including the Presidents, Governors of States and officialdom generally.)

You would find that no woman was ever granted a National or State funeral in the Republic; even the funeral of a President's wife is always private, the time of her burial or evidences of mourning being unobserved throughout the land. Then you would think of all Austria lately stricken in grief and clad in mourning for their beloved Empress Elizabeth.

Then you would notice that a President's wife is not a Presidentess, and that political history does not of necessity make mention of the fact that he had a wife. An Emperor's wife is an Empress, a King's is a Queen, a Duke's is a Duchess, the wife of a Marquis is a Marchioness and so on. But American titles (and they are legion) belong exclusively to males, and every wife is simply a plain "Mrs." An aristocrat shares his titles and honours with his wife, but in a democracy the men wear "all the mantles," and all the "plums” fall into masculine laps.

You would find that the personal or individual face of no American woman has ever been

upon the bills or upon the coins of the Republic, but only those of men, MEN, MEN.* Then you would think of Queen Victoria's beloved countenance, during the greater part of the century, and of the beautiful image of Queen Wilhelmina, upon the coins and bills of their respective countries.

Then you would recall the fact that in an aristocracy married women often keep their maiden titles or name, but that the only couple of cases you would find here of married women who kept their maiden name were those who were ridiculed or censured therefor. (In aristocracies the husband and the children sometimes take the wife's names, and no adverse comments are caused thereby.) In fact, married ladies are not deemed of enough importance to have their names in any public directory of any city in the Republic.

You would find that cultured ladies in the Republic are also at a terrible disadvantage and that they never can create Salons-that there *Wherever women's faces are used they are imper

sonal.

never could be in the United States the equivalents of a Lady Palmerston, or a Lady Blessington, or a Lady Jersey, or a Lady Salisbury.

You would find, in spite of all you had heard to the contrary, that there is only one American woman whose fortune (she amassed it herself) can at all compare with many of the vast fortunes of women in Europe.*

You would find that even the sports and all such pastimes of these women are copied from an aristocracy (no American ever having originated such pleasures, liberties, or benefits for women) until the late rather close intercourse between these and English women, American women were generally very under-sized and delicate-thus even the larger physical growth of Americans to-day has depended upon a Monarchy.

You would find that even in woman's supposedly most natural sphere, the social one, women in a republic are at a very great disadvantage compared with their sex in an aristocracy— no woman in a democracy has ever been sufficient*Mrs. Hetty Green.

ly a social leader to establish general fashions, either political, moral, mental or physical. The reason why all women in a republic are socially insignificant (even a President's wife having no prestige or influence outside of her little coterie of personal friends) is because no one is made pre-eminent by such a government.

It would occur to you that if a woman be at the head of an aristocracy she can address a proposal to a man of marriage, without the propriety thereof being questioned, but the woman who claimed this as her prerogative in a Republic would arouse masculine ire generally thereby.

You would remember that at balls and on all such occasions that all Royal ladies take the initiative again and ask men to dance with them, escort them about and such like things-but no woman in a Republic would dare claim such as her rightful prerogative.

You could go on indefinitely making these contrasts in favour of your sex in an aristocracy, but you would cease, as by now you would clearly see that woman has about as much future

or chance in a Republic as a snowball has under a scorching sun. You would realize that ambitious womanhood and a republic cannot exist together the two are hopelessly incompatible. You would realize that there is nothing woman can achieve in a republic which she cannot achieve in far less time and with far less exertion, trial, self-denial or humiliation in a monarchy, and there are many things which your sex can achieve in a monarchy that through no effort, self-denial, or time can it achieve in a republic. And you would realize that as individuals in every government must retrograde if they cannot go forward, as human society must go backward if it cannot advance, and as a republic places all our sex in the same mold, where it keeps them from the cradle to the grave, that woman is the reef upon which every republican ship of state will founder.

Then you would find that nearly six million women in the Republic work for their daily bread outside their households, thousands working in "sweatshops" at starvation wages, averaging only a dollar and a half to two dollars per