X CONGRESS TAKES UP THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT

The effect of this campaign—the first of the kind in the history of the United States—was as though acid had been poured into the milk of the Democratic calm and security. Within a few days of the appearance of the Congressional union speakers, the Democratic papers were full of attacks on the Congressional union. The following from the Wyoming Leader of October 6 is typical of the way the Democratic papers handled the Congressional union workers:

Monday afternoon, they desecrated a charitable gathering of the Ladies’ Hospital Aid.... If it was nothing more than the harmless effort of a couple of women to earn some Congressional coin, it might be overlooked, and these two women with fatherly tenderness, told to go back home. But it involves an insult to the intelligent citizenship of this State. It attempts to compromise and bring into disrepute the practical workings of Woman Suffrage in this, the original Suffrage State. It proposes to prostitute religion, charity, fraternity, and society itself, to the ambition of a place-and-plunder-hunting politician. These women go into gatherings to insult and outrage harmony and good-will among women who themselves avoid politics in their meetings.

They could not have selected a meeting at which it was so plainly out of place as a meeting of hospital workers. These women had gathered together to promote the good work of mercy and charity in our community. They were Republicans, Progressives, and Democrats in their preferences....

The editor of the Leader has met and talked with these two women and believes they do not realize the insult they are offering to the women of Wyoming.

88The Republican papers of course instantly came to the rescue of the Congressional union organizers. The Cheyenne Tribune said editorially on October 16:

Democratic newspapers like the Wyoming Leader are finding fault with the Woman Suffrage Congressional union for sending representatives into this State to work against the Democratic candidate for Congress.

This is a free country, and Wyoming a Woman Suffrage State, and if worthy, respectable women come into Wyoming, the first State to grant the franchise to women, and conduct a decent campaign for the principles of Woman Suffrage, they should be treated courteously and given a respectful hearing.

They rightly hold the Democratic Party responsible for its self-evident opposition to the cause of Woman Suffrage, and rightly are seeking to defeat Democratic candidates for Congress by endeavoring to get woman voters to vote against them.

As to the actual effects, I quote from the report of the Congressional union for Woman Suffrage for the year 1914:

One of the strongest proofs of the results accomplished in Washington was given when Judge W. W. Black, Democratic candidate for the United States Senate, called at the headquarters of the Congressional union in Seattle, and urged the organizers in charge, in the words of the Seattle Sunday Times, “to go home and wage a campaign for female Suffrage, and let the Democratic Congressional candidates in this State alone. Judge Black disclaimed personal interest,” continued the Seattle Times, “and insisted that his is merely a fatherly concern for the two young Suffrage leaders. To demonstrate that he was not concerned personally, Judge Black told the two workers that he was going to be elected, anyway.”

Shortly before election day, Democratic leaders in Colorado formed a Democratic woman’s organization for the purpose of actively combating the Congressional union’s work among the women voters.

Further striking evidence of the importance which the Democratic leaders of Colorado attached to the union’s activities was furnished by a leaflet sent far and wide through the State, issued from the Colorado Democratic State Headquarters, under the names of Wellington H. Gates, Leo U. Guggenheim, and John 89T. Barnett, National Democratic Committeemen. The leaflet began: “Permit us to call your attention to the apparent aims and purposes of the organization calling itself The Congressional union.”

It then devoted four pages to letters and statements opposing the policy of the union, and ended with an appeal to the women voters to elect the Democratic candidates for Congress “with larger majorities than ever before, to show the world that the Democratic women of Colorado are not only loyal, but consistent, voters.”

This was the last leaflet sent to the voters by the State Democratic Committee. From the first word to the last, it dealt only with the Congressional union. Could better evidence be desired of the important part which the Democrats themselves felt that Suffrage was playing in the election?

Nowhere did the Congressional union election work arouse greater opposition than in Utah. “Intimidation, coercion, and what were equivalent to threats of political banishment from the State of Utah,” said the Republican Herald of Salt Lake City (October 15), “were exercised toward Miss Elsie Agnes Lancaster, the New York Suffragist, by W. R. Wallace, the Democratic generalissimo, and his gang of political mannikins.”

