Suffragists filled the court when these women came up for trial. Four of

them were tried at once. They were sentenced to a ten-dollar fine or

five days’ imprisonment. Their entrance into court had been greeted with

applause from the audience. When the next four women appeared, they too

were applauded. The Judge said, “The bailiffs will escort the prisoners

out and bring them in again, and if there is any applause this time....”

[Illustration: ONE OF THE WATCHFIRES OF FREEDOM. Taken Just Before the

Arrest of the Picket Line.

Photo Copr. Harris and Ewing, Washington, D. C.]

[Illustration: A POLICEMAN SCATTERS THE WATCHFIRE.

Photo Copr. Harris and Ewing, Washington, D. C.]

The prisoners returned, and the applause was a roar. Three women among

those who applauded were taken out of the mass. “The police will escort

the women out of the courtroom,” said the Court. When they reached the

door, “And see that they do not return,” added the Court. As the door

closed, “And lock the doors,” shouted the Court. Thereafter, the

prisoners were brought in one at a time, and were sent to jail

immediately. Twenty-two women were thus sentenced. There remained one

for whom there was no prosecuting witness—Naomi Barrett.

The next day, Naomi Barrett was tried alone. As she came forward,

applause greeted her—applause long and continued. The Judge ordered

silence. The applause continued. He ordered the applauders to be brought

forward. One, Mrs. Pflaster, sank to the floor in a faint. She was

picked up and put on a chair, but as she fell from the chair, the Judge

ordered her removed at once. A physician was sent for. Her fellow

Suffragists demanded that they be permitted to see her. Finally one of

them was allowed to go to her. The Court had scarcely reached the next

case when word came that Mrs. Pflaster was in a serious condition. The

Suffragists came rushing in and demanded that the Judge come off the

Bench and see what had happened; the Court obeyed. In due time the

doctor arrived, a stretcher came, and the patient was taken to the

Emergency Hospital.

The Judge resumed his seat, and sentenced Bertha Moller, Gertrude

Murphy, Rhoda Kellogg, and Margaret Whittemore—the applauders—to

twenty-four hours in jail for contempt of court. Mrs. Barrett was

sentenced to five days in jail. They joined the twenty-two women who

were already there and hunger-striking.

On January 27, six women kindled a Watchfire on the White House

pavement. They were arrested on the charge of starting a fire after

sundown. They were as usual, tried the next day; sentenced to five days

in jail. They went on a hunger-strike of course. They were: Bertha

Moller; Gertrude Murphy; Rhoda Kellogg; Mary Carol Dowell; Martha Moore;

Katherine Magee.

In the meantime an interesting event took place in France. President

Wilson received a delegation representing the working women of France,

Saturday, January 25, at the Murat Mansion in Paris. The delegation

urged upon the President that the Peace Conference include Woman

Suffrage among the points to be settled by the Conference. President

Wilson replied as follows:

Mlle. Thomson and ladies: You have not only done me a great honor,

but you have touched me very much by this unexpected tribute; and

may I add that you have frightened me, because realizing the great

confidence you place in me, I am led to the question of my own

ability to justify that confidence?

You have not placed your confidence wrongly in my hopes and

purposes, but perhaps not all of those hopes and purposes can be

realized in the great matter that you have so much at heart—the

right of women to take their full share in the political life of the

nations to which they belong. That is necessarily a domestic

question for the several nations. A conference of peace settling the

relations of nations with each other would be regarded as going very

much outside its province if it undertook to dictate to the several

states what their internal policy should be.

At the same time these considerations apply also to the conditions

of labor; and it does not seem to be unlikely that the conference

will take some action by way of expressing its sentiments, at any

rate, with regard to the international aspects at least of labor,

and I should hope that some occasion might be offered for the case

not only of the women of France, but of their sisters all over the

world, to be presented to the consideration of the conference.

The conference is turning out to be a rather unwieldy body, a very

large body representing a great many nations, large and small, old

and new; and the method of organizing its work successfully, I am

afraid will have to be worked out stage by stage. Therefore I have

no confident prediction to make as to the way in which it can take

up the question of this sort.

[Illustration: SUFFRAGIST REBUILDING THE FIRE SCATTERED BY THE POLICE.

Photo Copr. Harris and Ewing, Washington, D. C.]

[Illustration: THE LAST SUFFRAGIST ARRESTED—THE FIRE BURNS ON.

Photo Copr. Harris and Ewing, Washington, D. C.]

But what I have most at heart today is to avail myself of this

opportunity to express my admiration for the women of all the

nations that have been engaged in the war. By the fortunes of this

war the chief burden has fallen upon the women of France, and they

have borne it with a spirit and a devotion which has commanded the

admiration of the world.

I do not think that the people of France fully realize, perhaps, the

intensity of the sympathy that other nations have felt for them.

They think of us in America, for example, as a long way off. And we

are in space but we are not in thought. You must remember that the

United States is made up of the nations of Europe: that French

sympathies run straight across the seas, not merely by historic

association but by blood connection, and that these nerves of

sympathy are quick to transmit the impulses of one nation to the

other.

We have followed your sufferings with a feeling that we were

witnessing one of the most heroic, and may I add, at the same time

satisfactory things in the world, satisfactory because it showed the

strength of the human spirit, the indomitable power of women and men

alike to sustain any burden if the cause was great enough.

In an ordinary war there might have been some shrinking, some

sinking of effort; but this was not an ordinary war. This was a war

not only to redeem France from an enemy, but to redeem the world

from an enemy. And France, therefore, and the women of France

strained their hearts to sustain the world. I hope that the strain

has not been in vain. I know that it has not been in vain.

This war has been popular and unlike other wars in that it seemed

sometimes as if the chief strain was behind the lines and not at the

lines. It took so many men to conduct the war that the older men and

the women at home had to carry the nation. Not only so, but the

industries of the nation were almost as much a part of the fighting

as the things that took place at the fronts.

So it is for that reason that I have said to those with whom I am at

present associated that this must be a people’s peace, because this

was a people’s war. The people won this war, not the governments,

and the people must reap the benefits of the war. At every turn we

must see to it that it is not an adjustment between governments

merely, but an agreement for the peace and security of men and women

everywhere.

The little obscure sufferings and the daily unknown privations, the

unspoken sufferings of the heart, are the tragical things of this

war. They have been borne at home, and the center of the home is the

woman. My heart goes out to you, therefore, ladies, in a very

unusual degree, and I welcome this opportunity to bring you this

message, not from myself merely, but from the great people whom I

represent.

Mary Nolan—over seventy years old—immediately made Suffrage capital of

this speech by the President. Mrs. Nolan’s record in the period of the

Watchfires is positively heroic.

On January 19, with Bertha Arnold, Mrs. Nolan was arrested for the first

time in connection with the Watchfires of Freedom demonstrations. On

January 24, while under suspended sentence, the two women again fed the

flames in front of the White House. They were immediately arrested; the

next day, tried. Mrs. Nolan said:

I am guilty if there is any guilt in a demand for freedom. I protest

against the action of the President who is depriving American women

of freedom. I have been sent to represent my State Florida, and I am

willing to do or suffer anything to bring victory to the long

courageous struggle. I have fought this fight many years. I have

seen children born to grow to womanhood to fight at my side. I have

seen their children grow up to fight with us.

So great a storm of applause greeted these remarks that the Judge had

thirteen of the applauders brought immediately to the dock and tried for

contempt of Court. Thirteen women were sentenced to forty-eight hours in

jail with no alternative of fines. These thirteen women were: Lucy

Burns; Edith Ainge; Mary Gertrude Fendall; Phœbe Munnecke; Lucy Branham;

Annie Arniel; Matilda Young; Ruth Crocker; Elsie Unterman; Kate Boeckh;

Emily Huff; Lucile Shields; Elizabeth Walmsley.

Bertha Arnold received a sentence of five days, but Mrs. Nolan was

released.

On Monday, January 27, Mrs. Nolan went out on the picket line again,

this time with Sarah Colvin. As she burned in the Watchfire the text of

the President’s words to the French workingwomen, she said:

President Wilson told the women of France that they had not placed

their confidences wrongly in his hopes and purposes. I tell the

women of France that the women of America have placed their

confidence in President Wilson’s hopes and purposes for six years,

and the Party of which he is a leader has continually, and is even

now obstructing their enfranchisement.

President Wilson has the power to do for the women of this nation

what he asserts he would like to do for the women of other nations.

There are thirty-one days left for the passage of the Suffrage

Amendment in this Congress, of which his Party is in control. Let

him return to this country and act to secure democracy for his own

people. Then the words that he spoke for the women of Europe will

have weight and will bear fruit. Sooner or later the women of the

world will know what we know—that confidence cannot be placed in

President Wilson’s hopes and purposes for the freedom of women.

The police seemed loath to arrest Mrs. Nolan, but they finally did so.

The Court as reluctantly sentenced her to twenty-four hours in jail.

Mrs. Colvin received the customary five days. Three more applauding

Suffragists were committed at this last trial, for forty-eight hours:

Cora Crawford, Margaret Rossett, Elsie Unterman.

* * * * *

On January 31, Mrs. Nolan was again arrested at a Watchfire

demonstration with Mary Ingham and Annie Arniel. She was discharged by

the Court. Mary Ingham and Annie Arniel, it may be mentioned, were held

in jail for two days before they were brought to trial. There were no

witnesses against them, and so they were freed.

* * * * *

On February 4, Mrs. Nolan was arrested again with Elsie T. Russian and

Bertha Wallerstein for burning the President’s speech to French

Deputies. There was the usual applause when the three women appeared in

Court, and, as usual, the Judge ordered silence; as usual, the applause

continued. Three applauders were thrown out.

Mrs. Russian made the following statement to the Court:

By burning the hypocritical words of President Wilson, we have

expressed the unmistakable impatience of American women. In place of

words, these women demand action. I am glad to have taken part in

the expression of that demand.

The watchfires had been going since New Year’s Day, growing in numbers

until they culminated in the biggest demonstration of all, two days

before the day set for the vote.

On February 9, they burned the President in effigy.

At half-past four that Sunday, the bell at Headquarters began to toll. A

procession of a hundred women, headed by Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer bearing

the American flag, marched to the White House pavement. Behind Mrs.

Havemeyer came Ella Riegel, bearing the purple, white, and gold banner.

Behind the color bearers came Mrs. John Rogers and Mary Ingham, carrying

a lettered banner which said:

ONLY FIFTEEN LEGISLATIVE DAYS ARE LEFT FOR

THIS CONGRESS.

FOR MORE THAN A YEAR THE PRESIDENT’S PARTY HAS

BLOCKED SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE.

IT IS BLOCKING IT TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BETRAYAL

OF AMERICAN WOMANHOOD.

Behind this came Sarah T. Colvin and Mrs. Walter Adams, carrying a

second lettered banner:

WHY DOES NOT THE PRESIDENT ENSURE THE PASSAGE OF

SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE TOMORROW?

WHY DOES HE NOT WIN FROM HIS PARTY THE ONE

VOTE NEEDED?

HAS HE AGREED TO PERMIT SUFFRAGE AGAIN TO BE

PUSHED ASIDE?

PRESIDENT WILSON IS DECEIVING THE WORLD. HE PREACHES

DEMOCRACY ABROAD AND THWARTS DEMOCRACY HERE.

Behind these banners came Nell Mercer and Elizabeth McShane bearing an

earthen urn filled with fire. Behind them came Sue White and Gabrielle

Harris, who were to perform the leading act of the demonstration.

After these came twenty-six wood bearers, and long eddying waves of the

purple, white, and gold. The urn bearers deposited the urn in its place

on the pavement opposite the White House door. The wood bearers and the

banner bearers formed a guard about it. Sue White then advanced and

dropped into the flames a paper figure—a cartoon—of the President. Mrs.

Havemeyer then attempted to make a speech. Before she was arrested, she

managed to say the following three sentences:

Every Anglo-Saxon government in the world has enfranchised its

women. In Russia, in Hungary, in Austria, in Germany itself, the

women are completely enfranchised, and thirty-four are now sitting

in the new Reichstag. We women of America are assembled here today

to voice our deep indignation that while such efforts are being made

to establish democracy for Europe, American women are still deprived

of a voice in their government here at home.

