V FIGHTING FOR VOTES IN THE SENATE

The House of Representatives passed the Susan B. Anthony Amendment on January 10, 1918, by a vote of two hundred and seventy-four to one hundred and thirty-six. The work of the Woman’s Party was now concentrated on the Senate. They needed only eleven votes there, and many Suffragists were optimistic—they thought victory a matter of but a few weeks. The Woman’s Party knew better. However, in the siege of the Senate, they continued their policy—to work downwards through the President, and upward through constituents and political leaders from the people.

In summing up the situation in the Senate, Alice Paul said:

If the Republicans had the vision to see that it was a wise Party policy to secure the credit for the passage of the Amendment in the House, and the Democrats believed it an unwise Party policy to be responsible for its defeat—the same argument must hold for the vote in the Senate, for while more than two-thirds of the Republicans had already promised their votes, only half the Democrats are at present pledged in the Senate.

The effect of the passing of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in the House was, however, not only profound, but immediate. In February, the Republican National Committee met in St. Louis for the selection of a Chairman. Abby Scott Baker appeared before the committee, urging a favorable stand on the Susan B. Anthony amendment. Two women representing the anti-Suffragists were also to speak. However, when the anti-Suffragist speakers presented themselves before the Committee, they found that it had already voted a resolution commending the stand of the Republican members 341of the House of Representatives in favor of the Suffrage Amendment. This was the first favorable expression of the National Republican Party on the question of Federal Suffrage.

Minnie Bronson said of the anti-Suffragist members:

I looked round for the thirty members who last night were opposed to Suffrage. I wonder what changed them over night.

Lucy Price, also an anti-Suffragist, asserted:

Your action without even hearing us was worse than a betrayal of us who are opposed to Suffrage. It was an admission that Party pledges are meant to be broken.

The Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee, which met that same day in Washington, held a telegraphic referendum of their entire national committee on the question of the Amendment. It is interesting to note that this was done at the insistence of the Democratic woman who had charge of the Democratic campaign among women in 1916, when the Woman’s Party made Suffrage the great issue. This telegraphic referendum showed more than a two to one desire for the national committee to take action that would put it on record as “urging the support” of the Amendment. The Executive Committee, therefore, adopted the resolution, endorsing the Federal Suffrage measure, and by a vote of five to two, calling upon the Senate to act at once favorably upon it.

For months thereafter, the Woman’s Party concentrated on obtaining the necessary eleven votes in the Senate. It was a period of comparative calm. There was no militant action of any kind. The pickets had all been released in December, and, although the appeal cases were coming up in the courts at intervals, picketing seemed an abandoned weapon.

In her Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist, Maud Younger describes very delightfully how the first nine votes were obtained:

342“We should get Senator Phelan now,” said Miss Paul. “He opposed Federal Suffrage because the President did. Now that the President has come out for it, Senator Phelan should do so. Send for him.”

I sent in my card and he came at once, very neat in a cut-away coat, his eyes smiling above his trimmed sandy beard. “Of course I’ll vote for the Amendment,” he said, as though he had never thought of anything else. He was plainly glad to have an excuse for changing his position.

“That leaves ten to get,” said Miss Paul. “Let’s go and see Senator McCumber.” The Senator from North Dakota is sandy and Scotch and cautious, and, like many other Senators, thinks it would be weak and vacillating to change his opinion.

“I voted against it in 1914. I cannot vote for it in 1918,” he said. “I cannot change my principles.”

“But you can change your mind?”

“No, I could not do that.”

“Then you might change your vote,” said I, urging progress. He, too, saw progress, but was wary of it. Looking cautiously around the room and back of us, he said slowly, “If the legislature of my State should ask me to vote for it, I would feel obliged to do so.”

That same night Beulah Amidon telegraphed to North Dakota,—her own State—to the Chairman of the Republican Party and the Non-Partisan League that controls the Legislature; to her father, Judge Amidon, and to others. The Legislature immediately passed a resolution calling on Senator McCumber to vote for our Amendment. Miss Amidon went to see him at once, with the news.

“But I haven’t seen how the resolution is worded yet,” said Senator McCumber cannily.

When the resolution arrived some one else went to see him.

