# History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 5/Chapter 12

Contents
CHAPTER XII.
NATIONAL AMERICAN CONVENTION OF 1912.
The Forty-fourth annual convention, which met in Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, Nov. 21-26, 1912, celebrated three important victories. At the general election in the early part of the month, Oregon, Arizona and Kansas had amended their constitutions and conferred equal suffrage on women by large majority votes and the result in Michigan was still in doubt. It was the sentiment of the country that the eastward sweep of the movement was now fully under way. There was a new and vibrant tone in the Call and in the speeches and proceedings.
The Woman's Journal said in its account: “Another new feature was the enormous crowds that turned out at the convention. Evening after evening, in conservative Philadelphia, ten or a dozen overflow meetings had to be held for the benefit of the people who could not possibly get into the hall. At the Thanksgiving service on Sunday afternoon, not only was the ​great Metropolitan Opera House filled to its capacity but for blocks the street outside was jammed with a seething crowd, eager to hear the illustrious speakers. It looked more like an inauguration than like an old-fashioned suffrage meeting."
There was a great out-door rally in Independence Square at the beginning, such as had been witnessed many times on this historic spot conducted by men but never before in the hands of women. Miss Elizabeth Freeman was manager of this meeting, assisted by Miss Jane Campbell, the Rev. Caroline Bartlett Crane, Mrs. Camilla von Klenze, Mrs. Teresa Crowley and Miss Florence Allen. From five platforms over forty well-known speakers demanded that the principles of the Declaration of Independence signed in the ancient hall close by should be applied to women and that the old bell should ring out liberty for all and not for half the people. Mrs. Otis Skinner read the Women's Declaration of Rights, which had been written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage in 1876 and presented at the great centennial celebration in that very square, and a little ceremony was held in honor of Mrs. Charlotte Pierce of Philadelphia, the only one then living who had signed it, with a remembrance presented by Mrs. Anna Anthony Bacon.
We welcome you in the name of the patriots who placed on our Liberty Bell the injunction, "Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land to all the Inhabitants Thereof"; in the name of those ancestors of ours (yours and mine) who here gave up their lives in that struggle to establish the principle that "taxation without representation is tyranny" for a nation; in the name of those uncompromising agitators who delivered their message of liberty even at the risk of life itself, till the shackles fell from a race enslaved; in the name of Lucretia Mott, that gentle, that queenly champion of the downtrodden and oppressed, that inspired preacher whose motto, "Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth," should be the watchword of every soul that seeks for freedom.
Mrs. James Lees Laidlaw, a national officer, made a graceful response for the association. Fraternal greetings were given by Mrs. Barsels, from the Pennsylvania Woman's Christian Temperance Union; by Mrs. Branstetter of Oklahoma from the National Socialist Party; by Mrs. Campbell McIvor of Toronto from the Canadian Woman Suffrage Association and later by Miss Leonora O'Reilly from the New York Women's Trade Union League.
Miss Laura Clay, chairman of the Membership Committee, announced the admission of nine new societies to the National Association. There were 308 delegates in attendance. Mrs. ​Mary Ware Dennett, corresponding secretary and chairman of the Literature Committee, said in the course of her report:
Mrs. Dennett gave a detailed account of the pamphlets, speeches, leaflets, plays, magazine articles, etc., published by the association—250 kinds of printed matter—and said:
Through the courtesy of the Illinois association and the generosity of Miss Addams and Miss Breckinridge, who paid for the rent and service, a sub-station for the supply of literature was established at the Chicago headquarters in April. The sales at this western branch have been $1,924. It would seem well worth while to continue this service for western customers. Also for their benefit Mrs. ​McCormick made a gift of a sample copy of every one of our new publications to the presidents of State associations in eighteen of the western States, as a means of bringing them in closer touch with the national office. . . . Aside from our own literature we have been grateful for a very serviceable congressional document, thousands of which have been distributed in the last few months, the speech of Congressman Edward T. Taylor of Colorado. It proved a successful and timely campaign document and we are indebted not only to Mr. Taylor but to a most efficient volunteer worker in Washington—Mrs. Helen H. Gardener—who gave unstinted personal service in seeing that the documents were obtained and franked when needed....
The convention accepted the recommendation of the board that it should issue a monthly bulletin of facts and figures to be sent to every paying member, thus establishing a real bond between the association and its thousands of members. The report of the Press Bureau by its chairman, Miss Caroline I. Reilly, showed remarkable progress in public sentiment as expressed by the newspapers. It said in part::
The winning of California last year wrought so complete a change in the work of the national press bureau that it was like taking up an entirely new branch. Before that victory our time was employed in furnishing suffrage arguments, replying to adverse editorials and letters published in the newspapers and writing syndicate articles. Now this department has resolved itself into a bureau of information, news being the one thing required. Each week we send to our mailing list 2,000 copies of the press bulletin, giving brief items relative to suffrage activities the world over. These go into every non-suffrage State in the Union, to Canada, Cuba and England, and the demand for them increases daily. Almost every mail brings letters from newspapers asking to be placed on the regular mailing list.... Since the winning of the four States on November 5, newspapers and press associations from all over the United States have written us asking for help to establish woman suffrage departments. The time has come when our question is a paying one from a publicity point of view now have twenty syndicates on our list and are no longer obliged to write the articles ourselves but simply furnish the information which their own writers work up. These syndicates are both national and international and cover all of this country as well as some foreign countries. An interesting thing happened last week, when the representative of a European press syndicate came and said that he had been sent to America for the sole purpose of reporting the woman movement in the United States, the subject being regarded a vital one by the press of Europe. Special suffrage editions seem to be more popular than almost anything else and appeals come ​
| court house of warren ohio Headquarters of the National American Woman Suffrage Association from 1903 to 1910 — on the ground floor. | home of susan b anthony in rochester ny Headquarters of the National American Woman Suffrage Association until 1895 |
Miss Alice Stone Blackwell made an extended report of the Woman's Journal since it became the official organ of the National American Association in June, 1910, and had been published under its auspices. The expenses had increased and funds had not been supplied to meet them. Committees of conference were appointed and eventually the deficit was paid and the paper was returned to Miss Blackwell, who offered the free use of its columns to the association. The report of the treasurer, Miss Jessie Ashley, was not encouraging. Under the old régime the year always closed with a balance in the treasury but this indebtedness to theWoman's Journal left the association $5,000 in debt. As its work broadened the expense became heavier and the income although far larger than ever before was not sufficient. During the past year it had contributed $18,144 to campaigns in eight States. A very large part of this amount was paid by Dr. Shaw from a fund given to her personally for the purpose by Mrs. Quincy A. Shaw of Boston. At this time and later she gave to Dr. Shaw to be used for campaigns according to her judgment $30,000 and the name of the donor was not revealed until after her death in 1917.
