in the proceedings, the resolutions shall not be placed there.  And as to the point that this question does not belong to this platform—­from that I totally dissent.  Marriage has ever been a one-sided matter, resting most unequally upon the sexes.  By it man gains all; woman loses all; tyrant law and lust reign supreme with him; meek submission and ready obedience alone befit her.  Woman has never been consulted; her wish has never been taken into consideration as regards the terms of the marriage compact.  By law, public sentiment, and religion,—­from the time of Moses down to the present day,—­woman has never been thought of other than as a piece of property, to be disposed of at the will and pleasure of man.  And at this very hour, by our statute books, by our (so-called) enlightened Christian civilization, she has no voice whatever in saying what shall be the basis of the relation.  She must accept marriage as man proffers it, or not at all.

“And then, again, on Mr. Phillips’ own ground, the discussion is perfectly in order, since nearly all the wrongs of which we complain grow out of the inequality of the marriage laws, that rob the wife of the right to herself and her children; that make her the slave of the man she marries.  I hope, therefore, the resolutions will be allowed to go out to the public; that there may be a fair report of the ideas which have actually been presented here; that they may not be left to the mercy of the secular press, I trust the convention will not vote to forbid the publication of those resolutions with the proceedings.”

Rev. William Hoisington (the blind preacher) followed Miss Anthony, and said:  “Publish all that you have done here, and let the public know it.”

The question was then put, on the motion of Mr. Phillips, and it was lost.

As Mr. Greeley, in commenting on the convention, took the same ground with Mr. Phillips, that the laws on marriage and divorce were equal for man and woman, I answered them in the following letter to the New York Tribune.

     “To the Editor of the New York Tribune: 

“Sir:  At our recent National Woman’s Rights Convention many were surprised to hear Wendell Phillips object to the question of marriage and divorce as irrelevant to our platform.  He said:  ’We had no right to discuss here any laws or customs but those where inequality existed for the sexes; that the laws on marriage and divorce rested equally on man and woman; that he suffers, as much as she possibly could, the wrongs and abuses of an ill-assorted marriage.’

“Now it must strike every careful thinker that an immense difference rests in the fact that man has made the laws cunningly and selfishly for his own purpose.  From Coke down to Kent, who can cite one clause of the marriage contract where woman has the advantage?  When man suffers from false legislation he has his remedy in his own hands.  Shall woman be denied