ARGUMENT
FOR
WOMAN
SUFFRAGE
M. CAREY THOMAS
3046
T365
201

BENEFITS
र
RECENT RESE
THE LIBRARY
OF THE
*
RSITY
A
OMNIBUS ARTIBUS
UNIV
OF MINNESOT
CONFURE VIKULIM
CLASS 304.6
BOOK T365
*
A NEW-FASHIONED ARGUMENT FOR WOMAN
SUFFRAGE.
Made by M. Carey Thomas, President of Bryn Mawr College, at the opening
meeting of the Equal Franchise Society of Pennsylvania held at
the Acorn Club, Philadelphia, April 30, 1909.*
I have been asked to tell you what seem to me, and will
I hope seem to you, the most convincing new-fashioned
reasons for giving women the franchise. The old-
fashioned theoretical arguments based on justice and
"no taxation without representation" so marvelously set
forth in 1867 by John Stuart Mill in his great parlia-
mentary plea for the enfranchisement of women,† are
now being pushed into the background by the urgent
practical need of the ballot felt by women today.
During the last fifty years there has taken place a
stupendous social revolution of which the demand for
woman suffrage is only the outward symbol. Never
before in history were fifty years so momentous in their
consequences. During them the whole mighty movement
for the higher education of women has run its triumphant
course. Only this year the last barrier has given way
and the universities of Prussia the greatest centres of
scientific learning in the world have admitted women on
the same terms as men. The floodgates of knowledge
are open wide never to close again.
Fifty years ago the world of scholarship was a
* The substance of this address was given before the College Equal Suffrage
League at the National American Woman Suffrage Convention, Buffalo, October
17, 1908; the Equal Suffrage League of Maryland at the Arundel Club Hall,
Baltimore, February 20, 1909; and the Bryn Mawr Club of New York, April 2,
1909.
Ten thousand copies of this plea have been reprinted for the Equal
Franchise Societies of New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore and for the
National College Equal Suffrage League. A copy will be sent on receipt of ten
cents by the Corresponding Secretary of the Equal Suffrage League, 505 Fifth
Avenue, New York.
(1)
2
man's world in which women had no share. Now
although only one woman in one thousand goes to college
even in the United States where there are more college
women than in any other country the position of every
individual woman in every part of the civilized world
has been changed because this one-tenth of one per cent.
has proved beyond possibility of question that in intel-
lect there is no sex, that the accumulated learning of our
great past and of our still greater future is the intel-
lectual inheritance of women also. Unwillingly at first
but inevitably and irresistibly men have admitted women
into intellectual comradeship. The opinions of educated
women can no longer be ignored by educated men.
But throughout these fifty years another and even
more far-reaching change has been slowly taking place,
a change so great that men and women are afraid. Like
ostriches hiding their heads in the sand of the desert they
try to shut their eyes to it lest it should come the sooner.
Unheralded with no blare of trumpets reluctantly emerg-
ing into the light are millions of women wage earners
thronging every trade and profession multiplying them-
selves beyond all calculation from census to census, in
every country of the civilized world. Even in the United
States where fewer women are at work than in any other
country about five millions of women, or about one-fifth
of all women of working age, are supporting themselves
outside the home. It is because this industrial revolution
has taken place in our own lifetime that we do not as
yet realize it. Women of my own age, however, need
only refer to their own experience. I can remember
when no women at all were employed in business offices,
when the business streets of New York and Philadelphia
and Baltimore were practically deserted by women. Now
all the great business blocks and all the great office build-
ings are like rabbit hutches swarming with women type-
writers, women bookkeepers women secretaries and busi-
ness women of every sort, kind and description. Already
everyone who studies the subject is compelled to recog-
TO YTRAVIMU
ATOGIMMIN
J
htt
F
مان
My 26
304.6
T365
3
nize that whether we wish it or not the economic inde-
pendence of women is taking place before our eyes.* Men
of the poorer classes have long been unable to care for
their families without the assistance of women, and men
of the classes which formerly supported their wives and
daughters in comfort are now unable to do so and are
becoming increasingly unwilling to marry and assume
responsibilities which they cannot meet. The recent
edict of the Prussian government opening universities
to women specifically states that German women must be
fitted for self-support in the learned professions as Ger-
man men of the professional classes are ceasing to marry.
Recent investigations of the after lives of college women
and of their sisters who have not been to college have
shown us that only about one-half of the daughters of
* According to the United States Census, in 1880, 16 per cent., or 1 in 6,
of all women of 16 years and over; in 1900, 20.6 per cent., or 1 in 5 (in Rhode
Island 29.6 per cent., in Massachusetts 28.1 per cent.) were wage-earners.
This
increase is much greater than the increase of the population. In 1900 there
were 1,075,941 more women at work than the normal increase would lead us to
expect. The census of 1910 will certainly show another enormous increase in
the numbers of wage-earning women, and it is significant that this increase has
taken place chiefly in women of native white American parentage. Twenty
years ago it was mostly negro and foreign women who were at work. A great
increase has also taken place in married women wage-earners. They have in-
creased in all classes of the population. Of 303 occupations given in the
1900 census women are employed in 294. The rate of the increase of women
in trades and professions between 1890 and 1900 is fastest of all, and faster
than the increase in population, which means that women (both married and
unmarried) of the middle classes (that is, neither rich nor poor) are beginning
to support themselves. In 1900 there were four times as many women stenog-
raphers and typewriters as in 1890.
The statistics of college women collected by the Association of Collegiate
Alumnæ in 1900 (this investigation will be published by the Association of
Collegiate Alumnæ in 1910 and may be obtained from Mrs. Elizabeth L. Clarke,
Williamstown, Massachusetts) show that of 3370 women graduates of the best
colleges in the United States, 79.7 per cent were supporting themselves, and
that of 1325 of the sisters or women relatives nearest in age of these college
women, 56.4 per cent were supporting themselves.
In Germany it is estimated that 33 1-3 per cent. of all women are wage-
earners; in France, with a population of less than one-half of the United States,
over six million women are at work; in Austria 41 per cent. of all women are
earning their living; in Holland, with a population of six millions, two and
one-half million of men and a million and one-half of women are wage-earners.
