suffrage, pleads guilty to the threadbare charge that women have
not sufficient intelligence to vote, comes forward and says: "But
the good women won't vote; only the bad women will exercise the
privilege." This argument is answered by the contrary experience
in States where women vote. If woman suffrage only increased the
number of bad voters, then instead of spreading like a prairie
fire from coast to coast it would be repealed in the States where
it was originally tried as an experiment. The results in the
States where the franchise has been granted are an absolute and
irrefutable argument in favor of national woman suffrage. In
these States it has removed the polling places from the dives to
the churches and has opened more schools and closed more saloons
than all other political movements combined. The ideals of
government and the standard of right and wrong by which public
officials are measured have been raised without lowering one iota
the standard of motherhood, of wifehood and of womanhood, a
standard of which every woman is proud and which every man
reverences and worships....
Other speakers were President H. S. Barker of the University of
Kentucky; R. A. McDowell (Ky.), the Hon. Leon Locke (La.), Miss S.
Grace Nicholes of Chicago, and Charles T. Hallinan, vice-president of
the league. A branch of the Men's National League was formed during
the convention by about thirty prominent men, with John Bell Keble,
dean of the Vanderbilt Law School, as temporary chairman.
Delegates to these national conventions now felt less need of
oratorical eloquence and more of practical knowledge of the work which
was under way that they might carry back with them to their own
States. One evening was profitably spent in listening to short
speeches by Miss Alice Stone Blackwell on the work of the National
Association; Mrs. Antoinette Funk on that of the Congressional
Committee; Mrs. Raymond Brown, president of the New York association,
on the unusual and spectacular campaign now under way in that State;
Miss Hannah J. Patterson on the preparatory campaign in Pennsylvania;
Mrs. Maud Wood Park, secretary of the Boston Equal Suffrage
Association, and Mrs. Teresa A. Crowley on the coming campaign in
Massachusetts; Mrs. Lillian J. Feickert, president of the State
association, on that of New Jersey. In all of these States amendments
had been submitted for 1915. Miss Rankin told the welcome story of the
Montana victory.
The mass meeting on Sunday afternoon was one of the largest ever
assembled in Ryman Auditorium, all the standing room occupied and many
turned from the doors. The audience represented every station in life
and the large number of men was noticeable. Dr. Shaw presided and paid
a splendid tribute to the people of Nashville. Miss Jane Addams took
for a text her visit to the historic home of Andrew Jackson, which,
she said, had caused her to think of the great part the men of the
South had in shaping the policies of the early government of the
States, and how Chief Justice John Marshall, a southern man, had
welded them together into an unconquerable whole. She referred to the
way in which women had borne their part and asked why the men were so
progressive in those early days and yet so reactionary now, when women
asked that they should make another experiment in popular government.
Miss Rose Schneiderman, president of the New York City Women's Trade
Union, spoke on the Industrial Woman's Need of the Vote, telling of
the 800,000 working women in New York State, the low wages of many,
the unjust conditions. "Do you talk of chivalry?" she exclaimed. "We
women who work will tell you that we have no chivalry shown us in
industry and we will also tell you that we go home with half the wages
that men get. These same men who tell us we are angels send vice
commissioners to investigate why girls go wrong. I should think a
glance at the pay-roll would give them the answer."
Miss Rosika Schwimmer of Budapest, who had come with a petition to
President Wilson from the women of fifteen countries that were at war
to use his influence to bring about peace, made an eloquent and
impassioned address. A storm of applause greeted her appeal to the men
of this country to avoid the catastrophe of war in the future by
granting the vote to women, who would always use it for peace. Mrs.
Desha Breckinridge, president of the Kentucky Equal Rights
Association, one of the most brilliant and forceful of the suffrage
speakers, took for a subject The South Needs her Women. "Do not call
upon the women of the South to help you solve your cotton problems
while you are using up the children of women in the cotton mills," she
said. "Women must have the ballot to cope with all the hard conditions
of life. When we think of war and patriotism we think of men. We
forget the little army of women that always follow in the wake of the
big armies and brave the bullets and the fearful conditions of warfare
that they may become ministering angels on the battlefields; the
Florence Nightingales who undergo the hardships to nurse the wounded.
We are also likely to forget the large army that stays behind, the
women on whom the hardships of war fall heavily, those who must endure
the sorrow and waiting. Is it fair to say woman shall have no part in
the every-day affairs of life when she must bear so much in war?"
The program closed with an address by Mrs. Kate Waller Barrett on The
Attitude toward Woman Suffrage of the International Council of Women,
of which she was an officer. She described its quinquennial meeting in
Rome the preceding May, shortly before the breaking out of the war,
and said the desire for the suffrage was the connecting link between
the women of all nations. She declared that the safety of the country
depended on women's having a vote in the administration of all that
concerned the welfare of men as well as of women and children. In the
evening the officers, delegates and visitors were entertained by Mrs.
Benjamin F. Wilson at her beautiful home, Wilmor Manor.
This convention of 1914 will be always noted for the long controversy
over what was known as the Shafroth National Suffrage Amendment. It
occupied all or a part of several sessions and the _Woman's Journal_
said: "The greatest emphasis of the convention was laid on the work in
Congress; this was true even to the extent of cutting short discussion
of State methods. The story of the year's work in the different States
for both full and Presidential suffrage had to be abruptly dismissed."
A new Congressional Committee had been appointed on January 1,
consisting of Mrs. Medill McCormick, Mrs. Antoinette Funk and Mrs.
Sherman M. Booth, of Illinois, Mrs. Breckinridge (Ky.), Mrs. Mary C.
C. Bradford (Colo.); Mrs. John Tucker (Cal.); Mrs. Edward Dreier (N.
Y.); Mrs. Helen H. Gardener (D. C.). Mrs. Dreier resigned; Mrs.
Gardener was largely prevented from serving by illness and absence.
Other members were too far away for active work and the headquarters
in Washington were in charge of the three comparatively young,
energetic women from Illinois, who had shown such remarkable political
acumen in getting the Presidential suffrage bill through the
Legislature of that State and were leaders in the Progressive party.
The remarkable report of the committee's work presented by the
chairman, Mrs. McCormick, including her report as chairman of the
Campaign Committee, filled 45 pages of the printed Handbook of the
convention. It contained a full account of the action on woman
suffrage in both houses of the 63rd Congress, names and votes of
members, committee hearings, Senate debate, record of speeches,
statistics and information such as was never before presented to a
suffrage convention, and showed an amount of committee work
accomplished almost equal to that which had been done in all preceding
sessions of Congress combined.[85] It was clear that for the first
time the attempt to secure action by Congress on woman suffrage was
being made in political fashion, which was the proper way, but
unfortunately it showed also that the Federal Amendment, which had
been the principal object of the National Association for the past
forty-four years, was in danger of being replaced with one of a
totally different character. Space can be given for only enough of
Mrs. McCormick's exceedingly clever presentation of this proposed
amendment to make the matter fully understood.
I assumed the responsibility as chairman early in January, 1914,
and after opening our headquarters in the Munsey Building at
Washington, D. C., divided the committee's work into three
departments--Lobby, Publicity and Organization. The lobby and
publicity were continued from the Washington office and an
organization office was opened in Chicago during the latter part
of January, as it was decided that Chicago was much better
situated geographically to carry on the program of this
department.
As Congress was in session it was necessary for us to concentrate
our attention on our lobby at the Capitol and to determine as
quickly as possible both our policy to be adopted and the wisest
method of legislative procedure. In order to facilitate this work
Mrs. Booth and I joined Mrs. Funk in Washington, and, dividing
our duties, we proceeded to investigate the temper of Congress.
What was known in the present Congress as the Bristow-Mondell
resolution had been reported out favorably by the Standing
Committee on Suffrage in the Senate and, if we desired, could be
placed as unfinished business on the calendar, which would result
in a discussion terminating in a vote.
The situation in the House of Representatives was not so
favorable. It has no suffrage committee and the Mondell amendment
was in the Judiciary. As that committee was composed of men if
not actually opposed at least indifferent there did not seem to
be any immediate chance of action. We discovered very soon,
however, that the Congressional Union was circulating a petition
among the Democrats requesting them to caucus on the subject of
establishing a Suffrage Standing Committee. The members of your
Congressional Committee felt this to be a great mistake. It gave
the Democratic party a splendid opportunity to commit themselves
as opposed to woman suffrage, using their State's rights doctrine
as a reason for their action. We discussed it with the members of
the Congressional Union, who were convinced they were right in
putting the Democratic party on record for or against suffrage,
and it developed during our discussion that their policy of
holding this party responsible, as the party in power, was to be
put into action at once and announced as soon as the Democrats
had voted in caucus. Knowing that this policy was diametrically
opposed to that of the National Association, which has always
been non-partisan--to hold the individual and not the party
responsible--we tried desperately hard to block the petition and
avoid the Democratic caucus at that time, but as the
Congressional Union had a lobby of forty women against our three,
it was impossible for us to head it off. The party caucused and
not only voted against a Standing Committee on Suffrage but Mr.
Heflin of Alabama amended the resolution before the caucus so
that the members were enabled to vote on February 3 by 123 to 55
that woman suffrage was a question to be determined by the States
and not by the national government.
It was now necessary for us to make a complete canvass of both
Houses of Congress, to tabulate the records of the men, in so far
as we were able to secure the information, and to determine at
the earliest possible moment whether or not it was advisable to
bring the Bristow amendment to a vote in the Senate.... My first
call was on Senator Borah of Idaho, who is a personal friend, a
suffragist, and has the advantage of being a progressive
Republican from an equal suffrage State. "I cannot vote for this
amendment," he said, "and want you to understand my reasons for
taking such a stand. I do not believe the suffragists realize
what they are doing to the women of the South if they force upon
them universal suffrage before they are ready for it. The race
question is one of the most serious before the country today and
the women must help solve it before they can take on greater
responsibilities. I am also a strong conservationist and
entertain a State's rights attitude of mind on both these
questions."
