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