“They invited Miss Lancaster,” the Herald continued, “to come to Democratic State Headquarters, and there kept her on the grill for two and a half hours. This term of cross-examination, during which she was under fire of cross-questioning and denunciation from practically all of the Democratic politicians present, was a vain endeavor to have her bring to an immediate close her campaign against the Democratic nominees for the United States Senate and Congress. For two hours and a half, the hundred pounds of femininity withstood the concentrated cross-fire of the ton of beef and brawn represented by the dozen or more distinguished Democrats who acted as attorney, judge, and jury all in one. After they had finished, she went her way, telling Mr. Wallace that neither he nor his hirelings could swerve her from her duty in Utah as a representative of the Congressional union for Woman Suffrage.

“The greatest outburst of Generalissimo Wallace,” concludes the Herald, “was when, in a moment of rage, he brought his fist down on the table and threatened to advertise Miss Lancaster the country over by means of the Associated Press as being in league with ‘sinister influences’ in Utah.”

One of the candidates for Congress from Kansas (Representative Doolittle) called at the Washington Headquarters of the 90union shortly after the inauguration of work in Kansas, and urged the union to withdraw its campaigners from his district, at least, if not over all the Western States. Finding the union determined to continue its opposition through the women voters, as long as his Party continued its opposition to the National Amendment, Mr. Doolittle delivered a speech in the House of Representatives (occupying more than a page of the Congressional Record), denouncing the union, and assuring the members of Congress that its appeal to the women voters was not authorized by the Suffragists of the country.

Representative Hayden of Arizona also endeavored, in a speech in the House, to answer the appeal of the Congressional union to the Western women to cast their votes against him, together with the other national Democratic candidates. Nearly three pages of the Record was consumed by Mr. Hayden’s speech, which he reprinted, and sent far and wide through the State of Arizona in an attempt to counteract the havoc which it was apparently believed was being wrought by the Congressional union workers.

A prominent Democratic candidate for the Arizona Legislature testified to the fear which the union campaign had aroused among the Democratic element in that State by an appeal to Dr. Cora Smith King, a member of the Advisory Council of the Congressional union, urgently imploring her to use her influence with the union to terminate its election activities in Arizona. Dr. King replied: “The more the local Democrats complain, the more they advertise the slogan of the Congressional union, that the Democrats put Suffrage second to Party. Do, for Heaven’s sake, raise the Democratic roof in Washington for involving you in this dilemma.”

Among the concrete results showing the effectiveness of the Congressional union election activities was the inclusion of a Federal Suffrage Amendment plank in the platforms of each of the State parties in Colorado, the first time that this occurred in that State, and the inclusion of a similar plank in the Arizona Democratic platform.

Another result was the conversion of Senator Smith of Arizona to a belief in the Federal Amendment. On September 28, Senator Smith and Representative Hayden, the two Democratic candidates who were running for Congress from Arizona, sent the following telegram to Mrs. Frances Munds, candidate for State Senatorship on the Democratic ticket: “Our record in Congress shows that we are for National Woman Suffrage. If you think best, offer as plank in State platform the following: ‘We 91pledge our candidates for United States Senator and Representative in Congress to vote at all times for National Women Suffrage.’”

The Democratic Committee adopted and strengthened this platform.

All candidates, indeed, seemed to develop a marked increase in the fervor of their allegiance to the Suffrage Amendment. Senator Chamberlain of Oregon, in his last edition of street-car cards before election day, headed his poster with a declaration of his support of National Woman Suffrage as the leading argument for his re-election.

Not only the Congressional candidates, but minor Democratic workers, suddenly developed unsuspected interest in the cause of Woman Suffrage. Said the Examiner of Yuma, Arizona (October 24, 1914), in commenting on the situation: “We view with amazement the efforts of the Democratic bosses to be in favor of Equal Suffrage.”

And so in each of the States.

No more conclusive proof of the support given by the women voters to the union’s campaign could be afforded than the readiness with which they became members and active workers.