In European countries it is estimated that there are at the present time five mil-
lions more women than men.
567950
4
**
men of the professional and business classes who do not
inherit independent fortunes can look forward to mar-
riage. Statistics seem to prove that only fifty per cent.
of the women of these classes marry. What are the
other fifty per cent. to do except work or starve? Most
women of independent means marry because their
inherited fortunes enable them to contribute to the sup-
port of the family. Women of the working classes marry
because they too can help by their labour to support the
family. It is only the undowered women who are pre-
vented by social usage from engaging in paid work
outside the home or in manual labour inside the home
after marriage who remain unmarried. All other women
are married and at work.
Is it well for the great middle classes of our civilized
nations, that is, for the classes not very poor or very
rich, to contain these ever increasing numbers of celibate
men and women? To such a question there can be only
one reply. If it is ill as we all admit why do we not
encourage the women of these middle classes to work and
marry like the women of the poorer classes who are
practically all married? Why in England and Germany
and the United States are there these thousands upon
thousands of unmarried women teachers, a celibate class
like the monks and nuns of the Middle Ages, and like
them an ever present menace to the welfare of the state?
Why in Italy, on the other hand, are so many of the
women public school teachers married? Because in
England and Germany and the United States women
teachers lose their positions when they marry, and marry
* The statistics of college women collected by the Association of Collegiate
Alumnæ in 1900 (this investigation will be published by the Association of
Collegiate Alumnæ in 1910 and may be obtained from Mrs. Elizabeth L. Clarke,
Williamstown, Massachusetts) show that of 3636 women graduating between
1869 and 1899 from the best colleges in the United States, only 31.1 per cent.
are married, and that of 1487 of the sisters or women relatives nearest in age of
these college women, only 46.1 per cent. are married. If we take the marriage
rate of the earlier graduating classes we find that it rarely rises above 50 or 60
per cent and that there seems to be no appreciable difference in the marriage
rate of graduates of co-educational colleges and of separate colleges for women.
5
and starve they cannot. Because in Italy women teachers
are allowed to marry and teach. Is it conceivable that
the state of the future in which women as well as men
will vote will deprive women of bread because they wish
to marry?
But, you may say, is it not better for the children if
their mothers do not work after marriage? That may
or may not be true but it is not the question. This is not
an academic discussion. The question before us is
simply and solely this, is it not better for these myriads
of unborn children to have married working mothers
than to have no mothers at all? Face to face with the
facts we are compelled to recognize that in the immediate
future all dowerless women who prefer to remain unmar-
ried or who wish to marry men without inherited fortunes
or extraordinary money-making capacity must work for
their own and their children's daily bread.
The argument for woman suffrage thus becomes so
obvious that the woman who runs may read. Are we
women prepared to refuse these ever increasing millions
of self-supporting women already handicapped by dis-
abilities of child-bearing and child-rearing the right to
sell their labour in the open market to the best advantage?
If not, then it is our manifest duty to work for woman
suffrage by every means in our power. Woman suffrage
is first of all a woman's question. We cannot remain
indifferent. The issues involved are so overwhelmingly
important, first of all, to us as women caring as we must
for all other women's welfare, and second, to us as
citizens of the modern industrial state. I am sure as
the result of repeated experiment that it is only neces-
sary for generous and unprejudiced persons to realize
the present economic independence of millions of women
workers, and the swiftly coming economic independence
of millions upon millions more women workers. Woman
suffrage becomes inevitable from this moment.
No one can maintain by serious arguments—that is,
by arguments that are not pure and simple distortion
6
of fact that the ballot will not aid women workers.
as it has aided men workers to obtain fairer conditions
and fairer wages. All workingmen and all men of every
*
* Anti-suffragists sometimes try to maintain that the ballot has no effect
on wages. Although it is true that workingmen in the United States have not
yet learned to control the conditions of labour by an organized labour vote such
as is wielded by the labour parties in England and on the continent, yet the
direct influence of the vote on wages will yearly become greater and already
its indirect influence is enormous. Without it women cannot hope to organize
themselves successfully into labour unions. The strike of the shirt waist makers
in January, 1910, which has occurred while this address was passing through
the press, is an instance in point. Until women of means and position rallied
to their support the voteless striking girls, unprotected even by the ward leaders
or politicians who have an eye to votes and seldom offend men strikers, were
powerless against the brutality of the New York and Philadelphia police and
the injustice of the police courts. Miss Helen Marot (Collier's, January 8, 1910)
states: "Statistics prove that in the girls' shirtwaist strike more than eighty
per cent of those arrested were convicted; but in the taxicab strike of the men
chauffeurs', a year ago, less than three per cent were convicted. In the chauf-
feurs' strike, a period of five weeks in all, the courts witnessed only 295 arrests.
Three weeks in the Jefferson Market Court alone saw 528 girls haled in. Six
men were fined, 298 girls." Party leaders (witness President Roosevelt in the
anthracite coal strike in Pennsylvania in 1903) often insist on employers com-
promising men's strikes lest the future of the political party in power should be
affected by the disaffected labour vote. Women workers of all workers need
most help and they alone are deprived of all political influence. The late Hon.
Carroll D. Wright while still National Commissioner of Labor said in an address
at Smith College in 1902: "The lack of direct political influence constitutes a
powerful reason why women's wages have been kept at a minimum." Thousands
of women are at the present time working for starvation wages, and the condi-
tions of women's work are geting steadily worse instead of better as the number
of women workers increases. For most work women receive from one-third to
one-half less than men. In federal, state, county and municipal positions
women are also paid from one-third to one-half less than men for the same
work.
Nothing more demoralizing to women's self-respect can be conceived of.