The delegates heard reports from the chairmen of various committees—Ways and Means, Dr. M. Carey Thomas; Enrollment, Mrs. Jean Nelson Penfield; Presidential Suffrage, Miss Elizabeth Upham Yates; Laws for Women, Miss Mary Rutter Towle (D. C.). Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead made her usual comprehensive report as chairman of the Peace and Arbitration Committee. Mrs. Mary E. Craigie in her report of seven printed pages on the extensive and successful efforts of her Committee on Church Work told of a circular letter that had been sent to thousands of clergymen throughout the country asking for a special sermon in support of woman suffrage on Mothers' Day. It pointed out that in the vast moral and social reform work of the churches their women members are denied the weapon of Christian welfare, the ballot, while the forces of evil are fully ​enfranchised and the influence of the churches is thus essentially weakened.
Mrs. William Kent, in her report as chairman of the Congressional Committee, said that it had not been necessary to request members to introduce a resolution for a Federal Suffrage Amendment as six were offered by as many Representatives of their own volition. Senator Works of her own State of California had been glad to present it. She told of the "hearings" before the committees of the two Houses on March 13, when the National Association sent representatives to Washington. The preceding day a reception for the speakers was given in her home and many of the guests became interested who had been indifferent. In May the Congressional Committee sent out cards for a "suffrage tea" in her house to the wives of Senators and Representatives; many were present and interesting addresses were made.
Among the resolutions submitted by the chairman of the committee, Mrs. Raymond Brown, and adopted were the following:
We call upon all our members to rejoice at the winning of the School vote by the women of Kentucky and at the full enfranchisement of four more States, Kansas, Oregon, Arizona and Michigan; and in the fact that at the last election the electoral vote of women fully enfranchised was nearly doubled, and to rejoice that all the political parties are now obliged to reckon with the growing power of the woman vote; and be it resolved
That this association believes in the settlement of all disputes and difficulties, national and international, by arbitration and judicial methods and not by war.
That we commend the action of those State Federations of Women's Clubs which have founded departments for the study of political economy and we congratulate those clubs which have endorsed our movement to gain the ballot for all women.
That we deeply deplore the exploiting of the children of this country in our labor markets to the detriment and danger of coming generations; that we commend the action of Congress in the creation of a National Children's Bureau and President Taft's appointment of a woman, Miss Julia Lathrop, as head of the bureau.
A unique feature of the convention was Men's Night, with James Lees Laidlaw of New York, president of the National Men's League for Woman Suffrage of 20,000 members, in the chair and all the speeches made by men. Miss Blackwell said editorially in the Woman's Journal: "From the very beginning of the equal rights movement courageous and justice-loving men have stood by the women and have been invaluable allies in the long fight that is now nearing its triumph but never before have been actually organized to work for the cause. Men old and young, men of the most diverse professions, parties and creeds, spoke with equal earnestness in behalf of equal rights for women." The speakers were the Hon. Frederick C. Howe, Judge Dimner Beeber, president of the Pennsylvania League; A. S. G. Taylor of the Connecticut League; Joseph Fels, the Single Tax leader; Julian Kennedy of Pittsburgh; George Foster Peabody of New York; the Rev. Wm. R. Lord of Massachusetts; Jesse Lynch Williams, J. H. Braly of California and Reginald Wright Kauffman. The last named, whose recently published book, The House of Bondage, had aroused the country on the "white slave traffic," discussed this question as perhaps it never before had been presented in public and he found a sympathetic audience.
The Rev. James Grattan Mythen, of the Prince of Peace Church, Walbrook, Md., made a strong demand for the influence of women in the electorate, in which he said: "Whatever wrongs the law allows must not be laid entirely at the door of paid public servants whom by the franchise we employ to do our public will. Where there are criminals in public office they represent criminals. They represent the active criminals whose debased ballots put them in office, and they represent the passive criminals whose ballot was not,cast to keep them out! "That ye did it not' merits as great a condemnation as 'That ye did it.' What is needed in politics is the reassertion of the moral ideal, ​and as men we know that this moral ideal has been, is now and always will be the possession of womankind. For this reason men ought to demand that women come into the body politic and bring with them the same moral standard that they hold for themselves in the home, in the Church, in the hospitals, in the great reform movements which are voiced by the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and all other endeavors for righteousness that are always championed by women."
