NAWSA Subject File Anti-Suffrage Literature ASSOCIATION of BREWERS REPLIES HUGH F. FOX, of THIS CITY, REFUTES a STATEMENT CREDITED to MISS INEZ MILHOLLAND ABOUT SUFFRAGE New York, May 19, 1913. To the Editor, Plainfield Courier-News, Plainfield, N. J. DEAR SIR:- In the published reports of the Equal Suffrage meeting held in Plainfield on the 16th inst., Miss Inez Milholland is quoted as having stated that, "The Anti-Suffrage League is endorsed by and has in several instances accepted financial support from the National Brewers' Association." The lady is absolutely misinformed in both particulars. The Anti-Suffrage Association has never been endorsed by the United States Brewers' Association (to which, of course, she refers.) We have not contributed any money directly or indirectly to their cause, nor have we been asked to do so, though we have had appeals from the other side. The following is a statement made officially by the President of this association at a recent National Conference of Brewers: "The charge is constantly being made that 'the liquor interests' are offering the only organized opposition to Woman Suffrage. The Saturday Evening Post, of Philadelphia, made such a statement recently in its editorial columns, and I replied to is as follows: "The editorial in your issue of December 21st seems to take it for granted that the brewing industry is against woman suffrage, and implies that brewers are directing an active and organized opposition to it. The United States Brewers' Association, which comprises in its membership over two-thirds of the brewers of the country, has taken no part or position in the matter. In 1900 Miss Susan B. Anthony sent a letter to the association at its annual convention, charging that the association had from year to year adopted resolutions declaring against woman suffrage, and appealed to us to reverse our action. Thereupon Mr. Obermann, of Milwaukee, made the following statement: 'Miss Susan B. Anthony is entitled to the respect of every man and woman in this country, whether we agree with her theories or not. I think it but fair and courteous to Miss Anthony that the secretary be instructed to answer that letter and to inform Miss Anthony that this is a body of business men; that we meet for business purposes and not for politics. Furthermore, that she is mistaken and misinformed regarding her statement that we have passed resolutions opposing woman suffrage. We have never taken such action at any of our conventions or on any other occasion. I submit this as a motion.' The same was unanimously carried. "Our association has studiously refrained from taking any position in the matter, both because it is not within its province and also because its own members are divided in their personal opinions regarding it, just as they are about other political questions. It is, I believe, true that the liberal interests in Ohio case their weight against woman suffrage. Indeed, Mr. Percy Andreae, who is connected with the brewing industry, made the following public statement after the election: " 'Woman suffrage owes its defeat to the Anti-Saloon League, which made of it a "wet" and "dry" issue, and thus alienated from it the sympathy of the liberal forces of the state, which stand sternly opposed to prohibition, no matter what guise it may masquerade in.' "In Michigan an analysis of the vote shows that nearly all of the 'dry' counties voted against woman suffrage, while some of the 'wet' counties voted in favor of it. Incidentally, we may say that the large vote cast by the women of Colorado against prohibition, and by the women of San Francisco and Los Angeles in favor of the continuance of the license policy, indicates that women can be trusted to use good judgment on such issues when they are discussed fairly upon their merits." "The editors of the Post courteously acknowledged receipt of this statement, but failed to publish the same. "I do not believe that this is a subject with which we should concern ourselves as a trade. It is a political question and one in regard to which every man is entitled to his own individual opinion. "Yours very truly, "HUGH F. FOX, Secretary." [*III - O*] S P E E C H OF MRS. CLAIRE KULP OLIPHANT, ON ANTI SUFFRAGE, AT Y. M. C. A. HALL, DECEMBER 18, 1914. [*(Outline also in fredu[?])*] S P E E C H -of- MRS. CLAIRE KULP OLIPHANT, On Anti Suffrage, at Y. M. C. A. Hall, December 18, 1914. MRS. OLIPHANT: Whenever I speak about Woman Suffrage I am reminded of the fact that the suffragists appear to believe little Helen's idea of creation. Little Helen was sent to Sunday School by her mother and when she got home her mother asked here what she learned. She said, "Oh, Ma, I learned all about creation. Teacher told us that God made a man and then took out all his brains and made a woman." Dr. Shaw recently spoke here in this hall and in support of her cause she made frequent references to me. It was a personal attack, not in the open but from an ambush of insinuation and suggestion, a kind of method that is repugnant to all thinking people. If Dr. Shaw's cause is so weak that the greatest woman in its ranks seeks to support it by personal attack, it is fair to assume that the suffragists, driven into a corner by fair and open argument, acknowledge that they have run out of ammunition and in their final attack resort to fangs and claws. It was due to this kind of tactics by the suffragists in the recent western campaign that I was forced to -2- institute a libel suit for $50,000 in the state of Montana. I will not advocate my cause by making personal attacks upon my opponents, but I will defend myself. I entered our cause as was my right, and I have no apology to offer and I do not fear for myself or my cause a thousand Dr. Shaws. (Applause). Tonight I shall first give you a few of the fundamental reasons why women are opposed to suffrage. Our friends, the suffragists, deal merely in theories, superficial theories, some of them glittering theories but theories nevertheless. We deal in fundamental principles, backed up by cold hard facts. Now, we anti-suffragists in opposing the vote of women, oppose it not from any personal reason whatever. It isn't something that I want or that I do not want. We take a far bigger position than that. We are opposing woman suffrage because we feel that it is not for the real welfare of the state, nor for the real welfare of the womanhood of the nation. That is our platform. Tonight I shall discuss with you,first, a few of these fundamental principles and then I shall take up for analization some of the claims made by Miss Shaw in her recent speech from this platform. Now, we are opposing votes for women first, because it is a minority agitation. Dr. Shaw,in an official statement last June made this statement, that her organization numbered seven hundred thousand members. That doesn't mean seven hundred -3- thousand women of voting age, because the suffragists accepted in their ranks men, women and children from the cradle up. She says her organization is composed of seven hundred thousand members. There are in this country today over twenty-four million women of voting age; over forty-eight million women of all ages, and we claim that it would be a grave injustice to permit a little handful of women to dictate to this great majority of women. Ours is a representative government and in a representative government the will of the majority prevails. The suffragists will say, "Well, all those people are probably not opposed." There are many thousand of them opposed. The rest are absolutely indifferent. We have an illustration in Massachusetts, the only state in this Union that ever put this question up to the women themselves to decide, that this great, silent army of women are really opposed. In 1895 the men of Massachusetts permitted the women, as well as the men, to vote on this question and do you know how many women in the State of Massachusetts – they have one of the oldest suffrage organizations in the country – cared enough about equal suffrage to go to the polls and vote for it? - Only four per cent. Ninety-six per cent, by