honorable men the chance to profit by buying and selling the votes of their fellow men, why make it possible for them to buy and sell the votes of women as well, or why open up this same temptation to women? The indifferent male voter as well as the dishonest one in our electorate has made the problem of good government in this country more difficult, and no one can deny that there will be a still larger number of indifferent voters among the women. The fact that the vast majority of women throughout the country to-day are totally indifferent to this whole question of woman suffrage, either pro or con, is but one proof of the truth of this assertion. Will our political problems be lessened or only enhanced by admitting to the body politic a vast army of women voters who know even less about the theories and principles of our government than does the average male voter?

Every woman who has the welfare of humanity at heart welcomed the famous decision of the Supreme Court at Washington two years ago which declared constitutional a law limiting the hours of woman's work in factories on the ground that as the mother of the race she had a right to such protection which the man working by her side did not possess. Within the past two months the Supreme Court of Illinois has handed down a similar opinion based on practically the same grounds, upholding as constitutional a law in that state limiting the work of women in factories, mechanical establishments or laundries to ten hours. Such decisions are bound to be far reaching in effect, and will serve to crystallize public opinion to the necessity of shorter hours and better protection for the woman worker if we are to have a strong and vigorous race.

A brief review of some of the laws of the several states shows how much has been done in this direction, but the assertion that the laws for the protection of working women are better in the states where women vote than they are in the states where they do not vote, is not borne out by the facts of the case. In 38 states there are special laws of some kind for the comfort or safety of working women. There is no law of this kind on the statute books of Idaho. In 20

states the hours of woman's labor is definitely limited. In the four states where women vote, however, there is no limit to the length of a woman's working day. It would seem from this that members of our sex are in reality not as well off under a constitution which regards them merely as an individual factor in the economic system, as they are in the states where they are looked upon as being what the Creator intended them to be-Women. Thirty-four states require seats to be provided for the use of female employes in mercantile or manufacturing establishments when they are not engaged in actual duties. In New York State seats must be provided in mercantile, manufacturing and mechanical establishments as well as in hotels and restaurants. In Colorado and Wyoming seats are not required in hotels and restaurants. In Utah not in manufacturing concerns, and Idaho has no regulations of this kind. In 14 states a mother is joint guardian of the children with the father. Colorado is the only suffrage state where this law is in force. The 4 states in which the best child labor laws prevail, are, New York, Ohio, Illinois and Colorado. In no respect, however, do the laws of Colorado regulating the labor of children excel those in New York.

Equal pay for men and women teachers does not hold good in Colorado, for we are told that the difference in the salaries of men and women teachers in that state, instead of being unusually small, is unusually large.

A brief review of some of the laws affecting a woman's property rights will suffice to show that in this respect also woman is as well off in the non-suffrage states as she is in those where she does her own voting. Women's rights of inheritance in their husbands' estate, for instance, are either equal or greater than those of the husband in forty states. In Idaho, not only are the property rights in favor of the husband, but a woman's property may be seized to pay a husband's debts. In that state also and five other states the husband has control of the community property, whereas in 27 states all of a married woman's property is free. In 38 states the earnings of married women are secured to them.

No one will deny that under the old Common Law woman suffered from many legal disabilities, but during the past fifty years these have not only been removed, but men have granted her legal rights and privileges which in many instances far exceed his own. Are the women who are demanding the suffrage ready to foreswear these privileges and immunities the day the ballot is placed in their hands? If so, will they not be striking rather a poor bargain by giving up more than they will get? Yet this seems to be a very fair proposition. Why should they retain all their rights and privileges if what they wish is to be man's equal? This question suggests another point. Will man continue to feel the same responsibility for woman's welfare if women have the ballot and can legislate for themselves? I fear not, and I believe that any change in our social order which tends to lessen man's responsibility toward woman is greatly to be regretted, for as woman's natural protector some of the noblest traits in a man's character are developed.