This was not the time and place arranged for taking a collection but the enthusiasm was so great that Mr. Fels started the ball rolling and $2,000 were quickly subscribed. Later at the regular collection the amount was increased to $6,908. Among the largest pledges were those of Miss Kate Gleason of Rochester, N. Y., for $1,200; Mrs. Oliver H. P. Belmont, $1,000; Mrs. Bowen of Chicago, $600; New York State Association, $600; Pennsylvania State Association, $500; Miss Emily Howland, $300. The treasurer, Miss Ashley, stated that the receipts from April 1 to November 1 had been $55,197.
Dr. Shaw had telegraphed the congratulations of the association to the Governors of the four victorious States and telegrams of greetings to the convention were read from Governors Oswald West of Oregon; George P. Hunt of Arizona; W. R. Stubbs of Kansas; and Chase S. Osborn of Michigan. Greetings were received from Miss Martina G. Kramers of Holland, editor of the international suffrage paper; the U. S. National Council of Women, and from Mrs. Champ Clark and her sister, Mrs. Annie Pitzer of Colorado, sent through Miss Nettie Lovisa White of Washington. Telegrams of congratulation were sent to the State presidents, Mrs. Abigail Scott Duniway of Oregon and Mrs. Frances W. Munds of Arizona, and of sympathy to the Rev. Olympia Brown and Miss Ada L. James for the defeat in Wisconsin.
It was voted to continue the national headquarters in New York. There was a flurry of discussion over a proposed amendment to the constitution changing the present method of voting, which allowed the delegates present to cast the entire number of votes to which the State was entitled by its paid membership. The convention finally adopted the amendment that hereafter ​the delegates present should cast only their individual votes. The election resulted in a change of but two officers. Professor Breckinridge and Miss Ashley did not stand for re-election and Miss Anita Whitney of California was chosen for second vice-president and Mrs. Louise De Koven Bowen of Chicago for second auditor.
A serious controversy arose during the convention in regard to the deviation of some of the national officers from the time-honored custom of non-partisanship. It had always been the unwritten but carefully observed law of the association that no member of the board should advocate or work for any political party. Mrs. George Howard Lewis, a veteran suffragist of Buffalo, N. Y., sent a resolution to the convention declaring that officers of the association must remain non-partisan and Mrs. Ida Husted Harper presented it and led the contest for it. Dr. Shaw announced before it was discussed that the board recommended that it should not pass.
Women had taken a larger part in the political campaign which had just ended than ever before and one of the officers and many of the delegates present had spoken and worked for the Progressive party because of the suffrage plank in its platform. Other members had done the same for the Socialist and Prohibition parties for a like reason. As a result, while the resolution had some 'warm support it was defeated by a vote of ten to one, although it applied only to the officers and left individual members free. The consequences of this vote soon began to be realized by the board and the delegates and in the official resolutions was one which said: "The National American Suffrage Association reaffirms the position for which it always has stood, of being an absolutely non-partisan, non-sectarian body." When asked for an interpretation the officers answered that "the association must not declare officially for any political party."
One of the most enjoyable evenings of the convention was the one in charge of the National College Equal Suffrage League, the program consisting of a debate between groups of clever speakers, each with one or more university degrees, half of them ​posing as anti-suffragists, with Dr. Thomas, president of Bryn Mawr College and of the league, in the chair. A suffrage meeting which touched high water mark was that of Sunday afternoon, when the immense opera house was filled to overflowing and literally thousands stood on the outside in the intense cold and listened to speakers who were hastily sent out to address them. Dr. Shaw presided. The meeting was opened with prayer by the Rt. Rev. Philip Mercer Rhinelander and the music was rendered by the choir, under its director, Samuel J. Riegel, with the audience joining. An eloquent address was given, the Democracy of Sex and Color, by Dr. W. E. Burghardt Du Bois, and one by Miss Addams on the Communion of the Ballot, the necessity for cooperative work by men and women, in which she said: "Take a still graver subject. Everywhere vice regulation is coming up for government action. The white slave traffic is international and it goes on from city to city. I ask you, in the name of common sense, is it safe or wise or sane to entrust to men alone the dealing with this age-long evil? Our laws are superior to those of most European countries. In England, because women have been obliged to appeal to the pity of men against these evils, (for the appeal to chivalry seems to have fallen), there is a disposition to divide into two camps, men in one and women in the other. Any sex antagonism thus engendered arises because these grave moral questions have not been taken up by men and women together. By debarring women from suffrage, we are failing to bring to bear on these questions that vast moral energy which dwells in women.... Whenever there. is a great moral awakening it is followed by an extension of the movement for women's rights. The first wave came with the anti-slavery agitation; the second with the prohibition movement and Frances Willard, and now there is coming all over the world this irresistible movement of government to take up great social and industrial questions."
The very fine address of Miss Julia Lathrop, Chief of the National Children's Bureau, on Woman Suffrage and Child Welfare filled over five columns of the Woman's Journal and contained a sufficient argument for the enfranchisement of women if no other ever had been or should be made. "My purpose," ​she began, "is to show that woman suffrage is a natural and inevitable step in the march of society forward; that instead of being incompatible with child welfare it leads toward it and is indeed the next great service to be rendered for the welfare and ennoblement of the home. A little more than one-third of all the people in this country, something over 29,500,000 in actual numbers, are children under the age of fifteen—that is, still in a state of tutelage; and it is of unbounded importance that nothing be done by the rest of us which will injure this budding growth. So it is right to judge in large measure any proposed change in our social fabric by its probable effect on that dependent third of the race to whom we are pledged, for whose succession it is the work of this generation to prepare. What we propose is to give universal suffrage to women."
