This interchange and cooperation were so effective that Congressmen themselves complimented our "team work." But the real proof of its value came after the vote was taken, when by checking with our office records of the individual Congressmen we found that many uncertain, noncommittal or almost unfriendly members' attitude had so changed that they voted yes on the amendment. Such a result could not fail to show, if proof had been necessary, that the greatest need as well as the greatest opportunity in national suffrage work for the future lay in furthering to the last degree of completeness and efficiency the organization of every State by congressional districts....

At a distance from Washington it is difficult to know and easy to lose sight of what a Representative does or stands for, so I prepared special reports to the State congressional chairmen whenever opportunity occurred. The first, and a most interesting one, came when the vote was taken in the House on the National Prohibition Amendment Dec. 22, 1914. This was just three weeks before the vote on our own amendment and our catalogue showed a large number of Congressmen who opposed us on the ground of State's rights. The National Prohibition Amendment is obviously as direct an assumption by the Federal Government of rights now reposing in the States as could possibly be devised. I, therefore, checked off the names of the State's rights Congressmen who voted for it but probably would not vote for national suffrage, and sent the list to our respective State chairmen, urging that they call these Representatives' attention to this inconsistency. It has been reported to me that this argument proved effective with several of them and it is a fact that after the suffrage vote was taken a number of the names on our first list had to be removed because those men had voted "aye" on suffrage. Seventy-two, however, in the final count, voted for the National Prohibition Amendment but against ours....

In June I devised a special congressional district campaign which would reach the members of Congress before they left their homes to go to Washington. This was intended to impress them with the strength of the suffrage sentiment in their districts and thus deprive them of a favorite excuse for not voting for our amendment. The plan called for congressional district meetings all over the country on or about November 16 in every district where the Representative was not already pledged to the Federal Amendment. The call was sent to every congressional district chairman and it requested that every local suffrage league send as many delegates as possible to the meeting which would be held in the city where the Senator or Representative lived. It was urged that they be invited to attend the meetings and to speak and that resolutions be adopted asking them to vote for the amendment. It was a part of the plan to send these resolutions also to the State Central Committees of the Republican and Democratic parties, asking for suffrage planks on the State and national platforms.... We received most cordial and widespread cooperation in this work. I believe we can say that practically every Senator and Representative returned to Washington this session with the knowledge that behind him at home is an organized demand for his favorable vote on the Federal Amendment.

The usual pleasant social features of these conventions had been eliminated and the only relaxation for the delegates was one large evening reception in the New Willard Hotel. The National College Equal Suffrage League held its annual luncheon on the 18th at the New Ebbitt Hotel, Dr. M. Carey Thomas, president of Bryn Mawr College, presiding. The guests were 225 women graduates of various colleges and the topic of all the speeches was, "How to advance women suffrage by making friends instead of enemies." The speakers included Dr. Shaw, Mrs. Charles L. Tiffany, Mrs. Raymond Brown, Mrs. Medill McCormick, Miss Florence Stiles, Mrs. Frank M. Roessing, Miss Hannah J. Patterson, Mrs. Elizabeth Puffer Howes and Mrs. Laura Puffer Morgan.

The convention sent a telegram of sympathy in her illness to Miss Jane Addams. A special vote of thanks was tendered to Senators Charles S. Thomas and John F. Shafroth and to Representative Edward T. Taylor, all of Colorado, and to Representative Frank W. Mondell of Wyoming for the very great assistance they had given to the Congressional Committee. A cordial invitation came from the Chicago suffrage headquarters for the delegates to accept its hospitality during the National Republican Convention in June, 1916. Invitations for the next convention were received from St. Louis, Little Rock and Atlantic City.

