arguing calmly, as "A "A Lawyer" does, that it is wrong for a woman to own and control her own property, but that he should have it. The men born of that higher type of motherhood would scorn themselves for even wishing to establish such an immoral basis of action for their own selfish interest, which is, in its ultimate analysis, simply and only misappropriation of the goods of another to one's own selfish use.

"On the theory of the inspiration of the New Testament it must stand as a whole or fall as a whole, because the allowance of an exception to any portion is to admit the argument against its infallibility."

Yet to-day not even the most orthodox of the clergy believe in and preach that it was "devils" that were in the insane man, nor do they preach "witches." I venture to assert that if a thief took away our author's cloak he would not present him with his coat also, nor would he "turn the other cheek" if struck a blow. This is not the way lawyers do; it would ruin their trade. What would become of “A Lawyer's" practice if some one who had been kidnapped called upon him for advice and redress in court and he replied by saying that kidnapping was all right because the Bible distinctly says, "If a man compels you to go with him one mile, ye shall go with him twain." How would it do to advise all the tramps and paupers in his state to "take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat nor what ye shall drink nor wherewithal ye shall be clothed"? Are these New Testament principles "for all time and all people"? Does "A Lawyer" believe that if they were obeyed civilization would continue? When he is ill, does "A Lawyer” call in the elders and have himself well oiled and prayed over, or has he the wicked and unbiblical habit of getting a doctor? Does he take no heed for the morrow-or does he take a fee? Has he "gone into all nations and preached the gospel" or does he practise law? Was not that command general? Was it not for all time and to him? If not, why are the others to all women? Come, come, Mr. Lawyer, even on your own grounds, and with your own logic, might it not be better if you would search (and obey) the Scriptures more faithfully for your own sex and self and be less distressed because women do not adhere to the letter of that which you and all men violate daily? Is there not an absolute command about first casting the beam out of one's own eye? Is there not another (also Christ's and for all men and all time) about selling all you have and giving it to the poor? Does "A Lawyer" believe in and live up to that? Does "A

Lawyer" believe that no rich man can enter the kingdom of heaven? Does he believe that Balaam's ass spoke human language?

The few times that Christ had occasion to speak to or of lawyers He appears to have quite clearly indicated that they were an undesirable class. Was this for all time, all peoples, and all lawyers? In Luke xi: 52 He said, "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowl edge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." And even unto this day "A Lawyer," who very evidently has not "entered in," is struggling to take away the key and hinder all women from entering. Yes, that remark must surely have been for all time if not for all lawyers.

Matt. xxii:35: "Then one of them [the Pharisees], which was a lawyer, asked him [Jesus] a question, tempting him," etc., and the reply of Jesus was a command which "A Lawyer" indicates by his book is still unkept.

In Luke x:25 the Lord is again represented as "tempted" by a lawyer, even as woman to-day is tempted to yield to this Pharisaic argument, and Jesus then, as woman to-day, declined the honor.

Luke xi:45-8 Christ appears to have foreseen the present position of "A Lawyer" and says: "Woe unto you, also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men [women?] with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them." Had Christ had "A Lawyer" instead of lawyers in mind He could not have made a clearer home thrust.

Luke vii:30, "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God." And they are doing it yet if the counsel of God is the voice of justice and honor and right.

Pp. 73-4:

It is not that the church and religion will lose the active work and influence of these women; it is the open defiance of God's law as to marriage and as to woman's place in society under that law, which permeates all social and religious questions touched by the relation of husband and wife, that will produce the great and irreparable injury. The true civil relation of man and woman, whether as husband and wife or as citizens, springs directly from God's law of marriage; because, under that law, it is expected and intended that all men are to be, or should be, husbands, and all women wives. Therefore it goes behind future or predetermined relations between them, and fixes their natural and necessary relations to civil government before they assume the final relation to one another of husband and wife. If this theory or construction is wrong, either the whole object of God's

law would be frustrated, or the civil government would, of necessity, be compelled to enact the law as it stands in the Bible: in other words, the human law would be compelled to take from the wife those rights now contended for, and put her where God's law puts her the moment she becomes a wife-by sheer brute force.

Italics mine.

