III MORE PRESSURE ON CONGRESS

The various activities described in the last six chapters all took place in the year 1917. But during all this year—when the picketing, the arrests, the imprisonments, were going on—work with Congress was of course proceeding parallel with it. It now becomes necessary to go back to the very beginning of the year to follow that work.

It will be remembered that early in this year there occurred in Washington an event of national political importance. The Congressional union for Woman Suffrage and the Woman’s Party merged into one organization.

This union of the Congressional union with the Woman’s Party occurred on March 2. On March 3—the last day of his first Administration—President Wilson despatched the following letter to the Hon. W. R. Crabtree, a member of the Tennessee Legislature.

May I not express my earnest hope that the Senate of Tennessee will reconsider the vote by which it rejected the legislation extending the Suffrage to women? Our Party is so distinctly pledged to its passage that it seems to me the moral obligation is complete.

Woodrow Wilson.

On April 26 occurred a hearing before the Senate Committee; Anne Martin presided. The note she struck in her opening speech sounded all through the hearing—the somber, sinister note of the Great War; and the necessity of accepting the Suffrage Amendment as a war measure.

“We regard it as an act of the highest loyalty and patriotism,” she said, “to urge the passage of the Amendment at this time, that we may, as fully-equipped, fully-enfranchised citizens, do 300our part in carrying out and helping to solve the problems that lie before the government when our country is at war.”

Madeline Doty, who had traveled in Germany and in England since the beginning of the war, gave her testimony in regard to the degree of war work women were contributing in those two countries. Others spoke: Mary Beard, Ernestine Evans, Mrs. Richard Wainwright, Alice Carpenter, Hon. Jeannette Rankin, and Dudley Field Malone, at that time still Collector of the Port of New York.

Altogether, there was a different sound to these Suffrage arguments. Women had discovered for the first time in the history of the world that they were a national necessity in war, not only because they bore the soldiers who fought, not only because they nursed the wounded, but because their efforts in producing the very sinews of war were necessary to its continuance.

On May 14, the Committee appointed by the National Party (the Party formed by the former Progressive leaders): J. A. H. Hopkins, Dr. E. A. Rumley, John Spargo, Virgil Hinshaw, Mabel Vernon, called on the President for the purpose of discussing the passage of the Federal Suffrage Amendment as part of the war program.

Mabel Vernon described the interview afterwards:

The President said frankly that the lines were well laid for the carrying out of a program in this session of Congress in which Suffrage, he intimated, has not been included and expressed his belief that the introducing of the question at this time might complicate matters. He seems to feel, however, that the coming of war has put the enfranchisement of women on a new basis.

He showed his appreciation of the rapid gains Suffrage has made through the country when he said, “Suffrage is no longer creeping, but advancing by strides.”

The President told the Committee as proof of his willingness, as he said, “to help Suffrage in every little way,” that he had written a letter to Representative Pou, Chairman of the Rules Committee of the House, saying he would favor the creation of a Woman Suffrage Committee.

301The next day, May 15, a hearing was held before the Judiciary Committee of the House. The Progressive Committee, who had visited the President the day before, spoke, and also a group of the Woman’s Party leaders: Mrs. William H. Kent, Mrs. John Rogers, Mrs. Donald R. Hooker, Lucy Burns, Anne Martin, Abby Scott Baker. Again the note of the Great War sounded through all the speeches, and the impatience of women because everything in the way of war service was demanded of them, but nothing given in return.

Mrs. Rogers said:

You men sit here in Congress and plan to take our sons and husbands and every cent in our pockets. Yet you say to us: “Do not be selfish; do not ask anything of the government now, but do your part.”

Mrs. Rogers quoted the words of Lord Northcliffe:

The old arguments against giving women Suffrage were that they were useless in war. But we have found that we could not carry on the war without them. They are running many of our industries, and their services may be justly compared to those of our soldiers.

“It has taken England nineteen hundred years to find this out,” said Mrs. Rogers.

Also, stress was laid on the fact that, since the last hearing before the Judiciary Committee, six States had granted Presidential Suffrage to women.

In this connection, a letter written by Chairman Webb of the Judiciary Committee to J. A. H. Hopkins of New Jersey, is interesting.

