contended for in " no taxation without repre sentation " of our forefathers of Revolution ary times, there is the like justice in the principle involved in this discussion when it applies to women holding property subject to taxation. As suggested above, there are two classes of women whose rights are somewhat differ ently affected by the law as it stands. The classes are, first, women who pay taxes; second, women who do not pay taxes. Every intelligent person will agree with me in the assertion that the principle of justice requires that a distinction should be made in favor of the class of women who pay taxes to help meet the running expenses and im provements necessary to the good govern ment of the commonwealth where they may reside, in common with the men of the same community. Cases have arisen affect ing the property rights of the individual citizen in relation to the municipality, .or its officers, where it has been argued that the remedy for an injury must be sought for at the polls'. This panacea for the ills of polit ical mismanagement or wrong-doing might be applied with great burlesque effect to woman in her present attitude to the law. "But the law takes good care of the prop erty of women." Yes, so it does, it is established as a sort of self appointed guardian, but with proper sanction, and in the case of married women, who are all blessed with real bright husbands, of course, it is charged with advice to treat these women with the same consideration with which " idiots, insane persons and chil dren " are treated, at least in any contract ual relation. What a commentary it is on the logical force of this legal disability of married women when the spectacle is pre sented of a highly intelligent, cultured woman, of force of character, nourishing a man of besotted mind and body. With Elizabeth Barrett Browning one must say: "You forget too much that every creature, female as the male, stands
single in responsible act and thought, as also in birth and death." Are the teachings of the Old Testament to be held responsible for much of the mis taken sentiment as to woman's weakness in this respect? Has Biblical research and study strengthened this sentiment of rela tive inferiority in modern times? This con clusion may be doubted. But there is no doubt of her exalted place in the life of Christ. "Not she with trait'rous kiss her Saviour stung, Not she denied him with unholy tongue; She, while apostles shrank, could danger brave, Last at His cross, and earliest at His grave." The divine conception of woman made her a helpmate and consolation to the life of man. The same divine conception of their relation in marriage consists perhaps in the oneness of husband and wife. Their home and possessions, common enjoyment of both, their earthly interests inseparable. But all this rests upon sentiment rather than legal right. No one would wish to disturb this sacred relation of man and woman. It should not be disturbed. The remov ing of a legal disability such as this which rests upon women is a simple act of justice. It is not leading " a revolt against marriage in its true import," as stated by the Rev. John M. Williams in a recent paper, nor does it " owe its genesis and inspiration largely to the absence of domestic affection." I am aware that, perhaps, severe reflections of this kind might with much justice be cast in the direction of the work of some women of very radical ideas, who pose as the leaders of political reform, and who whisper their wrongs in closets, and shriek them on the public platform. But it is a sufficient reply to this argument to say, that this handful of Quixotic women do not voice the grand sentiment which swells and rolls as do the waves of any great social evolution having its genesis in the sentiment of justice. The Rev. Mr. Williams further says:
