The following letter was intended as a reply to the one received from my esteemed friend, Mr. Jno. Collins, and for him and his use only.

Upon his request, and that of others interested in the subject, it is given to the public for what it is worth, with the assurance that its presentation is “with malice toward none and good for all,” including especially our suffragists and suffragette friends.

W. W. BRANNON

Weston offices,
October 10th, 1916.

John Collins, Esq.,
Weston, W. Va.

Dear Mr. Collins:

I desire to assume you that I appreciate the confidence implied by your request, that I give you my views on the “Female Suffrage Amendment.” The subject is, in my humble opinion, a very important one, more so perhaps, than many persons regard it, and I am cheerful to render you, or any of my other friends, such aid as I can in determining the proper course in relation to the proposed amendment to our constitution.

I confess that when it was first submitted by the Legislature of 1915, I was favorably inclined to it, and if I had been required to vote upon the proposition at once, without thought or investigation, I might have voted for the amendment. However, after careful consideration and thoughtful investigation, I am decidedly opposed to it. It may be that I was influenced to this inclination by the ardent and somewhat noisy support to the proposition by a small minority of our feminine friends, who are advocating the ratification of the amendment.

I am one of those who does not believe that or condition is so bad as some persons seem to think, and that such radical so-called reforms as some would adopt are necessary. In my judgment, our governmental affairs have been fairly well conducted by men, with some marked exceptions. He who expects perfection in government, or other human agencies, is too optimistic for this world. If such reforms as some would have are necessary, there can certainly be no assurance that they would be accomplished by woman suffrage. If family affection and devotion be as they are supposed to be, the men and women would vote the same way, and the situation would remain as it is. If it may be assumed that the wife, the mother and sister would by their ballots, oppose the wishes of the husband, the father and the brother, then the use of the ballot by such wife and others would be calculated to increase family discord, which is certainly not desirable. Indeed, we have known serious family differences to arise between make members of the family over matters political, but this affords no ground to disfranchise some of the men of the family, and is no reason why the men should not all vote as allowed by the constitution as it now is. As said by the United States Supreme Court in several cases, we much keep in view considerations relating to woman’s physical nature, her maternal functions and other matters of the greatest moment to her and to society.

On this account she enjoys certain advantages, favors and exemptions not granted to men. A few of them may be mentioned:

The father is legally bound to support his wife and children, however poor he may be, and however rich they, or any of them, may be. The wife and mother are under no such legal obligation. In some cases the wife may convey all her valuable real estate and pass a good title, without her husband’s consent, while the husband is powerless to grant his property, and give such title, without his wife’s consent.

The wife can sue for divorce and compel her husband to advance her sufficient money to prosecute a suit, and support her and her minor children during its pendency, however unmeritorious her complaint may be. She has the same advantage in defense of such suit. If she fails, whether she be plaintiff or defendant, she refunds nothing. If she succeeds, she obtains a decree of divorce and for permanent alimony. If he succeeds he gets nothing but his divorce, although his income is only twenty-five dollars a month, and hers may be twenty-five thousand for the same period. She may prosecute and jail her husband for non-support. She may be worth millions and allow him to go to the poor house. Wife beating, in some states, would attach offender to the whipping post, a very appropriate attachment. It is believed that a few of the states yet inflict that punishment. She is protected against the administration of chloroform, ether or any other anaesthetic whatsoever, to the extent that such protection may be necessary. She is not permitted to work in any coal mine. She is not allowed to loiter in a place where intoxicating liquors are sold. She is prohibited from cleaning certain mills, gearing and machinery in certain specified establishments. Every manufacturing, mechanical, mercantile and other establishment wherein females are employed, comfortable seats must be provided and conveniently located, and when not necessarily required to be on her feet, she shall be allowed to occupy such seats. Bless her soul! She is even allowed to remove her pretty hat in theaters, something which she occasionally forgets to do. Her earnings belong to her, while the husband’s belong to the family. If the proposed amendment be adopted, she will be exempt from a poll tax, while man, poor man, must step up and pay. Many other instances of wise legislative discrimination in favor of woman might be cited. They are intended not alone for her benefit, but for the good of all, as said by the Supreme Court of the United States. All such distinctions and discriminations are “based upon considerations relating to woman’s physical nature, her maternal functions, and the vital importance of her protection in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race.” So says that august and learned tribunal. It further says: “She is properly placed in a class by herself, and the legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessary for man and could not be sustained.” Laws are sometimes held to be valid and constitutional as applied to women and overthrown as applied to men. Should the women of our state be enfranchised, will they reject all these advantages made by law in their favor? Will they repeal such laws? If they are made equal to man, as to matters of government, why not accept absolutely equal laws? And why not assume the burdens of citizenship, sometimes disagreeable? What are they to do with certain classes of cases when they shall be elected as Judges? What do they think of engaging as jurors in the trial of felony cases where the jurors, composed of men and women, are to be kept together until the case shall be decided? How can she, with the least propriety, take part in the trial of other cases, that might be mentioned? To require her to render such service would be cruel and outrageous treatment to our dear good women. To release her from the discharge of such duties would make her a privileged class of voters, contrary to the spirit of our government on the subject of equality.

