where, nevertheless we may all have as many carriages and motors as we can afford to pay for.  Kulin polygyny, though unlimited, is not really a popular institution:  if you are a person of high caste you pay another person of very august caste indeed to make your daughter momentarily one of his sixty or seventy momentary wives for the sake of ennobling your grandchildren; but this fashion of a small and intensely snobbish class is negligible as a general precedent.  In any case, men and women in the East do not marry anyone they fancy, as in England and America.  Women are secluded and marriages are arranged.  In Salt Lake City the free unsecluded woman could see and meet the ablest man of the community, and tempt him to make her his tenth wife by all the arts peculiar to women in English-speaking countries.  No eastern woman can do anything of the sort.  The man alone has any initiative; but he has no access to the woman; besides, as we have seen, the difficulty created by male license is not polygyny but polyandry, which is not allowed.

Consequently, if we are to make polygyny a success, we must limit it.  If we have two women to every one man, we must allow each man only two wives.  That is simple; but unfortunately our own actual proportion is, roughly, something like 1 1/11 woman to 1 man.  Now you cannot enact that each man shall be allowed 1 1/11 wives, or that each woman who cannot get a husband all to herself shall divide herself between eleven already married husbands.  Thus there is no way out for us through polygyny.  There is no way at all out of the present system of condemning the superfluous women to barrenness, except by legitimizing the children of women who are not married to the fathers.

THE OLD MAID’S RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD

Now the right to bear children without taking a husband could not be confined to women who are superfluous in the monogamic reckoning.  There is the practical difficulty that although in our population there are about a million monogamically superfluous women, yet it is quite impossible to say of any given unmarried woman that she is one of the superfluous.  And there is the difficulty of principle.  The right to bear a child, perhaps the most sacred of all women’s rights, is not one that should have any conditions attached to it except in the interests of race welfare.  There are many women of admirable character, strong, capable, independent, who dislike the domestic habits of men; have no natural turn for mothering and coddling them; and find the concession of conjugal rights to any person under any conditions intolerable by their self-respect.  Yet the general sense of the community recognizes in these very women the fittest people to have charge of children, and trusts them, as school mistresses and matrons of institutions, more than women of any other type when it is possible to procure them for such work.  Why should the taking of