NAWSA Subject File Congressional Union Morgan, Laura P. L P Morgan Office National Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage Association Munsey Building Washington, D.C. Mrs. Medill McCormick [... Chairman] Mrs. Antoinette Funk Executive Vice-Chairman 419 Munsey Bldg. Telephone Main 3597 Members Mrs. Sherman M. Booth Glencoe, Ill. Mrs. Helen H. Gardener Washington, D.C. Miss Ethel M. Smith Washington, D.C. Mrs. Glenna Smith Tinnin Washington, D.C. Mrs. Laura Puffer Morgan Lincoln, Neb. Miss Jeanette Rankin Missoula, Mont. Officers National Association Dr. Anna Howard Shaw President Mrs. Stanley McCormick First Vice-President Mrs. Desha Breckinridge Second Vice-President Dr. Katherine B. Davis Third Vice-President Mrs. Susan W. Fitzgerald Recording Secretary Mrs. Orten H. Clark Corresponding Secretary Mrs. Henry Wade Rogers Treasurer Mrs. Walter McNab Miller First Auditor Mrs. Medill McCormick Second Auditor [map of the United States dated 1913 with caption: White states full suffrage; shaded states, partial suffrage; dotted state, presidential, partial county and state, municipal suffrage; dark states, no suffrage.] Dear Board Member:- In view of the recent action of the Congressional Union in calling upon all suffragists to withdraw from the National American Woman Suffrage Association and to united with the Union on the ground that the National does not support the Susan B. Anthony amendment, certain suggestions have been made to the Congressional Committee that it would be wiser to abandon the Shafroth amendment. I am sending this letter to the members of the National Board that you may be put in as close touch as possible with the present congressional situation, which it seems to the Committee, should be largely the determining factor in a question of this kind. I am the member of the Committee who has been responsible for the publicity issued from Washington during the past session, and have given whatever time I could spare from that work to the lobby. Last year, though not a member of the Committee, I followed the work and was in charge of the Washington publicity during the summer. The first point that I wish to make is that this whole situation has been forced through deliberate misstatements by the leaders of the Union: first the charge that the National was not working for the Mondell amendment second the statement that if the National had worked for it it would have passed at the last session, and finally the misrepresentations made concerning the Shafroth amendment itself. It does not seem reasonable that the policy of the Congressional Committee or the National Association should be changed, not to meet a change of conditions, but merely to avoid criticism, none of which is founded on facts. April 15, 1915. 2 What we should do, as I see it, is to get the facts before the suffragists. It is not necessary, of course, to explain to you the work that the committee has done for the Susan B. Anthony amendment. What I should like to emphasize is the effectiveness of the work. While it would be difficult to prove, I feel perfectly convinced that if it had not been for the Congressional Committee, the amendment would never have come to a vote during the past session. Since I have been in personal touch with the Committee- since the first of May, 1914,- Mrs. Funk has been in charge of the lobby, and for the greater part of the time has done all the lobby work herself. She has interviewed practically all the members of Congress, not once, but often many times. It was due to her persuasion that Representative Goldfogle of New York, though an anti-suffragist, did not block the report of the Rules Committee when he had the deciding vote. Mr. Goldfogle himself referred to this fact after the report was made, and was much gratified when we published the story of his promise to Mrs. Funk and its result. This is only one example among many that could be given. A number of prominent Senators and representatives, notably Senator La Follette, have spoken in the highest terms of Mrs. Funk's work and the change that it alone has made in the status of suffrage at the Capitol. The Congressional Union leaders knew perfectly well what our Committee was doing, especially during the last month before the vote, when our office was in constant communication with the suffrage leaders at the Capitol. So far as I know the Union did not attempt to do anything during that time. In fact, it was at that time that they were opening headquarters in New York. They were present at the Capitol, however, on January 12 in large numbers, with the usual statement that they were the only body supporting the Mondell resolution. This statement they have never even tried to substantiate. It is, as everyone knows, no less than absurd to suppose that anything that could have been done by suffragists would have changed enough votes to pass the resolution. The fact that the poll made by the Congressional Committee the week before the vote in the House was taken differed in