Mrs. Medill McCormick, chairman of the Congressional Committee, introduced Mrs. Antoinette Funk, its vice chairman, who told of the strong and successful effort made to have the Committee on Rules ignore the adverse action of the Democratic caucus and send the resolution to the Lower House for action after the Judiciary Committee had reported it without recommendation. The date finally set for the debate in the House was Jan. 12, 1915. Her report was in part as follows:

From the moment the resolution was reported by the Judiciary Committee the energies of the Congressional Committee were directed toward the end of bringing out as large a favorable vote as was humanly possible and all the members of the committee then resident in Washington undertook some portion of the task. The leaders of both sides of the House, Mr. Mondell for the Republicans and Mr. Taylor for the Democrats, gave us their heartiest support. Through them and through the courtesy of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Champ Clark, we learned what members would be recognized for speeches, and each man who had asked for time or who had been asked to speak because of his locality or for other reasons was interviewed. Our cooperation in the matter of gathering up suffrage data and material was offered and freely accepted. All suffrage literature known to us was brought in large quantities into our office and assorted into sets bearing upon the situation of the different Congressmen according to their locality, political faith, etc. Every man known to be favorable to us was urged to be in his seat on January 12 and those of our friends who, we learned, would be unavoidably kept away from Washington were written and telegraphed to arrange for favorable pairs.

Some time before the vote was taken the Congressional Committee reported to the National Board that our minimum vote would be 168. In fact, 174 favorable votes were cast and 11 favorable pairs were registered. The negative votes were 204....

The favorable speeches of the Congressmen were put in form for the campaign States and over a million and a half were circulated. The report continued:

The amendment having been voted on in both Houses and direct work in its behalf being definitely closed for that session the Congressional Committee was increased by Miss Jeannette Rankin, who, together with the vice-chairman, discussed with members of the House and Senate the Shafroth amendment, then pending. No effort was made to bring this measure forward for a vote but the work of presenting the idea of a national initiative upon the proposition of suffrage for the consideration of the members of Congress was considered worth while. By many who disapproved of a National Suffrage Amendment, this was regarded as a practical method of overcoming such obstacles as the State constitutions had erected, thus making their amending easy and practicable.

The Nashville convention had endorsed the Federal Elections Bill and instructed the Board to advance it in every way possible. The bill had been introduced in Congress through the Federal Society represented by Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby and we consulted with her as to the manner in which the National might be of greatest assistance. It was extremely difficult to get favorable consideration for it by individual Congressmen but the committee recommends that it should receive the endorsement and support of the National Association, although in its judgment it is a measure that cannot be successfully concluded at an early date.

Mrs. McCormick reported in person on the use made by the committee of the record of members of Congress. It was again voted that the plans of the committee should be carried out in a State only when all its societies were agreed but when they were not the Congressional Committee should not work there. It also seemed to be the opinion of the convention that States which were considering a campaign should first consult the Survey Committee and show whether or not they were prepared for it, and if the committee advised against it and they persisted they should not expect any assistance from the National Association. Miss Laura Clay was requested to explain the Federal Elections Bill, which would enable women to vote for Senators and Representatives, and would require only a majority vote of each house for its adoption. Miss Clay was enthusiastically received and the convention again requested the Board to take up this bill and press its claims on Congress. Later the Executive Council passed a resolution to do all in its power for Presidential suffrage.

At a morning session of the convention on December 18 a motion was passed that "last year's action in regard to the Shafroth Amendment be rescinded." The following motion was then carried: "The National American Woman Suffrage Association re-endorses the Susan B. Anthony Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, for which it has been working forty-five years, and no other amendment of the U. S. Constitution dealing with National Woman Suffrage shall be introduced by it during the coming year." The Minutes of the convention (page 43) say: "Miss Shaw asked as a matter of personal privilege that she be permitted to make a statement to the association with regard to her attitude on the Shafroth Amendment to the effect that she had been opposed to its adoption and had voted against it but that when the Board by majority vote adopted it she supported the Board in its decision; that the longer she studied the question the more she approved of it but that she felt the mistake made was in trying to work for it before the women of the association had become informed as to its value and had learned to believe in it." This was the end of the so-called Shafroth Amendment, which had threatened to carry the old association on the rocks. [See Chapter XIV.]