their indifference and remaining away from the polls,showed clearly woman's attitude on this question. I know some of the suffragists will say, "That is in 1895. If it were put up to her today it would be different," but when we know in the last Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, when the anti-suffragists -4- desired to have this question again referred to the women, the suffragists there vigorously opposed it. They never want this question put up to the women to decide. Now, we are also opposing woman suffrage because we feel that it is an unsound governmental proposition. It is certainly an unsound governmental proposition to have a large voting population which cannot enforce its own laws. All law would be a feeble instrument at best were it not for the force behind it. That force translates law into government, and we feel that so long as the men represent the force that preserves law and order, then it is a perfectly just proposition that the government should remain their responsibility. As it is the men who must be responsible in the final analysis of things, then it is but simple justice that they should be the ones to say what policies shall be pursued and father the laws while the women mother the children. Otherwise, our government is going to degenerate into a hopeless tangle of responsible and irresponsible voters. We are also opposing votes for women because it is part of what is known as the "Feminist Movement," and later on in my talk I shall show you what the real meaning of the woman suffrage movement is,– feminism. Now, in opposing the vote we are forced into a deceiving position of attack in order to refute the contentions of the other side. It is not a pleasant position to find yourself -5- in, but we don't shirk our duty because of this unpleasant feature. We find compensation in the fact that we bring people to this on this question. In the fall of 1912 Michigan defeated woman suffrage by the very narrow margin of seven hundred and sixty votes. In the spring of 1913, after a vigorous anti-suffrage campaign, because of the women of the state of Michigan became aroused, woman suffrage was defeated in that state by the majority of ninety-six thousand, one hundred and forty-four. They had been brought to think on the question. Again Miss Shaw says that it was a victory for the liquor interests, but when we know that 83% of the dry counties of Michigan voted against woman suffrage, while out of seventeen wet counties, twelve of them voted for woman suffrage, five voting against it, we see that Miss Shaw's position is hardly tenable. Now, in opposing the vote, the anti-suffragists are not contending that everything in this world is right. We recognize the wrongs and injustices in the world, but we do not believe that the vote is a panacea for all of the present days evils. The suffragists must prove, Dr. Shaw should have proved it from this platform, but she did not, that the vote in the hands of women will remedy the things that are wrong. One who advocates doubling our electorate must show compensating gain for the double outlay of time and energy and for the increase in your tax -6- payments. Now, does reason show us that the vote in our own or any other country is an economical use of the woman's power? Does reason show us that the experience of human nature teaches that the average woman's vote, and mind you this is solely the question of average, will be more intelligent, more safe, than the average man's vote of today. If not, why throw into political activity forces that your state and the nation need in other ways. In spite of what the suffragists tell you, woman's work in this country today is just as real as man's. Women stands today for the beauties of proper moral and social life apart from the spectacular duty of exercising political power under the stress of personal political ambition. Now, if women are to use men's methods, they will become a part of political machine and be divided as men are, as Socialists, Democrats, Republicans and Progressives. One of the very serious reasons for opposition to woman suffrage, to any participation of women in the political game, with all that it implies of party divisions and affiliations, is that it acts against the specific work which women have and do accomplish by concerted action and undivided by party politics, and that division means the throwing aside of one of the great instruments by which women have wrought their achievements for the public welfare of the past and that is their non-partisanship. The great movement of the modern women is an im -7- impressive power through the purity of its methods, its integrity and honesty of intention. It represents, as does nothing else in our civilization, a coherent group whose power is not counter-balanced by ignorance or self-seeking partisanship. If woman becomes a voter she will have thrown away an entirely original attempt to create in the state a great group which, through its intelligence and its purity of method will be the most enormous power to reckon with that the men of political or personal ambition have ever faced. This, we feel, must be the final judgment of all women when they realize that success has thus far crowned their efforts because they were not in politics. Now, the anti-suffragists believe that the equality which the suffragists demand and struggle for, is not only undesirable, but impossible, and that disaster will follow from the striving for equality, claimed as a right. Equality must be accepted as a burden. For years the tendency of modern civilized society has been toward the further protection of women, because of her great function to society and because of her physical disability. The anti-suffragists believe that not only should all these laws be retained, but better and more far-reaching laws should be passed to redress, so far as possible, the unequal laws of nature, but with the assertion of equality must go the rest of our privileges, for equal suffrage, if it be equal, must mean equal responsibility and no privileges. Otherwise, women in -8- relation to the state, is a privileged class, having complete power but without final responsibility. In other words, she becomes a parasite of the state, if not a parasite of man. Three-fourths of the women of this country today, think of it, three-fourths of the women of this country today are married women. Their interests are the interests of their husbands. It is certainly an economic waste to ask two people to do the work that one can and will do. It is an unsound theory to ask equality and then maintain that women, the privileged class, shall retain her privileges and exemptions and vote herself more, while the men, with whom she is supposed to be upon equal terms, are denied those privileges and exemptions. Is it a fair proposition in government, I ask you tonight, to have one set of citizens voting privileges and exemptions to themselves, while they deny them to the other set of citizens with whom they are supposed to be upon equal terms? No, that is another unsound governmental proposition. Now, suffragists ignore the splendid work accomplished by the men of this country. These men have been our fathers and husbands and brothers. They have not done their work in a selfish spirit, for they have had the welfare of the family as their interest. It is the men of this great country of ours that have placed the United States upon a plane so elevated and distinctive that today we lead the world in the matter of civilization. Reform bills are being passed all over this -9- country today and men are doing this work as fast as their attention is called to the necessity for action. Woman suffrage is in no sense a reform movement. If you thought so wipe it right straight out of your mind, for it isn't. It isn't a reform movement. It is a political question,– nothing more, nothing less. It is a question of whether or not the electorate of this state shall be composed of more Socialists, Democrats, Republicans and Progressives than there are today. There is absolutely no question of right involved. That question