“I want to look it over carefully,” he said. When he had looked it over carefully, he admitted, “I will vote for the Amendment. But to show loyalty both to constituents and principle,” he added hastily, “I will speak against it, and vote for it.”

“That leaves nine to get,” said Miss Paul, counting Senator McCumber off on her little finger and turning to a list of other legislatures in session. The difficulty was that the legislatures in session did not fit the Senators whose votes we must get. Mildred Glines, our Rhode Island chairman, was at our Headquarters, and Senator Gerry of Rhode Island was at the Capitol, and not for our Amendment. So Mildred Glines set out at once 343for Rhode Island, where she had a resolution presented and passed, and returned with it to Senator Gerry.

Then I went to see his colleague, Senator Colt. A scholarly-looking man, he sat at his desk deep in some volume of ancient lore. Arguing with himself while I sat listening, he stated the case for Suffrage and Senator Gerry. “But on the other hand,” he said—and then stated the other side.

“Yes,” he concluded deliberately, but with a twinkle in his eye, “Peter will vote for it.”

“That leaves eight to get,” said Miss Paul, very thoughtfully. “Have you seen Senator King lately?”

Though Senator King is not unpleasant to talk with, if one does not broach subjects controversial, persons who appealed to his reason had succeeded only in ruffling his manners. He smiled blandly and, leaning back in his chair, began what he believed to be a perfect case. “I’ve always been opposed to national Suffrage. I said so in my campaign, and the people elected me.”

We must appeal to his constituents. But how? His Legislature was not in session. Alice Henkle went post-haste to Utah, and at once newspapers began to publish editorials; all sorts of organizations, civic, patriotic, religious, educational, social, began to pass resolutions. Letters poured in upon Senator King. But always Miss Henkle wrote us, “They tell me everywhere that it’s no use; that Senator King is so ‘hard-shelled’ that I might as well stop.”

“Go to the Capitol and see,” said Miss Alice Paul.

I had just entered the revolving door when Senator Sheppard, hurrying past, stopped to say, “Do you know King is coming around! I think we may get his vote.”

So Miss Paul wired Alice Henkle that night: “Redouble efforts. They are having good effect.” Four weeks later, three Senators told me that Senator King had said in the cloak room, “I’m as much opposed to Federal Suffrage as ever, but I think I’ll vote for it. My constituents want me to.”

“That leaves six to get,” said Miss Paul, “counting Senator Culberson too.” For while we had been busy in Washington, Doris Stevens and Clara Wolfe had been busy in Texas on the trail of Senator Culberson.

The national committees of both political parties had taken a stand for Federal Suffrage in February. Also, Colonel Roosevelt and other Republican leaders were writing to Senators whose names we furnished, urging their support.

“Now,” said Senator Curtis, smiling, “I think we’ll get 344Harding and Sutherland. They both want to vote for it, but their States are against it. I’ll go see them again. Keep the backfires burning in their States.”

Senator Curtis has the dark hair and skin of Indian ancestry, and perhaps his Indian blood has given him his quick sense of a situation and his knowledge of men. Without quite knowing how it happened—it may have been his interest in listening or his wisdom in advising—he had become the guiding friend, the storm-center of our work on the Republican side of the Senate.

“Colonel Roosevelt has written to Senator Sutherland too,” I thought hopefully, while I sat waiting for him in the marble room. He came out, and said almost at once, “I’ve just had a letter from Colonel Roosevelt asking me to vote for your Amendment!”

“Have you?” said I.

“Yes. But I wish he had told me how I can do it, when the overwhelming sentiment of my State is against it.” I spoke of something else, but that night I reported this remark to Doris Stevens and Abby Scott Baker. Both of them immediately wrote to Colonel Roosevelt. Later, I again saw Senator Sutherland. He had evidently forgotten our former conversation.

“I’ve had a letter from Colonel Roosevelt about your Amendment,” he said. “It’s the second time he has written to me about it. He wants me to come to Oyster Bay so he can give me reasons for voting for it.”

“I should think it would be awfully interesting to go,” I encouraged gently. And soon we checked off Senator Sutherland’s name on our lists, and said, “Five more to get.”