In undertaking the election campaign, the union had expected that in the beginning only the humble members of the rank and file would respond to its appeal. It had fully realized that the rank and file are more easily reached by new work than are the leaders. It was with amazement, therefore, as well as gratification that it greeted the co-operation of the leading women voters of the West. Their willingness to subordinate Party interest to the National Suffrage cause furnished the strongest assurance of the speedy organization of the women’s vote to such a power as to make it a determining factor in the outcome of things at Washington.

The rank and file, however, equalled the leaders in the enthusiasm with which they supported the campaign. Women who had never before been active in Suffrage work were aroused to an effective support of the Congressional union’s policy. Said the Tribune of Pendleton, Oregon (October 16), for instance, in commenting on this situation:

“Large numbers of women who had not even registered until the campaign of the Congressional union began, have made it their duty to do so in order that they may cast their ballot on this one issue alone. They had not been especially interested in the general political campaign, but seeing the opportunity to 92assist in the enfranchisement of other women, they have come bravely to the front with offers of assistance.”

One of the illuminating features of the campaign was the aid given to the union in its election work by prominent Democratic women. This support came from the Democratic women of the East as well as of the West. For example, Mrs. George A. Armes, President of the District of Columbia Branch of the National Wilson and Marshall League, wrote to the Chairman of the union during the election days: “I have come to the conclusion that the greatest service I can render to the National Democratic Party is to help to bring it to realize that true democracy involves Suffrage for women as well as for men. I know that it will come to a realization of the truth if it sees that it can no longer count upon the women’s vote in the West if it opposes the Suffrage Amendment. I am, therefore, heartily with the election campaign of the Congressional union in its appeal to the women voters to cast their votes against all Democratic candidates for Congress.”

Women voted in the election for forty-five members of Congress. The Democratic Party ran candidates for forty-three members in these States. The Congressional union opposed all these candidates. Out of the forty-three Democratic candidates, only twenty were elected. In some of these districts undoubtedly the women affected these results.

I quote the same report:

Basing our estimate on the charges made by friends of the candidates whom we were forced, by reason of the action of their Party, to oppose, the Congressional union campaign defeated Representative Neely of Kansas, Mr. Flegel of Oregon, and Representative Seldomridge of Colorado; and contributed in large measure to the defeat of Mr. Hawley of Idaho, Mr. James H. Moyle of Utah, and Mr. Roscoe Drumheller of Washington, and greatly lessened the majorities of Senator Smith of Arizona, Senator Thomas, and Mr. Keating of Colorado.

The campaign of the Congressional union accomplished exactly what its members hoped and expected that it would accomplish. If their purpose had been merely to unseat Democrats, they would, of course, have taken the districts in the United States where the Democrats had won by very slight majorities. When they went into such strongly Democratic States as Arizona and Colorado, they did not expect to unseat 93any of the Democratic candidates in those States. Their purpose was to make Woman Suffrage an ever-present political issue in the States where women have political power until all the women of the United States shall be enfranchised, and to lay in those States the foundations for permanent and constantly-growing support of the franchise work at Washington. They succeeded in making the record of the Democratic Party on Woman Suffrage (an issue which would not otherwise have been heard of) widely known and hotly discussed in the Suffrage States.

In the meantime, Suffrage had come up again and again in Congress. On October 10, 1914, during discussion of the Philippine Bill, conferring a greater measure of self-government on Filipino men, Representative Mann of Illinois proposed on that date that the franchise measure in the Bill be so amended as to give the vote to women on the Islands. This Amendment was lost by a vote of fifty-eight to eighty-four. On October 12, Representative J. W. Bryan of Washington, Progressive, proposed three other Amendments: One, making women eligible to vote in school elections, which was lost by a vote of eleven to twenty-seven; one giving the vote to women property-owners, which was lost by a vote of nine to twenty-seven, and one giving the Philippine legislature power to extend the right of Suffrage to women at any future time, which was lost by a vote of eleven to twenty-seven. The Amendments were defeated by strictly Party votes, the Democrats voting almost solidly against them, while the Progressives and Republicans supported them.