Answering the question, "Do we propose a mad revolution?" she traced the development in the position of woman, every step of which was condemned at the time as a dangerous innovation. "It was a revolution when women were given equal property rights over their goods and equal rights over their children," she said. "We must blush that there are States in this country where that revolution is still to be accomplished. I have heard an old Illinois lawyer describe the early efforts to secure equal property rights for women in that State and the constant objection that such laws would destroy the family, that there could be no harmony unless the ownership were all in one person and that person the man. It was feared then, as now, that women would become tyrannical and unbearable if they were allowed too much independence. Do children suffer because their mothers: own property?" She pointed out the necessity for woman's political influence on humanitarian movements and said: "Suffrage for women is not the final word in human freedom but it is the next step in the onward march, because it is the next step in equalizing the rights and balancing the duties of the two types of individuals who make up the human race."
Miss Lathrop showed the need of legislation for all social reforms and how the experience of women beginning with domestic duties carried them forward to a sense of their obligations in community life and a fitness for it. Referring to the ​uneducated women she said: "The ignorant vote is not the working vote. Working women in great organized factories have been having, since they began that work, an education for the suffrage. They are not the ignorant voters nor are wives of workingmen; at least, they know in part what they need to safeguard themselves and their homes. The ignorant vote is the complacent, blind vote of men and of the feminine 'influence' that moves them, which disregards the real problems of setting safe and wholesome standards of life and labor and education and spends its strength in looking backward, insisting upon precedents without seeing that, good and enduring as they may be, all precedents must be daily retranslated into the setting of today. "Women must vote for their own souls' good," she said, "and they must vote to protect the family. The newer conception of the family is one which depends upon giving to both parents the fullest expression on all those matters of common concern."
The address closed with a fine peroration Pass on the Torch! In the evening the officers of the association gave a largely attended reception to delegates and friends in the banquet hall of Hotel Walton.
The closing night of the convention was one long to be remembered. There was the same vast, eager audience: Dr. Shaw presided and on the platform was the distinguished Apostle of Peace, winner of the Nobel prize, Baroness Bertha von Suttner, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, just returned from a two-years' trip around the world. The meeting was opened by the Rt. Rev. James Henry Darlington, bishop of central Pennsylvania, whose brief address was of great value to the cause. He congratulated the American people on the fact that four more States had been added to the ever-growing list of those which had given the suffrage to women and he called upon all observers to notice that no State which had once voted in woman suffrage had ever voted it out. Once in use, local opposition to it ceased by reason of the self-evident good results. He offered congratulation to those who were humble privates in the ranks and to the famous and brave leaders who organized the victories, Elizabethan and Victorian eras are the most distinguished for philanthropic, literary and economic advancement in the whole ​history of Great Britain, though the Kings were many and the Queens were few in the long line," he said, "so no man need be ashamed to follow feminine leadership when it means advancement in every good word and work," and he offered congratulations to little children of the future generations of this and all Jands. "When our anti-suffrage sisters throw aside their complacency and selfish ease," he said, "to strive side by side with men to formulate and pass necessary laws to protect and develop the bodies, minds and souls of our present little children and all that are to come through the passing centuries, then will dawn a new day for humanity."
Brief addresses were made by Mrs. Blankenburg, Miss Jane Campbell and Professor Breckinridge of Chicago University. Miss Crystal Eastman gave a graphic account of why the amendment failed in Wisconsin and Mrs. Harriet Taylor Upton, State president, told in her inimitable way of the campaign that failed in Ohio. Baroness von Suttner made a magnificent plea for the peace of the world and.asked for the enfranchisement of women as an absolutely necessary factor in it. The dominant note of Mrs. Catt's speech was the great need for political power in the hands of women to combat the social evil, which she had found intrenched in the governments of every country. These last two addresses, which carried thrilling conviction to every heart, were made without notes and not published.
From the early days of the National Suffrage Association its representatives had appeared before committees of every Congress to ask for the submission of an amendment to the Federal Constitution and during many years this "hearing" took place when the annual convention met in Washington. As it was to be held elsewhere this year and at a time when the Congress was not in session a delegation of speakers had gone before the committees the preceding March by arrangement of Mrs. William Kent, chairman of the association's Congressional Committee.
At the hearing before a joint committee of the Senate Judiciary and Senate Committee on Woman Suffrage March 13 six of the members were present: Senators Overman (N. C.), chair​man; Brandegee (Conn.); Bourne (Ore.); Brown (Neb.); Johnston (Ala.); Wetmore (R. I.). Senator John D. Works of California, who had introduced the resolution in the Senate, presented Dr. Anna Howard Shaw as "one of the best known and most distinguished of those connected with the movement for the enfranchisement of women." As she took charge of the hearing she said in part:
Mrs, Fitzgerald spoke at length in the interest of the home and the family, showing the evolution that had taken place until now "the Government touches upon every phase of our home life and largely dictates its conditions while at the same time the woman is held responsible for them and is working with her hands tied behind her back and she asks the vote in order to do her woman's work better." Mrs. James Lees Laidlaw of New York spoke beautifully of the desire of the mothers of the rising generation that their daughters should not have to enter the hard struggle for the suffrage and pictured the need for the high​est development of the womanly character. Mrs. Elsie Cole Phillips of Wisconsin showed the standpoint of the so-called working classes, saying in part:
But I would also like to point out to you how this affects the home-keeping woman, the wife and mother, of the working class, aside from the wage-earning woman. Consider the woman at home who must make both ends meet on a small income. Who better than she knows whether or not the cost of living advances more rapidly than the wage does? Is not that a true statement in the most practical form of the problem of the tariff? And who better than she knows what the needs of the workers are in the factories? Take the tenement-house woman, the wife and mother who is struggling to bring up a family under conditions which constantly make for evil. Who, better than the mother who has tried to bring up six or seven children in one room in a dark tenement house, knows the needs of a proper building? Who better than the mother who sees her boy and her girl playing in the streets knows the need of playgrounds? Who better than a mother knows what it means to a child's life— which you men demand that she as a wife and a mother shall care for especially—who, better than she, knows the cruel pressure that comes to that child from too early labor in what the U. S. census report calls "gainful occupations"?