was settled in the decisions of the different justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, that the privilege of the ballot is solely one of expediency, that it isn't an inherent right in man or woman. If the privilege of the ballot was an inherent right in man you couldn't restrict him until he was twenty-one years of age from voting, neither could you restrict the unnaturalized alien, or a man when he moves from one state to another for six months to a year from voting, if the privilege was an inherent right, and you couldn't disfranchise the District of Columbia if the ballot was inherent. It isn't. It is solely a question of expediency, and we believe that it is not expedient that the motherhood should be exploited in politics, because that is all it amounts to. It is not a question of superiority or inferiority. Man is not superior to woman because he bears the burden of government and woman is not inferior to man because she is the home- -10- maker of the State. They are each of vital importance to the State. Don't you see that it is a difference of function, and we believe that it is expedient for the state to preserve that difference of function. Through specialization we reach our highest efficiency and yet the suffragists demand that women shall no longer specialize, although this is an age of specialization. They demand that women shall no longer specialize. We believe that the time is rapidly approaching for a greater specialization of work for women. Now, I have given you a few of the reasons why thinking women are opposing woman suffrage. I want to give just one more before I close. Woman is the home-maker of the State, and one of her chief duties, may I say to you tonight, ladies and gentlemen, her chief duty is the formation of the character of the future citizens of the Republic. That alone is an occupation, one of the noblest and most patriotic duties a woman can perform. Understand, we don't believe, although the suffragists will tell you that we do, that a woman's life must be bounded by the four walls of her home. We believe that it is a woman's duty, as well as her privilege, to engage in all kinds of social-welfare work; to engage in all kinds of church, educational and moral uplift work, but we don't believe that it is first necessary to make her a politician in order to do this work. Woman have been and are accomplishing great things along all lines of social-welfare work. They occupy -11- high positions of public trust. All professions are open to them. They have upon the statute books of the various states of this country today an average of fourteen special laws for their protection that the men do not have, and all this has been accomplished without the vote. Suffragists contend that we must have the vote in order to obtain what we already possess and in order to engage in social-welfare work, while we maintain and history proves, that woman can accomplish greater things unhampered by alliances with any political party. When the suffragists in their own convention in Philadelphia, three or four years ago, condemned Miss Jane Adams for her alliance with the Progressive Party they supported our contention. You know the suffragists will not allow any of their supporters to ally themselves with any existing political parties until they get the vote. Why? - Because they have a cause to promote and they realize that they can promote that cause better standing outside of party alliances. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what the New Jersey Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage is maintaining all the time, only our causes are the causes of child labor, the protection of women in and out of industry and the social and economic reform work of the day. We believe what the suffragists admit, when they will not allow their supporters to ally themselves with any existing political party, that those things can be better attained by women -12- outside of party strife, party bitterness,– in short, without any political axe to grind. We believe that woman's power is greater as a woman than a Socialist, Republican, Democrat or Progressive. You women of the State of New Jersey hold within your grasp today the greatest power in public life, – the creation of public opinion. You are a factor in moulding public opinions because you stand outside of the party alliances. Is it not well for your state that we should have one sex whose opinions are not bounded by party prejudice? Now, the question for the men of this state to decide in 1915 possibly, and the only question for them to decide is this, – whether or not you wish to exploit the womanhood of your state in politics. Now, I said we are also opposing woman suffrage because it is part of what is known as the "Feminist Movement," which, to my mind, is the real meaning of the woman suffrage movement today, and this feminism is a threat wrapped up in the writings and doctrines of suffragists. It is a pernicious attack upon the home and any movement that furthers such an attack is guilty of treason to the state, for the home is the basis of the state. In fairness to some splendid women who have been lured into the suffragist movement by constantly reiterated glittering solecisms, I want to say that I don't believe that they realize -13- what the right meaning of their movement is, but if they have not dug beneath this superficial surface they have no business advocating votes for women or anything else for women. I personally believe that most of the suffragists know not what they do. Now, in order that you shall get your information tonight entirely from suffrage and not from anti-suffrage sources, I am going to quote to you from the writings and speech of the leading suffragists and from their official campaign literature. All my proof on this question will be drawn entirely from suffrage sources. The first one I am going to quote is Mrs. Jennie Ward Howe. Mrs. Jennie Ward Howe, a suffrage leader of the 16th Assembly District of New York City. Notice she is Mrs. "Jennie Ward" Howe. It is quite noticeable how the suffragists, when they get into the suffrage campaign immediately drop their husband's names. Instead of being Mrs. "George" Howe, it is Mrs. "Jennie Ward" Howe. One suffragist went just one step further and refused to take her husband's name at all. On the front door of her home is Miss Fola Lafollette – Geo. Middleton. Of course, I cannot quite understand why she takes her father's name. That is one of those little inconsistencies in the suffragists that I don't quite understand. Miss Inez Mulholland goes one step further. She threw her wedding ring in the Holland -14- Canal. According to this suffragist, the husband's name and wedding ringare bandages of slavery, so they don't wear them any more. Mrs. Howe said -- by the way, she presided over three feminist class meetings held in New York City last winter, in which all the speakers were suffragists and the large audience mainly composed of suffragists, and Mrs. Howe was the presiding officer. She says that feminism is the entire woman's movement, and the thing that I find it difficult to understand is that they have focused their attention upon one part, instead of regarding their movement as a whole. Here Mrs. Howe accuses the suffragists of focusing their attention only upon the political aspect while they are guilty of not having an accurate knowledge of their movement as a whole. Now, I am going to give you a definition of feminism. Briefly, feminism demands the economic independence of all women. Its advocates regard it as a degradation for women to accept the support of father, husband, or brother, their names or their wedding rings. They demand equality with men and they propose to use the vote as a means to attain this end. They declare that woman has been hampered by her assumption of household cares and the rearing of children, and that she must be relieved from this restraint so that she may enjoy unlimited freedom. But they offer us no solution to the natural question of who is to be the responsible officer in the household and who