Speaker after speaker attempted to follow her, but they were all

arrested. The police patrols were soon filled up, and nearby cars were

commandeered. There was an enormous crowd present. The police—nearly a

hundred of them—tried to force them back, and succeeded in getting them

part way across Pennsylvania Avenue. When they turned back, more wood

had been brought from Headquarters, and another fire started. Other

women who came from Headquarters with further reinforcements of wood

were stopped and arrested. The police then declared the open space

between the encircling crowd and the banner-bearing women a military

zone. No person was allowed to enter it. For an hour, therefore, the

women stood there. For the most part, they were motionless, but at

intervals they marched slowly round their small segment of sidewalk. The

crowd stayed until the banner bearers started homeward. They followed

them to the very entrance of Suffrage Headquarters.

All this time the bell was tolling.

Those arrested were: Mrs. T. W. Forbes, Mary Nolan, Sue White, Mrs. L.

V. G. Gwynne Branham, Lillian Ascough, Jennie Bronenberg, Rose

Fishstein, Nell Mercer, Amy Juengling, Reba Comborrov, Mildred Morris,

Clara Wold, Louise Bryant, Bertha Wallerstein, Martha Shoemaker, Rebecca

Garrison, Pauline Adams, Marie Ernst Kennedy, Willie Grace Johnson,

Phœbe Munnecke, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, Edith Ainge, Lucy Daniels, Mary

Ingham, Elizabeth McShane, Sarah T. Colvin, Ella Riegel, Mrs. William

Upton Watson, Anne Herkner, Palys Chevrier, Anna Ginsberg, Estella

Eylward, Annie Arniel, Cora Weeks, Lucy Burns, Helena Hill Weed, Mrs.

John Rogers, Gladys Greiner, Rose G. Fishstein.

On February 10, the Anthony Amendment came up once more for the vote in

the Senate of the United States. Perhaps at this juncture recapitulation

in regard to the Senate situation will be illuminating.

It will be remembered that when the Amendment passed the House on

January 10, 1918, the Suffragists were eleven votes short in the Senate,

and how—Maud Younger told the story most vivaciously—nine of these votes

were obtained. For a long time, the Suffragists continued to lack the

remaining two votes. The first thing that promised to ameliorate this

deadlock was the nomination in the South Carolina primaries of Pollock

for the short term of the Sixty-fifth Congress, convening December 2,

1918. Senator Pollock confused the situation extraordinarily for the

Suffragists. The South Carolina branch of the Woman’s Party interviewed

him immediately after his election and it was their understanding that

he told them that he would vote “yes” on the Amendment. When he came to

Washington, however, he refused to state how he would vote. The

Suffragists were in a difficult situation. Many of them believed that he

intended to vote for the Amendment but he would not say that he did.

They believed they had one of the two necessary votes but they could

never be sure of it. All the time, therefore, they were trying to get

the votes of Moses of New Hampshire, Gay of Louisiana, Hale of Maine,

Trammell of Florida, and Borah of Idaho, as they seemed the most likely

of the opposed or non-committal men.

Indeed, two kinds of campaigns were going on—one in the States among the

constituents of these possible men and the campaign of the Watchfires in

Washington. As soon as the Watchfires began, the President again began

to work. He called various Senators asking them to support the

Amendment. The Democratic leaders became alarmed at the effect on the

country of this constant turmoil in front of the White House. In fact

they did the thing they had always steadfastly refused to do—called a

caucus to mobilize the Democrats back of the Suffrage Amendment. At this

caucus, various Administration leaders appealed to the Party members in

the Senate to give their support to the measure. Pollock then made his

first public declaration that he would vote for the Suffrage Amendment.

The Amendment now needed but one vote.

The chairman of the Suffrage Committee then announced that another

effort would be made to pass the measure and it would be brought up for

a vote on February 10, although until the Watchfires started, they had

repeatedly declared that it would be impossible to bring it up twice in

the same session.

As Congress was coming to an end, it was decided to take the vote

anyway, although, as things stood, even with Pollock, the Suffragists

lacked one vote. Pollock did vote for Suffrage but the other vote was

not forthcoming. The Amendment was therefore defeated on February 10.

From February 10 to June 4, the Woman’s Party was working to get that

one vote.

* * * * *

While the Senate was debating Suffrage, thirty-nine of the women who had

burned the President in effigy the day before were being tried.

Twenty-five sentences of five days and one of two days were pronounced.

Then the Judge demanded, “How many more women are there out there?” When

he found that several were still waiting, he dismissed them without

trial.

They were not charged with burning the effigy of the President, but with

unlawfully setting fire to certain combustibles in that part of the

District of Columbia known as the White House grounds.

* * * * *

The prison conditions which these Suffragists endured were as unpleasant

as before. At first they went to the District of Columbia jail. Since

previous incarcerations and the resulting complaints and investigations,

soap and water had been used to some extent in this jail. So much,

indeed, had soap and water been used that the prisoners could now

clearly distinguish the vermin of more than one species creeping up and

down the walls. The rats ran about in hordes. While conditions were

somewhat improved, they were still bad.

Harriet Andrews, writing of her impressions of the jail in the

_Suffragist_ of January 25, says:

The jail was real. And it was not funny. I had a book of poetry to

read, but I was sorry I hadn’t taken a volume from the works of the

late Henri Fabre. It would have been interesting to study the habits

of cockroaches. I lay on my straw pallet and watched them clustered

in the upper right hand corner of my cell waiting for my light to be

put out before they began their nightly invasion. And when my light

went out, the bulb that still burned in the corridor enabled me to

watch them crawling down in a long, uninterrupted line.... There

were also other things that crawled.

The last group were sent to the old Workhouse in which Suffragists had

been imprisoned the August before.

Of that Helena Hill Weed says in the _Suffragist_ of February 22:

No fire had been built in the old Workhouse this winter until a few

hours before we were imprisoned there. The dampness and cold of the

first floor was quite unbearable. They permitted the women to sleep

in the upper tier of cells, where the ventilation is better than on

the ground floor where we were forced to sleep last summer. But

these cells are too dark to stay in during the day, and the only

other place is the cold, damp stone floor on the ground. The only

fresh air in the prison enters the building through windows fifteen

feet above the level of the floor where the women have to spend

their waking hours. The warm air from the furnaces, which enters the

building on the first floor immediately rises to the roof. The damp,

icy winter air and all the noxious gases and foul odors sink to the

floor, where the women have to sit. They are serving their

imprisonment under practically cellar conditions. The authorities

are not forcing us to drink the water in the pipes of the Workhouse

this time, but are supplying fresh water.

Harriet Andrews said that in coming out, “the sense of air and light and

space burst upon me like a shout.”

* * * * *

In the meantime, the Woman’s Party, carrying out its extraordinary

thorough and forthright policy of publicity, had not failed to tell the

country at large about all this. They sent throughout the United States

a carfull of speakers; all women who had served sentences in prison.

They were: Abby Scott Baker, Lucy Burns, Bertha Arnold, Mary Ingham,

Mabel Vernon, Mrs. Robert Walker, Gladys Greiner, Mrs. A. R. Colvin,

Ella Riegel, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, Mrs. W. D. Ascough, Mary Winsor,

Elizabeth McShane, Vida Milholland, Sue White, Lucy Ewing, Lucy Branham,

Edith Ainge, Pauline Adams, Mrs. John Rogers, Cora Week, and Mary Nolan.

This car was called the _Prison Special_ and the newspapers soon called

the women the _Prison Specialists_. On the platform the speakers all

wore duplicates of their prison costumes. Perhaps in all its history,

the Woman’s Party has never gathered—not a more brilliant company of

speakers—but speakers with so marvelous a story to tell. They spoke to

packed houses. At their very first meeting in Charleston, South

Carolina, traffic was actually stopped by the overflow meeting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIII

THE APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT ON HIS RETURN

THE President of the United States returned to America from Europe on

February 24, 1919, landing in Boston. Boston arranged an enormous

welcome-home demonstration. The Woman’s Party determined to take part in

that welcome to remind him of the Suffrage work to be done, and they

announced this to the world at large. Alice Paul went to Boston to

arrange this demonstration. The Boston police announced in their turn

that they would establish a dead line in front of the reviewing stand

beyond which the Suffragists would not be allowed to penetrate. However,

the Suffragists, following the Red Cross women, marched through the line

of Marines who held the crowd back, and took up their position before

the reviewing stand where the President was to appear. At the head of

the line in the place of honor, waving the American flag, was Katherine

Morey. On one side of the Stars and Stripes was the historic banner:

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

On the other side of the Stars and Stripes was a second historic banner:

MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WILL YOU DO FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE?

The special lettered banner for the occasion read:

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU SAID IN THE SENATE ON SEPTEMBER 30,

“WE SHALL NOT ONLY BE DISTRUSTED BUT WE SHALL DESERVE

TO BE DISTRUSTED IF WE DO NOT ENFRANCHISE WOMEN.”

YOU ALONE CAN REMOVE THIS DISTRUST NOW BY SECURING

THE ONE VOTE NEEDED TO PASS THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT

BEFORE MARCH 4.

This banner was carried by Lois Shaw and Ruth Small.

The police politely requested the pickets to depart and the pickets

politely refused to go; whereupon the police politely arrested them. The

arrested women were: Jessica Henderson, Ruth Small, Lou Daniels, Mrs.

Frank Page, Josephine Collins, Berry Pottier, Wilma Henderson, Mrs.

Irving Gross, Mrs. George Roewer, Francis Fowler, Camilla Whitcomb, Mrs.

H. L. Turner, Eleanor Calnan, Betty Connelly, Betty Gram, Lois Warren

Shaw, Rose Lewis, Mrs. E. T. Russian.

They were charged with “loitering more than seven minutes.”

In the afternoon while the President was making a speech in Mechanics

Hall, a Watchfire demonstration occurred on Boston Common. A vast crowd

gathered about it. From three o’clock in the afternoon until six, the

women made speeches.

The speakers were: Louise Sykes, Mrs. C. C. Jack, Mrs. Mortimer Warren,

Mrs. Robert Trent Whitehouse, Agnes H. Morey, Elsie Hill.

Louise Sykes burned the President’s words—and they were the words that

he was speaking that very afternoon. Mrs. Mortimer Warren and Mrs. C. C.

Jack were arrested at six o’clock and released immediately. Elsie Hill

was detained on the charge of speaking without a permit.

* * * * *

That day the President’s carriage drove by the Boston Headquarters. When

Wilson saw the purple, white, and gold colors, his expression changed.

Quickly he looked the other way. It was observed that he held across his

knees a newspaper whose flaring headlines announced that day’s

picketing.

The Suffragists were tried on February 25, by what was very like a Star

Chamber proceeding, in the Judge’s lobby on the second floor of the

court house. The Press was not excluded from the hearing, but the public

was. As usual, the Suffragists did not assist the Court by giving names

or answering questions. As a result, in the words of the _Suffragist_,

“There is quite a family of Jane Does in Boston.” Sixteen of

them—everybody, except Wilma Henderson, who was discovered to be a

minor, and several others who could not be identified—were sentenced to

eight days in jail.

Some person—I quote from the _Suffragist_—entirely unknown and

untraceable and unidentified, whom the policemen gave the name “E. H.

Howe” paid the fines of these women. Katherine Morey, Ruth Small, and

Betty Connelly were released on February 26; Josephine Collins on

February 27; the others came out two at a time.

As usual, the complaints of the Suffragists called the attention of the

people of the community to the filthy condition of their jail, which

these experts pronounced one of the worst in the country. It was

characterized by the “bucket system.” In each cell stood two buckets for

toilet purposes. One contained the water in which they bathed. The other

was emptied once a day or once in two days, according to the frequency

with which the prisoner was permitted to go into the jail-yard for the

purpose.

* * * * *

The Boston papers gave this demonstration enormous publicity. Boston

institutions received in the press a muckraking which they had not

experienced in years.

* * * * *

When President Wilson arrived in the Capitol at Washington—after this

welcome in Boston—one of the first pieces of legislation which he took

up was the Federal Suffrage Amendment. He went to the Capitol and

conferred with Senator Jones of New Mexico (Democrat) Chairman of the

Woman’s Suffrage Committee, about the Suffrage Resolution. After the

vote of February 10, Senator Jones of New Mexico refused to introduce

the Suffrage Resolution again, but Senator Jones of Washington, the

ranking Republican, introduced the identical bill. The President

expressed his regret over the failure of the measure on February 10, but

he did not exert his influence towards getting it passed.