These considerations alone are sufficient in my judgment, to excuse and release “woman, lovely woman”, from the onerous and responsible, and sometimes disagreeable, very disagreeable, burdens of citizenship.

The main argument of the Suffragists most loudly urged and vociferously paraded, is that women are taxed but cannot vote, and that, therefore, it is “taxation, without representation.” This idea originated with the colonists, our patriotic forefathers. It was a most forceful and effective contention at that time, under the circumstances then existing. It aroused our feeble ancestors to the highest pitch of patriotism, and inspired them with an unalterable determination to fight the battles necessary to achieve the freedom and independence we now enjoy. The early settlers were then being taxed by Great Britain for the sole benefit of England. The taxes were collected here, under laws imposing them, enacted by that government, when the colonists had no vote in the selection of those who made the laws. The idea of taxation without representation is foreign, absolutely so, to the proposed amendment. The effort to make it applicable is almost childish.

Our women are represented in each of the three great departments of our government, national and state. She is represented and protected by those who would die for her, the husband, the father, the brother and her lover. Her representatives are those to whom she is united by the ties of love and blood. They are not her representatives by her vote, but they are her representatives by nature. Let any legislation, harmful to women, be undertaken in this state or elsewhere, and we will witness a prompt opposition by these natural representatives, and the overwhelming defeat of the measure. No danger can confront her, in which one of these natural representatives will not intervene. She is the first to be rescued in case of peril. It has been stated that a strong advocate of woman’s suffrage was aboard the Titanic when it went down a few years since. She saw the men pressing the women and children, strangers to the men in some cases, into the life boats, while they remained on the sinking vessel to go to the bottom of the ocean. After witnessing this devotion to the helpless woman and children by these noble and natural men, and sacrifice of their own lives, this suffragette declared, that she was forever hereafter willing for men to do her voting.

If the idea of taxation without representation has any application to the proposed amendment, how can the advocates of its adoption support it? Its effect is to impose taxation without representation. It does not allow any non-resident, minor, person of unsound mind, pauper or person convicted of treason, felony, or bribery in an election to vote. It does not allow a resident of the state to vote, unless he has been such resident for one year, and of the county is which he or she offers to vote for sixty days next preceding such offer. Many of those thus denied the right to vote are taxpayers,--some of them large taxpayers, especially non-residents. In my judgment our Constitution is right on the subject of the elective franchise just as it stands to-day, and in the interest of all, especially the women of the state, I trust it will not be changed.

One of the most satisfactory reasons for opposition to the amendment is, that the great majority of women do not want to vote, and will not discharge the duties of citizenship, if allowed to do so. It is not right for men, upon the demand of a small minority of women, to force upon a great majority of women, obligations which they do not wish to assume, and which they would not discharge, if enfranchised. In states where women are allowed to vote, a small number of them exercise the right, as compared with the great number who refuse to go to the polls. But for making this letter too long, I could show this in detail. To cast upon the women of our state the burdens of the intelligent voter, is to tax her, without representation, with duties and obligations in opposition to her wishes. It would be government without the consent of the governed. For voters not to vote may result in government by minority, which is undemocratic. For men to force the ballot upon women is likewise undemocratic. It is believed that many of those who would vote, would be undesirable voters, and that those whose votes would be desirable, if women voted, would not vote at all.

It is often said, give her the right to vote, and if she does not wish to exercise it, let her not vote. In my judgement, it is an important duty of all voters to go to the polls and assert themselves by the ballot. I do not regard the voter who does not vote as a very worthy and useful citizen. An author, whose book I have just read, in answer to this argument, suggests, that a sixteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, authorizing polygamy, might be adopted, upon the idea that no one need practice poligamy [sic] who did not wish to do so.

While talking with a friend the other day, I suggested that the right to vote, properly exercised, entailed a great deal upon the voter. He replied that many a woman would walk to the polls, cast her ballot and return to the home in fifteen minutes. I answered that the trouble now is, that we have too many fifteen minute voters, and I would rather decrease than increase the number.