Another problem came before this convention—the policy of the recently formed Congressional Union to adopt the method of the "militant" branch of the English suffragists and hold the party in power responsible for the failure to submit the Federal Suffrage Amendment. They had gone into the equal suffrage States during the congressional campaign of 1914 and fought the re-election of some of the staunchest friends of this amendment, Senator Thomas of Colorado, for instance, chairman of the Senate Committee which had reported it favorably and a lifelong suffragist. The press and public not knowing the difference between the two organizations were holding the National American Association responsible and protests were coming from all over the country. Some of the younger members, who did not know the history and traditions of the old association, thought that there should be cooperation between the two bodies. Both had lobbyists actively working at the Capitol, members of Congress were confused and there was a considerable feeling that some plan for united action should be found. Miss Zona Gale, the writer, offered the following motion, which was carried without objection: "Realizing that all suffragists have a common cause at heart and that difference of methods is inevitable, it is moved that an efficiency commission consisting of five members be appointed by the Chair to confer with representatives of the Congressional Union in order to bring about cooperation with the maximum of efficiency for the successful passage of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment at this session of Congress." The Handbook of the convention (page 155) has the following:

In accordance with the action of the convention, on the motion of Miss Zona Gale, the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association appointed a committee of five consisting of Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt of New York; Mrs. Medill McCormick of Illinois; Mrs. Stanley McCormick of Massachusetts; Mrs. Antoinette Funk of Illinois and Miss Hannah J. Patterson of Pennsylvania, to confer with a similar committee from the Congressional Union on the question of cooperation in congressional action. These committees met at the New Willard on December 17, Miss Alice Paul, Miss Lucy Burns, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Miss Anne Martin and Mrs. Gilson Gardner being present as representatives of the Congressional Union, all but Mrs. Lewis (Penn.) of the District of Columbia.

Its representatives made two suggestions: (1) That the Congressional Union should affiliate with the National American Woman Suffrage Association. (2) That in any event frequent meetings for consultation should be held between the legislative committees of the two in order to secure more united action.

In the discussion of these suggestions it developed that at this time the Congressional Union has no election policy and that its future policy must depend on political situations. The Union declares itself to be non-partisan according to its constitution, which pledges its members to support suffrage regardless of the interests of any national political parties. At this point the report of the joint conference ends.

The committee of five representing the National American Association recommends that no affiliation shall take place because it was made quite clear that the Congressional Union does not denounce nor pledge itself not to resume what we term its anti-party policy and what they designate as their election policy; also because it is their intention, as announced by them, to organize in all States in the Union for congressional work, thus duplicating organizations already existing. Your committee further recommends that the incoming board of officers give their serious consideration to the suggestion of conferences with a view to securing more united action in the lobby work in Washington.

At the conference Mrs. Catt explained to Miss Paul that the association could not accept as an affiliated society one which was likely to defy its policy held since its foundation in 1869, which was neither to support nor oppose any political party, nor to work for or against any candidate except as to his attitude toward woman suffrage. Miss Paul would give no guarantee that the Congressional Union would observe this policy. It was thought that some way of dividing the lobby work might be found but in a short time the Union announced its program of fighting the candidates of the Democratic party without any reference to their position on the Federal Amendment or their record on woman suffrage. They offered as a reason that as the Democratic party was in control of the Government it should have the Federal Amendment submitted. There never was a time when the Democrats had the necessary two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress, but enough of them favored it so that it could have been carried if enough of the Republicans had voted for it. It was plainly evident that it would require the support of both parties. The policy of the Congressional Union, put into action throughout the presidential campaign of 1916, made any cooperation impossible.

When in 1904 Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt had been obliged to resign the presidency on account of impaired health it was most reluctantly accepted by Dr. Shaw and only because Miss Anthony so earnestly impressed it on her as a duty. She felt that her own great mission was on the platform rather than in executive office and she preferred it; besides there was no salary attached to the office and she was dependent for her livelihood on her own efforts. Miss Anthony, Mrs. Catt and others overcame all her objections and for eleven years she had made almost superhuman efforts to fulfil her executive duties and keep in the field a large part of the time, speaking from ocean to ocean, from lakes to gulf, and every few years in European countries. She was in constant demand and could hardly refuse an appeal. Only a fine constitution and supreme will power enabled her to endure the strain, and with it all her fund of humor was never exhausted and her courage never faltered. There was a feeling, however, among some members of the association that the movement had reached a stage when she was more than ever needed to address the immense audiences which everywhere now were hungry to hear the doctrines of woman suffrage; and they felt also that the situation at present demanded an executive at the head of the association who could give practically her entire time to the vast demands for administrative work.