There is a practical wisdom that comes out of the pressure of life and an educational force in life itself which very often is more efficient than that which comes through textbooks of college.... The ignorant vote that is going to come in when women are enfranchised is that of the leisure-class woman, who has no responsibilities and knows nothing of what life means to the rest of the world, who has ​absolutely no civic or social intelligence. But, fortunately for us, she is a small percentage of the women of this land, and fortunately for the land there is no such rapid means of education for her as to give her the ballot and let her for the first time feel responsibilities....
James Lees Laidlaw of New York was introduced as president of the National Men's League for Woman Suffrage and after stating that such leagues were being organized throughout the country he spoke of the great change that had taken place in the status of women and said:
Mrs. Ella S. Stewart, president of the Illinois Suffrage AssoCiation and member of the national board, contrasted the old academic plea for the ballot with the modern demand for it to ​meet the present intensely utilitarian age and continued: "Today we know that the ballot is just a machine. In fact it impresses us as being something like the long-distance telephone which we in this scientific age have grown accustomed to use. We go into the polling booth and call up central (the Government) and when we get the connection we deliver our message with accuracy and speed and then we go about our business. Women have been encouraged during the past to have opinions about governmental matters and there is no denying that we do have opinions. If we could submit to you today the list of bills which the Federations of Women's Clubs of the various States have endorsed and for which they are working you would know that women have a large civic conscience and an intelligent appreciation of the measures which affect both women and the homes. They have been encouraged to have these opinions but to try to influence legislation only in indirect ways. Today, being practical and scientific, we are asking ourselves all the time why should we be limited to expressing our opinion on governmental affairs in our women's clubs? Why should we breathe them only in the prayer meeting or in the parlors of our friends? Why not directly into the governmental ear—the ballot box? Why do we not go into that long-distance telephone booth, get connection with central, and then know that our message has been delivered in the only place where it is recorded. The Government makes. no record whatever of the opinions which we express in our women's clubs and our prayer meetings."
Mrs. Caroline A. Lowe of Kansas City, Mo., spoke in behalf of the 7,000,000 wage-earning women of the United States from the standpoint of one who had earned her living since she was eighteen and declared that to them the need of the ballot was a vital one. She gave heart-breaking proofs of this fact and said:
What of the working girl and her employer? Why is the ballot given to him while it is denied to us? Is it for the protection of his property that he may have a voice in the governing of his wealth, of his stocks and bonds and merchandise? The wealth of the working woman is far more precious to the welfare of the State. From nature's raw products the working class can readily replace all of the material wealth owned by the employing class but the wealth of the working woman is the wealth of flesh and blood, of all her physical, mental and spiritual powers. It is not only the wealth of today but that of future generations which is being bartered away so cheaply. Have we no right to a voice in the disposal of our wealth, the greatest that the world possesses, the priceless wealth of its womanhood? Is it not the cruelest injustice that the man whose material wealth is a source of strength and protection to him and of power over us should be given the additional advantage of an even greater weapon which he can use to perpetuate our condition of helpless subjection?.... The industrial basis of the life of the woman has changed and the political superstructure must be adjusted to conform to it. This industrial change has given to woman a larger horizon, a greater freedom of action in the industrial world. Greater freedom and larger expression are at hand for her in the political life. The time is ripe for the extension of the franchise to women.
Mrs. Donald Hooker of Baltimore gave striking instances of the conditions in that State regarding the social evil, of the hundreds of virtuous girls who every year are forced into a life of shame, of the thousands of children who die because mothers have no voice in making laws for their protection. "There was never a great act of injustice," she said, "that was not paid for in human life and happiness. A great act of injustice is being perpetrated by denying women the right to vote."
Miss Leonora O'Reilly, a leader among the working women of New York, made an impassioned plea that carried conviction. "I have been a wage-earner since I was thirteen," she said, "and I know whereof I speak. I want to make you realize the lives of hundreds of girls I have seen go down in this struggle for ​bread. We working women want the ballot as our right. You say it is not a right but a privilege. Then we demand it as a privilege. All women ought to have it, wage-earning women must have it." After plainer speaking than the committee had ever heard from a woman she concluded: "You may tell us that our place is in the home. There are 8,000,000 of us in these United States who must go out of it to earn our daily bread and we come to tell you that while we are working in the mills, the mines, the factories and the mercantile houses we have not the protection that we should have. You have been making laws for us and the laws you have made have not been good for us. Year after year working women have gone to the Legislature in every State and have tried to tell their story of need in the same old way. They have gone believing in the strength of the big brother, believing that the big brother could do for them what they should, as citizens, do for themselves. They have seen time after time the power of the big interests come behind the big brother and say to him, 'If you grant the request of these working women you die politically.'