“Do you think we can get Borah?” I asked Senator Curtis. “He’s one of the fathers of the Amendment. He introduced it in 1910.”

“He says he did that by request.”

“It doesn’t say so in the Record. Doesn’t a man always say so when it is so?”

“That is usual,” said Senator Curtis, stroking his mustache and not meeting my eyes, and I knew he said only half of what he thought.

“I think I’ll go and see him at once.”

Senator Borah is a most approachable person, but when you have approached, you cannot be sure you have reached. You see him sitting at his desk, a large unferocious, bulldog type of man, simple in manner. You talk with him, and you think he is with you through and through.... But you never quite know.... Sometimes you wonder if he knows.

345In April, Senator Gallinger told Miss Paul that the Republicans counted four more votes for Suffrage—Kellogg, Harding, Page, and Borah. “We understand Borah will vote for the Amendment if it will not pass otherwise. But he will not vote for it if it will pass without him. But if his vote will carry it, he will vote for it.”

Thus far we had come on our journey toward the eleven, when Senator Andreus Aristides Jones of New Mexico, Chairman of the Woman Suffrage Committee, rose in the Senate and announced that on May 10 he would move to take up the Suffrage resolution. There was great rejoicing. We thought that now the Administration would get the needed votes.

Indeed, with only two votes more to get, everything looked promising.

In May, members of the Woman’s Committee of the Council of National Defense were received by the President and Mrs. Wilson.

Florence Bayard Hilles, State Chairman in Delaware for the National Woman’s Party, who had campaigned for the Liberty Loan throughout her State, and was then working in the Bethlehem Steel Plant, as a munition maker, said to the President:

Mr. President, it would be a great inspiration to all of us in our war work if you would help towards our immediate enfranchisement.

Behind Mrs. Hilles came Mrs. Arthur Kellam, who is Chairman of the Woman’s Party in New Mexico, who said:

Mr. President, we, women of the West, are growing very restless indeed waiting for the long-delayed passage of the Federal Suffrage Amendment. Won’t you help to secure this recognition of citizens? The women of New Mexico and many other States have no redress save through the Federal Amendment. They are eagerly waiting for action on this measure in the Senate. Will you help us?

The President, with marked cordiality, answered:

“I will. I will do all I can.”

346In the meantime, the President was receiving picturesque groups of many descriptions: Pershing’s Veterans went to the White House; the Blue Devils of France. Finally a group of women munition workers from the Bethlehem Plant, led by Florence Bayard Hilles, came to Washington to see the President in regard to Suffrage. They were: Catherine Boyle; Ada Walling; Mary Gonzon; Lula Patterson; Marie McKenzie; Isabel C. Aniba; Lilian Jerrold; Mary Campbell; Mildred Peck; Ida Lennox. The experience of the war workers was amusing. They wrote at once asking for an interview with the President. Mr. Tumulty responded saying that the President bade him to tell them that “nothing you or your associates could say could possibly increase his very deep interest in this matter.”

Mrs. Aniba despatched an answer, again asking for an interview. She said among other things:

The work I do is making detonators, handling TNT, the highest of all explosives. We want to be recognized by our country as much her citizens as soldiers are.

Every day this little group went to the White House and sat, waiting. They made a picturesque detail in the exceedingly picturesque war flood surging through the White House, wearing bands printed with the words, munition workers on their arm and their identification badges. They knitted all the time. At first, one of the secretaries explained to them, “You are very foolish. You may have to wait for weeks. Even Lord Reading had to come back four times before he saw the President!”

Later, an under-secretary said: “You are becoming a nuisance. Other people have more consideration than to keep coming back; but you persist and persist.”

“Even Lord Reading had to come back four times before he saw the President,” quoted one of the munition girls.

They waited two weeks, but in the end they had to go back to work. They wrote a letter to the Senate, however, which was read there.

347May 10 approached. I resume Miss Younger’s narrative:

When the proper time arrived next day, Senator Andreus Aristides Jones arose in his place. The galleries were packed. Our forces were all present except the three missing votes. There was Senator Smith of Michigan, who had come from California; Senator Smith of Arizona, who had left a sick relative to be present for the vote; and there were others who had come from far and wide. Senator Jones in the hush of a great moment, rose and announced that he would not call up the Amendment that day.

