For thirty-seven years this amendment has been introduced and re-introduced into the Congress by members who have been favorable to our movement, or who have believed in the justice and right of citizens to petition Congress and have that petition heard. Last year we were permitted to address your body and we rejoiced in the fact that a committee, which from the time of its creation usually had been indifferent toward our subject, had now been appointed with Senator Thomas, who from the very beginning had seen the justice of the demand for woman suffrage, at the head. This committee gave us great courage and hope, which were fully justified in the fact that for the first time in twenty years our resolution was reported out of committee and acted upon in the Senate, receiving a majority vote but not the necessary two-thirds. We come again with the same measure and again we appeal to this committee, in the same terms as for all the past years, for the women citizens of the United States who at every call have responded as readily as the men in doing their duty and serving their country. More and more the demand is being made by ever-increasing groups of women that they shall directly share in the Government of which they form a part. So we come to you today with the same old measure but we comewith greater hope than ever before because we realize that back of you there are now in many of the States constituencies of women.
For thirty-seven years this amendment has been introduced and re-introduced into the Congress by members who have been favorable to our movement, or who have believed in the justice and right of citizens to petition Congress and have that petition heard. Last year we were permitted to address your body and we rejoiced in the fact that a committee, which from the time of its creation usually had been indifferent toward our subject, had now been appointed with Senator Thomas, who from the very beginning had seen the justice of the demand for woman suffrage, at the head. This committee gave us great courage and hope, which were fully justified in the fact that for the first time in twenty years our resolution was reported out of committee and acted upon in the Senate, receiving a majority vote but not the necessary two-thirds. We come again with the same measure and again we appeal to this committee, in the same terms as for all the past years, for the women citizens of the United States who at every call have responded as readily as the men in doing their duty and serving their country. More and more the demand is being made by ever-increasing groups of women that they shall directly share in the Government of which they form a part. So we come to you today with the same old measure but we comewith greater hope than ever before because we realize that back of you there are now in many of the States constituencies of women.
Dr. Shaw introduced Mrs. Pattie Ruffner Jacobs of Alabama, who quoted from distinguished southern members of Congress on State's rights and asked that these sentiments be applied to the National Amendment for Woman Suffrage, saying in part:
If this amendment is adopted it in no wise regulates or interferes with any existing qualification for voting (except sex) which the various State constitutions now exact. It leaves all others to be determined by the various States through their constitutional agencies. It is a fallacy to contend that to prohibit discrimination on account of sex would involve the race problem. The actual application of the principle in the South would be to enfranchise a very large number of white women and the same sort of negro women as of negro men now permitted to exercise the privilege....However much these chivalrous gentlemen may wish it were so, that southern women might truly be called roses and lilies which toil not, they must know that their compliments do not provide equal pay for equal service, which obtains in all the woman suffrage States and that their flowers of speech do not help us secure a co-guardianship law, which every suffrage State has and which is non-existent in all southern States. The pedestal platitude appeals less and less to the intelligence of southern women, who are learning in increasing numbers that the assertion that they are too good, too noble, too pure to vote, in reality brands them as incompetents. It cannot be sugarcoated into any other significance as long as we remain classed with idiots, criminals and some of the negro men who also are disfranchised. As things stand in the South an incentive is held out to the negro man to become educated that he may meet the tests; to practice industry and frugality and acquire property to meet the taxpaying qualification; but no such incentive is held out to the white women, who meet the insuperable barrier of sex at every turn which might lead to progress....We women of the South today, while proud of our past do not live in it. We wish to be proud of our present that we may look forward with confidence to our future. We know that sectionalism should have no place in our hearts or lives. This demand for suffrage is not sectional, it has its adherents in every State and in almost every town in every State. There is little or no organized opposition in my part of the country but there are many thousands of fine, thoughtful, forward-looking southern women banded together seeking the removal of this last badge of incompetency. For them there is no North or South but one great nation, the interest of whose women is the same. We realize that we are not different or better, we southern women, than the women in Montana, Illinois, Maine or Massachusetts but are just human beings as they are. We are not queens but political and industrial serfs. We are not angels butour better natures, our higher selves are becoming aroused by the needs of our common humanity with a solidarity of purpose, a keenness of vision unmarred by selfish motives.
If this amendment is adopted it in no wise regulates or interferes with any existing qualification for voting (except sex) which the various State constitutions now exact. It leaves all others to be determined by the various States through their constitutional agencies. It is a fallacy to contend that to prohibit discrimination on account of sex would involve the race problem. The actual application of the principle in the South would be to enfranchise a very large number of white women and the same sort of negro women as of negro men now permitted to exercise the privilege....
However much these chivalrous gentlemen may wish it were so, that southern women might truly be called roses and lilies which toil not, they must know that their compliments do not provide equal pay for equal service, which obtains in all the woman suffrage States and that their flowers of speech do not help us secure a co-guardianship law, which every suffrage State has and which is non-existent in all southern States. The pedestal platitude appeals less and less to the intelligence of southern women, who are learning in increasing numbers that the assertion that they are too good, too noble, too pure to vote, in reality brands them as incompetents. It cannot be sugarcoated into any other significance as long as we remain classed with idiots, criminals and some of the negro men who also are disfranchised. As things stand in the South an incentive is held out to the negro man to become educated that he may meet the tests; to practice industry and frugality and acquire property to meet the taxpaying qualification; but no such incentive is held out to the white women, who meet the insuperable barrier of sex at every turn which might lead to progress....
We women of the South today, while proud of our past do not live in it. We wish to be proud of our present that we may look forward with confidence to our future. We know that sectionalism should have no place in our hearts or lives. This demand for suffrage is not sectional, it has its adherents in every State and in almost every town in every State. There is little or no organized opposition in my part of the country but there are many thousands of fine, thoughtful, forward-looking southern women banded together seeking the removal of this last badge of incompetency. For them there is no North or South but one great nation, the interest of whose women is the same. We realize that we are not different or better, we southern women, than the women in Montana, Illinois, Maine or Massachusetts but are just human beings as they are. We are not queens but political and industrial serfs. We are not angels butour better natures, our higher selves are becoming aroused by the needs of our common humanity with a solidarity of purpose, a keenness of vision unmarred by selfish motives.
Miss Caroline Ruutz-Rees, head of the Rosemary School for Girls in Greenwich, Conn., described the work of the National Suffrage Association and its sixty-three auxiliaries in the many State campaigns and the long effort for a Federal Amendment and said in closing: "In its propaganda and campaigns the association has steadily maintained a non-partisan attitude, endeavoring so far as it had power to help the friends of suffrage and considering as antagonistic only its opponents. It does not hold its friends responsible for the failure of their party to pass its measures. It never forgets that it may have to look for help in amending the State constitutions to the adherents of a party unfriendly to a Federal Amendment. It believes in educating the public until the demand for the enfranchisement of women becomes so strong as to be irresistible. The enormous change of opinion in that public within a few years inspires the association to hope for the speedy conclusion of its labors."