"It is because the working women have seen this that they now demand the ballot. In New York and in every other State, we plead for shorter hours. When the legislators learn that women today in every industry are being overspeeded and overworked, most of them would, if they dared, vote protective legislation. Why do they neglect the women? We answer, because those who have the votes have the power to take the legislator's political ladder away from him, a power that we, who have no votes, do not have.... While the doors of the colleges have been opened to the fortunate women of our country, only one woman in a thousand goes into our colleges, while one woman in five must go into industry to earn her living. And it is for the protection of this one woman in every five that I speak...."
Mrs. Jean Nelson Penfield, chairman of the Woman Suffrage Party of New York numbering 60,000 members, said in part:
The dominant thought in the world today is that of conservation; the tendency of the whole business world is toward economy. How to lessen the cost of production; how to improve the machinery of business so as to reduce friction—these are the questions that are being asked not only in the business world but in the affairs of state. No intelligent man in this scientific day would try to do anything by an indirect and wasteful method if he could accomplish his purpose by a direct and economic method. Even the bricklayer is taught how to handle his bricks so that the best results may be secured at the least possible expenditure of time and energy. Women alone seem to represent a great body of energy, vitality and talent which is unconserved, unutilized and recklessly wasted. If a man wants reforms he goes armed with a vote to the ballot box and even to the Legislature with that power of the vote behind him; but if women want these things they are asked to take the long, questionable, roundabout route of personal influence, of petition, of indirection. 'Women have accomplished a great deal in this way but it has required a long time.... Take, for instance, one class of work—the establishment of manual training, domestic science, openair schools, school gardens and playgrounds—all once just "women's notions" but now established institutions. Women have had to found and finance and demonstrate them before municipalities would have anything to do with them, but when city or State adopts these institutions the management is immediately and entirely taken out of the hands of women and placed in the hands of men....
In closing Dr. Shaw asked that her association might have some printed copies for distribution and was assured that it might have fifteen or twenty thousand if it desired them. She also urged that the committee would report the resolution to the Senate for discussion and as a third request said: "We are told that men are afraid to grant women suffrage lest fearful results should come to the Government and to the women. We have asked for years that Congress would appoint a committee to investigate its practical working in the States where it exists —there are now six of them—and we are entirely willing to risk our case on that investigation. We feel that its results would be ​such that we would not have to come here much longer and take up your time with our arguments on the subject."
Franklin W. Collins of Nebraska spoke in opposition, presenting his case in a series of over fifty questions but not attempting to answer any of them. Among the questions were these: If woman by her ballot should plunge the country into war, would she not be in honor bound to fight by the side of man? Will the ballot in the hands of women pour oil on the troubled domestic waters? Has not this movement a strong tendency to encourage the exodus from the land of bondage, otherwise known as matrimony and motherhood? Is it not true that every free-lover, socialist, communist and anarchist the country over is openly in favor of female suffrage?
The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage sent from its bureau in New York a letter of "earnest protest" against the amendment signed by its president, Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge. Its auxiliary in the District of Columbia sent another of greater length signed by its chairman, Mrs. Grace Duffield Goodwin, which not only protested against a Federal Amendment but against the granting of woman suffrage by any method.
Six members of the House of Representatives had introduced the resolution for a Federal Suffrage Amendment—Raker of California; Lafferty of Oregon; Mondell of Wyoming; Berger of Wisconsin; and Taylor and Rucker of Colorado. The hearing before the Judiciary Committee proved to be of unusual interest. Sixteen of this large committee of twenty-one were present and a reason given for the absence of the others. They were an imposing array as they sat in a semi-circle on a raised platform. The chairman, Judge Henry D. Clayton of Alabama, treated the speakers as if they were his personal guests, assured them of all the time they desired and at the close of the hearing was photographed with Miss Addams and Mrs. Harper. Instead of listening in a perfunctory way the members of the committee showed much interest and asked many questions. Miss Jane Addams, first vice-president of the National American Suffrage Association, presided and in presenting her with words of high​est praise Representative Taylor said that all who had introduced the resolution would be pleased to speak in support of it at any time and that personally he wished to put in the record a statement of the results of woman suffrage in Colorado during the past eighteen years with a brief mention of 150 of the wisest, most humane and progressive laws in the country for the protection of home and the betterment of society, which the women of Colorado had caused to be put upon its statute books.
Miss Addams called the attention of the committee to the fact that more than a million women would be eligible to vote for the President of the United States in November. She named the countries where women could vote, saying: "America, far from being in the lead in the universal application of the principle that every adult is entitled to the ballot, is fast falling behind the rest of the world," and continued:
Introducing Representative Raker Miss Addams said smilingly that while the women speakers were allowed ten minutes the men were to have but five. Judge Raker of California referred to the fact that he had pledged himself to this Federal Amendment when he was first a candidate for Congress eight years before and said: "This matter, as it appears to me, has passed beyond the question of sentiment; it has passed beyond the question of advisability; it has passed beyond the question of whether or not women ought to participate in the vote for the benefit of the home or the benefit of the State. As I view it it is a clean-cut question of absolute right and upon that assumption I base my argument—that we today are depriving one-half of the intelligence, one-half of the ability of this republic from participating in public affairs and that from the economic standpoint of better laws, better homes, better government in the country, the city, the State and the nation, we need our wives', our sisters' and our mothers' votes and assistance."