Dr. Shaw had but one regret at laying down the heavy double burden, which was that it was placed in her hands by Miss Anthony in her last hour with the charge not to give it up until the final victory was won. She knew, however, that Miss Anthony would be satisfied if Mrs. Catt, an unsurpassed executive and organizer, would take it, and such was the sentiment of a large majority of the delegates, but this she positively refused to do. She was president of the International Suffrage Alliance, which had branches in twenty-six countries, and as most of them were in the very midst of the World War the United States had to assume the entire responsibility of maintaining the London headquarters and the official paper. New York State had decided to go immediately into another amendment campaign and she had again assumed the chairmanship and was pledged to the work. For several days she resisted all pleadings until finally the ground was completely taken out from under her feet. First, a few wealthy women guaranteed a fund of $5,000 for the year's expenses of the International Alliance to relieve her of that care. Then a number of delegates went to the New York delegation of over fifty and labored with them to release her from the chairmanship of the campaign committee, which, after an exciting caucus, they reluctantly consented to do at a great sacrifice, and finally the convention went to her in a body and laid the fruits of their efforts at her feet and she surrendered.

At the primaries 45 votes were cast for Mrs. Mina C. Van Winkle (N. J.) principally by members of the Congressional Union who were in some of the State delegations, but she withdrew her name. For other officers the opposition that had been manifesting itself for several years recorded from 41 to 77 votes out of 546, except that Mrs. Susan W. Fitzgerald (Mass.) received 118 for recording secretary and Dr. Katharine Bement Davis 141 for third vice-president but withdrew her name. Others of the present board did not stand for re-election. Mrs. Henry Wade Rogers was unanimously re-elected treasurer. The following officers were elected: Mrs. Catt unanimously; Mrs. Frank M. Roessing (Penn.), first vice-president; Mrs. Katherine Dexter McCormick (Mass.), second; Miss Esther G. Ogden (N. J.), third; Miss Hannah J. Patterson (Penn.), corresponding secretary; Mrs. James W. Morrison (Ills.), recording secretary; Mrs. Walter McNab Miller (Mo.), first auditor; Mrs. Pattie Ruffner Jacobs (Ala.), second. Dr. Shaw came in from the hearing before the Judiciary Committee as the balloting was about to begin, and as she took the chair she asked from the convention the privilege of casting the first vote for Mrs. Catt, "the woman who from the beginning has been my choice, the one who more than any other I long to see occupy the position of your president."

The afternoon session was a beautiful and memorable occasion. Delegates knew there was "something in the air" when they entered the ante-room and were asked to help themselves from the great quantities of flowers on the tables and when they saw a uniformed brass band in one end of the convention hall. Dr. Shaw was in the chair and at her right and left were Mrs. George Howard Lewis of Buffalo and Mrs. Henry Villard of New York, lovely, white-haired veterans in the cause. Gathered about her on the platform were those who had been her nearest associates during the many years of her presidency. The meeting was called to order and Mrs. Raymond Brown on behalf of the New York delegation presented a resolution of thanks to Dr. Shaw for the 204 speeches made by her during the past year in that State and asked unanimous consent of the convention for the adoption of a new by-law to the constitution making her Honorary President of the association with a seat on the Board.

As the delegates answered with a rising vote the band broke forth with patriotic airs and from a side room entered the national officers followed by the State presidents and chairmen of standing committees. Dr. Thomas, president of the National College League, bore a golden laurel wreath on a blue velvet cushion and each of the officers a large cornucopia filled with yellow blossoms. Mrs. James Lees Laidlaw carried a long garland of flowers and the presidents had huge bouquets. The procession marched entirely around the room with the band playing and the audience singing. Dr. Thomas presented the laurel wreath to Dr. Shaw "as a symbol of the triumphant work she had done for the cause which the blue and gold represent." Mrs. Laidlaw placed the garland about her neck saying, "With these flowers we bind thee to us forever." The presidents came forward and laid their bouquets at her feet until they were banked as high as the arms of her chair and then all grouped themselves around her. As she rose to speak the whole audience sprang to their feet and commenced to shower her with roses until she was almost lost to sight. Dr. Shaw was very pale and her voice faltered in spite of her effort to control it but with the old smile she said: "Men say women are too emotional to vote but when we compare our emotions here today to theirs at political conventions I prefer our kind. If this resolution means that I can still work for suffrage I accept it gratefully and thank you for the opportunity but under no consideration would I accept merely an honorary office. The flowers are beautiful and I shall remember this hour as long as I live but what will make my heart glad all my life is the love I know the members of this association have for me."

