The Washington herald., 1914-01-13
THE OPEN FORUM.
ARE SUFFRAGISTS MILITANT9
Miss Annie Book Declares Their
Methods Are Yelled Threats.

To the. Editor: If the question? Are
American suffragists militant? were put
70 a lot of people the majority would
scoff at the very idea. Indeed not'
they would say, the suffragists IN our
country do not destroy the mail or thrash
a premier or blow up building win
bomb" No. we will accede they have
not done any of these things. but what
have they done?
They demanded an interview with our
President, and when it was denied be
cause of indisposition, they announced
they would camp in Washington until
they got an audience.
III these women had the welfare of their
country and their President at heart.
would they encroach upon his time. when
he has questions under consideration, the
decision of which helps to build or break
the nation?
The suffragists go in squads and be-
seech a Senator. whom they know does
not believe in their cause, to espouse II.
They say of another Senator: We will
defeat him for Office because he said
Young woman should have been at home
and not in the Washington suffrage
parade"
They scoff at a Representative, and at
the same time try to urge him into their
ranks They speak in women's clubs.
and tell the women not to vote for such
and such a Legislator, because ne oio HUI
indorse some woman's bill.
They invite a State senator to speak,
telling him the subject upon which to
talk, and when he has finished they
heap upon him such abuse as he says he
will not forget to his dying day.
They deluge men in power with letters
and kilograms.
They come to our Capitol and state that
they represent 100000 women, and de-
arFc ffrae
the House. They declare they will raise
$4,000 TO fight Representatives who op-
pose their cause.
What has all this got to do with mill
fancy YOU ask? Do you not see the
bludgeon that they hold? Does it not look
as though suffragist agitators considered
our President and our good Senators and
Representatives a lot of milk-sops and
towards, who could be coerced by cajol-
ing or threatening? Tell me. just readers.
have YOU ever pondered at the enormity
Of these things the suffragists propose?
Did you ever stop TO think that threat
is worse than lash: that Bright's disease
or neuristhenia, brought on by worry
due to continuous nagging Of suffragists.
is worse than having your plate glass
smashed: that the ultimate result of
harassing a man into doing what his
Judgment tells him is not best is as
disastrous as the use of bomb? Per-
sonaIly I would consider any kind of
tactics that threatens a mans health,
nosition or honor; any kind of tactics
that would force a man to forget his
state or his country, are militant.
In a November copy of the Trend, Rev.
Anna Shaw says: while they (meaning
American suffragist9 have never taken
any official action in regard to militancy,
as II has never menaced this country. the
resolution passed by the International
Woman Suffrage Alliance stands pledged
by its constitution TO strict neutrality in
all questions concerning national policy
or tactics, its rules forbid any expression
fayorins or condemning militant methods,
and il further resolved that, since riot,
revolution and disorder have never been
construed into an argument against mans
suffrage, we prot6 against tho practice
of TIL opponents Of woman suffrage to
interpret militancy employed by a minor
ity of one country as an excuse for with
holding the vote from the women of the
world l hope you pondered over this
quotation. When the newspapers were
talking of the coming of Mrs. Pankhurst
10 our country, many things were printed
that led the public to think that the Rev.