"May I introduce one of my own fellow townswomen, Miss Mary E. McDowell," said Miss Addams, 'who has had what I may call a distressing life in the stockyards district of Chicago for many years, and she will tell you what she thinks of the franchise for women." Miss McDowell said in part:
Representative A. W. Lafferty of Oregon said in his brief five minutes: "TI believe it is not only practicable but that it would be profitable to the United States to extend equal suffrage to men and women. We have had here this morning a practical demonstration of the ability of the women of this country to participate intelligently in the discussion of public questions. I think that we could not make a mistake in placing the ballot in the hand that rocks the cradle. Having only the best interests of this republic at heart, I believe it would be a good thing if fifty of the mothers of this country were in the House of Representatives today and I wish that at least twenty-five of them were in the Senate. You should consider, as lawyers, as statesmen and as historians that in the history of the civilized world in monarchies women have participated in the Government; it is a shame that in a republic like ours, the best form of government that has ever yet been established, women can not, under the present law, actively participate in it."
The address which Representative Edward T. Taylor put into the Congressional Record on this occasion was also printed in a pamphlet of forty pages and until the end of the movement for woman suffrage was a standard document for distribution by the National Association. He said in the introduction:
Then followed under the head of different years, beginning with 1893, that in which women were enfranchised, a roster of Colorado's unequalled laws. These were followed by a complete analysis of the practical working of woman suffrage during the past eighteen years, with comprehensive answers to all the stereotyped questions and objections.
Several who had addressed the Senate Committee came over to the House office building and spoke to the Judiciary Committee. Mrs. William Kent, wife of a Representative from California, was introduced by Miss Addams as one who was not a member of the House but was eligible. In the course of a winning speech she said: 'The United States is committed to a democratic form of government, a government by the people. Those who do not believe in the ideals of democracy are the only ones who can consistently oppose woman suffrage. The hope of democracy is in education. There is food for thought in the ​fact that the early education of all the citizens is now administered by a class who have no vote.... Our recent California Legislature when it submitted the amendments which were to be referred to the voters on October 10 did a very sensible and intelligent thing. Speeches for and against each one of these amendments were published in a little pamphlet which was sent to every voter. One man—and he was a good man, too—who argued against woman suffrage said that women should not descend into the dirty mire of politics, that the vote would be of no value to them. In the same speech he said that the women should teach their sons the sacred duties of citizens and to hold the ballot as the most precious inheritance of every American boy. Can we really bring up our sons with a clear sense of the civic responsibility which we ourselves have not? We believe that our children need what we shall learn in becoming voters and that the State needs what we have learned in being mothers and home makers."
"May I present next," said Miss Addams, "Mrs. Ida Husted Harper, of New York? She has been before other Congressional committees with Miss Susan B. Anthony, who for so many years came here to present this cause. Mrs. Harper has written a history of the equal suffrage movement and a very fine biography of Miss Anthony and it is with special pleasure that I present her. She will make the constitutional argument."
Mrs. Harper said in beginning: "This argument shall be based entirely on the Federal Constitution and the only authorities cited will be the utterances of two Presidents of the United States within the past month." She then quoted from speeches of President Taft and former President Roosevelt extolling the Constitution as guaranteeing self-government to all the people with the right to change it when this seems necessary, and she showed the utter fallacy of this statement when applied to women. In closing she said: "Forty-three years in asking Congress for this amendment of the Federal Constitution to enfranchise women they have followed an entirely legal and constitutional method of procedure, which has been so absolutely barren of results that in the past nineteen years the committees have made no report whatever, either favorable or unfavorable. How much longer ​do you expect women to treat with respect National and State constitutions and legislative bodies that stand thus an impenetrable barrier between them and their rights as citizens of the United States?" A long colloquy followed which began:
Mrs. Harper: Mr. Chairman, the women are not waiting; they are keeping right on with their efforts to get the suffrage from the States. They began in 1867 with their State campaigns and have continued them ever since, but in sending the women to the States you require them to make forty-eight campaigns and to go to the individual electors to get permission to vote. After the Civil War the Republican party with all its power and with only the northern States voting, was never able to get the suffrage for the negroes. The leaders went to State after State, even to Kansas, with its record for freeing the negroes, and every State turned down the proposition to give them suffrage. I doubt if the individual voters of many States would give the suffrage to any new class, even of men. The capitalists would not let the working people vote if they could help it, and the working people would not let the capitalists vote; Catholics would not enfranchise the Protestants and the Protestants would not give the vote to Catholics. You impose upon us an intolerable condition when you send us to the individual voters. What man on this committee would like to submit his electoral rights to the voters of New York City, for instance, representing as they do every nationality in the world? If we could secure this amendment to the Federal Constitution, then we could deal with the Legislatures, with the selected men in each State, instead of the great conglomerate of voters that we have in this country, such as does not exist in any other.
The Chairman: But if one of these suffrage resolutions should be favorably reported and both Houses of Congress should pass it of course it would be referred to the States and then before it became a law it would have to have their approval.
Mrs. Harper: Only of the Legislatures, not the individual voters.
The Chairman: You use an expression which a member of the committee has asked me to have you explain—"conglomerate of voters," which you said does not exist elsewhere. The desire is to know to whom you refer.
Mrs. Harper: I mean no disrespect to the great body of electors ​in the United States but in every other country the voters are the people of its own nationality. In no other would the question have to go to the nationalities of the whole world as it would in our country. For instance, we have to submit our question to the negro and to the Indian men, when we go to the individual voters, and to the native-born Chinese and to all those men from southern Europe who are trained in the idea of woman's inferiority. You put upon us conditions which are not put upon women anywhere in the world outside the United States.
