itics,
and great damage to the furniture would be the result. Father and son
have been known to live under the same roof and vote differently, and
yet live! Not only live, but live peaceably! If a husband and wife
are going to quarrel they will find a cause for dispute easily enough,
and will not be compelled to wait for election day. And supposing that
they have never, never had a single dispute, and not a ripple has ever
marred the placid surface of their matrimonial sea, I believe that a
small family jar--or at least a real lively argument--will do them
good. It is in order to keep the white-winged angel of peace hovering
over the home that married women are not allowed to vote in many
places. Spinsters and widows are counted worthy of voice in the
selection of school trustee, and alderman, and mayor, but not the woman
who has taken to herself a husband and still has him.

What a strange commentary on marriage that it should disqualify a woman
from voting. Why should marriage disqualify a woman? Men have been
known to vote for years after they were dead!

Quite different from the "family jar" theory, another reason is
advanced against married women voting--it is said that they would all
vote with their husbands, and that the married man's vote would thereby
be doubled. We believe it is eminently right and proper that husband
and wife should vote the same way, and in that case no one would be
able to tell whether the wife was voting with the husband or the
husband voting with the wife. Neither would it matter. If giving the
franchise to women did nothing more than double the married man's vote
it would do a splendid thing for the country, for the married man is
the best voter we have; generally speaking, he is a man of family and
property--surely if we can depend on anyone we can depend upon him, and
if by giving his wife a vote we can double his--we have done something
to offset the irresponsible transient vote of the man who has no
interest in the community.

There is another sturdy prejudice that blooms everywhere in all
climates, and that is that women would not vote if they had the
privilege; and this is many times used as a crushing argument against
woman suffrage. But why worry? If women do not use it, then surely
there is no harm done; but those who use the argument seem to imply
that a vote unused is a very dangerous thing to leave lying around, and
will probably spoil and blow up. In support