....However we may explain it, and whether we like it or not, woman has become an economic factor in our country and one that is constantly assuming larger proportions. The question is now what treatment will make her an element of economic strength instead of weakness as at present. The presence of women in business now demoralizes the rate of wages even more than the increase in the supply of labor. Why? Principally because she can be bullied with greater impunity than voters—because she has no adequate means of self-defense. This seems a hard accusation, but I believe it to be true.
Trade is a fight—an antagonism of interests which are compromised in contracts in which the economically stronger always wins the advantage. There are many things that contribute to economic strength besides ability, and among them the most potent is coming more and more to be the power which arises from organization expressing itself in political action. Without political expression woman's economic value is at the bottom of the scale. She is the last to be considered, and the consideration is usually about exhausted before she is reached.
She must do better work than men for equal pay or equal work for less pay. In spite of this she may be supplanted at any time by a political adherent, or her place may be used as a bribe to an opposing faction. Women are weak in the business world because they are new in it; because they are only just beginning to learn their economic value; because their inherent tendencies are passive instead of aggressive, which makes them as a class less efficient fighters than men.
For these reasons women are and must be for years, if not for generations, economically weaker than men. Does it appeal to any one's sense of fairness to give the stronger party in a struggle additional advantages and deny them to the weaker one? Would that be considered honorable—would it be considered tolerable—even among prize-fighters? What would be thought of a contest between a heavy-weight and a feather-weight in which the heavy-weight was allowed to hit below the belt and the feather-weight was confined to the Marquis of Queensberry's rules? And yet these are practically the conditions under which women do business in forty-one of our States.
While the State does not owe any able-bodied, sound-minded man or woman a living, it does owe them all a fair—yes, even a generous opportunity to earn their own living, and one that shall not be prolonged dying. I do not claim that woman suffrage would be a panacea for all our economic woes. But I do claim that it would remove one handicap which women workers have to bear in addition to all those they share in common with men. I do claim that the men of the future will be healthier, wiser and more efficient wealth-producers if their mothers are stimulated by a practical interest in public affairs. I do claim that that nation will be the strongest in which the economic conditions are the most nearly just to all, and in which co-operation and altruism are the most completely incorporated in the lives of the people.
Mrs. Hala Hammond Butt (Miss.) discussed The Changed Intellectual Qualifications of the Women of this Century, with the intense eloquence of Southern women, and closed as follows:
There are mighty forces striving within our souls—a latent strength is astir that is lifting us out of our passive sleep. Defenseless, still are we subject to restrictions, bonds as illogical in theory as unjust in practice. Helpless, we may formulate as we will; but demonstrate we may not. The query persists in thrusting itself upon my mind, why should I be amenable to a law that does not accord me recognition? Why, indeed, should I owe loyalty and allegiance to a Government that stamps my brow with the badge of servility and inferiority?
Our human interests are identical—yours and mine; our paths not far apart; we have the same loves, the same hates, the same hopes, the same desires; a common origin, a common need, a common destiny. Our moral responsibilities are equal, our civil liabilities not less than yours, our social and industrial exactions equally as stringent as yours, and yet—O, crowning shame of the nineteenth century!—we are denied the garb of citizenship. Gentlemen, is this justice?
Mrs. Catharine Waugh McCulloch, auditor of the National Suffrage Association and a member of the Chicago bar, demonstrated The Protective Power of the Ballot:
The spirit of struggle against oppression and dependence is in the air, and all have breathed it in—women as well as men. They, too, feel the desire for freedom, opportunity, progress; the wish for liberty, a share in the government, emancipation. The practical method by which these aspirations can be realized is through the ballot. It is the insignia of power. The Outlander wants it; so does the Filipino, the Slav, the Cuban; so do women. Women need the ballot not only for the honor of being esteemed peers among freemen, but they want it for the practical value it will be in protecting them in the exercise of a citizen's prerogatives....
But, it is asked, "Have not women had some sort of protection without the ballot?" Yes, but it has been only such protection as the caprice or affection of the voting class has given, gratuities revocable at will. The man of wealth or power defends his wife, daughter or sweetheart because she is his, just as he would defend his property. His own opinions, not her views, decide him concerning the things from which she should be protected. Should she ever need protection against "her protector," there is no one to give it....
Entrance into remunerative employments in many instances has been denied women. In many of the States the professions of law, medicine, dentistry and all the elective offices are closed by statute. Appointive positions, also, which women might legally hold are practically withheld from them because of their lack of the ballot. The appointing power—president, governor, mayor, judge or commissioner—all owe their own positions to voters who expect some minor appointment in acknowledgment of service.
Even large private corporations not supposed to be influenced by politics have occasionally desired and received governmental help and protection. In return, the employes of these enterprises have been advised to vote for the party which has protected their employers' business. At a caucus, a street parade and on election day, the 500 or 10,000 or 100,000 persons employed in a certain industry make a considerable political showing if they are all voters. On such occasions women employes are of no value. Women refused employment in various enterprises not alone are injured in their feelings, but they are not protected in their right to earn food, shelter and clothes.
There are many different kinds of employment which do not debar women, but even in these they need protection in securing a fair return for their labor. In an investigation conducted by the U. S. Department of Labor concerning the wages received by men and women it appeared that in 75 per cent. of the 782 instances investigated, men received 50 per cent. higher wages than did women laboring with the same degree of efficiency on the same kind of work.
Women also need protection of their property. A man who knows the inside truth says, "Widows and minors are always assessed higher than men." If the assessor desires re-election, one of the easiest methods of securing it is to lower the assessments of the politicians who control most voters....
Women also want protection for the one sphere which even the most conservative loudly proclaim should be theirs—the home. That the water supply is good and abundant, that the sewage is carried away properly and speedily, that contagious cases are isolated, that food is pure in quality and reasonable in price, that inspection of food is honest and scientific, that weights and measures are true, that gas and electricity are inexpensive, that buildings are strongly constructed—these are all matters under the control of certain officials elected by voters....
Women, too, want protection for the children, proper regulations in regard to the schools, the trains at crossings, seducers, tramps and child abductors. They want strict laws against obscene literature and the unhealthy cigarette; and what is equally important, honest enforcement of such laws and ordinances....
One class can not, will not, legislate better for all classes than they can do for themselves. So men alone can not legislate better for women and men than can the two for both. Women need the ballot to protect themselves and all that they hold dear.
The hearing was closed by Miss Shaw, who said in ending her remarks:
Dire results have been predicted at every step of radical progress. When women first enjoyed higher education the cry went out that the home would be destroyed. It was said that if all the women were educated, all would become bluestockings, and