New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-08-11
The Wadsworth Record
Wherein Il Has Failed TO Satisfy The
Progressive Minded

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Mr.. Wadsworth tries to show in
his letter recently published In your
paper that he is friend of such legis
lations as the great majority Of women
voters want
He has asked us to go back ten. and
fourteen years, when, as Speaker of the
Assembly, he was an influential member
OF the New York legislative body. 1t
Is true that during 1905-'1O certain
measures were passed which raised New
York State above the low standard in
regard to child welfare it had hitherto
occupied. But that these measures were
as superlative as Mr.. Wadsworth sug-
gcsts is contradicted by the fact tina,
year in and out bills for the better pro-
lection Of children are still introduced
When Mr.. Wadsworth says eve passed
the famous eight-hour law" he does not
make himself clear. The fifty-four-hour
law for women was defeated, but an
eight-hour law for children in factories
was passed in 1907. / presume he re-
fers to this law as the famous law"
but it takes good deal more magma
ton than most Of US possess to appre-
ciate the reason for calling an eight
hour law for young factory children
famous"
Mr.. Wadsworth assures us that "all
these steps toward the betterment Of
human life had my active support as
Speaker" Indeed, for whatever Mr..
Wadsworth did to aid the intelligent
Standardization of child labor he de-
serves credit, but do not let us be misled
in giving him more than is his due. for
If Mr.. Wadsworth was then or is now
as stanch an advocate Of better indus
trial conditions as he would have US
believe he could not have escaped being
thought friend Of social welfare legis-
lation and Of labor. No one, not even
his friends, regards him as such. In
stinctively and normally he is not. He
believes too much in the status quo, as
his suffrage record indicates, and he
favors too faithfully the masters Of the
game, as his labor record in Washing
ton shows
He says he would have voted for the
Federal child labor bill had he been in
this country in 1918, but in 1915, when
he was in this country, he did not vote
for the child Labor hill
In going over his labor record in Con-
gress we find that on twenty-six meas
ures favored by labor he voted against
fourteen, for five, and failed to vote on
seven. He did not support the appro-
priation for the Federal Employment
Bureau, though even Mr.. Wadsworth
must know how immensely such a bu
reau would make for "the betterment of
human life"
He speaks Of his support in securing
a hearing for the women's bureau bill
which became law. Did he by chance
remember that he needed some women's
votes this fall, and did he hope to
counteract his unworthy suffrage record
One cannot blow hot and cold and
think that folks will understand What
we women in New York do understand
is that he voted against suffrage when
to have voted for it would have saved
US and our beloved leaders endless trou-
BILE, heartache and expense; that he
voted against the protection of children
when he had the chance; that he is no
friend of the ideals of social betterment
for which we wanted the VOTE and that
he has shown no understanding of the
great social and economic questions con-
fronting the nation and which cry out
for solution. And, added to all this, we
remember that he is wet, and finally
that he is the friend and loyal servant
of Barnes.
Why, then, should any women, to say
nothing of the progressive minded
men, vote for Mr.. Wadsworth? Indeed, |
why should any of us Republican women,
who do not think kindly of him for all
this, nor for his share in the recent Ma
tional Republican Convention? Our 10y
atty to the party has been assaulted be-
cause we have dared say for long
time that we would not under any cir
cunlstances vote for Mr.. Wadswortn,
but | have stilT~ to hear Mr.. Wads-
worth's loyalty questioned because he
has insisted upon making more thorny
the path of the Republican party in
New York.
But we are undismayed by these
charges. We have been honest from the
start, and we know that there are
enough independent women and enough |
Republican women of independent spirit |
to show Mr.. Wadsworth in November
that if he had been more self-sacrifcing
than self-seeking it would have been
better for the Republican party.
MARY E. DREIER
New York, Aug. 7, 1920.