This inequality at least is done away with where women vote. In federated
Australia where women have full suffrage the principle of equal pay for equal
work has been adopted by the government and various bills requiring equal
pay for equal work are pending in the parliaments of the different Australian
states. In Norway one of the first results of woman suffrage was to equalize
the salaries of men and women doing the same work in the postal service. In
Wyoming and Utah the law requires equal pay for equal work, and in Colorado
and Idaho this is the rule in state and municipal positions, including teaching
positions in the public schools. It is not to be expected that the causes which
tend to keep women's wages at a minimum can be corrected immediately in
woman suffrage states and countries, and it is therefore natural that in such
states and countries a majority of men should continue to hold the best-paid
positions even where the same salary is paid for the same work. This is the
case in Colorado. (See Helen L. Sumner, "Equal Suffrage, The Results of an
Investigation in Colorado made for the Collegiate Equal Suffrage League of New
York State," Harper & Brothers, New York and London, 1909, pp. 150-179.)
•
7
class regard the ballot as their greatest protection against
the oppression and injustice of other men. Picture to
yourselves the fate of any political party whose platform
contained a plank depriving labouring men of the right
to vote.
In matters of social welfare we must argue from
observed facts. It seems very clear that on the whole
universal manhood suffrage, unsatisfactory as it is,
works the least injustice to the greatest number of men,
and that the trend of modern civilization is setting itself
irresistibly in this direction. Women even more than
men need the ballot to protect their special interests and
their right to earn a living. The experience of all his-
tory, the whole course of modern democracy goes to
Although in Colorado women in the public schools, for example, receive on an
average lower salaries than men, yet women who replace men in the same
positions are not paid less, and the best paid positions in the schools of the
state are open to women and are very often filled by women. Since 1894 (the
year after woman suffrage was granted) the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction has been a woman. In 1905 26 out of 59 counties elected women
county superintendents of public instruction; in 1898, 25, in 1900, 30, in 1902,
33, in 1904, 34, in 1905, 35, and in 1907, 36 women county superintendents of
public instruction were elected. During these years 47 women and 28 men
served as county superintendents for two terms and 9 women and 14 men for
more than two terms. Of 58 women superintendents of whom the facts are
known 26 were married and 12 were widows at the time of holding office.
Before 1892, when no women voted, no women served on state boards; between
1894 and 1906 women had served on 15 of the 26 boards existing in 1906.
Women have formed about one-third of the members of the Board of Charities
and Corrections. Undoubtedly the fact of women holding such offices of
responsibility and financial dignity tends to have a very beneficial effect on
the wages of women in the state. Although women receive relatively consider-
ably less than men in Colorado, yet the five states of the United States where
women's wages are highest in manufacturing industries include three of the
equal suffrage states, Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, the other two being Wash-
ington and Massachusetts. (See "Equal Suffrage," pp. 137-147, and p. 165.)
It is, I believe, only necessary for us to study the three recent important
investigations of women's work and wages. (See "Womens Work and Wages, A
Study of Conditions in Birmingham," by Edward Cadbury, M. Cecile Matheson,
and George Shann, published by T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1906, republished
in Unwin's Sociological Series for 1 shilling; "Women and the Trades," by
Elizabeth Beardsley Butler, a study of conditions in Pittsburgh, published by
the Russell Sage Foundation, Charities Publication Committee, 1909; and
"Women in Industry," by Edith Abbott, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1909)
to recognize that workingwomen, even in the United States where there are
fewer women and more favourable conditions for women's work than anywhere
else in the world except Australia, need all the help that the ballot can give them.
>
8
prove that a disfranchised class cannot protect its labour.
In the past we have no single instance of any class of
men with the ballot legislating fairly for any other class
of men without the ballot. How then can the men of
the world all working and all voting protect the special
interests of the voteless women of the world who are
emerging as workers millions strong on the surface of
our human bee-hive? They cannot. If they have in the
past done injustice to the disfranchised classes of their
fellow-men, they will do far more terrible injustice in the
future to disfranchised classes of workingwomen. If
the vote has been indispensable as a protection in the
past, it will be still more indispensable in the future
because modern socialistic legislation will increasingly
control employers and employed. Thousands of English
women are today banded together in their labour unions
demanding with desperate courage from a reluctant
parliament a vote to protect their labour and their chil-
dren for whom they labour.
Just here you may say-at least if you are a man you
will probably say, and it is your only alternative if you
are not prepared to announce your conversion to woman
suffrage—that every woman ought to be supported by
some man. A few years ago I had the honour of hearing
this subject discussed by a certain eloquent divine whose
"Outlook" seems to me wider in theology than on gen-
eral social questions. He was hard pressed by argu-
ments and finally admitted that if women must really
work for a living the ballot would be of assistance to
them, but he added that he had "never considered the
question seriously, as every woman ought to be supported
by some man." Since then when I read his eloquent "anti"
addresses I remember with indignation and horror
the millions of toiling women so chivalrously com-
mitted by him to the tender mercies of millions of men
who refuse to support them in honourable marriage.
But what may perhaps be forgiven a male "anti" of
the older generation seems to me utterly inexcusable in
a female "anti" of the present generation whose first
duty as a woman is to inform herself of facts that
concern other women. Millions of women the world over
are not at present supported by men, and these millions
cannot starve. They must earn their bread, honourably
if we permit them, dishonourably if we prevent them.
It seems to me ignoble and ungenerous in the extreme,
words fail me to express how ungenerous and how ignoble,
for women who are themselves supported in comfort
(for a workingwoman "anti" is as rare a bird as the
traditional phoenix) actually to try to prevent other less
fortunate women from protecting their labour by the
ballot. The only possible excuse for such tactics,
"antics" would perhaps be a better name for the frivol-
ous behaviour of these "antis" in the face of the grim
bread and butter need for a vote felt by workingwomen,
can be ignorance of the actual facts. But ignorance of
facts on a vital question affecting the lives and happiness
of women and children becomes, at least for women when
it concerns other women, a social crime.
But are there any other such strong arguments for
woman suffrage as the need of the ballot to protect
women's labour? If so, what are they? Are there any
arguments on the other side? If so, what are they? Let
us take a few moments to argue the question out in the
good old-fashioned way, question and
question and answer like
Socrates. It is surprising how seldom one has to revise
conclusions reached by such a method of reasoning. Yes,
there are many other arguments for woman suffrage.