We grant there may still be minor instances in some states where the law discriminates against women, but there is sufficient evidence that "the subjection of woman" is a worn-out phrase, since she is not suffering from any gross injustice by reason of our so-called man-made laws. To force her into the political arena to fight her own battles when man has legislated so greatly in her favor, would seem like flying in the face of Providence.

Many earnest and sincere women declare they want to vote because they wish to take a hand in what they call municipal house-cleaning. More schools are needed, more parks and playgrounds; better tenements and cleaner streets. Give us the ballot, they argue, and all these things shall come to pass. Now these enthusiastic would-be house-cleaners fail to take one point into consideration, and a very important point it is. Under our form of government clean streets and model tenements are not voted for at the polls. In other words, men do not vote for measures, but for men whom they hope will carry out policies in which the voter believes. But a candidate for political office may be elected

in one section of the city to carry out certain measures, while in other quarters of the city other candidates are elected on other platforms, so when the different elements meet together on the Council Board or in the Legislature a compromise has to be effected or the political machinery is set in motion and the measure backed by the majority wins. Now the same situation would arise if women voted. All the women would not agree on any question of reform any more than men do, or if they all should happen to pull together for a measure, they might find the men arrayed on the other side, then we should have the disagreeable situation of a battle between the sexes, and a most unequal battle it would be. If the men were in the majority the women would lose their case, and if, on the other hand, the women were in the majority, they would still lose, for being noncombatants they could not force compliance to their wishes upon the minority. This point has been made clear by a New York lawyer who said, "The majority prevails because it is the majority, and could, if necessary, compel compliance with its wishes. To make possible a majority which a minority could safely defy, would be to overthrow the fundamental ideas of Republican government."

Under the present conditions of government woman as a non-partisan citizen is a power in any community, for untrammelled by party affiliations or obligations, she can go before any legislative committee or board of officials and urge the passage of any law or measure, and her recommendations will be considered on their merits, and not because she voted with this or that party at the last election. There are probably many in this audience this evening who could speak with authority on this subject and cite instances where they have been sponsors for some remedial measure which is now on the statute books of some city or state. The Equal guardianship law in New York is a case in point. That bill was introduced in the Legislature through the influence of the Woman's educational and industrial union in Buffalo. In speaking of this law the President of that Association said, "It passed both Houses without a dissenting

vote. Circulars giving full information as to the desirability of the law and what we desired to accomplish were sent to every legislator, but there was no lobbying, and it was not even necessary for me to go to Albany." Is it expedient to take such power from woman and make her but a spoke in the wheel of political machinery?

Facts and Fallacies about Woman Suffrage.

It is a mistake to suppose that the great majority of women want to vote. They do not. In proof of which we state the following facts, which can easily be verified. We mention first the Massachusetts referendum of 1895, in which the women of that state, which was one of the earliest and strongest advocates of suffrage for women, were invited to put themselves on record, by the same means that men do, and under the same conditions, as to whether or not they desired the ballot. Less than four per cent of all the women of the state, of voting age, expressed such a desire, and that in spite of the earnest efforts of the suffragist agitators to call out a large affirmative vote. The proposition was ingloriously defeated all over the state, from Cape Cod to the Berkshire Hills, no measure having ever met with so overwhelming an overthrow in the state. Very naturally a proposition for a similar referendum in New York state in 1910 was strongly opposed by the suffragists.

School suffrage, now granted in about half our states, has been a lamentable failure, the woman vote averaging scarcely 2 per cent in any state. In the state of Ohio the number of women responding to the privilege has been so small, and the expense of registering and counting it has been so relatively large, that it has been seriously proposed to withdraw it altogether.

In Chicago, in the election of November 8, 1910, where women are allowed to vote for university trustees, in spite of the earnest efforts of the suffragists to bring out the full woman vote of the city, its population being counted by millions, 490 females registered, and of these but 243 voted.