New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-05-07
APPEALS TO IRISH
IN MAYOR mitchell
Mrs. Blatch Draws Home
Rule Parallel on His Car
negie Hall Speech.
CONSOLATION FROM
OTHER SUFFRAGISTS
They Write Him Expressing Sor-
row at "Discourtesy" of Wom-
ems Political Union Head.

Justifying her public rebuke 81 Mayor
Mitchell for the remarks he made at the
woman suffrage meeting in Carnegie Hall
on Saturday night, Mrs. Harriet Stanton
Blatch has addressed an open letter 20
him. She appeals TO the Irish blood in
his veins-John Mitchell. his grandfather
was a well known Irish patriot
She writes that the mental processes Of
women are the same as those OF Irish
men, and that if he had made similar re-
marks at a meeting Of Home Rulers
trouble would have followed. AS she ex-
pressed 1t privately, the air would have
been full of shillalehs and brickbats."
At the same time, Mayor Mitchell has
evidence that not all woman suffragists
believe that Mrs. Blatch did the right
thing. He has a number of letters criti-
cislng her for what the writer's term her
lack OF courtesy
Mrs. Clara r. McChesney, writing from
the Hotel Chelsea, says she is a member
of the Women's Political Union and had
front seat on Saturday. She adds;
81 most emphatically deplore the tact
less, dscourteous speech made then and
afterward by Mrs. Harriet Stanton
Batch. Other suffragists, as well as my
self, were very indignant at her rudeness.
Please do not think that all sufragists
are of the same opinion about your ad-
dress or have the manners OF the presi-
dent Of the Womens Political Union"
Please do not think that Mrs. Blatch's
criticism voiced the sentiments Of many OF
the suffragists at Carnegie Hail." writes
Mrs. Anna Maxwell Jones, an election dis
trict leader of the Woman's Suffrage party
in the 18th Assembly District. "She repre-
sents only one wing of the party, some
what affected by English miitarism. You
were the guest of honor, and We regret
that all courtesy was not shown you.
Mrs. Harriette NJ. Johnston Wood, a
lawyer, wrote that neither the Women 5
Political Union nor its president repre-
scented the sentiments Of the suffragists
at large They appear TO be Obvious Of
the right of the individual 10 express
himself freely" she wrote.
In her open letter Mrs. Batch says her
shoulders are broad and she is willing TO
bear the full burden of her words at the
Carnegie Hall meeting. She adds in part:
You have said you cannot explain the
mental processes of the sufragists in
that they take umbrage at your speech Of
welcome To reach a perfect understand
ing of us you have only TO interpret US in
terms of all Independent, self-respecting
and liberty loving human beings.
Let us suppose that you were asked to
welcome a convention of Home Rulers
and that in the course of short speech
to men intensely loyal to the great idea
of Home Rule for Ireland she said:
81. myself, am convinced that Irish
men do not require Home Rule TO achieve
entrance into public life.
when Irishmen have demonstrated an
equal capacity with Englishmen for pub
lie service an equal capacity for leader
ship. then there will be an end to the
Home Rule question.
when enough Irishmen want Home
Rule and want 81 enough they will get 1t.
Until then my experience does not lead
me TO believe that Irishmen will suffer
for lack of Home Rule
Il ask you, Mr.. Mitchell would Irish
men have interpreted that speech other
than averse to their national aspirations?
Would not Irishmen have resented and
been justified in resenting such con-
descensions? Would not lrishmen have
had the political sense to throw paltry
courtesy TO the winds and parry blow
thus publicly aimed at their cause?