The session closed with singing by the congregation of Whittier's hymn:

"O, sometimes gleams upon our sight

Through present wrong, the eternal right."

The meeting adjourned till ten o'clock next morning.
SEVENTH-DAY; MORNING SESSION.

The meeting opened with singing at the appointed hour. The committee for nominating persons to assist the Representative Committee in preparing for the fiftieth anniversary of this Association, reported that, so far as seemed best for the purpose, they have followed family lines; naming those who have been, or whose parents or near relatives were, actively interested in the work in its earliest time or since then.

The Anniversary Committee as it now stands is as follows: Members of the Yearly Meeting's Representative Committee: FREDERIC A. HINCKLEY, ELIZABETH B. PASSMORE, AARON MENDENHALL, DEBORAH A. PENNOCK, L. ELMA PYLE, CATHARINE A. HANNUM, GEORGE MARTIN CLOUD, JOSIAH PYLE, EDITH PENNOCK.

To co-operate with these, are named: Mary C. Ivins, Anna R. Cox, Sallie P. Marshall, Henry S. Kent, Emma Worrall, Margaret B Jackson, Mary L. Kent, John I. Carter, Theodore Pennock, M. Louisa Pennock, Emalea P. Warner, Eusebius Barnard, Emma Taylor, Burleigh Hambleton, Annie T. Hershey, Gertrude Nield, Josephine Pyle, Sallie T. Robinson, Elizabeth M. Hannum, Ellen Taylor, Patience W. Kent, Sarah D. Chambers, Priscilla B. Coates, Rosalie S. Pusey, William Henry Wilson, Albina B. Chambers, Josephine Pennock, Maud J. Davis, Mary S. Woodward, Joseph J. Baily, Jennie W. Hambleton, Sallie T. House, Mabel P. Foulke, Stuart Robinson.

The report was adopted and power given the committee to add to their number at discretion.

The Financial Committee, MAUD J. DAVIS, SARAH D. CHAMBERS and M. LOUISA PENNOCK, attended to their duties. ANNA H. SHAW addressed the meeting upon

THE RELATION OF WOMAN'S BALLOT TO THE HOME.

She said, in part: In the minds of many there appears a difficulty in realizing that the interests of the home and of the State are one, and inseparable. These people seem to think it requires a different sort of mentality to work in the one than in the other. That the mind of man is best fitted to manage affairs of State. That he has broad views; that he combines. and systematizes, in business, in science, in government. That he comprehends the relations of great interests; takes long views into the future, while woman, they say, is deficient in these qualifications. Her narrower vision is adapted to the small concerns of home life, the details of domestic affairs, and to the interests of the children; that in these alone, lies her sphere.

I will not question the truth of this now, but we must not lose sight of the difference in conditions to which men and women have been subjected in the ages gone by, to create this difference in qualifications. The point to be considered now is, what is best for us all in this day? We are told it is man's affair to administer government and a woman's place to train her sons to become fit for such duties. Does it occur to these advisers that if woman is by nature incapable of understanding State affairs she cannot wisely train voters and legislators? How can she teach the rising generation something which she has not the capacity to comprehend? How can political nonentities instruct political entities?

A professor of Leland Stanford University says, the great advantage of man-suffrage is, that it stimulates thought, arouses patriotism, makes men loyal, and brave, and strong; develops character. That only as men take an intelligent interest in the affairs of their country do they become capable of assuming the responsibilities of government.

If man requires this practical training to fit him for public duties, and if through the knowledge and exercise of them he becomes a better citizen and develops a broader, nobler type of mind, may we not be sure it will do as much for woman?

What an immeasurable gain this would be to our country and to the human race! Women and men are about the same; they learn along the same lines. Women cannot properly instruct unless they know and understand. Women need the ballot that they may know and understand; that they may have the stimulous of applied knowledge to quicken them to study questions of government. An unselfish interest in public affairs makes men steadfast, wise and loyal. It will do the same for women. Women need the ballot with its enlightening stimulous that they may enter intelligently into the home partnership also for the protection of the home.

