Palisadian. [volume] (Cliffside Park, N.J.) 1906-current, 1915-04-17
Anti-Sufragists

The meeting on Tuesday evening
at the Congregational Church, ar
ranged by the Mems Club in their
series of educational programs, was
a highly interesting and instructive
one, although the suffragist speaker
did not appear.
This non-appearance was predicted
in letter received from the associa-
ton opposed to woman suffrage,
several weeks ago, as suffragist
speakers are refusing all over the
country to debate or speak with anti
suffragist speakers. Why?
However, this meeting, as was ex-
planned, was to be simply the best
presentation of each side, and not a
debate.
The chairman, Mr.. Donaldson, with
out comment, read all the correspond
ence involved in his efforts to secure
suffragist speaker.
A letter from the local Equal Suf-
frage League simply stated their de-
cision not to supply speaker.
Mr.. Donaldson then wrote to the
National Suffrage Association and
after ten days delay received an in
definite letter expressing inability to
send speaker.
This was received Wednesday
April 7th, and on Thursday, through
Mrs. Donaldson's efforts, well
known speaker from Hoboken was Sc
cured, free of expense, and our local
Suffrage League was notified OF this
that day.
On Monday night, April 18th, a
letter came from her, declining to
speak if the admission fee went to the
Women's College fund because "it is
not in accord with the policy of Suf-
fragists to speak on the subject of
suffrage for the financial benefit of
other organizations"
The following telegram was sent to
Suffrage headquarters in Newark:
as it true that Suffragist speakers
cannot speak at meetings where pro-
ceeds are for benefit of Woman's
State College?"
Reply received was: "Can speak at
meetings. No difference where pro-
ceeds CO."
Immediately on receipt of this, the
SpctthcE was loCillSu Ny tCiCpiioiiC
and asked if she would now be will
ing to speak Tuesday evening but
she refused "from a personal and suf-
frage standpoint"
The letter from the National Suf-
frage Association was read in full,
later in the evening, at the request
of some.
1t had merely been alluded to by the
chairman because it was very lengthy,
very indefinite and with personal and
bitter attacks on the nti-Suffragists,
calculated to produce hard feelings.
These called forth an answer from
Mrs. Oliphant who had been present
at a meeting alluded to and whose
reply made the hearers feel that the
letter furnished a stronge point in
her anti-suffrage argument and that
it had been generously withheld until
demanded as it was not a credit to
the Suffrage side.
Mrs. Oliphant gave full and
splendid presentation of the reasons
against Woman Suffrage, also proved
a number of Suffragist statements
wrong (having all her proofs with
her), and finished her talk with many
extracts from the National Suffrage
pamphlets which showed them as a
part of the great and unsavory fem
mist movement.
Much appreciation had been ex-
pressed for her able and ladylike
handling of the subject, and the
Mems Seminar certainly tried hard
to secure the same able presenta-
ton of both sides, although the Suf-
fragist side has already been present
ed five times by professional speak
ers, in this community, whereas this
is the first time that professional
has spoken on the other side.
The chairman announced to the
large audience that money would be
refunded at the door to all who were
disappointed in not hearing two
speakers (although the lack was due
only to the side whose cause was not
presented). All the proceeds go to
the college fund, as the Anti-Suf-
frage speakers received no remuner-
alton.