"The storm of roses ended in a rainbow with a pot of gold at its end," said the report in the New York Tribune, "for President Thomas came forward and announced that an annuity had been raised which would give Dr. Shaw an income of $3,200 as long as she lived. 'This is in order' she said, 'that you may work for suffrage every day without stopping to think of finances, and every mill in the $30,000 represents a heart you have won or a mind you have converted to woman suffrage.' To this gift Mrs. Lewis added $1,500 to pay a year's salary to a secretary." "I have always wanted to know how it feels to be a millionaire and now I know," responded Dr. Shaw. "I cannot think what to say except that I'm very happy."[100] The delegates cheered and the band played and when the tumult ceased she turned to where Mrs. Catt sat at the very back of the platform looking pale as herself and by no means so happy, and taking her hand led her forward and presented her as the new president of the association. Again there was a scene of great enthusiasm and when it ceased Mrs. Catt said: "When I came to this convention I had no more idea of accepting the presidency of this association than I had of taking a trip to Kamtchatka. I will do my best but because I am an unwilling victim and because you all know it I think I have a right to exact a pledge from you—that if you have any fault to find with my conduct or that of the Board you will bring your complaint first to us. I ask all of you to work harder the coming year than you have ever worked before. I cannot be otherwise than deeply touched by the confidence you have placed in me. I promise you to do my best not to disappoint you." The convention clearly demonstrated its joy over her election and received cordially the new officers as they were introduced.

Miss Margaret Wilson was among those who showered Dr. Shaw with flowers on Friday afternoon and she sat on the platform at the mass meeting in Poli's Theater on Sunday afternoon. Secretary of the Interior Lane, Senators Moses E. Clapp of Minnesota and Shafroth of Colorado and many other officials and prominent men and women had seats on the platform and a large audience was present. The Rev. U. G. B. Pierce, of All Souls Unitarian Church, gave the invocation. Dr. Shaw was in the chair and the speakers were Dudley Field Malone, Collector of the Port of New York; Dr. Katharine Bement Davis, Commissioner of Corrections of New York City, and Mrs. Catt. Dr. Davis spoke with marked effect on the Reasonableness of Woman Suffrage. Mr. Malone traced the extension of suffrage from the earliest to the present time and showed that in seeking the right to vote American women were asking nothing new. He spoke of "the million women in New York State who have to go into the shop, the factory and the market place each day to earn a living and support a home" and demanded the vote for these women as a matter of justice. He scorned the idea of woman's inferiority to man and said: "It is desirable to place in the electorate every mature individual of brains, character, intelligence and love of country to perpetuate American traditions and the American idea of democracy. America today, facing the world problems of infinite difficulty and variety, needs every element of moral force and influence in the electorate which she can summon to her service, for it may be that our country will be called upon before the world to redeem the pledges made in behalf of democracy itself. The right of suffrage involves the question of justice; the exercise of suffrage raises it to one of ethics. The question before the men of the country is, Should the women have the suffrage and if they get it how will they use it?"

Here Mr. Malone could not resist the temptation to predict that the vast majority would vote for military "preparedness," a burning question at this time. This roused Mrs. Catt's resentment both because it was contrary to her belief and because it was contrary to the custom of the association to discuss political subjects. She largely abandoned the rousing suffrage speech she intended to make in order that Mr. Malone's assertion might not go out over the country with the sanction of the association and said in beginning: "Behind preparedness is a bigger thing—the right to maintain peace. Unless this country carries a militant peace policy into the court of nations, nobody will, and if we do not take a firm stand we ourselves will soon be at war. It has been made clear to me in the last few months that men are too belligerent to be trusted alone with governments. The world needs woman's restraining hand. Man's instinct has been militant since primitive times when it was his job to do the hunting and fighting and woman's to do the work. Woman's instinct has been to conserve and protect life. It is much easier to fight than to make peace. We women would not allow our country to be made the door mat for other nations but we would find a way to settle disputes without killing fathers, husbands and sons."

Dr. Shaw sustained firmly the position of Mrs. Catt, obtained a big collection and sent the people home in a peaceful frame of mind by her closing speech.

