university is as good as that done by the men. Indeed in some branches they may be said to excel their Competitors. This advancement of women to higher education was the evolution of a sentiment that came as naturally in the order of things as the change of sentiment in relation to the ser vitude of the black man. But it required a struggle and a great deal of energetic expan sion of public sentiment. It is said by a late writer and student of this phase of social de velopment, Sarah K. Bolton, in her little book on the subject of higher education of women, that formerly people went to Cam bridge to look with reverence upon the beau tiful buildings where Bacon and Milton gained inspiration, and where Newton, Pitt, Byron, Macaulay and Tennyson walked in ivy-covered courts and under the shade of the majestic overhanging trees. Now they go to see what one of the grandest institutions of the world is doing for the higher education of women. American women are now found at these English institutions who are a credit to themselves and us as a nation. In our own country there are from eighteen to twenty thousand women pursuing a college course, and now the question is not whether it is wise for women to seek this higher place in the social scale. The fact is that women are seeking this position. Would those who oppose the onward march of women in this social progress of the age, have us go back to the old regime when women had made no effort, at least no concerted effort to make herself the helpmate and equal of husband or brother? Certainly not. What she has gained in concession from the schools, and the excellent use she has made of her opportunity, has won our admiration and increased our respect for her. Yet this was merely the opening wedge for her ultimate social and political equality. And I believe, from the evidence we have before us of the high degree of intelligence and good sense of woman, wherever put to the test, when permitted, she will exercise her
right of the ballot with as good judgment as her husband or brother. The Rev. Mr. Williams concludes his argument by committing the bad blunder of a self-contradiction. He says : "Women who could be induced to vote would, with relatively few exceptions, vote like their husbands, and consequently not materially change results. Mrs. Coggswell, formerly a woman suffragist, says, ' Not two women in Wyoming would vote for a Republican, were her husband a Democrat, and vice versa.' Indeed most of the women take their votes from their husbands, and without looking at them cast them into the ballot-box." The first thing apparent here is the squarely inconsistent statements of the writer. He has but just spoken of the awful "spectacle of husband and wife going to the polls carrying antagonistic votes." Then is it not more pleasing to have them go to the polls arm in arm carrying the same kind of ballot? Then again, if Mrs. Coggswell is reported correctly, I should say that it is more than likely, from her sweeping asser tion, that she belongs to the class of women denounced by our friend as one who "whis pered in closets and shrieked on public platforms." As to the assertion that " women take their votes from their husbands," this much may be said, while this may be true of Wyo ming, it is the most unimportant portion of this great country, at least so far as its social characteristics are concerned. Then did the writer have any means of knowing the truth or falsity of this statement, except Mrs. Coggswell? Such a statement in ref erence even to Wyoming is difficult of belief. The writer could hardly mean to make this assertion general in its character, since many of the States vote under a system which does not permit of its ballots being carried around in the pockets of even those hus bands who belong to the "ring." There is absolute secrecy in the booths at the polling places under the Australian system of bal