Women need a vote for the sake of children. No
state, modern or ancient, has ever cared properly for its
children. Children are at the present time horribly
neglected in every country, even when they are not as in
many states of the United States horribly abused. All
women whatever their nationality care more than all
men for the welfare of all children. This is true even of
female animals in the animal world. It is supremely
true in our human world. Children are, and always will
be, the special interest of women. Wherever women
IO
already vote, in the Australasian Commonwealth and in
New Zealand, in Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Colorado, in
Norway and in Finland their influence is felt immediately
and persistently in ameliorative measures for the pro-
tection, reformation and education of little children. No
one with any knowledge of the facts can deny that the
political power of women is exercised on behalf of chil-
dren.* We are now learning that children should be the
chief concern of our present civilization because in them
lies the hope of the future. For the sake of children,
women must vote.
S
But women need a vote also to represent their own
special interests. On many questions men and women
think alike or differ as individual men differ in opinion.
*For convincing evidence of this see the following publications, which are
only a few selected out of a cloud of witnesses: Helen L. Sumner, "Equal
Suffrage, the Results of an Investigation in Colorado made for the Collegiate
Equal Suffrage League of New York State," Harper & Brothers, New York and
London, 1909 (this is by far the most careful study made of the working of
woman suffrage in the United States; as the introduction points out, women
had voted in Colorado for only twelve years and it was too soon to expect to see
immediate results. I believe, however, that no one can study this book and
its carefully prepared tables without being convinced of the beneficent working
of women's vote, see especially pages 180-213); the following leaflets in the
Political Equality Series published by the National American Woman Suffrage
Association, 505 Fifth Avenue, New York: "Judge Lindsey on Suffrage";
"Fruits of Equal Suffrage No. I (Wyoming and Colorado)"; "Fruits of Equal
Suffrage No. II (Idaho and Utah)"; "Suffrage in New Zealand," Vol. II, No. 9;
"Northwestern University and Woman Suffrage," published in Evanston, Illinois,
1909 (pp. 21-23 for enumeration of laws in the four woman suffrage states);
Memorial of the Women of Oklahoma and Indian Territory to the Constitu-
tional Convention, Guthrie, 1906, pamphlet of 62 pp.; Testimonials from
prominent persons concerning the operation of woman suffrage in Wyoming,
Colorado and Utah (Political Science Study Series, Vol. 2, No. 3, published by
the National American Woman Suffrage Association, 505 Fifth Avenue, New
York). In 1906 the 87 women's clubs and women's organizations in Chicago
sent out a letter containing ten questions to the mayors in four states where
women have full suffrage and in Kansas where they have municipal suffrage.
One hundred and forty replies received bear overwhelming testimony to the
successful working of woman suffrage. See pamphlet "Mayors of Five States
Recommend Municipal Suffrage for Women.")
According to the United States census of 1900 there were in the United
States 579,947 children who could not read and write between the ages of ten
and fourteen. In Wyoming where women had voted for 31
years there
were only 72 illiterate children in the state; in Idaho only 209; in Utah only
220; and in Colorado only 742. In 1900 only 4.2 per cent. of the population
of Colorado ten years and over were illiterate, as compared with 6.3 per cent.
for the west division and 10.7 for the whole United States.
II
On many other questions, mostly those which affect
women themselves, all women and a minority of good
men think differently from the majority of men. It is an
outrage against decency and morality that every vital
question in the lives of women and children should be
controlled by this masculine majority indifferent, or
worse, to women's interests. Women are one-half of the
human race. Why should they be born, educated, mar-
ried, divorced, buried under laws made exclusively by
men? Why should laws regulating women's labour,
women's taxation, women's guardianship of their chil-
dren, women's power of will be enacted without consulta-
tion with women? Why should women and their children
eat impure food, drink poisoned water, catch preventable
diseases, live in filthy cities under immoral and degrading
conditions over which they have no control? Why should
women be arrested and confined in police stations,
defended, accused, tried by jury, sentenced by a judge,
imprisoned, and executed solely by men? My mother
who cared greatly for the poor, defenceless girls of
Baltimore spent much of her time in attending the police
courts of Baltimore because she found that when the case
of one of these poor girls came to trial the simple presence
in the courtroom of one sympathetic well-dressed woman
prevented the judge and jury from treating such cases
with brutal levity. She discovered horrible abuses in
the so-called justice meted out to poor helpless women
without even the protection of the ward boss which is
extended to poor men because of their vote. These
abuses she and other Baltimore women were powerless
to right because they also had no vote.
It is so whenever we go below the surface. Women's
rights and women's interests are not at present pro-
tected, and they never will be until women vote. In
thirty-four states of our own United States women have
not equal rights in their own children and after the
death of their husbands their baby children, even those
12
unborn, can be willed away from them.* In many states
women's little girl children are held by man-made laws
to be old enough to "consent" to their own ruin so that
mothers have no redress against the human brutes who
profess to have seduced these children, or against the
keepers of infamous houses who have decoyed them. In
one state of the United States babies of ten can give
"consent," in others children of twelve. But in our four
woman suffrage states, and I am thankful to say in
some other states through the entreaties of women,
the age of consent has been raised to eighteen years of
age.
Women who voted would not tolerate for a moment
such laws. And it is so with every interest affecting
women. I believe that it is impossible for any intelli-
gent woman to study the laws of her own state and
compare them with the laws of the woman suffrage states
and woman suffrage countries and not as an immediate
consequence become a woman suffragist.
It is sometimes said that women can secure this bitterly
needed protection for their special interests as well with-
out the ballot as with the ballot, but no one, certainly no
man, can honestly believe this. It is simply absurd to
say that women who vote cannot get what they wish
much more easily and in a far more dignified way than
women who do not vote. Jane Addams says that her
strongest reason for wishing women to vote is because
she has seen and deplored the unfortunate effect
upon the characters of women themselves of their indirect
methods of persuasion and cajolery which their present
voteless condition compels them to use in order to secure
the legislation of which they and their children are so
sorely in need.