Toward the close of the convention the following resolutions were presented by the committee, Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, chairman, and adopted:

WHEREAS, women already have the ballot in twelve States of the Union and one Territory and in seven foreign countries, and the trend of civilization the world over is toward enlarged rights for women; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the National American Woman Suffrage Association, in convention assembled, again calls upon Congress to submit to the States the Constitutional Amendment providing for nation-wide suffrage for women.

We rejoice in the recent granting of full suffrage to women in Denmark and Iceland; Municipal suffrage in South Africa and an enlarged local suffrage in the provinces of Canada and the States of our Union....

We express our heartfelt sympathy with the women of all countries now suffering through the war and our earnest wish for the speedy establishment of peace with justice. Since women must bear their full share of all the burdens and sufferings of war they ought in fairness to have a share in choosing those in high places who settle the question of war or peace.

The heroic work done for the sick and wounded by the women of every land shows them to be worthy of the ballot, their right to which Florence Nightingale declared to be an axiom, and their plea for which has been endorsed almost unanimously by the International Council of Nurses representing nine nations.

The association reaffirms that its policy is non-partisan and non-sectarian, opposing no political party as such and opposing no candidate because of his party affiliations but judging every candidate by his own attitude and record.

We believe the home is the foundation of the State; we believe in the sacredness of the marriage relationship, and further, we believe that the ballot in the hands of women will strengthen the power of the home and sustain the sacredness and dignity of marriage; we denounce as gross slander statements made by the enemies of woman suffrage that its advocates as a class entertain opinions to the contrary.

The thanks and appreciation of the association are tendered to its retiring president, Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, for her long and arduous service to this cause, her many labors and hardships and her innumerable and powerful addresses, which have won adherents to woman suffrage not only throughout the United States but in foreign lands.

We highly appreciate President Wilson's action in declaring in favor of the principle of equal suffrage and in stating his belief in the good results to be expected from its adoption.

* * * * *

As the resolution to submit the Federal Suffrage Amendment to the State Legislatures for ratification had been lost in the Senate and House of the 63rd Congress it was necessary to begin again with the 64th. Usually the hearings before the committees of the two Houses were held at the same time and the convention adjourned so the delegates might be present but at this time the one for the National American Association before the Senate was set for the morning of December 15 and the one before the House for the following day. It adjourned for the first one but as the second promised to be long drawn out only a delegation went with Dr. Shaw and she returned to the convention after she had made the opening speech.

At the Senate hearings the chairman, Senator Charles S. Thomas (Col.), presided and members present were Senators Hollis (N. H.); Clapp (Minn.); Sutherland (Utah); Catron (N. M.); Jones (Wash.). The other members, Senators Owen (Okla.) and Johnson (S. Dak.), were suffragists and probably were out of town. Senator Catron was the only opponent. Senator Ransdell was added to the committee the second day. On the third day only Senators Hollis, Clapp, Sutherland and Jones attended. The time was divided among the representatives of the National Association, the Congressional Union and the National Anti-Suffrage Association, the first taking from 10 to 12 o'clock Wednesday; the second from 10 to 11:30 Thursday; the third from 2 to 3:15 Monday. The joint resolution for the amendment had been introduced by Senators Thomas and Sutherland.

On the first day Chairman Thomas said: "This meeting of the Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage is called at the instance of the National Association of which Dr. Anna Howard Shaw is the honored president. The hearing will be conducted under the auspices of that association and by her direction. Dr. Shaw, we will be glad to hear you now." Dr. Shaw said in part:

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 come with 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 but our 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.

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 us into 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 motor to 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, so far 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 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....

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 where it 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....

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.

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 the Woman's Journal from 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.

Mrs. George Bass, whose address is quoted in the report of the Senate hearing in this chapter, gave a valuable resume 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 that followed 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 went out 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 a two-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. 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 to repeal 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.



CHAPTER XVI.

NATIONAL AMERICAN CONVENTION OF 1916.