Mrs. George Bass, the well-known suffrage and political worker of Chicago, said in the course of her remarks:
Women want the ballot because they need it in their business—the business of being a woman—in the business that began when the first man and the first woman commenced housekeeping in a cave.The duties of the man and the woman differentiated themselves at that time and they have been differentiated ever since. The woman as mother became the first artisan because she had to clothe the children. She became the first doctor because she had to treat the ills that came to those children of hers and to the man who lived by her side. She had to invent tools; she was the first farmer. Man and his duties and his responsibilities have been the same from that time to this. He brought in to her the slain animal which she transmuted into food and changed into clothing. He was the protector, and the first government that grew up about that first home considered only the problems of offense and defense. As the governments of the world became more stable, as they developed, they still centered about war, offense and defense.... Woman still is the mother of the race but what of the home? It has become socialized and the spinning wheel is in the attic and millions of women are standing at the great looms of this country. The women are in the shops, the factories, the offices, everywhere that modern industrialism is extending itself. The school has been socialized and the children are by the thousands in the schools.
Women want the ballot because they need it in their business—the business of being a woman—in the business that began when the first man and the first woman commenced housekeeping in a cave.
The duties of the man and the woman differentiated themselves at that time and they have been differentiated ever since. The woman as mother became the first artisan because she had to clothe the children. She became the first doctor because she had to treat the ills that came to those children of hers and to the man who lived by her side. She had to invent tools; she was the first farmer. Man and his duties and his responsibilities have been the same from that time to this. He brought in to her the slain animal which she transmuted into food and changed into clothing. He was the protector, and the first government that grew up about that first home considered only the problems of offense and defense. As the governments of the world became more stable, as they developed, they still centered about war, offense and defense.... Woman still is the mother of the race but what of the home? It has become socialized and the spinning wheel is in the attic and millions of women are standing at the great looms of this country. The women are in the shops, the factories, the offices, everywhere that modern industrialism is extending itself. The school has been socialized and the children are by the thousands in the schools.
Mrs. Bass then strikingly illustrated how the business of being a woman now took women to legislative bodies in the interest of the State's dependent children, of the women in the industries, of the so-called fallen women, and showed how fatally handicapped all were without the power of the ballot.
Mrs. Medill McCormick, chairman of the Congressional Committee of the association, sent a comprehensive report of the vast work it had done in district organization throughout the States and the evident influence this had exerted on Congress. Dr. Shaw introduced Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, who made the principal address, a searching and comprehensive review of the methods by which men had obtained the ballot compared to those which had been used by women and showed the many requirements made of the latter which were entirely omitted in the case of men. She took the four recent campaigns in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania as the basis of her masterly address, which will be found in the Appendix of this chapter. At the end of it she said: "It was twenty-two years ago that I had the privilege and pleasure of standing upon the same platform with the chairman of this committee when he made an eloquent appeal to the citizens of Colorado for the women there and many said that his speech turned the tide and gave women the vote. I hope that he and every member will not only make a favorable report but will do more—will follow that report on the floor of the Senate and work for it and immortalize themselves while freeing us from the humiliation and the burden of this struggle."
The hearing was closed by Dr. Shaw with a strong and convincing argument to show that "if nothing entered into the life of the homes of this nation except what came through State action it might be said that only the State should decide who should vote but since the women are as much affected by the acts of Congress as are the men, this becomes a national question." She drew a striking picture of conditions among the nations of Europe where the war was raging; of how "women in our own country every morning scanned the papers to see whether we were nearer with the rising sun than we were with the setting sun of the day before to connections with the Old World which will plunge usinto the war." She took up the questions of tariff and of prohibition, asked if women should not have a vote on these and the other great national issues before the country and concluded: "I only wish that the woman whose name is so closely associated with this amendment—Susan B. Anthony—might have lived to see this committee as it exists today instead of having passed away before it was composed of members of the character of those before whom we now come to present our cause."
At the hearing of the Congressional Union the following day, Senator Thomas, chairman of the committee, was present but refused to preside, as the leaders of the Union had gone to Colorado during the recent campaign and spoken and worked, though unsuccessfully, against his re-election. Senator Sutherland took the chair. It was conducted by the vice-president of the Union, Miss Anne Martin. "One of our chief purposes in asking this hearing," she said, "is to bring before you not only the ethical importance but the political urgency of settling this question of national suffrage for women. At present the thought and strength of large numbers of them throughout the country are absorbed by this campaign to secure fundamental justice, which prevents their giving assistance in matters vitally affecting the interests of the men, women and children of the nation." There would be five-minute speeches, she said, until the last half hour, which would be divided between the envoys of the women voters' convention in San Francisco during the past summer.[101]
Most of the speeches were crisp and clever and well fortified with facts and figures to prove the advantage of a Federal Amendment over State amendments in securing universal woman suffrage. The two "envoys" were Miss Frances Jolliffe and Mrs. Sara Bard Field of California, who started in an automobile from the grounds of the Exposition in San Francisco to motorto Washington to present to Congress a petition which had been collected during the Fair and to do propaganda work on the way. The former made only part of the trip in the car but Mrs. Field completed the entire 3,000 miles. Both made excellent addresses.
Senator Hollis occupied the chair at the hearing of the National Anti-Suffrage Association December 20. Its president, Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge, introduced the speakers, saying: "We appear before you to urge that you do not report this resolution to the Senate because we believe very earnestly that it is a question which should be taken to the States to be voted on by the electorates and not submitted to the Legislatures." Mrs. M. C. Talbot, secretary of the Maryland Anti-Suffrage Association, read a paper prepared by the Hon. John W. Foster, a strong argument against a Federal Amendment but without a word of opposition to the granting of woman suffrage by the States. The other speakers were Miss Florence H. Hall, publicity chairman of the Pennsylvania Association; Mrs. George P. White, a member of its executive board; Miss Lucy J. Price, secretary of the Cleveland, O., branch; Mrs. A. J. George (Mass.), executive secretary of the National Congressional Committee. They were trained speakers and their side of the question was well presented. It was heard by the Senate Committee without interruption except on one point. Miss Hall said: "On waves of Populism, Mormonism, insurgency and Socialism ten States have been added to the pioneer State of Wyoming and are recognizing the suffrage flag." When she had finished the following colloquy took place:
Senator Sutherland. I do not ordinarily like to inject anything into these hearings, but one statement has been made by the last speaker which I do not think I ought to let go without making a suggestion in regard to it. If I understood her correctly she insists that Mormonism has had something to do with the granting of woman suffrage in the ten States in which it has been granted. I want to say that in California, Oregon, Washington and Kansas, taking those four States which are the largest in which suffrage has been granted, the Mormon population and Mormon vote are practically negligible.Miss Hall. I did not base it on that. I said Mormonism, Populism, Socialism and insurgency brought suffrage along with them.Senator Sutherland. There is only one State in all of these, sofar as I know, where Mormons are in the majority and that is in my own State of Utah. There are comparatively few in Colorado, probably not more than a thousand altogether in the entire population, and their numbers are practically negligible in the other States.Miss Hall. How about Idaho? Forty per cent. there.Senator Sutherland. I think perhaps there are twenty-five per cent. There are probably 400 or 500 in the State of Nevada. In Arizona I do not know just what the percentage is but there are a number of Mormon voters there.Miss Hall. I would refer the committee to Senator Cannon's recent letter on that question, where he names eleven States——Senator Sutherland (interposing). I know that claim has been made but I undertake to say that it is utterly without foundation. I speak in regard to this matter with just as much knowledge as Mr. Cannon or anybody else.Senator Jones. It is without foundation, so far as the State of Washington is concerned.Senator Sutherland. While I am not a member of the Mormon Church and never have been, I have lived in that section practically all my life and it is not correct to say that such a situation as has been described prevails in those States.Miss Hall. I thought I had pretty good authority for making that statement and I think I could produce the evidence to show it.Senator Sutherland. I would be surprised if you could produce any evidence whatever to substantiate that statement.