M
But there is another and even stronger argument for
woman suffrage. Women need a vote because the human
* In Massachusetts women pleaded from 1848 to 1903 before this cruel
and unjust law was changed, but in Colorado it was rescinded at the first
legislature after suffrage was granted to women. The last California legis-
lature refused to make mothers joint guardians with fathers of their own
children.
13
race needs women's help to right the terrible wrongs of
our present social system. The government says to them
that they are not to concern themselves with such things,
and we are perishing because women do not concern
themselves. There can be no such preposterous and
unreasonable disability, no such rigid exclusion from the
possibility of citizenship as is implied in the denial of the
right to vote to a whole sex without entailing serious
intellectual and moral consequences. Women's husbands
and men children are fatally influenced by women's indif-
ference to public matters. The denial of the right to
vote stifles public spirit in women. As John Stuart Mill
said in 1867, if only one woman in twenty thousand voted
it would vastly help all women to realize their public
responsibilities. Women as they are at present are a
millstone around the necks of public spirited men. Not
only for the sake of women themselves, but for the sake
of men, for the sake of the race, women must vote.
Now what can be said on the other side against such
overwhelming reasons for giving women the vote to pro-
tect their labour, the special interests of themselves and
their children, and the wider interests of the race? I
will first take the arguments I have called "antics"
because of their frivolous and unworthy nature in a
vitally important matter like woman suffrage and because
they are made use of by the few women in the United
States who are trying to prevent other women from get-
ting the vote. These "anti" arguments are chiefly mis-
statements of fact.
First of all, it is said that women now have influ-
ence enough without the vote. Women have in reality
very little influence in political matters, but if they had
great influence this would be no argument. Rich men
have a great deal of influence and yet we do not on
that account deny them a vote. It is also said that a vote
will lessen the present influence of women. But it has
never been proved that the influence of any class of
14
men or of any individual man has been lessened because
he has the power to vote. The influence of rich men
is not less but more because like other men they have
the power to vote. English women have voted many
years on all municipal questions, and I believe that
everyone who has associated intimately with English
women would agree that they have more influence, not
less influence, than American women in public affairs
because of the fact that they vote on such questions.
Nothing is dearer to women than the love and respect of
their sons, yet every American boy who grows up rever-
encing his mother's advice and counsel must at the age
of twenty-one realize with a shock from which he can
never wholly recover that in civic and national affairs her
opinion is not considered of as much value to the state
as his own.
Second, it is said by some few indiscreet and tactlessly
honest men and by some wholly disingenuous and very
disloyal women that women are not intelligent enough
to vote. We might reply in Mrs. Poyser's famous phrase
from Adam Bede, "God Almighty made them to match
the men." If, however, we answer seriously we can
only say that if women are really not intelligent enough
to know that they wish pure food and water, clean
streets, good schools, honest administration, fair laws and
incorruptible judges and police, protection for life and
honour, a low tariff, arbitration of labour disputes, tem-
perance or intemperance, wet or dry towns and states,
peace or war, corrupt or honest senators or representa-
tives, Mr. Taft or Mr. Bryan for president of the United
States, then in Heaven's name let us veil women's faces
and bind up their feet again and return them to the harem.
Let their men children be taken away from them. If
they as mothers are not intelligent enough to register
their opinions on matters of such primary importance to
themselves and their children, then they are wholly unfit
to bring up their sons to be voters. They should be
15
deprived of whatever influence they now wield in church
and state.
Third, they say that women's vote will not protect their
special interests, and that men protect them now far bet-
ter than women would do. This of course is false; we
have only to refer to facts in the countries where women
vote and to the testimony of the philanthropic women in
those countries engaged in bettering the conditions of
women and children."
Fourth, they say that women ought not to vote because
women's vote works badly. This again seems to be abso-
lutely incorrect. In deciding such a question we must of
course make a careful collection of evidence from every
country in which women vote. I have endeavoured to
inform myself and to investigate every statement pro
and con as best I could. I have never found evidence
unfavourable to women's vote based on any facts worthy
of the name.* Moreover, even if women's vote did work
badly men's vote works shockingly, and yet we bear it
with all its disadvantages because it is the only way of
saving millions of men from oppression and injustice.
What is the real proof whether or not women's vote
works well or ill? The only proof we need is the steady
and triumphant progress of woman suffrage and the fact
that wherever the vote has once been given to women
it has never been taken away by the action of the people
themselves. We need no other proof than this. Since
municipal suffrage was granted to women in England
and Wales in 1869 it has been extended by Great Britain
to Scotland, Ireland, Canada, and all her colonies. Every
English-speaking country except the United States now
has in successful operation some form of woman suffrage.
Municipal suffrage was given to women in Scotland in
1881, in Ireland in 1898; to spinsters and widows in 11 of
the 12 provinces of Canada between 1884 and 1889; in
1907 the English parliament gave women the right to sit
on county and borough councils and to be elected to all
* See note, page 10.
16
municipal offices; full suffrage was granted to women in
the Isle of Man in 1881, in New Zealand in 1893, in South
Australia in 1895, in West Australia in 1900, in New
South Wales in 1902, in Tasmania in 1903, in Queensland
in 1905, in Victoria in 1908; full parliamentary suffrage
was granted to women in Federated Australia in 1902.
In the Scandinavian countries women received full suff-
rage in Finland in 1906, and in Norway in 1907; taxpay-
ing municipal suffrage in Denmark in 1908; in Sweden
and Iceland in 1908 eligibility in addition to previous
municipal franchise.
