Jungheinrich Forklift EFG 320 GE120-550DZ Spare Parts Manual FN427060

Jungheinrich Forklift EFG 320

GE120-550DZ Spare Parts Manual
FN427060
To download the complete and correct content, please visit:

https://manualpost.com/download/jungheinrich-forklift-efg-320-ge120-550dz-spare
-parts-manual-fn427060/

**Jungheinrich Forklift EFG 320 GE120-550DZ Spare Parts Manual FN427060**

Size: 6.14 MB Format: PDF Language: English Brand: Jungheinrich Type of
Machine: Forklift Type of document: Parts Catalog Model: Jungheinrich EFG 320
GE120-550DZ Forklift Spare Parts Catalog Date: 2011 Number of Pages: 441
Pages Serial Number: FN427060
Download all on: manualpost.com.

Visit ManualPost.com to get correct and complete item

 [Unrelated content]
Another random document on
Internet:
 SUFFRAGE FALLACIES

MRS. A. J. GEORGE

Alice N. George, widow of Dr. Andrew J. George; graduated from

Wellesley in 1887; is President of the Brookline Branch of the
Ramabai Association; American Representative of the National Trust
(English) for the Preservation of Historic Places; a director of the
College Club; a member of the Research Committee of the
Educational and Industrial Union, of the Welfare Department of the
National Civic Federation of the Woman's Trade Union League, of the
American Society for Labor Legislation, etc., etc.
J. A. H.