Senator Sutherland. I do not ordinarily like to inject anything into these hearings, but one statement has been made by the last speaker which I do not think I ought to let go without making a suggestion in regard to it. If I understood her correctly she insists that Mormonism has had something to do with the granting of woman suffrage in the ten States in which it has been granted. I want to say that in California, Oregon, Washington and Kansas, taking those four States which are the largest in which suffrage has been granted, the Mormon population and Mormon vote are practically negligible.
Miss Hall. I did not base it on that. I said Mormonism, Populism, Socialism and insurgency brought suffrage along with them.
Senator Sutherland. There is only one State in all of these, sofar as I know, where Mormons are in the majority and that is in my own State of Utah. There are comparatively few in Colorado, probably not more than a thousand altogether in the entire population, and their numbers are practically negligible in the other States.
Miss Hall. How about Idaho? Forty per cent. there.
Senator Sutherland. I think perhaps there are twenty-five per cent. There are probably 400 or 500 in the State of Nevada. In Arizona I do not know just what the percentage is but there are a number of Mormon voters there.
Miss Hall. I would refer the committee to Senator Cannon's recent letter on that question, where he names eleven States——
Senator Sutherland (interposing). I know that claim has been made but I undertake to say that it is utterly without foundation. I speak in regard to this matter with just as much knowledge as Mr. Cannon or anybody else.
Senator Jones. It is without foundation, so far as the State of Washington is concerned.
Senator Sutherland. While I am not a member of the Mormon Church and never have been, I have lived in that section practically all my life and it is not correct to say that such a situation as has been described prevails in those States.
Miss Hall. I thought I had pretty good authority for making that statement and I think I could produce the evidence to show it.
Senator Sutherland. I would be surprised if you could produce any evidence whatever to substantiate that statement.
Mrs. George, who spoke last, came to the rescue of Miss Hall and this dialogue occurred:
Mrs. George. I am confident that the speaker only meant to imply that woman suffrage has always been a radical movement and that where Mormonism did exist it helped on suffrage....Senator Sutherland. As a matter of fact, the Mormon Church and the Mormon people are not radical. They are conservative and in some instances almost ultra conservative....Mrs. George. They may be conservative along certain lines but we do look upon the Mormon Church as advocating certain social measures which seem to us radical.Senator Sutherland. I will grant you that in the past there have been some things that you and I would not agree with, but from a very careful observation of events I can say to you with perfect confidence in the truth of what I say, that that sort of thing has passed away.Mrs. George. May I say un-American, if you object to the word "radical"?Senator Sutherland. I object to the word "un-American" much more strongly because the Mormon people are not un-American. They are good citizens, among the best in this country.
Mrs. George. I am confident that the speaker only meant to imply that woman suffrage has always been a radical movement and that where Mormonism did exist it helped on suffrage....
Senator Sutherland. As a matter of fact, the Mormon Church and the Mormon people are not radical. They are conservative and in some instances almost ultra conservative....
Mrs. George. They may be conservative along certain lines but we do look upon the Mormon Church as advocating certain social measures which seem to us radical.
Senator Sutherland. I will grant you that in the past there have been some things that you and I would not agree with, but from a very careful observation of events I can say to you with perfect confidence in the truth of what I say, that that sort of thing has passed away.
Mrs. George. May I say un-American, if you object to the word "radical"?
Senator Sutherland. I object to the word "un-American" much more strongly because the Mormon people are not un-American. They are good citizens, among the best in this country.
Mrs. George concluded her address to the committee with these words: "These are grave times. Questions of international relationships,of preparedness, of the national defense, of finance, are vexing the wisest minds. Is it a time to further the propaganda of this new crop of hyphenated Americans—Suffrage-Americans—who place their propaganda above every need of the country?"
With the women of eleven States now eligible to vote for all candidates at the general election of 1916 and the large number in Illinois possessing the Presidential franchise woman suffrage had become a leading issue. Most of the House Judiciary Committee of twenty-one members, including the chairman, Edwin Y. Webb of North Carolina, an immovable opponent, were present at the hearing on December 16 and they faced sixteen speakers for the Federal Amendment and twelve opposed. Three hours were granted to the former, divided between the National American Association and the Congressional Union, and two hours to the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. Dr. Shaw opened the hearing by referring to the thirty-seven years that had seen the leaders of her association pleading with Congress for favorable action on this amendment and introduced Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, comprising twenty-six nations.
Mrs. Catt said in part:
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I fear that the hearings before this Judiciary Committee have become in the eyes and understanding of many of the members a rather perfunctory affair which you have to endure. May I remind you that since the last hearing something new has happened in the United States and that is that more than a million men have voted for woman suffrage in four of the most conservative States of the East? I consider that that big vote presents to this committee a mandate for action which was never presented before. There are those, doubtless, who will say that this is a question of State rights. I have been studying Congressmen for a good many years and I have discovered that when a man believes in woman suffrage it is a national question and when he does not believe in it he says it is a question for the States....
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I fear that the hearings before this Judiciary Committee have become in the eyes and understanding of many of the members a rather perfunctory affair which you have to endure. May I remind you that since the last hearing something new has happened in the United States and that is that more than a million men have voted for woman suffrage in four of the most conservative States of the East? I consider that that big vote presents to this committee a mandate for action which was never presented before. There are those, doubtless, who will say that this is a question of State rights. I have been studying Congressmen for a good many years and I have discovered that when a man believes in woman suffrage it is a national question and when he does not believe in it he says it is a question for the States....
Mrs. Catt told of the prominent educator who was sent from Belgium to investigate the working of woman suffrage in the United States and after he had made a visit to the States whereit existed he summed up the result by saying: "I am convinced in favor in my mind but my heart is still opposed." "There are members of this committee," she said, "who are governed by their hearts instead of their heads," and she continued:
Gentlemen, this movement has grown bigger and stronger as the years have passed by until today millions of women are asking in all the States for the vote. The president of Cornell University, Dr. Schurman, said that his reason for now aggressively advocating woman suffrage was because he had discovered in studying history that it was never good for a government to have a restless and dissatisfied class; he had made up his mind that the women of the nation did think that they had a grievance, whether they had or not, and he believed that a government was stronger and safer when grievances were relieved.A few days before the election in order to show that the women wanted to vote there was a parade in New York City and 20,000 marched up Fifth Avenue, among them a great number of public school teachers of the city, 12,000 of whom had contributed to our campaign funds. These women deal with the most difficult problems; they are teaching all that the new-coming people know of citizenship and they were asking their own share in that citizenship. A man whose name is known to every one of you was sitting at the window of a clubhouse watching the women pass hour after hour until at last this great group of teachers, sixteen abreast, marched by with their banners. He looked out upon them and do you think he said, "I am convinced that the women of New York do want to vote and I will help them?" That is what an honorable American citizen, an open-minded man, would have said. Instead he exclaimed: "My God! I never realized what a menace the woman suffrage movement is to this country; we have got to do something next Tuesday to keep the women from getting the vote."There is not a man on this committee or in this House who can produce a single argument against woman suffrage that will hold water, and the thing that is rousing the women of this land continually and making them realize that our Government visits upon us a daily injustice is that the doors of our ports are left wide open and the men of all the nations on earth are permitted to enter and receive the franchise. In New York City women must ask for it in twenty-four languages....
Gentlemen, this movement has grown bigger and stronger as the years have passed by until today millions of women are asking in all the States for the vote. The president of Cornell University, Dr. Schurman, said that his reason for now aggressively advocating woman suffrage was because he had discovered in studying history that it was never good for a government to have a restless and dissatisfied class; he had made up his mind that the women of the nation did think that they had a grievance, whether they had or not, and he believed that a government was stronger and safer when grievances were relieved.
A few days before the election in order to show that the women wanted to vote there was a parade in New York City and 20,000 marched up Fifth Avenue, among them a great number of public school teachers of the city, 12,000 of whom had contributed to our campaign funds. These women deal with the most difficult problems; they are teaching all that the new-coming people know of citizenship and they were asking their own share in that citizenship. A man whose name is known to every one of you was sitting at the window of a clubhouse watching the women pass hour after hour until at last this great group of teachers, sixteen abreast, marched by with their banners. He looked out upon them and do you think he said, "I am convinced that the women of New York do want to vote and I will help them?" That is what an honorable American citizen, an open-minded man, would have said. Instead he exclaimed: "My God! I never realized what a menace the woman suffrage movement is to this country; we have got to do something next Tuesday to keep the women from getting the vote."
There is not a man on this committee or in this House who can produce a single argument against woman suffrage that will hold water, and the thing that is rousing the women of this land continually and making them realize that our Government visits upon us a daily injustice is that the doors of our ports are left wide open and the men of all the nations on earth are permitted to enter and receive the franchise. In New York City women must ask for it in twenty-four languages....
Walter M. Chandler of New York City, a member of the committee, asked Mrs. Catt if she thought a Representative should vote against the mandate of his district, which in his case had given a majority of 2,000 against a State amendment in November, although he himself had spoken and voted for it. A spirited dialogue followed which filled several pages of the printed report,Mrs. Catt insisting that he should stand by the broad principle of justice and Mr. Chandler equally insistent that he must represent his constituents. As Dr. Shaw rose to return to the convention Mr. Carlin of Virginia said: "Dr. Shaw, would you mind explaining to this committee the essential difference between this organization known as the National Woman Suffrage Association and the Congressional Union? There is a great deal of confusion among the members of the committee as to just what is the difference between them," and she answered:
It is, perhaps, like two different political parties, which believe in different procedure. The National Woman Suffrage Association has two fundamental ideas—to secure the suffrage through State and national constitutions—and we appeal both to Congress and to the States. The Congressional Union, as I understand it, appeals only to the Congress. Another essential difference is that the policy of the Union is to hold the party in power responsible for the acts of Congress, whether they are acts of that party by itself or of the whole Congress. They follow a partisan method of attacking the political party in power, whether the members of it are friendly to the woman-suffrage movement or not. For instance, Senator Thomas of Colorado, Senator Chamberlain of Oregon and other Senators and Representatives who have always been favorable to our movement and have aided us all the way along, have been attacked by this Union not because of their personal attitude toward our question but because of the attitude of their party. The National Suffrage Association pursues a non-partisan method, attacking no political party. If we could defeat a member of any political party who persistently opposed our measure we would do it, whether in the Republican or the Democratic or any other, but would never hold any party responsible for the acts of its individual members.
It is, perhaps, like two different political parties, which believe in different procedure. The National Woman Suffrage Association has two fundamental ideas—to secure the suffrage through State and national constitutions—and we appeal both to Congress and to the States. The Congressional Union, as I understand it, appeals only to the Congress. Another essential difference is that the policy of the Union is to hold the party in power responsible for the acts of Congress, whether they are acts of that party by itself or of the whole Congress. They follow a partisan method of attacking the political party in power, whether the members of it are friendly to the woman-suffrage movement or not. For instance, Senator Thomas of Colorado, Senator Chamberlain of Oregon and other Senators and Representatives who have always been favorable to our movement and have aided us all the way along, have been attacked by this Union not because of their personal attitude toward our question but because of the attitude of their party. The National Suffrage Association pursues a non-partisan method, attacking no political party. If we could defeat a member of any political party who persistently opposed our measure we would do it, whether in the Republican or the Democratic or any other, but would never hold any party responsible for the acts of its individual members.
Many other questions were asked, the committee seeming incredulous that suffragists would fight the re-election of their friends. The next speaker was Miss Alice Stone Blackwell whose address consisted in a solid array of facts and figures that were absolutely unanswerable. As the daughter of Lucy Stone and editor of theWoman's Journalfrom girlhood she was fortified beyond all others with information as to the progress of woman suffrage; the connection of the liquor interests with its many defeats; the statistics of the votes that had been taken and all phases of the subject. Mrs. Harriet Stokes Thompson, an educator and social worker of Chicago, said in part:
I wish to make my appeal this morning to both your intellect and your sympathies when I speak to you in behalf of the nine million women who are out today assuming their part in the industrial world. These women who are working in the shops and factories have simply followed the evolution of industry. It is not that they have entered into man's work at all, because they are doing what they formerly did in their homes, and I am asking today that you give to them power to protect themselves. Those girls working there now are the mothers of the generation to come and that they may be well protected in their hours of labor, in the conditions under which they work, that they may become mothers of healthy children in the future, we are asking that they may speak with authority through legislative chambers.... I wish to appeal to you, too, for another large group of women, the teachers of the United States. I myself am one of those who stand before the children of this great nation day after day. The teachers should be made citizens in order that they may keep both the letter and the spirit of this democratic country in their teachings. I have lived in my own State to know the difference in the spirit with which you teach citizenship when you yourself are a citizen. A slave cannot teach freedom, cannot comprehend the spirit of freedom; neither can a woman who is not a citizen comprehend the spirit of true citizenship. The teachers of Illinois since they were enfranchised have come to their work with a new life, a new zest and a new responsibility and we expect to send the boys out with a finer appreciation of what it means to render public service to a whole community and not a fraction of it. We also recognize the fact that our men are feeling that in every good work which they undertake a great help has been given to them.