Our opponents looked at him and, grinning, taunted: “Haven’t you got the votes?” “We want to vote today.” “We’re ready now.”

Finally the women filed out of the galleries and went home, and the Senate resumed its usual business.

Later, however, Senator Jones announced that on June 27 he would take up the Suffrage Resolution.

Miss Younger says:

Senator Jones does not act on mad impulse. No one could imagine that placid, unhurried man buckling on his armor and brandishing his sword to lead his forces a second time up a blind alley only to lead them back again. Senator Jones was a strong Administration man and would not act without approval.

Moreover, he was a sincere Suffragist. In fact, he was a Father of the Amendment. So we kept at work, aiding and abetting all its Fathers. For the disabilities of fathers are manifest when you compare them with mothers. A father is so casual, especially when his child is an Amendment to the Constitution.

“Nagging!” said Senator Lenroot viciously, when I asked him to speak to Senator Borah. “If you women would only stop nagging!” And making a savage face at me, he hurried down the hall.

I stood still. It was but the second time we had spoken to him since he had come to the Senate. I wondered if he thought we liked “nagging”; if we liked going to the Capitol day after day, tramping on marble floors, waiting in ante-rooms—sometimes rebuffed, sometimes snarled at. I wondered if he thought we could do it for anything but a great cause—for the thousands of women toiling in the factories, for the thousands struggling under burdens at home. And then I bit my lips to keep back the 348tears, and putting aside such uncomfortable things as feelings, and putting forward such solacing things as a lace jabot and a smile, I sent for another Senator.

Senator Martin, of silvery white hair and determined manner would not sit down and talk Suffrage, nor would he stand up and talk Suffrage. The only way to discuss Suffrage with Senator Martin was to run beside him down the hall.

“The good women of Virginia do not want Suffrage,” he said, breaking almost into a trot, with eyes on his goal, which was an elevator.

“But if you were convinced that the good women of Virginia do want it?” you replied, breaking almost into a run, with your eyes on him.

“It’s only the professional agitators I hear from,” he answered.

It is interesting to talk Suffrage with Senator Martin, and very good exercise. But it was still more interesting to watch a deputation of good Virginia women talking to him.

“Every one knows where I stand, and yet the ladies waylay me all about the halls,” he complained. Yet when we had spoken before the Platform Committee of the Democratic Convention in St. Louis, he told me: “I said to those men, ‘There isn’t an equal number of you that could make as good speeches as those women made.’” So he was not to be considered as hopeless, though the path to his salvation was a strenuous one.

In June, Carrie Chapman Catt, President of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, transmitted to the President a memorial from the French union for Woman Suffrage asking him in one of his messages to proclaim the principle of Woman Suffrage to be one of the fundamental rights of the future.

The President replied in the following letter:

I have read your message with the deepest interest, and I welcome the opportunity to say that I agree, without reservation, that the full and sincere democratic reconstruction of the world, for which we are striving, and which we are determined to bring about at any cost, will not have been completely or adequately attained until women are admitted to the Suffrage. And that only by this action can the nations of the world realize for the benefit of future generations the full ideal force of opinion, or the full humane forces of action.

349The services of women during this supreme crisis of the world’s history have been of the most signal usefulness and distinction. The war could not have been fought without them or its sacrifices endured. It is high time that some part of our debt of gratitude to them should be acknowledged and paid, and the only acknowledgment they ask is their admission to the Suffrage. Can we justly refuse it?

As for America, it is my earnest hope that the Senate of the United States will give unmistakable answer to this question by passing the Suffrage Amendment to our Federal Constitution before the end of this session.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

Woodrow Wilson.

Miss Younger says:

The twenty-seventh of June approached. Again we were in the marble room talking with Senators. Absentees were on trains hurrying to Washington. The antis were in the reception room knitting votes into their wool. The Capitol thrilled with excitement. Even the Senators seemed to feel it. This time Sutherland would vote “yea,” and several opponents were absent. If none of them paired with a Suffrage Senator we could just manage the necessary majority. And the White House was taking a hand. Senator James of Kentucky, in a Baltimore hospital, had promised Mr. Tumulty that he would not pair—that is, that he would not ask a Suffrage Senator to refrain from voting to counterbalance his own enforced absence. Victory seemed in our hands.