Woman suffrage must ultimately fail. It is based upon a fallacy, and

no fallacy has ever made a permanent conquest over mankind.
The fallacy of woman suffrage lies in the belief that there is in our
social order a definite sex division of interests, and that the security
of woman's interests depends upon her possession of the elective
franchise.
"The history of mankind," declared the founders of the suffrage
movement, "is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the
part of man toward woman, having as the indirect object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over her." "Man has
endeavored in every way he could," continues this arraignment of
the fathers, husbands, and sons of these self-styled Mothers of the
Revolution, "to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen
her self-respect and to make her willing to lead a dependent and
abject life."
On this false foundation was built the votes-for-women temple. How
shall it endure? The sexes do not stand in the position of master and
slave, of tyrant and victim. In a healthy state of society there is no
rivalry between men and women; they were created different, and in
the economy of life have different duties, but their interests are the
common interests of humanity. Women are not a class, they are a
sex; and the women of every social group are represented in a well-
ordered government, automatically and inevitably, by the men of
that group. It would be a fatal day for the race when women could
obtain their rights only by a victory wrested at the polls from
reluctant men. These truths are elementary and self-evident, yet all
are negatived by the votes-for-women movement.
That the vote is not an inalienable right is affirmed by Supreme
Court decisions, the practice of nations, and the dictates of common
sense. No state can enfranchise all its citizens, and since the stability
of government rests ultimately upon a relentless enforcement of law,
the maintenance of a sound fiscal policy, and such adjustment of the
delicate interweaving of international relations as makes for peace
and prosperity, it is right that the state should place the
responsibility of government upon those who are best equipped to
perform its manifold duties.
Woman's citizenship is as real as man's, and no reflection upon her
abilities is involved in the assertion that woman is not fitted for
government either by nature or by contact in daily experience with
affairs akin to government. She is weak along the lines where the
lawmaker must be strong. In all departments where the law is to be
applied and enforced, woman's nature forbids her entrance. The
casting of a ballot is the last step in a long process of political
organization; it is the signing of a contract to undertake vast
responsibilities, since it is the following of the ballot to its conclusion
which makes the body politic sound. Otherwise political power
without political responsibility threatens disaster to all.
Thus far we have made a few crude experiments in double suffrage,
but nowhere has equal suffrage been tried. Equal suffrage implies a
fair field with favor to none—a field where woman, stripped of legal
and civil advantages, must take her place as man's rival in the
struggle for existence; for, in the long run, woman cannot have
equal rights and retain special privileges. If the average woman is to
be a voter, she must accept jury service and aid in the protection of
life and property. When the mob threatens, she must not shield
herself behind her equal in government. She must relinquish her
rights and exemptions under the law and in civil life, if she is to take
her place as a responsible elector and compete with man as the
provider and governor of the race. Such equality would be a brutal
and retrogressive view of woman's rights. It is impossible, and here
we have the unanswerable answer to woman suffrage theories.
No question of superiority or equality is involved in the opposition to
votes for women. The test of woman's worth is her ability to solve
the problems and do the work she must face as a woman if the race
is not to deteriorate and civilization perish. The woman's suffrage
movement is an imitation-of-man movement, and as such merits the
condemnation of every normal man and woman.
Doubtless we can live through a good deal of confusion, but it is not
on any lines of functional unfitness that life is to be fulfilled. Woman