I wish to make my appeal this morning to both your intellect and your sympathies when I speak to you in behalf of the nine million women who are out today assuming their part in the industrial world. These women who are working in the shops and factories have simply followed the evolution of industry. It is not that they have entered into man's work at all, because they are doing what they formerly did in their homes, and I am asking today that you give to them power to protect themselves. Those girls working there now are the mothers of the generation to come and that they may be well protected in their hours of labor, in the conditions under which they work, that they may become mothers of healthy children in the future, we are asking that they may speak with authority through legislative chambers.... I wish to appeal to you, too, for another large group of women, the teachers of the United States. I myself am one of those who stand before the children of this great nation day after day. The teachers should be made citizens in order that they may keep both the letter and the spirit of this democratic country in their teachings. I have lived in my own State to know the difference in the spirit with which you teach citizenship when you yourself are a citizen. A slave cannot teach freedom, cannot comprehend the spirit of freedom; neither can a woman who is not a citizen comprehend the spirit of true citizenship. The teachers of Illinois since they were enfranchised have come to their work with a new life, a new zest and a new responsibility and we expect to send the boys out with a finer appreciation of what it means to render public service to a whole community and not a fraction of it. We also recognize the fact that our men are feeling that in every good work which they undertake a great help has been given to them.
Mrs. George Bass, whose address is quoted in the report of the Senate hearing in this chapter, gave a valuable résumé of the civic and legal reforms which already the women of Illinois had been able to accomplish with their votes and answered a number of questions. Miss Ruutz-Rees spoke along the lines of her speech before the Senate Committee, as did Mrs. Pattie Ruffner Jacobs, who made a strong appeal in the name of southern women for the Federal Amendment. She was subjected to a crossfire of questions from the southern members and Chairman Webb asked the question which many times afterwards came back to plague him: "Do you not think that as soon as you have a big enough majority of women in Alabama who want suffrage you will get it from the State and that you ought not come here bothering Congress about something that it should not, under our form of government, take jurisdiction of?" She answered: "I am very regretful that you have been bothered." During the questions and answers thatfollowed Mrs. Jacobs brought forward the unjust laws of South Carolina and Alabama for working women and for all women and said: "The southern man still prefers to think of the southern women as the sheltered, protected beings he would like to have them and he does not realize that now they are the exploited class." Representatives Whaley of South Carolina and Tribble of Georgia denied her statements and afterwards put into the Record statistics attempting to disprove them.
In the paper presented by Mrs. Medill McCormick, chairman of the Congressional Committee, she showed the excellent work that had been done by its branches organized in the congressional districts; the pressure on members of Congress by their constituents; the favorable resolutions that had been passed by organizations and meetings representing hundreds of thousands and closed: "I wonder whether you gentlemen of the committee have computed the number of votes that are now behind the woman suffrage movement in this country? I do not mean the votes of women in the equal suffrage States alone, I mean the popular voting strength as shown at the polls all over the country. Nearly 1,250,000 votes were cast for woman suffrage in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Massachusetts this fall. Nearly 800,000 were cast in Ohio, Missouri, the Dakotas and Nebraska last fall, besides the popular vote of the equal suffrage States and Illinois. The total of these figures from twenty-one States is 6,400,000—that is, 191,000 more than were cast for President Wilson in forty-eight States. Would Congress fail to recognize such voting strength upon any other issue?
The rest of the time was given to the Congressional Union, its chairman, Miss Alice Paul, presiding. The speakers were Mrs. Andreas Ueland, president of the Minnesota Suffrage Association; Miss Mabel Vernon of Nevada; Mrs. Jennie Law Hardy, an Australian residing in Michigan; Mrs. Florence Bayard Hilles of Delaware; Miss Helen Todd, Miss Frances Jolliffe and Mrs. Sara Bard Field of California. The first two speakers proceeded without interruption but when Mrs. Hardy said that by marrying in the United States she found herself disfranchised, the committee woke up. After questioning her on this point Mr.Steele of Pennsylvania asked her how she accounted for the large defeat the second time the suffrage amendment was submitted in Michigan and she answered: "I account for it partly by the fact that this was the only State having a campaign that year and the whole opposition was centered there. The liquor interests themselves admitted that they spent a million dollars to defeat it."
The address of Mrs. Hilles also brought out a flood of questions, which, with the answers made by Miss Paul, filled four printed pages of the official report. They began with requests for information about the difficulties of amending State constitutions but soon centered on the campaign of the Union against the Democrats in 1914 and this line was followed throughout the rest of the hearing, the Federal Amendment being largely lost sight of. The members showed deep personal resentment. For example:
Mr. Taggart (Kan.). Your organization spent a lot of time and money trying to defeat men on this committee that you are now before, did it not?Miss Paul. We went out into the suffrage States and told the women voters what was done to the suffrage amendment by the last Congress.Mr. Taggart. We have before us a joint suffrage resolution by Mr. Taylor of Colorado. You tried to defeat him, did you not?Miss Paul. The suffrage amendment was not brought to a vote in the House until after we went to the West.Mr. Taggart. You tried to defeat the man in the House who presented this resolution which you are having hearings for, did you not?Miss Paul. What we did was to go to the Rules Committee, a Democratic committee, to ask that this measure be reported out and brought to a vote; when the committee had refused to do this we went out into the suffrage States of the West and told the women voters how the bill was being blocked at Washington. As soon as we did that they stopped blocking and the bill was brought up before the House for the first time in history.Mr. Taggart. That was after the election?Miss Paul. Yes.Mr. Taggart. You are aware that more Democrats voted for it than men of any other party?Miss Paul. We are aware that the Democrats met in caucus and decided that woman suffrage should not be brought up in the House and after we went out into the West they brought it up. We wentout to tell the women voters about the way some of their Representatives were treating the matter.Mr. Taggart. And with this result—that in the suffrage State of Colorado Senator Thomas, a Democrat, was re-elected to succeed himself; in the suffrage State of Arizona, Senator Smith, a Democrat, was re-elected to succeed himself; in the suffrage State of California a Democrat was elected to succeed a Republican; in the suffrage State of Washington the House was reinforced by one Democrat, and in the suffrage State of Utah and in the suffrage State of Kansas Democrats were elected to reinforce the party. One Democrat only, Mr. Seldomridge of Colorado, was defeated, for the reason, he says, that his district has been gerrymandered; nevertheless, he came and voted for the amendment on the floor of the House. Why should you take such an interest in defeating Democratic Congressmen and Senators?
Mr. Taggart (Kan.). Your organization spent a lot of time and money trying to defeat men on this committee that you are now before, did it not?
Miss Paul. We went out into the suffrage States and told the women voters what was done to the suffrage amendment by the last Congress.
Mr. Taggart. We have before us a joint suffrage resolution by Mr. Taylor of Colorado. You tried to defeat him, did you not?
Miss Paul. The suffrage amendment was not brought to a vote in the House until after we went to the West.
Mr. Taggart. You tried to defeat the man in the House who presented this resolution which you are having hearings for, did you not?
