ese is
like wrestling with a malaria, or arguing with the east wind. I
do not know, indeed, why the Committee have changed the phrase
"male inhabitant or citizen," which is uniformly used in a
constitutional clause limiting the elective franchise. Under the
circumstances, the word "man" is obscure, and undoubtedly
includes women as much as the word "mankind." But the intention
of the clause is evident, and the report of the Committee makes
it indisputable. Had they been willing to say directly what they
say indirectly, the eighth line and what follows would read,
"Provided that idiots, lunatics, persons under guardianship,
felons, women, and persons convicted of bribery, etc., shall not
be entitled to vote." In their report, the Committee omit to tell
us why they politically class the women of New York with idiots
and criminals. They assert merely that the general
enfranchisement of women would be a novelty, which is true of
every step of political progress, and is therefore a presumption
in its favor; and they speak of it in a phrase which is intended
to stigmatize it as unwomanly, which is simply an assumption and
a prejudice. I wish to know, sir, and I ask in the name of the
political justice and consistency of this State, why it is that
half of the adult population, as vitally interested in good
government as the other half, who own property, manage estates,
and pay taxes, who discharge all the duties of good citizens, and
are perfectly intelligent and capable, are absolutely deprived of
political power, and classed with lunatics and felons. The boy
will become a man and a voter; the lunatic may emerge from the
cloud and resume his rights; the idiot, plastic under the tender
hand of modern science, may be moulded into the full citizen; the
criminal, whose hand still drips with the blood of his country
and of liberty, may be pardoned and restored; but no age, no
wisdom, no peculiar fitness, no public service, no effort, no
desire, can remove from woman this enormous and extraordinary
disability. Upon what reasonable grounds does it rest? Upon none
whatever. It is contrary to natural justice, to the acknowledged
and traditional principles of the American Government, and to the
most enlightened political philosophy. The absolute exclusion of