The Sixty-fifth Congress was about to adjourn in a few days. On February

28, in order to overcome the Parliamentary difficulty of the

reconsideration of a measure which had been once reconsidered, Senator

Jones of New Mexico introduced a Suffrage Amendment which was a

variation of the Anthony Amendment and so of course to Suffragists not

so satisfactory. It was referred to the Woman Suffrage Committee. Soon

after this, Senator Gay of Louisiana, who had voted against the

Amendment on February 10, announced that he would now vote for it. The

President had obtained this vote, but like all his action on Suffrage,

it came too late. There were only three days left and Senator Jones of

New Mexico made several attempts to obtain the necessary unanimous

consent for the consideration of his Resolution, but he was

unsuccessful. On Saturday, March 1, Senator Wadsworth (Republican)

objected. On Monday, March 3, Senator Weeks (Republican) objected. On

Tuesday, March 4, Senator Sherman (Republican) objected. The session

came to an end in the Senate without action on the Suffrage Amendment.

The Republicans did not want the Democrats to get the credit of passing

it, and so prevented it from coming to a vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIV

THE APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT ON HIS DEPARTURE

WHEN Congress adjourned at noon March 3, President Wilson left

immediately for Europe, stopping in New York to speak at the

Metropolitan Opera House. Alice Paul arranged at once a demonstration in

New York as a protest against the President leaving the Suffrage

question still unsettled. Her plan was to have every word on democracy,

uttered by the President inside the Opera House, immediately burned

outside the Opera House.

On the evening of March 4 a long line of Suffragists started from the

New York Headquarters at 13 East Forty-first Street. Margaretta Schuyler

carried the American flag. Lucy Maverick followed her carrying the

purple, white, and gold tri-color. Florence De Shan carried:

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

Beatrice Castleton bore:

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

The lettered banner for the occasion said:

MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WOMEN PROTEST AGAINST THE

DEFEAT OF SUFFRAGE FOR WHICH YOU AND YOUR PARTY ARE

RESPONSIBLE. WE DEMAND THAT YOU CALL AN EXTRA SESSION

OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY TO PASS THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT.

AN AUTOCRAT AT HOME IS A POOR CHAMPION FOR

DEMOCRACY ABROAD.

At the corner of Fortieth Street and Broadway, this line met a barrier

of more than a hundred policemen. As the Suffragists tried to pass

through them, the police—assisted by soldiers and sailors from the

crowd—rushed upon them; tore down the banners; broke them.

In her book, _Jailed for Freedom_, Doris Stevens tells how in perfect

silence, but in the most business-like way, the New York police clubbed

the pickets. They arrested six of the women; Alice Paul, Elsie Hill,

Doris Stevens, Beatrice Castleton, Lucy Maverick, Marie Bodenheim. These

were taken to the police station charged with disorderly conduct. After

half an hour, they were suddenly released.

They went back to Headquarters, re-formed into a second line and started

for the Opera House. At Fortieth Street, the police again rushed them,

tearing and breaking their flags. The women were knocked down. Some were

trampled underfoot, and picked up later, limp and bleeding from scrapes

and bruises. Elsie Hill succeeded in retaining her torch. She began her

meeting of protest. A messenger emerged from the Opera House with some

of the words which the President had just uttered, and she burned them.

The police rushed upon her, but they were too late. In the meantime,

Alice Paul had succeeded in bringing the line of Suffragists up to the

wall of police. There the crowds dashed on them again.

With the wonderful spirit which always characterized her, Elsie Hill

called out to one of the soldiers: Did you fellows turn back when you

saw the Germans come? What would you have thought of any one who did? Do

you expect us to turn back now? We never turn back either—and we won’t

until democracy is won!

Finally the police pushed the crowds back so far that there was no

audience. The pickets returned to Headquarters. There they found that

all the evening long, lawless citizens had been breaking in, carrying

out great bundles of banners and burning them in the street.

Doris Stevens tells in _Jailed for Freedom_ how, when she attempted to

enter Headquarters, she was knocked down by a hoodlum armed with one of

their banner poles.

* * * * *

That night and the following day, sailors, privates and

officers—military and naval—called at Suffrage Headquarters to apologize

for the conduct of other men in uniform. They begged the women to

believe that their action was not representative of the attitude of

service men in general.

The Sixty-sixth Congress convened in special session on May 19, 1919,

with the Republicans in control.

The Suffragists knew before this Congress convened, that it would pass

the Anthony Amendment.

This was how it happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

XV

THE PRESIDENT OBTAINS THE LAST VOTE AND CONGRESS SURRENDERS

THE Suffrage situation was a little confused. Senator Baird, opposed to

Suffrage, of the old Congress, was succeeded by Edge, favorable to it.

Pollock, favorable, was succeeded by Dial, opposed. Vardaman of

Mississippi, favorable, was succeeded by Harrison. Drew of New

Hampshire, opposed, was succeeded by Keyes. Hardwick of Georgia,

opposed, was succeeded by Harris. These three last new Senators—Harrison

(Democrat), Harris (Democrat), and Keyes (Republican)—maintained a

steady silence as to how they would vote. It was necessary to get one of

them.

Senator Harris was a close supporter of President Wilson. Alice Paul

knew that Matthew Hale, former Chairman of the Progressive National

Committee, a Suffragist but not a Democrat, was influential with the

Administration. She therefore suggested to Anita Pollitzer that she see

Mr. Hale at once and lay the situation before him. This was early in May

and Congress was convening May 19. Mr. Hale was enthusiastic in his

desire to help. The situation was complicated by the fact that the

President was in Europe. Mr. Hale and Miss Pollitzer went over the

Senate poll and from among the most favorable non-committal senators

chose Harris of Georgia. He too was in Europe. Suddenly the field of the

campaign crossed three thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean to France. The

Woman’s Party concentrated their forces on getting President Wilson to

influence Harris into declaring for Suffrage. Mr. Hale worked steadily

with a group of people close to the President who rapidly increased in

numbers. Ultimately this pressure bore fruit in a conference between

Robert Woolley, Democratic Publicity Manager in the 1916 campaign, Homer

S. Cummings, Chairman of the National Democratic Committee, William J.

Cochran, Director of Publicity of the Democratic Committee, Joseph

Tumulty, the President’s Secretary, Senator Walsh. The result of this

conference was that Tumulty sent a cable to the President, suggesting

that he confer with Senator Harris. Senator Harris was in Italy, but at

the President’s request he went to France. Immediately came the news on

the cable that Senator Harris would support the Suffrage Amendment.

Having secured Harris’ vote, President Wilson cabled a message to the

new Congress on the night of May 20 which contained the following

reference to the Susan B. Anthony Amendment:

Will you permit me, turning from these matters, to speak once more

and very earnestly of the proposed Amendment to the Constitution

which would extend the Suffrage to women and which passed the House

of Representatives at the last session of the Congress? It seems to

me that every consideration of justice and of public advantage calls

for the immediate adoption of that Amendment and its submission

forthwith to the legislatures of the several States.

Throughout all the world this long-delayed extension of the Suffrage

is looked for; in the United States, longer, I believe, than

anywhere else, the necessity for it, and the immense advantages of

it to the national life, has been urged and debated by women and men

who saw the need for it and urged the policy of it when it required

steadfast courage to be so much beforehand with the common

conviction; and I, for one, covet for our country the distinction of

being among the first to act in a great reform.

As soon as Suffrage was assured by this sixty-fourth vote, Senator Keyes

and Senator Hale in a convulsive effort to leap on the fast disappearing

band-wagon announced that they would vote for the Amendment, thus giving

the Suffragists two extra votes.

As this was a new Congress it was necessary for the House to pass the

Suffrage Amendment again. On May 21, 1919, therefore, the new House

passed it by three hundred and four votes to eighty-nine—forty-two more

than the required two-thirds. It will be remembered that, when the

previous House passed it on January 10, 1918, the vote was two hundred

and seventy-four to one hundred and thirty-six—only one vote more than

the required two-thirds.

The Amendment then went to the Senate.

In her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_, Maud Younger says:

Four months later, on June fourth, for the fifth time in a little more

than a year, we sat in the Senate gallery to hear a vote on the Suffrage

Amendment. The new Congress, coming in on March fourth, had brought us

two more votes—we now had our eleven. There was no excitement. The

coming of the women, the waiting of the women, the expectancy of the

women, was an old story. A whole year had passed in the winning of two

votes. Every one knew what the end would be now. It was all very dull.

We walked slowly homeward, talking a little, silent a great deal. This

was the day toward which women had been struggling for more than half a

century! We were in the dawn of woman’s political power in America.

Several days before the Senate passed the Amendment, Alice Paul left

Washington to arrange for an immediate ratification by the legislatures

in session.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

XVI

RATIFICATION

“WOMEN ARE FREE AT LAST IN ALL THE LAND”

_Chant Royal_

Waken, O Woman, to the trumpet sound

Greeting our day of long sought liberty;

Gone are the ages that have held us bound

Beneath a master, now we stand as he,

Free for world-service unto all mankind,

Free of the dragging chains that used to bind,

The sordid labor, the unnoticed woe,

The helpless shame, the unresisted blow,

Submission to our owner’s least command—

No longer pets or slaves are we, for lo!

Women are free at last in all the land.

Long was the stony road our feet have found

From that dark past to the new world we see,

Each step with heavy hindrance hemmed around,

Each door to freedom closed with bolt and key;

Our feet with old tradition all entwined,

Untrained, uneducated, uncombined,

We had to fight old faiths of long ago,

And in our households find our dearest foe,

Against the world’s whole weight we had to stand

Till came the day it could no more say no—

Women are free at last in all the land.

Around us prejudice, emotion-drowned,

Rose like a flood and would not let us free;

Women themselves, soft-bred and silken gowned,

Historic shame have won by their mad plea

To keep their own subjection; with them lined

All evil forces of the world we find,

No crime so brazen and no vice so low

But fought us, with inertia blind and slow,

And ignorance beneath its darkling brand,

these we strove and still must strive, although

Women are free at last in all the land.

The serving squaw, the peasant, toil-embrowned,

The household drudge, no honor and no fee—

For these we now see women world-renowned,

In art and science, work of all degree.

She whom world progress had left far behind

Now has the secret of full life divined,—

Her largest service gladly to bestow;

Great is the gain since ages far below,

In honored labor, of head and hand;

Now may her power and genius clearly show

Women are free at last in all the land.

Long years of effort to her praise redound,

To such high courage all may bend the knee,

Beside her brother, with full freedom crowned,

Mother and wife and citizen is she,

Queen of her soul and body, heart and mind,

Strong for the noble service God designed;

See now the marching millions, row on row,

With steady eyes and faces all aglow,

They come! they come! a glad triumphant band,—

Roses and laurels in their pathway strow—

Women are free at last in all the land!

ENVOI

Sisters! we now must change the world we know

To one great garden where the child may grow.

New freedom means new duty, broad and grand.

To make a better world and hold it so

Women are free at last in all the land.

CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN,

_The Suffragist_, September, 1920.

THE Suffrage Amendment had now passed both the House of Representatives

and the Senate. One step was necessary before it became a part of the

Constitution of the United States—ratification by the legislatures of

three-quarters of the States in the Union—by thirty-six States out of

forty-eight. No time limit was set by Congress on ratification, but

naturally Suffragists wanted it to come as soon as possible. Some people

believed it would take twenty years. They did not reckon with Alice Paul

however.

As soon as Congress passed the Suffrage Amendment, the whole

situation—as far as Suffrage was concerned—changed. Now the President,

the leaders in the Administration, the leaders in the great political

Parties became potential allies.

In four States—Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts—the

Legislatures were in regular session. In three States—Texas, Ohio,

Michigan—called on matters not pertaining to Suffrage, the Legislatures

were in special session. The first undertaking of the Woman’s Party was

to get the convening Legislatures to ratify and the remaining States to

call special sessions.

A race as to who should be the first to ratify, set in between

Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois. All three ratified on June 10. But

Illinois had to re-ratify later on June 17 because of an error in

printing the Amendment on its first ratification on June 10. As between

the other two, Wisconsin won.

The story of Wisconsin’s part in the race is interesting and humorous.

D. G. James, the father of Ada James, former Chairman of the Wisconsin

Branch of the Woman’s Party, was spending the day in Madison when the

Legislature ratified. His daughter was, of course, exceedingly desirous

that Wisconsin should achieve the honor of the first ratification, and

he was equally desirous of aiding her. He assisted her in every way to

avoid official delays and in getting the action of the Legislature

properly certified. He commandeered his daughter’s traveling bag, made a

few swift purchases of the necessities of traveling, and caught the

first train to Washington. He procured a signed statement that

Wisconsin’s ratification was the first to be received from the

Department of State, on June 13. He brought his trophy in triumph to

Headquarters and told his story to the newspaper men while the statement

was being photographed.