Mrs. McCormick then called on Senator Burton of Ohio, whom she
described as "a reactionary Republican"; Senator Johnson of Maine and
Senator Saulsbury of Delaware, "strong States' rights Democrats," and
she gathered the impression that the new amendment which her
Congressional Committee had in mind would have a better chance than
the original, to which the Congressional Union had given the name
Susan B. Anthony Amendment. The following men agreed to serve on the
Advisory Committee in the Senate: Borah of Idaho; Bristow of Kansas;
Shafroth and Thomas of Colorado; Owen of Oklahoma; Clapp of Minnesota;
Smoot of Utah; Kern of Indiana; Lea of Tennessee and Ashurst of
Arizona. "They unanimously agreed with us," she said, "that it would
be of great educational value to have the question brought up before
the Senate during the present session, as there had never been a
debate on the question of woman suffrage in Congress."[86]
Mrs. McCormick told how the amendment had been put on the calendar as
unfinished business and discussed daily at 2 o'clock for ten days
until the vote was taken March 19, 1914, when it received 35 ayes, 34
noes, a majority but not the necessary two-thirds. A change of 11
votes would have carried it and more than half of the absentees were
known to be in favor but these facts did not give her any faith in the
amendment. "During the canvassing of the Senate," she said, "we were
more and more impressed with the necessity of meeting the State's
rights argument and felt more and more keenly the barrier of the State
constitutions in advancing our cause. An analysis of these
constitutions proved most illuminating and in arguing with the
Senators upon this point they constantly reiterated the general idea
of submitting this question, as well as other big national questions,
to the decision of the people. We also discovered at this time that
there were seven or eight different amendments before Congress on the
woman suffrage question. For example, there is a bill giving us the
right to vote for Presidential electors. There is another bill giving
us the right to vote for Senators and Congressmen, etc....[87] A
general canvass of the Lower House and also the action of the
Democratic caucus convinced us in an even more pronounced way that we
are blocked by the State's rights doctrine." The report continued:
It was at this time that Mrs. Funk, Mrs. Booth and myself
interpreted our duty as a committee to mean that we were
appointed not only for the purpose of national propaganda and for
the promotion of the Bristow amendment but that our duty was a
more extensive one and required us to meet whatever political
emergency might arise during our term of office. We, therefore,
set about to originate a new form of amendment to the U. S.
Constitution which would meet the State's rights argument, if
such a thing were possible. As Mrs. Funk is a lawyer, Mrs. Booth
and I agreed that it was most important for her to draw up such
an amendment. This was done; it was submitted to several lawyers,
to our Advisory Committees of Senate and House; to an able
constitutional lawyer in Washington, to Judge William J. Calhoun,
of Chicago, a lawyer of international reputation, and to Judge
Hiram Gilbert, one of the best constitutional lawyers in
Illinois. We accepted Judge Gilbert's rewording and then sent it
on to the Progressive party's legislative bureau in New York,
where it was endorsed by their corps of lawyers, who draft all
their bills.
The amendment was at this time discussed with our Advisory
Committee in the Senate and met not only with their approval as
an amendment but they considered it a very shrewd political move
on the part of our organization. At the next meeting of the
National Suffrage Board I presented the amendment, and, after
nearly two months' consideration and discussion with some of the
leading suffragists of the country, they voted _unanimously_
endorsing it and instructing us to have it introduced whenever we
thought it advisable. This action was taken by the National Board
about two weeks before the vote came up in the Senate. Not
wishing in any way to interfere with the Bristow amendment, we
did not discuss even the idea of this one with any other member
of Congress excepting of course our Advisory Committees.[88]
Senator John F. Shafroth of Colorado, at the request of Mrs.
McCormick's committee, introduced the new measure, which took his
name, and it was favorably reported to the Senate by Senator Owen of
Oklahoma in May. At this Nashville convention it was for the first
time brought before the association. In her report Mrs. McCormick thus
described the hearing which had been held before the House Judiciary
Committee March 3:
The hearing was just at the time of the big blizzard and our
speakers were stormbound, so that when we appeared before the
committee there were only Mrs. Funk, Mrs. Booth and myself to
represent the National Association, and, as Mrs. Booth was not
prepared to speak and I was chairman for the time given our
committee, it left Mrs. Funk as our only speaker. We had
discussed the night before the hearing the possible phases of the
suffrage question Mrs. Funk could use in her speech that would be
new to the Judiciary Committee. As an organization we have been
conducting hearings before this committee for over forty years,
and, as many of its members have served several terms, they are
as familiar as we are with the suffrage arguments. We, therefore,
decided to be perfectly frank with the committee and draw to
their attention the fact that they possessed the power, if they
wished to exercise it, to suggest to Congress some other form of
legislation than had been presented to them. Mrs. Funk made this
statement to them and said that in interviewing the members of
the Judiciary Committee individually we found that they were
convinced that woman suffrage was a question which was growing so
rapidly throughout the country that it would only be a short time
before the women would succeed in gaining their political
freedom, but that as a committee, and because there was a
majority of Democrats on it, they did not feel that they were
able to report the Mondell amendment in any form.[89]
Mrs. McCormick then called on Mrs. Funk to present the Shafroth-Palmer
Amendment, which had been introduced in the House by A. Mitchell
Palmer (Penn.), and the argument for it. The amendment read as
follows:
Whenever any number of legal voters of any State to a number
exceeding 8 per cent. of the number of legal voters at the last
preceding general election held in such State, shall petition for
the submission to the legal voters of said State of the question
whether women shall have equal rights with men in respect to
voting at all elections to be held in such State, such question
shall be so submitted, and if a majority of the legal voters of
the State voting on the question shall vote in favor of granting
to women such equal rights, the same shall thereupon be deemed
established, anything in the constitution or laws of such State
to the contrary notwithstanding.
In beginning her carefully prepared "brief" Mrs. Funk said:
This amendment to the U. S. Constitution must pass both branches
of the national Congress by a two-thirds vote and be ratified by
a majority vote of three-fourths of the State Legislatures before
it becomes a law. So far it is identical with the Bristow-Mondell
amendment. The difference between the two is that after the
latter amendment has passed three-fourths of the State
Legislatures it completely enfranchises the women. The
Shafroth-Palmer amendment, after it has passed three-fourths of
the State Legislatures, enables 8 per cent. of the voters of a
State to bring the suffrage question up for the consideration of
the voters at the next general election. Such a petition may be
filed at any time, not only once but indefinitely, until suffrage
is won, and a majority of those voting on the question is
sufficient to carry the measure. In other words, every State
where the women are not at present enfranchised may be a campaign
State every year. If the male voters are obliged to hear the
woman suffrage question agitated and discussed at a perennial
campaign, how long will it be before, in desperation and
self-defense, they will vote in favor of it?
Now, why is the Shafroth-Palmer amendment easier to pass Congress
than the Bristow-Mondell amendment? First of all it shifts the
responsibility of actually enfranchising the women from the
Senators and Representatives to the people of their respective
States. Second, the State's rights doctrine is the one objection
raised to every federal issue that comes before Congress. It is
primarily the greatest obstacle to federal legislation on any
subject and is recognized as a valid objection by the members of
Congress and particularly those from the North, who feel that
they owe to the members of the South the justice of refraining
from interference in matters vital to the South....
Third, the Democratic party is committed to the initiative and
referendum but not to woman suffrage.... The President has
endorsed the initiative and referendum and has fully convinced
himself of its merit.... We are asking the Democratic party to
give us, the women of the country, the initiative and referendum
on the question of whether or not we shall be allowed to vote,
and no State can have this question forced upon it or even
settled until a majority of the voters of the State cast their
ballots in favor of it.
The difficulties connected with the old amendment both in Congress and
in many States were described and the case of New York was cited among
others:
If the matter of suffrage is submitted to the State of New York
in 1915 and does not carry, under the New York constitution it
cannot again be submitted for two years. Meantime all the energy
that should be expended in directly educating the people must
again be wasted trying to get a majority vote in two successive
Legislatures. It is the opinion of one of the great suffrage
leaders in New York, as expressed to me, that if the amendment
does not carry in 1915 the people will not have an opportunity to
vote upon it for another fifteen or twenty years.[90]
The early passage of the Shafroth-Palmer amendment would
eliminate the State constitutional barrier and leave for the
State organization only the work of ratification of this
amendment, which only requires a majority vote in both branches
of the Legislature. Again the legislator is able to shift the
responsibility to the voters of his State. He is not voting
directly on the question himself--only to submit the question to
the people. You can readily see that here again this amendment
is easier to ratify in the Legislatures than the Bristow-Mondell
would be, because in the ratification of the latter the
legislators are practically casting the final vote on the
enfranchisement of the women all over the country.... The
simultaneous consideration of suffrage in every State at the same
time would give overwhelming accumulative impetus to the movement
and would increase suffrage activity inestimably. The fact that
the national Congress had taken any action whatsoever in regard
to the suffrage question would stamp it as a national issue, and
I very much doubt whether the Democratic and Republican parties
would be able to decline to put a suffrage plank in their
national platforms.
This ended Mrs. Funk's statement and Mrs. McCormick continued: "In
dividing up the work of the lobby Mrs. Sherman undertook to card
catalogue Congress by the same method which she used so successfully
in the Illinois Legislature and a list of members was prepared who
should be defeated on their record in Congress. Arthur Dunn, who had
been a Washington newspaper correspondent for thirty years, was put at
the head of the publicity bureau and proved to be of inestimable value
because of his personal acquaintance with every member of Congress."
Charles T. Hallinan, also an experienced newspaper man, had been made
chairman of the press bureau and in his report to the convention told
of the introduction of the latest methods of publicity work and the
signal success they had achieved. A Chicago office had been opened for
organization and a system established of thorough congressional
district work, a detailed account of which filled half a dozen pages
of the printed Minutes. Miss Lillie Glenn and Miss Lavinia Engle had
been appointed field organizers and a number of States were canvassed,
speeches made indoors and out in scores of counties, women's societies
visited and many suffrage clubs formed. Every kind of transportation
was used, from muleback to automobiles, and many hardships were
encountered. The report closed with several pages of valuable
suggestions for what would be a thorough political campaign if carried
out. Mrs. McCormick also gave an interesting report of her
chairmanship of another committee, saying:
Early in the summer of 1914 Mrs. Desha Breckinridge advanced the
valuable idea of a special campaign committee to be appointed by
the National Board for the purpose of giving aid to the campaign
States by establishing a speakers' bureau for their benefit and
devising means for raising necessary funds, which the National
Board approved. My indorsement would have been less enthusiastic
could I have foreseen that I would be selected as chairman. A
special finance committee was appointed, Mrs. Stanley McCormick,
chairman; Miss Addams, treasurer, and I, secretary. Miss Ethel M.
