Another reason for this conclusion is the powerful influences at the command of those of my sex who are opposed to this measure. Multitudes of women are now quiet and silent because they have little fear of danger in this direction. But should a time come when the woman suffrage party seem near achieving their aim, there would be measures instituted the power of which, as yet, is little
known or appreciated. For they too would organize all over the nation and summon to their aid both the pulpit and the press. All the Catholic clergy, to a man, would lend their influence against a measure so contrary to the tenets and spirit of a church that enforces subordination and obedience as prime virtues. Not less decided would be the influence of all the Jewish rabbis.
The Protestant clergy, who have ever been like their Master, the sympathizing friends of woman, would be the last to enforce new and heavy responsibilities on our sex, contrary to the wishes even of a small, intelligent, and conscientious minority.
Not less decided are the great majority of the conductors of the press; and if an emergency calls for it, by the coöperation of such powerful auxiliaries, we could bring such an array of petitions and remonstrances in bulk and respectable names as never before entered congressional halls.
The attempt to force woman suffrage on us by making it a political question would also be met by a counter-influence that would convince every
demagogue that any man or party which forces us to the polls will be ostracized by the votes of every woman who is thus dragged from her appropriate sphere to bear the burdens of the state.
Another and the final reason for believing female suffrage at a distant future is the proposed circuitous and indirect mode of remedying evils which could be relieved by a much more direct and speedy method. As things now are, men have the physical power that can force obedience; in most cases they have the power of the purse, and in all cases, they have the civil power. They can not be forced by the weaker sex to resign this power. It must be sought, then, as the gift of justice and benevolence. If, then, there are laws and customs that we deem unjust and oppressive, the short and common sense mode would be to petition the law-makers to change these laws according to the rules of justice and mercy. Instead of this the plea is, "We can not trust you to make laws; give us the ballot, and we will take better care of ourselves than you have done or will do." Now, any class of men who, after such an implication of their
intelligence and justice, would give the ballot to woman, would most surely be those most ready to redress any wrongs for which the ballot is sought. Why should we not rather take the shorter and surer mode and ask for the thing needed, instead of the circuitous and uncertain mode involved in the ballot? Any man who would grant the ballot would grant all for which the ballot is sought.
As one proof of this, we have the changes which have been made in the laws of New-York State, as reported in a New-York paper. The agitation for women's rights commenced in that State, and now its laws give not only as many but more advantages to women than to men. For in that State, the wife has unlimited control of her own property, independently of her husband, while by law he must support her and her children. What is his is hers, but what is hers is not his. She may be rich and the husband poor, and yet he must pay all her debts. Her creditors can seize his property to pay her debts, but must leave hers untouched. He is obliged by law to support her; but however
rich she may be, she is not obliged to support him. She may turn her husband out of the house she owns, but the law will not sustain the husband in such an act. The husband can not compel his wife to follow him if he changes residence. She may absent herself night and day, and, unless criminality is proved, the law gives no redress. At the same time, divorce is more easily obtained by a woman than a man.