That statement runs as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WASHINGTON.

June 13, 1919.

By direction of the Acting Secretary of State, I hereby acknowledge

the receipt of a certified copy of the Joint Resolution of the

Legislature of the State of Wisconsin, ratifying the proposed

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the

right of Suffrage to women, which was delivered by Special

Messenger, D. G. James, on June 13, 1919, and is the first

ratification of the Amendment which has been received.

J. A. TOWNER,

Chief of Bureau.

Michigan, almost neck and neck in the race with Wisconsin, ratified on

June 10. Kansas, Ohio, and New York ratified on June 16. Kansas was the

first State to call its Legislature in special session to ratify the

Suffrage Amendment, the first also in which the legislators paid their

own expenses to attend the special session. Illinois, held up by that

mistake in printing, ratified on June 17.

Pennsylvania, the first non-Suffrage State, ratified on June 24, but not

without a struggle. The session of the Legislature was drawing to a

close and it was difficult to get the measure introduced. The National

Woman’s Party made a strenuous campaign. Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Chairman

of the Pennsylvania Ratification Committee, enlisted the aid of Governor

Sproul and in a conference with Senator Penrose, who had been one of the

strongest opponents to the Suffrage Amendment in the United States

Senate, persuaded him to give his support to ratification. Mary Ingham,

the State Chairman, brought all the Woman’s Party forces in the State to

bear upon the situation. The scene in the Senate when the vote was taken

was highly colorful. The floor was a waving mass of purple, white, and

gold. The tri-color badges of the National Woman’s Party appeared

everywhere on the floor and among the audience. There was such demand

for the Woman’s Party colors that at the last moment the stock had to be

replenished. After the final victory in the House, a parade of purple,

white, and gold blazed its way through Harrisburg.

Massachusetts followed close on Pennsylvania, ratifying on June 25.

Agnes Morey, the State Chairman of the National Woman’s Party, assisted

by members of the State branch, and by Betty Gram, national organizer,

made the intensive drive on the Legislature, which resulted in their

bringing the Bay State into camp. Here, Senator Lodge, another hitherto

unchangeable opponent to the Suffrage Amendment in the United States

Senate, did not oppose the measure when it came up before the

Massachusetts Legislature, although he did not give the support which

Penrose of Pennsylvania gave.

Texas, the first Democratic “one-party” State to do so, ratified by

special session on June 28. Iowa, after an appeal for a special session

from Senator Cummins to Governor Harding—this was done at the instance

of the Woman’s Party—ratified on July 2; Missouri ratified by special

session on July 3.

In the meantime the Legislature of Alabama, which only convenes once in

four years, met and although Suffragists had not wanted this session and

had very little hope of success, they conducted a campaign for

ratification. As it was the first Democratic State in which there was

difficulty, an appeal was made to the President. He despatched the

following telegrams:

WHITE HOUSE,

July 12, 1919.

Hon. Thomas E. Kilby, Governor,

Montgomery, Alabama.

I hope you will pardon me if I express my very earnest hope that the

Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States may be

ratified by the great State of Alabama.

It would constitute a very happy augury for the future and add

greatly to the strength of the movement which, in my judgment, is

based upon the highest considerations, both of justice and

experience.

WOODROW WILSON.

WHITE HOUSE

July 14, 1919.

Hon. H. P. Merritt,

Speaker of House of Representatives,

Montgomery, Alabama.

I hope that you will not think that I am taking an unwarranted

liberty in saying that I earnestly hope, as do all friends of the

great liberal movement which it represents, that the legislature of

Alabama will ratify the Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States. It would give added hope and courage to the

friends of justice and enlightened policy everywhere and would

constitute the best possible augury for future liberal policy of

every sort.

WOODROW WILSON.

Alabama was the first State in which ratification was defeated.

By this time, the Legislature in Georgia was convening. Suffragists had

no more hope of ratification here than in Alabama. Nevertheless the

campaign was made. They appealed to the national Democratic leaders for

help and the President despatched the following telegram:

WHITE HOUSE,

July 14, 1919.

Governor Hugh M. Dorsey,

State Capitol,

Atlanta, Georgia.

I am profoundly interested in the passage of the Suffrage Amendment

to the Constitution, and will very much value your advice as to the

present status of the matter in the Georgia legislature. I would

like very much to be of help, for I believe it to be absolutely

essential to the political future of the country that the Amendment

be passed. It is absolutely essential to the future of the

Democratic Party that it take a leading part in this great reform.

WOODROW WILSON.

Georgia defeated ratification July 24, although the national Democratic

leaders had aided in the entire campaign.

Arkansas ratified on July 20; Montana, July 20; Nebraska on August 2,

all by special session.

Then came a lull in the ratification race. By August, only two States

west of the Mississippi, had ratified and to the great surprise—and the

intense disappointment—of Suffragists, the West continued to maintain

this lethargy.

In the meantime, there came a special session for good roads in

Virginia, another Democratic State. Since the session was meeting, the

Suffragists had no alternative but to make the fight. In Virginia, they

relied again on the Democratic national leaders to overcome the

opposition of the local Democratic leaders. As in the case of Alabama

and Georgia, although the national leaders did much, they did not do

enough. The President, however, despatched the following letter:

August 22, 1919.

President of the Senate,

Richmond, Virginia.

May I not take the liberty of expressing my profound interest in the

action which the Legislature of my native State is to take in the

matter of the Suffrage Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It seems to me of profound importance to our country that this

Amendment should be adopted and I venture to urge the adoption on

the Legislature. With utmost respect and with the greatest

earnestness,

WOODROW WILSON.

Virginia did not ratify.

During all this period campaigns for special sessions continued. Typical

of these is the following account by Julia Emory, national organizer, in

the July _Suffragist_:

“Good-by, good luck, and don’t come back until Maryland ratifies!”

This from the group of National Headquarters when I waved farewell

and started over the hills and far away toward a special session in

Maryland. Over the hills to Baltimore, and then early the next

morning, very, very early, the big bay boat splashed down the

Chesapeake to Cambridge where Governor Harrington was spending the

week-end.

“It’s good of you to come,” the Governor greeted me. “Not good of

me, but necessary, Governor, to let you know how much women need a

special session in Maryland, now. Not just the 15,000 Maryland women

of our organization who have asked me to come to you, but all the

women in the United States.” “Ah!” said he. “You ladies are too

impatient. We will have a regular session in January, why can’t you

wait till then?” “Because,” I answered, “there is no need of

prolonging the struggle. We have the necessary thirty-six States in

view. We want the special session so that we can vote for the next

Governor of Maryland at the election this November, and for members

of our legislature at the same election.” “But the question of

expense,” he suggested. “That is easily eliminated,” I said. “Take

Kansas, for example, where the legislators waived all pay and

mileage in order to push forward ratification. Surely our Maryland

men will do the same. And, anyhow, two days at the outside would see

the thing through. Think of the taxes women have paid for so many

years. Think of the war for Democracy, think of the part women gave

in human sacrifice, service and money, and then tell me if anybody

would say that a special session called for the purpose of giving

them a voice in their government would take too much out of the

State treasury.” “That’s true,” said the Governor, “but special

sessions are unpopular, and suppose the resolution should fail——”

“Oh!” I said with a beaming smile of relief, “if what you want is a

convincing poll, I’ll give you that,” thinking of the poll which,

though still not yet completed, already showed a majority pledged in

both Houses. “Next Tuesday,” said he. “Now,” said I. It was then

Friday. But the Governor said Tuesday, and told me that in the

meantime he was going to “feel around” for sentiment. And so did I.

First I went to a State Senator. “Why the special session?” he

wanted to know. And when he found the thirty-six States were in

view, he sat up. “The thing is upon us,” he said. We went over the

situation from the political point of view from beginning to end. He

was a Democrat. “And,” said he in a low voice, “if I had to bet on

the fall elections, I’d—well, all I have to say is, if the Democrats

want to get any credit, it’ll have to be by special session.”

“Will you say that to the Governor?” I asked.

“I will, tonight,” he said, “and as for the question of expense, I

for one, will waive my pay.” Just then the train whistled. “You

can’t make it,” said the Senator. “We are some distance from the

station.” “I must,” I said. “I have to see another man.”

The Senator laughed and called to a man in an automobile and away I

whisked and the conductor helped me to hop on the train as it moved

off.

The man at the other end was in Chicago. And the next train was due

in six hours. Then on to a little town where I sat on a pile of

baggage and waited until the Republican delegate arrived. “I hope,”

he said, “that the Republicans will take the initiative and ask for

a special session. Yes, you bet, I’ll waive my pay.”

Then a Democrat, who said he would fight a special session to a

finish. “Knowing what it will mean to your Party if you do?” I

asked. We went into it from the political viewpoint. Then he saw the

end in sight. We carefully went over the thirty-six States. He

rubbed his head and looked at the opposite wall (or it may have been

the State of Maryland he was gazing at so intently). “You know,” he

said finally, “I am an anti-Suffragist at heart, but at the same

time I am no fool. The thing is here, and the point is, what is the

best thing to do about it. I will not urge a special session, but I

will not fight it.”

Then on Tuesday, Mrs. Donald Hooker, our Maryland Chairman, went

over the poll with the Governor. Man by man, they considered the

delegates and senators. Yes, this one was sure, that one was

practically sure but wasn’t pledged and so we wouldn’t count him

yet, another was hopeful, another was hopeless, and the then

uncompleted poll stood fifty-nine to thirty-eight in the House and

thirteen to eleven in the Senate. We looked expectantly at the

Governor. “I need more time to consider,” was what he said.

“In the meantime,” said Mrs. Hooker to me as we went out, “we will

complete the poll as fast as possible. A big majority will surely

convince him that it must go through.”

So off to Southern Maryland and the counties around Washington. One

legislator I found in Washington in a big, cool office, dressed in a

Palm Beach suit and on the point of departing for a vacation. I

looked at him and thought of canoes and bathing suits which had been

shoved aside for me till after the special session. “I hope you will

have a good time,” I told him. “Mine will come after you have voted

‘yes.’” He smiled happily and his reply made me smile happily too.

One man was in his wheat field. ‘Way into the country we went by

automobile where no trains ran and no electric cars penetrated. We

reached the town and inquired at the hardware store for our

legislator: “Mr. F——? Oh, he don’t live here, he just has his mail

sent here, he lives ’bout fo’teen mile round yonder.” “Fo’teen mile

round yonder,” we finally found his home. “Well, you see it’s this

way,” explained his wife. “He might’ve been home, but Mr. So-and-So

is thrashing wheat and my husband went over to help him get it in

before the storm.” We noticed clouds in the sky. We went on to the

So-and-Sos’ farm. At the farmhouse, we all alighted. My companions

immediately made for the chicken yard where they made friends with

Mrs. So-and-So and helped her to feed the chickens. Afterward, they

told us of the strong Suffrage speech the farmer’s wife had made to

them, who being the mother of eight children—six girls and two

boys—had come to the conclusion that nobody needed Suffrage more

than the farmer’s wife. Two of the little girls took me out to the

field, up a dusty white road we walked, climbed rail fences and—oh!

how good! picked a few blackberries—and came at last to the

thrashing field. “No,” said my man, “I can’t see that Suffrage is

right, and I can’t therefore vote for it.” “Did you think the war

was right?” I asked. “Oh! of course.” “And why did we go to war?” I

asked. “To get democracy,” he answered. “Exactly,” I said. “And

President Wilson said that democracy was ‘the right of all those who

submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.’” “Now

look here, Missie,” said my friend, “I believe women are superior

beings to men, and if they were to vote, they’d have to be equals.

Now look at this hay stack. You could no more pitch hay than——”

“Will you lend me your fork?” I asked. I stuck in the form, gave it

the peculiar little twist, then the little flop, squared my shoulder

and up it went on the wagon. Three times. “Well, I’ll be jiggered,”

laughed the legislator, “labor is scarce and now I’ll know where to

look for help when I need it!” “Yes,” said I. “And we have come to

you for help. We need your vote.”

On to the next, we climbed into the machine and sped away.

