Madam President, Members of Equal Suffrage Association, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am glad to be home, even for a day, and am especially glad to be with you here tonight. Thought not in a position to put forth the claim of being a much-travelled man, yet I have seen some little of some other portions of this great country, and I can truthfully say that nowhere else has the shun shone so brightly, the birds sung so sweetly, or the spirit of friendship so permeated the atmosphere, and altogether made life so much worth while to me, as right here in this splendid little city of Parkersburg. Our people have spirit in a proper cause, and sometimes the smoke of battle has obscured the sun, and the outside spectator might believe that we were destined to eternal strife and disunion, but the clouds have rolled away, and we emerge from the conflict stronger and better than before. And so it is, I believe, that today we have advanced further along in the march of progress than ever before, and that in future years the name of Parkersburg will more and more typify the importance and the dignity of the ideal American city.

Let not the men of the City of Parkersburg arrogate to themselves the sole credit of this achievement. As much as I dislike to admit it, there are some things men cannot do. From the time of my boyhood until this present date I have noted the large part of the women of this city have taken in its development. In village improvement societies, in women's clubs, in hospital associations, in equal suffrage associations, and in other splendid organizations of women, their benign influence has produced its beneficial results.

I did not have to come here tonight. I have been told by some politicians that it is a dangerous thing to do. But in these modern days, my friends, where a principle is involved, and not merely a person, the people want to see a man in public life stand up and be counted for or against that principle. I am willing to be counted, no matter what the effect may be. If question under consideration here tonight were merely one of expediency, or a possible question of the future, then I would not feel called upon to take my stand, but I hope to convince you that it is above all a present question of principle--a question of right or wrong, and therefore a matter which no public man should evade. It is true, it is not in all our platforms, and, following the precedent of a very high authority, I could therefore refuse to take sides. But believe me, my friends, while it is not in all our platforms now, the day is not far distant when the great force of public opinion will put it in our platforms, and I might just as well let you know now, as then, on which side I wish to be counted. My friends, I want to be counted on the side of Abraham Lincoln, the great and immortal leader of the Republican party, who first gave it honor and distinction, and whose name has been cherished by it, and will be cherished by the people of the whole country until time shall be no more. In his announcement of his candidacy for the Illinois legislature in 1836, Lincoln said, "I go for all sharing the privileges of Government, who assist in bearing its burdens." The women of this country, in time of war, as well as in the trying times of peace, have given in the world conclusive proof that with patience, cheerfulness and heroism they have borne their country's burdens.

The transition of women from a condition of servitude to that of approximate equality furnishes an interesting chapter in the history of the world. Her present day struggle for equal rights of suffrage is only a repetition of many other combats to obtain rights of vital importance. And even after she secured the primal rights of a human being, she was forced to fight for the privilege of an education, and the arguments advanced against her education then resemble to a marked degree the arguments now against her franchise. It was not indeed until the Nineteenth Century that it became generally recognized that the education of woman was desirable. The idea of the duty of woman is embodied in this statement of Rousseau. "For this reason the education of women should always be relative to men To please, to be useful to us, to make us love and esteem them, to make them educate us when young and take care of us when grown up; to advise, to console us, to render our lives easy and agreeable. These are the duties of women at all times, and what they should be taught in their infancy." We men will accept this definition of our fr[i]end, Rousseau (and personally, I would much regret the abandonment by some of most of these duties), but some of us insist upon an amendment.

It is a significant face that men have been more willing to concede to women almost any other right than of participation in government. The male sex seems to be imbued with the notion that God Almighty, in his plan for the human race, intended that man should always rule and govern, and yet John Stewart Mill, in his book, "The Subjection of Women," has proved conclusively that the very thing for which women are apparently best fitted is that of participation in government. The reigns of many queens of different countries show the adaptability of woman to government.