Miss Paul. What we did was to go to the Rules Committee, a Democratic committee, to ask that this measure be reported out and brought to a vote; when the committee had refused to do this we went out into the suffrage States of the West and told the women voters how the bill was being blocked at Washington. As soon as we did that they stopped blocking and the bill was brought up before the House for the first time in history.
Mr. Taggart. That was after the election?
Miss Paul. Yes.
Mr. Taggart. You are aware that more Democrats voted for it than men of any other party?
Miss Paul. We are aware that the Democrats met in caucus and decided that woman suffrage should not be brought up in the House and after we went out into the West they brought it up. We wentout to tell the women voters about the way some of their Representatives were treating the matter.
Mr. Taggart. And with this result—that in the suffrage State of Colorado Senator Thomas, a Democrat, was re-elected to succeed himself; in the suffrage State of Arizona, Senator Smith, a Democrat, was re-elected to succeed himself; in the suffrage State of California a Democrat was elected to succeed a Republican; in the suffrage State of Washington the House was reinforced by one Democrat, and in the suffrage State of Utah and in the suffrage State of Kansas Democrats were elected to reinforce the party. One Democrat only, Mr. Seldomridge of Colorado, was defeated, for the reason, he says, that his district has been gerrymandered; nevertheless, he came and voted for the amendment on the floor of the House. Why should you take such an interest in defeating Democratic Congressmen and Senators?
Miss Paul persisted that all the favorable action taken by Congress after the election of 1914 was because they campaigned against the Democrats, ignoring the fact that Nevada and Montana had enfranchised their women at that election and public sentiment was veering so rapidly in favor of woman suffrage as to compel both parties to regard it as a political issue. After the opening sentences of Miss Todd's speech it became a heated dialogue between her and the members of the committee.
Miss Paul said in introducing Miss Frances Jolliffe: "She is a strong Democrat who campaigned for President Wilson and Senator Phelan and is one of the envoys sent by the women's convention in San Francisco, at which there were present 10,000 people who bade her 'Godspeed' on this journey."[102]The beginning of her speech was as follows: "I am here as a messenger from the women voters of the West. Perhaps first I should offer my apologies to the minority for appearing at all; for, gentlemen, I did my level best to defeat the Republican candidate for the Senate last year and I think I did a good deal to defeat him when I went before the women and told them they could not send back——"
Mr. Volstead spoke quickly saying: "Will you pardon me an interruption? Was that the pay you gave the Republicans for giving you almost as many votes in the House as the Democrats gave you, and that despite the fact that the Democrats had atwo-thirds majority in the House? That is, less than one-half of the vote in favor of your proposition came from the Democrats and more than five out of every six who voted against it were Democrats." The controversy kept up and when Mrs. Sara Bard Field, the other "envoy," commenced her speech she begged that she might finish it without interruption. Toward the close, however, the hearing became a free-for-all debating society, the discussion filling seven pages of the official report. Miss Paul's closing remarks caused the debate to be continued through another six pages. "Can you tell me what will be in the platform of the Democratic party in 1916?" she asked Chairman Webb. "I can tell you one plank that will not be in it and that is a plank in favor of woman suffrage," he answered. The retorts of the women were clever but both Republican and Democratic members of the committee were very much out of humor and not in a very good frame of mind to make a favorable report.
The hearing of the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage followed immediately. Its president, Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge, said in opening their hearing: "We have come here today to ask you as a committee not to report this bill favorably to the House, because we consider that, in the first place, it is a question of State's rights. In the second place we consider that the women, as represented by their men—good, bad and indifferent, honest or venal—should be heard through the men who represent them at the present time and whom the majority of women are still perfectly willing to have represent them." She then showed how much larger the majorities were which had voted against woman suffrage than for it. The speakers were Miss Emily P. Bissell of Delaware; Mrs. O. D. Oliphant of the New Jersey association; Mrs. James Wells of the Texas association; Miss Lucy J. Price of the Cleveland branch; Mrs. A. J. George of the Massachusetts association. The Judiciary Committee was in an argumentative mood and began with Mrs. Dodge as follows:
Mr. Dyer (Mo.). What is the position of your organization with reference to the question of whether or not women should have the right to vote at all? Are you in favor of women voting?Mrs. Dodge. We are in opposition to woman suffrage generally.We have never opposed women voting in school matters; we think that is a perfectly legitimate line for them to vote upon. The only trouble is they do not vote upon those questions where authorized; only two per cent. of them do so.Mr. Dyer. That is as far as you want them to go?Mrs. Dodge. Yes; that is a perfectly legitimate line for them, we have always taken that position from the first, but that does not mean that women are to be drawn into politics and government and we only draw the line at their taking part in politics and government.Mr. Dyer. I understand your position is that you favor submitting this question to the States directly.Mrs. Dodge. Yes. We have always rather inclined to the idea that it should be submitted to the women themselves.[103]...Mr. Taggart. Would you say that it was just to require a woman to pay the income tax demanded by the government and then deny her the right to any voice as to who should be the Representative that voted that tax on her?Mrs. Dodge. I certainly should. I have paid taxes in five States myself. I feel that I am entirely protected—that is what the tax is for. I think that taxpaying men are just as capable of taking care of my rights as of their own and I feel that I am justified in saying that the men can quite as well look after that which ought to be and is their business as I can.
Mr. Dyer (Mo.). What is the position of your organization with reference to the question of whether or not women should have the right to vote at all? Are you in favor of women voting?
Mrs. Dodge. We are in opposition to woman suffrage generally.We have never opposed women voting in school matters; we think that is a perfectly legitimate line for them to vote upon. The only trouble is they do not vote upon those questions where authorized; only two per cent. of them do so.
Mr. Dyer. That is as far as you want them to go?
Mrs. Dodge. Yes; that is a perfectly legitimate line for them, we have always taken that position from the first, but that does not mean that women are to be drawn into politics and government and we only draw the line at their taking part in politics and government.
Mr. Dyer. I understand your position is that you favor submitting this question to the States directly.
Mrs. Dodge. Yes. We have always rather inclined to the idea that it should be submitted to the women themselves.[103]...
Mr. Taggart. Would you say that it was just to require a woman to pay the income tax demanded by the government and then deny her the right to any voice as to who should be the Representative that voted that tax on her?
Mrs. Dodge. I certainly should. I have paid taxes in five States myself. I feel that I am entirely protected—that is what the tax is for. I think that taxpaying men are just as capable of taking care of my rights as of their own and I feel that I am justified in saying that the men can quite as well look after that which ought to be and is their business as I can.
Mr. Taggart asked: "Why should the women of Kansas have the vote when it is denied to those of other States who need it as much or more?" Mrs. Dodge answered: "We think the men in Kansas did not quite know what they were doing when they gave it to women and a great many thousands of women there wish they had not done so." "You are then opposed to having a State grant suffrage to its own women?" he asked. "Not at all," she replied. "Then why do you say the men did not know what they were about?" "I do not know whether a majority or a minority of the voters desired it," she said. "Well, it was a very large majority and I have never heard a regret expressed in the State that it was done," responded Mr. Taggart.