Smith, of Washington, D. C., spent her vacation establishing a
speakers' bureau in the Chicago headquarters and it has been
conducted by Mrs. Josephine Conger-Kanecko. As many national
speakers have been routed through the campaign States as our
finances would permit. We were faced with the discouraging fact
that to do really active campaign service we would need a fund of
not less than $50,000 and we had less than $13,000. We collected
and distributed in cash a less amount than would be used on the
campaign of a city alderman in an off year.
The plan of self-sacrifice day had been suggested to Mrs.
Breckinridge by a Wisconsin suffragist and adopted by the
National Board and a general appeal went out to the women of
America to sacrifice something in aid of suffrage and contribute
the amount to the general fund for use in the campaign States.
[$9,854 were realized.] Mrs. Funk, while walking through the
Capitol one day, observed a bride with much gold jewelry in
evidence and expressed the wish that a little of the gold used
for personal ornament might find its way into a treasure chest to
be sold for the campaign States and so the idea of the "melting
pot" was suggested.... The plan was endorsed and put into
operation as follows: A carefully selected list of names of women
was taken from among the various suffrage organizations,
colleges, churches, etc. These women received a letter asking for
a contribution to the melting pot and further urging them to
accept a sub-committeeship, making themselves responsible for
soliciting from at least six people a contribution and keeping
track of this group until their possibilities had been exhausted.
The names of these persons were carefully scanned by the general
committee and two or three out of each group of six were asked to
go at the head of a further sub-committee and so something not
unlike an endless chain was created. Although this was put into
effect hastily and during the intense heat of a Washington
summer, it was an enormous success and now at the close of the
campaign contributions are still coming in and we consider that
the top soil of melting pot possibilities has not been scratched.
[$2,732 were realized.]
Mrs. Funk's report of her campaign work was an excellent showing of
the situation which the suffragists faced in State campaigns and had
done from the beginning:
From the time I left Washington August 25, until I returned to
Chicago October 27, I covered approximately 8,000 miles. After
speaking three days in Indiana, where the suffragists were
straining every nerve to secure a constitutional convention, I
spent two days in Chicago and then started into the western
States. My first three days were spent in Omaha, and, although my
original itinerary contemplated my coming to Nebraska for the
last ten days of the campaign, this was afterwards changed and I
went back to Montana a second time, so my observations regarding
Nebraska refer to Omaha alone. Here existed an almost
unbelievable condition of opposition. The brewers had come openly
into the field against us and the brewing interests are connected
with many of the big financial ventures in that city. Bankers,
merchants, tailors and other business men whose wives were in
suffrage were brazenly warned that the brewing deposits would be
withdrawn from banks, that patronage would be taken away from
merchants and tradespeople--even doctors were threatened with the
loss of their clientele if their wives continued actively in the
campaign. The result was a paralysis of action among many women
who would naturally have been leaders and supporters of the work.
Mrs. Draper Smith was doing all that was humanly possible under
the circumstances to stem the tide of opposition, but money for
publicity and organizing and many speakers seemed to be a
necessity. Upon my report to Mrs. McCormick all extra aid
possible was given.
My trip to South Dakota was interesting in the extreme. It and
North Dakota are agricultural States, the cities are small and
far apart, the villages are scattered over vast areas. By far the
larger percentage of population dwells in the country on farms
and ranches. The two Dakotas are almost pioneer States even now,
but they present the highest degree of educational advantage and
of general literacy perhaps in the whole United States. Their
laws are generally good and for that reason there appears to be
much apathy on the part of both men and women regarding suffrage.
The States are prosperous and the people have not felt to any
extent the pinch of wrong political conditions. The great problem
was to reach the people and make them think, as when they think
at all upon the subject they are apt to think right. I am
convinced that whatever the vote against the suffrage amendment
may have been in North Dakota it was the result of indifference
and lack of special information and not to any extent real
opposition.
I believed from what I could learn in South Dakota the liquor
interests were making their last fight for State control and
about the time I arrived Mrs. Pyle had ascertained that a large
amount of money was being used to subsidize the State press, and
simultaneously the literary efforts of the anti-suffragists,
which have appeared throughout the press during the last year,
came out in the leading papers, and anti-suffrage ladies at $100
a week and expenses appeared on the platform of the principal
towns and cities. During my campaign there I spoke wherever
possible out-of-doors, even though meetings were arranged for me
in halls, courthouses and churches. I found that the small
audiences which would assemble in these places were made up of
women and men already interested and that the uninstructed voter
would only listen when you caught him on the street. I spent the
week of the State fair at Huron with Mrs. Pyle and witnessed a
wonderful demonstration of activity. As high as 50,000 people a
day were in attendance and the grounds were covered with our
yellow banners. Every prize-winning animal, every racing sulky,
automobile and motorcycle carried our pennants. Twenty thousand
yellow badges were given away in one day. The squaws from the
reservation did their native dances waving suffrage banners, and
the snake charmer on the midway carried a Votes for Women pennant
while an enormous serpent coiled around her body. I spoke during
the fair four and five times a day and held street meetings
downtown in the evening. When not thus engaged I assisted Mrs.
Pyle and her committee in distributing thousands of pieces of
literature and was amazed at the eagerness of the people to
receive them. We investigated the fair grounds to see how much
was thrown away and found almost none.
In North Dakota Mrs. Darrow had asked me to go into the untilled
suffrage field. In many places they had never heard a suffrage
address nor had a suffrage meeting ever been held. I zigzagged
across from the southeast to the northwest corners and in Minot
was arrested for making a street speech. There was no law that I
could discover against my speaking in the street and I was
convinced and am still that it was the result of the petty
tyranny of town officials unfavorable to women. A fine of $5
imposed upon me by the justice of the peace was remitted by him.
I spent twelve days in Montana, travelling about 2,000 miles, and
found more general interest than in any other State. With 118,000
voters scattered over the third largest State in the Union, with
many contending elements, with an acute labor situation, with the
political control of the State vested very largely in one great
corporation, there was plenty to occupy the attention of a
suffragist worker. Miss Rankin's organization work had been
carried to a high degree of efficiency by the most strenuous
endeavor on her part. The Amalgamated Copper Company, striving to
defeat the workmen's compensation act, had joined hands with the
liquor interests, working to defeat woman suffrage, and had put
on the petticoat and bonnet of the organized female
anti-suffragists. I spoke to thousands of people all over the
State, and while on the surface all appeared well, there was an
undertow of fierce opposition that could be felt but that can not
be estimated until the votes are counted. [The State was carried
by 3,714.]
Nevada was like a story in a book--a big, little State, with
80,000 inhabitants and 18,000 voters, and so thoroughly was it
organized by Miss Martin that I believe she could address every
voter by his first name. I felt like a fifth wheel. All the work
appeared to be finished and hung aside to season by the time I
arrived and I was in the unenviable position of being sandwiched
between Dr. Shaw, who had just preceded me, and Miss Addams, who
immediately followed me. I went over the desert, however, and
into mines, and spoke in butchers' homes and at meetings that
wound up with a supper and a dance and came away with the
certainty that Miss Martin had two or three thousand votes tucked
away in her inside pocket. [The State was carried by 3,678.] On
this trip I learned of hundreds of thousands of pieces of
literature sent out by our entertaining friend, the Hon. Tom
Heflin of Alabama. I know now why it was that all last winter he
jumped up in Congress every few minutes and read into the
Congressional Record something about the horror of women voting.
He had a long business head and he was thriftily saving postage
on anti-suffrage literature in the interest of the "society
opposed," of the liquor interests, of organized crime and of all
those forces that have taken arms against us.
The convention was deeply appreciative of the arduous and extensive
work that has been done by the Congressional Committee but there was
intense dissatisfaction with the so-called Shafroth Amendment, which
had been freely discussed in the _Woman's Journal_ for the last eight
or nine months.[91] The debate in the convention consumed several
sessions and more bitterness was shown than ever before at one of
these annual meetings. The Official Board having endorsed the
amendment felt obliged to stand by it, but to most of those delegates
who had been in the movement for years it meant the abandonment of the
object for which the association had been formed and for which all the
founders, the pioneer workers and those down to the present day, had
devoted their best efforts. Dr. Shaw was the only member of the board
who had been many years connected with the association, and, while her
judgment was opposed to the new amendment, she yielded to the earnest
pleas of her younger colleagues and the optimistic members of the
Congressional Committee that it should have a fair trial. Miss
Blackwell, editor of the _Woman's Journal_, strongly endorsed it and
gave it the support of her paper in many long, earnest editorials. She
also granted columns of space to vigorous arguments on both sides by
suffragists throughout the country.[92] The question had been before
the State associations for the last seven or eight months.
Mrs. Mary Ware Dennett, corresponding secretary of the National
American Association, wrote to the State presidents the first week in
May, 1914: "Strange as it may seem, we find that quite a number of the
members of our association have gotten the impression that the
introduction of the Shafroth amendment means the abandoning of the old
amendment which has been introduced into Congress for forty years or
more, and which, as you know, has now been re-introduced and at this
session will be called the Bristow-Mondell amendment. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The reason for the introduction of the
Shafroth amendment is to hasten the day when the passage of the
Bristow-Mondell amendment will become a possibility.... Both
amendments are before Congress but only the new one stands any chance
of being acted upon before adjournment.[93] We stand by the old one as
a matter of principle; we push for the new one as a matter of
immediate practical politics and to further the passage of the old
one." Mrs. Dennett also vigorously advocated the new amendment in the
_Woman's Journal_.
At the opening of the second session of the convention devoted to the
subject Mrs. Harriot Stanton Blatch moved that the Shafroth amendment
be not proceeded with in the next Congress and it was seconded.
Instantly Mrs. Raymond Brown, president of the New York State
Association, offered as a substitute resolution: "It is the sense of
this convention that the policy of the National American Woman
Suffrage Association shall be to support by every means within its
power, in the future as in the past, the amendment known as the Susan
B. Anthony amendment; and further that we support such other
legislation as the National Board may authorize and initiate to the
end that the Susan B. Anthony resolution become a law."[94] After the
discussion had lasted for hours, with the administration supporting
this resolution, a motion to strike out the words "and further" and
all that followed was lost and it was carried by a vote of 194 to
100.[95]
The next day an informal conference was held at which Miss Laura Clay
and Mrs. Sallie Clay Bennett explained a bill for Federal Suffrage,
which they, with others, had long advocated, to enable women to vote
for U. S. Senators and Representatives. Congress had the power to
enact such a law by a simple majority vote of both houses. The
association for many years had had a standing committee on the
subject, which was finally dropped because it was believed that the
law could not possibly be obtained. It found much favor at this
convention, which instructed the Congressional Committee to
"investigate and promote the right of women to vote for U. S.
