It is astonishing with what vehemence men will base arguments on pure theory and speculation, while they wilfully close their eyes to any facts which may contradict their assumptions.  It is inconceivable to a certain type of mind that a husband and wife can differ on political questions and may yet maintain an even harmony, while their love abates not one whit.  In the four States where women vote—­Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho—­there is no more divorce than in other States; and any one who has travelled in these communities can attest that no domestic unhappiness results from the suffrage.  Nor does it in New Zealand.

It is said that there must be some one supreme authority; but this depends on the view taken of marriage.  Under the old Common Law, the personality of the wife was merged completely in that of her husband; marriage was an absolute despotism.  Under the Canon Law, woman is man’s obedient and unquestioning subject; marriage is a benevolent despotism.  To-day people are more inclined to look upon matrimony as a partnership of equal duties, rights, and privileges.

Sophocles argued in one of his tragedies that children belong entirely to the father, that the mother can assert no valid claim for anything.  Lawyers have found this logic excellent; and the records are full of instances of children being taken from a hard-working mother in order to be handed over to a drunken father who wants their wages for his support.  It is no longer so in most states.  Civilisation has advanced so far, that the pains of bringing forth and raising children are acknowledged to give the mother a right almost equal to that of the father to determine all that concerns the child.  There is some reason, therefore, for believing that she should have a voice also in passing upon laws which may make or undo for ever the welfare of the boys and girls for whom she struggles during the years that they are growing to manhood and womanhood.  Men are for the greater part so engrossed in business that on certain questions they are far less competent to be “authorities” than women.  Against stupid pedagogy, against red-tape, against the policy that morality must never interfere with business principles, against civic dirtiness, against brothel and saloon, women are more active than men, because they see more clearly how vitally the interests of their children are affected by these evil conditions.  Wherever women vote, these questions are to the fore.

Closely connected with the “one authority” argument is the old contention, so often resorted to and relied upon, that women, if they are permitted to vote, will neglect the home, and that, if the professions are opened to them, they will find these too absorbingly attractive.  Much weight should, however, be given to the great power of the domestic instinct implanted in the nature of woman.  In the States where women vote and are eligible for political offices, there are fewer unmarried women in proportion to the population than in States where they have no such rights.  The great leaders of the woman suffrage movement from Mrs. Stanton to Mrs. Snowden have in their home circle led lives as beautiful and have raised families as large and as well equipped morally and intellectually as those who are content to sit by the fire and spin.