The day arrived. The galleries were filled. The Senators came in all dressed up for the occasion—here a gay waistcoat or a bright tie, there a flower in a buttonhole, yonder an elegant frock coat over gray trousers.

Senator Jones arose to take up the Amendment. At once opposition developed. Our opponents were willing to have a vote, provided all absentees could be paired. Now, if all absentees were counted, we would not have enough votes. Senator James’ promise not to vote had given us our majority. But, stunned, we heard Senator Underwood read a telegram from Senator James pleading that some Suffragist pair with him. Senator Underwood said he had just confirmed the telegram. It was not until too late that we learned the truth. The telegram had been sent six weeks earlier for another occasion.

And now Senator Reed had the floor. “Oh, who will pair 350with Ollie James?” he cried. “That n-o-oble Ollie James! You all know that great, fine, noble specimen of manhood, Ollie James! A pair! A pair!” he cried with tears in his voice and arms outstretched. He went on and on.

We leaned over the balcony and watched Senator Curtis pleading with Borah, urging him to vote for us and save our Amendment. We watched breathlessly. We saw Borah listen, smile, and then, without a word, rise and walk slowly out of the room. We flew down to Senator Curtis.

“No, Borah won’t do it. They say King is going to. Reed won’t give up the floor unless we withdraw or furnish a pair. He and his friends will hold the floor for weeks, if necessary. And the military bill must pass before July first. The army needs money. You can see for yourself what’s happening. It’s a filibuster.”

Reed was still talking. They say he knows about a great many subjects, and I think he talked about all he knew that day. But nobody will ever know what they were, for no one listened; and he never allowed the speech to be printed in the Record.

Finally Senator Jones arose and withdrew the motion to take up Suffrage. Senator Reed, satisfied, sat down. His filibuster had succeeded. He had threatened to hold up the military bill to defeat us, so we had withdrawn. The Senate took up the military bill, and we went home.

“Suffrage is dead for this session,” said Senator McKellar. “The Senators don’t like being nagged any more. They are all very tired of it.”

But the Woman’s Party did not think it was dead. They worked at their usual strenuous pace all summer long. They did feel, however, that if the President had exerted himself, he could have obtained the two necessary votes for the Amendment to pass. They were, moreover, highly indignant over the filibuster of a Democratic Senator—Reed. Their patience was beginning to wear thin.

In the meantime, the primary Senatorial elections were coming up, and the President was taking an active part in them. He was working against Senator Vardaman of Mississippi and Senator Hardwick of Georgia, both Democrats of course and Vardaman a Suffragist. In other States, he helped to elect anti-Suffragists in the places of Suffragists. 351It is true that the President threw a sop to the Suffragists in that he asked Senator Shields of Tennessee to come out for Suffrage. The Shields incident is interesting.

Senator Shields was making it his sole issue in the primary campaign that he would carry out all the President’s war policies. Opposing Senator Shields was Governor Rye, a Democrat of course, and a Suffragist.

Maud Younger called at the White House on Secretary Tumulty one day to ask him if the President could not do something further for Suffrage. Mr. Tumulty’s answer was to read a letter from President Wilson to Senator Shields, asking him to vote for the Suffrage Amendment. Maud Younger, with characteristic political astuteness, saw at once the possibilities in the publication of that letter. She asked Mr. Tumulty for a copy and Mr. Tumulty, with a sudden sense of indiscretion, refused. However, Miss Younger went back instantly with the story to Headquarters, and presently Sue White and Lucy Branham became very busy—oh, very busy indeed—in the Tennessee campaign.

On July 26, Senator Shields notified the Suffragists in Tennessee that he would see them at three that afternoon. He told the fifty women who gathered to meet him that “he would hold the matter in consideration.” The same day a Columbia paper carried the story that President Wilson had requested Senator Shields by letter to vote for Suffrage. This brought the whole month-old correspondence before the public.

The letters ran as follows:

The White House, Washington.

June 20, 1918.