Senators, Representatives and Presidential Electors through action of
Congress."
There was spirited discussion of the Congressional Committee's plan
for "blacklisting" candidates for Congress whose record on woman
suffrage was objectionable and it finally resulted in the passing of a
resolution that this could be done only when approved by the majority
of the societies in the State concerned. It was decided that the
Congressional Committee should send out information and suggestions
for congressional work but that the State associations should
determine how this material should be used and that when the majority
of them in a State could not agree upon some plan of cooperation the
Congressional Committee should not work in said State.
The feeling aroused by the discussion of the Shafroth amendment was
manifested in the election, where 315 delegates were entitled to vote
and 283 votes were cast. Dr. Shaw received 192 for president and the
rest were blank, as even delegates who opposed this amendment would
not vote against her. Miss Jane Addams declined to serve longer as
vice-president and reluctantly consented to her election as honorary
vice-president but resigned before the close of the convention, as she
felt that she could not be responsible for actions in which she had
practically no part. Mrs. Desha Breckinridge of Kentucky was
re-elected second vice-president without opposition but resigned soon
afterwards, although not because of any disagreement with the policy
of the board. Mrs. Katharine Dexter McCormick of New York received 173
votes for first vice-president and Miss Jean Gordon of New Orleans
107. Dr. Katharine Bement Davis of New York was made third
vice-president without opposition, nor was there any to Mrs. Orton H.
Clark of Michigan for corresponding secretary. For recording secretary
Mrs. Susan W. Fitzgerald of Massachusetts received 166 votes and Miss
Anne Martin of Nevada 115. Mrs. Henry Wade Rogers of New York was
almost unanimously chosen for treasurer and Mrs. Walter McNab Miller
of Missouri for first auditor. For second auditor Mrs. Medill
McCormick of Chicago received 177 votes and Miss Zona Gale of New York
103. Later Mrs. Nellie Nugent Somerville of Mississippi was appointed
in place of Mrs. Breckinridge. The new board finally included only two
members of the old one besides Dr. Shaw--Mrs. McCormick and Mrs.
Fitzgerald.
The present convention was declared by resolution to have been "one of
the greatest and most delightful meetings in the history of the
organization," and a long list of thanks was extended "to the city of
Nashville for its broad and generous hospitality and for special
courtesies." The Tennessee Equal Suffrage Association gave a dinner,
with Mrs. L. Crozier French, its president, as toast-mistress; the
Women's Press Club had a luncheon for the visiting press
representatives and the College Women's League one for its delegates.
It was a relief from the tension of the week to have the last evening
of the convention devoted to entertainment. Miss Zona Gale read a
charming unpublished story, Friendship Village; a musical program was
given by the Fiske Jubilee Singers and the convention closed with a
remarkable moving picture play, Your Girl and Mine, an offering to the
association by Mrs. Medill McCormick.[96]
The treasurer's report showed receipts for the year of $67,312 and
expenditures $59,232. In addition a special fund for the "campaign"
States had been subscribed of $12,586, of which $11,020 had been
spent. Mrs. Medill McCormick had made a personal contribution of
$6,217 to the publicity work of the Washington and Chicago
headquarters. Pledges of $7,500 were made by the convention.
The committee of which Mrs. Frances E. Burns (Mich.) was chairman
reported resolutions that urged the U. S. Senate and House of
Representatives to take up at once the amendments now pending in
Congress for the enfranchisement of women; demanded equal pay for
equal work and legislation to protect the nationality of American
women who married foreigners. They re-affirmed the association's past
policy of non-partisanship and declared that "the National American
Woman Suffrage Association is absolutely opposed to holding any
political party responsible for the opinions and acts of its
individual members, or holding any individual public official or
candidate responsible for the action of his party majority on the
question of woman suffrage." Of the European war now in its fourth
month, the resolutions said:
WHEREAS: It is our conviction that had the women of the countries
of Europe, with their deep instinct of motherhood and desire for
the conservation of life, possessed a voice in the councils of
their governments, this deplorable war would never have been
allowed to occur; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the National American Woman Suffrage Association,
in convention assembled, does hereby affirm the obligation of
peace and good will toward all men and further demands the
inclusion of women in the government of nations of which they are
a part, whose citizens they bear and rear and whose peace their
political liberty would help to secure and maintain.
RESOLVED: That we commend the efforts of President Wilson to
obtain peace. Sympathizing deeply with the plea of the women of
fifteen nations, we ask the President of the United States and
the representatives of all the other neutral nations to use their
best endeavors to bring about a lasting peace founded upon
democracy and world-wide disarmament.
* * * * *
As the national convention for 1914 would meet in Nashville it was
necessary to have a special delegation attend the "hearing" in
Washington which always was held at the first session of a new
Congress. The officers of the Congressional Union arranged for one
before the House Judiciary Committee for March 3, and, as it was not
likely that a second would be granted, Mrs. Medill McCormick, Mrs.
Antoinette Funk and Mrs. Sherman Booth represented the National
American Association at this one, as members of its Congressional
Committee. Mrs. Funk was the speaker and the main points of her
address are included in Mrs. McCormick's report in this chapter. In
effect it prepared the way for the new measure afterwards called the
Shafroth Amendment and she began by saying: "Ours is the oldest
national suffrage association in the United States. It has been in
existence over fifty years and comprises a membership of 462,000
enrolled women in the non-suffrage States. In addition to these I
speak this morning in behalf of the 4,000,000 women voters in the ten
equal suffrage States." Further on she said: "Gentlemen, the dearest
wish of our hearts would be fulfilled if you would enfranchise the
women. I know pretty much whether you are going to or not and you know
that I know." The committee asked her a number of questions and she
concluded: "We feel that this question could at least safely go to the
people. It might be submitted by petition of the voters. In addition
let me make this point along the line of the States' rights argument:
You see, a Legislature _per se_ has no right; it is nothing; it has no
privilege--the privilege is all in the people themselves, and you
could not say it would be contrary to the rights of the people in the
State to take down an obstacle that was built up in front of them. So,
in view of the action of the Democratic caucus in the House, we think
you can at least do this much for us; you can take down this
obstacle--State Legislatures."
The Federal Women's Equality Association also had asked for a portion
of the time and its corresponding secretary, Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby
of Washington and Portland, Ore., had charge of it. Although this
association was organized twelve years before for the special purpose
of obtaining a bill enabling women to vote for Senators and
Representatives, it sponsored in the present Congress the same measure
which the old association had introduced for the past thirty-five
years and on this occasion its speakers discussed only the amendment.
Mrs. Colby introduced first Representative Frank W. Mondell of
Wyoming, who always was ready to champion the cause of woman suffrage
for every organization. He made the point among others that "as State
after State grants the franchise to women the condition is reached
where its denial in other States deprives American citizens of a
sacred right if they have moved from one commonwealth to another."
"Our Federal Union," he said, "will be more firmly cemented the nearer
we come to the point where qualifications for this right of
citizenship are the same in all States." In Mrs. Colby's comprehensive
address she said:
It may be news to some of you that we have had 12 reports on the
woman suffrage amendment from committees of Congress. In 1869 the
first hearing was given on woman suffrage and from that time to
the present every Congress has had one....
Never were there such splendid women in the records of time as
those who have stood for the rights of their sex and the rights
of humanity.... All those women passed on without being allowed
to enter the promised land and for every one of them one hundred
sprang up for whom the doors of opportunity and education had
been opened by the efforts of those pioneer women. Now these also
are coming to gray hairs and weariness, but for every one of
these hundreds there are a thousand of the 20th century insisting
that this question shall be settled now and not be passed on to
the children of tomorrow to hamper and limit them, to exhaust and
consume their energy and ability.
I was present at the last hearing where Mrs. Stanton spoke before
a Judiciary Committee, and she said: "I have stood before this
committee for thirty years, may I be allowed to sit now?" ...
Miss Anthony before a committee in 1884 said: "This method of
settling the matter by the Legislatures is just as much in the
line of State's rights as is that of the popular vote. The one
question before you is: Will you insist that a majority of the
individual men of every State must be converted before its women
shall have the power to vote, or will you allow the matter to be
settled by the representative men in the Legislatures of the
several States? We are not appealing from the States to the
nation. We are appealing to the States, but to the picked men of
those States instead of to the masses." She used to say when John
Morrissey, champion of the prize ring, was in the New York
Legislature, that it was bad enough to go and ask him to give her
her birthright but it was infinitely worse to go down into the
slums and ask his constituents....
Mrs. Colby closed with an extract from one of Mrs. Stanton's eloquent
speeches before the Judiciary Committee and submitted a valuable
summary of Congressional hearings and reports on woman suffrage from
1869 to 1914.
Mrs. Glendower Evans of Boston presided over the hearing for the
Congressional Union and introduced as the first speaker Mrs. Crystal
Eastman Benedict (N. Y.) who said in part:
When we go to the voters of a campaign State to ask them to vote
"yes" on a woman suffrage amendment, we go as petitioners with
smiles and arguments and unwearied patience. We tell them over
and over again the same well established truths; that it is the
essence of democracy that all classes of people should have the
power of protection in their own hands; that women are people and
that they have special interests which need representation in
politics; that where women have the right to vote they vote in
the same proportion as men; that on the whole their influence in
government has been decidedly good and absolutely no evils can be
traced to that influence. In short, we reason and plead with
them, try to touch their sense of honor, their sense of justice,
their reason, whatever noble human quality they possess.
That is one way of getting woman suffrage in the United States, a
long, laborious and very costly way. We have now achieved it in
nine States and are a political power, and the time has come for
us to compel this great reform by the simple, direct, American
method of amending the Federal Constitution. Our argument is not
one of justice or democracy or fair play--it is one of political
expediency. Our plea is simply that you look at the little
suffrage map. That triumphant, threatening army of white States
crowding rapidly eastward toward the center of population is the
sum and substance of our argument. It represents 4,000,000 women
voters. Do you want to put yourselves in the very delicate
position of going to those women next fall for endorsement and
re-election after having refused even to report a woman suffrage
amendment out of committee for discussion on the floor of the
House?
You might say, "Why do you select this Democratic administration
for your demand? This is the first time in eighteen years that
this party has been in control of the Government. We are doing
our best to give the people what they want; we are trying to live
up to our platform pledges; we think we are doing pretty well.
