald gives no reason for this
opinion but the one Of political ex-
pediency'-yet this reason seems to
be somewhat answered by the second
argument Of The Herald. that the
ratification of the amendment might
not follow for some time.
May I ask why 1t Is politically ex-
pedtent' to rob each State of the
right to settle this question for itself
by popular vote? Is il not a fact
that the sole and single reason why
! this amendment Is asked Is because
suffrage has been defeated so often
by popular vote? II you question this
assertion, beg yeu TO read the lead
ing arguments advanced by Mrs.
Gait and Ida Husted Harper on this
subject.
Is 1t not a fact that the principles
OF majority rule" and local self
government are essential to democ-
racy? Is 1t not a fact that the suf-
fragists ask this amendment precisely
because they are unwilling to submit
suffrage to- the verdict of the majority
at the polls in each State?
So far as the ultimate adoption Of
suffrage being better for the coun-
try" there is no evidence, in the States
where women vote. to support such a
contention. On the mere score Of in
creased taxation and election expenses,
the people have a right to demand
that woman suffrage show some COM
pensating gain to offset its cost The
proof that the suffragists cannot show
such a compensating gain is found in
the fact that they always insist that
the suffrage for women would not add
much to the expense of running the
government. In other words, they
would rather claim that suffrage costs
nothing than that it is worth the
>pricei
What is its price? See the report
Of the Board of Election Commission
ers of Chicago. You will find that
every woman who voted added s2.H
to the cost of elections, without in
any way changing the result. In 1916,
Chicago's election expenses were
100 with women voting, as against
$ils.654 in. 1913, the year before wom-
en- voted. In New York State, 1t is
calculated that woman suffrage will
add s., 10000 to the election expenses,
which are already sa.5Oo,0cO a year.
The suffragists waged a spectacular
campaign in New York, which cost
them something like s7OO.OOO-but they
have forced the people of New York
State to assume an added burden of
three times that amount to let wom-
en- vote
II the people of a State desire to as
sumo the extra expense involved.
simply to please the suffragists. they
have that privilege. But when suf-
fragists demand that the Federal gov
eminent force a State to assume this
extra expense, in spite of the will of
the majority, expressed at the polls,
they are demanding the worst and
most obnoxious form of taxation
without representation" Georgia, for
instance, is larger than seven suffrage
States Its election expenses under
woman suffrage would be Increased
as much as all seven suffrage States.
Why then, should these suffrage
states have seven times as much
power to decide whether Georgia shall
adopt woman suffrage as the legisla-
ture of Georgia will have? And why,
in the name of democracy. local self
government. and plain honesty. should
not the people of Georgia be allowed
to decide this question themselves
by popular vote?
What right, for instance, have
Wyoming, Idaho and Utah to three
times as much power to decide
whether South Carolina shall enfran-
chise its women, the majority of
whom are negroes, as the legislature
of South Carolina: while the voters
OF South Carolina are positively dis
franchised on this question, il the
Federal amendment is passed?
To say that the Constitution pro-
vides for its own amendment in this
manner is merely a juggle. The origi-
nal Constitution. with the first ten
amendments, were adopted by popu-
lar vote, through conventions elected
by the people for this purpose.
And two of those original amend
ments-without which the Constitu-
tion would never have been adopted
provide:
The enumeration in the Constitu-
tion of certain rights shall not be con-
strued to deny or disparage others re-
tanned by the people," and
The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution nor
prohibited by it to the States. are re-
served to the States respectively, or
to the people,
A man who wants to juggle another
amendment onto the Constitution to
prohibit the States and the people
from exercising the rights guaranteed
70 them by the TX and Y amendments.
is merely using one part of the Con-
stitutional machinery to wreck anoth-
er part. He Is in the same position
as man who would throw a monkey
wrench into a Hoe Press, and break
its main plates. simply because there
was a monkey wrench handy-for an
other legitimate use.
sOUTHERNER.