xt70rx937t9n_466 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4.dao.xml unknown 13.63 Cubic Feet 34 boxes, 2 folders, 3 items In safe - drawer 3 archival material 46m4 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Laura Clay papers Temperance. Women -- Political activity -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- Kentucky. Women's rights -- United States -- History. Women -- Suffrage -- Kentucky. Women -- Suffrage -- United States. The Remonstrances Against Woman Suffrage text The Remonstrances Against Woman Suffrage 2020 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt70rx937t9n/data/46m4/Box_17/Folder_29/Multipage20151.pdf undated section false xt70rx937t9n_466 xt70rx937t9n  

THE REMONSTRANCE

AGAINST WOMAN SU

EFRAGEV

 

 

 

BOSTON, JULY, 1916

 

 

 

The Remonstrance is published quarterly by the
Women's Anti-Suffrage Association of Massachu-
setts. It expresses the views of women in Massa-
chusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New York,
Nebraska, Iowa, Pennsylvania. Michigan. Con-
necticut. Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont,
New Jersey, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wis-
consin, Ohio, Virginia and other states.

Any one who desires to receive the quarterly
numbers for one year can do so by enclosing 25
cents in stamps to the Treasurer,

MRS. JAMES M. CODMAN,
Walnut St., Brookline.

Information in regard to The Remonstrance
and other publications of the Association may be
obtained from the Secretary, Room 615, Ken-
sington Building, Boston.

Women's Anti-Suffrage Association of
Massachusetts
Qgenjlylldndrgnd forty Branch Committees: 37.467.

‘ menu“ in 43 ’c’ifl'ehf'towfii, and village:
MRS. JOHN BALCH. President
MRS. GEORGE R. AGASSIZ
MRS. ROBERT S. BRADLEY
MISS ANN DAW Vice
Presidents

M
MRS. HENRY M. WHITNEY
MRS. JAMES M. CODMAN. Treasurer
Walnut Street. Brookline.
Executive Committee
Chairman
MRS. LOUIS A. FROTI’IINGIIAM
Education and Organization Committee
Chairman
MRS. EDWIN FORD
Publicity Committee
Chairman
MRS. A. H. PARKER
Membership Committee
Chairman
MISS JULIA C. PRENDERGAST

Public Interest League
President
MRS. B. L. ROBINSON
Recording Secretary
MRS. RANDOLPH FROTHINGHAM
Corresponding Secretary
MRS. STEPHEN S. FITZGERALD

' Net present membershlp of women over 2/ year: of
age; ellmtnattng those names which the Auoctatton has
led from death, mlgnattom. and removal: from the State

 

VICTORY IN IOWA
TIIE anti-suffrage cause won an-

. other splendid victory in Iowa on the

,, 5th “of, June.

The suffragists seemed to have
every advantage in the campaign for
the adoption of the woman suffrage
amendment to the State Constitution.
They were thoroughly organized;
they had unlimited funds; they had
succeeded in securing the support, sin-
cere or otherwise, of two—thirds of
the newspapers in the State; they had
more than 500 speakers stumping the
State. Moreover, they had persuaded
the Legislature to have the vote taken
at the primaries, instead of at the reg-

 

 

ular election in November, thereby
gaining the advantage of a relatively
light vote. All of the suffrage victor-
ies have been won on a light vote
California, Montana, Nevada
Oregon, for example, by majorities of
only 3,587, 3,714, 3,67 and 4,161 re—
spectively; and the suffragists counted

 

and

so confidently on a like result in Iowa
that Mrs. Catt announced, shortly be.—
fore the election, that the anti—suf—
fragists
The vote, as anticipated, was a light
barely three~fifths of that east

had absolutely no chance.

 

one
at the presidential election four years
ago. But the majority against the
proposed
10,341 a majority more. than twice
as-large as that given for suffrage
ixf either of the four States just
mentioned.

The VVoman’s Journal, after its
habit, attributes the suffrage defeat to
“the underground machinery of the
liquor and vice interests, the corrupt
politicians, and ‘Big Business,’ in the
bad sense of the term”; and this in
spite of the fact that Mrs. Catt, the
National Suffrage president, based her
confident predictions upon the entire

suffrage amendment was

 

absence of all these forces, saying:
“There are no great cities to defeat
us with the graft—ridden politicians
and saloon interests.”

