judices because we
vaguely call them "nature," and prate about what nature has
forbidden, when we only mean that the thing we are opposing has
not been hitherto done. "Nature" forbade a steamship to cross the
Atlantic the very moment it was crossing, and yet it arrived just
the same. What the majority call "nature" has stood in the way of
all progress of the past and present, and will stand in the way
of all future progress. It is only another name for conservatism.
With conservatism the minority have no quarrel. It is essential
to the stability of mankind, of government and of social life.
To every new proposal it rightfully calls a halt, demanding
countersign, whether it be friend or foe. The enfranchisement of
women must pass this ordeal like everything else. It must give
good reason for its demand to be, or take its place among the
half-forgotten fantasies which have challenged the support of
mankind and have not stood the test of argument and discussion.

The majority of the committee claim that suffrage is not a right
but a privilege to be guarded by those who have it, and to be by
them doled out to those who shall become worthy. That every
extension of suffrage has been granted in some form or other by
those already holding it is probably true. In some countries,
however, it has been extended upon the simple basis of
expediency, and in others in obedience to a claim of right. If
suffrage be a right, if it be true that no man has a claim to
govern any other man except to the extent that the other man has
a right to govern him, then there can be no discussion of the
question of Woman Suffrage. No reason on earth can be given by
those who claim suffrage as a right of manhood which does not
make it a right of womanhood also. If the suffrage is to be given
man to protect him in his life, liberty and property, the same
reasons urge that it be given to woman, for she has the same
life, liberty and property to protect. If it be urged that her
interests are so bound up in those of man that they are sure to
be protected, the answer is that the same argument was urged as
to the merging in the husband of the wife's right of property,
and was pronounced by the judgment of mankind fallacious in
practice and in principle. If the natures of men and wom