Why is the United States the great exception among
Anglo-Saxon countries? Why does woman suffrage
come so slowly here? Why are there only 4 states where
women have full suffrage, only 1 where they have munici-
pal suffrage, only 5 where they have some sort of tax-
paying suffrage, and only 21 states in which they exercise
some form even of school suffrage?*
VEND
Why has progress been so slow? Because in the
United States it is necessary to convince of the desir-
ability of woman suffrage not only one parliament, as in
England, Australia, Norway, or Finland, but 46 twin
parliaments? Because after each state legislature is
convinced most states require submission to the people
and as a rule another confirming vote in the next legis-
lature and the governor's signature. Because women of
our own white Anglo-Saxon race must plead for a share
in the government which their fathers' fathers created
* Women were given full suffrage in Wyoming in 1869; in Colorado in 1893 ;
in Utah and Idaho in 1896; municipal suffrage in Kansas in 1887; school suf-
suffrage in Kentucky in 1838 (only widows with children of school age); in
Michigan and Minnesota in 1875; New Hampshire and Oregon in 1879; Massa-
chusetts in 1879; New York and Vermont in 1880; Nebraska in 1883; North
and South Dakota, Montana, Arizona and New Jersey in 1887; Illinois in 1891;
Connecticut in 1893; Ohio in 1894; Delaware in 1898 (only tax-paying women);
Wisconsin in 1900; tax-paying suffrage on questions submitted to taxpayers in
Montana in 1887; bond suffrage in Iowa in 1894; vote for library trustees in
Minnesota in 1898; tax-paying suffrage on questions submitted to the taxpayers
in Louisiana in 1898; tax-paying suffrage on local taxation in towns and vil-
lages of New York State in 1901; bond suffrage in Kansas in 1903. In addi-
tion women have a vote in Mississippi on live stock at large and country schools,
and in Arkansas on liquor-selling ordinances. Women also vote on school
questions in Washington and Oklahoma.
17
not only with men of their race who have granted politi-
cal rights to their own women in the mother country and
her colonies but with negroes and the backward immi-
grant peoples of the half-civilized countries of Europe.*
Because our great political bosses, our great liquor inter-
ests, our great railways, and our other great monopolies
are said by women suffrage workers in the western
states to be working against the further extension of the
franchise to women.t
It is sometimes said that some women do not wish to
vote, and we are asked why should women who wish to
vote compel all other women to vote? But unfortunately
no one is compelled to vote. Thousands of men vote only
when their special interests are involved in an election.
It is never the case that all members of a disfranchised
class wish the ballot. Many men who have the ballot do
not wish it. In many elections from 30 to 50 per cent. of
men who are qualified to vote do not vote. Should all men
be disfranchised because nearly one-third of all men do
not vote? But it is not a question of wishing to vote
or not. If it is true that the interests of women and
children can be best safeguarded by women's vote, if
we need women's help in our town city and national
government, it does not matter whether all women wish
to vote or not. The ballot must be given to women for
the good of the community as a whole.
* Of 21,329,819 males of voting age in 1900, there were 2,293,676 coloured
(of whom 2,065,589 were negroes); 3,466,721 born of foreign parents; and 4,932,-
524 foreign born. There were only 10,636,898 native born white voters of native
parents for American women to appeal to for rights of suffrage. Miss Anna
Howard Shaw, President of the National American Woman Suffrage Associa-
tion, told me that in California when a woman suffrage amendment was sub-
mitted to the voters in 1906 every negro waiter in the many hotels of Cali-
fornia voted against woman suffrage, although they had beforehand promised
pleading California women to vote for them. Miss Shaw further says that when
the woman suffrage amendment was submitted to the South Dakota Legislature
in 1908 the names of a majority of the men who voted against women suffrage
were so foreign that she did not know how to pronounce them.
See Miss Anna Howard Shaw, President of the National American Woman
Suffrage Association, letter to the London Times, July 8, 1908. "The organized
liquor interest and a powerful railroad corporation defeated the woman suffrage
amendment in Oregon in 1908, and used more than $300,000 to do it."
18.
It is further said that if women were given the ballot
they would not use it, that where women may vote they
do not vote. This is a flagrant mis-statement, and is
contradicted by all the facts we know.*
It is sometimes said that good women will not vote and
that bad women will vote. But bad men vote, and here
is reason to believe that many bad men vote many more
times than good men, and yet we do not deprive good
men of the franchise. There are many fewer bad women
* The testimony in regard to women's voting in large numbers wherever
they have full suffrage is practically unanimous. In New Zealand in 1893 the
first election after they were enfranchised 90,290 women, or 85.18 per cent.
of those registered, voted, as against 69.6 per cent. of men; in 1896, 108,783
women, or 76.44 per cent., voted; in 1899, 119,550 women, or 75.70 per cent.,
voted; in 1902, 138,565 women, or 74.52 per cent. voted; in 1905, 175,056
women voted. Sir Joseph Ward, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, stated
on October 17, 1907, that at this election 83 per cent. of all women registered
voted and 84 per cent. of all men (see "Woman Suffrage in New Zealand," page
15, published by the International Woman Suffrage Alliance).
In Australia there is the same testimony to the large vote of women.
Indeed woman suffrage has been granted by one after another of the states of
the Australian Federation and by the Federal Government itself in 1902 just
because women have voted in such numbers and so wisely. Victoria was the
last of the federated states to grant full woman suffrage in 1908, after thirty-
nine years of suffrage agitation.
In Great Britain it is due to the excellent results of women's successful
municipal vote that women have been admitted to more and more electoral
privileges. It was only in 1907 that they were empowered by act of Parliament
to sit on all county and borough councils and to be elected to all county and
municipal offices. Two thousand women are now holding such elective offices.
The parliamentary is now the only vote denied to British women, and will
undoubtedly soon be granted.
In the Scandinavian countries where women have had some form of
municipal vote for years it has worked so well that Norway granted taxpaying
women full suffrage in 1907; Sweden made women ratepayers who had voted
since 1862 eligible for any municipal office, university professorships and other
state offices in 1908; Denmark gave taxpaying spinsters and wives of taxpaying
men municipal franchise and election eligibility in 1908. In the city of Copen-
hagen 70 per cent. of women and 80 per cent. of men eligible to vote voted
at the first election after municipal suffrage was granted. (See Report of the
Fifth Conference and First Quinquennial of the International Woman Suffrage
Alliance, p. 67, published by Samuel Sidders & Co., London, 1909.) In Iceland
since 1881 spinsters and widows who were householders or self-supporting had
certain forms of municipal franchise; in 1908 married women ratepayers were
given municipal franchise and were made eligible to office; in 1909 all tax-
paying men and women over twenty-five years of age were given full municipal
suffrage and eligibility.