The President of Harvard College tells us, the home is the tap-root of the State. Then the State draws its life from the home. As the homes are so will the State become.

It is an anomaly that while we have a republican form of government in this country, the home here is yet a monarchy. We have engrafted a republican State on a monarchial home. If we would have a republican State we must have a republican home.

So long as one man may dominate, may govern one woman, so long may all men govern all women. Carry the analogy a step farther; so long may men govern, by right of might, all weaker peoples, whether in the Philippine Islands or elsewhere.

I read recently in a popular magazine, an advisory article for young women, about forming matrimonial alliances. They were told minutely what they should bring into the partnership to offset the support afforded them by the husband. The advice might be very well. A sensible woman wishes to do her part and she usually does it. But the writer evidently forgot that it is in an extremely limited number of the United States that the husband and wife are equal partners. Would a business man form a partnership in which he furnishes half the working capital while all the profits went to the other partner?

Our laws in most of the States, in regard to the relative rights of men and women, while in process of improvement,

are still far from just. There exists a host of ways by which the woman-partner in a marriage may become the victim of cruelty, under our antiquated laws when they are put to the test. That which may inflict keenest anguish, perhaps, is the law regulating the right to the control of the children. In only seven of our States is a married woman the equal owner of her children. The average man is so much better than these ancient laws that the average woman is usually unaware of their existence, but an ill-disposed, unscrupulous husband easily learns to use them to serve his baser purposes. We want the laws to be so equitable that a man cannot be unjust or tyrannical and not be considered a criminal. The marriage contract must recognize man and woman as equal partners if the home is to be the root from which will naturally grow the true Republic.

What is the greatest issue before our people to-day? It is not the Philippines; it is not the financial question; it is not ship-subsidy; it is the child in the midst of us. We must educate and train the child now, that more children may be well-born by and by.

We have too little real patriotism in this country. Too little loyalty to high ideals. Instead of " My Country, right or wrong," our motto should be "My Country, when right, if wrong she must be set right." One is our Father, and all the peoples of the earth are his children.

It is in the home we should be taught this doctrine. To the mothers of the land ought we to look for such instruction But the mother must be enlightened. She, as I have said, must have the ballot that her horizon may be enlarged; that she may see affairs in their true relations, and her country, as well as her family, have the benefit of this enlargement of view and increase of wisdom.

We need the woman's enlightened vision to improve our public schools; to build and equip more school houses so that every child in the land may have its full share of the school term with all its advantages. We need the woman's domestic wisdom in municipal affairs, that we may have a supply of

pure water in our cities; to look after the condition of the streets, the sewers, the ashes, etc.; in all which she is now liable to be hampered for want of the ballot, which is the protection and defence of the citizen in a Republic.

MISS SHAW related, in her sprightly, humorous way, certain experiences women have had in legislative hearings. How, with them, "leave to withdraw" is usually the end of it, while voting citizens, backed by other voting citizens, very soon have their wishes enacted into law.

If the interest of woman is local and confined to the family, naturally she would use the ballot along local lines and for the protection of the family. In States where women vote this has been demonstrated.

MISS SHAW deprecated the formation of a woman's political party. It is always unnatural, impolitic and wrong that men and women should antagonize each other.

The effect of woman's ballot in the home will be for good. As women become intelligent, enlightened and thoughtful, the home will be more wholesome, attractive and happy. The caucus will be removed from the saloon to places of safety. Public affairs will be canvassed at the domestic fireside, among parents and children, as are other matters of common interest. The children will grow to manhood and womanhood feeling there is nothing in public affairs that does not concern the home. That they owe it to their country to become true and pure and worthy men and women.

DISCUSSION.

ELIZABETH B. PASSMORE asked why so many, even the believers in Woman Suffrage, are indifferent to it and slow to take hold and work for it? How can this indifference be overcome?

MISS SHAW: Perhaps, because the justice of it appears so evident to them they think it must of itself come right. It would seem useless to organize in order to prove that two and two make four. But truly they need light, to realize the causes of certain effects. Few people are indifferent to wrong