only four votes from the vote itself is evidence that the Committee understood the situation. It is moreover not only our opinion but that of our advisers in Congress that we have gone as far as we can at present with the Anthony amendment. They all say, -3- "The next thing to do is to win more States." Very few of the members who we interview say frankly that they are anti-suffragists. If they oppose the amendment they do it on the ground that suffrage is a subject for a state action or that they represent the voters of their district. Whether right or wrong the latter is always a safe ground fro them to take. They are elected by the voters among their constituents, and no amount of "insistence" by non-voters alone will constitute a political necessity. The whole argument of the Union against the Shafroth amendment rests upon the premise that the Anthony amendment can be passed- I believe the "Suffragist" says at the next session. But what are the facts? At the close of the present session I wanted to get up a newspaper story on the gains that suffrage would make in new Congress. Before I had gone half through the list I discovered that my story was killed before it was written. As nearly as I could estimate, we have most more votes, in the House, at least, than we have gained. Under the circumstances how can we reasonably hope for anything in another vote at the next session, or even how can be hope to get a vote? There is an increasing amount of legislation pushed at every Congress, members are always swamped with work if they are at all conscientious, and they very much resent being forced to consider a question which is not imminent. A member of the House to whom I spoke some time after the vote said: "We have given the suffragists the vote that they asked for and it will not come up again at the next session. If they were sensible they would give us a rest for two years. But of course they won't!" This member voted for the Mondell resolution. I do not personally see any possibility of another vote at the next session unless the situation is a materially changed by the results of the elections next fall- or by some striking advance in the southern states. And surely it would be unwise to press for a vote unless we can count upon a large increase in our favor. What the Union and their followers ignore is that the very fact of our having attained to a vote in itself marks the end of an epoch and calls for new tactics. We have succeeded in the first step. That success has given a tremendous impetus to state activity, but it must be crystallized into state success before it can react on Congress itself. The Congressional Committee believes that the Shafroth amendment will under the present circumstances have much -4- more strength in Congress that the Anthony. If we succeed in passing it it will mean another tremendous impetus to the movement. If we do not succeed it will give us at least an excuse for keeping suffrage before Congress until such time as it seems wiser to press the Anthony again. Our experience in the past and our confidential talks with friendly members have shown us that more heckling of Congress, which is the policy of the Union, will gain us nothing. As a matter of fact the leaders of the Union do not themselves believe in the claims they make for the Anthony amendment. Both Miss Paul and Miss Burns when pinned down to it have been unable to say that they believed that the amendment would pass. But they say "You cannot succeed without faith." Naturally it is necessary for them to keep up the fiction with their followers of their case would collapse. I will not go into the question of the Shafroth resolution itself except to refer to the objection that is often made that we cannot work for two measures at the same time. Anyone who has had any experience with legislative work will recognize the fallacy of that idea, so that it seems hardly worth while to consider it seriously. Yours respectfully, Laura Puffer Morgan LM-LA (to be added to Mrs. Morgan's letter of April 15.) I will not take up the objections raised against the Shafroth resolution, except the one that it is impossible to work for two measures at the same time- the argument upon which rests the assumption of the Union that because the National is in favor of the Shafroth it is against the Anthony. It is only necessary to scan the history of legislation in Congress for the last decade to prove the fallacy of this argument. It is a general principle that no measure of reform or innovation in legislation has been enacted without some degrees of compromise on the part of its proponents, accepted as necessary for the achievement of ultimate success. As a matter of practice the advocates of a measure to which there is formidable opposition have always a second choice to bring forward in case the first fails. Very often several bills on the same subject are introduced at once and tried out together, and the one that survives is the one that can command the votes. An argument