He appears to believe, and states in substance over and over, that women cannot be induced to marry men unless they are kept subordinate. That is to say, women must be forced to marry. This is a pretty low ideal of marriage, and "A Lawyer" seems to distrust wholly the attractive qualities of his own sex. A man who can secure or keep a wife only upon such terms is to be pitied indeed, for he has fallen far below the brute males, many of whom attract and keep mates with a varying degree of permanency. But the fact is that a very large percentage of the advanced women and the suffragists are not only married, but are happily married and are mothers of fine, healthy, intelligent, and loving children. Their husbands do not find it difficult to meet the situation. Most of them are able, capable, educated, thoughtful men who have a vast contempt for the laws which place their wives at a political and social, legal and financial, disadvantage. It is these very men whose wives, mothers, sisters, or daughters are leaders in the suffrage movement; who, most appreciating the qualities of such women, wish the state to have the advantage of the expression of their views in the organic law; and also wish to relieve their own sex from the stigma which attaches to those who hold by force the birthright of another, or are willing to profit (in a near-sighted way) by the degradation of their sisters.

"A Lawyer” assumes that if women voted, they would not marry. Wyoming does not appear to bear him out, neithor does England, nor Australia, nor New Zealand. It is an assumption so absurd that it needs no reply. The two things have no necessary relation. The one has to do with legal status, and with one's power to be heard as to choice in the organic law; the other is a tender, personal home relationship. One might as well argue that if women vote, they will cease at once to like ripe peaches and that they will have to be caught and fed. Men as men have not had the franchise for so very long. It did not undermine any of their personal love relations. They did not become worse fathers or husbands because they assumed a new and more dignified footing in the state.

The author goads the "pulpit" to cease being "cowards" and to speak out upon this matter. Bishop Doane and Rev.

Lyman Abbott have done so, but I have heard of no minister or man who has had the good fortune to have had a mother, a wife, or a daughter who was or is a logical woman suffragist who takes the side of repression of womanhood. These men have learned to trust and admire unrepressed womanhood, and to value it far above a sense of ownership and mastery. They have found it far sweeter and loftier to live in warm companionship and equality with a woman who is brave and loving and true to her husband not because he is her "head" or master, but because there is absolute mutual respect, love, confidence, and equality. Such men would find marriage with a woman who was willing to be and remain their inferior and "subject" to them an intolerable, ghastly mockery of the relationship to which they have grown accustomed between two who are equals in fact and who should be so in law.

There are passages now and then in the book which almost convince the reader that the object of the entire work is a travesty, a burlesque upon the ultra-conservativereligious view of this subject; witness for example p. 114:

The mere fact that Queen Elizabeth is admitted to have been a great sovereign, notwithstanding the very distinguished ability of her cabinet, proves nothing but the omnipotence of God.

Is not that fit for opera bouffe?

He says that in New York City alone there are 50,000 "loose women" (which means, according to statistics, 450,000 "loose men"), while he says "men have kept women pure" by denying them the ballot. He argues that these 50,000 women are a sufficient proof that women are not fit to take part in the municipal government, but he utterly forgets the 450,000 men who sustain and produce these women. He also forgets the fact that in cities where the ballot is in the hands of women, those of this class, almost every one, refuse to register and vote. This is history; "A Lawyer's" statement is only assumption. But to point out the fallacies of the book, its contradictions, its logical non-sequiturs, and its absolute historical misstatements would require a volume larger than is the book itself, for few pages lack several of these defects. The question is insistent when the book is finished, Is it the sincere and best effort of that side. or is it a burlesque? And to confess the truth, I do not know. I shall be glad to have its readers decide, if they

can.

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY: HOW CAN WE

SECURE IT?

BY JAMES L. COWLES.

The fundamental postulates of our modern political economy are the free movement of labor and the free movement of capital. It is to the realization of these postulates in practical life that we are to look for the equalization of opportunities. It was to make these postulates practical realities that the inventors of the steamboat and the locomotive gave to the dead earth a circulating system, and it was to crown their work that the electrician created a nervous system and breathed into arteries, veins, and nerves alike, the breath of life. These inventors are the world's great ministers, and they are rapidly converting it from an abode of savage brutes, each preying upon the other, into an abode of civilized human beings, each finding his greatest delight in the other's welfare.

"Of all inventions (the alphabet and printing press excepted)," says Macaulay, "those which abridge distance have done most for the civilization of our species. Every im provement in the means of locomotion benefits mankind morally and intellectually as well as materially, and not only facilitates the interchange of the various productions of nature and of art but tends to remove national and provincial antipathies and to bind together all the members of the human family."

The ideal condition of things would be to annihilate time and space and to make transportation and communication altogether free, and it is toward this goal that the world is steadily moving.

"The crowning improvement in postal matters, that of an international transit entirely free," says the British Encyclopædia, "is merely a question of time. It is the logical, the necessary complement of the work initiated at Paris in 1863, organized at Berne in 1874, and methodized again at Paris in 1878. One postal territory, one code of postal regulations, one uniform postal tariff, free conveyance between nation and nation, will be the outcome of this important movement." And this era of free international conveyance