Part 19

* * * * *

In Chicago, before the women took a hand, the disposal of the garbage cost the city $4,000 a month; now it nets a profit of $2,000 a month, and yet people wonder why the grafters are so dead set against votes for women.

* * * * *

The various parties seem to be having a hard time with the “political uplift.” Some day it will occur to them that until women lend a hand they will be trying to lift themselves by their bootstraps.

* * * * *

They opened a big hotel in Los Angeles a few months ago for men only, and already they announce that henceforth women also will be welcomed as patrons. Funny, isn’t it, when hotels for women only are flourishing all over the country, that the men couldn’t flock alone in a single one?

* * * * *

Before the last committee hearing on woman suffrage in Washington, Mrs. Dodge, national president of the “antis,” announced that the members of Congress had been sufficiently bored, so to speak, and her forces would not appear. The love of the limelight was too strong, however, and there they were in the center of the stage, singing the old, sweet song, “Woman’s place is at home in the bosom of her family.”

* * * * *

The turkey trot and bunny hug have been replaced by the goose waddle, which is really much more indicative of those who dance it.

* * * * *

“Love is a disease,” says a Chicago doctor, “called anaphylaxis—lack of resistance.” This is merely a trick of the profession to increase the number of their patients, but the Chicago girls dare them to try to cure it.

* * * * *

A booth was built in New York City in a district where only three men voted, yet members of the Legislature object to giving suffrage to women because it would require more voting booths. Who helps to pay for those the men use?

* * * * *

The anti-suffragists have been so busy during the campaign running political headquarters and making speeches for the candidates they haven’t had a minute to tell the suffragists that a woman’s place is at home and that women are wholly unfitted for politics. It will be somewhat embarrassing for them to resume business at the old stand and hear the suffragists jeer.

* * * * *

When United States Senator Burton, of Ohio, landed from a trip to Europe not long ago and was asked the inevitable question about woman suffrage, he said, “I do not care even to express an opinion on such a subordinate issue.” Now he says that of course he is going to vote for it in his State. It is taking a mean advantage for reporters to corral a great statesman on the dock before he finds out what has happened in his absence.

* * * * *

The Rothchilds are said to have given $15,000 to the British Anti-Suffrage Association. The vote in the hands of women would prove a strong factor in preventing the wars of the future.

* * * * *

Colonel Henry Watterson declares that he has “written more times and at greater length against woman suffrage than any other editor.” Maybe he has and maybe that is the reason it is making such rapid progress in his own State.

* * * * *

California University girls eat ten tons of candy a year, according to reports; but the boys of that institution can’t prove that they are the sweetest things on earth until candy statistics from the other colleges come in.

* * * * *

Women’s place is at home. Wives must make the home so attractive that husbands will never want to go out evenings. Children must be kept off the street. All very good; but how is the whole family to stay at home at the same time in a city flat of the average size?

* * * * *

The moving-picture shows are making a specialty of films depicting the newly enfranchised women of the Western States in the act of going to the polls and voting, but strange to say there is not a single illustration of the awful things that were going to happen when this catastrophe took place. It seems odd that after the terrible predictions of fifty years the scene should look much like a procession going to church—except that there are more men in it.