Ladies make excellent teachers in public schools; many of them are every way the equals of their male competitors, and still they secure less wages than males.  The reason is obvious.  The number of ladies who offer themselves as teachers is much larger than the number of males who are willing to teach.  The larger number of females offer to teach because other occupations are not open to them.  The smaller number of males offer to teach because other more profitable occupations are open to most males who are competent to teach.  The result is that the competition for positions of teachers to be filled by ladies is so great as to reduce the price:  but as males can not be employed at that price, and are necessary in certain places in the schools, those seeking their services have to pay a higher rate for them.

Persons having a larger number of places open to them with fewer competitors command higher wages than those who have a smaller number of places open to them with more competitors.  This is the law of society.  It is the law of supply and demand, which can not be changed by legislation.  Then it follows that the ballot can not enable those who have to compete with the larger number to command the same prices as those who compete with the smaller number in the labor market.  As the Legislature has no power to regulate in practice that of which the advocates of woman suffrage complain, the ballot in the hands of females could not aid its regulation.

The ballot can not impart to the female physical strength which she does not possess, nor can it open to her pursuits which she does not have physical ability to engage in; and as long as she lacks the physical strength to compete with men in the different departments of labor, there will be more competition in her department, and she must necessarily receive less wages.

But it is claimed again, that females should have the ballot as a protection against the tyranny of bad husbands.  This is also delusive.  If the husband is brutal, arbitrary, or tyrannical, and tyrannizes over her at home, the ballot in her hands would be no protection against such injustice, but the husband who compelled her to conform to his wishes in other respects would also compel her to use the ballot, if she possessed it, as he might please to dictate.  The ballot would therefore be of no assistance to the wife in such case, nor could it heal family strifes or dissensions.  On the contrary, one of the gravest objections to placing the ballot in the hands of the female sex is that it would promote unhappiness and dissensions in the family circle.  There should be unity and harmony in the family.