The conservative men and women
of Iowa who, contending against
heavy odds, have won this victory, are
to be congratulated,—'not only that
they have averted from their State the
evils that attend “women in politics,”
but that they have helped to check the
suffrage movement in other States. It
will be remembered that Mrs. Catt
herself said, before the Iowa election:
“Iowa is a strategic State. If Iowa
loses, South Dakota will lose. If Iowa
fails, it will be a tremendous blow to
the movement in the United States.”

AGAINST THE FEDERAL
AMENDMENT
Tm: suffrage. plank, adopted by the
National at
Chicago, is in these words:

Republican Convention

“The Republican party, reaffirming
its faith in government of the people,
by the people, and for the people,
favors the extension of suffrage to
women as a measure of justice to one-
half the adult people of this country,
but rccin/nixxcs lllt’ right of each State
to settle fllt’ chA‘iI'on for itself."

This resolution holds out what the
politicians describe as “anolivebranch"
to the suffragists; but it declares plain—
ly against the one thing upon which
the two factions of suffragists are
agreed—the adoption of the Susan ll.
Anthony amendment.

It is the. function of a national party
convention to define the policy of
the party upon national questions. It
does not assume to express itself upon
In declaring that it is
the right of each State to settle the
suffrage question for itself, the Re-
publican National Convention deliber-

state issues.

ately waived responsibility for the
issue.

But, it
course which Republican Senators and
should pursue. If
party platforms count for anything,

incidentally, defined the

Representatives

they must be binding upon the party
From
this time on, any lx’c/mblican lx’o/irc-
mutation or Senator who votes for a
Federal Suffrage Amendment will do
so in flat contradiction of the platform
of his party.

representatives in Congress.

 

AN “ALLEGED WOMAN SUFFRAGE
PLANK”

T111; Rlth)NS'l‘R/\N(‘E cannot be ac—
cused of minimizing, for its own pur-
poses, the meaning of the suffrage
plank in the national Democratic plat—

 

 

  

2

THE RE/VONSTRANCE.

 

form, if it uses the phrase which the
president of the National American
Woman Suffrage Association applied
to it. Immediately after the conven—
tion, Mrs. Catt sent out the following
official statement:

“No suffragist who was present at
the convention today could misinter-
pret either the speeches or the action
taken by the Democratic party in
adopting the alleged woman suffrage
plank in the national platform.

“The Democrats admitted freely in
their speeches that ‘political exigeney’
demanded ‘some kind of a suffrage
plank,’ and they thought to hood-
wink the women by a jumble of words
that were designed to meet the situa—
tion, but in no sense succeeded.”

The plank, thus angrily described
as “a jumble of words,” was as fol—
lows: “We favor the extension of the
franchise to the women of this coun-
try, state by state, on the same terms
as to the men.”

This plank is substantially the same
as that adopted by the National Re—
publican Convention at Chicago. Like
that, while it extends an olive branch
to the suffragists, it declares against
the plan, upon which the two suffrage
factions are united, of getting suffrage
through a Federal Amendment. Miss
Ann Martin, chairman of the so—ealled
VVoman’s Party, said, after the Demo—
cratic convention was over:

“We shall return to Washington as
quickly as possible. \Ve are going to
give the Democratic Congress one
more chance to make good before ad-
journment. If it does not see fit to

pass a constitutional amendment, war
will follow.”

Later in the campaign, the suffra—
gists may be found exulting over a
“victory” at St. Louis. In that case,
it will be profitable to remember the
frank appraisals of the Democratic
plank by the leaders of the two suf-
frage factions.

 

WHAT PLATFORMS MEAN

EXPERIENCED politicians do not at—
tach overmuch importance to party
platforms. They know that they are

often framed from considerations of
immediate expediency, and are not
held as binding upon future party
action. For example, the National
Democratic Convention at Baltimore
in July, 1912, made the following
declaration :

“\Ve favor a single Presidential
term, and to that end urge the adop-
tion of an amendment to the Constitu—
tion making the President of the
United States ineligible for re-elec—
tion, and we pledge the candidate of
this convention to this principle.”

This plank went further than most
platform declarations in definitely
pledging the candidate, in advance of
his acceptance of the nomination. Yet
neither President Wilson nor the
Democratic convention saw any in—
consistenCy in his re—nomination at
St. Louis. This suggests how widely
party action may depart from party
platforms.

 

._e_.__

SUFFRAGE AND THE BABIES

Tm; \Voman’s Journal has discov—
ered a new reason for exulting over
the beneficent results of woman suf—
frage.

