ess to have political power to protect her sanctum and his, against the overly business inclinations of the man? The conservative talks much of woman as a complement of man. Man is, of course, interested in the home; he usually carries on business largely for the sake of the home. But while man is interested in the home, his more intelligent and alert interest is in business and industry; while the woman's more intelligent and alert interest is in the home and in the way in which business, politics, and law affect the home and the community. The woman, in a word, is specially qualified to represent at the polls the claims of the home to protection and consideration. That woman will immediately work a revolution in politics is neither to be hoped for by the friend of social progress nor to be feared by those apprehensive as to the results of woman suffrage. The rank and file of woman must be given time to get used to the status of full citizenship, to grow up to the sense of responsibility and to the capacity characteristic of their more progressive and intelligent leaders. It is, indeed, a point of strength rather than of weakness in the suffrage movement that so large a number do not seem to want political freedom, for it is undoubtedly true that large numbers of men are not worthy of the ballot. Consequently, it is to be expected, since for the most part only intelligent and progressive women will vote-of course some unintelligent women will be voted by party bosses or by domineering male relatives that the electorate will be improved in character by the woman voter. At any rate, the home is entitled to its woman representative at the polls. In politics the woman with the vote will be the complement of man. Two things drive women into business, industry, and the professions-necessity and self-respect. The conservative, notwithstanding, often denies to women outside of the home any right to political power, declaring in justification of his refusal that they are out of their sphere. On the very basis of his contention, however, the conservative, cannot logically deny the ballot to the woman, who, within her so-called sphere, has the too often difficult task of serving as the business manager of the home. Is the income of the factory in money or its output in the commodities of commerce more important than the output of the home ready for use and emjoyment, in the form of utilities making for health, efficiency, and happiness? The business of home-making is undeniably affected by politics, by law, by public regulation of the production and use of the things that satisfy human wants. All over the world women are managing little workshops where the necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries of life are collected, and often transformed to afford health, efficiency, and happiness to the family. In the home woman is a manufacturer and a business manager. She buys supplies and material; some of these she transforms in her kitchen; she hires help many times; she studies the markets for her supplies; she studies the market for her products; that is, the needs and the desires of her family. Often her money capital is so small as compared with her business that she is obliged to add to her rôle of captain of industry that of general of high finance. She is running a business, this home-maker is. Her husband is only the capitalist who furnishes the money capital for her business. His work is outside of the home. There is another difference, too. The spirit of associations and of combination in the business world is fast making, if it has not already made, the average man a mere cog in a great industrial organization; while, because of the persistence of individualism in home-making, the average woman continues to be an independent producer and business manager, and a business manager, too, whom increasing education-both along general lines and in domestic science and home economics-and an increasing sense of individuality are making more and more effective. To deny woman the ballot is equivalent either to putting off upon man political duty and obligation not connected with his business of earning money capital for the home, or to denying the home political opportunity to secure law and administration favourable to its interests, and to prevent unfavourable law or administration. Two seeming objections might be raised to this argument. First, it may be asked, have the husband and wife conflicting interests? By no means. But the special work and more intimate interest connected with the work of each, husband and wife, qualify the one to see best and clearest the business interest in politics; qualify the other to see the home interest. Social welfare calls for a reconciliation of these two interests. Such reconciliation can be affected by the man and the woman. But, objects our conservative friend, why not one vote rather than two? The answer is easily found. Because there is nothing in the nature of things why the woman should not vote instead of the man, and as yet there is no evidence that man will give up his voting prerogative to woman. In America, at least, there seem to be very strong reasons why many women should vote instead of men; these reasons are that more girls than boys are receiving a liberal education; and in very many instances women have more leisure than men to study public questions. If the conservative objects on the ground that woman's business of home-making is different from man's business of home-making, he puts the granting and with-holding of the suffrage on occupational grounds. In that case the woman wage-earner and the business and professional woman would be rightfully entitled to the ballot. The retort that such women are out of their sphere can be of no force; first, because the conservative has in this case put the ballot on the occupational basis; and secondly, because economic conditions, not woman, are in the main responsible for her presence outside of the home. It is illogical, furthermore, to argue that man should vote as an individual, and the woman, business manager of the home, should vote by proxy through a mere supplier of money capital. Besides, if man's dignity, sense of importance, self-respect, and feeling of individualism are promoted by his right to vote, is it not important that the maker of the home, and the educator of the children of the family should be a voting stockholder in the government, should have her sense of power and of importance added to by being given the right to vote? In the words of Madame Nordica, "Woman, a creature who is entrusted with the bringing up of souls at their most critical and formative period, should certainly be credited with judgment enough to act as an individual." The second seeming objection adverted to above is that it is a man's business to look out for the welfare of his home and of his family. This is undeniable as far as his business of supplying money capital for the home, and of acting as counsellor to his wife are concerned, but it is a contradiction to say that woman's business is home-making and at the same time to deny her the political power that she needs as home-maker. Such a denial, for example, prevents her and her sister managers of homes from voting against candidates who would, through a tariff, increase their expense of home-making, from voting for a bond issue that is necessary to getting cheap, pure water for their families, or for candidates who will put through a building code that will prevent neighbouring landlords from shutting air and light out of their houses. Furthermore, the best home-making can never be accomplished by a woman who stands in the practical relation of subordinate and employee to her husband; the best home-making calls for a woman with a sense of authority and individuality. In these days, when the business of the home is so vitally affected by the politics and the policies of the community and of the nation, the best home-making calls for the citizen woman. Woman needs political power to protect and further her business of home-making, just as man needs and has political power to protect and further his business of moneymaking. Division of labour between the sexes in this age is incomplete without full political equality. World To-Day. 19: 1017-21. September, 1910. Evolution of the Woman Suffrage Movement. Ida H. Harper. The army of women who will eventually demand and obtain the franchise is being rapidly recruited. Partly be cause of the English situation, as has been described, a great awakening is taking place among American women, but there are other equally potent reasons for it. The great organizations of women are becoming permeated with the knowledge that they can never accomplish their various objects without the power of a vote. The Federation of women's clubs, with its million members, is not very far from being a suffrage association. The National council of women and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, each with a membership of hundreds of thousands, stand unequivocally for the franchise. The National Women's Trade Unions League and all its branches demand the ballot, and here woman suffrage will eventually find its strongest support. The teachers' federations in various states, fighting their unequal battle for equal pay, are realizing the terrible handicap of disfranchisement. The question is taking hold upon the colleges and those of thirty states are already organized into a National Suffrage League, its members bringing into the work the freshness and enthusiasm of youth, the independence and assertion of their rights characteristic of modern young women, who will not endure the injustices practiced toward their mothers. In every locality can be seen this new tendency, and it is very largely the development of the last two or three years. There will be no retrogression. This fact may now be accepted without further question: the women of the United States intend to have the suffrage. No power on earth can shake them in this determination. Delineator. 77: 85-6. February, 1911. George Creel and Ben B. Lindsey. Colorado, better, perhaps, than any other state, affords an opportunity for a fair appraisal of equal suffrage's value, of its merits and demerits, its efficiency or its failure! This |