against this method of procedure which would be valid in the case of a referendum to the voters fails here. Without doubt two similar measures presented to an electorate, the majority of whom are too ignorant or indifferent to discriminate between them, would cause such confusion as to bring about the defeat of both. But members of Congress are trained men. A large proportion of them are lawyers. It is their business to understand the measures for which they vote. On a question of public interest, one in which their constituents watch their action, they are not uninformed. -2- One of the best examples that can be given of the procedure that I have mentioned is perhaps that of a bill for federal supervision of grain inspection which passed the House at the last session. For a dozen or more years the radicals insisted on a bill for federal inspection and control. That is, their bill provided for appointment of grain inspectors by the federal government instead of by the states. They tried to pass the bill and failed. Another bill before Congress provided for federal licenses for inspectors appointed by the states. This bill the advocates of the more radical measure finally accepted as the first step toward the complete federal control which they hope ultimately to win. Similar examples can be given, such as the bills for federal regulation of railroads, postal savings banks, direct election of senators, and so on to a great number. The most striking is the action of the prohibition party in regard to their two measures which were pending in the last Congress at the same time, one the constitutional amendment for nation wide prohibition, the other a bill for prohibition in the District of Columbia. When the amendment failed in the House they at once began to push the District bill. They attempted nothing more with the other even in the Senate, where they undoubtedly could have forced action had they tried. Yet the prohibitionists have more states behind them than the suffragists today. The Shafroth amendment was never intended as a substitute for the Anthony amendment. It is only the opening wedge. When by means of it enough states have come into the suffrage ranks, nothing in the world can prevent the passage of the full suffrage -3- amendment. The fear of timid suffragists that Congress having passed one measure will refuse to pass the other has no ground in legislative precedent. Mrs. Medill McCormick Chairman Mrs. Antoinette Funk Executive Vice-Chairman 419 Munsey Bldg. Members Mrs. Sherman M. Booth Glencoe, Ill. Mrs. Helen H. Gardener Washington, D.C. Miss Ethel M. Smith Washington, D.C. Mrs. Glenna Smith Tinnin Washington, D.C. Mrs. Laura Puffer Morgan Lincoln, Neb. Miss Jeanette Ranking Missoula, Mont. [unreadable seal] 377 Office National Congressional Committee of the National American Woman Suffrage Association Munsey Building Washington, D. C. [Graphic: map of the United States, variously shaded, with caption] 1913 Alaska White states, full suffrage; shaded states, partial suffrage; dotted state, presidential, partial county and state, municipal suffrage; dark states, no suffrage. Telephone Main 3597 Officers National Association Dr. Anna Howard Shaw President Mrs. Stanley McCormick First Vice-President Mrs. Desha Breckinridge Second Vice-President Dr. Katherine B. Davis Third Vice-President Mrs. Susan W. Fitzgerald Recording Secretary Mrs. Orten H. Clark Corresponding Secretary Mrs. Henry Wade Rogers Treasurer Mrs. Walter McNab Miller First Auditor Mrs. Medill McCormick Second Auditor April 15, 1915. Dear Board Member:- In view of the recent action of the Congressional Union in calling upon all suffragists to withdraw from the National American Woman Suffrage Association and to unite with the Union on the ground that the National does not support the Susan B. Anthony amendment, certain suggestions have been made to the Congressional Committee that it would be wiser to abandon the Shafroth amendment. I am sending this letter to the members of the National Board that you may be put in as close touch as possible with the present congressional situation, which it seems to the Committee, should be largely the determining factor in a question of this kind. I am a member of the Committee who has been responsible for the publicity issued from Washington during the past session, and have given whatever time I could spare from that work to the lobby. Last year, though not a member of the Committee, I followed its work and was in charge of the Washington publicity during the summer. The first point that I wish to make is that this whole situation has been forced through deliberate misstatements by the leaders of the Union: first the charge that the National was not working for the Mondell amendment, second the statement that if the National had worked for it it would have passed at the last session, and finally the misrepresentations made concerning the Shafroth amendment itself. It does not seem reasonable that the policy of the Congressional