November 26, 1911, To the Editor of The Sunday Times
Sir, in your issue of last Sunday appeared a further letter from Mr. C.F. Mullins at the same
time as my letter explaining the meaning of Universal Suffrage,. On reading this letter I saw
that I had made a mistake in speaking of Mr. Mullins almost as an advocate of Manhood
suffrage and therefore of classing him with Mr. Asquith.
Mr. Mullin’s letter, however, well reinforces my own remarks on the dangers of
Manhood Suffrage without Womanhood Suffrage, the two together being essential for a
genuine democracy. Those cities which Mr. Mullins and his friend Mr. T.C. Van Ness, quote
as warnings—namely, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and San Francisco, are all
cities which have Manhood Suffrage only, excepting now San Francisco. Thereby hangs a
tale! Those great cities are riddled with the faults of vice, bribery, corruption and
bureaucracy, so much so that no decent men will easily be persuaded to enter politics. San
Francisco was in precisely the same position and it was the better element that was
desirous of purifying the State which recently urged forward Women Suffrage. You
remember how the vote went. The first announcement which came in from the towns, and
especially San Francisco, where the “bosses,” “wets,” and bureaucrats held the rein of
power, went against Woman Suffrage, to the premature delight of anti-suffragists, but the
vote of the country districts, which was a pure vote, completely reversed the early
tendency and the women of California were enfranchised, at which all the friends of
progress rejoiced greatly. __Yours, etc.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31-Coram-street, W.C., November 23