I do not favor the adoption of this measure at the present time, because the country is not yet prepared, yet it is entitled to our respectful consideration—therefore I thank the convention for allowing me the opportunity to state the ground on which the friends of woman suffrage place their advocacy, so far as I may be able under the five-minute rule. It does not comport with the dignity of a representative body engaged in forming a constitution of government to thrust aside the claim of woman to the right of suffrage,—a claim that is advocated by some of the ablest statesmen and political philosophers of Europe and America, and is destined to a sure and speedy triumph.
Aristotle, the profoundest thinker of antiquity, in his treatise on politics, defines a citizen to be "one who enjoys a due share in the government of that country of which he is a member." If he does not enjoy this right, then he is no citizen, but a subject. Every citizen, therefore, is entitled to a voice—a vote—a due share in the government of his country. I am aware that the courts and politicians in democratic America have not so defined citizenship. The reason is that politics is not yet a positive science, and they have failed to analyze this question. Had they a clear conception of the constituent elements—the anatomy, so to speak, of the body politic, they would perceive that suffrage—a voice in the government—is an essential condition of citizenship. Aristotle, in his treatise, which is perhaps the ablest yet given to the world, pointed out that families, not individuals, are the constituent units of a State.
A family—a household—exists and is held together by natural laws, independent of the State, and an aggregation of these constitute the State. The head of the family, whoever that may be, according to its structure, is the representative in the State. All the constituent members of the family, consisting, in its most perfect form, of husband, wife, children and domestics, are subject to the authority of the head, and have no voice, no vote, no share in the government, except through their head or representative. In societies where the common law obtains, which in this respect is a transcript of the Bible, the wife, like the child, is subordinated to the authority of the husband, and on principle, has no voice, no vote. On the decease of the husband, the widow becomes the head of the family, and on principle is entitled to a voice, a vote. But in countries where the civil law governs, the wife is the partner, and not the subject of her husband, and on principle ought to have her due share in the government.
When the children in a family, whether male or female, attain the age fixed by law for the control of their own affairs, and do control them, they are free, independent, and on every principle are entitled to a due share in the government—to a vote. Every member of society who is free and independent—capable of managing his own affairs, or making his own living, and does make it, should have the same right of choice in the selection of his political agents that he has to select his legal or business agents. But all persons, no matter from what cause, who are unable to maintain themselves, and are dependent for their support upon others, are incapable of any share in the government, and should have no voice—no vote. As soon as the principle of citizenship comes to be thoroughly understood, woman suffrage must be adopted throughout the United States, in England, and in every country where representative government exists.
The Revolution of August 20, 1868, said:
We have received from Loring P. Haskins, esq., a delegate to the convention, the following excellent report and declaration made and signed by a majority of the committee to whom the subject of woman suffrage was referred. We need scarcely bespeak attentive reading:
July 30, 1868—Introduced and ordered to be printed.