And so it runs. Sometimes, we strike an obstinate anti who will not

even listen to what we have to say, even though I have traveled

weary miles in trains and on foot to find him. Sometimes we have to

put up at a funny little village hotel because an inconsiderate

legislator has gone out of town for a day. Sometimes they are

cordial, and offer all sorts of help. Sometimes the road lies

through beautiful country, occasionally in hot, stuffy little towns.

At fastest, it is slow work. Why do legislators live so far apart

and in such inaccessible places? And generally so very far from

anything to eat! Some evenings as it begins to grow dark, I am

keenly aware that I have had nothing to eat since breakfast. But

that is part of the game, and after all what does it matter when I

can write to Headquarters before I fall into bed, “We can add the

following names of legislators to the list of pledged, and all of

them have offered to waive their pay.” So far only one has refused

to waive pay.

So, with a big majority in both houses pledged to vote for the

measure, there remains nothing but the calling of the special

session. This, it is up to Governor Harrington to do at once.

And this, according to the following answer to Attorney General

Palmer’s letter, he still refuses to do. Yet the Governor must

surely yet see the light, as he knows that there IS no question of

defeat if a special session is called to ratify.

The poll which has been so carefully and accurately drawn up

demonstrates that fact most convincingly, and we are going to keep

right on working until Governor Harrington sees it that way!

Maryland defeated ratification later.

Owing to the fact that most of the governors who must call special

sessions were Republicans, the National Woman’s Party made a drive on

the national Republican leaders to get them to act upon these governors.

On August 14, Abby Scott Baker went to the Governors’ Conference at Salt

Lake City where, assisted by Louise Garnett, State Chairman of the

Woman’s Party in Utah, she succeeded in getting governors whose

Legislatures had already ratified to organize an informal committee to

work upon those whose Legislatures had not ratified. Some of these

governors of these backward States—or rather some of the backward

governors of these States—made tentative promises in regard to special

sessions, but these promises were so vague that Mrs. Baker started, at

the close of the Governors’ Conference, to California. We shall hear

about her work there later.

Minnesota ratified on September 8; New Hampshire on September 10, both

in special session. Utah—but there is a story about Utah.

Utah was backward. Alice Paul interested Isaac Russell, a newspaper man,

and a native of Utah, in the situation. He prevailed upon Senator Smoot,

Republican, to write a letter to Alice Paul saying that he was

disappointed that Governor Bamberger, Democrat, was not calling a

special session. Alice Paul gave this letter to the Press, and of

course, the Republican papers of Utah carried it. Alice Paul waited a

while and then she sent Anita Pollitzer to see the Democratic

Congressmen from Utah, and to put it clearly to them that the

responsibility for the delay was on their Party. As a result of Miss

Pollitzer’s representations, Congressman Welling, a Democrat and a

friend of Governor Bamberger, wrote a strong telegram to him in which he

urged him to set the date of a special session at once. Early the next

morning, Congressman Welling telephoned Headquarters that the telegram

had brought results and read a message from Governor Bamberger

announcing the date on which he would call that special session. Utah

ratified on September 30.

In the meantime, we must go back to Abby Scott Baker, whom we left on

her way to California. She found that an enormous amount of work had

been done by Genevieve Allen, the State Chairman for California, and by

the members of her organization, assisted by Vivian Pierce, a national

organizer. Governor Stevens, however, seemed immovable on the subject of

a special session. But with additional assistance from Mrs. William

Kent, one of its national officers, the Woman’s Party inaugurated a

vigorous newspaper campaign. Governor Stevens found himself inundated by

an avalanche of telegrams, letters, petitions, resolutions; and finally

of entreaties of the men who surrounded him. Governor Stevens is a

Republican, and the Democratic women began to organize for ratification.

Senator Phelan, Democrat, gave them his assistance. National leaders of

both Parties brought pressure to bear. It was impossible to resist this

current. Governor Stevens issued a call for a special session for

November 1, and on that date California ratified.

The Woman’s Party refers to Maine as the first close call. This story is

very interesting. Maine called a special session, but Maine was, so to

speak, on the fence in regard to Suffrage, as, when the National Woman’s

Party approached the State on the subject of ratification, a referendum

on Presidential Suffrage was pending. So important was the situation

there that Alice Paul joined Mrs. Lawrence Lewis and Mrs. Robert Treat

Whitehouse, the State Chairman, who were working hard. In Maine, too,

the antis were troublesome. They managed to introduce a resolution in

the Legislature proposing postponement on the subject of ratification

until after the referendum. The President and Secretary of the State

Federation of Labor sent an official appeal to the Legislature to vote

for this resolution. Immediately the Woman’s Party in Washington

obtained a letter from Secretary Morrison of the American Federation of

Labor to the Maine Federation, stating that the A. F. of L. stood

strongly for ratification. Mrs. Whitehouse gave this letter to the

newspapers; gave copies to every member of the Legislature. She

conferred with the President of the State Federation, persuaded him to

repudiate his former letter and to issue an appeal for the support of

ratification. National leaders of both the Democratic and Republican

Parties sent telegrams to legislators. Maine ratified on November 5—by a

narrow margin of four votes.

After a long siege by the Woman’s Party on the Governor, North Dakota

ratified in special session on December 1.

In the case of South Dakota, Governor Norbeck agreed to call a special

session of the Legislature if the majority of the members would serve

without mileage. Late in November, Alice Paul received a telegram from

Governor Norbeck saying that the session would not be called as he was

sixteen answers short of a majority who were willing to serve without

expense to the State. Alice Paul immediately sent Anita Pollitzer to the

Capitol to see Senator Sterling of South Dakota. Miss Pollitzer showed

him Governor Norbeck’s telegram to Miss Paul and told him that the

Suffragists would be greatly disappointed if the Republican Legislature

of South Dakota refused to meet, and a Republican Governor refuse to

call a special session. He agreed that was a political mistake and in

Miss Pollitzer’s presence, sent telegrams to his law partner, the chief

politician of the State, telling him to do everything possible to have a

special session called; to the Chairman of the Republican State

Committee, asking him to telegraph each member of the Legislature,

urging him to answer the Governor’s appeal and to agree to come to the

special session as the Governor had stipulated, at his own expense.

Examining this situation superficially—or even closely—one would think

that Miss Pollitzer had done everything that was possible. But there is

no reckoning with Alice Paul. When Miss Pollitzer returned to

Headquarters, Miss Paul said simply, “We can do more.”

That afternoon Miss Pollitzer visited Mr. McCarl, the Secretary of the

Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, who sent telegrams to

all the Republican leaders in the State, urging that they make clear to

the Republican Governor and to the members of the Legislature the

importance to the Republican Party of a good record on ratification.

Three days later, a telegram came to Washington announcing that a

majority, willing to serve at their own expense, had been secured. South

Dakota ratified on December 4.

Colorado, the last State to ratify in 1919, did so on December 12—but

only after a long campaign, the result of local conditions.

January of 1920, in which five States came into the fold, was a highly

successful month for the ratification record. Rhode Island and Kentucky

ratified in regular session on January 6. Oregon, whose Governor broke

his promises many times, finally ratified in regular session on January

12. The State Chairman, Mrs. W. J. Hawkins, campaigned vigorously here,

assisted by her State organization and Vivian Pierce, national

organizer. Much equally vigorous work in Washington supplemented her.

Indiana ratified January 16 in special session.

Wyoming was the last of the five January States. For months, Governor

Carey had refused to call a special session. He had been peculiarly

obstinate at the Governors’ Conference at Salt Lake City on August 14,

where he had stated that he would not call a special session even if it

were needed as the very last State. Wyoming, it should be remembered,

was the pioneer Suffrage State. Representatives of the Woman’s Party

went at once to Wyoming. Mrs. Richard Wainwright, who was staying in the

West, made it her special work to bring pressure on the Governor. Alice

Paul sent Anita Pollitzer to the Capitol to talk with the Congressman

and Senators from Wyoming. They said that circumstances had arisen which

made it impossible for them to try to force the Governor. On the trolley

car Miss Pollitzer met Frank Barrow, Secretary to Congressman Mondell,

and asked him for help. He agreed to give it. Mr. Barrow had edited the

_Cheyenne Tribune_, the leading Republican paper of the State, when

Anita Pollitzer campaigned in Wyoming the year before. He began urging

that a special session be called and charged the Governor with hurting

the Republican record on Suffrage. Immediately a statement appeared in

the Press from the Governor, saying that he would call a special

session, but not at the expense of the State; that the men must come

without pay or mileage. Wyoming is a huge State, and this was in

January, a month of terrific snow storms. Unless extra political

pressure was applied, the legislators might not come from far-away

ranches at their own expense. In the meantime, whenever politicians from

Wyoming arrived in Washington, members of the Woman’s Party saw them at

once. Party members learned that a close political advisor of Governor

Carey was going to spend one night in Washington. They called on him at

his hotel and told him that the responsibility of all this delay lay

squarely on the Republicans and on Governor Carey. He was highly

indignant at the attitude of the Woman’s Party and their Press campaign.

Nevertheless, he said that the Governor was going to call a special

session at once.

It was necessary to bring extra political pressure to bear, so long as

Governor Carey’s request for a special session put it up to the members

of the Legislature, themselves, whether they would attend that session.

Anita Pollitzer went to the Capitol and got the political line-up from

the political leaders. They divided the State into districts for her and

told her who were the political bellwethers of each district. With this

information, Miss Pollitzer went to Dr. Simeon Fess, Chairman of the

National Republican Congressional Committee. Dr. Fess sent strong

telegrams to every one of the Republican State leaders asking them to

round up the legislators of their district, to see that they agreed to

go to the special session at their own expense; asked them for a reply;

told them he would wire again if a reply was not received.

On January 27, both Houses of the Wyoming Legislature ratified

unanimously.

The Governor of Nevada, a Democrat, had refused to call a special

session for many months because he was afraid that other measures

besides Suffrage would be brought up; but after a long pressure brought

upon him by the national Democratic leaders, he was induced to call the

session. Nevada ratified February 7.

The next State in the ratification line was New Jersey, and New Jersey

gave the Woman’s Party a terrific fight. Mrs. J. A. H. Hopkins, State

Chairman, realized that with both the Republican and Democratic bosses

opposed to Suffrage, New Jersey would never ratify unless the Woman’s

Party made it a matter of the greatest political importance to the

majority Party—the Republican Party. She engineered the fight, assisted

by Betty Gram and Catherine Flanagan.

In Washington, Alice Paul sent Anita Pollitzer to Frank Barrow,

Secretary to Congressman Mondell, who had assisted the Woman’s Party so

signally in the Wyoming campaign, and asked him to go to New Jersey.

“But I could speak with no authority,” he said, “and Mr. Mondell will

need me here.” Anita Pollitzer told him that the Woman’s Party would

attend to all those matters. She then went again to Dr. Fess, Chairman

of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and told him that

they were likely to lose New Jersey unless somebody was immediately sent

from the Congressional Committee to assist. At once, Dr. Fess wrote a

letter to Mr. Barrow authorizing him to go to New Jersey in behalf of

the National Republican Congressional Committee. Miss Pollitzer next

went to Senator Poindexter, Chairman of the National Republican

Senatorial Committee, and told him that the Woman’s Party wanted Mr.

Barrow to go to New Jersey; that Dr. Fess had asked him to urge

ratification on behalf of the Republican Congressional Committee and

that the Woman’s Party wished him in addition to urge on behalf of the

Republican Senatorial Committee. Senator Poindexter, thereupon, wrote a

letter to Mr. Barrow authorizing him to go to New Jersey in behalf of

the ratification of the Suffrage Amendment.

Last of all, Miss Pollitzer went to Congressman Mondell and broke the

news to him that the Woman’s Party would like to commandeer his

Secretary to go to New Jersey for as long a time as necessary, to work

among Republicans for the ratification of Suffrage. Following an

entirely natural impulse, Mr. Mondell said, “I am vitally interested in

Suffrage, but I must say I need my own secretary in Washington!” Miss

Pollitzer of course represented to him how much it meant to the National

Woman’s Party to have Mr. Barrow go—that it would take at the most only

a week out of his work; and that it might mean several years out of the

lives of the women, if the Republicans allowed New Jersey to fail in

ratification. She added that the responsibility was on him and got up to

leave. Mr. Mondell said, “Tell Mr. Barrow to be in his office in ten

minutes, as I shall want to see him there.” Fifteen minutes later, Miss

Pollitzer called on Mr. Barrow, who told her that Mr. Mondell had asked

him to go to New Jersey. In a letter to Miss Paul, Mr. Barrow listed the

obstacles which he found in the way in the big New Jersey battle:

1. The last Republican State platform on which members of the

legislature were elected, declared for a referendum.

