Very palpably your palaver about Mr.Higginson's motion is a dodge, a quirk, a most contemptible quibble, reluctant as we are to speak thus irreverently of the solemn utterances of a Doctor of Divinity.
Right well do you know, reverend sir, that the particular form or time or fashion in which the question came up is utterly immaterial, and you interpose it only to throw dust in the eyes of the public.

Suppose a woman had been nominated at the right time and in the right way, according to your understanding of punctilios, wouldn't the same resistance have been made and the same row got up?
You know right well that there would.

Then what is all your pettifogging about technicalities worth?
The only question that anybody cares a button about is this, "Shall woman be allowed to participate in your World's Temperance Convention on a footing of perfect equality with man ?" If yea, the whole dispute turns on nothing, and isn't worth six lines in the Tribune.

But if it was and is the purpose of those for whom you pettifog to keep woman off the platform of that convention and deny her any part in its proceedings except as a spectator, what does all your talk about Higginson's untimeliness and the committee's amount to?
Why not treat the subject with some show of honesty?
The women and their friends held a grand rally in the Broadway Tabernacle the second day afterwards.

Every foot of sitting and standing room was crowded, although there was an admission fee of a shilling.