Mr. Hopkins wrote Mr. Webb:

The suggestion in your letter, that your caucus resolution provides that the President might from time to time suggest special war emergency legislation, puts the responsibility for the inaction of your Committee upon the President. As the President has already stated that he will be glad to do everything he can to promote the cause of Woman Suffrage, it seems to me quite 302evident that he has at least given your Committee the opportunity to exercise their own authority without even the fear that they may be infringing upon your caucus rules.

In the answer which Chairman Webb sent to Mr. Hopkins, he put the responsibility of the inaction in regard to the Suffrage situation directly on the President.

He said:

The Democratic caucus passed a resolution that only war emergency measures would be considered during this extra session, and that the President might designate from time to time special legislation which he regarded as war legislation, and such would be acted upon by the House. The President not having designated Woman Suffrage and national prohibition so far as war measures, the Judiciary Committee up to this time has not felt warranted, under the caucus rule, in reporting either of these measures. If the President should request either or both of them as war measures, then I think the Committee would attempt to take some action on them promptly. So you see after all it is important to your cause to make the President see that Woman Suffrage comes within the rules laid down.

In May, the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives granted a hearing to Suffrage bodies on the question of the creation of a Suffrage Committee in the House. It will be remembered that this is the first time since December, 1913, that the Rules Committee had granted this request, although women have worked for the creation of a Suffrage Committee in the House since the days of Susan B. Anthony. Chairman Pou presided.

A few days before, he had received a letter from President Wilson, in favor of the creation of a Suffrage Committee. For a long time now, the President had not been saying anything about the State by State method of winning Suffrage, but this was the first time that he had shown a specific interest in the Federal Suffrage Amendment.

The meeting was open to the public, and the room was crowded. The members of the National American Woman Suffrage Association spoke; a group of Congressmen from 303the Suffrage States, and the following members of the Woman’s Party: Anne Martin, Maud Younger, Mrs. Richard Wainwright, Mabel Vernon.

Mrs. Richard Wainwright said:

One of the members of the Commission from England said: “We came to America that America may not make the mistakes that we have! One of the mistakes that England is now trying to rectify is not giving justice to her women. I should like the Congress of the United States to remember what Wyoming said when asked to join the nation: ‘We do not come in without our women.’”

Miss Younger said in part:

We regard this, however (the formation of a Suffrage Committee in the House), Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, as only one step toward our goal. We will not be satisfied with this alone. It will not in any way take the place of the passage of the Amendment. Nor are we interested in any mere record vote which might come from the Suffrage Committee. We are working only for the passage of the Amendment at the earliest possible date....

We ask for this measure now in war time, because the sufferings of war fall heavily upon women. In case of an invading army the greatest barbarities, the greatest cruelties, fall upon the women. In this war, as never before, the burdens are borne by women. Secretary Redfield said yesterday that three armies are necessary to the prosecution of this war, the army in the field, the army on the farm, and the army in the factories. In these two armies at home the women are taking an increasingly large part and the efficiency of their work depends largely upon the conditions under which they do this work. In England the output of munitions was not satisfactory. The government appointed a commission to investigate. They found that the trouble lay in the conditions under which the women worked, with the overlong hours. They could not get the best results under such conditions. In America today there is an effort to break down the protective legislation that through the years has been built up around women and children. And so for efficiency in the war as well as for the protection of the women, we urge Suffrage upon you now.

We do not know when this struggle may end nor to what extent the women here may replace men. An English shipbuilder 304said recently that should the war last two years longer he would build ships entirely with women. We know that all over Europe today they are doing men’s work, in field, in factory, and in office. When the war is over and the armies march home, whether in victory or defeat, they will find the women in their places. Not without a struggle will the women give up the work, but give it up they probably will. And then, without the means of livelihood, many of them without husbands, with the men of their families killed in war, without the chance to marry, to bear children, they will turn to America. We can then look forward to an immigration of women such as this country has never known. Before that time comes we want the power to protect the women who are here, and to prepare to meet the new conditions that we may not be swamped by them.

We are asking for Suffrage in war time because other nations at war are considering it now. Over a year ago, in the Hungarian Parliament, a deputy asked the prime minister, “When our soldiers return from fighting our battles, will they be given the vote?” We find men everywhere in Europe asking for Suffrage for themselves now in war time. In Germany today the most powerful political party is urging the vote for women as well as for men. Russia, England, and France are on the verge of enfranchising their women. But two days ago in the British Parliament the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies urged the immediate passage of the Suffrage measure that the government might not be hampered by domestic problems when, at the end of the war, international problems will cry for settlement and a unified nation will be needed. In the period of reconstruction also we feel that women have something to contribute, that we may be of help in solving the new problems which will arise from the war and which will tax all the resources of the people. We ask you now to release to other service the time, the energy, the money that is being poured into the Suffrage movement.

