The Washington times., 1914-01-25
SUFFRAGE A PARTY
ISSUE?

! Oil aCuIe ulNeTSenCe OF opinion al
to tweedledee and tweedledum, j,
the matter Of methods.
One group of the Congressional
Union ladies are announcing that tn,
political party in power will be helt
responsible for action or failure tt
act on the constitutional amendmen
eliminating the sex distinction il
suffrage. The other group, if we un
derstand them, think that to avou
such a political purpose is unduIy
partisan.
The democrats are in power,
say the political-action ladies. "lhey
control Executive, Senate, and
House. They can, if they will. en-
franchise women. Their refusal es-
tahlishes a record which must be
taken into consideration by women
when the party seeks the indorse-
ment of the people at the polls"
There is the side of the ladies who
are willing to fight for what they
want. The other side is stated by
Mrs. MacLennon, in resigning from
the Congressional Union:
"A partisan stand for the cause is
unfair to the party in power. It is
only just that individual members OF
all parties be held to an accounting
for their attitude on the question Of
the franchise for women" :.
That seems to state the differences
fairly. The Congressional Union
would hold the party in power re-
sponsible. The other elements would
merely blame individuals who op-
posed them.
First of all. is this question Of en-
tranchising women a political oues-
tion? There seems only one DOS
si6le answer. 1t is nothing but a
political question. There is nothing
in it but politics. 1t is as purely
politics as tie question whether we
shall have democracy or monarchy
in this country Extension of the
franchise has always been political.
and nothing but political; in
Great Britain, everywhere the fight
for popular rule has been waged
There is no other way to carry it on
and the whole lesson of history
proves it.
But should it be made a PAPTI-
SAN political question? Should the
party in power at the moment be
held responsible for action taken:
The party now in power has heen
doing business in a party way. Il
made the tariff a party caucus ques-
ton; and the tariff is not half so
much a political question as that
OF extending the franchise is and al
ways has been.
Inc party in power made currency
reform a party caucus question.
That likewise. is not at all a party
question unless it be made such:
certainly it is not so political as the
question of doubling the voting todv
OF the nation
We neither seek nor desire" out
side assistance. That was. in effect,
the pointed and ungracious reply OF
high Democratic authority to a sug-
gestion that votes from the other side
Of the political line might be secured
for nOn-pOlitical measures pending in
the present Congress.
That attitude merely makes
EVERYTHING a political question.
1t made tariff and currency political
questions, when they should not have
been such.
But has that same attitude been
taken by the party toward suffrage
The answer is found in the record
Of the House Rules Committees con-
sideration of the woman suffrage
constitutional amendment. The suG-
fragists merely asked that a rew
House committee, on Woman Sur-
frage, be created. Why not? There
is a Committee on Indian Affairs.
though there are more women voters
in the country than there arr In
dians; more women wanting to vote.
or wanting not to vote, than thero
are people taking any possible inter
est in Indian affairs. Why should
the Indians have a committee, but the
suffragists be denied it?
There is a Committee on DISPOSE
ton of Useless Executive Papers! It
may he 4 good and useful committee:
it may have perservid sessions and
discuss affairs of tremendous import.
But somehow we are moved to doubt