Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 4.djvu/367

 itol. The hearing before the Senate Committee was conducted by the Rev. Anna Howard Shaw, and considered The Philosophy of the Movement for Woman Suffrage. Only two members of the committee were present—James H. Berry of Arkansas, and George P. Wetmore of Rhode Island—but a number of other senators were interested listeners, and the large Marble Room was crowded with delegates and spectators. The first paper, by Wm. Lloyd Garrison (Mass.) considered The Nature of a Republican Form of Government:

The advocates of complete enfranchisement of women base their demand upon the principles underlying all suffrage, rather than upon the question of sex. If manhood suffrage is a mistake; if voting is a privilege and not a right; if government does not derive its just powers from the consent of the governed; if Lincoln's aphorism that ours is a "government of the people, for the people and by the people" is only a rhetorical generality, then women have no case. If not, they see no reason why, as they are governed, they should not have a voice in choosing their rulers; why, as people, they are not covered by Lincoln's definition. They feel naturally that their exclusion is unjust.

Woman suffragists are not unconscious of the glaring contrast between declared principles and actual practice, and they venture to believe that a professed self-government which deliberately ignores its own axioms is tending to decadence. They are not unmindful of the slow evolution of human government from earliest history, beginning in force and greed, reaching through struggles of blood, in the course of time, to the legislative stage where differences are adjudicated by reason, and the sword reserved as the last resort. This vantage ground has been gained only by a recognition of the primal right of the people to be consulted in regard to public affairs; and in proportion as this right has been respected and the franchise extended has government grown more stable and society more safe. It has come through a succession of steps, invariably opposed by the dominant classes, and only permitted after long contest and a changed public opinion.

In England, where the progress of constitutional government can be most accurately traced, there was a time when the land Owning aristocracy controlled the franchise and elected the members of Parliament. The dawn of a sense of injustice in the minds of the mercantile classes brought with it a demand for the extension of the suffrage, which was of course vigorously combated. It was an illogical resistance, which ended in the admission of the tradesmen. Later the workingmen awakened to their political disability and asserted their rights, only to be promptly antagonized by both classes in power. Eventually logic and justice won in this issue. In the light of history none of the objections urged against