Lastly, we urge this now that we may prove to other nations our sincerity in wanting to establish democracy and our unselfish motives in going into the war.

I think of that night on the 2nd of April when, from the gallery of the House, we heard President Wilson read his war message. We were going to war not for any gain for ourselves but to make the world safe for democracy. We sat there and heard him read, and, gentlemen, you applauded, “we shall fight for those things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.” And while you applauded, 305some of us there in the gallery thought of the 20,000,000 of women in our own country who “submit to authority without a voice in their own government,” which is the President’s definition of democracy. We thought, too, of the women of other nations on the verge of enfranchisement themselves, and we wondered how they would welcome the United States at the peace council, to establish democracy for them—the United States, which does not recognize its own women.

And we went out into the night. The Capitol looked very beautiful and shining white against the dark sky. It seemed a great beacon light to the nations of the world. Suddenly a dark shadow fell across our path—the shadow of a mounted soldier. A troop of cavalry had encircled the Capitol holding back the people. We walked down the marble terraces and started across the Avenue. There, again, the troop of cavalry winding down the hill blocked our progress. Suddenly it seemed so symbolic of what war meant, the armed force, centralized authority, blocking progress, encroaching upon the people. And it came to us that our greatest foe is not the enemy without but the danger to democracy within. We realized then that the greatest service we could render today would be to fight for democracy in this country.

We are going into this war. We will give our service, our time, our money. We may give our lives and what is harder still, the lives of those dear to us. We lay them all down upon the altar for the sake of an ideal. But in laying them down let us see that the ideal for which we sacrifice shall not perish also. Let us fight to preserve that ideal, to make this a real democracy. And, gentlemen, the first step toward that end lies with you here today. We ask you to take that step and help make this nation truly a beacon light to nations of the earth.

Although—following the hearing before the Senate Committee, on May 15—the Chairman, Senator Jones of New Mexico, was unanimously instructed to make a report on the Amendment, he failed to do so. When so requested by the Woman’s Party, he refused. After three months the minority (Republican) leaders of the Committee, led by Senator Cummins of Iowa, and backed by Senator Jones of Washington and Senator Johnson of California, attempted to get the Suffrage Amendment on the Senate Calendar by discharging the Senate Suffrage Committee from its further consideration.

306In his own defense, Senator Jones of New Mexico pleaded lack of time and desire to make a report that would be “a contribution to the cause.” Another Democratic member, Senator Hollis of New Hampshire, brought forward the picketing of the Suffragists as a reason for withholding the report. He expressed the amazing reason for not acting, his fear that this “active group of Suffragists” would focus public attention and “get credit.” The Chairman of the Committee who had neglected week after week to make the report which he had been authorized to make by the Committee, was finally galvanized into action by a visit to the imprisoned pickets at Occoquan. Immediately, September 15, he made his report to the Senate. On September 24, the creation of the House Suffrage Committee came up for heated debate in the House of Representatives, though its passage was a foregone conclusion. Of course, there was much discussion of the picketing which was still going on. Many of the speakers harped on the note that this late action in regard to the creation of a committee, which the Woman’s Party had been working for ever since 1913, would be interpreted by the country as being the result of the picketing. This was a quaint argument on their part, because of course, it was the result of the picketing. Why else would it have come so swiftly?

During this discussion, Mr. Pou, the Chairman, made the following statement:

I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this is no proposition to pack the Committee for a particular purpose. The friends of this resolution have distinctly stated time and again that they do not expect action at this session of Congress (first session of the Sixty-fifth Congress). The appointment of a Committee only is asked; but after this Committee is appointed, in the next Congress they expect to go before the people of America, and if the returns justify, then in the Sixty-sixth Congress, they will ask for Congressional action.

This boiled down meant of course there was no intention of passing the Suffrage Amendment before the Sixty-sixth 307Congress. However, the Administration was to reverse its policy on this point less than three months later.

The House Suffrage Committee was created by a vote of one hundred and eighty-one yeas and one hundred and seven nays.