The Washington times., 1913-03-07

] or and respect toward the ladies
| than did the big husky policemen
whose place it was to keep order.
MARGUERITE LINCOLN.
422 Third street northwest.
To the Editor of THE TIMES:
! As an observer Of the parade on
March 3, I wish to say that the insults
| to American womanhood, due to negli-
| gence and stupidity of the Washington
| police force, should receive the attention
| of all citizens of the District of Colum-
| bia, whether in favor of the movement
| or against it.
| The question is not whether Major
Sylvester or the whole of the police
! force was for suffrage or against it.
The point at issue Is: Women should
| have protection no matter where they
! are. They should have it in the street
| as we'll as i'm the home. II the police
/ were too inefficient to protect women on
the Sd of March and efficient to protect
! men on the 4th, why should the citizens
of the National Capital tolerate such a
body? If men cannot protect women
on the street as well as in the home,
Of what use are they to communities?
When man ceases to protect woman
he ceases to be gentleman.
Did not Congress issue exactly the
same order for protection for both of
these days? What right has Major Syl-
vester to nullify an act of Congress on
| one day and obey it on the day follow
| ing? If Major Sylvester could clear the
Avenue the 4th, why couldn't he do like
wise on the Sd? The truth Of the
| matter is, he did not care whether the
! marchers had protection or not. l saw
| some of the rude buns climb on the
sides of the automobiles, utter insult
| ing remarks, play with girls furs and
| muffs, and Yet receive no censure from
| the police.
| I often hear the remark made. well,
their place Is at home. They have no
business marching in a suffragette
parade
These women were marching for a
| cause. People attend church for a
cause. What right have 1 to say. be-
cause you or somebody else does not at
| tend the same church that / do that
! you are In the wrong and L am in the
/ right? That you should not have pro-
I lection and / should? Should not both
of us receive equal protection before
| the bar of justice? Common sense
should teach the ones that make these
remarks that all people cannot see
/ things alike.
| With due justice to the police force, I
| think 1t would have been a credit to
them IL they had turned what little bit
OF authority they exercised over to the
4, Boy Scouts. The police acted in accord
with their feelings. They were not in
| terested in performing their duty to pro-
tect these marchers. and ! repeat again
| they did not try to do their duty. They
| did not have their work at heart and
their conduct clearly showed It,
Is II any wonder. then, II women are
| to receive such treatment at the hands
| OF men, that they are fighting to have
i a voice in our Government? Who can
blame them?
II Major Sylvester. as head Of the
! Metropolitan Police Department. can
not equally protect women and men
I alike, let the kind-hearted people at
Washington provide for his retirement.
MRS. J. L. COWGILL.
To the Editor Of THE TINES:
4 An editorial in one of the morning pa
pers. defending the Police Department
for its action on Monday during the suf-
| frage parade says: 1T is true that the
| crowd sRrged through in places along
the Avenue and interfered with the
marchers. This. Of course, should have
been prevented and to this extent the
Police Department deserves criticism.,'
y 1t is for this and this only that the
Police Department is being criticised.
Comments from the crowd were to be
expected and could not have been justly
resented, and the police would not have
been in any way to blame for comments
called from a proper distance. Some
of the remarks were characterized by a
rough wit and were amusing. but the
closeness of the crowd to the marchers
made It possible for insulting remarks
to be spoken to the women which
4 \
the fact that such remarks were in
many cases unchallenged by the police
| men near. VINO even Joined in the
laughter they occasioned, aroused per-
fectly Justifiable resentment on the part
| of the women .narchers. There was
rough handling Of women in some cases
1 also The stick of one of the college
{, banners was broken In two by the surg
ing of the crowd against those carry-
ing it.
| stand when they were at first refused
| permission to parade on Pennsylvania
| avenue, that the Chief of Police feared
trouble because of the rough element
that would be in town at that time.
| Now We are told that the crowd be-
| haved as crowds always do. that 1t was
perfectly harmless and was made up
| mainly of women and children. There
| is truth in this. The crowd gathered or
Monday was in the main good natured.
well intentioned and pressed forward
only through curiosity to see. All the
| more shame to the police that they al
lowed the few rough hoodlums to get
control instead of keeping it themselves.
The beauty Of what has been describ-
ed as the only artistic parade evcI
seen in Washington" the pleasure OF
the persons who had paid for seats
from which to view the pageant, and
the safety. of the marchers and the
| spectators on the street, were all sacri-
feed to the Indifference Of the police
force in the performance of their duty
| EUNICE r. OBERLY.
To the Editor OF THE TINES:
In your issue of yesterday. you ask
how it can be explained that the Wom-
an's suffrage parade was so disturbed
by rowdyism, while the utmost order
| prevailed at the Inaugural parade. 1t
seems to me that the explanation is
very simple. The crowds came here to
see the inaugural ceremonies: they re-
sented the tacking on of the women's s
parade as a rider to the inaugural.
It is one thing to restrain a crowd
that wishes to behave and another to
! keep I'm curb an unrulv crowd. There