2. The Republican State Chairman was an open and avowed

anti-Suffragist.

3. The biggest Republican boss in N. J. was actively hostile to the

Suffrage movement.

4. The biggest Democratic boss of N. J. was actively hostile to the

Suffrage movement.

5. The tremendous political influence exerted through the liquor

interests was actively and openly working against them.

New Jersey ratified on February 10.

In regard to the New Jersey campaign, Betty Gram has a vivacious article

in the _Suffragist_ on March, 1920.

She says:

Miracles happen sometimes—but the ratification of the Suffrage

Amendment on February 10th by the New Jersey Legislature was not the

result of a miracle.

Every organizer of the Woman’s Party who had worked in the State

whispered in my ear, “Don’t try New Jersey—it will never ratify.” It

was therefore with reluctance that at the bidding of Miss Paul and

Mrs. J. A. H. Hopkins, New Jersey State Chairman, I invaded the

territory of the enemy and went to Trenton, where on September 30th

both the Republican and Democratic State platform committees were

sitting.

Despite all our efforts the Republicans that day in open convention

under the leadership of Republican State Chairman Edward Caspar

Stokes, declared in favor of a referendum, though each individual

who had given a pledge to his constituents to support the Suffrage

Amendment was left free to do so.

In significant contrast to this, the Democrats, holding convention

just across the street, declared for immediate ratification. This

was done upon the persistent demand of the Democratic candidate for

governor, Edward I. Edwards, at the probable cost of the support of

the most influential Democratic boss in the State, James R. Nugent,

who in open convention fought the issue bitterly and pledged his

twelve Essex County Assembly candidates against immediate

ratification. They ran on that issue.

We watched the election returns on November 4th with acute anxiety.

It was a critical point, for we had much to gain and everything to

lose. The decision brought joy in one respect. Edwards, a Suffrage

governor, was victorious, but alas! the result showed that the

Republicans, who had adopted the referendum plank in their platform,

had carried the Legislature. They had a majority in the Senate of

fifteen to six and in the Assembly of thirty-three to

twenty-seven—and among the twenty-seven Democratic members were the

twelve Nugent men from Essex.

We had only a fighting chance at best—but we set about the task

resolutely. As usual, the first duty was to obtain an authentic

report of the position of each newly elected man. We had secured

pre-primary pledges from the fifteen Edwards Democrats, as well as a

few from some staunch Suffragists on the Republican side, but only a

very few, for not only was their State Chairman opposed, but the

Republican boss of South Jersey—former Senator Davis Baird, whom we

knew would fight us to the end—through his tremendous influence.

In a few days our poll was completed. The Senate showed a bare but

safe majority of one, for there we needed eleven votes. In the House

our poll was much less encouraging. We needed thirty-one votes out

of sixty—and we could count only twenty-five positive yeas. Where

and how to get the six more supporters out of a Republican

opposition was the bewildering—almost stupefying question. Political

pressure—both national and local—was the one way out. The time had

passed for meetings at which to arouse sentiment of

constituents—only pressure of the most intimate nature would move a

vote to our side.

We first set about to choose our leaders in the respective houses.

We wanted wide-awake, active militants—parliamentarians who would

not demand the assurance of the usual excess number of votes before

moving; men who would take up the fight eagerly, revel in the chance

of victory, and with odds against them enter enthusiastically into a

neck to neck race.

At a dinner given by the National Woman’s Party at Newark on

December 10th we accomplished our purpose—Senator Wm. B. MacKay,

Republican, made an impassioned speech, publicly accepting the

responsibility of leading our forces in the upper House. At this

same dinner the newly chosen speaker-elect of the Assembly, W.

Irving Glover, Republican, pledged his unequivocal support and

straightforwardly stated that he would do all in his power to bring

New Jersey into the line of ratified States. The happiest moment of

the evening arrived when Republican majority leader of the House,

Harry Hershfield, made known his position on the Suffrage issue and

expressed his desire that New Jersey ratify. Great applause greeted

his words that the backbone of opposition had been broken and that

he anticipated victory and would exert every influence to that end.

The day after the dinner, Mr. Hershfield permitted to be given out

from our Headquarters a statement declaring that he would lead the

fight in the House.

The next day I went to Washington. The interest of the two United

States Senators from New Jersey as well as the Congressmen had to be

recruited. Soon letters and telegrams were pouring into the State

from Washington. The resolution passed unanimously by the Republican

National Committee in Washington on December 10th did much to

strengthen our position and before long the importance of the issue

from a national standpoint began to dawn on the vision of some New

Jersey Republicans.

The situation took on a more hopeful aspect—a few finishing touches

only were needed—but just whose magic touch to summon was the

problem.

We were at a standstill. Two votes were still needed to reach the

required thirty-one. Then something happened.

Inauguration day came and with it the tactical error of the

opposition which acted as a boomerang and assured the House majority

leader his position as head of his party. It gave into our hands the

strategic parliamentary advantage—which we had coveted and desired

for so long. An unexpected resolution calling for a referendum on

all constitutional amendments, including pending ones, wedged in

among routine measures, was surreptitiously introduced on

Inauguration Day by Assemblyman Coles of Camden and by a viva voce

vote passed before more than fifteen members knew what had happened.

Twelve Nugent men from Essex and three Baird men from Camden were

responsible for the railroading through of this resolution. This act

of course was a planned and deliberately malicious thrust at

Suffrage.

The House adjourned and the anti-Suffragists believe they had scored

a point. The reckoning came later. Editorials appeared in papers all

over the State denouncing such methods. On the following Monday the

House reconsidered the Coles’ resolution with a vote of forty-four

to thirteen—and we proceeded with our fight. The ratification

resolution was introduced immediately after and sent to the Federal

Relations Committee, which was favorable to our measure—four to one.

The referendum resolution had gone to the same committee.

Then the problem came of getting our resolution reported out first.

We did not have a sufficient number of votes to hazard the chance of

having the referendum resolution considered before ours, though some

of our supporters preferred this procedure. A conference of leaders

was called, to which I summoned Miss Paul, for the political leaders

had had little comparative experience in handling constitutional

amendments, while she had sponsored ratification in two dozen

States.

A hearing before the committee was held on February 2nd. Our State

Chairman, Mrs. Hopkins, and United States Senator Selden Spencer of

Missouri, who came from Washington, made splendid appeals for

Suffrage. That evening our resolution passed the Senate eighteen to

two as a result of the Republicans having caucused in its support,

after an appeal had been made to them to do so by Senator Spencer.

There was no dissenting Democratic vote in the upper House. That

same evening the House rejected the minority report of the Committee

and accepted the favorable majority report on our measure. It was

voted to a second reading and made the first order of business for

Monday evening, February 9th.

That same week influenza seized various members of the Legislature

and four of our most ardent supporters were ill. Their absence meant

defeat. Every day we anxiously inquired after their welfare. For a

time it seemed we would never have our thirty-one yeas together.

The day before the vote the National Republican Senatorial and

Congressional committees sent a representative, Mr. Frank Barrow,

from Washington to our aid. He worked with the doubtful Republican

members.

At last the long looked-for moment arrived. At eight o’clock on

Monday evening the Legislature which was either to reject or accept

the ratification resolution convened.

The fight began with opposing men as aggressors and soon one

resolution after another was being rushed to the speaker’s desk as a

subterfuge of delay. Roll calls were asked on each and every

occasion, and as we strained our ears for the yeas and nays we

received each time a shock at the transference of a vote. A roll

call to postpone lacked only one of the necessary thirty-one votes.

Debate lasted until one o’clock Tuesday morning—five hours of

continuous fiery combat—and then a motion to move the previous

question fell like a pall on the troubled assembly. With trembling,

tired hands we turned to our last spotless roll call and began to

mark the records of men on the sands of time. Clear and decisive

came the yeas—inaudible and slow came the nays, and after them all

the called, “Joint resolution number one adopted—thirty-four to

twenty-four.”

Silence followed for long seconds and then the wild, almost hysteric

cheers of women reverberated through the halls. Never had there been

such a demonstration of joy in the New Jersey Capitol and out of the

galleries poured countless smiling women—bearing banners of victory,

to take their places among the liberated peoples.

Idaho, which ratified on February 11; Arizona on February 12; New Mexico

on February 19; Oklahoma on February 27 did so only after a struggle,

but their cases were special only in detail.

In the meantime, there had been two January defeats, Mississippi and

South Carolina; two February defeats, Virginia for the second time, and

Maryland.

West Virginia, which came into the fold on March 10, presents to

ratification another dramatic story. I quote an article by Mary Dubrow,

in the April _Suffragist_.

They are all true—the old adages about pride and falls, boasters who

forget to rap on wood, chickens and hatchings—West Virginia proved

it.

Last August the card catalogue files carefully compiled by Maud

Younger, Legislative Chairman of the Woman’s Party, showed an

overwhelming majority for ratification in the West Virginia

legislature. To check up on this poll, a member of the Legislature

took another and discovered the same overwhelming majority. Our

National Headquarters kept in touch with the situation until the

special session was called.

The West Virginia delegation in Congress, the Democratic governor of

the State, and the Republican National Committee-man, all alike

expressed certainty of ratification.

As I left for West Virginia I confided to every one I met how happy

I was to go to a State which would probably ratify unanimously, and

every leading citizen I interviewed for the first four days

confirmed my expectation.

Then the legislators began to assemble at the Kanawha Hotel, the

political center of Charleston. I had their written pledges and I

approached them more to exchange pleasant anticipations of victory

than for any other purpose, and my fall began—a gradual inch-by-inch

fall. The first man I met said: “Well, I haven’t been here very long

and I don’t know just how I will vote. You see our great State voted

Suffrage down by a majority of——” And the second man said the same

thing, and the third repeated the remark.

Then the splendid men who were leading our fight and who were

standing staunch came to me with appalling reports of the wavering

of this one and that one. It was an opposition stampede—nothing

less.

I hurriedly told the Washington Headquarters the situation and the

National Republican Senatorial Committee was prevailed upon to send

a representative, Mr. Frank Barrow, to West Virginia to urge the

Republicans in the Legislature to remember their Party and vote for

ratification.

Our chairman in West Virginia, Mrs. William Gay Brown, a staunch

Democrat, conferred with the Democrats and made them appreciate

their responsibility. Miss Anita Pollitzer, legislative secretary of

the Woman’s Party working in Washington, convinced Senator

Sutherland that his State could not afford to defeat the Amendment.

We re-polled the House of Delegates and one hour before the vote was

taken in that body on March 4 we knew we had forty votes and the

opposition had forty-one, and that there were six members who would

tell neither friend, enemy, nor Party leader how they stood—the

silent six they were called.

In the Senate we were certain of fourteen both ways. But the

Republican leaders were sure they could get one more. Some of them

were even sure they could get three! Senator Harmer, who led the

fight in the Senate and who is one of the best parliamentarians in

the State, nevertheless was not for allowing ratification to come to

a vote.

The vote was taken—and the clerk announced it—“fourteen to

fourteen.” Senator Harmer saved the situation by changing his vote

and making reconsideration possible. The Senate adjourned. It was

the turn of the House. When the debate began speeches were tossed

from man to man like balls in a game, and never for four hours was

there a moment of silence in the House. At six o’clock the vote was

taken. Forty-six men, in the face of the action of the Senate, stood

sound—not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Suffragists,

every one of the silent six voting for us.

With the announcement of the tie in the Senate, national leaders who

had paid no attention to our repeated warnings of peril sprang into

action. Representative Fess, Chairman of the Republican

Congressional Committee, immediately wired the following telegram to

Republicans:

“Can not overestimate importance from Party standpoint of Republican

legislature West Virginia ratification and desire to maintain this

position. Any attempt substitute referendum would be grave mistake.

Can we count on your active and immediate aid?”

Senator Poindexter, Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee,

told of the situation by leaders in Washington, sent the following

message:

“Republican Senatorial Committee is deeply concerned over result of

Suffrage vote in your Senate. We count on West Virginia’s

ratification. Republican Party has pioneered every fight for

Suffrage and every State where Republicans had control of the

Legislature has ratified. Party will be greatly embarrassed if West

Virginia breaks that most gratifying record through failure to

co-operate with us in this critical time.”