Committee or the National Association should be changed, not to meet a change of conditions, but merely -2- to avoid criticism, none of which is founded on facts. What we should do, as I see it, is to get the facts before the suffragists. It is not necessary, of course, to explain to you the work that the committee has done for the Susan B. Anthony amendment. What I should like to emphasize is the effectiveness of that work. While it would be difficult to prove, I feel perfectly convinced that if it had not been for the Congressional Committee, the amendment would never have come to a vote during the past session. Since I have been in personal touch with the Committee - since the first of May, 1914 - Mrs. Funk has been in charge of the lobby, and for the greater part of the time has done all the lobby work herself. She has interviewed practically all the members of Congress, not once, but often many times. It was due to her persuasion that Representative Goldfogle of New York, though an anti-suffragist, did not block the report of the Rules Committee when he had the deciding vote. Mr. Goldfogle himself referred to this fact after the report was made, and was much gratified when we published the story of his promise to Mrs. Funk and its result. This is only one example among many that could be given. A number of prominent Senators and representatives, notably Senator La Follette, have spoken in the highest terms of Mrs. Funk's work and the change that it alone has made in the status of suffrage at the Capitol. The Congressional Union leaders knew perfectly well what our Committee was doing, especially during the last month before the vote, when our office was in constant communication with the suffrage leaders at the Capitol. So far as I know the Union did not attempt to do anything during that time. In fact, it was at that time that they were opening headquarters in New York. They were present at the Capitol, however, on January 12 in large numbers, with the usual statement that they were the only body supporting the Mondell resolution. This statement they have never even tried to substantiate. It is, as everyone knows, no less than absurd to suppose that anything that could have been done by suffragists would have changed enough votes to pass the resolution. The fact that the poll made by the Congressional Committee the week before the vote in the House was taken differed in only four votes from the vote itself is evidence that the Committee understood the situation. It is moreover not only our opinion but that of our advisers in Congress that we have gone as far as we can at present with the Anthony amendment. They all say -3- "The next thing to do is to win more States." Very few of the members whom we interview say frankly that they are anti-suffragists. If they oppose the amendment they do it on the ground that suffrage is a subject for state action or that they represent the voters of their district. Whether right or wrong the latter is always safe ground for them to take. They are elected by the voters among their constituents, and no amount of "insistence" by non-voters alone with constitute a political necessity. The whole argument of the Union against the Shafroth amendment rests upon the premise that the Anthony amendment can be passed - I believe the "Suffragist" says at the next session. But what are the facts? At the close of the present session I wanted to get up a newspaper story on the gains that suffrage would make in the new Congress. Before I had gone half through the list I discovered that my story was killed before it was written. As nearly as I could estimate, we have lost more votes, in the House, at least, than we have gained. Under the circumstances, how can we reasonably hope for anything in another vote at the next session, or even how can we hope to get a vote? There is an increasing amount of legislation pushed at every Congress, members are always swamped with work if they are at all conscientious, and they very much resent being forced to consider a question which is not imminent. A member of the House to whom spoke some time after the vote said: "We have given the suffragists the vote that they asked for and it will not come up again at the next session. If they were sensible they would give us a rest for two years. But of course they won't!" This member voted for the Mondell amendment. I do not personally see any possibility of another vote at the next session unless the situation is materially changed by the results of the elections next fall - or by some striking advance in the southern States. And surely it would be unwise to press for a vote unless we can count upon a large increase in our favor. What the Union and their followers ignore is that the very fact of our having attained to a vote in itself marks the end of an epoch and calls for new tactics. We have succeeded in the first step. That success has given a tremendous impetus to state activity, but it must be crystallized into state success before it can