In its issue for June IO, it printed
an article with these headlines: “Suf-
frage Saving Lives of Babies—Since
Kansas Became Free, Infant Mortal—
ity I‘Ias Dropped 36 Per Cent.” Un-
der these headlines was the following
statement :

“Since Kansas became a suffrage
state, infant mortality in Topeka has
been reduced over 36 per cent. Pre-
vious to the adoption of woman suf—
frage, infant mortality had been a
serious problem in Topeka. Owing to
bad sanitary ‘conditions in certain
parts of the city, babies had perished
in great numbers during summer
months. The first summer following,
the Public Nursing Association was
created and infant mortality was re-
duced appreciably.”

It appears from this that the
reduced rate of infant mortality has
not taken place throughout the State,
but only in the city of Topeka; and

 

that it is due there, not to suffrage

 

nor to any political causes, but to a
non—political pure—milk campaign, like
those waged so successfully in New
York and other cities.

The work of the Public Nursing
Association in Topeka, which has had
such good results in saving baby lives,
has been carried on for only two or
three years. But what about the bad
sanitary conditions, to which The
\Voman’s Journal alludes? Who was
responsible for them? Does The
Journal forget, or does it hope that
its readers may have forgotten, that
women had had the municipal vote in
Topeka for more than twenty-five
years before the Public Nursing Asso—
ciation was formed to relieve the bad
sanitary conditions which the women
voters had suffered to be continued,
year after year?

That The Journal should try to
make this quarter of a century of neg-
lect by the women voters of Topeka,
relieved at last by private philan-
thropy, an argument for woman suf-
frage, suggests a curious perversity of
reasoning.

 

TEMPERANCE AND SUFFRAGE

AT the city and town elections in
Illinois in April, according to des-
patches in the New York Evening
Post (suffragist), the results were
about equally balanced, “dry” lgains
in certain places being offset by “wet”
gains in others. Taking the State as
a whole, “votes for women” appear
to have had no appreciable influence
upon the result. '

But at the April elections in South
Dakota, according to the same au-
thority, the cause of local prohibi—
tion gained heavily. No less than
fourteen cities and towns transferred
themselves from the “wet” to the
“dry” column, and not a single “dry”
city or town was won by the “wets.”

In view of these facts, it will be
pretty hard to convince South Da-
kota voters next November that they
will promote the cause of temperance
by giving the ballot to women.

 

 

._. _...‘ -.§ ._. Vi.

 

 _.__ ....Lv .-

. § _._‘__.__:.:'_‘...;.;.‘:1___‘ .

__ h..-..._... _;._'T___. .fi- _._;_..‘_;z...~._.__. fa _...-a__'_;._..a_.__._~“_‘:_-. mufi,

 

THE REA/ONSTRANCE.

3

 

THE ANNUAL MEETING

THE Annuals Meeting of the
\Vomen’s Anti—Suffrage Association
of Massachusetts was held at the
Hotel Brunswick, Boston, April 27.

The meeting was called to order
by the president, Mrs. John Balch.
Mrs. James M. Codman, treasurer,
read her report for the year. Mrs.
William Lowell Putnam, chairman of
the Education and Organization
Committee, reported 137 Branch
Committees in the State, and a net
membership of 36,880. Seven hun-
dred and ninety-two meetings were
held during the year, in addition to
automobile tours by speakers and
small meetings held by branches.
Unprecedented requests for literature
had been received from all parts of
the country, and an enormous
amount of material had been sent out
for debates, and to libraries and col-
leges. Mrs. Thomas Allen, as or-
ganizing chairman of the College
Anti—Suffrage League of Massachu-
setts, spoke of the plans of the
League, and asked the co-operation of
all college women. A vote of thanks
was then given the President for her
splendid work in leading the Asso-
ciation to victory last autumn.

In the absence of Mrs. B. L. Rob—
inson, its president, who was in Iowa,
the report of the Public Interests
League was read by the secretary,
Mrs. Gulick. Over $500 was raised
by the League for the Red Cross
Sewing .Headquarters at 685 Boyl—
ston Street; $100 was sent to Mrs.
Humphrey Ward in response to her
appeal for school centres in England,
the money being raised by lectures
given by Mademe Dupriez, under
the auspices of the League. A Food
Booth was held at the Polish Bazaar
for three days, netting over $1,000.
Much work has been done for the
new Immigrant Station at Boston,
and money is now being raised for
the care of French orphans during
the war. Six dollars a month pro—
vides for a child; and already a num—
ber of branches have undertaken the
support of one or more orphans.