Woman has always had her champion. Many ages ago Plate espoused her cause. In 1509 Cornelius Agrippa published a book of some thirty chapters to prove "The Superiority of Woman." In 1599 another author presented to the world a book bearing a title which will surely command the approbation of the most ardent suffragist. The title was"A woman's worth defended against all the men in the world, proving her to be more perfect, excellent and absolute in all virtuous actions thain any man of what quality soever." I presume many of you will plead guilty to the allegations of this title. A similar tone is expressed by Lucrezia Marinella, of Venice, in her book entitled "The nobleness and excellence of women, together with the faults and imperfections of men." It would be far from my thought to deny the correctness of these titles, but, as a politician, I would not advise the urging of your cause in that spirit, for, whether we are equal to you or not, we men do not enjoy invidious comparisons. Time will not permit a detailed history of the woman movement, but I cannot forbear mentioning one woman who in the earlier days, distinctly asserted her rights, and made mere men sit up and take notice. Mistress Margaret Brent, of Maryland, possessed of a brilliant mind, came to America in the seventeenth century, and when Leonard Calvert, the first Governor of Maryland, passed away, he made her his sole executrix, with instructions to take all and pay all. She not only did this, but she also assumed his position as Lord Baltimore's attorney, and claimed the right to receive all the rents and profits of his Lordship's estates, and to manage them generally. This right was contested, but the Courts decided in her favor. She was indeed the first avowed suffragist, for, when the General Assembly of Maryland convened after the death of Governor Calvert, with supreme confidence she appeared before it, and, in calm and even tones demanded the right not only to sit with them as a member of the legislature, but the right to cast two votes--one as Governor Calvert's executrix, and the other as attorney for Lord Baltimore. And yet some women today would be satisfied with one vote!

To narrate the entire history of the suffrage movement, and to tell you about the efforts of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Ant[h]ony, and other famous women to obtain political equality, is of course impractical. Suffice it to say that to these noble, able and heroic women is mostly due the present advancement of the woman's cause. In 1869 and 1870 the partisans of woman's suffrage first invade the national capital, and some of the greatest leaders in the history of that movement presented their case to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of the United States. Since that time there have been many hearings before the committees of Congress, the last hearing having been held at this present session. The Senate of the United States, by a vote of 31 to 30, at this session, went on record as favoring the submission to the people of the woman's suffrage amendment. Thus has the most conservative body of the United States declared its opinion on this important subject.

Somewhere back in the dim, distant years of the past, I remember being called upon to construe this sentence: "Woman without her man is nothing" and I remember that this call occasioned one of the very few embarrassing moments of my life. If I should say, without any punctuation to intercept the words: "Woman without her man is nothing," I would justly bring upon my head the execration of all just people. And the same result would follow should I use the powerful comma to produce the meaning: "Woman, without her, man is nothing." The fact is this sentence does not apply, for in the great plan of life, men and women must both be found working side by side for the common good. As Tennyson said:

"Hence thou hast a helper, we that know
The woman's cause is man's; they rise or sink
Together, dwarfed or godlike, bond or free.

**

Yet in the long years liker must they grow;
The man be more of woman, she of man;
He gain in sweetness and in moral height,
Nor lose the wrestling thews that throw the world;
She mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind;
Till at the last she set herself to man,
Like perfect music unto noble words."

Let no man tell me that the proper activities of womanhood are bounded by the four walls of her castle. I do not minimize the blessed influence of the woman in her home--that sweet and sacred spot where she truly reigns as queen, where she makes this structure of material things a bower of happiness and beauty--the nearest approach in this world to the Heaven which we hope for hereafter. The American home is the foundation rock of the American nation, and did I believe the argument advance by the opponents of equal suffrage that the entrance of woman into the wider activities of life would destroy that home, or materially detract from its sanctity or influence, then would I regret the necessity of advance principle over expedience, where it belongs.