react on Congress itself. The Congressional Committee believes that the Shafroth amendment will under the present circumstances have much more strength in Congress than the Anthony. If we succeed -4- in passing it it will mean another tremendous impetus to the movement. If we do not succeed it will give us at least an excuse for keeping suffrage before Congress until such time as it seems wiser to press the Anthony again. Our experience in the past and our confidential talks with friendly members have shown us that mere heckling of Congress, which is the policy of the Union, will gain us nothing. As a matter of fact the leaders of the Union do not themselves believe in the claims they make for the Anthony amendment. Both Miss Paul and Miss Burns when pinned down to it have been unable to say that they believed that the amendment would pass. But they say "You cannot succeed without faith." Naturally it is necessary for them to keep up the fiction with their followers or their case would collapse. I will not go into the question of the Shafroth resolution itself except to refer to the objection that is often made that we cannot work for two measures at the same time. Anyone who has had any experience with legislative work will recognize the fallacy of that idea, so that is seems hardly worth while to consider it seriously. Yours respectfully, Laura Puffer Morgan LM-LA [*Read &*] [*Copy &*] [*file if*] [*important*] [*file*] FORTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE NATIONAL AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION To be held in Washington, D. C. DECEMBER 14 to 19, 1915 Committee on Local Arrangements MRS. WINSTON CHURCHILL, CHAIRMAN MRS. LAURA PUFFER MORGAN, EXECUTIVE VICE-CHAIRMAN MRS. GEORGE ALEXANDER MOSSHART, SECRETARY AND TREASURER Address all communications to MRS. LAURA PUFFER MORGAN 419 MUNSEY BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. October 19, 1915. My dear Mrs. McCormick, There is some misunderstanding evidently about this question of the letters she sent out. It really isn't worth referring to again except that I don't want you to think I am asking to substitute myself for the Board, or to give out any information that is not in my province. As a matter of fact it would be a relief to me not to write any letters as it is almost impossible to get time for them, but it seems much simpler for us to take care of correspondence concerning local arrangements, etc. I feel pretty sure that what Mrs. Rogers wrote was that all information should be given out through the New York headquarters, but I wouldn't swear to it as the letter was written to Mrs. Mosshart and I have no copy. Of course the trouble is that both Mrs. Rogers 2 and Dr. Shaw felt that I assumed too much responsibility, in my first letter. I am quite ready to concede that point but I thought when I wrote it that I was following out literally Mrs. Stanley's directives. About this question of delegates - I never thought of a circular letter on that subject. What I wanted was instructions for members. Mrs. Stanley told me last summer definitely to go ahead securing whatever delegates , but Mrs. Mosshart didn't want to go to all that work - now of course ask the people - until she knew that they would be accepted, so she wrote to Mrs. Rogers as chairman of the credentials committee. I am writing this so that you may understand. Of course, one will wait until Mrs. Stanley comes back. I am awfully glad to hear that she is on her way. I didn't know that she would be here so soon. Now for some real difficulties. The Union is running away with all the publicity this fall. Their convention just precedes [?] you know and they are announcing feature after feature, and getting it 3 printed, too. I have never worked so hard to get publicity with so little result. Stories that I never had any trouble with before - that is, lists of names of people who are doing things for the convention - I can't even get in. I haven't been able to get a simple line about the convention to the Post. What do you think of that? One reason is that I haven't anything interesting to announce. No one seems to know anything about the program. All I can talk of is what the local committee is doing, and of course we haven't much [? ?] since one can't dispose of any time for social things. By the way, here is a suggestion that has just occurred to me. When we were discussing the program for New York last April, you set Saturday afternoon as the time for the reception and planned conferences for four evenings including Saturday, one evening being left free for caucuses. Now an evening reception is much more brilliant than one in the afternoon and more convenient besides. Why not have it on that free evening after all? The people caucus who want to. 4 Another reason why we can't make ourselves felt in Washington is because we have no rallying place. Where Mr. Hailmann was here, he decided that it was absolutely necessary for us to have stout headquarters at least during December