is to gain and how she is to do it. They offer no solution as to who is to -15- be the responsible officer in the household if she gains freedom from what the feminists call "her present position of slavery." Woman suffrage is the keystone in this feminist movement and this feminism, as outlined by the suffragists, appears to be a revolution against the true duties, responsibilities and ideals of womanhood. This issue of feminism is an issue that the men of this state cannot afford to ignore if they have the right welfare of the state and their country at heart. Now I am going to quote from Mrs. Charlotte Parks Gillman. Mrs. Charlotte Parks Gillman is considered the greatest suffragist of them all, and last winter she delivered six feminist lectures in New York City, and she says that home is a check upon the growth of humanity; it is a relic of the harem. "You talk of the home as holy," she said. "Why, the post office is holier than the home. The post office is a proof of organized civilization. There are many women who call home their field of expression. Well, God pity those women!" She says, "since female animals are not dependent on the male for food, why should women be?" She says, "The female cat supports herself and her young. Why cannot humanity regain this lofty state?" (Applause) -16- Miss Edna Kenton, one of the leaders of the suffrage campaign in New York City, in an article entitled "Militant Men and Women", in the Century Magazine for November, 1913, says, "There is a sex war, just as there is a class war, and will be until there is a world-wide readjustment of human relations." Continuing, she says, "The keystone is falling, women are refusing, and must refuse, to accept the old ideals in the relations between men and women." If they decline to be dependent longer, economically and spiritually, upon men, one of man's greatest spurs to action is taken from him with no other incentive equally compelling in its place. She further declares it was St. Paul who laid down the Christian ideal for women. Nothing invented of man ever had a more stultifying effect upon the character and morals of women and of men." Plainly speaking, this suffragist writer, would have us believe that our twenty centuries of Christianity have been a failure. One of the suffragist leaders, Miss Jessie Ashley, former secretary of the National American Woman's Suffrage Association, has this theory on the economic independence of all women. She says, "The woman should work five hours in the home and the go out in the world and work five hours, and the man should go out in the world and work five hours and then come back and do his five hours in the home." Miss Inez Mulholland dropped her wedding ring in the -17- Holland Canal, and the Grand Marshall of all suffrage parades, the speaker of national fame for their cause, in McClure's Monthly, about three or four years ago, had this to say. She says, "It certainly will not be long before the steady influx to the voting ranks of these millions of young men whose impressions are being formed in the more alert, stirring air of today, will bring the real issues more sharply before us, and it may be assumed that this pressure towards the constantly growing freedom and power on the part of the sex, means that in the long run the institutions most certain to be changed are the institutions in which the sex, as a sex, is most peculiarly and vitally interested, and these institutions, it would be hardly necessary to point out, are the home and marriage itself." Mrs. Mary D. Ware, until a few weeks ago, corresponding secretary of the National American Woman's Suffrage Association, made this statement in the City of Trenton, a little over a year ago, and she was addressing the Trenton Civics and Suffrage Club at the time. She says, "Women have too long been hampered by being held down by household cares. The time has come when she must have a more illuminatingfreedom", and she finished this part of her discourse by saying that it is unwholesome for any woman to be supported by any man. -18- Miss Shaw, in her theories of the marriage ceremony, I might say, subscribes to this feminist doctrine. She says, "It is positively wicked to use the word 'obey' in the marriage ceremony," and she says that it is a badge of slavery for any woman to permit herself to be given away by her father or any man at the marriage altar. Now, I have here a piece of official literature issued and published by the National American Women's Suffrage Association. It is entitled "Bond Women". The title itself is significant of the way the suffragists feel about themselves, "bond women". Right here it says in this pamphlet, – this is issued and published by the National American Women's Suffrage Association, 505 Fifth Avenue, New York City, and I secured this copy myself at their headquarters last January. The writer is speaking of the economic independence of all women. She says, "To this end we will have to strive, and that she should so strive will be well for her children. Many will say that this responsibility on the men is too hard. What are the responsibilities of the father? Well, that is his business. Perhaps the state will have something to say to him, but the free woman's concern is to see to it that she shall be in a position to bear children, if she wants them, without soliciting maintenance from any man, whoever he may be, and this she -19- can only do if she is earning money for herself or is supported out of some common fund for a limited time." Feminism would hold that it is neither desirable nor necessary for women when they are mothers to leave their chosen money earning work for any length of time. The fact that they are so often do so largely rests on tradition, which has to be worn down. In wearing it down vast changes must take place in social conditions, education, kindergarten education, cooking and cleaning, in the industrial world and in the professions. These changes will have for their motive the accommodation of such conditions as well enable women to choose and follow all life work apart from and in addition to their natural function of reproduction. I will call your attention to the advertisement on the rear, inside cover of this piece of literature issued by the National American Women's Suffrage Association. The suffragists claim that feminism has nothing whatever to do with their movement, but here we find, "Send for free catalog of suffrage and feminist literature. Address National American Women's Suffrage Association, 505 Fifth Avenue, New York City." I happen to have an official catalog. It says here, "What to read on suffrage," a bulletin containing a list of the recommended books, a list of periodicals of value to suffrage, a list of articles in the -20- current magazines, and a list of new books suffragists should know. Now, in case some suffragist would say I was unfair in quoting Miss Kenton, we find here, on the front page, an article advertised, "Militant Men and Women" for suffragists. Below is Mrs. W. Hartford Cooley's article, "The Younger Suffragist." The doctrine is so loose in that pamphlet I do not like to read it to a mixed audience. We find, on the second page, advertised "Hagar", by Mary Johnson, and described as the latest novel of the great southern writer and suffragist, and described as a glowing argument for feminism. On the next page, "The Tinder Box", described as a good feminist doctrine. "Virginia" described as unquestionably the feminist novel of the year, and on the fourth page we find advertised, "Woman and Tomorrow", by W. L. George. W. L. George wrote that very illuminating article in the Atlantic Monthly last December, on Feminism, and much of that same doctrine is to be found in his book; and suffragists, when I quoted W. L. George, took great issue with me because he was an Englishman, and, "What had he to do with our movement?" I said, "It has simply this to do, that the suffragists themselves are advocating his book for suffragists to read and for suffrage propaganda." I have not brought your attention to this feminism of the suffragist without bringing to