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:

This tour was undertaken by Miss Alice Burke and Miss Nell Richardson, who left New York April 6 to make a circuit of the United States in the interest of the National Association and the cause of suffrage. The Saxon Motor Company donated the car, while the association arranged for entertainment for Miss Burke and Miss Richardson along the route and for expenses over and above the collections taken at their meetings, of which they have held one a day in the closely settled States. They reached San Francisco early in June and are now on their way east. From each State through which they have passed we have had appreciative letters of their endurance and courage as automobilists and of their worth as public speakers. They have suffered actual privations crossing the desert and more recently in the Bad Lands of the northwest. They were on the Mexican border during the raids and their car had to be pulled out of rivers during the floods; their courage has never faltered and they have given another proof of the well-known fact that you can't discourage a suffragist. They set out to make a circuit of the United States with the same determination that we all have set out to win our enfranchisement and they will not give up until the circuit is made. So far nineteen States have been included in the itinerary and it is planned to cover six more. The newspaper publicity has been nation-wide....

Later Miss Ogden made her report for the National Woman Suffrage Publishing Company. "We exist," she said, "for two purposes—to serve the suffrage cause throughout the country and to prove that we can serve that cause and also develop a successful business." She spoke of the devoted office staff, under the business manager, Miss Anna De Baun, who had made personal sacrifices again and again when necessary.

The report of the recording secretary, Mrs. Mary Foulke Morrisson (Ills.), to whom had been entrusted the organization of the great parade of suffragists during the National Republican Convention in Chicago and especially its financing, stated that $6,699 had been raised by the State and Chicago Equal Suffrage Associations; $200 by the Chicago Political Equality League and some hundreds of dollars by local leagues and individuals. She paid high tribute to the unwearying work of Mrs. Medill McCormick, who, speaking and organizing in the city and outlying towns "won the support of whole sections of the community that had hitherto been utterly indifferent." Mrs. Morrisson herself had spoken fifty times in the interest of the parade in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Iowa and the Mississippi Valley Conference.

The report of the national treasurer, Mrs. Henry Wade Rogers, was received with much appreciation of her money-getting ability and satisfactory accounting. The total receipts for the year were $81,863 and the close of the fiscal year found a balance on hand of $8,869. The largest contributions had been $500 each from the State associations of Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The National College Equal Suffrage League gave $450. The expenditures in round numbers were: Headquarters, including salaries, expenses of conventions, etc., $16,531; publicity, $9,096; National Congressional Committee, $4,676; publishing News Letter, $982; contributions to campaigns, $21,131; demonstrations, organization, etc., $20,000.

In commenting Mrs. Rogers said: "Nothing to my mind indicates so vividly the progress of equal suffrage as the comparative ease with which the largest budget in the history of the National Association was pledged and most of it paid by August 25, and the fact that an excess of that budget amounting to many thousands of dollars has been raised three months before the usual convention date. 'Money talks' and it is saying this year: 'No cause in which I could be used appeals to me as does this fundamental one of enfranchising women, of opening the door to let them enter and help to make a more Christian civilization.' Literally we have had only to ask and it has been given unto us. Scores and hundreds of women in sending their generous gifts have said: 'Would that my check were ten times as large!' The wonderful spirit of kindliness and ardent desire to cooperate have touched the treasurer's heart deeply and made the work of the passing year a real joy. I am confident that all necessary funds for suffrage expenditures—national, State and local—can be raised, even to a million dollars, if more systematic work is done on the financial side in the States...." Mrs. Rogers outlined the business methods that should be used and expressed her obligations to her committee of fifty on finance for their helpful support.

Mrs. Walter McNab Miller (Mo.), first auditor, in the report of her field work told of days, weeks and months spent in visiting cities from New York to St. Louis, holding conferences and meetings and writing hundreds of letters to raise money and arrange for the demonstration to be held in St. Louis during the Democratic National Convention—the "walkless parade," to which the Missouri Suffrage Association contributed nearly $2,000. She attended State suffrage and political conventions and the biennial of the General Federation of Women's Clubs in New York. "And then came Chicago," the report said, "with its exciting surge, its march in the rain and its near-victory plank, followed by St. Louis with its 'golden lane' of suffragists and a plank a little less pleasing; another trip to Indianapolis with our Chief—and the most momentous June in suffrage history was over." The report told of the journey to Cheyenne to attend the Council of Women Voters; the addresses of the present Democratic Governor Kendrick and the former Republican Governor and U. S. Senator Carey; the two days at the State University in Laramie, "the guest of one of the best-known suffragists in the State, Professor Grace Raymond Hebard"; the visit in Denver, "asking questions and being interviewed." "All of this," she said, "sent me back firmly convinced that the western women want to help us in our battle and only wait for a definite program of work."