have him do so. The vacuum he
causes is not a large one, and his departure is more than made up
by the arrival in his stead of a more robust and manlier sort."

The only objectors to coeducation were from those colleges which
had never tried it; President Porter of Yale thought it a
suitable method for post-graduate classes, and President Seeley
for a course of "lower grade" than Amherst.

President Cutler of Adelbert College made an able report, showing
that the progress of the age is towards coeducation. Only
fifty-three Protestant colleges, founded since 1830, exclude
women; while 156 coeducational institutions have been established
since that date.

Some of the trustees thought it desirable to imitate Yale,[292]
and others felt that _they_ knew what studies are desirable for
woman better than she knew herself! When the vote was taken, to
their honor be it said, it was twelve to six, or two to one, in
favor of coeducation. The girls celebrated this just and manly
decision by a banquet.

The inauguration of the women's crusade at this time (1874) in Ohio
created immense excitement, not only throughout that State, but it
was the topic for the pulpit and the press all over the nation.
Those identified with the woman suffrage movement, while deeply
interested in the question of temperance, had no sympathy with what
they felt to be a desecration of womanhood and of the religious
element in woman. They felt that the fitting place for petitions
and appeals was in the halls of legislation, to senators and
congressmen, rather than rumsellers and drunkards in the dens of
vice and the public thoroughfares. It was pitiful to see the faith
of women in God's power to effect impossibilities. Like produces
like in the universe of matter and mind, and so long as women
consent to make licentious, drunken men the fathers of their
children, no power in earth or heaven can save the race from these
twin vices. The following letter from Miriam M. Cole makes some
good points on this question:

If the "woman's war against whisky" had been inaugurated by the
woman suffrage party, its aspect, in the eyes of newspapers,
would be different from what it now is. If Lucy Stone had set the
movement on foot, it would have been so characteristic of her!
What more could one expect from such a disturber of public peace?
She, who has