you proof of my contention, all gleaned from suffrage sources. It is -21- a sex revolution. As I said before, it is a pernicious attack upon the home. Now I am going to take up one claim of the suffragists before I take up some of Miss Shaw's claims for analysis, and that is this claim of the suffragists, that some way, somehow, anti-suffragists and the liquor interests and the vice interests are linked. We here in Trenton had a recent exhibition when the suffragists, some Trenton suffragists by the way, with most wonderful bravery asked an editor or a paper here in town to publish an article accusing the anti-suffragists of being lined up with the liquor interests and vice interests, but she was so brave she forgot to put her name to it. Now, all through the western campaign we constantly met this accusation. Dr. Shaw said in North Dakota, "All anti-suffragists are not in the vice combines but all vice combines are anti-suffragists," and she told how, in the campaign in Michigan, every bar in the City of Detroit was piled that high with anti suffrage literature. Funny how these suffragists know what is on the inside of bar-rooms, isn't it? And why do they do this? Simply to have the audience go out and believe in some way, somehow, anti-suffragists and the liquor interests and the vice combines are linked. Now, before I take up that question further, I want -22- to remind you who the women are that are leading this movement in the State of New Jersey. Our President is Mrs. Alexander Jamieson of Lawrenceville,who needs no introduction to you. She is widely known throughout the State of New Jersey. One of our Vice Presidents is the former Mrs. Grover Cleveland, now Mrs. Thomas Preston, Jr. Another is Mrs. Garret A. Hobart, wife of a former Vice President of the United States, and founder of the Children's Hospital in Paterson. Our National President is Mrs. Arthur M. Dodge, of New York City. For many years she was President of the National Day Nursery Association. She is now Vice President of that organization, a woman widely known for her philanthropic and charitable work. And so I could give you names here for an hour, of women of that type who are leading this movement. Miss Ida Tarbel and Mrs. Howard Taft are others, and I am going to mention to you one name tonight, a woman in our movement, the one woman in this country today who is doing more humanitarian work than any other woman, Miss Mabel Boardman, President of the American Red Cross. (Applause) The more mention of these women's names is sufficient guarantee of the sincerity of our motive. Now, anti-suffragists and the liquor interests, – if the liquor interests or the vice interests are fighting woman suffrage, that does not at all ally them with us. We -23- stand on our own platform and are defending it. But, if the suffrage contention is logical, then this is what we should find. If the liquor interests and the vice interests are so keenly fighting woman suffrage, this is what we should find, that the liquor interests and vice interests have been better controlled in the woman suffrage states of this country than the male suffrage states. Isn't that a fact, isn't that what we should find if that is so? Until this last election in November we had ten prohibition states in the United States, nine of them made prohibition since the women had the vote in this country. Women have been voting from forty-five years down to three, but every single one of those nine states were made prohibition by male suffrage states only, until this last election. Think of that, and yet, four years ago, in the Wisconsin and Michigan and Ohio campaign, four, three and two years ago, suffragists made this same claim, that the liquor interests were fighting woman suffrage, and yet then we had only male prohibition states in this country. At this recent election in November four woman suffrage states did go dry, Oregon, Arizona, Washington and Colorado, but California, another woman suffrage state, went wet by a big majority, the women themselves campaigning against it. I know the suffragists say it was a very stringent law -24- and so it was voted down, because it might hurt the wine industry of that state, but that law wasn't voted on merely. Local option was voted on in Los Angeles shortly after the women got the vote, and was defeated three to one. In Santa Monica, California, we have the spectacle of women on soap boxes, on street corners, campaigning to have the saloons open all night and on Sunday. These conditions we don't have in the State of New Jersey. In Pasadena, California, where there are two thousand more women than men of voting age, Pasedena legalized the sale of liquor practically for the first time in its history after the women were given the vote. Now, suffragists say, "How about those eleven hundred saloons they claim that the women's vote closed in Illinois?" Out of three thousand voted, eleven hundred went dry, but on that same day in the State of Ohio, the men of the State of Ohio, closed three thousand saloons in one day. Now, certainly the men who are in the liquor business know conditions in the states where women vote, they also have evidence in the declarations. I could give you a lot more of these figures, but I have other ground to cover. They also know the declarations of the different suffragists, and I want to read to you, if any suffragist here thinks that the National American Women's Suffrage Association stands for prohibition, I want to read to you the official declaration made during the last western campaign by Dr. Anna -25- Shaw. She says, "Despite the conflicting statements of anti-suffragists, the Suffrage Association of the United States has never taken any stand on the question of government control of liquor interests. Just what the position of women voters upon the liquor problem will be has never been guessed, much less stated by suffrage associations. The opinions of individual suffragists are varied as an equal number of anti-suffragists but suffragists as a whole are, in no sense, responsible for individual opinions." That is the official declaration of the President of the National American Women's Suffrage Association on the liquor question. Let me read to you what the President of the Nevada Equal Suffrage Association issued during the recent campaign. She says, "The Women's Equal Franchise Society is not a political party, nor is it allied with any existing political parties. We have no quarrel with the existing order of things, saloons or otherwise." She says, "We are simply asking for the right to vote. If we secure this privilege we are bound by no promise, and will exercise our right according to individual conscience." Some men interested in the saloon business here have shown us not only the greatest courtesy, but have helped us in various ways. She said, "If the persons who circulate these stories will look up the history of the states that have given woman the ballot, they will find they are not any dryer than they were -26- before. Utah and Colorado, where women have voted for years, are not prohibition. San Francisco voted on the liquor question last year after women were admitted to the polls, and it went wet by a large majority." At the time that was written Colorado had not voted on prohibition. Now, as regards the social evil and the vice question, – If the vice interests are fighting woman suffrage, then we should find that the social evil had been better controlled in woman suffrage states than in male suffrage states. In twenty- three states of this Union, the white slave law, in the twenty-three male suffrage states, is rated good. In three women suffrage states it is rated only fair, Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas. Wyoming and Colorado have had the vote forty-five and twenty-three years, and yet the white slave is rated only fair by the American people of the community. Dr. Sumner herself, a suffragist, was sent to Colorado by the suffragists for two years to investigate woman suffrage along the lines that suffragists claimed would be effective, and in her book on equal suffrage, she