This Session of Congress adjourned on October 4, 1914. At its close, the Suffrage Amendment was upon the calendar of the Senate and the House, ready for a vote. In the House, however, the Rules Committee must apportion time for the vote. Mr. Mondell’s Resolution providing for this—and for which successive deputations had besieged the Rules Committee—was still before the Rules Committee.

The short Session—the last Session of the Sixty-third Congress—opened on December 7. President Wilson’s 94message, read to Congress on December 8, made no mention of the Woman Suffrage question, though it expressly recommended the Bill granting further independence to the men of the Philippines.

In December, therefore, Anne Martin, who had brought to brilliant victory the campaign in Nevada, came to the Congressional union’s Headquarters in Washington. She called on the President to ask his assistance in furthering the passage of the Bristow-Mondell Amendment.

In referring to the victory in Nevada, the President said: “That is the way I believe it should come, by States.”

Miss Martin then pointed out to the President the immense difficulties involved in State campaigns. She said: “The referendum campaigns are killing work, and the women of America are working for the passage of this Federal Amendment in order to end the long struggle.”

Miss Martin referred to the President’s attitude toward the Filipinos. She said she had read with interest that part of his message to Congress in which he advocated a larger measure of self-government for them. She pointed out that Suffragists were asking for an extension of the same right to American women, and urged him to give equal support to the Amendment enfranchising his country-women.

The Congressional union began to send deputations to the refractory Rules Committee, immediately upon the return of the Committee members to Washington. On December 9, Mrs. William Kent and Mrs. Gardner called upon Chairman Henry as soon as he reached the city. To their great astonishment, they were promptly assured by Mr. Henry that the Rules Committee would report favorably House Resolution No. 514—providing time for the consideration of the Suffrage Amendment in the House—which had been before it since May 13.

“Mr. Henry said,” says the Suffragist of December 12, “that he had always desired to make a favorable report of the Suffrage 95rule; certain ‘sinister influences,’ however, working upon some of the members of this Committee had made it impossible for the Committee to take action upon it during the last Session. Mr. Henry did not state what the ‘sinister influences’ were, nor why they had been removed immediately after the election.”

He also assured representatives of the union that the Rules Committee would shortly bring the Amendment to a vote in the House.

“There is every reason to believe,” said Mrs. Gilson Gardner commenting on Mr. Henry’s glib change of front, “that the Party leaders have met and studied the Democratic returns from the campaign States.”

On January 12, the Resolution on the Susan B. Anthony Amendment was debated for over six hours in the House and voted upon the same day. One hundred and seventy-four votes were cast for the Amendment, two hundred and four against it. Forty-six members were recorded as not voting. Of the forty-six, twelve were paired in favor, and six paired against it. The Amendment thus failed by seventy-eight votes of the necessary two-thirds.

It is a favorite trick with politicians to bring up the Amendment in the short session of a dying Congress. They can vote no and still have a chance, in the new Congress, to redeem themselves before election.

The Suffragist of January 23 quotes some of the reasons for opposing the Amendment:

That Woman Suffrage cannot be supported because of a man’s respect, admiration, and reverence for womanhood.

That five little colored girls marched in a Suffrage parade in Columbus, Ohio.

That women must be protected against themselves. They think they want to vote. As a matter of fact, they do not want to vote, and man, being aware of this fact, is obliged to prevent them from getting the ballot that they do not want.

That the ballot would degrade women.

That no man would care to marry a Suffragist.

That women do not read newspapers on street cars.

96That women do not buy newspapers of Ikey Oppenstein, who keeps the stand on the corner.

That no man would care to marry a female butcher.

That no man would care to marry a female policeman.

That Woman Suffrage is a matter for the States to determine.

That Mrs. Harriot Stanton Blatch once marched in a procession in which she carried a banner inscribed, “One million Socialists vote and work for Suffrage.”

That Inez Milholland married a Belgian and once referred to a cabinet-officer as a joke.

That women fail to take part in the “duty of organized murder” and might therefore vote against war.