Why persist in embarrassing us with this very troublesome
question?" ... I answer that if this Congress adjourns without
taking action on the woman suffrage amendment it will be because
the party deliberately dodged the issue. Every woman voter will
know this and we have faith that the woman voter will stand by
us. You will go to her and say: "We have lowered the tariff; we
have made new banking laws; we have avoided war with Mexico," and
she will say: "It is true you have done these things, but you
have done a great injustice to my sister in this nearby State.
She asked for a fundamental democratic right, a right which I
possess and which you are asking me to exercise in your favor.
It was in your power to extend this right to her and you refused,
and after this you come to me and ask me for my vote, but I shall
show you that we stand together on this question, my sister and
I."
Several of the committee made caustic remarks about trying to hold the
Democrats responsible after the Republicans had ignored them during
all the past years. Mrs. Evans then introduced Mary (Mrs. Charles R.)
Beard, wife of the well-known professor in Columbia University. Her
address in the stenographic report of the hearing filled seven closely
printed pages, an able review of the Democratic party's record in
regard to Federal legislation. It was the most complete expose of the
fallacy of the Democratic contention that this party stood for State's
rights as opposed to Federal rights ever made at a hearing in behalf
of woman suffrage and is most inadequately represented by quotations.
In the course of it she said:
Did Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, founders of the
Democratic party, rend the air with cries of State's rights
against Federal usurpation when the Federalists chartered the
first United States bank in 1791, and when the Federalist Court,
under the leadership of John Marshall, rendered one ringing
nationalist decision after another upholding the rights of the
nation against the claims of the States? Jefferson, as President,
acquired the Louisiana Territory in what he admitted was an open
violation of the Federal Constitution; and the same James Madison
who opposed the Federalist bank in 1790 as a violation of the
Constitution and State rights, cheerfully signed the bill
rechartering that bank when it became useful to the fiscal
interests of the Democratic party. Jefferson was ready to nullify
the alien and sedition laws and the Constitution of the United
States in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798. The very Federalists
who fought him in that day and denounced him as a traitor and
nullifier lived to proclaim and practice doctrines of
nullification in behalf of State's rights during the War of 1812.
In the administration of Jefferson the Federal Government began
the construction of the great national road without any express
authority from the Constitution and notwithstanding the fact that
the construction of highways was admittedly a State matter.... On
August 24, 1912, the Congress of the United States, then
controlled by the Democratic party, voted $5,000,000 for the
construction of experimental and rural-delivery routes and to aid
the States in highway construction. From high in the councils of
that party we now have the advocacy of national ownership of
railways, telegraph and telephone lines.
In the early days of the republic the Democratic party protested
even in armed insurrection in Pennsylvania against the
inquisitorial excise tax, which, to use the language of that
day, "penetrated a sphere of taxation reserved to the State."
Today this party has placed upon the statute books the most
inquisitorial tax ever laid in the history of our country by the
act of April 9, 1912--a tax on white phosphorus matches, not for
the purpose of raising revenues, for which the taxing power is
conferred, but admittedly for the purpose of destroying an
industry which it could not touch otherwise. The match industry
was found to be injurious to a few hundred workingmen, women and
children. The Democratic party wisely and justly cast to the four
winds all talk about the rights of States, made the match
business a national affair and destroyed its dangerous features.
Men and women all over the country rose up and pronounced it a
noble achievement. Republicans joined with the Democrats in
claiming the honor of that great humane service.
I have not yet finished with this tattered shibboleth. The State
had the right to nullify Federal law in 1798, so Jefferson taught
and Kentucky practiced. Half a century elapsed; the State of
Wisconsin, rock-ribbed Republican, nullified the fugitive slave
law and in its pronunciamento of nullification quoted the very
words which Jefferson used in 1798. A Democratic Supreme Court at
Washington, presided over by Chief Justice Taney, the arch
apostle of State rights, answered Wisconsin in the very language
of the Federalists of 1798, whom Jefferson despised and
condemned: "The Constitution and laws of the United States are
supreme, and the Supreme Court is the only and final arbiter of
disputes between the State and National Governments."
A few more years elapsed. South Carolina declared the right of
the State to nullify and Wisconsin answered on the field of
battle: "The Constitution and laws of the National Government are
supreme, so help us God!" ... At the close of that ever to be
regretted war the nation wrote into the Constitution the 14th and
15th Amendments, their fundamental principle that the suffrage is
a national matter. Those amendments were intended to establish
forever adult male suffrage....
Mrs. Beard then presented for the record a thorough synopsis of the
proceedings in relation to the franchise of the convention that framed
the U. S. Constitution, which showed, she declared, that it would have
made a national suffrage qualification if the members could have
agreed on one. "In all the great federations of the world," she said,
"Germany, Canada, Australia, suffrage is regarded as a national
question," and continued: "If respect for the great and wise who have
viewed suffrage as a national matter did not compel us so to regard
it, the plain dictates of common sense would do so. We are all ruled
by the laws made by Congress, from Maine to California; we must all
obey them equally whether we like them or not. We are taxed under
them; we travel according to rules laid down by the Interstate
Commerce Commission under the Interstate Commerce law; the remaining
national resources are to be conserved by Congress; whether we have
peace or war depends upon Congress. Is it of no concern who compose
Congress, who vote for members of Congress and for the President?"
It was shown by Mrs. Beard how closely national and State policies
were interwoven; that the submission of this amendment would take it
to the State Legislatures for a final decision; how with woman
suffrage in nine States there was a much greater demand for it than
there was for the one changing the method of electing U. S. Senators;
how the plank in the national platform adopted in Baltimore exempting
American ships in coastwise trade from Panama canal tolls was now
before the Democrats in Congress for repudiation; how another plank
demanded State action on presidential primaries and President Wilson
called for a national law. Now a Democratic Congress refused to submit
a national suffrage amendment because the platform did not ask for it!
She concluded: "No, gentlemen, you can not answer us by shaking in our
faces that tatterdemalion of a State's rights scarecrow.... It is a
travesty upon our reasoning faculties to suppose that we can not put
two and two together. It is underestimating our strength and our
financial resources to suppose that we can not place these plain facts
in the hands of 15,000,000 voters, including over 3,000,000 women. To
take away from the States the right to determine how Presidential
electors shall be chosen is upholding the Constitution and the
previous rights of the States; but to submit to the States an
amendment permitting them to decide for themselves whether they want
woman suffrage for the nation is a violent usurpation of State's
rights! We can not follow your logic."
Dr. Cora Smith King of Seattle, who had so large a part in obtaining
equal suffrage in Washington, said:
I am a voter like yourselves; I am eligible to become a member of
Congress, like any one of you. However, I do not stand before you
as one voter only but to remind you that there are nearly
4,000,000 women voters in the United States today. I represent
an organization called the National Council of Women Voters,
organized in every one of the States where women vote on equal
terms with men. These States, as you know, are Wyoming, Colorado,
Utah, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona.
There are three objects of the Council: One is to educate
ourselves in the exercise of our citizenship; the second is to
aid in our own States where we vote in putting upon the statute
books laws beneficial to men and women, children and the home;
and our third object is the one which brings me here this
morning--to aid in the further extension of suffrage to women.
The members of your committee from the latest equal suffrage
States will bear me out in saying that there are thousands of
women voters who have not yet made their party alignment. I
desire to call attention to these many thousands who have only
recently won the battle which they have fought so earnestly--as I
have done from the time that I attained my majority and have not
yet forgotten what it cost--and who have their ears attuned to
the plea of their sisters in the other States. I remind you,
gentlemen, that they may not prove unheeding when requested to
vote for the men who are favorable to the further extension of
suffrage. I trust that this present committee will not justify
the charge of being a graveyard for many suffrage bills. I warn
you that ghosts may walk.
Mrs. William Kent, wife of Representative Kent of California, spoke
briefly, telling how the suffrage societies there became civic leagues
after the vote was won and stood solidly back of seventeen bills
relating to the welfare of the State and the home and the influence
they were able to exert because of having the franchise. She urged the
committee to submit the amendment and spare women the further drudgery
of State campaigns and assured them that the women would not stop
until the last one was enfranchised. Representative Joseph R. Knowland
of California gave earnest testimony in favor of the practical working
of woman suffrage in that State saying: "For years we heard the same
arguments against equal rights for women as we hear today but we have
tried it and many who were most bitterly opposed are now glad that
California has given the franchise to women. It has proved an
unqualified success. What I desire to impress upon this committee is
that even though you may oppose the amendment it is your duty to
report it in order that every member of the House may have an
opportunity to register his vote for or against it."
Mrs. Donald Hooker of Baltimore pointed out the injustice of
permitting women to vote in California, for instance, and holding them
disfranchised when they crossed the State boundary line, and asked the
committee to put themselves in the place of citizens so discriminated
against. Mrs. Evans closed the hearing in an interesting speech but as
she could not resist eulogizing President Wilson she was assailed by a
storm of questions and remarks from the Republican members of the
committee as to his attitude on woman suffrage, while her support of
the Democratic party brought protests from the members of the
Congressional Union.
Mrs. McCormick closed for her side by saying: "Mr. Chairman, I simply
want to clear up what may be a little confused in your mind in regard
to the difference in the policy in the two organizations represented
here today. I represent the National American Woman Suffrage
Association, and, as we have stated over and over again, it has
enrolled more than 462,000 women, organized in every non-suffrage
State in the country. Our policy, which is adopted by our annual
convention, is strictly non-partisan. We do not hold any party
responsible for the passage of this amendment. We are organizing all
over the country, using the congressional district as our limit, in
order to educate the constituents of you gentlemen in regard to the
great need to enfranchise women and we do not hold the policy which is
adopted by the smaller organization, the Congressional Union."
This brought the members of the Judiciary Committee into action again
and they persisted in knowing the size of the Congressional Union
until Mrs. Benedict answered: "Our immediate membership is not our
strong point." Mr. Webb of North Carolina repeated the question why
the Republican party, which was in power sixteen years, was not held
responsible for not reporting the amendment and she replied that it
was not until after the elections of 1912 that the women were in a
position to hold any party responsible.
Mrs. Frances Dilopoulo spoke for a moment. Miss Janet Richards (D. C.)
called the attention of the committee to the etymology of the word
democracy--_demos_, people; _kratein_, to rule--rule of the
people--and asked: "If women must pay taxes and must abide by the
law, how can the suffrage be denied to them in a true democracy?" She
spoke of her personal study of the question in Finland and the
Scandinavian countries where women are enfranchised. Dr. Clara W.
