management, acquired real estate, their property is taxed according to
the same rule by which the property of men is taxed; and still the
elective franchise is denied them. Men in legislating for men know their
wants and understand their particular needs, because they have
experience of them; but in legislating for women they look at things
from their own stand-point; and because of its being impossible for them
to experience the various annoyances and humiliations to which women are
subjected, they do not realize the injustice toward women of the
existing state of things, or the nature and extent of the changes which
justice to them requires. To secure any thing like impartial justice in
civil affairs for women, they should have an equal voice in making the
laws.

It is contended that, if women were entitled to the franchise, it would
make no difference with a party vote, since as many women would vote on
one ticket as on the other. What of it? The franchise has been extended
from time to time for centuries to various classes of men, and these
classes did not, as a class, confine themselves to one particular ticket
or party. Was it any the less the unalienable right of these men to
enjoy their liberty to vote as they saw fit, or as they deemed for the
best interests of the country? Certainly not. Neither is it just that
women should be denied the right to vote because it would make no
perceptible difference to a party ticket.

If women had a right to vote, say some, it would occasion family
contention. Why should it? If a woman thinks as her husband, she will
vote as he does; if not, none but an unreasonable and overbearing man
would insist that his wife must think as he does, and vote in accordance
with his views, whether they agree with her own or not. It would be
quite as just and as reasonable to urge that, because the peace of