says this, "On the social evil it is impossible to see that equal suffrage has had any effect, women, in fact, have made little effort in this direction, but equal suffrage has about as much to do with this condition of affairs as a twelve year old child with the Constitution of the United States. Dr. Shaw, in Reno, Nevada, said, in her speech there, -27- "When I looked at that high board fence that you have here, I said that it ought to be away, and if the women had the say there would be no restricted district here." Then, I would like to ask Dr. Shaw why it is that in Idaho, in certain cities of Idaho, the women every time they walk down their main streets pass their restricted districts. Wyoming legalized gambling for forty years after women had the vote, and did not have a local option law, while in that time seven or eight prohibition states had been put upon the temperance map of the United States. It cannot be shown by the suffragists that these things have been better controlled in the woman suffrage states than in the male suffrage states, and if their contention was at all logical we should find that they had been better controlled there than in the woman suffrage states. The social evil will never be solved at the polls. That problem will only be solved in the home. Education, the moulding of character, will solve that problem. Remember you cannot legislate character. Dr. Shaw spoke from this platform for almost two hours recently, and the theme of her entire address resolved about one proposition,–human beings was the missing link in her lecture. She said, "I believe in woman suffrage." She said, "I believe in woman suffrage because I believe in humanity. I believe that a woman should vote because I believe woman is a human being." She said, "Men do not vote because they are -28- men, but because they are human beings." Well, there are a whole lot of human beings about two miles up the river in the State Hospital. If that is an argument, then they can't be disfranchised. If that is an argument, there are also a whole lot of human beings in the State Prison. Unnaturalized aliens are human beings, children are human beings. If just being a human being is what Dr. Shaw bases he claim for the vote on, then none of these can be disfranchised. You know the difference between the antis and the suffragists is just this, the antis know they are human beings, but the suffragists seem to feel that they must have the vote in order to really determine whether or not they are human beings. Dr. Shaw says, "Don't you believe in democracy, and isn't it contrary to the spirit of democracy to withhold the vote from women," and I believe the very eloquent presiding officer of that evening also based his claim for the vote on democracy. Well, democracy is a very difficult term to define. It is almost as difficult as suffrage. To some, democracy means that each individual must have what they call a direct voice in the government. As a matter of fact, it is the family and not the individual that is the social unit of the state. When laws are passed for the benefit of either men, women or children, the thought back of that law is that it will benefit the family. Government doesn't exist for the benefit of the individual anyway, but for the benefit of the state as a whole. Throughout -29- our country today our government is a representative government. Men do not vote for measures, they vote for men. We may double our electorate by giving votes to all women, or by giving two votes to every man, but we will not get any more democracy. That can only come through a growing recognition of the brotherhood of man, because we are all children of one father, and in that I speak wholly of the Christian ideal. This ideal has certainly not been attained in the states where women have had the vote from forty-five down to three in this country. I ask you tonight, what kind of democracy is it that will impose the will of the minority upon the majority. That isn't democracy, that is tyranny. Dr. Shaw, by influence and suggestion, made it appear that if women had the vote there would be no more war. During the western campaign she said, "If we women had the vote there would be no more war." Of course, a statement like that pre-supposes that the men of this country desire war, but Dr. Shaw can't prove that by the record of the men in this country for the last nine of ten months. Now, if the women's vote abolishes war, why, I ask, is Australia sending their full quota of soldiers to England to fight in the European war; and it wasn't many months ago that we found the women of Colorado imploring the President of the United States to send the United States Army there to protect them and to uphold government in their -30- state. Let us have clearer thinking on this question and not random statements and emotional pleas that are more picturesque than practical. Dr. Shaw says, "When the republic so-called says that the citizen in order to vote must be a male, that is not a qualification for citizenship, that is an insuperable barrier against the rights and privileges of one-half of the citizens of the country. And any country which arbitrarily erects an insuperable barrier between one-half of its citizens and their rights, that country, under any circumstances cannot be called a republic." I wonder why Dr. Shaw has not gone out to Utah and made complaint there against that word "male" that now exists in the Constitution of the State of Utah, – a woman suffrage state with the word "male" in the Constitution. The State of Utah's Constitution says that,"the State militia is to consist of able bodied males." I have not yet heard any suffragist, Dr. Shaw or any of them, protest that that particular male qualification should be stricken out of the Constitution of a woman suffrage state. Are we to have one kind of male qualification stricken out in order to put in another kind of male qualification which carries all the responsibility with it? Where is the equality in that, I should like to know? In Utah the women have power without responsibility. Now, to establish this claim of Dr. Shaw's, she -31- should first have proved that the service rendered the state by men and women is identical, but nature forbids that proof. Then she should have proven that voting is an inherent right and that the qualification of male is not expedient for the state, all of which she did not attempt. Miss Shaw's attitude is rather ridiculous, for she is ignoring the essential difference between the political movement and the sex movement. Democratic government is at an end when those who issue the decrees are not identical with those who must enforce those decrees. The signers of the Declaration of Independence made no claim or suggestion that the suffrage was a right, not only is there nothing to intimate that voting was a natural right, but from that day to this it has been the theory and the practice of our government to control the suffrage. The fact that governments were initiated among men, for the purpose of securing inalienable rights proves that in the opinion of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the method of instituting a government was not in itself inalienable. When a state imposes certain restrictions in regard to suffrage, it acts on the natural principle of self defence, which is in opposition to the dogma of a natural right of anyone to the suffrage. On that principle it would be impossible for a legislature to impeach a governor fo a state or to deny suffrage to a child, or any human being. Thus our government would become impossible. -32- Judge Storey held that the privilege of voting has always been treated as a granted and not a natural right. When Miss Shaw contends that we are not a republic because certain restrictions are placed upon the suffrage, she is getting on rather dangerous ground, for government, as I said before, does not exist for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit and the good of the state and the republic as a whole. Dr. Shaw's sneering reference to the kings and governments of Europe was certainly a gratuitous insult to every lady of English, German, Scotch or Irish blood who hear her, and there were many such. She spoke almost in the hearing of thousands of English men and English women of our pottery district, who were even then packing goods and sending money to England for blood relatives and friends, whose husbands, brothers and sons were at, or going to the front to offer up their lives to uphold the cause of King George, their King. Dr. Shaw could herself have thrown a stone almost within a few feet of where the charity of our city is sending relief to the stricken people of Belgium. Everyone knows how that great human factor of our community, our German citizens, had only met a short time ago to raise money for the war-burdened land of their beloved Kaiser, and we, who know the Germans, know that many of them are denying themselves many of their comforts to contribute a weekly sum to their cause. Go with me into our great mills and factories of this city and you will find thousands of immigrants of Austria -33- Hungary who are freely giving of their scanty pay to uphold the aged but idealized Francis Joseph. Anti-suffragists can hate. I have not all the hatred that Dr. Shaw can muster, but does Dr. Shaw represent this world movement, for I only read in the Sunday Advertiser of December sixth that Mrs. Pankhurst was very active in recruiting for the British government, which they recently tried to destroy with torch and bomb. I am not here to sympathize with the English, French or Germans, believing with our President, that we should remain neutral, but when the suffragists talk of peace I recall the German comment that the British war office is convinced that German soldiers will fail against the madwomen, as the men of England have failed. For years the civilized world has stood aghast at the outrages by the Militant of England. We wept at the destruction of the Cathedral at Rheims, but we wept before when the works of art were mutilated and destroyed by the wild women of England. Innocent people are suffering in Europe and innocent people have suffered throughout the centuries. It is no argument for the suffragists to sneer at a form of government. We secured our own at a cost of blood and treasure, and it is very dear to us. The English, French and Germans secured theirs out of the wisdom of hundreds of years and their governments are very dear to them. The women of this country can render -34- adequate and needed service in time of peace or war without the ballot. Is it not well for the state that the service of women remain non-partisan, pure in method, for the good of the State, rather than for political reward? In condemning with sneers the foreign governments, Dr. Shaw paid her respects to one of our most cherished institutions. When Miss Shaw said the United States Supreme Court looked like nice old ladies going to tea it was the first time I believe, in any place in America, that any woman, black or white, ever attempted to belittle the great scholars and judges who are weighed down by the heavy responsibility that affects the life of our nation. We might expect this disrespect from anarchists and other agitators who rail against our cherished institutions, but it is inconceivable coming from the President of all the suffragists, indicating a tendency in their movement that the men of this state cannot afford to ignore. Dr. Shaw says "men have never thought of us as human beings, they always thought of us as wives, mothers, sisters and sweethearts." I want to say to the men of New Jersey that it is the wish of the majority of the women of this state that you continue to think of us as mothers, wives, sisters and sweethearts. It must be an awful frame of mind to feel that you are not a human being. I am sure there is not a woman facing me tonight who would not rather have the title of mother than any other title that -35- could be bestowed upon her, while Miss Shaw seems to feel that its use by men is somehow degrading. Dr. Shaw said, and this was one of her claims, "I claim that all women are human." Don't let that startle you, that is what she said,– "I claim that all women are human," she said, "and, therefore, being human, they have a right to work out human problems." I would like to ask what is to hinder women working out human problems. She certainly does not need the vote for that. The greatest human problem for women to work out is the rearing of future citizens and nothing should be allowed to interfere with that important duty. We feel that men are represented in the home by women and that women are represented in the government by men. One duty is just as important as the other. Dr. Shaw said "a Republic has a right to protest itself equally with each individual in the republic, the government as a whole," she said, "has a right to protect itself against any dangerous class of citizens, and when a republic prescribes qualifications for citizenship to protect itself against undesirable classes, it must prescribe such qualifications as apply to all citizens equally." Miss Shaw said she would rest her case on this proposition. Again Dr. Shaw makes the mistake that government exists solely for the benefit of the individual. As I said before, government does not exist for the individual, but for the benefit of the State of Republic as a whole. No one is contending that woman is a dangerous class. The only dangerous class is the -36- dis-franchised, – our idiots, criminals, our lunatics, but women are not classed with those, for women are not a disfranchised class. There is certainly a difference between a person who is disfranchised and one who has never been franchised. The qualifications imposed by the state upon voters are equal. Now, the fact that the state does not include women is because the state demands a different service of its men and women citizens, and right here I come to the root of the question. Some of the responsibilities imposed upon the voters by the Constitution are these, – the establishment of justice, the insurement of domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, security in the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. To attempt to put responsibility into the hands of those who are not physically fitted to maintain the obligations that may result from any vote or any legislative act is to render law a farce and to betray the trust imposed upon them by the Constitution, that every male citizen must swear to uphold universal manhood. Suffrage is the crowning result of a long evolution of government. Stability in government is what is necessary. If a government is not stable it is of little consequence that it is full of noble ideals, and the great, far-reaching thought has now been grasped, the idea that manhood's strength is the natural and only defence of the State. This is the underlying theory of all government, the one solid rock on which it lies. -37- To give women a position of apparent power without its reality would be to make our government forever unstable. Civilization had advanced so far that instead of blows there are arguments in court; instead of bullets there are ballots at the polls, but the blows and the bullets must always be ready in case the arguments or ballots are unheeded. Whenever this argument of force is alluded to, suffragists assume we mean me do the fighting, therefore, they ought to be rewarded with the ballot. That is not the argument. It is not a matter of reward. The argument briefly stated is this: Stability is one of the highest virtues that any government can possess and perhaps the most necessary. It can have no stability if it issues decrees that it cannot enforce. The only way to avoid such decrees is to make sure that behind every law and every policy adopted stands a power so great that no power in the land can overthrow it. The only such power possible consists of a majority of the men, therefore, the only safe thing for the government to do is to carry out the ascertained will of a majority of men. This does not always secure ideally good laws, but it does secure stability and avoid revolution. The