McNaughton (D. C.), vice-president of the Federal Women's Equality
Association, in closing stated that they had a tent on the field of
Gettysburg during its 50th anniversary and found the old soldiers
almost to a man in favor of woman suffrage. Mrs. Evans filed a
carefully prepared paper, State versus Federal Action on Woman
Suffrage. Mrs. Helen H. Gardener (D. C.), officially connected with
the National American Association, submitted to the committees a
comprehensive "brief" on the case which said in part:
In a published statement yesterday the Secretary of State,
William Jennings Bryan, used these simple, direct, easily
understood words: "All believers in a republic accept the
doctrine that the government must derive its just powers from the
consent of the governed and the President gives every legitimate
encouragement to those who represent this idea while he
discourages those who attempt to overthrow or ignore the
principles of popular government."
I am sure that all of us hope and want to believe that this
latest pronouncement given out officially as from the leading
Cabinet officer was intended to be accepted at home as well as
abroad as literally and absolutely true and not a mere bit of
spectacular oratory. But if it is true, then not one of you
gentlemen who has it in his heart to oppose woman suffrage is a
believer in our form of government; not one of you is loyal to
the flag; not one of you is a true American. You do not allow us
women to give our consent, yet we are governed. You are not
sitting in Congress justly and Mr. Bryan and the President do not
believe that you are--none of you except those who are from woman
suffrage States--or else that official statement is mere oratory
for foreign consumption. He says that the President discourages
those who attempt to overthrow or even to "ignore" this principle
of popular government. We are more than glad to believe that Mr.
Bryan is correct in this plain statement, for then we will know
that a number of you will receive a good deal of "discouragement"
at the hands of the President, and that those of you who stand
with us and vote for us will receive your sure reward from him,
in that "every legitimate encouragement" will be yours, and also,
incidentally, ours. We need it, we think it is overdue. Up to the
present time we have not felt that either the President or the
Secretary of State quite fully realized that there is a good deal
of belated encouragement due us and quite a limitless supply of
discouragement due those who try "to overthrow or ignore" all
semblance of a belief in the right of women to give their consent
to their own government. I am glad to have so high an authority
that the good time is not only coming but that it has at last
arrived--and through the Democratic party!
Again, in this simple, plain, seemingly frank statement of the
Secretary of State, he says: ... "Nothing will be encouraged away
from home that is forbidden here." Yet, away from home, he says,
the fixed foreign policy is that "the people shall have such
officers as they desire," and that these officers must have "the
consent of the governed." That is precisely what we women demand.
Are the Mexican peons more to our Government than are the women
of America? If the Mexican officials must be disciplined, unless
they are ready to admit that "the consent of the governed must be
obtained" before there can be a legitimate government which we
can recognize, how it is possible for you and for the President
and for the State Department absolutely to ignore or refuse the
same ethical and political principle here at home for one-half of
all the people, who form what you call and hold up to the world
as a republic?
No one who lives, who ever lived, who ever will live understands
or really accepts and believes in a republic which denies to
women the right of consent by their ballots to that government.
Such a position is unthinkable and the time has come when an
aristocracy of sex must give place to a real republic or the
absurdity of the position, as it exists, will make us the
laughing stock of the world. Let us either stop our pretence
before the nations of the earth of being a republic and having
"equality before the law" or else let us become the republic that
we pretend to be.
This concluded the hearing for the suffrage associations and as the
"antis" also had asked for one they occupied the afternoon. Mrs.
Arthur M. Dodge, the president of the National Association Opposed to
Woman Suffrage, said in opening the discussion: "We begin to hear from
all over the country a very decided demand for help. The women are
beginning to be frightened. They are frightened at exactly the same
sort of thing by which the suffragists try to frighten you
men--noise--so that in many States women are beginning to organize for
the first time against suffrage. We are here today rather against our
wishes. We did not want to bother you men again because the matter has
been pretty well settled for this session of Congress at least. But
the suffragists had demanded a hearing of you gentlemen, and so we
asked you to hear us, and you have very courteously extended to us
that privilege. We are here to represent the majority of women still
quiet but not going to be quiet very much longer...." Mrs. Dodge made
an analysis of the number of enfranchised women to show that the
parties had nothing to fear and said in closing: "I wish to say that
the suffragists who make these threats are not representing the women
of the country. It is the women of the country whom we try to
represent and we have tried for several years against the noisy,
insistent and persistent demands of a group."
The other women speakers were Mrs. Henry White, member of the
executive committee of the Massachusetts Association; Miss Alice Hill
Chittenden, president of the New York Association; Miss Marjorie
Dorman, secretary of the Women Wage-earners' Anti-Suffrage League of
New York City[97]; Mrs. O. D. Oliphant of New Jersey, who was not able
to reach Washington but whose paper on Feminism was put into the
report; Miss Minnie Bronson, secretary of the National Association.
Miss Bronson's address, which was largely statistical, called out many
questions from the suffrage members of the committee. She said the
association had approximately 100,000 members.[98]
The first of the men speakers against the amendment was J.N. Matthews
(N. J.) who began by saying it would be difficult for him to put aside
his Democratic partisanship even for a moment. He was soon involved in
a wrangle with the committee which occupied over half of the space
filled by his speech in the report. This was true also of the speech
of Representative Thomas J. Heflin (Ala.), which ended with a long
poem entitled The Only Regeneration, beginning: "There's no earthly
use in prating of eugenics' saving grace." Mrs. Dodge had scored the
suffragists for having more than one association but delegates from
three of the "antis" were present at this hearing, the Guidon Society
of New York City, represented by a New York lawyer, John R. Don
Passos, who stated that he represented also the Man Suffrage
Association. He filed a "brief" of its president, Everett P. Wheeler,
a Democratic New York lawyer, entitled Home Rule. As was the case with
the other men speakers most of his time was taken up by the "heckling"
of the committee and his answers. In the latter he said that woman
suffrage sooner or later would have a tendency to destroy the home,
hurt the social and moral standard of women and "convert them into
beasts."
Dr. Mary Walker spoke ten minutes at her own request, scoring the
suffragists and saying that women already had the right to vote under
the National Constitution. Mrs. Evans closed the hearing.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] Part of Call: Our task will be to formulate judgment on those
great issues of the day which nearly concern women; to choose the
leaders who during the coming year are to guide the fortunes of our
cause; and finally, to deliberate how the whole national body may on
the one hand best give aid and succor to the States working for their
own enfranchisement and on the other press for federal action in
behalf of the women of the nation at large....
Since the last convention met all the horror of a great war has fallen
upon the civilized world. The hearts of thousands of women have been
torn by the death and wounds of those they bore, of those they love,
yet never has their will and power to help been greater, never man's
need of such help been more clearly seen. We, who are spared the
anguish of war, well understand that as weight is given in the world's
affairs to the voice of women, moved as men are not by all the tragic
waste of battles, the chances of such slaughter must perpetually
diminish. Now is the time when all things point to the violence that
rules the world, now is the very time to press our claim to a share in
the guidance of our country's fortunes, to urge that woman's vision
must second and ratify that of man. Let us then in convention
assembled kindle with the thought that, as we consider methods for the
political enfranchisement of our sex, our wider purpose is to free
women and to enable their conception of life in all its aspects to
find expression.... Let us set a fresh seal upon the great new loyalty
of woman to woman; let our response be felt in the deep tide of
fellowship and understanding among all women which today is rising
around the world.
ANNA HOWARD SHAW, President.
JANE ADDAMS, First Vice-President.
MADELINE BRECKINRIDGE, Second Vice-President.
CAROLINE RUUTZ-REES, Third Vice-President.
SUSAN WALKER FITZGERALD, Recording Secretary.
KATHARINE DEXTER MCCORMICK, Treasurer.
HARRIET BURTON LAIDLAW,}
LOUISE DEKOVEN BOWEN, } Auditors.
[83] Complete, universal suffrage was conferred by the Parliament in
1917.
[84] For a number of years Mrs. Quincy A. Shaw of Boston gave Dr. Shaw
a fund for campaign work.
[85] A portion of this report is in the chapter on the Federal
Suffrage Amendment.
[86] The Federal Suffrage Amendment had been thoroughly debated and
voted on in the Senate in 1887; the question of woman suffrage itself
discussed in 1866, 1881-3-4-5-6 in the Senate; at great length in the
Lower House in 1883 and 1890 and briefly in both houses at other
times.
[87] Instead of seven or eight amendments there was only one and never
had been but one--the old, original amendment introduced by Senator A.
A. Sargent (Calif.) in 1878. There was and long had been one "bill"
advocated, the one to give women so-called "federal" suffrage, the
right to vote for Senators and Representatives, but it had never been
reported out of committee. There was no bill before Congress to give
women the right to vote for Presidential electors and there was no
other bill proposed. It was of course the "State's rights argument"
that had been the continuous barrier to the Federal Suffrage Amendment
ever since it was first introduced but the favorable attitude of a
majority of the Senators showed how much progress had been made in
meeting that argument.
[88] On the contrary at a public hearing before the Judiciary
Committee of the Lower House on March 3, Mrs. Funk referred several
times to such an amendment and stated that she represented an
association of 462,000 women. She intimated that she knew the old
amendment could not pass and that another might be introduced, which,
it was hoped, would be more acceptable. The vote was not taken in the
Senate till March 19. Meanwhile the newspapers gave to the suffragists
of the country their first knowledge of the new amendment and vigorous
protests soon followed, especially from the older leaders of the
movement. _The Woman's Journal_ of March 28 said editorially: "It is
felt by many that before the Congressional Committee introduced a
wholly new measure, which had never been sanctioned or even considered
by the National Association, it ought to have been submitted to the
National Executive Council."
As soon as the Senate had voted on the original amendment, Senator
Bristow, at the request of the Congressional Union, re-introduced it,
and it was reported favorably April 7, Senator Thomas B. Catron of New
Mexico alone dissenting. Senator Bristow in re-introducing it said of
the Shafroth measure: "It is more of a national initiative and
referendum amendment than a woman suffrage amendment. I prefer that
the question of woman suffrage rest directly upon its own merits and
be not involved with the initiative and referendum."
[89] This amendment had been reported by the Judiciary Committee on
the 9th of May preceding this report "without recommendation" and a
strong effort was being made by its supporters to bring it before the
House for debate. The Rules Committee sent it to the House on December
12, 1914.
[90] The proposed State amendment failed in New York in 1915, was
submitted again by the Legislatures of 1916 and 1917, voted on in
November, 1917, and adopted by an immense majority.