 

Plans are now being formed for
work among the foreign populations
to educate them in the duties of good
citizenship.

Mrs. A. H. Parker, Mrs. Ford and
Mrs. Balch reported upon the anti-
suffrage work in Iowa, and Mrs.
Balch spoke of the campaign and vic—
tory in Massachusetts, and paid a
tribute to the memory of Miss Eliza—
beth H. Houghton, whose death de—
prived the Association of a valued
friend and helper.

The following officers and the ex—
ecutive board were re—elected:

President, Mrs. John Balch; vice—
presidents, Mrs. George R. Agassiz,
Mrs. Robert S. Bradley, Miss Anna
L. Dawes, Mrs. Charles E. Guild,
Mrs. Francis C. Lowell, Mrs. Robert
S. Russell, Mrs. Henry M. \Vhitney;
treasurer, Mrs. James M. Codman.

THE CONGRESSIONAL UNION

CRUSADE

THE SUFFRAGIST, the organ of the
Congressional Union, professes to be—
lieve that “by putting suffrage first
and party affiliations second, women
can make the suffrage issue a deciding
factor in the next presidential cam-
paign.” “Even a small group of
women,” it says, “determined to stand
out for the long-delayed enfranchise—
ment of their sex throughout the na—
tion, can form the balance of power
and can demand and secure the im—
mediate passage through Congress of
the Susan B. Anthony amendment.”

In support of this statement, The
Suffragist proceeds to indulge in
mathematical calculations. Seven per
cent, this, ten per cent. that, twelve
per cent. the other, and so on, and
the thing is done.

What The Suffragist seems to for-
get, or at least thinks best should be
forgotten, is that the organization
which it represents tried this very
experiment only two years ago, and
the results were not at all what had
been mathematically figured out.

The Congressional Union, in 1914,
declared its intention of defeating
Democratic candidates for Congress

 

from the suffrage states, simply be—
cause they were Democrats and as a
rebuke and chastening to the Demo—
cratic party. Miss Alice Paul, the
leader of the Union, announced:

“\Ve are going to make it plain
that it is political suicide for any
party to ignore ‘our demands or op—
pose our cause. \Ve think we will
make such a conclusive showing in
the nine suffrage states that no party
after that will oppose us.”

So, with a wild beating of drums,
the Congressional Union orators and
organizers traversed the nine sutTrage
states, campaigning against all Dem—
ocratic candidates for the Senate and
House, regardless of their individual
attitude on suffrage. And what was
the “conclusive showing” of this cam—
paign? In these nine states there
were three Democratic Senators who
were candidates for re—eleetion, and
there were thirteen seats in the
House filled by Democrats. The
three Senators were all re-elected;
and thirteen Democrats were elected
to the House. While in the country
at large the Democratic party lost
heavily—its majority in the House
being reduced from I47 to 22-—-»—»it
held its own in the nine states in
which the Congressional Union had
announced its intention to “disci-
pline” it.

In view of these facts, the present
crusade of the Congressional Union
will be regarded with composure by
those against whom it is aimed.

——.—.o.—>—_

ANTI—SUFFRAGISTS will be glad to
learn that Mrs. Thomas Allen, a
prominent Anti—Suffrage leader, is in
charge of the organization of The.
College ' Anti—Suffrage League of
Massachusetts. Already much en-
thusiasm has been awakened in this
most important work. Mrs. Allen
requests the hearty and active co-
operation of all Anti—Suffragists who
are college graduates and of those
who have attended college, if only
for a year or two, and asks that
names and addresses be sent to her at
12 Connnonwealth Avenue, Boston.

,1

  

4

THE REMONSTRANCE.

 

ANOTHER BLOW AT SUFFRAGE

Tm: Supreme Court of Illinois has
dealt another blow at the suffrage law
in that State.

Mention was made in the April RE-
MONSTRANCE of the unanimous deci-
sion of the Supreme Court that
women had no right to vote for pre-
cinct, ward and state committeemen,
or for delegates to national conven-
tions. This decision was disappoint-
ing to the suffragists, but it did not
involve any vital point in the law. The
ruling of the Court turned upon the
fact that delegates to national con-
ventions are not nominated, but
elected, at the primaries, and that
there was nothing in the Act in ques—
tion which gave women the right to
vote in such an election.