must choose with discrimination those channels of activity wherein
"what she most highly values may be won." Are these values in the
department of government or in the equally essential departments of
education, society, and religion?
The attempt to interpret woman's service to the state in terms of
political activity is a false appraisal of the contribution she has
always made to the general welfare. All this agitation for the ballot
diverts attention from the only source from which permanent relief
can come, and fastens it upon the ballot box. It is by physical,
intellectual, and moral education that our citizenship is gradually
improved, and here woman's opportunities are supreme. If women
are not efficient in their own dominion, then in the name of common
sense let them be trained for efficiency in that dominion and not
diffuse their energies by dragging them through the devious paths of
political activity.
Equal suffrage is clearly impossible; double suffrage, tried under
most favorable conditions in sparsely settled western states has
made no original contribution to the problem of sound government.
On the other side of the ledger we find that the enfranchisement of
women has increased taxes, added greatly to the menace of an
indifferent electorate, and enlarged the bulk of unenforced and
unenforceable laws.
Why does double suffrage, with its train of proved evils and its false
appraisal of woman's contribution to the general welfare, come
knocking at our doors? Not a natural right; a failure wherever tried;
demanded by a small minority in defiance of all principles of true
democracy; what excuse is there for it?
The confusion of social and personal rights with political, the
substitution of emotionalism for investigation and knowledge, the
mania for uplift by legislation, have widely advertised the suffrage
propaganda. The reforms for which the founders of the suffrage
movement declared women needed the vote have all been
accomplished by the votes of men. The vote has been withheld
through the indifference and opposition of women, for this is the
only woman's movement which has been met by the organized
opposition of women.
Suffragists still demand the vote. Why? Perhaps the answer is found
in the cry of the younger suffragists: "We ask the vote as a means to
an end—that end being a complete social revolution!" When we
realize that this social revolution involves the economic, social, and
sexual independence of women, we know that Gladstone had the
prophet's vision when he called woman suffrage a "revolutionary"
doctrine.
Woman suffrage is the political phase of feminism; the whole sweep
of the relation of the sexes must be revised if the woman's vote is to
mean anything more than two people doing what one does now.
Merely to duplicate the present vote is unsound economy. To re-
enforce those who clamor for individual rights is to strike at the
family as the self-governing unit upon which the state is built.
This is not a question of what some women want or do not want—it
is solely a question of how the average woman shall best contribute
her part to the general welfare. Anti-suffragists contend that the
average woman can serve best by remaining a non-partisan and
working for the common good outside the realms of political strife.
To prove this contention they point to what women have done
without the ballot and what they have failed to do with it.
Anti-suffragists are optimists. They are concerned at the attempt of
an organized, aggressive, well financed minority to force its will upon
the majority of women through a false interpretation of
representative democracy; but they know that a movement so false
in its conception, so false in its economy, so false in its reflections
upon men and its estimate of women, so utterly unnecessary and
unnatural, cannot achieve a permanent success.
II
 THE BALLOT AND THE WOMAN IN
INDUSTRY

MRS. HENRY PRESTON WHITE

Sara C. White, wife of Henry Preston White; educated in the Emma

Willard School of Troy, New York; a member of the Auxiliary Board of
Directors of the Brookline Day Nursery; member of the Committee
on Ventilation of Public Conveyances (Woman's Municipal League);
With Miss Mabel Stedman of Brookline, Mrs. White started the model
moving-picture show in connection with the Brookline Friendly
Society. She is a well-known speaker for the anti-suffrage cause.
J. A. H.