[91] The first week in the preceding April the Mississippi Valley
Conference, composed of the Middle and some of the Western and
Southern States, met in Des Moines and thirty-five prominent delegates
signed a telegram to the Official Board of the National American
Association, asking it "to instruct its Congressional Committee not to
push the Shafroth Amendment nor ask for its report from the Senate
Committee"; also "to ask the Senate Committee not to report this
amendment until so requested by the national suffrage convention."
This was not official action but they signed as individuals, among
them the presidents of the Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio and Louisiana State associations and officers from other
States.
[92] Some of the arguments may be found in the Appendix. An
examination of the file of the _Journal_ will show that ninety-nine
per cent. of the writers were opposed to the amendment.
[93] The old amendment had been voted on in the Senate March 19 and
obtained a majority but not the required two-thirds. It had been
reported without recommendation by the House Judiciary, which had not
acted on the new one. The latter had been introduced in the Senate and
the former re-introduced.
[94] The original measure had always been called the Sixteenth
Amendment until the adoption of the Income Tax and Direct Election of
Senators Amendments in 1913. The Congressional Union, organized that
year, gave it the name Susan B. Anthony Amendment and for awhile it
was thus referred to by some members of the National American
Association. The relatives and friends of Mrs. Stanton rightly
objected to this name, as she had been equally associated with it from
the beginning, and all the pioneer workers had been its staunch
supporters. The old association soon adopted the title, Federal
Suffrage Amendment.
[95] At the first board meeting after the convention Mrs. McCormick
was re-appointed chairman of the Congressional Committee with power to
select its other members and Mrs. Funk was re-appointed vice-chairman.
[96] Mrs. McCormick spent a large amount of time and money on this
play, hoping it would yield a good revenue to the association, but the
arrangement with the Film Corporation proved impossible and it finally
had to be abandoned.
[97] The most persistent efforts of the suffragists never succeeded in
locating this league.
[98] At the request of the committee the exact figures were furnished
later and showed a membership of 105,000, of whom 85,600 lived in the
five non-suffrage States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. Of the remaining 19,400 the non-suffrage
States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Ohio had 11,500; Virginia,
2,100, and 6,500 were divided among other non-suffrage States and the
District of Columbia. Not one member was reported from States where
the franchise had been given to women, although it was a stock
argument of the "antis" that it had been forced on them and they would
gladly get rid of it.
CHAPTER XV.
NATIONAL AMERICAN CONVENTION OF 1915.
The Forty-seventh annual convention of the association was held Dec.
14-19, 1915, in Washington, the scene of many which had preceded it,
with 546 accredited delegates, the largest number on record. The one
of the preceding year had left many of the members in a pessimistic
frame of mind but this had entirely disappeared and never were there
so much hope and optimism.[99] The Federal Amendment had for the first
time been debated and voted on in the House of Representatives,
receiving 204 noes, 174 ayes, a satisfactory result for the first
trial. Although in November, 1915, four of the most populous
States--Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania--had
defeated suffrage amendments yet a million-and-a-quarter of men had
voted in favor. These were all Republican States and yet had given a
larger vote for woman suffrage than for the Republican presidential
candidate the preceding year. Over 42 per cent. of the votes in New
York and over 46 per cent. in Pennsylvania were affirmative and the
press of the country, instead of sounding the "death knell" as usual
after defeats, predicted victory at the next trial. In October the
cause had received its most important accession when President Wilson
and seven of the ten members of his Cabinet declared in favor of woman
suffrage; and in November the President had gone to his home in
Princeton, N. J., on election day to cast his vote for the pending
State amendment.
An honorary committee of arrangements for the convention had been
formed in Washington which included many of the most prominent women
officially and socially, headed by Miss Margaret Wilson, the
President's eldest daughter. Republican and Democratic National
Committees had cordially received suffrage speakers. The first measure
to be introduced in both Houses of the new Congress was the resolution
for the Federal Suffrage Amendment, with Dr. Anna Howard Shaw,
president of the National American Suffrage Association, sitting on
the Speaker's bench by invitation of Speaker and Mrs. Champ Clark. The
convention opened Tuesday morning and at five o'clock in the afternoon
the delegates were received by President Wilson in the White House.
They walked the few short blocks from the convention headquarters in
the New Willard Hotel to the White House and the line reached from the
street through the corridors to the East Room. After each had had a
hearty handshake Dr. Shaw expressed the gratitude of all suffragists,
not for his vote, which was a duty, but for his reasons, to which the
widest publicity had been given. She said the women felt encouraged to
ask for two things: first, his influence in obtaining the submission
of the Federal Amendment by Congress at the present session; second,
if that failed, his influence in securing a plank for woman suffrage
in his party's national platform. The latter he answered to their
great joy by saying that he had it under consideration. He looked at
his hand a little ruefully and said: "You ladies have a strong grip."
"Yes," she responded, "we hold on."
The most striking contrast between this and other conventions was
seen in the program. For more than two-score years the evening
sessions and often those of the afternoon had been given up to
addresses by prominent men and women and attended by large general
audiences. In this way the seed was sowed and public sentiment created
and people in the cities which invited the convention looked forward
to an intellectual feast. This year it was felt that the general
public needed no further education on this subject; the association
had become a business organization and the woman suffrage question one
of practical politics. Therefore but one mass meeting was held, that
of Sunday afternoon, and the entire week was devoted to State reports,
conferences, committee meetings, plans of work, campaigns and
discussion of details. These were extremely interesting and valuable
for the delegates but not for the newspapers or the public.
The entire tenth floor of the New Willard Hotel was utilized for
convention purposes and the full meetings were held in the large ball
room, which had been beautifully decorated under the artistic
direction of Mrs. Glenna Tinnin, with flags, banners and delicate,
symbolic draperies. The large number of young women was noticeable and
the association seemed permeated with new life. "Old men and women for
council and young ones for work," said Dr. Shaw smilingly, as she
opened the convention. "The history that has been made by this
organization is due to the toil and consecration of the women of the
country during past years, and, while I am happy to see so many new
faces, my heart warms when my eyes greet one of the veterans. So in
welcoming you I say, All hail to the new and thank God for the old!"
The convention plunged at once into reports. That of Mrs. Henry Wade
Rogers, the treasurer, showed receipts during the past year of $51,265
and disbursements of $42,396, among them $12,000 for State campaigns.
A large and active finance committee had been formed and thousands of
appeals for money distributed. At this convention $50,000 were pledged
for the work of the coming year and the convention showed fullest
confidence in the new treasurer, who said in presenting her report:
"This has been a most interesting and beautiful year of activity for
the National Association. The officers and assistants at the
headquarters have worked in perfect harmony. You have all, dear
presidents and members of the sixty-three affiliated associations,
been most kind to your new treasurer and she has deeply appreciated
your forbearance."
The report of a temporary organization, the Volunteer League, was
given by its director, Mrs. Katharine Dexter McCormick. Its purpose
was to interest suffragists who were not connected with the
association and President Mary E. Woolley of Mt. Holyoke College, Mrs.
Robert Gould Shaw, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and Mrs. Winston
Churchill accepted places on the board. Letters were sent out,
avoiding the active workers, and over $2,000 were turned into the
treasury. The legal adviser, Miss Mary Rutter Towle, reported a final
accounting of the estate of Mrs. Lila Sabin Buckley of Kansas and the
association received the net amount of $9,551 on a compromise. The
legacy of $10,000 by Mrs. Mary J. Coggeshall of Iowa would be paid in
a few months.
Charles T. Hallinan, as chairman, made a detailed report of the newly
organized Publicity Department. Miss Clara Savage, of the New York
_Evening Post_, was made chairman of the Press Bureau and Mrs. Laura
Puffer Morgan of Washington, D. C., a member of the Congressional
Committee, took charge of its publicity. Mrs. Ernest Thompson Seton
accepted the chairmanship of a special finance committee which did
heroic work. The _News Letter_, an enlarged bulletin of information
and discussion in regard to the activities of the association, had
already more than a thousand subscriptions and went to 116 weekly farm
papers, 99 weekly labor papers and 120 press chairmen and suffrage
editors. The report told of the successful publicity work for Dr. Shaw
and other speakers, and said: "I prize especially my relationship with
Dr. Shaw, whose courage, humor and zest, whose whole heroic
personality, have made this a stimulating and memorable year." An
amusing account was given of the effort "to accommodate the routine
activities of the organization to the demand of the press for
something new or sensational, which made great demands upon the
originality, initiative and judgment of both the board and the
publicity department," but it was managed about four times a week. The
Sunday papers "drew heavily upon the ingenuity of the publicity
department; special or feature stories were sent to special
localities; for instance those that would appeal to the Southerners to
the papers of the South, others to those of the West, and others were
prepared for the syndicates and press associations." Of a new and
important feature of the work Mr. Hallinan said: "The need of a
competent Data Department for the National Association was early
recognized but it seemed a difficult thing to manage on the budget
provided by the convention. It was finally decided that owing to the
pressure of the campaigns the money must be found somehow and it was.
In September the department was established on a temporary basis with
Mrs. Mary Sumner Boyd, formerly associate editor of _The Survey_, in
charge. She was admirably equipped for research work and soon got into
usable shape the valuable records of the national headquarters.
Sometimes the pressure upon the department for facts, including
'answers to antis,' was tremendous but there were few requests for
information which were not answered by mail or telegraph within 24 or
48 hours."
Mrs. Boyd's own full report of her first year's work was heard with
much interest and satisfaction. In it she said:
The opponents of woman suffrage have by their criticisms made it
cover the whole field of human affairs, so it is not surprising
that the inquiries by correspondents of this department have
ranged from the moral standard of women to a request for
assistance in righting a personal wrong. Others come under main
headings of the progress of woman suffrage, both partial and
complete; the standing of women under the laws; the effect of
voting women on the character of legislation; the part they take
in political life and its reaction on their lives and characters;
statistics and facts in regard to the makeup of the population of
the various States; details in regard to State constitutions,
election laws and methods of voting on woman suffrage in the
various States.... What has become of late "stock"
anti-criticisms of some effects of the ballot has been thoroughly
investigated and "stock" answers prepared. Facts and figures from
official sources have been gathered to disprove the claim of
enforced jury duty, excessive cost of elections, lowered birth
rates and increased divorce rates in suffrage States. The results
of these studies have been surprisingly favorable to the suffrage
position, showing that in such criticisms the "antis" have been
ridiculously in the wrong. They have only been able to use this
line of argument at all because the suffragists have had no one
free to take the time to answer them once and for all with the
facts.