Mr. Littleton (N. Y.): You would have to convince every legislator of the fact that this amendment to the National Constitution ought to be adopted. If you could convince the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States you could get three-fourths of them to grant the suffrage itself.
Mrs. Harper: They could only grant it to the extent of sending us to the individual voters, while if this amendment were submitted by Congress and the Legislatures endorsed it we would never have to deal with the individual voters. We would not have to convince every legislator but only a majority.
Mr. Higgins (Conn.): In other words, as I understand you, you have more confidence in the Legislatures than in the composite citizenship.
Mrs. Harper: The composite male citizenship, you mean. We suppose, of course, that the Legislatures represent the picked men of the community, its intelligence, its judgment, the best that the country has. That is the supposition.
The Chairman: That supposition applies to Congress also, does it?
Mrs. Harper: In a larger degree.
Representative Victor L. Berger of Wisconsin, who was out of the city, sent a statement which Miss Addams requested Mrs. Elsie Cole Phillips of Wisconsin to read to the committee. It said in part:
The economic argument for woman suffrage is yet stronger. Eco​nomics plays an increasingly important part in the lives of us all and political power is absolutely necessary to obtain for women the possibility of decent conditions of living. The low pay and the hard conditions of working women are largely due to their disenfranchisement. Skilled women who do the same work as men for lower pay could enforce, with the ballot, an equal wage rate.
Mr. Berger called attention to the fact that "the Socialist party ever since its origin had been steadfastly for woman suffrage and put this demand of prime importance in all its platforms everywhere." Representative Littleton made a persistent effort to ally woman suffrage with Socialism, saying that he "had noticed the identity during the past two years" and Mrs. Harper answered: "I wish to remind Mr. Littleton that the Socialist party is the only one which declares for woman suffrage and thereby gives women an opportunity to come out and stand by it. The Democratic and Republican parties do not stand for woman suffrage and that is why there seem to be more Socialist women than Republican or Democratic women. If the two old parties will declare for woman suffrage, then the women in general will show their colors."
Miss Ella C. Brehaut, member of the executive committee of the District Anti-Suffrage Association, stated that she also represented the National organization and when questioned by Representative Sterling as to the size of its membership answered: "It is too new for us to know the figures." Miss Brehaut's address filled six printed pages of the stenographic report and was an ​attempt to refute all the favorable arguments that had been made and to show that not only were the suffrage leaders Socialists but "free lovers" as well. "Conservative women can see nothing but danger in woman suffrage," she concluded. Mrs. Julia T. Waterman, of the District association, sent to be put in the report a statement which filled ten pages of fine print, a full summary of the objections to woman suffrage as expressed in speeches, articles and documents of various kinds, with quotations from prominent opponents in the United States and Great Britain. It was a very complete presentation of the question.
Miss Addams in closing urged the appointment of a commission by Congress to make a thorough investigation in the States where woman suffrage was established and the chairman answered that "the committee would probably wish to take this matter under advisement in executive session." She thanked him for their courtesy and asked if the National Suffrage Association might have 10,000 copies of the hearing for distribution. This request was cheerfully granted by the committee and the chairman offered to "frank" them as a public document. [Later the committee increased the number to 16,000.]
Apparently the matter never was considered, as no report, favorable or unfavorable, ever was made by either committee. In so far as bringing the Federal Amendment before Senate or House for action was concerned the hearings might as well never have taken place, but 26,000 franked copies of the splendid arguments before the two committees went forth to accomplish the mission of educating public sentiment.
* ↑ Part of Call: This convention has big problems confronting it, interesting, stimulating problems coincident with the tremendous expansion of our government, problems worthy the indomitable mettle of suffrage workers; but in spite of hard work, this week will be a gala week, a compensation for all the hard, dull, gray work during the past year and a stimulus for still harder work during the year to come....   Let us listen to our fellow workers, and, listening and sympathizing with the unselfish labor being carried on everywhere, pledge ourselves to a flaming loyalty to suffrage and suffragists that will burn away all dross of dissension, all barriers to united effort. Let us come with high resolve that we will never waver in our effort to obtain the right to stand side by side with the men of this country in the mortal struggle that shall bid perish from this land political corruption, privilege, prostitution, the industrial slavery of men, women and children and all exploitation of humanity.   Let us come together, in this autumn of 1912, this unprecedented year of suffrage, consecrating ourselves anew on this, the greatest of all battlegrounds for democracy, the United States of America. Anna Howard Shaw, President. Jane Addams, First Vice-President. Sophonisba Breckenridge, Second Vice-President. Mary Ware Dennett, Corresponding Secretary. Susan W. Fitzgerald, Recording Secretary. Jessey Ashley, Treasurer. Katharine Dexter McCormick, $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ Auditors. Harriet Burton Laidlaw, Alice Stone Blackwell, Editor of the Woman's Journal.
* ↑ History of Woman Suffrage, Volume III, page 31.
* ↑ Later the total deficit of $6,000 was paid by Mrs, Katharine Dexter McCormick of Boston, an officer of the National Association.
* ↑ It was supposed at this time that the suffrage amendment had been carried in Michigan but the final returns indicated its defeat, apparently due to fraudulent voting and counting.
* ↑ It is a noteworthy fact that although woman suffrage was a leading issue in the presidential campaign of 1916 no officer of the National American Suffrage Association took any public part in it, although the platform of each of the parties contained a plank endorsing woman suffrage.
* ↑ It was eight and a half years.