Mrs. Oliphant was held up because after saying that the women did not want the suffrage she argued against a Federal Amendment because if the women got it it would be very difficult torepeal it. Mr. Graham (Penn.) rushed to her relief by saying: "The line of thought is that 20 States, holding a minority of the population of the United States might pass this National Amendment over the protest of the larger States with the greater population." His attention was called by one of the committee to the fact that it would require 36 States. Mrs. Wells kept reminding the committee that she was an inexperienced speaker and knew nothing about politics but said: "I am a Catholic and a Democrat. I claim no knowledge of northern women but I cannot understand how southern women—I speak for them—can so far forget the memory of Thomas Jefferson and State's rights as to insist on having a minority of men in Congress pass this constitutional amendment against our desire." She was reminded that it required two-thirds of each House. She then told of opposing a suffrage resolution in the Texas Legislature some years before but neglected to tell of opposing one for prohibition also. Asked if women did not vote at school elections in Texas she answered: "I do not know because I know nothing about politics."
Miss Price was a shrewd speaker and guarded her position but before she had finished the members of the committee themselves were making speeches for or against woman suffrage. The speech of Mrs. George of Massachusetts with its statistics filled fifteen closely printed pages of the stenographic report. It was an argument for State's rights which would have done credit to the most extreme southerner and she protected her defenses against the volley of questions that were kept up until time for the committee to adjourn.
The anti-suffragists had wisely refrained this year from bringing any of their male advocates but the latter did not intend to be left out and they obtained a hearing six weeks later on February 1. Franklin Carter, secretary of the Man Suffrage Association of New York City, told the committee he could "get through in half an hour," which was granted. He consumed over an hour, the official report showing that after the first few sentences there were not more than three or four without an interruption from the committee and the "heckling" continued through seventeen interesting printed pages. Mr. Carter, who said he received a salary of $100 a month and had expended between$6,000 and $7,000 during the recent New York amendment campaign, was at last obliged to submit what he had to say in the form of a "brief," which filled six closely printed pages. He was followed by Paul Littlefield representing the Men's Campaign Committee of the Pennsylvania Women's Anti-Suffrage Association. His experience was more disconcerting than that of Mr. Carter, who had freely stated the expenditures of his association and his own salary while Mr. Littlefield refused any information on these and other points. He brought a message from Mrs. Horace Brock, president of the association, saying: "The women of our State trust the men to legislate wisely and justly for them, and the ideas of chivalry which have existed for a thousand years are the great bulwark surrounding and protecting women, upon which, because of their lack of physical strength, they must rely for safety and happiness." His grilling filled twelve printed pages of the report. Mr. Stone asked permission to get a "brief" from the chairman of the Massachusetts Man Suffrage Association, Robert Turner, which would clear up many matters. His own recollection was that the expenditures of that association in the 1915 campaign were $54,000. Mr. Littlefield then relented and said that the Pennsylvania men's committee spent $20,000 on the campaign. Mr. Turner's "brief" of 5,000 words was afterwards submitted but did not mention expenditures.
FOOTNOTES:[99]Call: In the long years of work for equal suffrage none has been so crowded with self-sacrificing labor for the cause as this one and no year so significant of its early ultimate triumph. As we issue this Call four great campaigns for equal suffrage are in progress in four eastern States. Thousands of women are working with voice and pen and tens of thousands are contributing in time and money to win political freedom for women in these States. Other States are rapidly preparing for active campaigns in 1916. At the same time the National Association is putting forth the strongest efforts to win nation-wide suffrage through the passage of its historic Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.We shall come together at this, our forty-seventh annual convention, larger in numbers, more united in spirit and effort, more assured of early success than ever before....and, with renewed zeal and inspiration, rejoicing that the long struggle for the new freedom for women is nearing an end. Public opinion for equal suffrage has increased a hundredfold in this fateful year. It seems borne in upon the most conservative that it is only a matter of time when nation-wide political freedom will be granted to women as an inevitable outcome of our democracy and the last step in the great experiment of self-government....Anna Howard Shaw, President.Katharine Dexter McCormick, First Vice-President.Nellie Nugent Somerville, Second Vice-President.Katharine Bement Davis, Third Vice-President.Nellie Sawyer Clark, Corresponding Secretary.Susan Walker Fitzgerald, Recording Secretary.Emma Winner Rogers, Treasurer.Helen Guthrie Miller,}Auditors.Ruth Hanna McCormick,[100]Although Dr. Shaw was but sixty-eight years old and in perfect health she afterwards asked the custodians of this fund—George Foster Peabody, James Lees Laidlaw and Norman de R. Whitehouse, New York bankers—to hold it in trust, paying her only the annuity each year and giving her the right to dispose of it at her death in some way to advance the cause of woman suffrage, which was done.[101]The speakers were Mrs. William Spencer Murray, secretary of the Women's Political Union of Connecticut; Mrs. Annie G. Porritt, press chairman of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Dana Durand of Minnesota; Miss Julia Hurlburt, vice-chairman of the Women's Political Union of New Jersey; Mrs. Agnes Jenks, president of the Rhode Island W. S. A.; Mrs. Alden H. Potter, chairman of the Congressional Union in Minnesota; Mrs. Glendower Evans, member of the Minimum Wage Commission of Massachusetts; Mrs. R. H. Ashbaugh, president of the Michigan Federation of Women's Clubs; Mrs. James Rector, vice-chairman of the C. U. of Ohio; Mrs. Cyrus Mead of the Ohio C. U.[102]The automobile started from the Exposition and there were possibly more than that many people on the grounds. As its departure had been widely advertised and was made a spectacular event a large crowd was at the gate.[103]For the last twenty years the members of the Anti-Suffrage Association had appeared regularly before committees of Legislatures in various States to oppose the submission of the question to the voters, picturing the injury it would be to the community and to the women. They had never in any State made the slightest effort to have it submitted to women themselves. The School suffrage was granted in most of the States before they had any organization but they went before a committee in the New York Legislature to oppose women on school boards.
[99]Call: In the long years of work for equal suffrage none has been so crowded with self-sacrificing labor for the cause as this one and no year so significant of its early ultimate triumph. As we issue this Call four great campaigns for equal suffrage are in progress in four eastern States. Thousands of women are working with voice and pen and tens of thousands are contributing in time and money to win political freedom for women in these States. Other States are rapidly preparing for active campaigns in 1916. At the same time the National Association is putting forth the strongest efforts to win nation-wide suffrage through the passage of its historic Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.We shall come together at this, our forty-seventh annual convention, larger in numbers, more united in spirit and effort, more assured of early success than ever before....and, with renewed zeal and inspiration, rejoicing that the long struggle for the new freedom for women is nearing an end. Public opinion for equal suffrage has increased a hundredfold in this fateful year. It seems borne in upon the most conservative that it is only a matter of time when nation-wide political freedom will be granted to women as an inevitable outcome of our democracy and the last step in the great experiment of self-government....Anna Howard Shaw, President.Katharine Dexter McCormick, First Vice-President.Nellie Nugent Somerville, Second Vice-President.Katharine Bement Davis, Third Vice-President.Nellie Sawyer Clark, Corresponding Secretary.Susan Walker Fitzgerald, Recording Secretary.Emma Winner Rogers, Treasurer.Helen Guthrie Miller,}Auditors.Ruth Hanna McCormick,
[99]Call: In the long years of work for equal suffrage none has been so crowded with self-sacrificing labor for the cause as this one and no year so significant of its early ultimate triumph. As we issue this Call four great campaigns for equal suffrage are in progress in four eastern States. Thousands of women are working with voice and pen and tens of thousands are contributing in time and money to win political freedom for women in these States. Other States are rapidly preparing for active campaigns in 1916. At the same time the National Association is putting forth the strongest efforts to win nation-wide suffrage through the passage of its historic Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
We shall come together at this, our forty-seventh annual convention, larger in numbers, more united in spirit and effort, more assured of early success than ever before....and, with renewed zeal and inspiration, rejoicing that the long struggle for the new freedom for women is nearing an end. Public opinion for equal suffrage has increased a hundredfold in this fateful year. It seems borne in upon the most conservative that it is only a matter of time when nation-wide political freedom will be granted to women as an inevitable outcome of our democracy and the last step in the great experiment of self-government....
