I was asked by a justly indignant subscriber to review Molly Elliot Sewell's amazing performance in the September "Atlantic" called "The Ladies' Battle," and replied at the time that I had not seen the article. Since then I have, and am glad to say a few words on a matter the only importance of which is that The Atlantic Monthly should have committed itself to such a presentation.
There is but one reasonable way to oppose Woman Suffrage today: that is to bring definite proof that it has worked for evil in the states and countries where it has been long in practice. This means not merely to show that evil still exists in these communities, or even that some women take part in it: it must be shown that new or greater evils exist, and that these are proven due to use of the ballot by women. We have yet to wait for such legitimate opposition.
This effort of Miss Sewall's, like all the others, consists almost wholly of prophesies of horror as to the supositious effects of an untried process, and where she does bring definite charges of corrupt behavior in a woman suffrage state, the corruption charged is one common to man suffrage everywhere, and is in no way attributable to the presence of voting women. Her anti-suffrage opinions, quoted from these states, can be overwhelmingly outnumbered by pro-suffrage ones from equally good sources.
She repeatedly alludes to woman suffrage as "a stupendous governmental change," "the overturning of the social order which woman suffrage would work," and other similar alarmist phrases; yet, as a matter of fact, women have voted more than a generation, and are now voting, in various of our states and in foreign countries all over the world without the slightest "governmental change" or "overturning of social order" other than a gradual improvement through legitimate legislation.
The notable essence of this paper lies in two statements, advanced with the utmost solemnity as "basic principles" and "basic reasons," whereas they might both be dismissed by sweeping legal exclusion as "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial."
First, no electorate has ever existed, or ever can exist, which cannot execute its own laws.
Second, no voter has ever claimed, or ever can claim, maintenance from another voter.
To dismiss the second with an airy wave of the hand, us its merely inquire if it is a fact that in our four woman suffrage states married women have no legal claim to support from their husbands? As a matter of fact, they have. Therefore it is apparent that even now in this country, as in many others, one voter has claimed, does claim, and succeeds in getting, maintenance from another voter. Exit the second "basic reason."
The first one looks quite formidable. It calls up in one's mind a peculiar alignment of the sexes in which all the women voters are segregated and opposed to all the men voters and that this all-woman vote is on some matter which concerns all men, and that all men utterly object to doing what all women want them to do, and that all women could not make all men do what they wanted them to do—against their wills. Perhaps they couldn't. Perhaps they could. There are more ways of coercing them than by brute force. But in any case what has this preposterous vagary to do with woman suffrage?
Have the women voters of any state or country ever united as a body against the men voters? Is there any reason to suppose that they ever will? There are some measures, as in dealing with the social evil, wherein women might conceivably vote "solid" against a considerable number of men; but even then there would remain a large proportion of wise and good men on the side of virtue and health—and this proportion is increasing daily. Decisions made by all women on questions of this sort could be efficiently enforced by them.