The argument that the woman in industry needs the ballot in order
to obtain fair wages and fair working conditions has undoubtedly
made many converts to the cause of woman suffrage. The
sympathies of the average man, who is ever solicitous for the
welfare of women, go out especially to the woman who must
compete with men in the work-a-day world. And so, when he is told
that there are 8,000,000 such women in this country, and that their
lot would be much easier if they could vote, he is apt to think it
worth a trial anyway and to give his support, without further
consideration, to the "votes for women" movement.
Now, if it were true that there are 8,000,000 women in industry, and
that these must have the ballot in order to get fair treatment, it
would be a strong argument for woman suffrage—though by no
means a conclusive argument, since the fundamental question is the
greatest good of the greatest number, and not the greatest good of
any class. But it is not true that there are 8,000,000 women in
industry, and a single sensible reason has yet to be advanced for the
contention that women in industry, even if they numbered
8,000,000, could better their condition by undertaking political
methods.
There are in the United States, according to the last census,
8,075,772 females 10 years of age and over engaged in gainful
occupations. Of these, over 3,600,000 are employed in domestic and
personal service, where wage and working conditions are
determined chiefly by women, and in "agricultural pursuits," a
classification including every female who sells eggs or butter on the
home farm. Approximately 4,000,000 of the remaining gainfully
occupied females work in store, factory, and shop, and of these
nearly 1,500,000 are under twenty-one.
Thus, instead of 8,000,000 women in industry who are alleged to
"need the ballot," we have only about 2,500,000 women of voting
age employed in industries that can reasonably be said to come
within the category of those properly subject to remedial labor
legislation; and of these women a very large percentage are aliens
and would not be entitled to use the ballot if woman suffrage were
granted. By itself, of course, this fact does not dispose of the
argument that the industrial woman needs the ballot, but it does
reveal how comparatively few are the women who could possibly try
to improve their working conditions by means of the vote, and how
hopelessly outnumbered they would be if reduced to the necessity of
fighting for their rights at the ballot box.
The premise of the suffrage argument that the woman in industry
needs the ballot in order to get fair treatment is the assumption that
she now fails to get as fair treatment as is given the industrial man,
and that this is due to the fact that she has no vote. This arbitrary
assumption is without justification either in fact or reason. Every law
placed upon the statute-books of any state for the benefit of the
working man is a blanket law and covers men and women engaged
in the same industry. All the benefits that have accrued to the
working man through legislation are enjoyed equally by his sister in
industry. In addition she has the advantage of special protective laws
which have been enacted simply because she is a woman—because
she is weaker physically than man and because she is a potential
mother and must be protected in the interest of the race.
I am not arguing, of course, that the working woman has all the
protection she needs, but I am arguing that she is not unfairly
treated as compared with her industrial brother, who has the ballot,
and that whatever hardships she may now suffer are as likely to be
removed without woman suffrage as they are with it. If she is being
unfairly treated, I think it will be found that she is so treated in
common with all industrial workers—simply because she is a worker
and not at all because she is a woman.
And in taking this ground I am by no means forced to depend upon
theory; for, after all, the best answer to the dogma that the woman
in industry needs the ballot in order to obtain fair wages and fair
working conditions is the fact that in states where women have
voted anywhere from 4 to 46 years the laws for the working woman
are no better than they are in male suffrage states. Indeed, it is
pretty generally agreed that the states which have been first and
most progressive in enacting laws for the benefit of women and
children in industry are states that have refused to give women the
vote.
It is quite true, as the suffragists so constantly tell us, that the only
states having eight-hour laws for women in industry are woman
suffrage states. But it is true, too, that the eight-hour laws of
California, Oregon, and Washington, of which so much is heard, are
not to be taken at their face value, since they do not cover the
canning industry, which is the chief industry in all those states. It is
true, also, that what is considered by experts the most advanced
step in protective legislation for women in industry, the prohibition of
night work, has been taken only in male suffrage states. In
Massachusetts and Nebraska the laws provide for a 54-hour week
for women in industry, provide for one day's rest in seven, and
prohibit night work. Will any one deny that these laws are infinitely
better for women in industry than the boasted eight-hour law of
Colorado, under which it is permissible for a woman to work nights
and Sundays and 56 hours a week?
Now as to the question of "fair wages." The suffragists tell us that
women in industry are entitled to equal pay with men, and that this
will follow upon the heels of woman suffrage. Here again we have
experience to guide us, and we find upon investigation that in no
state has the ratio between men's and women's wages been
affected by doubling the electorate. Dr. Helen Sumner, who made a
thorough investigation of this point, says in her book entitled Equal
Suffrage: "Taking the public employment as a whole, women in
Colorado receive considerably less remuneration than men. It is the
old story of supply and demand in the commercial world, and
suffrage has probably nothing to do with the wages of either men or
women. The wages of men and women in all fields of industry are
governed by economic conditions."
By tables carefully compiled, Dr. Sumner shows that in Colorado,
women in private employment receive an average of only 47 per
cent of the average of men's wages, while in the United States as a
whole the average for women is 55.3 per cent of the average for
men, and in Massachusetts, where woman suffrage was recently
defeated by nearly two to one in the largest vote in the state's
history, women receive 62 cents for every 100 cents paid to men in
wages.
No one can deny, of course, that the wages of women in industry
average considerably lower than those of men. But the reasons for
this are found entirely outside of politics. The average girl is a
transient in industry, going into it as a temporary expedient to tide
her over until she attains her natural desire, which is to marry, settle
down, and raise a family. She is, therefore, not so good an
investment for her employer as the boy who works beside her, who
has gone into the business with the idea of making it his life work,
and who has a stronger incentive to make himself more valuable.
It must be remembered that employers of labor do not pay for men
and women, but for results. Samuel Gompers, an ardent suffragist,
says women get less because they ask for less. That is true in part.
Women do ask for less. One reason for this is that they look upon
the job as something temporary. Another reason is, very frequently,
that they are not entirely dependent on their own earnings, but are
partly supported in their parents' home. But in the majority of cases,
the industrial woman gets less than the industrial man because she
is worth less, being not only less experienced, but physically unable
to compete with him on a basis of absolute equality.
If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of woman
suffrage is in its operation; and, when we find that it has failed to
fulfill its promises where longest tried, it is hard to listen patiently to
pleas for its further extension. The vote has never raised the wages
or shortened the hours of men. It has never done it and can never
do it for women. The industrial woman can gain nothing by it. She
will lose much, as will other women.
III
 A BUSINESS WOMAN'S VIEW OF
SUFFRAGE