Anna Howard Shaw, President.Katharine Dexter McCormick, First Vice-President.Nellie Nugent Somerville, Second Vice-President.Katharine Bement Davis, Third Vice-President.Nellie Sawyer Clark, Corresponding Secretary.Susan Walker Fitzgerald, Recording Secretary.Emma Winner Rogers, Treasurer.Helen Guthrie Miller,}Auditors.Ruth Hanna McCormick,
[100]Although Dr. Shaw was but sixty-eight years old and in perfect health she afterwards asked the custodians of this fund—George Foster Peabody, James Lees Laidlaw and Norman de R. Whitehouse, New York bankers—to hold it in trust, paying her only the annuity each year and giving her the right to dispose of it at her death in some way to advance the cause of woman suffrage, which was done.
[100]Although Dr. Shaw was but sixty-eight years old and in perfect health she afterwards asked the custodians of this fund—George Foster Peabody, James Lees Laidlaw and Norman de R. Whitehouse, New York bankers—to hold it in trust, paying her only the annuity each year and giving her the right to dispose of it at her death in some way to advance the cause of woman suffrage, which was done.
[101]The speakers were Mrs. William Spencer Murray, secretary of the Women's Political Union of Connecticut; Mrs. Annie G. Porritt, press chairman of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Dana Durand of Minnesota; Miss Julia Hurlburt, vice-chairman of the Women's Political Union of New Jersey; Mrs. Agnes Jenks, president of the Rhode Island W. S. A.; Mrs. Alden H. Potter, chairman of the Congressional Union in Minnesota; Mrs. Glendower Evans, member of the Minimum Wage Commission of Massachusetts; Mrs. R. H. Ashbaugh, president of the Michigan Federation of Women's Clubs; Mrs. James Rector, vice-chairman of the C. U. of Ohio; Mrs. Cyrus Mead of the Ohio C. U.
[101]The speakers were Mrs. William Spencer Murray, secretary of the Women's Political Union of Connecticut; Mrs. Annie G. Porritt, press chairman of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association; Mrs. Dana Durand of Minnesota; Miss Julia Hurlburt, vice-chairman of the Women's Political Union of New Jersey; Mrs. Agnes Jenks, president of the Rhode Island W. S. A.; Mrs. Alden H. Potter, chairman of the Congressional Union in Minnesota; Mrs. Glendower Evans, member of the Minimum Wage Commission of Massachusetts; Mrs. R. H. Ashbaugh, president of the Michigan Federation of Women's Clubs; Mrs. James Rector, vice-chairman of the C. U. of Ohio; Mrs. Cyrus Mead of the Ohio C. U.
[102]The automobile started from the Exposition and there were possibly more than that many people on the grounds. As its departure had been widely advertised and was made a spectacular event a large crowd was at the gate.
[102]The automobile started from the Exposition and there were possibly more than that many people on the grounds. As its departure had been widely advertised and was made a spectacular event a large crowd was at the gate.
[103]For the last twenty years the members of the Anti-Suffrage Association had appeared regularly before committees of Legislatures in various States to oppose the submission of the question to the voters, picturing the injury it would be to the community and to the women. They had never in any State made the slightest effort to have it submitted to women themselves. The School suffrage was granted in most of the States before they had any organization but they went before a committee in the New York Legislature to oppose women on school boards.
[103]For the last twenty years the members of the Anti-Suffrage Association had appeared regularly before committees of Legislatures in various States to oppose the submission of the question to the voters, picturing the injury it would be to the community and to the women. They had never in any State made the slightest effort to have it submitted to women themselves. The School suffrage was granted in most of the States before they had any organization but they went before a committee in the New York Legislature to oppose women on school boards.
The year 1916 marked a turning point in the sixty-year-old struggle for woman suffrage. Large delegations of women had attended the Republican and Democratic National Conventions during the summer and for the first time each of them had put into its platform an unequivocal declaration in favor of suffrage for women; the Progressive, Socialist and Prohibition platforms contained similar planks, the last three declaring for a Federal Amendment. It had become one of the leading political issues of the day and a subject of nation-wide interest. The president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, quickly recognized the situation and saw that its official action must not be deferred until the usual time for its annual convention which would be after the presidential elections, therefore the Board of Officers issued a call for an Emergency Convention to meet in Atlantic City, N. J., Sept. 4-10, 1916.[104]The members throughout the country were much surprised but welcomed the opportunity to visit this beautiful ocean resort. The headquarters were in the famous Hotel Marlborough-Blenheim and after the first day the sessions were held in the large New Nixon Theater on the Board Walk.
After two days of executive meetings the Forty-eighth annual convention opened the morning of September 6 in the handsome St. Paul's Methodist Episcopal Church, granted by the trustees and pastor, with an invocation by the latter, the Rev. A. H. Lucas. Mayor Harry Backarach gave a cordial address of welcome, ending by presenting to Mrs. Catt, who was in the chair, a huge "key to the city and to our hearts" tied with ribbons of blue and gold, the colors of the association. Members of the Board made their official reports at this and other meetings and all were valuable and interesting but space permits only a brief mention of most of them. Miss Hannah J. Patterson (Penn.), corresponding secretary and chairman of organization, told of the division of the national work into six departments with a national officer at the head of each and of moving the national headquarters from 505 Fifth Avenue, corner of 42nd Street, New York, where they had been since 1909, into much larger offices at 171 Madison Avenue, corner of 33rd Street. An entire floor was rented with 3,800 square feet of space, nearly 1,000 more than in the old location. The Publishing Company took part of this, the association retaining ten rooms. Miss Patterson told of the thorough organization work being done under fourteen organizers, who had covered twelve States. She spoke of the need of training schools for organizers and told of the value of combining all departments, data, literature, publishing, organizing, etc., under headquarters management.
Miss Esther G. Ogden (N. J.), third vice-president and head of the Publishing Company, told of doing field work in Colorado and California to interest their women in the demonstrations which were being planned for the political conventions. She spoke of the large correspondence in connection with the trip of the little "golden flier," saying: