This is the use of the Declaration of Independence.  Women, as a class, may not be quite ready to use it.  It is the business of this book to help make them ready.  But so far as they are ready these plain provisions are the axioms of their political faith.  If the axioms mean anything for men, they mean something for women.  If men deride the axioms, it is a concession, like that of Rufus Choate, that these fundamental principles are very much in their way.  But so long as the sentences stand in that document they can be made useful.  If men try to get away from the arguments of women by saving, “But suppose we have nothing in our theory of government which requires us to grant your demand?” then women can answer, as the straightforward Traddles answered Uriah Heep, “But you have, you know:  therefore, if you please, we won’t suppose any such thing.”

SOME OLD-FASHIONED PRINCIPLES

There has been an effort, lately, to show that when our fathers said, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” they referred not to personal liberties, but to the freedom of a state from foreign power.  It is fortunate that this criticism has been made, for it has led to a more careful examination of passages; and this has made it clear, beyond dispute, that the Revolutionary patriots carried their statements more into detail than is generally supposed, and affirmed their principles for individuals, not merely for the state as a whole.

In that celebrated pamphlet by James Otis, for instance, published as early as 1764, “The Rights of the Colonies Vindicated,” he thus clearly lays down the rights of the individual as to taxation:—­

“The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen; and, if continued, seems to be, in effect, an entire disfranchisement of every civil right.  For what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man’s property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure, without his consent?  If a man is not his own assessor, in person or by deputy, his liberty is gone, or he is entirely at the mercy of others.” [1]

This fine statement has already done duty for liberty, in another contest; for it was quoted by Mr. Sumner in his speech of March 7, 1866, with this commentary:—­

“Stronger words for universal suffrage could not be employed.  His argument is that if men are taxed without being represented, they are deprived of essential rights; and the continuance of this deprivation despoils them of every civil right, thus making the latter depend upon the right of suffrage, which by a neologism of our day is known as a political right instead of a civil right.  Then, to give point to this argument, the patriot insists that in determining taxation, ’every man must be his own assessor, in person or by deputy,’ without which his