THERE is no good reason why suffragists should not have the benefit of a little sound, practical advice; they get so much of the other kind—in all of our critical reviews.

A gathering of unusual importance for the suffragists as well as for the other intelligent people of the United States was the annual suffrage convention in Atlantic City, September sixth to tenth. This marked, it may be, a crisis in suffrage affairs. They met, they had their chance, and they neglected to take advantage of it.

There are now 1,000,000 (1,025,000 to be exact) women voters in the eleven American states which enjoy equal suffrage. How many states, and how many women voters, will be added to the nation's poll by 1920? How can this enlargement of woman's activities, opportunities and interests be best, and most surely, and most rapidly promoted?

There have always been three stages in the growth and evolution of all great popular movements in the United States. The first is the martyr stage, when the advocates of the proposed reform are subjected to ridicule, reproach, obloquy— even violence.

The second stage is that of the selfseekers, or "fakirs," when those who seek personal advantage or notoriety join in the advocacy of a cause in which they do not sincerely believe. "Votes for Women" is emerging from this stage, though there are still a large number of women, and a few men, whose participation is wholly selfish. They have their pictures taken; they make cash contributions—when reporters are present to record the fact; they hold "receptions" designed to advertise themselves, their new homes, their new clothes or their new social acquaintances; they are interviewed; they write notoriety-seeking letters and are conspicuous on platforms, in parlors and in an endless series of photographs. They are the fringe— much shopworn, to be sure—on the garment which encases Woman's Progress in its flowing folds.

THE third and concluding stage of the "Votes for Women" agitation will be the decisive and determining one. It is already here! To meet it requires sound judgment and united action. Shall the advocates of "Votes for Women" continue busily—and ineffectively—battling against heavy odds in the several states in which only men can vote, or shall they join with one of the two great political parties in a presidential election and depend upon the triumph of that party for the attainment of the reform for which they are fighting?

The forces of opposition to woman suffrage are excellently organized. They include, first, the large brewing, wine and whiskey interests, all of which regard "Votes for Women" as a long step towards prohibition. Next there are the voters of foreign-birth or ancestry who believe that "woman's place is in the home"— or in the fields. Then there is the enormous force of organized political opposition.

IF the "Votes for Women" advocates, as some propose, "fight out their battle in the states," what will happen to them is what has already happened in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Missouri and New York. The two political machines will combine against them, and "Votes for Women" will be rejected piecemeal—separately and surely—in each.

See what has already happened: In seven states a woman's suffrage amendment was submitted to the voters in 1914, and in five of these it was defeated. It was defeated in Nebraska by 10,000; in North Dakota by 10,000; in South Dakota by 12,000; in Michigan by 90,000, and in Ohio by 182,000. The two states carried were Montana and Nevada, neither of them of first importance. In both of these states, because of their large mining interests, the preponderance of male inhabitants is so great as to deprive "Votes for Women" of what its adversaries call "any menace." In 1915 the "Votes for Women" proposition was defeated in New Jersey by 50,000; in Pennsylvania by 53,000; in Massachusetts by 130,000, and in New York by 188,000.

All these battles were made, irrespective of party lines, with the woman suffrage advocates appealing to the voters of the two parties impartially, and with the acknowledged support of neither,

IT is further to be remembered that there is a very large passive, or noncommittal vote, of men who are indifferent to the question of female suffrage (its adoption or rejection) so long as the former does not seem to be imminent. In New York City last year "Votes for Women" was defeated in every one of the five boroughs, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Richmond and Bronx, the whole adverse majority being nearly 90,000. But there were 70,000 voters who were not in any way recorded.

IN the whole political history of the United States every great revolutionary idea, every new policy of government, has been secured through the active agency of a political party—never otherwise. The abolition of slavery; federal power to make internal improvements; the maintenance of an honest standard of coinage; the resumption of specie payments; the abolition of the sedition laws; the protective tariff system—all these policies have been secured by one or the other of our two great political parties.

And it will prove so—it must prove so—with Woman Suffrage, if it is to be attained at all. When the women gather in suffrage meetings, during the next week or two—or, for the matter of that, during the next four years of our history—they had better make up their minds to come out firmly and unmistakably for Justice Hughes, or for Professor Wilson, or for Colonel Roosevelt, and never to relax their efforts until the man of their choice has been elected and until he and all of his party in Congress have been committed solidly to the cause of "Votes for Women."