Statistics show that the per cent of divorces in states where women vote, exceed that of other states where they do not vote. A noted suffragette, who is a speaker and writer says: “Feminism is gradually supplying to women the things they most need”. Among these things “easy divorce”, and “economic independence” she states. To the same effect, we might give passages from other advocates of the cause.

Suffragists on the stump and in newspapers declare, boastfully, that we hear no complaint whatever against woman suffrage from states that enjoy that great blessing. They are quite mistaken. We have seen many criticisms from those states. Much [h]as been said to the effect, that woman’s enfranchisement has certainly not had the purifying effect which was promised. An Associated Press dispatch, dated Denver, May 17, 1910, announced that Denver had gone “wet,” as seemed to be assured. The betting was that it would go “wet” by two to one. The result of that election brought forth some caustic comments from a leading Colorado newspaper, the Fort Collins Express. The editorial is too long to quote. It shows that on moral questions the laws of that state are famous for their absence or weakness; that the failure of woman suffrage to benefit Colorado has done more to retard it in other states, than anything else. The editorial says that Denver was the worst city morally in the land, and that by their votes, women should have made it one of even average decency, but that [t]hey had failed to do so.

Remember that Colorado is a Suffrage State, and that women voted at that election. Other newspaper criticisms could be given, but time and space will not allow it. Suffragists claim that certain officials in Suffrage States declare that conditions are good in such State, and some of them assert that they have been improved by the use of the ballot by women. More reliance may be placed upon honest editorials of able and representative newspapers, than upon officials who may have been elected woman’s votes, and who may expect other elections by the same electors.

In 1902, after about ten years’ trial of woman suffrage, Judge Moses Hailett, spoke very frankly and indeed fairly and impartially on this question. He had at that time been United States Circuit Judge for the Colorado District for twenty-seven years and previously he had been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Colorado as a Territory. He spoke by way of interview in the Denver Republican. He holds his office, by appointment, and not by election. The tenure of his position is dependent only upon his good behavior, and not on popular vote. After speaking unfavorably of the female suffrage plan, he says, in substance regretfully, that he does not believe the suffrage right of women will be abrogated, for the reason that no man who aspires to office would risk their displeasure by advocating the repeal of the law. He says, further: “At the same time, if it were to be done over again, the people of Colorado would defeat woman suffrage by an overwhelming vote.” If you desire farther light on the subject of the Colorado suffrage policy it would pay you well to read an election contest in Congress by Bougne against Shafroth. The contest was from the First District in that State. The case was considered in the second session of the Fifty-eighth Congress.

I could tell you more about Colorado and the other suffrage states, but cannot take the time or use the space to do so. I will add that Utah, a Morman [sic] state, and Idaho which is largely dominated by it, are both suffrage states.

We believe that the vote belongs only to him who has the power and ability, physical ability, if necessary, to enforce the right to vote, and the policy established by that vote.

We would place the ballot in the hands of that member of the family only, who is legally bound to support that family, and would not make his wife, mother or sister his rival in any sense or respect.

We would like to give you the views of some of the wisest and most patriotic men on this subject, but must forego that inclination for want of my time and your time.

Certainly it can not be said that the writer of this letter or its recipient has any bias or prejudice on this subject.

May all blessings rest upon our dear good women. How sweet is the word Home. We would have no homes without them. What in the whole creation is so sweet and lovely as the attachment of the dear wife, mother and sister—the home-making, home-loving woman. Bless her soul! She belongs by nature’s gift to the home and the children. What would they be without her?

“If the heart of man is depressed with cares,
The mist is dispelled when woman appears.”

Her devotion to her home is unbroken and unbending. She may have a breaking heart and “tearful eyes, and still toil on and on.” James Cardinal Gibbons well says: “Woman is queen, indeed, but her empire is the domestic kingdom. The greatest political triumphs she would achieve in public life fade into insignificance compared with the serene glory which radiates from the domestic shrine, and which she illuminates and warms by her conjugal and motherly virtues.”

You will remember that all that I have said is for woman and in her interest.

Bless the dear creatures! They are able and amply willing to talk for themselves, and do not need my assistance, and I am cheerful to allow them to do the talking, but claim that we men only should do the voting.

Trusting that our state will follow the good examples of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, in comparatively recent elections on the subject, by registering a large majority against the amendment; and especially that our county will overwhelmingly defeat that amendment, I am

Cordially Yours,
W. W. BRANNON