My Dear Senator:

I feel so deeply the possibilities latent in the vote which is presently to be taken by the Senate on the Suffrage Amendment that I am going to take a liberty which in ordinary circumstances I should not feel justified in taking, and ask you very frankly if it will not be possible for you to vote for the Amendment. I 352feel that much of the morale of this country and of the world will repose in our sincere adherence to democratic principles, will depend upon the action which the Senate takes in this now critically important matter. If it were merely a domestic question, or if the times were normal, I would not feel that I could make a direct request of this sort, but the times are so far from normal, the fortunes of nations are so linked together, the reactions upon the thought of the world are so sharp and involve such momentous issues that I know that you will indulge my unusual course of action and permit me to beg very earnestly that you will lend your aid in clearing away the difficulties which will undoubtedly beset us if the Amendment is not adopted. With much respect,

Sincerely yours,

Woodrow Wilson.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

June 25, 1918.

My dear Mr. President:

Your valued letter concerning the joint resolution proposing an Amendment on the Federal Constitution favoring Equal Suffrage, now pending in the United States Senate, has challenged my most thoughtful consideration, as do all your views upon public matters. The resolution involves fundamental questions affecting the sovereignty and powers of the Federal and State governments, most important and vital to the people of the State which I have the honor in part to represent in the United States Senate, and those of States with which they are closely allied in all social, economical, and governmental interests, upon which I have most profound convictions, unfavorable to it, known, and I believe approved, by the great majority of the people of Tennessee—arrived at after full consideration of conditions existing when I voted against a similar one some years ago and those now confronting our country. The reasons for my conclusions are those controlling the majority of my colleagues from the Southern States, well known to you and which would not be interesting to here re-state.

If I could bring myself to believe that the adoption of the Resolution would contribute to the successful prosecution of the war we are waging with Germany, I would unhesitatingly vote for it, because my whole heart and soul is involved in bringing it to a victorious issue and I am willing to sacrifice everything save the honor and freedom of our country in aiding you to accomplish that end. But I have been unable to do so. We cannot 353reasonably expect the proposed Amendment to be ratified within less than two years and the discussion of it would, unquestionably, divert the minds and energies of the people from the one great absorbing subject before us—the winning of the war—by involving those of many States in a most bitter controversy contrary to our earnest desire for that unity of thought and action of the American people now so imperatively required.

These are my sincere convictions, but, out of my very high respect for your views, I will continue to give your suggestion my most thoughtful and earnest consideration.

With the highest respect, I am,

Sincerely yours,

John K. Shields.

Washington, D. C.

June 26, 1918.

Thank you very sincerely for your frank letter of yesterday about the Suffrage Amendment. I realize the weight of argument that has controlled your attitude in the matter, and I would not have written as I did if I had not thought that the passage of the Amendment at this time was an essential psychological element in the conduct of the war for democracy. I am led by a single sentence in your letter, therefore, to write to say that I do earnestly believe that our acting upon this Amendment will have an important and immediate influence upon the whole atmosphere and morale of the nations engaged in the war, and every day I am coming to see how supremely important that side of the whole thing is. We can win if we have the will to win.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

Woodrow Wilson.

Many believe that had President Wilson—in regard to Suffrage—gone over Shields’ head to his constituents as—in regard to other war policies—he had gone over the heads of Vardaman and Hardwick to their constituents, Senator Shields would have declared in favor of Suffrage.

On August 2, a letter written by the President to Senator Baird of New Jersey was made public:

The President writes:

The whole subject of Woman Suffrage has been very much in my mind of late and has come to seem to be a part of the international 354situation, as well as of capital importance to the United States. I believe our present position as champions of democracy throughout the world would be greatly strengthened if the Senate would follow the example of the House of Representatives in passing the pending Amendment. I, therefore, take the liberty of writing to call the matter to your serious attention in this light and to express the hope that you will deem it wise to throw your influence on the side of this great and now critical reform.

(Signed) Woodrow Wilson.

In spite of these letters, which of course were mere requests, Alice Paul well knew, as did the Senators themselves, that President Wilson was doing a little for Suffrage, but not all he could. He was not of course doing for the Suffrage Amendment a tithe of what he did for other measures in whose success he was interested. Nothing continued to happen with monotonous, unfailing regularity.

The Woman’s Party could wait no longer.