In Finland women were granted full suffrage in 1906; at the first election
held after this 19 women, and at the second election 26 women, were elected
members of the diet or Finnish parliament.
From the four woman suffrage states of the United States we have the
19
than bad men, so that woman suffrage will increase the
good vote.* It is said that prostitutes will vote, but
at the last election in Colorado the prostitutes of
Denver petitioned the women's clubs to protect them from
the police who were compelling them to vote the ticket
of the party in power. After the election the women's
clubs of Denver acted on the petition of the prosti-
tutes of Denver and had the Augean stables of the
police department swept and cleaned. Of all classes of
women, prostitutes are the class that least wish to be
registered and to vote, and even if they did vote, would
any woman wish to deny to this most unfortunate class
of human beings whatever protection a vote can give?
These are examples of the kind of arguments that need
not be taken seriously. But there are other arguments
same testimony to the interest taken by women in voting and the success of
their vote. Every governor of Wyoming from 1869 to 1896 has said that the
results of woman suffrage have been good. In 1894 more than one-half of the
total vote for governor was cast by women, between 85 and 90 per cent. of the
women of the state voting. Governor Frank Steunenberg of Idaho stated in
"Harper's Bazaar," May 26, 1900, that in the state of Idaho in 1898 women
cast 40 per cent. of the total vote, although they are a minority of the voting
population of the state.
In Colorado, where the conditions are more like those in eastern states, a
careful study has been made by Miss Sumner of the proportion of women voting
at successive elections. (See "Equal Suffrage," pp. 97 to 127.)
In the year
1896, the first Presidential election after the adoption of equal suffrage, women
cast in all probability 47.7 per cent. of the total vote, although in this year it
is estimated that women were only 39.9 per cent. of persons twenty-one years
of age and over in Colorado. In the election of 1906 it is estimated that women
in the counties cast over 37.3 per cent., and in Denver over 42.5 per cent. of
the total vote, although they constituted only 47.5 per cent. of the total voting
population.
*The late Hon. Samuel J. Barrows, National Prison Commissioner, said
in 1908 (see Woman's Journal, August 15, 1908): "If police and prison
records mean anything they mean that, considered as law-abiding citizens,
women are ten times as good as men." The United States Census tabulated for
1904 shows that in the prisons of the United States women prisoners constitute
only 5½ per cent. of all prisoners.
Very ignorant persons sometimes express the fear that if women could
vote the prostitutes' vote might outnumber the vote of other women. The
number of prostitutes in the United States is unknown, but it is assumed that
there may be about 100,000 concentrated in the cities of New York, Chicago,
and Philadelphia. The women of voting age in these cities number about
1,300,000. But many of these prostitutes are below voting age. The proportion
of prostitutes to other women is far less throughout the whole country. In
the state of Idaho prostitutes are forbidden to vote. Good women and native
white women vote in much larger numbers than bad women and foreign born
and negro women. ("Equal Suffrage," pp. 114-117.)
20
which still have some influence with intelligent people.
Women cannot fight and therefore should not vote? This
is an antiquated and out-of-date argument. It is out
of place in the twentieth century. War is already an
infinitesimal part of a modern government. The great
international peace and arbitration movement will soon
make it an anachronism. Even in war the actual fighters
are few. A very small proportion of men fight. The
taxpayer is the real man behind the guns, and women
pay taxes as well as men. Women's interests are as
profoundly involved in war as men's, perhaps more so.
If only the potential soldier is to vote, let us be con-
sistent and exclude from the franchise all clergymen and
physicians, all men who cannot pass a physical examina-
tion and all men above the fighting age.
The expediency argument still has weight with many.
We believe in woman suffrage, but we think it inexpedi-
ent. Let us wait until women are educated for it. But
if women's interests are unprotected it is surely expedi-
ent to protect them as speedily as may be. No disfran-
chised class is ever really ready for the ballot. The
ballot is the great educator. Great classes of men are
not now ready for it, yet they must have it to protect
their rights. On the whole, women, especially women of
the poorer classes, are as ready for it as men, and they
sorely need this protection in the life and death struggle
they are waging for themselves and their children against
starvation and temptation.
Why should we duplicate the ignorant vote? You
would not duplicate it on special questions affecting
women and children. This is the whole point of the
woman suffrage argument. On other questions if you
do duplicate it, what matter? The taxes paid by women
can surely meet the cost of printing a few more ballots
and counting them. But in a democracy like ours it is
an inestimable benefit for a whole people, both men and
women, to concern themselves with all public questions.
21
A republic is sound at heart only when all its adult mem-
bers are alert and ardent. Too many votes cannot pos-
sibly be cast for a righteous cause in a democracy which
lives and breathes by the public opinion of the men and
women who compose it. Moreover, the ignorant immi-
grant vote and the ignorant native white vote will be
greatly reduced if women vote. Of the million or so
immigrants entering America each year less than one-
third are women. The census of 1900 shows that there
were in the United States at that time 117,362 more illiter-
ate boys than girls between the school years of ten and
twenty-one, and successive reports of the United States
Commissioner of Education show that many more girls
than boys attend, and complete the courses of, the public
high schools each year so that if women voted not only
would the foreign immigrant vote be relatively less, but
the intelligent white American vote would be greatly
increased by woman suffrage.
But why not limit the franchise for women? Why give
all women the vote? Why not only women of property
and education? Because democracy will not have it so.
Because any movement to admit only a limited number
of women to the franchise is doomed to certain failure.
Because women must vote on the same terms as men or
not at all. Because workingwomen who have no property
and little education must be able to protect their labour.
Then when women and men vote on the same terms those
who believe in a limited franchise can if they choose
attempt to limit the franchise for men and women alike.