and better for a month before the convention. I don't think we shall be on the map at all if we can't be seen on F Street or thereabouts. The 250 Washington correspondents won't know we are here. Of course there is the question of fincancing the headquarters, but it seems to me that there is nothing that is more important for its own existence or the [?] to do than this. We are pulling wires in order to get a place free, and I put off writing to you for a few days thinking that I might have something definite to report, but I haven't yet. We can rent a place next to the Cafe Republican for $100 a month. I doubt if we can get anything for less. May I refer once more to your suggestion about the Shafroth? The more I think 5 about it, and the more I read Union publicity on the subject, the more I feel that we would be making a great mistake to give up the Shafroth without having any adequate reason for opening up the subject. I believe there is nothing that they couldn't do to us. I am in doubt whether to send this to Chicago or New York, but since you said nothing about being in New York this week I will try Chicago. Mrs. Rogers sent on a message today to come to New York on Saturday but I shall not be able to. There is altogether too much to do here. Sincerely yours, Laura Puffer Morgan October 25, 1915. My dear Mr. Hallinan:- At a meeting of our Convention Committee held on Friday I presented the subject of the Susan B. Anthony medallion, and it was received with the greatest enthusiasm. Mrs. Gardener, and Mrs. Tinnin especially thought that it would make splendid propaganda for us, particularly at this time. Mrs. Tindall, who is a member of several of the older organizations, the State Association, etc., in short, one of the "old guard," made the suggestion that the three suffrage clubs connected with the State Association in Washington should use that as a means of raising their pledge to be made at the convention this year to the National Association. She thought so well of it that it seemed to her that the money could be raised by having the clubs take up this idea, and of course her suggestion will be carried out. I was much delighted with it, because it will give us a splendid opportunity to try the medallion out in just a way that was first suggested by Mr. Morgan. Now to help this sale by individuals, would it not be well to have an endorsement from Dr. Shaw? Can't you get out some such endorsement for her, or better still, perhaps, a letter from her enthusiastically supporting this as a good method of propaganda, and also of raising money for the suffrage cause. I want this for my personal use among these clubs of the older women, who are affected by the old traditions. If you have been getting your STARS you saw quite a long story in Saturday's STAR to the effect that Senator Sutherland of Utah and Mr. Mondell were going to introduce the amendment in Congress for the Congressional Union. Did we not intend to have Mr. Mondell introduce this for us? He was in the office two or three days ago asking for suffrage literature in preparation for his speeches, with which we supplied him to the best of our ability, but I did not speak of the amendment as I of Mr. Hallinan -2 10-25-15. course have not had that in charge. He said that he was going to stop at the New York office on his way up-state, and I thought that you would probably see him there. Now if it is true, as Mr. Morgan says, that Congressmen do not rise on the floor of the House and orally introduce their amendments, why would it not be a possible thing - and indeed the most sensible thing - to ask Mr. Mondell to introduce this amendment for the National Association and the Congressional Union. He has been very closely associated with us, and we were in constant communication with him during the month before the vote last year. All of his plans with reference to speakers on the floor and that sort of thing were made with Mrs. Funk's advice. I should think that he will be perfectly willingly to do this thing for us, and I do not see it would do us any harm. In fact, it seems to me that it would be a disadvantage for our name to be connected with any other Congressman than the one by whose name the resolution goes. I am having difficulties with my publicities, especially, of course, with the POST. The POST yesterday morning for the first time published anything about the convention a story nearly a week old, condensed so as to merely announce the names of the local committee. I feel quite convinced, and Mr. Morgan agrees with me, that the Congressional Union is paying the man who handles suffrage to keep our name out. I have asked Mrs. Gardener to go to see the managing editor to see what she can do about it, otherwise I do not know what to do. The STAR and the TIMES I think we are going to be all right. My friend on the HERALD who was city editor has left, so that I cannot count on them very much just now. Sincerely yours, LM-LA Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.