Senator Capper and Senator Kendrick likewise sent messages urging

the Republicans to reconsider this fatal step.

Senator Owen, Senator Walsh, and Attorney General Palmer, Secretary

Daniels and Secretary Baker all used every effort to make it a

Democratic victory.

As a climax to all this, the President himself, realizing that one

Democratic vote could save the situation, sent every opposed

Democratic member of the Senate a telegram urging him to cast the

deciding vote. If we could not obtain one vote from this pressure,

there was only one chance left to us.

Senator Bloch, who was wintering in California, had asked to be

paired for Suffrage. The opposition refused to consider his request

and no pressure could obtain from the opposed Senators this ordinary

Senatorial courtesy. A long-distance call was put in for Senator

Bloch in San Francisco. That night he started east.

Now came the test of all our resources and of the loyalty of our

friends, and I do not believe that any stauncher loyalty has been

displayed by any group of men in the whole ratification campaign

than by the fourteen Suffrage senators of the West Virginia

Legislature.

For five days these fourteen men had to wait in Charleston while the

fifteenth vote crossed the continent. Every day they held

conferences and buoyed one another up, while Betty Gram, who had

been sent from Washington to help in the campaign, and I hovered

round about trying, with radiant cheerfulness, to instill into every

one the feeling: “Senator Block is on his way and all is well with

the world.” Telegraphic despatches constantly arrived saying Senator

Block was in New Mexico or Omaha or some other remote place that

gradually grew nearer.

Our enemies once more began their attack in the House. The

opposition tried to reconsider and were beaten; tried a referendum

and were beaten; tried to prevent consideration from being tabled

and were beaten. Nevertheless, all of the delegates of the lower

House had to be held in Charleston as well as the Senators. One man

got as far as his comfortable seat in the train, but we heard that

he had bought a ticket. I took a taxicab, Miss Gram and Mrs.

Puffenbarger, Chairman of the Woman’s Committee of West Virginia,

took another. We arrived simultaneously and that bewildered delegate

was rushed off the train and back to his less comfortable seat in

the Capitol.

At one time it looked as if we could not get enough votes to recess

from day to day until Senator Bloch arrived, and our friends

prepared for continuous session. They carried pillows in their hands

and playing-cards in their pockets, and we on the outside had our

arrangements made for relaying them sandwiches and coffee. It was

the opposition that weakened in the face of this ordeal.

Then came Monday, the day set for Mr. Bloch’s arrival and suddenly a

senator disappeared. We thought that he had been abducted. His

thirteen Suffrage colleagues rushed about searching for him. Miss

Gram and I walked the streets, even daring to peer into barber-shop

windows.

At last the mystery was solved. He had gone home and was delayed by

a blizzard.

The Senate did not convene until he reappeared at 2:50 and saved the

situation.

And then Senator Bloch arrived—one man alone in two coaches bouncing

behind an engine that broke the world record for speed. He had

chosen the special train rather than the airplane that was put at

his disposal by the Republicans, but, as he said himself, he was

traveling in the air most of the way to Charleston. As he got off

the train, pale but smiling, he was grasping his golf sticks

desperately in one hand and a thermos bottle of coffee in the other.

And at 2:40 A.M., when his private train pulled in, the town was out

to meet him.

While the senator tried to catch his breath, he gave this statement

to the press:

“The fourteen men who have so splendidly held together until my

arrival deserve all the credit for the victory which we hope to gain

tomorrow.”

Even then our victory was won as by a miracle, for while we brought

our vote from California, the anti-Suffragists were also bringing a

senator more quietly from Peoria, Ill. Senator Montgomery, who had

moved out of the State and resigned from the Senate, was persuaded

to come back and attempt to regain his seat. But one of the

opposition whom it had happened by chance Senator Montgomery had

told personally of his resignation, refused to dishonor himself by

voting to reseat even a member of his own Party under these

conditions, and the day was saved again for the women of America.

The last Western State—Washington—ratified on March 22.

Thirty-five States had now accepted the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. One

more and it would become part of the Constitution. However, that last

State, every one knew, would be hard to get. The chances looked

brightest in Delaware and the Woman’s Party concentrated all its

energies there.

Ratification was brought up twice in Delaware, the first time on April 1

and the second time on May 5. The fight was an intensive one, but it

failed. This campaign had a quality of picturesqueness given to it by

its _mise en scene_—the open square where the State House stands. Dover

Green is surrounded by charming colonial houses with a beautiful

colonial Capitol dominating them. Here, when the news came from

Philadelphia of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a crowd

burned the picture of King George—“Compelled by strong necessity, thus

we destroy even the shadow of that King who refused to reign over a free

people.” The ancient whipping-post still stands in a yard adjoining the

State House. A log cabin, which was put up fifty years ago, is still

used as a lawyer’s office. The _Suffragist_ noted the fact that a yoke

of oxen, drawing a plow in the ancient way, had been seen near Dover

when the ratification campaign was going on. This accumulation of

historic atmosphere added its subtle weight to the regret of the

Suffragists when Delaware failed them.

Against highly organized opposition, the Suffragists began work in

Delaware. Florence Bayard Hilles, State Chairman, conducted this

important fight. She had the assistance of six national organizers: Mary

Dubrow, Anita Pollitzer, Catherine Flanagan, Betty Gram, Vivian Pierce,

Elsie Hill; of Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, National Ratification Chairman; of

Mabel Vernon, National Secretary of the Woman’s Party. Ultimately Alice

Paul joined them. This able group produced a triumph of Suffrage

ratification in the Senate on May 5. The vote was eleven to six. In the

usual course of events, the ratification measure would have gone, after

the Senate passed it, to the House. The votes necessary to pass it in

the House were not forthcoming. The Legislature adjourned.

The Woman’s Party used the interval until May 17 when the Legislature

reconvened to wage a campaign against their opponents, by means of

petitions, mass-meetings, and appeals to State leaders. President de

Valera, Frank Walsh, and other champions of Irish freedom used their

influence with the four Irish members of the Lower House. The American

Federation of Labor also helped in this campaign. On June 2, when it

became evident that the Republicans in this strongly Republican

Legislature, would not ratify, President Wilson asked the Democrats to

give their aid. The President’s telegram ran:

May I not as a Democrat express my deep interest in the Suffrage

Amendment, and my judgment that it will be of the greatest service

to the Party if every Democrat in the Delaware Legislature should

vote for it.

Delaware had been the first to ratify the Constitution of the United

States but it failed to ratify this second great instrument of freedom.

* * * * *

For two months the Delaware members of the Republican Party had delayed

the ratification of the Amendment. In spite of repeated appeals to them,

the Republican national leaders refused to give the necessary support to

assure victory in that State.

On May 18, Will H. Hays, Chairman of the Republican Party, spoke at the

Hotel Willard, Washington, to women especially selected because of their

wealth—in the hope that they would answer an appeal for funds for the

support of the Republican Party. As each member of the audience took her

seat, she found on her chair a slip which read in effect, “For the use

of the Republican National Committee, I herewith enclose a check for

$1,000.”

When Mr. Hays arose from his seat, Elsie Hill, well known as a national

organizer of the Woman’s Party, arose from hers. As he started to speak,

she said, “Before you ask us to support the Republican Party, Mr. Hays,

won’t you tell us what the Republican Party is going to do about

ratification in Delaware?”

The Chairman immediately intervened. “I am sure Mr. Hays, if he has time

in the course of his remarks, will answer that.” Instantly Sue White,

one of the State chairmen, arose and demanded that the question be

answered at once. Mr. Hays apparently did not hear. He moved to the

front of the platform, opened his lips to speak. Immediately Benigna

Green Kalb, a well-known member of the Woman’s Party, arose and said,

“Mr. Hays, women will not give money for the next elections until they

know whether or not they are going to vote in them. In Delaware,

Connecticut, and Vermont the Republican Party can answer that question.”

Mr. Hays said, “I suppose I may as well take this matter up at once. My

dear ladies, if any one of you know anything whatever about practical

politics, you would know that we do not carry Legislatures around in our

pockets. Why don’t you go to Delaware and work for Suffrage?”

Instantly Anita Pollitzer was on her feet. “I have been working in

Delaware, Mr. Hays, for six months. The legislators of Delaware seem to

think that the Republican Party can do something about Suffrage in that

State. Some of the leading Republicans of the Lower House telephoned to

me last night and asked, ‘What are the national Republican leaders going

to do about this deadlock here?’”

Mr. Hays attempted explanation; apology; prophecy. “Every Republican

hopes that Delaware will ratify. Some one of the remaining States will

be intelligent enough to act between now and election time. I feel sure

women will vote in the next elections.”

Abby Scott Baker interposed, “Mr. Hays, why are you sure women will vote

in the next elections? If the Republican Party cannot persuade the

Republican Legislature of Delaware to ratify, can it persuade the

Republican governors of Connecticut and Vermont to call special

sessions, or are you depending upon the Democratic States to enfranchise

the women to whom your Party is now appealing for funds?”

Woman after woman arose and brought up the matter of Delaware. Mr. Hays’

speech was rapidly disappearing before the onslaught. He had spoken on

nothing but Suffrage. Many of the audience liked the interruptions no

better than Mr. Hays. They groaned and hissed. But the Suffragists kept

on. Edith Ainge spoke. Elsie Hill arose for a second time and a third.

Finally, definitely enraged, Mr. Hays accused her of being a Democratic

woman who had come to interrupt his meeting. Miss Hill replied, “My

father was for twenty years Republican Congressman from Connecticut and

for several years ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.”

Mr. Hays talked for nearly five minutes after this last interruption. He

slid off the subject of Delaware. He progressed as far away as Abraham

Lincoln. Lucy Branham arose to bring his mind back to Delaware. Mr. Hays

was saying, “The great Republican leaders of the past——” and his hands

were uplifted to emphasize his statement. Glancing down between them,

his gaze was attracted by Miss Branham’s movement. “Not now, young lady,

not now,” he commanded, or suggested, or perhaps begged. Miss Branham

bore up the aisle. Neither Mr. Hays’ gesture nor sentence completed

itself. “In conclusion,” he said, “I desire to state that the few women

who are about to be enfranchised could do no better——” Mr. Hays’

conclusion merged with air.

* * * * *

In the meantime, the anti-Suffragists in Ohio had brought a suit

attacking the validity of the Ohio ratification on the ground that the

State of Ohio had the initiative and referendum on all acts by the State

Legislature and therefore must have it on ratification, if it were

demanded by petition. They therefore demanded a referendum on the

ratification of Suffrage. The Woman’s Party contested this suit,

engaging the following counsel: Shippen Lewis, George Wharton Pepper,

and William Draper Lewis. It went through the Courts of Ohio to the

Supreme Court of the United States, which sustained the validity of the

Ohio ratification.

The Republican Convention began on June 8 in Chicago. Delaware—whose

Legislature and Governor were Republican—had just-defeated ratification.

There were only two other States from which it seemed possible at this

time to obtain final ratification—Vermont and Connecticut. There were,

to be sure, two other States which had not acted on the

Amendment—Florida and Tennessee. But there were clauses in their

constitutions which provided that an election must occur between the

submission of an Amendment and its ratification. The fact that both

Vermont and Connecticut were Republican put the responsibility of

finishing up ratification on the Republicans. As repeated appeals to the

National Republican leaders had failed to induce them to bring

sufficient pressure on the Republican governors of Vermont and

Connecticut, the Suffragists felt that it was necessary to make a

stronger protest than hitherto they had exerted against this Republican

inaction. They therefore decided to picket the Republican National

Convention. The first day of the Convention, Mabel Vernon led a long

white-clad line of women, carrying lettered banners and the purple,

white, and gold tri-color, from the Woman’s Party Headquarters to the

Coliseum, directly opposite, where the Convention was held. They marched

across the street and took up their brilliant tri-color stand at

intervals against its dull walls.

Mary Ingham bore a banner which said:

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS THE POWER TO ENFRANCHISE

WOMEN. WHEN WILL IT DO SO?

Doris Stevens’ banner read:

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH RESOLUTIONS.

GIVE US THE 36TH STATE.

Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer’s banner said:

THEODORE ROOSEVELT ADVOCATED WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

HAS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FORGOTTEN THE

PRINCIPLES OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT?