men may blunder but they are the only ones that have the power to correct their own blunders. Dr. Shaw said she had no objection to women working. Can this be notice to the women of our land that only the factory, -38- shop and field need them when the women get the ballot. What kind of work? Why did she not specify? A strange kind of freedom they would give to further harassed women, those drones of humanity. Miss Shaw said she did not know what was man's work and woman's work. Is there a woman in this audience, here in this city, who does not know what is man's or what is woman's work? The deeper a thinking woman delves into suffrage theories, the surer she is to find two things written or declared in them all. One is sex antagonism. Sex antagonism is a race danger, a national danger, a world peril. Anything that tends toward it is a return to barbarism, and not an advance towards civilization. The other danger is sex disloyalty. When a woman is created a woman that is her place in nature. To be disloyal to herself, to evade her own reason for being is to march toward failure. To be a woman is just as noble, just as useful and just as valuable to the world as to be a man. The manlier the man is, the better he fills his place in the world. Then, if that is true, surely the womanlier a women is the better she fills her place in life. Dr. Shaw said that woman's present position in this country was like a woman in a calico dress in an ox cart. I want to say that the home of every woman in the City of Trenton flings that statement back in her face. She pictured man as in an areoplane looking down on woman struggling in the ox cart. That is not -39- a true picture of the status of either man or woman in this country. Those are the kind of false pictures that Socialists drawn,– the kind that have but one purpose, to make women feel that men suppress women, consequently she is the under-dog. I challenge Dr. Shaw to prove that woman is the under-dog in this country. Woman's status in this country today before the law is far better than man's status. If Dr. Shaw's picture was true of women riding in ox carts and men in areoplanes, when she used that simile, then we should find the reverse, but since 1848 in this country the men have been passing protective legislation for women. All education, all opportunity is open to them. If her simile had any weight, we should find that just the reverse was true. I want to say to Dr. Shaw, so far as aeroplanes are concerned, – there is nothing to prevent Miss Shaw, or any other suffragist, riding in an aeroplane, if they want to. They are not entirely man's property. Any time they wish they can have an aeroplane ride, but to picture woman's position in the world as the under-dog is absolutely drawing a false picture. Dr. Shaw says, "I should hate to have arrived at the age of discretion of an adult human being and then want to be taken care of. Schools for feeble intellects are the proper places for women who want to be taken care of." She says, "No self-respecting, intelligent woman wants to be taken care of." That latter part is the feminist doctrine, and it falls from -40- the mouth of the President of all the suffragists. Still this argument was offered in support of the demand for woman suffrage. According to Miss Shaw's declaration, any woman in this audience who permits herself to be supported by father, husband or brother, is feeble minded, unintelligent, and lacks proper self-respect. Judge Lindsey himself said, in speaking of the feminist friend of the suffrage movement, "It is time to call a halt." The time for the men of New Jersey to call a halt may come in 1915. It is then we ask you to heed the protest of the majority of the women, that great silent army of women whose silence is a protest. Dr. Shaw told of the man in California, who said he and his wife had lived together for twenty years and never had a dispute in that whole twenty years. She said, "I couldn't help wondering which one was the idiot." Here again Miss Shaw scoffs at domestic tranquility. If two people can live their lives together in peace, it seems to me that is something to commend, not to sneer or laugh at. We need more of that kind of homes. If more of our future citizens were raised in that kind of homes, we would have less need of juvenile courts. Dr. Shaw pictured the men of this country as unable to vote unless there was a rooster or eagle or some symbol on the ballot to guide them, but that is robbed of its significance when we know symbols are used in suffrage states. She cited Ohio as one state where the reform against the use of symbols had -41- already begun. The laugh is on Dr. Shaw because we find that reform initiated by a male suffrage state and not a woman suffrage state. Personally I don't believe that the average man needs symbols for guides, and the fact that a male suffrage state is ceasing to use them seems to confirm my conviction. Dr. Shaw says, "Over all this country you are wasting the women,– you don't realize their relation to the state." Women are citizens without the ballot, but the state requires a different service of its men and women citizens. Man's political service to the state is counterbalanced by woman's service in the home. If there were no families and no homes there would be no state. One service is just as important as the other. Dr. Shaw contended that voting is the expression of opinion. That is the irresponsible suffrage way of looking at it. Does expressing of opinions ever really do anything? Does reading a receipt aloud cook a dinner? Does saying that you want a skirt to hang well make it hang well? Suppose we all voted tomorrow that water should run up hill, would it do it? Suppose we all voted tomorrow that great results should be accomplished without working, will the results be accomplished? There is a lot of work lying between the opinion and the result. The vote is nothing without determined continued effort to carry it out and this effort is one more thing for our already over-loaded shoulders. The immortal old lady of Main speaks my mind. When the suffragists asked her to join them and get out and work for the -42- vote, she said, "no, I don't believe in it. For the Lord's sake let the men do something." Now, the extension of suffrage to women does not mean the extension of another right to the individual woman. It means the imposition of political responsibility upon all women in addition to those they already have. We anti-suffragists are not shirks or drones or parasites as it is sometimes said. We feel the great heart throbs of the world around us. Most of us are serving boards of philanthropy and social welfare work that deal directly with these problems, and we ask to pursue our work as women and not at the dictates of some political party. We stand for the education and training of women that will make her more and more man's helpmate and companion,– not his rival and competitor. Which do you prefer for the women of your state, the feminist ideal or the Christian ideal, which the ardent suffragist tells us has had such a stultifying effect upon the character and morals of women and men? A state is made of many communities; communities are made up of the rows and rows of little homes. The woman with the masculine chip on her shoulder, the woman who goes about performing exceptional tasks is, very fortunately for the state and society, in the minority. They are not the women upon whom the state and society depend. The women who count are the busy women of the homes. They outnumber the -43- others a hundred to one. Will we have better government under suffragist and feminist ideals, with woman as man's competitor, sex antagonism, or under the present regime where woman's work is to form the character of the future citizens of the Republic? Conservation is one of the watchwords of the hour and the men of this country are conserving their forests and waterways. May I suggest to you tonight that the time has now come for you to conserve the womanhood of your state and thereby preserve the nation? Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.