It appears that, out of the whole number examined, rather more than 257 in each 1000 were found unfit for military service.  It is curious to see how generally the physical power among these men is in inverse ratio to the social and political prominence of the class they represent.  Out of 1000 unskilled laborers, for instance, only 348 are physically disqualified; among tanners, only 216; among iron-workers, 189.  On the other hand, among lawyers, 544 out of 1000 are disqualified; among journalists, 740; among clergymen, 954.  Grave divines are horrified at the thought of admitting women to vote, since they cannot fight; though not one in twenty of their own number is fit for military duty, if he volunteered.  Of the editors who denounce woman suffrage, only about one in four could himself carry a musket; while of the lawyers who fill Congress, the majority could not be defenders of their country, but could only be defended.  If we were to distribute political power with reference to the “physical basis” which the “Saturday Review” talks about, it would be a wholly new distribution, and would put things more hopelessly upside down than did the worst phase of the French Commune.  If, then, a political theory so utterly breaks down when applied to men, why should we insist on resuscitating it in order to apply it to women?  The truth is that as civilization advances the world is governed more and more unequivocally by brains; and whether those brains are deposited in a strong body or a weak one becomes a matter of less and less importance.  But it is only in the very first stage of barbarism that mere physical strength makes mastery; and the long head has controlled the long arm since the beginning of recorded time.

And it must be remembered that even these statistics very imperfectly represent the case.  They do not apply to the whole male sex, but actually to the picked portion only, to the men presumed to be of military age, excluding the very old and the very young.  Were these included, the proportion unfit for military duty would of course be far greater.  Moreover, it takes no account of courage or cowardice, patriotism or zeal.  How much all these considerations tell upon the actual proportion may be seen from the fact that in the town where I am writing, for instance, out of some twelve thousand inhabitants and about three thousand voters, there are only some three hundred who actually served in the civil war,—­a number too small to exert a perceptible influence on any local election.  When we see the community yielding up its voting power into the hands of those who have actually done military service, it will be time enough to exclude women for not doing such service.  If the alleged physical basis operates as an exclusion of all non-combatants, it should surely give a monopoly to the actual combatants.

THE VOTES OF NON-COMBATANTS