The decision of the Court in the
latest case is of much greater impor-
tance. The case came before the
Court from the city of Macomb,
where city judge Franklin was a
candidate for re—clection, and was op—
posed by a woman candidate, Miss
Josie Westfall. Counting the votes
of men and women, Miss Westfall
had a plurality of about 300; but,
counting only the votes of men,
Franklin received 430 votes and Miss
\Vestfall 409. The decision of the
Supreme Court was that only the
men’s votes should have been counted,
and that Franklin therefore was
elected by a plurality of 2I. The de—
cision turned-upon the point that all
courts are either directly or indirectly
created by the judicial article of the
Constitution, and that it is therefore
beyond the power of the Legislature
to grant women the right to vote for
them. This decision applies to the
municipal court of Chicago as well as
to the courts of down-state cities.

A peculiar significance attaches to
this decision because of the way in
which the judges “lined up” upon it.
It will be remembered that the orig-
inal decision of the Court, sustain—
ing the constitutionality of the Act,
was given by a vote of four to three.
The fourth judge, whose vote decided

 

the case for the suffragists, had been
elected after a heated campaign, in
which the suffragists took an active
part, for the undisguised purpose of
defeating the sitting judge, who was
a candidate for re—election, because
he was suspected of anti-suffrage
leanings. In the original decision,
Justices Carter, Cartwright, Dunn
and Vickers voted to sustain the con-
stitutionality of the Act; Justices
Cooke, Craig and Farmer voted
against doing so.

The latest decision is also by a
vote of four to three. Justice Vickers
died in office, and was succeeded by
Justice \Varren W. Duncan. The
other six justices divided exactly as
in the original decision of June, 1914.
It was Justice Duncan who gave the
deciding vote against the suffragist
contention.

This decision and the vote by
which it was given suggest the pos—
sibility—not to say probability—that
the entire Act may be pronounced
unconstitutional, if the issue is
brought before the Court. It is well
known that other contests are on
their way to the Court, some of which
may involve the entire Act. That the
suffragists are apprehensive of what
may happen in such a case is clear
from the admission of Helen Stewart,
2nd vice-president of the Illinois
Equal Suffrage Association, who,
writing in the Woman’s Journal of
February 26 concerning the decision
regarding delegates to national con-
ventions, said, as quoted in the April
REMONSTRANCE, “We did not feel it
at all wise to allow the matter of our
whole bill to be brought up before the
Supreme Court, even for the sake of
voting for the important offices that
were in question at this time.” Mrs.
Stewart will feel this strategy abun-
dantly justified, in view of the latest
decision; ‘but it will not be at the
option of the suifragists, in later
cases, to determine what they will
or will not “allow” to come before
the Court. Sooner or later—and the
sooner the better—the entire Act
must be passed upon.

 

DO WOMEN WANT THE VOTE?

THIs is the simple question put by
State Senator William M. Bray of
Wisconsin in the leading article in
the Atlantic Monthly for April.

It was a practical question for him.
He was a member of the Legislature
upon which Wisconsin suffragists
were bringing every possible pressure
to bear 'for the resubmission of the
suffrage amendment which had been
heavily defeated at the polls only two
years before. It was his belief that
if a majority of the women wanted
the ballot they should have it; but
did a majority want it? Practically
all women who said anything to him
about suffrage wanted to vote, and
told him so in no uncertain terms.
But did they represent their sex? He
found very few suffrage advocates
who were interested in this question.
They generally argued that suffragists
should be given the ballot even if
most women were opposed to it. And
when he asked of them such ques—
tions as, “Don’t you think women
who are opposed to suffrage have
‘rights’ 3”, or “Are you fair in trying
to force duties and responsibilities
upon all women, without regard to
whether or not they want them, in
order to secure ‘rights’ for suffra-
gistSP”, or “If women are well
enough informed to exercise the
right of suffrage, are they not suf—
ficiently intelligent to decide whether
they want suffrage?” he got little
satisfaction.

To relieve his perplexity, he ar-
ranged for a canvass of the women in
his district. He could not afford to
poll the whole district, but he can—
vassed half of it, .selecting the most
representative precincts, and sending

out through impartial canvassers,
printed ballots upon which the
women approached could register

their views, without discussion and
without publicity. Less than two per
cent. of the women refused to indi—
cate where they stood. Altogether,
nearly eight thousand votes were
polled; and .the results indicated that

,\=¢-l ..