At once I am presented with the time-worn argument that in strict contemplation of law suuffrage [sic] is not a right, but a privilege. Very true, from an academic standpoint, but this same thing may be said of a vast number of earthly bles[s]ings that we all enjoy. The fact is that I sometimes think that if most of us human beings received only what rightfully deserved, our earthly lot would not be happy. Some rights are intrinsic and basic. Other rights are relative. That is, we are entitled to them also because other citizens possess them. You may tell me that the permission I have to vote is not a right, but a privilege. I admit it. But, when the law gives me that permission, then I say without fear of successful contradiction, that a just law must also give to my sister of lawful age that same privilege, and the fact that I have it creates in her a right to it and not merely endows her with the privilege of a suppliant to beg a generous benediction. If I have the privilege, then she has the right, and all the academic, grandiloquent arguments to the contrary are of no avail. I defy any man to tell me any valid reason for holding that an ignorant, half-drunken man can stagger into a voting booth and help to determine the future policy of his state and nation, while, at the same time, a woman of broad sympathies, clear understanding, and just appreciation of the great principles of government, of the importance of preserving our ideals, and sensible of the great depth of a living patriotism, shall be told that she has no voice in her government. Will you tell that woman who may have a little property to support her in her declining years that that man will look after that property for her; that he will determine how much it should be taxes, that he will determine on what term it may be conveyed; that he will determine how much of her income she must give to this government? Will you consider only the women in the home? What do you say about the seven millions of women who are spending most of their lives away from home in the struggle for daily existence? Are these toilers to have no voice in government? Oh! But you will say: "Some women do not want to vote." Very well then; let them stay away from the polls. But the fact that they do not want to vote is no reason why those who do want to vote shall not vote. Some people want to stay in door, and do stay indoors most of their lives, but is that any reason why other people who want to walk out under the blue skies, ad breathe deeply of the ozone of Heaven, should be deprived of that right? You may doubt the wisdom, but you cannot doubt the right of those women who want to vote to cast their ballots. Expediency is an important thing, and should property be considered in the decision of many questions, but when the question of expediency conflicts with the eternal principle of justice, the let expediency go hang.

Ah! But some man will say, "What does woman know about the question of government?" A short answer to that would be that she knows a whole lot more than you think she does. And, the truth to tell, some women know a vast deal more about those questions than some men. But, looking at that matter in a broader sense, as it should be considered, why should not the average woman exercise the same discretion in casting her ballot as a man does in casting his? Do you say she has not time to consider? Why, my friends, even though her household duties consume all of her time, they are of such character that her head can be working at the same time as her hands. To be frank, has she not more time for such consideration than have we men, whose time is mostly consumed with the hard struggle for existence and the support of our families? It is, after all, only a question of habit. We think we are better qualified because we spend more of our spare time discussing with each other questions of politics and of policy, and reading and thinking upon the same. Why can't woman do this? Why can't she, if she wants to, omit some of her dancing, or card-playing, or fancy work, or even surplus scrubbing and cleaning and devote that spare time to reading and thinking and talking about the questions of government? There has been a marked improvement in this particular in recent years, and if you don't believe it, I want some of you men to attend some day a session of the Woman's Club of the City of Parkersburg, composed of women who emphatically do not neglect their homes, and I venture to say if you do, at least some of you will take a side street for home and dig out from your library shelves some dusty volumes concerning important questions that are pending for your solution at the polls.

Coming now to the question of expediency, statistics show that as a rule the entrance of woman into the exercise of equal suffrage has been a benefit and blessing. The majority of women have cast their ballots for the improvement of political, industrial and moral conditions. Equal suffrage is not entirely an experiment. Since 1869 the women of Wyoming have possessed the voting privilege. Since then, nine more states and a territory have been added to the list, the states of Montana, Nevada and the two Dakotas will vote on the proposition in 1914, and in the states of New York, Iowa and New Jersey steps have already been taken to submit a constitutional amendment for the same to the people. The commonwealths now possessing equal franchise are Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Kansas, Arizona, Illinois, and Alaska. What has been the result of the experiment? On what grounds do the opponents of woman suffrage contend that it has been unsuccessful? It is a very easy thing to make a charge, but sometimes harder to prove it. Time will not permit a detailed statement of the result in these different states. Let me merely point out in passing a few of the great progressive measures that have been largely brought about by woman suffrage in the state of Colorado, which has had equal suffrage since the year 1893: The establishment of a state home for dependent children; making the mother joint guardian of the child with the father[;] raising the age of protection for girls to eighteen years[;] establishment of a state industrial school for girls[;] a juvenile court system; a compulsory education law; an effective child-labor law; making both the father and mother joint heirs of a deceased child; providing penalties for failure to support aged or infirm parents; a traveling library commission, consisting of five women, who distribute books and helpful literature to the most remote and mountainous sections of the state, making it a criminal offffense [sic] to contribute to the delinquency of a child, the establishment of a state free employment bureau, with offices in all the leading cities and towns; a factory inspection law; a workmen's compensation act; a law putting "loan sharks" out of business; a strong non-support law; a law validating the wills of married women. I believe that all unprejudiced persons will agree that most of these laws tend to the uplift of humanity.

