and in order to perpetuate this monopoly, its supporters take shelter behind the wall of prejudice erected in the course of the times under the protection of the established order of things, and from there they hurl the shafts of satire and ridicule upon all who demand that this violent condition cease. Ridicule is the most powerful weapon now used against the woman who attempts to obtain justice and the vindication of the rights of her sex, some of which rights, such as that of governing the peoples, were not even withheld from them in many of the primitive states.

The result is that many persons have a very queer idea of the suffragist. She is represented as a woman who dislikes home work and is absent from her home at all hours of the day and night. The most common picture is that in which the wife addresses a gathering of other women, while the husband is busy at home, sweeping the floor and attempting to pacify the squalling baby. This is the idea which has been spread by cinematographs and reviews and which has impressed itself upon the minds of the unthinking masses, who are incapable of rising above a superficial view of things.

Nothing, however, is farther from representing her as she really is. The suffragist is a true product of our era of liberty. Having received the same education as man, she knows and does not shirk her responsibilities towards her family; but at the same time she is free from prejudice and deems it her duty to coöperate with man in all work concerning social reform and the public welfare of the community in which she lives. She believes that for the very reason that there are duties in the home which are assigned to woman, she has also duties to perform in public life. The distribution of the work between man and woman causes no conflict between them in their home and family life, and there is no reason why there should be any conflict in public life if each sex is assigned the duties adapted to it.

Being a suffragist does not mean being antagonistic to the family duties. On the contrary, the suffragist realizes that the happiness of the family is the foundation of the happiness of society, and she knows that social distress and vices affect the family and that she can and should coöperate with man in the relief of that distress and the suppression of those vices.

No, the general idea people have of the suffragist is altogether a wrong one and it is high time that at least the educated and intelligent correct their views where they are based on prejudices and ideas belonging to the past. We can not prevent the uneducated masses from thinking as they did half a century ago; but the fact that many serious and otherwise progressive persons content themselves with the opinion of the uneducated shows that here we do not go deep into subjects and allow ourselves to be carried away by the impressions of the moment.

Suffragism is a legitimate aspiration, an ideal of our century. It springs from the philosophy and institutions of the modern world and from the growing difficulty of the position of woman in the struggle for existence. It is necessary for her to protect herself and organize, not to create rivalry and make war upon man, but to become an asset in the social progress and protect herself from the exploitation and iniquity of the other social groups, whose victim she would become if she remained indifferent and took no part in the public life.

As a man of the law and a legislator, I would not think of opposing this aspiration. I consider it as natural as the right to live and the right of self-defence. I do not consider it premature for the Filipino woman to demand this right, as her sisters have done, successfully in some cases, in other parts of the world. To me it makes no difference that the number of those now demanding it is small and insignificant. It would even make no difference to me if the women of our country did not demand or want it at all. Where rights fundamentally in accordance with the spirit of our institutions and with the ideals of our times are to be granted, I would not consult those who are entitled to demand them, but would give them without the asking, because it would be just and God wants justice to prevail at all times and everywhere. I am not a judge, but a legislator, and it is my first duty to provide for justice, not to administer it, nor wait for some one to ask for it and some one to object to it.

It is a source of gratification to me that there is a group of women who, voicing the aspirations of their sex, have dared to approach our Legislature and call attention to a void in our statutes. This indicates to me that the consciousness of that right has been born and has revealed its existence in the Filipino woman, and more than that I need not know. I do not have to count and classify the women who think that way. When Rizal espoused the cause of the political rights of our race, his companions were very few, because in the majority of his compatriots that consciousness was lying dormant. But it would be a falsehood and an error to affirm that even at that time Rizal did not voice the cause of his entire race, and that no attention should be paid to his demands because he and those with him were few in number. He knew that his country was oppressed, that he was defending a just cause, and that he was fighting for the rights of his fellow-citizens, and he did not stop to reflect whether or not those fellow-citizens had the consciousness of their rights.

We must conclude, therefore, that the few women who now speak to us of the rights of their sex and for suffrage, represent all the Filipino women, unless we wish to insult our women by saying that they have so little common sense as to oppose the concession to them of rights that will broaden the scope of their lives and of their activity in society. It matters but little that the desire for suffrage appears in its initial stage, in the vague form of an indefinite proposition: the fact is that there has been an indication of that desire, and in my judgment the plant has germinated and it is useless to endeavor to smother it, as it will grow again. The more we delay female suffrage, the more shall we suffer by it, because why should we stifle a budding plant instead of allowing it to grow and in due season produce delicious fruit?

We need not imitate the older nations who have been so slow in recognizing women's rights. We have neither their traditions nor their prejudices and our progress need not come by slow revolutions. We must foster all those peaceful revolutions of ideas that will result in social justice. Just as we accept the latest inventions in mechanics, industry, and art, such as the automobile, the dynamo, and the aeroplane, so must we accept the latest improvements in the social and political institutions of the most advanced countries.

Female suffrage spells justice and vindication for the modern woman and we must adopt it forthwith, without unnecessary delay and formalities. The liberty of worship which gave us religious tolerance; the popular suffrage which strengthened our collective conscience; the free public school which emancipated our masses from the tutelage of the cacique: in short, all the achievements of democracy of which we are so justly proud would not yet be beautiful realities and we would not be able to enjoy their mature fruits as we now do, if we had been compelled to feel our way and make many tentative steps instead of at once entering fully upon our social and political life. We have to move quickly and anticipate the aspirations of the feminine masses, which are as yet vague, in order to save us the agitation which otherwise is sure to come and the justice of which will have to be recognized.

When we are told