 

 THE REMONSTRANCE.

 

fully two—thirds of all the women in
his district were opposed to suffrage.
In his own ward, where most of the
women were wives of workingmen,
they voted against suffrage, four to
one. Another workingmen’s ward
voted in the same ratio; two others
voted three to one. In a ward where
the residents represented all classes,
two—thirds of the vote was No. In
the largest ward in the city, eight
hundred workingmen’s wives marked
the ballots, and seven out of eight had
not wanted women to vote.

When he came to poll the women
whom his canvassers had not found
at home—the working women in fac—
tories, stores, schools and other
places—he found that most teachers,
older scholars, librarians, nurses and
dressmakers voted “Yes,” while a
large majority of bookkeepers, sten-
ographers, clerks, factory girls and
hotel employees voted “No.” The
rural districts proved to be almost as
strongly opposed to suffrage as the
cities; and not a single ward, city or
village in the district returned a ma—
jority for suffrage.

THE REMONSTRANCE confidently
predicts that any hesitating legislator
or congressman in Massachusetts or
elsewhere, who will make a like can—
vass of the women in his district, will
obtain similar results. All that anti—
suffragists ask of men in any State
upon whom the responsibility rests of
deciding the question of woman suf-
frage is that they shall ask the
women what they want and vote
accordingly.

“THE WAYS OF WOMAN”

MISS IDA M. TARBELL’s latest book,
“The Ways of Woman,” published by
the Macmillan Co., supplements her
previous work on “The Business of
Being a Woman.” Written in her
usual terse, vigorous and practical
style, it defends the old ideals, while
it recognizes sympathetically the new
problems which confront women
today.

Miss Tarbell makes short work of

 

 

some of the delusions and misappre-
hensions which underlie the suffrage
agitation. She shows from census
statistics that the number of women in
industry has been greatly exagger—
ated; that their average term of em-
ployment is short; that, so far from
its being true that marriage is going
out of fashion, women are marrying
more freely than they did twenty or
thirty years ago; and that “there is
no other human relation that can show
anything like so large a statistical
proof of success” as marriage. These
assertions, it will be noticed, run coun-
ter to many of the suffrage arguments,
but Miss Tarbell sustains them by
authoritative statistics.

In the chapter entitled “That’s Her
Business,” Miss Tarbell sets forth the
broadening and developing influence
of woman’s home responsibilities with
an effectiveness that recalls Chester—
ton’s famous presentation of the same
thought. Of the training that (level—
ops ability to meet emergencies she
Says: “There is no human experience
which offers greater opportunities for
it than that of women in their family
relations. . . . Whatever the experi—

' ments they make, they will never find

a substitute for their ancient school.”

A

WORKING UNDER COVER

“There are so many ‘antis’ now
that, whatever we do, we must do in
a very underhand way.” This is the
sentiment which a leading Massachu-
setts suffragist was recently heard ex—
pressing, as she eame out from a
Symphony Concert.

It fits in pretty well with Mrs. Car—
rie Chapman Catt’s injunction, at
the Annual Convention of the Na-
tional Woman Suffrage Association,
which, with approving editorial com-
ment, is quoted below from The
Woman’s Journal:

“Mrs. Catt also advised the women
to keep their plans to themselves, and
not let them come to the knowledge
of the enemy. ‘Suffragists are often

very leaky,’ she said. ‘They will
actually talk as they go down in the

 

elevator about the plan of campaign
that has been adopted at their
meeting.’

“The. editor of the Journal would
remind the suffragists of all the
states that the opponents of suffrage
read this paper with a lynx eye, in
order to find out what is going on in
the way of suffrage work, and to
counteract it, if possible. Do not
send us for publication any news that
you are not perfectly willing to have
the enemy know.”

It is plain, therefore, that the
president of the National Woman
Suffrage Association and the editor
of its organ are agreed in favor
of carrying on suffrage activities

secretly. There will be as little open,

work as possible, if they have their.
way, and presumably they will. They
will work underground, and behind
cover, in the hope of repeating their
success in Illinois in getting through
the Legislature, by a secret lobby, a
measure which would have been re-
jected by the voters by a two to one
majority, if it had been submitted at
the polls.