We are told that women will not vote, and hence it is idle to give them the privilege. In California, various elections have been held which offer a test of this proposition. In the election in Los Angeles in 1912 the percentage of registered men voting was 54.2, and the percentage of women voting was 50.2. In Idaho, 67% of the women and about 84% of the men voted in the last election. In Wyoming and Utah the proportion of men and women voting has been about the same. In the recent election in Chicago women, in very large numbers, voted and took an active part in the election. To be fair, we must admit, in some sections, the percentage of women voting has been less than that of men. But, speaking broadly, it is a general proposition that the interest displayed by women has at least been almost equal to that manifested by the men voters. But we are told that the good women will not vote, and the bad women will vote, and hence the result will be injurious. This is not borne out by the facts. In the cities of Seattle and Denver we are furnished with illustrations. In the city of Seattle the women in the so-called "bad" districts cast a total vote of 345, as compared with a grand total of 38,000 women votes, the total number of such women votes was 144. And, as is shown by George Creek, from whom I obtained many of these statistics, it cannot be assumed that all of the women voting in these districts, were of the lowest type.

But it is said that suffrage debases women. Senator Thomas, of Colorado, says: "The supposition that inclusion in the responsibility of citizenship implies the instant degradation of our wives, sisters, mothers and daughters can only proceed from mental perversion and degeneracy." Bishop Spaulding, of Utah, testifies that equal suffrage has develop[ed] better wives and better mothers, that that women have brought to their duties as legislators superior humanity. The editor of the conservative "Portland Oregonian" states that equal suffrage has proven to be one of the strongest fortifications of the home, and that not even a dethroned boss would claim that the vote had debased the women of his state. Calling forth further testimony on the general subject, George Alexander, former mayor of Los Angeles, says, "I do not believe that any intelligent man would have the temerity to challenge the statement that the women of Los Angeles have invariably displayed splendid judgment and discretion in their use of the franchise." Hon. Louis R. Works, Judge of the Superior Court, says "Men of public affairs in California generally regard equal suffrage as a great benefit to the commonwealth. This is true, even of some of the men who oppose the extension of suffrage to women." Justice Louis W. Myers, of the same court, says "The assertion that women are not interested in public affairs and civic betterment is certainly not applicable to Los Angeles county, where the women have been taking a most active, intelligent and efficient part in practically every movement for civic betterment, and have initiated many of them." Hon A. J. Wallace, lieutenant governor of California, says "The fact is that since woman's right to vote was recognized in this state they have taken a very great interest in public affairs." Harvey E. Andrews, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, says "Woman suffrage in California has worked as well as manhood suffrage. There is about the same degree of neglect by either sex. I opposed woman suffrage, but its operation in this state has not furnished ground for criticism."

My friends, the opponents of woman suffrage will never make the majority of men believe that the granting of franchise to our women will drag them down, will lower their ideals, or deprive them of our respect. The virtue and high character of womanhood is builded upon too firm a f[o]undation to be shaken by new duties and responsibilities. I have no patience with the argument advanced by some, that the granting of suffrage to women will have no effect, because there are as many bad women as good women in this country. That is a base and unmitigated slander against the women of this nation that I, for one, denounce and repudiate. If I though that there were as many bad women as good women in this country, then, indeed, would I despair of my country's future.

Then, indeed, would I predict that this great nation, born amid the throes of unequal war, where only the hand of God Almighty could have wrested victory from apparent defeat; founded upon justice and liberty; natured in its younger year by that same festering care of Providence, until, attacked at last by the dreadful demon of civil war; emerging from that conflict a stronger nation than before, and since that time attaining, as an united people, a degree of progress and prosperity which has commanded the admiration of the world--then would I predict, I say, that even this greatest of nations, was doomed to destruction. Our history stamps as untrue that proposition, for that history was founded upon the sterling virtues of our ancestors, and the quiet and benign influence of American womanhood is as much responsible for our nation's greatness as all our mailed cruisers, armored soldiers and eminent statesmen, put together.