EDITH MELVIN

Miss Edith Melvin, educated in the public and private schools of

Concord and by her father, James Melvin, who, by reason of service
in the Civil War was a totally helpless invalid confined to his bed for
many years before his death, when he left a widow and an only child
dependent upon themselves for support. After three months as
assistant to the advertising manager of a large medicine producing
company, she entered the law office of Judge Prescott Keyes without
business training other than in stenography and typewriting. In this
law office has had more than twenty years practical business and
legal experience, a position of ever increasing responsibilities
requiring steady and efficient study and thought. Not a member of
the Bar, never having applied for admission because not believing in
women becoming lawyers. Has served as President of the Guild of
the First Parish (Concord) and Secretary of the South Middlesex
Federation of Young People's Religious Unions. Is an experienced
public speaker. Has been an officer and active member of Old
Concord Chapter, D. A. R. For many years a householder and
taxpayer.
J. A. H.

After more than two decades spent in active business life, I am of

the opinion that members of my sex do not need the ballot, and that
it would be a distinct and unnecessary encumbrance to them. For
more than twenty years, I regret to state, my life has been more
that of a man than of a woman. A home-supporter by the actual
work of my hands and my brain, rather than a home-maker; my life
has been past amid the heat and turmoil of business life, working
shoulder to shoulder with men, pitting my brain against the brains of
men; and having no male relative to represent me in the business of
the government, a taxpayer "without representation." That business
life has been satisfactory to me in many ways, I admit; but in order
to wrest its satisfactions from the turmoil, I have been forced to
summon up the determination, the endurance, the physical and
mental labor, which by all the laws of nature belong not to the
"female of the species" but to the male. Its successes have been
apparent successes when considered as parallel with man's work in
the world, but failures when one considers that not for the sharp,
insistent contact of business life was woman created. I still feel no
desire to assist the male sex in the business of government, nor do I
think I am fitted so to do. I desire to be permitted to continue my
present freedom from political activities, and I am content to leave
that part of life's work in the hands of the sex which, to my mind,
has managed it hitherto exceedingly well.
I have never seen any point or place where the power to cast a
ballot would have been of the slightest help to me. For myself I
should regard the duties and responsibilities of thorough, well-
informed, and faithful participation year after year in political matters
as a very great misfortune; even more of a misfortune than the
certainty of being mixed up in the bitter strife, the falsifications, and
publicity often attendant upon political campaigns. Though my work
has trained me to use my mind in matters pertaining to law and to
business, it would certainly be incumbent upon me to make a
thorough study of the theory and practice of government before
attempting to exercise the franchise. I feel sure that the average
business woman cannot make such a study or engage in politics
without interference not merely with her physical, but with her
mental business life, which should command her constant and best
attention.
Many women are now undertaking to engage in business, not as a
life-work, but as an incidental experience. It is true, however, that of
the many thousands of women so engaged, very, very few climb up
the ladder of success to the top rounds. It is the rare exception
rather than the rule for women to attain marked distinction, great
wealth, or fame in the business world. This is not caused by any
unfairness of the male sex, but by the nature, the physical and
mental limitations, of the members of the female sex. The trivialities
of the afternoon tea are too often present in the work of the wage-
earning woman—too often she has too slight a regard of her duty to
return full value for the pecuniary consideration she receives. The
career of too many wage earning women is now entirely haphazard,
the result of necessity rather than well-grounded choice. It is fair to
assume that political matters would receive the same degree of
smattering knowledge and thought as is too often received by the
daily occupation into which many women drift.
It is much to be deplored that the trend of some modern young
women is more towards the commercial life in which her success is
doubtful, rather than toward the home-keeping, child-bearing, social,
religious, and philanthropic life for which she was physically and
mentally designed. These latter duties women faithfully and
successfully perform as their natural function, and through them
they may rise to the greatest distinction. Femininity should be
cherished by the woman whom circumstance or necessity drives into
the wage-earning world, and she can cherish it by retaining her hold
on social, religious, and charitable interests; but she cannot hope to
do so if she attends political meetings, serves on political
committees, canvasses districts for votes, watches at the polls,
serves on juries, and debates political questions or records and
promises of political candidates. We have seen the loss of femininity
produced by the constant campaigning for suffrage.
The instability of the female mind is beyond the comprehension of
the majority of men. The charm, the "sweet unreasonableness," the
lack of power of consecutive thought upon any intricate problem,
which mark the average woman are sometimes attractive and in
personal or family relations not without compensating advantages.
In the business world, however, these attributes are wholly
detrimental. Business women might possibly bring to political
matters such training and experience as they acquired, but to
restrict the franchise to them would be to create a class franchise.
We must remember that suffrage would bring to the electorate not
merely the small number of business women, but the great mass of
women who have had little or no experience of life outside of their
homes.
In brief, then, the voting privilege granted to women, and
particularly to business women, would be a detriment to the women,
and it would not be of sufficient value to the government to
outweigh the loss to them.
IV
 SOME PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE
QUESTION