At an important afternoon conference Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, who had
been chairman of the New York Campaign Committee during the effort for
a State amendment, made the opening address on The Revelations of
Recent Campaigns which shed a great deal of light on the causes of
defeat. She was followed by Mrs. Frank M. Roessing, who, as president
of the Pennsylvania association, had charge of the campaign in that
State, and Mrs. Gertrude Halliday Leonard, who was a leading factor in
the one in Massachusetts, both presenting constructive plans for those
of the future. Mrs. Raymond Brown, Mrs. Lillian Feickert, Mrs. Harriet
Taylor Upton and Mrs. Draper Smith, presidents of the New York, New
Jersey, Ohio and Nebraska associations, described the Need and Use of
Campaign Organization. Miss Mary Garrett Hay, chairman of the New York
City Campaign Committee, and Miss Hannah J. Patterson, chairman of the
Woman Suffrage Party of Pennsylvania, told from practical experience
How to Organize for a Campaign. The conference was continued through
the evening, Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, president of the
Massachusetts association, speaking on the Production and Use of
Campaign Literature; Mrs. John D. Davenport (Penn.) telling How to
Raise Campaign Funds in the County and Mrs. Mina Van Winkle (N. J.)
and Mrs. Maud Wood Park (Mass.) how to do so in the city. Mrs. Teresa
A. Crowley (Mass.) discussed the Political Work of Campaigns. Another
afternoon was devoted to a general conference of State presidents and
delegates on the subject of Future Campaigns. It was recognized that
these were henceforth to be of frequent occurrence and the association
must be better prepared for their demands.
Mrs. Medill McCormick presided at the evening conference on Federal
Legislation and the speeches of all the delegates clearly showed that
they considered the work for the Federal Amendment paramount to all
else and the States won for suffrage simply as stepping stones to this
supreme achievement. Senator John F. Shafroth was on the platform and
answered conclusively many of the anti-suffrage misrepresentations as
to the effect of woman suffrage in Colorado. Every hour of days and
evenings was given to conferences, committee meetings, reports from
committees and States and the practical preparations for entering
upon what all felt was the last stage of the long contest. The
overshadowing event of the convention was Dr. Anna Howard Shaw's
retirement from the presidency, which she had held eleven years. The
delegates were not unprepared, as she had announced her intention in
the following brief letter published in the _Woman's Journal_ Nov. 27,
1915:
During the last year I have been increasingly conscious of the
growing response to the spoken word on behalf of this cause of
ours. Because of the unparalleled large audiences drawn to our
standard everywhere, I have become convinced that my highest
service to the suffrage movement can best be given if I am
relieved of the exacting duties of the presidency so that I may
be free to engage in campaign work, since each year brings its
quota of campaign States. Therefore, after careful consideration,
I have decided not to stand for re-election to the office of
president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. I
have deferred making this announcement until the campaigns were
ended, but now that it is time to consider the work for the
coming year, I feel it my duty to do so.
The president's address of Dr. Shaw had long been the leading feature
of the conventions but this year it was heard with deeper interest
than ever before, if this were possible. Because every word was
significant she had written it and as it afterwards appeared in
pamphlet form it filled fourteen closely printed pages. It was a
masterly treatment of woman suffrage in its relation to many of the
great problems of the day and it seems a sacrilege to attempt to
convey by detached quotations an idea of its power and beauty. A large
part of it will be found in the Appendix to this chapter. She set
forth in the strongest possible words the necessity of a Federal
Amendment but said:
There is not a single reason given upon which to base a hope for
congressional action that does not rest upon the power and
influence to be derived from the equal suffrage States, which
power was secured by the slow but effective method of winning
State by State. If all our past and present successes in Congress
are due to the influence of enfranchised States, is it not safe
to assume that the future power must come from the same source
until it is sufficiently strong to insure a reasonable prospect
of national legislation? To transform this hope into fulfillment
we must follow several lines of campaign, each of which is
essential to success: 1. By continuing the appeal which for
thirty-seven years without cessation the National Association
has made upon Congress to submit to the State Legislatures an
amendment enfranchising women and by using every just means
within our power to secure action upon it. 2. By Congressional
District organization, such as has been set in motion by our
National Congressional Committee and which has proved so
successful during the past year. 3. By the organization of
enfranchised women, who, through direct political activity in
their own States and within their own political parties may
become efficient factors in national conventions and in Congress.
4. By increasing the number of equal suffrage States through
referring a State amendment to the voters.
The delegates were deeply moved by Dr. Shaw's closing words:
In laying down my responsibility as your president, there is one
subject upon which I wish to speak and I ask your patient
indulgence. If I were asked what has been the cause of most if
not all of the difficulties which have arisen in our work, I
would reply, a failure to recognize the obligations which loyalty
demands of the members of an association to its officers and to
its own expressed will. It is unquestionably the duty of the
members of an organization, when, after in convention assembled
certain measures are voted and certain duties laid upon its
officers, to uphold the officers in the performance of those
duties and to aid in every reasonable way to carry out the will
of the association as expressed by the convention. It is the duty
also of every officer or committee to carry out the will of the
association unless conditions subsequently arise to make this
injurious to its best interests.... Without loyalty, cooperation
and friendly, helpful support in her work no officer can
successfully perform her duty or worthily serve the best
interests of the association. I earnestly appeal to the members
of this body to give the incoming Board of Officers the loyalty
and helpful support which will greatly lighten their arduous task
of serving our cause and bringing it to final victory.
In saying farewell to you as your president I find it impossible
to express my high appreciation and gratitude for your loyal
support, your unfailing kindness, your patience with my mistakes
and especially the affectionate regard you have shown me through
all these years of toil and achievement together. The memory of
your sacrifices for our cause, your devotion to our association
and your unwearied patience in disappointment and delay will give
to the remaining years of my life its crowning joy of happy
memories.
The _Woman's Journal_ said in its report: "On the table was a large
bouquet of roses from Speaker and Mrs. Champ Clark. When Dr. Shaw had
finished and received a great ovation, she said: 'My life has been one
of the happiest a woman ever lived. From the depths of my heart I
thank you. You have done more for me than I have ever done for you.'
She unfastened a little pin on the front of her grey velvet gown and
held it up for all to see, saying: 'This is Miss Anthony's flag, which
she gave me just before she died. It was the gift of Wyoming women and
had four tiny diamonds on it for the four equal suffrage States; now
it has thirteen. Who says "suffrage is going and not coming"? We have
as many stars now as there were original States when the government
began.'" It was voted unanimously that the thanks of the convention be
extended to the president for her noble address and that it be ordered
printed. The tribute of the delegates came later in the week.
The report of the Committee on Literature was made by its chairman,
Miss Caroline Ruutz-Rees, showing the usual careful selection of
valuable matter for publication. Two important compilations she had
made herself--Ten Extempore Answers to Questions by Dr. Shaw and
extracts from a number of her speeches, gleaned from scattered
reports; also an eloquent address made at Birmingham, Ala., the
preceding April. So little from Dr. Shaw existed in printed form that
these were very welcome. She urged the necessity for a library
covering the field of women's affairs, well catalogued and open to the
public. Miss Lavinia Engle's report as Field Secretary showed active
work, speaking and organizing in Alabama, West Virginia, New Jersey
and New York. Mrs. Funk's report as chairman of the Campaign and
Survey Committee described a vast amount of work before the New Jersey
campaign opened, including a series of twenty meetings addressed by
Senators and Representatives and a number of prominent women, and
others continuously through the summer with State and national
speakers. Dr. Shaw spoke at thirty of these meetings.
In closing her report Miss Elizabeth Upham Yates, chairman of the
Committee on Presidential Suffrage, said: "In addition to the
beneficent consequences of women's vote in State and municipal
affairs, the number of votes in the electoral college that may be
determined by their ballots is of paramount political significance. By
their votes in twelve States, which have 91 presidential electors,
they might decide the presidency. Of these 91 electoral votes 62 come
from the States where constitutional amendments enfranchising women
have been obtained after repeated campaigns of inestimable cost and
exhaustive effort, while 29, nearly a third of the whole, were secured
simply by an act of the Illinois Legislature in giving the electoral
vote to women. Is it not good political tactics to proceed along the
lines of least resistance and bring our energies to bear upon
Legislatures for the measure most potent and at the same time most
easily procured?"
Mrs. Mary E. Craigie, who, as chairman of the Church Work Committee,
had given such valuable service for years, told of the excellent work
of her State branches, especially that of New Jersey during the recent
campaign, whose chairman, Mrs. Mabel Farraday, had sent out hundreds
of letters with literature to the clergymen and reached thousands of
people at Ocean Grove and Asbury Park. She told of the encouragement
she had received in her month of preparatory work for the approaching
West Virginia campaign; the Ministerial Association of Wheeling had
invited her to address them and expressed a desire to help it; several
pastors turned over their regular meetings to her; the largest
Methodist church in the State, at Moundsville, holding a week of big
meetings, invited her to fill one entire evening with an address on
the Federal Suffrage Amendment. "More and more I am led to believe,"
she said in closing, "that the most important work before the
suffragists today is church work, especially the organizing of the
Catholic women, that they will make their demands so emphatic the
church will see the wisdom of supporting the movement. The church work
is non-sectarian but it should also be omni-sectarian and our efforts
should be extended to include all churches and religious sects."
The Congressional Committee had placed two departments of its work in
charge of Miss Ethel M. Smith, whose comprehensive report showed
beyond question their great value:
When the Congressional Committee was reorganized after the
Nashville convention two departments were given into my charge,
the congressional district organization work and the office
catalogue of information concerning members of Congress. The
Congressional plan, which had been launched but a year before,
had been adopted in many of the States but not in all. My first
step, therefore, was to urge by correspondence with the
presidents that this machinery be established or completed in
every State. On December 12 came the test as to how well this
had been done. The Rules Committee of the House reported the
Mondell amendment, which was to come to a vote January 12. I
wrote or telegraphed at once to every congressional chairman or
State president asking her to bring to bear all possible pressure
upon the individual members of Congress from her State. Those
States which had established this machinery were able at once to
send the call to the respective district chairmen and so on down
the line; the other States responded through their existing
machinery and the result was that thousands of letters and
telegrams poured into the offices of the Congressmen during the
four weeks. Meantime our lobby was busy interviewing the members
and the latest expressions obtained in each case were wired back
to the States, whose chairmen responded again.
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.