political faith. If the axioms mean anything for men, they
mean something for women. If men deride the axioms, it is a concession,
like that of Rufus Choate, that these fundamental principles are very much
in their way. But so long as the sentences stand in that document they can
be made useful. If men try to get away from the arguments of women by
saving, "But suppose we have nothing in our theory of government which
requires us to grant your demand?" then women can answer, as the
straightforward Traddles answered Uriah Heep, "But you have, you know:
therefore, if you please, we won't suppose any such thing."

SOME OLD-FASHIONED PRINCIPLES

There has been an effort, lately, to show that when our fathers said,
"Taxation without representation is tyranny," they referred not to personal
liberties, but to the freedom of a state from foreign power. It is
fortunate that this criticism has been made, for it has led to a more
careful examination of passages; and this has made it clear, beyond
dispute, that the Revolutionary patriots carried their statements more into
detail than is generally supposed, and affirmed their principles for
individuals, not merely for the state as a whole.

In that celebrated pamphlet by James Otis, for instance, published as early
as 1764, "The Rights of the Colonies Vindicated," he thus clearly lays down
the rights of the individual as to taxation:--

"The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not
represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most
essential rights as freemen; and, if continued, seems to be, in
effect, an entire disfranchisement of every civil right. For what
one civil right is worth a rush, after a man's property is subject
to be taken from him at pleasure, without his consent? If a man is
not his own assessor, in person or by deputy, his liberty is gone,
or he is entirely at the mercy of others." [1]

This fine statement has already done duty for liberty, in another contest;
for it was quoted by Mr. Sumner in his speech of March 7, 1866, with this
commentary:--

"Stronger words for universal suffrage could not be employed. His
argument is that if men are taxed without being represented, they
are deprived of essential rights; and the continuance of this
deprivation despoils them of every civil right, thus making the
latter depend upon the right of suffrage, which by a neologism of
o