When we consider all that he underwent, all that he sacrificed in order to save the government in a moment of extreme exigency, there is something infinitely pathetic in reflecting on his feelings, as day after day, week after week, month after month passed by—as he spared no exertions, no personal sacrifice, to perform the duties that were placed upon him—as he lengthened out the siege by inconceivable prodigies of ingenuity, of activity, of resource—and as, in spite of it all, in spite of the deep devotion to his country, which had prompted him to this great risk and undertaking, the conviction gradually grew upon him that his country had abandoned him.
It is terrible to think what he must have suffered when at last, as a desperate measure to save those he loved, he parted with the only two Englishmen with whom during those long months he had any converse, and sent Stewart and Power down the river to escape from the fate which had become inevitable to himself. It is very painful to think of the reproaches to his country and to his country's government that must have passed through the mind of that devoted man during those months of unmerited desertion. In Gordon's letter of the fourteenth of December he said: "All is up. I expect the catastrophe in ten days' time; it would not have been so if our people had kept me better informed as to their intentions."
They had no intentions to inform him of. They were merely acting from hand to mouth to avert the parliamentary censure with which they were threatened. They had no plan, they had no intentions to carry out. If they could have known their intentions, a great hero would have been saved to the British army, a great disgrace would not have fallen on the English government. [Footnote: On the Desertion of Gordon in Egypt, Lord Salisbury, The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol. V, p. 111.]
2. For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people is to pass a bill of attainder, or an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of every household—which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord and rebellion into every home of the nation.
Webster, Worcester and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no State has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several States is to-day null and void. [Footnote: On Woman's Right to the Suffrage, Susan B. Anthony. The World's Famous Orations. Funk & Wagnalls, Vol. X, p. 59.]
3. The "Legal Intelligencer" prints the full text of the recent decision of Judge Sulzberger in the case of Claus & Basher vs. the Rapid Transit Company, which deals with a phase of the question concerning the use of the streets in obstructing public travel. The Judge, in denying the plaintiffs a rule for a new trial, put the matter under review into his customary concise logic, as follows:
The plaintiff contends that the direction for defendant was erroneous, because the jury should have been given the opportunity to pass upon the question whether he was or was not negligent in placing his wagon in such a position that it encroached three or four feet upon the transit company's track, without which encroachment the accident could not have happened.
His reasons are as follows:
1. That a driver, for the purpose of watering his horses, has the right to encroach on the trolley track.