Forewarned is forearmed. The
definite announcement of this policy
of secrecy should put anti—suffragists
everywhere on their guard against
suffrage attempts to get by stealth
what they know they cannot get in the
open.

_ ,,__.+._._-_

T1115 latest suffrage argument—~see
the editorial page of The VVoman’s
Journal of May I3——is that female
dogs have shown themselves better
message carriers than male dogs on

the French battlefields. At least, they” ,_,_ y,

Paris correspondent of the Pall Mall
Gazette so reports. \thereupon, The
Woman’s Journal remarks joyously:
“Somehow, the mental and moral in—
feriority of the female does not show
itself conspicuously among the lower
animals.” Has Miss Blackwell,
whose initials are appended to this
argument, no sense of humor?

-_,__. _ 4.. _

 

Pamphlets and Leaflets may be ob-
tained from the Secretary of the Associa-
tion, KENSINGTON BUILDING, Room
615, 687 Boylston Street.

Selected Packages, 25c.

 

  

THE REMO/VSTRANCE.

 

FEMINIST FALLACIES

Tm: most searching arraignment
yet made of the suffragist—feminist
movement is to be found in the vol—
ume entitled “Feminism: Its Fal—
lacies and Follies,” written by Mr.
and Mrs. John Martin and published
by Dodd, Mead & Co. ($1.50 net.)

The first half of the book presents
the subject from the man’s point of
view, the second from the woman’s;
and both go to prove the logical con—
nection between woman suffrage and
the more radical industrial and sex
feminism. Mr. Martin begins with
a suggestive chapter on “Feminism
versus Humanism,” indicating a con—
trast of essential principles, which he
illustrates by concrete examples in
'the following chapters on “The Indus—
trial Subjugation of Woman” and
“The Humanist Industrial Pro-
gramme for Women.” I-Ie exposes
with special clearness the fallacy of
“Equal Pay for Men and Women,"
touches on “Feminism and Free
Love,” and gives some startling
statistics in the chapters on “The
Woman’s Movement and the Baby
Crop,” and “The Fading of the
Maternal Instinct.” The motto of
Humanism he expresses aptly in
“Homes for \Vomen”
as against the suffrage cry of
“Votes for \Vomen”; and he indi—
cates his own ideals briefly in the
chapters, “llumanist Education for
\Vomcn,” “W'oman’s Work in the
Autumn of Life,” and “\Voman’s
Deepest Wrongs and the Humanist
Remedy.” They include, for colleges,
courses differentiated from men’s,
with year-books recording .in a place
of honor the children born to women
graduates, reunions for mother—grad-
uates, the substitution of mature
matrons for spinsters among the fac—
ulty, as well as the teaching of domes—‘
tic science in the broadest sense of
the term. In legislation, his ideal
calls for “communal changes, vast
and varied, to ensure that every
mother in the home shall ‘be free
from anxiety,” including compulsory
rest from industrial employment,

the phrase

 

consulting dispensaries, provision of
pure milk, maternity insurance, and
the raising of wages for fathers.
Mr. Martin’s style is direct and
pungent; his temper is tolerant; his
opinions combine the conservative
and progressive; and chapters
are full of information.

Mrs. Martin’s presentation of the
subject, from the woman’s-point of
view, deals more in epigram. She
writes piquantly out of her own ob—
servation of the effect on family life
of the woman’s college, the profes—
sional career for women, the apart—
ment house, hotel life, etc. She at—
tacks slashingly the utterances of W.
L. George, Mrs. Charlotte Perkins
Gilman, and other writers of the suf—
fragist—feminist school, and devotes
an interesting. chapter to a dispas—
sionate analysis of Ellen Key. In
another chapter she exposes the fam-
iliar fallacy of the feminists that
woman has now “nothing to do in the
home.”

The book is an arsenal of facts and
arguments. Not the least valuable
feature of it is found in the direct
quotations from suffragist—feminist
writers, showing that they aim
at a day when no wives will be sup-
ported by husbands, when divorce
will be easy and when the home will
be swept away and the family
destroyed.

his

.Ei‘. -__._._._._..__.__

IN NEW YORK

T1113 suffragists are exultant be—
cause they succeeded in inducing the
New York Legislature to approve the

\Vhitney—Brereton resolution, pro—
viding for the resubmission of
the suffrage amendment. THE RE-

MONSTRANCE ventures to predict that
they will be a good deal less exultant
when the votes are counted in No-
vember, 1917—provided that next
year’s Legislature votes to