Mrs. M. Toscan Bennett’s banner said:

WE PROTEST AGAINST THE CONTINUED DISFRANCHISEMENT

OF WOMEN FOR WHICH THE REPUBLICAN

PARTY IS NOW RESPONSIBLE.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEFEATED RATIFICATION OF

SUFFRAGE IN DELAWARE.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS BLOCKING SUFFRAGE IN

VERMONT.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS BLOCKING SUFFRAGE IN

CONNECTICUT.

WHEN WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STOP BLOCKING

SUFFRAGE?

This banner was also carried by Catherine Flanagan and Lou Daniels.

These banners were held during the first two days of the Convention. On

the third day, each of thirty women carried a new banner:

VOTE AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS LONG

AS IT BLOCKS SUFFRAGE.

This quotation from Susan B. Anthony also appeared on the picket line:

NO SELF-RESPECTING WOMAN SHOULD WISH OR WORK FOR THE

SUCCESS OF A PARTY THAT IGNORES HER SEX.

—Susan B. Anthony in 1872 and 1894.

[Illustration: THE OLDEST AND THE YOUNGEST PICKETS. Rev. Olympia Brown

and Miss Rowena Green at the Republican Convention, Chicago, 1920.

Photo Copr. Underwood and Underwood.]

A favorite banner was:

REPUBLICANS WE ARE HERE.

WHERE IS THE 36TH STATE?

These banners were typical; many others appeared.

During the course of the Convention the Republicans inserted the

following plank in their platform:

We welcome women into full participation in the affairs of

government and the activities of the Republican Party. We earnestly

hope that Republican legislatures in States which have not yet acted

upon the Suffrage Amendment will ratify the Amendment to the end

that all of the women of the nation of voting age may participate in

the election of 1920, which is so important to the welfare of our

country.

On the last day, therefore, a group of pickets hung, from the balcony in

the Convention hall, facing the speakers platform, a banner which was

the answer to this ratification plank. It read:

WHY DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK SUFFRAGE?

WE DO NOT WANT PLANKS.

WE DEMAND THE 36TH STATE.

The effect of all this was that instant and urgent pressure to call

special sessions was brought on the Republican governors of Vermont and

Connecticut by Republican leaders.

In contrast to the treatment which the police of Washington, Boston, and

New York had accorded the pickets, the police of Chicago were friendly

and accommodating. Sometimes they even held the banners for them.

Immediately following the nomination of Senator Harding, members of the

Woman’s Party met him in Washington in an interview arranged by

Genevieve Allen. Miss Paul introduced Mrs. Albion Lang, Helena Hill

Weed, and Florence Bayard Hilles, each representing one of the three

Republican States which had not acted favorably on ratification; Mrs.

John Carey, Helen Hoy Greeley, Emma Wold and Genevieve Allen,

representing women who could vote, and Sue White, Mary Ingham, Mrs. John

Gordon Battelle, Mrs. Donald R. Hooker, representing women who could not

vote. The interview was utterly unsatisfactory—Senator Harding listened

and evaded.

On June 15, Louisiana, which met in regular session, defeated

ratification. Here, anticipating a little, it may be stated that on

August 19, North Carolina defeated ratification, also in regular

session.

In the meantime, the Woman’s Party turned its attention to Tennessee. Up

to this time, it had been considered impossible to ratify there, as

there is a clause in the Tennessee State Constitution which says that

the Tennessee Legislature cannot act on any Amendment to the Federal

Constitution unless a new Legislature is elected between the time when

the Federal Amendment shall have passed Congress and its ratification by

Tennessee. The decision in the Ohio case which was handed down at this

moment and which indicated that both Tennessee and Florida could ratify

legally, changed the whole complexion of the Suffrage fight. The Ohio

decision, it will be remembered, was that ratification was an act of a

Legislature which was not subject to a referendum to the people. The

Woman’s Party pointed out—and they had consulted many eminent lawyers on

this subject—that the clause in the Tennessee Constitution was equal to

requiring a referendum before submitting a constitutional amendment to

the Legislature. Since by the Ohio decision a referendum on such a

matter was illegal, that clause in the Tennessee constitution could not

stand in the way of ratification by the existing Legislature. Sue White,

Tennessee State Chairman, instituted an immediate campaign on Governor

Roberts, pointing this out to him and asking him to call a special

session. The Woman’s Party concentrated on getting the National

Democratic leaders to bring pressure on Governor Roberts.

In the meantime, leading Democrats had gathered in San Francisco,

preparing for their National Convention. Abby Scott Baker took charge of

the campaign to get the Democratic leaders to bring pressure on the

Governor of Tennessee. The Democratic National Committee passed a

resolution calling on the Governor to convene his session. Homer S.

Cummings, Chairman of the National Democratic Committee, called him on

long-distance telephone and asked this of him. Many others appealed to

him. On June 23, President Wilson telegraphed Governor Roberts as

follows:

It would be a real service to the Party and to the Nation if it is

possible for you to, under the peculiar provisions of your State

Constitution, having in mind the recent decision of the Supreme

Court in the Ohio case, to call a special session of the Legislature

of Tennessee to consider the Suffrage Amendment. Allow me to urge

this very earnestly.

The President also sent a letter to acting United States Attorney

General William L. Frierson, asking his opinion on the constitutionality

of ratification by a special session of the Tennessee Legislature.

Mr. Frierson’s reply closed with this sentence:

I am therefore confident that if the Tennessee Legislature is called

in session, it will have the clear power to ratify the Amendment

notwithstanding any provision of the Tennessee Constitution.

The Democratic National Convention met in San Francisco on June 28. On

the opening day of the Convention, Governor Roberts announced that he

would call the session on August 9. Among the women who represented the

Woman’s Party at the Convention were Abby Scott Baker, Betty Gram, Mrs.

Lawrence Lewis, Mrs. William Kent, Sara Bard Field, Ida Finney

Mackrille, Izetta Jewel Brown. The Democratic Party inserted a plank in

their platform endorsing the Federal Amendment and calling for

ratification.

Tennessee then became the center of the Woman’s Party campaign—a storm

center. It was a foregone conclusion that a tremendous anti-Suffrage

pressure would be brought on Tennessee, the last State necessary to

ratification, as it had been brought on Delaware when Delaware seemed

likely to be the last State. Alice Paul realized that great national

political pressure must be brought upon the Tennessee legislators.

Governor Cox, the Democratic nominee, was, of course, a focus for most

of this political pressure. The Woman’s Party determined to make him

realize, if possible, that Tennessee, as a Democratic State, was his

responsibility. A huge deputation of Woman’s Party leaders from all over

the country called upon Governor Cox in his office in Columbus on July

16. Governor Cox said that he would co-operate with the Woman’s Party in

this matter and he asked to have a committee appointed to confer with

him in regard to Tennessee. The Democratic National Committee met on

July 20. The Woman’s Party lobbied this Committee and got a resolution

through urging immediate ratification by Tennessee. On July 23, Governor

Cox conferred with the Committee—consisting of Sue White, Anita

Pollitzer, and Mrs. James Rector—which he had asked Miss Paul to

appoint.

The Republican National Committee met on July 21. Anita Pollitzer, Mrs.

H. O. Havemeyer, Mrs. James Rector, and others saw the members of this

Committee and secured from them a resolution urging that the Republicans

do all they could to obtain the last State.

On July 22, the date of Harding’s notification that he was nominated for

the Presidency, two hundred members of the Woman’s Party, coming from

all over the United States, dressed in white and carrying purple, white

and gold banners, marched through Marion to Senator Harding’s lawn. The

lettered banners, borne by two pioneer Suffragists, Mrs. L. Crozier

French and Mrs. E. C. Green, read:

THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM ENDORSES RATIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE.

THE FIRST TEST OF THE PLATFORM WILL COME WHEN THE

TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE MEETS IN AUGUST.

WILL THE REPUBLICANS CARRY OUT THEIR PLATFORM BY GIVING

A UNANIMOUS REPUBLICAN VOTE IN TENNESSEE FOR SUFFRAGE?

Mrs. John Gordon Battelle, Sue White, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, addressed

Senator Harding and told him that he, as the Republican leader, had the

power to line up the Republican members of the Tennessee Legislature and

would be held responsible for them.

All this time the campaign in Tennessee had been going on.

That campaign, which was to become fiercer and more intensive until it

moved like a whirlwind, was conducted in three ways.

First, Sue White, the State Chairman and other members of the State

organization, assisted by Betty Gram, Catherine Flanagan and Anita

Pollitzer, national organizers, conducted the campaign. After the

Legislature convened Mrs. Florence Bayard Hilles, Delaware State

Chairman, and Mary Winsor, of the Advisory Council, assisted in

Nashville. Mabel Reber and Edith Davis carried on an extensive and

intensive work of publicity.

Second, in Ohio, Abby Scott Baker, co-operating with Mrs. James Rector,

kept in close touch with Cox and Harding, in order to get them to act

upon the specific requests of the Woman’s Party which began to come from

Tennessee.

Third, Alice Paul remaining in Washington, planned every move, and kept

in close communication with the political leaders who could influence

Cox and Harding.

Sue White, immediately on her arrival at Nashville, opened Woman’s Party

Headquarters and took charge of the campaign on the legislators.

Anita Pollitzer went to the eastern part of the State and concentrated

on the Republican leaders.

Betty Gram went to the western part of the State and worked in the

Speaker’s district.

Catherine Flanagan went into the districts of men soon to be elected,

and secured pledges from some of the nominees that they would support

ratification. In one case, Miss Flanagan secured the pledge of a

Republican candidate whose Democratic opponent was a strong

anti-Suffragist. A prominent Democrat in the district came out in

support of the Republican nominee because he was for ratification.

If the three organizers had not made this intensive survey of these

sections, they would not have realized that ratification votes were

rapidly dropping away. Legislators gave the excuse that although they

voted for Presidential Suffrage in a previous session, they would not

vote for ratification in this session because they considered it

unconstitutional. Alarmed at this defection, which was particularly

noticeable among the Republican legislators, Anita Pollitzer secured

opinions favorable to the constitutionality of ratification by Tennessee

at this special session from the most eminent legal minds in the State,

and sent them to each member of the Legislature.

Anita Pollitzer also sent a telegram to Abby Scott Baker, who, it will

be remembered, was standing guard over the two Presidential candidates

in Ohio, stating that the situation demanded Harding’s immediate active

support. Mrs. Baker telegraphed Alice Paul that she had seen Harding in

regard to this matter and that he had telegraphed two Republican

Congressmen to give their support to ratification, and his friend,

ex-Governor Ben Hooper of Tennessee, to send him a poll of the

Republicans. Immediately on receipt of a telegram from Alice Paul giving

this information, Anita Pollitzer hurried to the “hill-billy” region of

the State, where ex-Governor Hooper lived. Miss Pollitzer went over the

entire situation with him in detail, giving him the only first-hand

information that he had received. The result was that he spent the whole

day telephoning the doubtful Republican legislators. He also telegraphed

Harding that the situation was critical and urged him to give all

possible aid to the Tennessee situation.

Miss Pollitzer then told ex-Governor Hooper that it was absolutely

necessary to have a Republican caucus. Candler, the Chairman of the

Joint Caucus Committee, was an anti-Suffragist. Congressman J. Will

Taylor had, however, a strong influence with him. Miss Pollitzer started

late that afternoon for Knoxville, where Congressman Taylor lived, and

arriving early in the evening put her case to him. He said that he had

voted for Suffrage in Congress and would do all he could to help. The

next afternoon Miss Pollitzer saw Congressman Taylor to see what had

been accomplished. He said that he had been unable to get Candler all

day, was leaving the city in an hour. Miss Pollitzer called up the

operator in Athens. She said, “This is a matter of life and death.

Congressman Taylor must speak with Senator Candler. I have been in

Athens myself and I know it is such a tiny place that you have only to

look out of the door to know where Senator Candler is. You must find him

for me.” In a few minutes Senator Candler came to the telephone.

Congressman Taylor asked him if he would call a caucus of the

Republicans, and he agreed to do it. That night Miss Pollitzer took

notices of this to all the papers. A telegram was sent to every

Republican member urging him to come to the Legislature in time to

attend this caucus. It was a necessary step to call this caucus, but it

was equally necessary that all the important Republican leaders of the

State be there. Catherine Flanagan and Anita Pollitzer brought so much

pressure to bear on these leaders—and this included getting their

reservations and actually seeing them on the train—that they were all

there. The Republican leaders said in effect to the Republican members

of the Legislature who were present, “We want the Republican members of

the Legislature to give a majority of votes to ratification for the sake

of their Party.”