ELLEN MUDGE BURRILL

Miss Ellen Mudge Burrill, educated in the Lynn public schools,

graduated from the Lynn Classical High School; now in the employ of
the Commonwealth as Cashier in the Sergeant-at-Arms Department;
Supervisor in the First Universalist Sunday School of Lynn; a member
of the Council of the Lynn Historical Society; author of the "State
House Guide Book," "Essex Trust Company of Lynn" (the successor
of the Lynn Mechanics Bank,) "The Burrill Family of Lynn During the
Colonial and Provincial Periods," and of "Our Church and the People
Who Made Her," being a history of The First Universalist Parish,
Lynn.
J. A. H.

If suffrage were a natural right, then women should have it, and at
once, but it is not like the right to have person and property
protected, which every man, woman and child already possesses. It
is not a natural right, but a means of government, and therefore a
matter of expediency. The question is, will government by the votes
of men and women together produce better results than by men
alone? Suffrage means more than casting a ballot; if it means
anything effectual, it means entering the field of politics. Had the
proposed amendment been ratified, it would have become the duty
of all women to vote systematically in all primary and regular
elections. Would they have done it in justifiable numbers?
Look at Public Document No. 43, giving the number of assessed
polls and registered voters for the Massachusetts State election of
1914:
Assessed Polls
1,019,063

Registered Voters
610,667

Persons Voting
466,360
Also for the City and Town elections of 1914:
Assessed Polls, Male
1,229,641

Registered Voters, Male

740,871

Males Who Voted

532,241
It is evident from these figures that a larger proportion of men
should fulfill their duty to the State. Government being one means to
the end, of making better conditions, the indifference of so many
thousand is beyond comprehension, and is a serious menace to the
Commonwealth. It was Governor Curtis Guild who said: "I base my
anti-suffrage position on the fact that our great failures in legislation
are caused not so much by a vicious element among the voters, as
by abstention from voting and emotional voting."
That granting the ballot to women would greatly increase the
proportion of those who neglect to vote, is clearly shown by the
results of giving women the school vote. In 1879 the Massachusetts
Legislature, assuming that women were peculiarly interested in
school affairs, bestowed the school franchise upon them. See how
they have accepted that charge! According to the United States
Census of 1910, there were 1,074,485 women of voting age in this
State. Of this number there are approximately 622,000 eligible to
register and vote for School Committee. Here is the School vote for
1914:
Women Who Registered
101,439

Women Who Voted

45,820
Here is the school vote of the women for the city election in Lynn,
1914:

Approximate number of women of voting age in Lynn 18,000

Total registration 1,759
Number of women who voted 1,070

In a pamphlet entitled, "Women and the School Vote," Miss Alice

Stone Blackwell, trying to explain away the real meaning of the
situation, says:
"A woman's name, once placed on the register, is now kept there
until she dies, moves or marries. When a town or city shows a large
registration of women and a small vote, it means that on some
occasion, perhaps ten years ago, there was an exciting contest at
the school election, and many women registered and voted. When
the contest was over, many of the women ceased to vote, but their
names stayed on the register."
Her conclusion is that this is "the simple explanation of the lessened
proportion of women's votes to registration." But a more striking
conclusion must be drawn, namely, that it isn't enough to vote when
there is an exciting contest; that it is only well as far as it goes, but
it should be kept up. The State has a right to expect it. In view of