Although not directly connected with the argument as to the right secured to women by the Constitution, I deem it not improper to allude briefly to some of the popular objections against the propriety of allowing females the privilege of voting.  I do this because I know from past experience that these popular objections, having no logical bearing upon the subject, are yet, practically, among the most potent arguments against the interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, which I consider the only one that its language fairly admits of.

It is said that women do not desire to vote.  Certainly many women do not, but that furnishes no reason for denying the right to those who do desire to vote.  Many men decline to vote.  Is that a reason for denying the right to those who would vote?

I believe, however, that the public mind is greatly in error in regard to the proportion of female citizens who would vote if their right to do so were recognized.  In England there has been to some extent a test of that question, with the following result, as given in the newspapers, the correctness of which, in this respect, I think there is no reason to doubt: 

“Woman suffrage is, to a certain extent, established in England, with the result as detailed in the London Examiner, that in 66 municipal elections, out of every 1,000 women who enjoy equal rights with men on the register, 516 went to the poll, which is but 48 less than the proportionate number of men.  And out of 27,949 women registered, where a contest occurred, 14,416 voted.  Of men there were 166,781 on the register, and 90,080 at the poll.  The Examiner thereupon draws this conclusion:  ’Making allowance for the reluctance of old spinsters to change their habits, and the more frequent illness of the sex, it is manifest that women, if they had opportunity, would exercise the franchise as freely as men.  There is an end, therefore, of the argument that women would not vote if they had the power.’”

Our law books furnish, perhaps, more satisfactory evidence of the earnestness with which women in England are claiming the right to vote, under the reform act of 1867, aided by Lord Brougham’s act of 1850.

The case of Chorlton, appellant, vs.  Lings, respondent, came before the Court of Common Pleas in England in 1869.  It was an appeal from the decision of the revising barrister, for the borough of Manchester, to the effect “that Mary Abbott, being a woman, was not entitled to be placed on the register.”  Her right was perfect in all respects excepting that of sex.  The court, after a very full and able discussion of the subject, sustained the decision of the revising barrister, denying to women the right to be placed on the register, and consequently denying their right to vote.  The decision rested upon the peculiar phraseology of several Acts of Parliament, and the point decided has no applicability here.  My object in referring to the case has been to call attention to the fact stated by the reporter, that appeals of 5,436 other women were consolidated and decided with this.  No better evidence could be furnished of the extent and earnestness of the claim of women in England to exercise the elective franchise.—­Law Rep.  Com.  Pleas, 4-374.