We are told by some opponents of this movement that it is a matter for the states to decide, but it seems apparent that uniformity cannot be secured without federal enactment. We are told that it is not necessary to secure an amendment to the federal constitution, as it is already sufficient. The Federal Constitution certainly does seem to contemplate that all the people of the country shall have a voice in the government. The preamble speaks of "We, the people," which certainly includes women. Section 2 of the Constitution says that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states. And sections 3 and 4 base the number of representatives upon the number of people--not the number of male citizens. Section 2 of article 4 provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside. All these provisions of the Constitution would seem to contemplate the participation of women in the right or privilege of franchise. But doubt is created, by section 2 of the 14th Amendment which says: "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of elections for president, vice president of the United States, etc., is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States," that the representation of such states shall be reduced. Now this section by fair implication might be considered as an argument that the Constitution of the United States intends only to protect the male citizens in the right of franchise, and we therefore believe that to do away with this implication the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous conditions of servitude," should, together with section 14, be amended to show clearly that the right of citizens shall not be denied or abridged by reason of sec. Section 2 of article 6 provides that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof should be the supreme law of the land. We believe this supreme law should define the right of suffrage.

I would not be true to myself, nor to the cause of suffrage, did I not frankly state to the advocates of woman suffrage the errors which I believe they should avoid. The first of these is disunion. I have noticed with regret the efforts of rival organizations in the suffrage cause, pulling at odd purposes to advance their respective interests. If the women of this country cannot bury personal ambition and technical difference of opinion for the love of the cause then their efforts are doomed to failure. Let us hope that, realizing this, they will demonstrate to the world that they are indeed capable of united action.

Again, I would caution you against the taking up of fads and fancies in government. After all, that old constitution, framed by our fathers, who were possessed of a profound understanding of the theory of government, is a good guide for future action. The principles upon which it is founded should not be changed without due deliberation and serious thought, and I sincerely trust that the women of this country will be slow to espouse new schemes and plans in contravention of that Constitution which may be proposed by sincere reformers or by rank demagogues.

Lastly, I would warn you against militancy. The poet Swinburne says:

"A woman armed makes war upon herself.
Unwomanlike, and treads down use and wont
And the sweet common honor that she hath."

If there is one strong argument against the granting of suffrage to women, it is, in my opinion, the lawless acts committed by your English sisters across the seas. I know full well that some of you will say that conditions there are so peculiar that it requires such atrocities to awaken the English male mind and make it realize the importance of the subject. But, my friends, violation of the law is not justified, even in a good cause, and, I want to say to you frankly that so far as I am concerned, if the women of this country adopt such tactics in their crusade, then I, for one, will leave them, because I do not believe that any person who does not love and cherish the law of the land is entended to participate in the affairs of government.

And now a farewell work to the sterner sex. What's the use of objecting? If there is a man in this house to night who can truthfully say that he ever knew the time when a real woman did not have her way about a principle which she espoused, then let him stand up now, or forever after hold his place. She is going to vote, and why not let her win with the band playing and the colors flying, and women applauding, instead of amid the game of battle over the field of which [?] of us would be lying prostrate before the war is over. Do not forget the words of the poet.

"Where is the man who has the power and skill
To stem the current of a woman's will?
For if she will, she will, you may depend on't.
And if she won't, she won't, so there's an end on't."

Let us remember that if any of us do possess those great and noble qualities of manhood which make for power and success, that, after all, the great laws of heredity clearly prove that from woman we do inherit what is best and noblest and greatest in ourselves. The great figures in the world's history--the conquerers of men and of nations--the leaders in art, science, statesmanship and religion--with one great, concerted voice pay homage to her name.

Women are the creators of the race--the architects of humanity--the molders of generations yet to come. Then is it not somewhat ungrateful for any of us now to claim that man has monopolized in himself the wisdom essential to self-government? Would it not be more in keeping with the dignity and nobility of manhood, and in the spirit of American gentlemen who reverence and respect the American women to say to her, in the words of old, "Woman, how great is thy faith." To say to her you have fought a good fight, and to us belongs the pleasure of granting to you not a favor--not a bounty nor a gift--not even a privilege, but rather a right, guaranteed, it's true, not by the Constitution nor our human laws, but rather guaranteed by a higher law than these--that basic law of justice, proclaimed from the throne of God in Heaven, and embodied, as we believe, in the very fabric and tissue of a free republic.