But any serious movement to give votes to women on
different terms from men will delay woman suffrage
indefinitely in a democratic state like ours. It is easy to
foresee one result of such a limited franchise. Women of
property and education would combine with men of prop-
erty and education to take away the vote from men
without property or education. Why complicate the
issue? How can we expect democracy to cut its own
throat?
22
The real argument for woman suffrage lies in a nut-
shell: either women are different from men or the same
as men for voting purposes. If they are the same and
not different, then they have the same need to vote as
men. Why discriminate against women any more than,
let us say, against blue-eyed or red-headed men? If
women are different from men (and they are different
in many important respects), then their different inter-
ests and different point of view must be represented in
the modern democratic state. The only possible escape
from a woman suffrage argument such as this is to pre-
tend that all men fairly represent all women. But,
although some "antis" still say so, no one with any
knowledge of present social and economic conditions can
really believe such an absurdity.
The true objection to woman suffrage lies far deeper
than any argument. Giving women the ballot is the
visible sign and symbol of a stupendous social revolution,
and before it we are afraid. Women are one-half of the
world, but until a century ago the world of music and
painting and sculpture and literature and scholarship
and science was a man's world. The world of trades and
professions and of work of all kinds was a man's world.
Women lived a twilight life, a half-life apart, and looked
out and saw men as shadows walking. It was a man's
world. The laws were men's laws, the government a
man's government, the country a man's country. Now
women have won the right to higher education and to
economic independence. The right to become citizens
of the state is the next and inevitable consequence of edu-
cation and work outside the home. We have gone so
far; we must go farther. We cannot go back. The
man's world must become a man's and woman's world.
Why are we afraid? It is the next step forward on the
path toward the sunrise, and the sun is rising over a new
heavens and a new earth.
THE EQUAL FRANCHISE SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA
President
MRS. CORNELIUS STEVENSON,
237 South 21st Street
Honorary Vice-Presidents
BISHOP WILLIAM N. McVICKAR
Recording Secretary
MISS MARY INGHAM,
333 South 16th Street
Vice-Presidents
MRS. C. STUART PATTERSON
MISS M. CAREY THOMAS
DR. HOWARD A. KELLY
MRS. CHARLEMAGNE TOWER
MRS. WILLIAM ROTCH WISTER
MR. ISAAC H. CLOTHIER
MISS MARY E. GARRETT
MR. J. LEVERING JONES
MR. FRANCIS A. LEWIS
Corresponding Secretary
MISS CORNELIA FROTHINGHAM,
1104 Spruce Street
Treasurer
MRS. LAWRENCE LEWIS, JR.,
1820 Pine Street
Board of Directors
MRS. WILFRED LEWIS
MISS ELLEN MCMURTRIE
MRS. WISTAR MORRIS
DR. LIGHTNER WITMER
MRS. R. FRANCIS WOOD
Women and men wishing to join the Equal Franchise Society of
Pennsylvania are requested to send their names and addresses to the
Corresponding Secretary, who will also answer requests for information
and woman suffrage literature. The dues are one dollar a year. Copies
of this pamphlet may be obtained by sending ten cents to the Corre-
sponding Secretary of the Equal Franchise Society.

304.6
T365
1
WYYYYN
PETITES
*1%
DHAKIT?61644|RKA
དར་
HAKEMÉTALLÁTÁFKYETTESÍKÁROLÁId}&26567275*2*
*
(994) LEITER
NAKİNANİZ

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
wils
304.6 T365
Thomas, M. Carey (Martha Carey), 1857-19
A new-fashioned argument for woman suffr
3 1951 002 376 864 1
WILSON
ANNEX
2
3
4
QUAWN
0123456
4 PT
6 PT
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
0123456
MESH
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
65
85
Spectra
100
110
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",/?$0123456789
133
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:”,./?$0123456789
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
150
0123456
Times Roman
ONTON={
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:',./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:'../?$0123456789
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
AIIM SCANNER TEST CHART #2
4 PT
6 PT
8 PT
10 PT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
Century Schoolbook Bold
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
News Gothic Bold Reversed
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:'',/?$0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:',./?$0123456789
Bodoni Italic
8 PT ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΦΡΣΤΥΩΧΨΖαβγδεξθηικλμνοπφρστυωχψζ37",/Σ+++><><><
10 PT ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΦΡΣΤΥΩΧΨΖαβγδεξθηικλμνοπφρστυώχψζ27",/St=7°><><Ξ
QUAWN--
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?80123456789
1
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
Greek and Math Symbols
ABгAEZOHIKAMNOIIPPETYMX¥Zaßyde§0nikλµvo#Opoτvwx¥(≥F",/≤±=#°><D<=
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz;:",./?$0123456789
ΑΒΓΔΕΞΘΗΙΚΛΜΝΟΠΦΡΣΤΥΩΧΨΖαβγδεξθηικλμνοπφρστυωχψζ==",/S+=#°><><><Ξ
White
HALFTONE WEDGES
1
|
I
|
Black
O5¬♡NTC
Isolated Characters
e
4
8
3
5
σ
9
1
6
0
2
7
h
3
0
I
a
。
B
EXTAWN-I

654321
A4 Page 8543210
65432
A4 Page 6543210
A4 Page 6543210
©B4MN-C
65432
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ONE LOMB
MEMORIAL DRIVE, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14623
032E ▸
1253
223E
3 3EB
4 E25
5 523
6 2E5
SBE 9
7863
5 SER
8532
9538
10 EBS
Set
17
⌉书​版​嘟
​155自​杂
​14 E2 S
1323S
12E25
11ES2
10523
ESTO
5836
BONEM
835E
7832
0723
₪32wy
ת
◄ 2350
0123460
6 E38
5 582
4 283
7E28
8B3E
5326
10:
3 32E
மய
ND
OEZE
1328
2 E32
3 235
4 538
5 EBS
6 EB
TOON
TYWES
16 ELE
15853
14532
13823
12ES2
11285
1053B
SBE6
8235
7523
PRODUCED BY GRAPHIC ARTS RESEARCH CENTER
RIT ALPHANUMERIC RESOLUTION TEST OBJECT, RT-1-71