The notorious Stephen Pearl Andrews prepared a set of involved and intricate resolutions which were read by Paulina Wright Davis, the chairman, without any thought of their possessing a deeper meaning than appeared on the surface, but they fell flat on the convention, and were neither discussed nor voted upon.  The papers got possession of them, nevertheless, declared that they were adopted as part of the platform, read “free love” between the lines, and used them as the basis of many ponderous and prophetic editorials.

A national committee was formed of one woman from each State, with Mrs. Stanton as chairman, of which the New York Standard, edited by John Russell Young, said:  “Miss Susan B. Anthony holds a modest position, but we can well believe that in any movement for the enfranchisement of women, like MacGregor, wherever she sits will be the head of the table.”  The New York Democrat commented:  “She deals with facts, not theories, but just gets hold of one nail after another and drives it home....  Her words were to the point, as they always are, and abounded in telling hits in every direction.”  Even the Tribune was generous enough to say:  “The ranks of the agitators with whom Captain Anthony is identified contain no one more indiscreet, more reckless or more honest.  We have no sort of sympathy with the object to which the fair captain is now devoting her life; but we know no person before the country more single-minded, sincere and unselfish and, for these reasons, more honestly entitled to the regard of a public which will always appreciate upright intentions and disinterested devotion.”

In the closing days of May, she wrote to her old paper, The Revolution: 

Your “Stand by the Cause,” this week, is the timely word to the friends of woman suffrage.  The present howl is an old trick of the arch-fiend to divert public thought from the main question, viz:  woman’s equal freedom and equal power to make and control her own conditions in the state, in the church and, most of all, in the home.

Though the ballot is the open sesame to equal rights, there is a fundamental law which can not be violated with impunity between woman and man, any more than between man and man; a law stated a hundred years ago by Alexander Hamilton:  “Give to a man a right over my subsistence, and he has power over my whole moral being.”  Woman’s subsistence is in the hands of man, and most arbitrarily and unjustly does he exercise his consequent power, making two moral codes:  one for himself, with largest latitude—­swearing, chewing, smoking, drinking, gambling, libertinism, all winked at—­cash and brains giving him a free pass everywhere; another quite unlike this for woman—­she must be immaculate.  One hair’s breadth deviation, even the touch of the hem of the garment of an accused sister, dooms her to the world’s scorn.  Man demands that his wife shall be above suspicion.  Woman must accept her husband as he is, for she