NAWSA Subject File Congressional Union Miscellany Mistake of calling a democratic caucus of the house to consider the appointment of a woman suffrage committee. At the time the caucus was called, the woman suffrage amendment was in the hands of the Judiciary Committee awaiting action. Another resolution proposing the appointment of a standing woman suffrage committee in the House of Representatives had been referred to the Rules Committee where action was being taken on that resolution. The Rules Committee had met a few days previously to consider this resolution, and the action taken on that occasion was as follows: Congressman Lenroot, of Wisconsin, moved that the Rules Committee report a rule establishing a woman suffrage committee. A substitute motion was made that the Committee set a future date (the date being given in the resolution) for considering the question. The substitute was lost and as it had been voted on as a substitute, the original motion could not at that meeting of the committee be considered, so the statue of the resolution was practically the same as before the committee had been called. By this action the Rules Committee was by no means exhausted. The Committee is composed of eleven member, and six of those members, representing all three parties, had promised to support the resolution. We had a majority of the committee, and by a consideration with all members present, could have passed the resolution. Before this committee met again, the Democratic caucus was called to pass upon the question of appointing a woman suffrage committee, and had dictated to the Democrats to vote "No." -2- The caucus was called on the signature of 51 members to a petition which had been advanced by the Congressional Union. The signing of the petition was urged and hastened by them and the members were urged to do everything in their power to get a caucus. The caucus failed entirely to put the members squarely on record and has placed an almost insurmountable barrier in the way of further progress of the bill in the House. The action of that caucus has given all members a shield to hide behind. The avowed purpose of the caucus was to get a suffrage committee, and while it was called to pass on that question, it passed a resolution which dictated "No" to every Democrat in the House. In the caucus a motion was made to "recommend that the Rules Committee report a rule favoring a suffrage committee." Here again a substitute motion was made "that it is the sense of this caucus that suffrage is a state and not federal question." Debate was cut off by calling the previous question. The Chair ruled that the substitute was a good substitute and supplanted the original motion, and motion was taken on the substitute which was carried. Many men who believed in state's rights favored a committee to discuss the matters of suffrage, so the vote which was taken was not on suffrage but on the states rights bugaboo and defeated the very purpose for which the caucus was called. it effectively stopped further consideration by the Rules Committee because the caucus had been called for the purpose of instructed the Rules Committee. It made the Judiciary Committee, where the suffrage amendment is pending, (14 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Progressive) hard to deal with, and it is going to hinder the progress if the bill -3- gets to the floor of the House. A caucus never have been called without enough votes to carry the point. It is easier to work with 11 men, (Rules Committee) or with 21 men (Judiciary Committee) than it is to work with 290 men (House Democrats). The action was premature because it dictated to 7 (Democrats) of the 11 members of the Rules Committee, whereas, without the caucus, we had 6 members (all three parties) pledged to vote for it when we could get a meeting of the entire Committee. The only hope in the Rules Committee was to avoid a caucus. CONGRESSIONAL UNION CONFERENCE NEW YORK - MARCH 31ST 1915. PROGRAM 12:30 Luncheon - Peg Woffington Coffee House - 11 East 44th Street 3 P.M. Business Meeting At the home of Mrs. O.H.P. Belmont 477 Madison Avenue, New York City. Chairman - - - Mrs. John W. Brannan 1. Which bill shall we support in the next Congress? Discussion of Susan B. Anthony and the Shafroth-Palmer Amendments - Mrs. Florence Kelley 2. Suggested Constitution for the Congressional Union Mrs. Donald R. Hooker 3. Literature on the Federal Amendment - Mrs. William L. Colt 4. Political work and ideals of Susan B. Anthony Mrs. Annie Porritt 8 P.M. Business Meeting At the home of Mrs. O.H.P. Belmont 1. History of the work for the national suffrage amendment Mrs. William Kent 2. Review of the 63rd Congress - Miss Lucy Burns 3. The Next Congress Discussion of the change in membership and political complexion of the 64th Congress. Mrs. Gilson Gardner 4. A Pageant -- Miss Hazel MacKaye 5. Future Plans - - Miss Alice Paul X -- X Tickets for the Luncheon may be obtained from Miss Doris Steven's, 13 East 41st Street, New York City. Price - $1.25. The Toastmistress and speakers on this occasion will be announced later. [*Cpy Union [vs?] Nat Am*] All the talk here is also about the split instead of about the prime object. Personally I dislike it very much, but it may be that a row is a good way to gain publicity. It seems to me before adopting such a different policy from that which has always been maintained by the suffragists, Miss Paul and Miss Burns should at least have put it before the Union. I do not know how sincere are the motives of those department women under the civil service who are seceding from the Union on the ground that it places them in a wrong position, but it certainly furnishes a sound reason. They say they are allowed to take part in parade and join the Union because the suffrage movement was non-partisan. This has drawn out Miss Burns who mantains that the attack on the democratic party is not partisan. They would do the same if the republicans were in power, but the civil service employees under a democratic administration - if not the democratic administration itself - are not likely to be convinced by her argument. I am not in the fray and my impression is only superficial but taken for what it is worth I believe the girls lost ground when they took that very decided stand. They have done too much and have too strong a hold to be over thrown by a mistake now and then. But I wish they had not made this move. So long as the National appeared to be crowding them out for minor reasons the Union had the sympathy and the advantage, but when they put themselves in conflict with the general long established policy of the National and that too, apparently, without consulting the sentiment of the Union itself. It leaves room for at least a division of sentiment among their own followers here as to the wisdome of their course. And I cannot but bebieve that if they try to carry out their plan in the states where as yet they have made little impression, they will find they are out of touch with the majority of suffragists. ll this had nothing to do with the policy of trying to reach the President with the working girl argument except as it may effect his frame of mind. And we hope you will see your way clear to come. MISTAKE OF CALLING A DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS OF THE HOUSE TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF A WOMAN SUFFRAGE COMMITTEE. At the time the caucus was called, the woman suffrage amendment was in the hands of the Judiciary Committee awaiting action. Another resolution proposing the appointment of a standing woman suffrage committee in the House of Representatives had been referred to the Rules Committee where action was being taken on that resolution. The Rules Committee had met a few days previously to consider this resolution, and the action taken on that occasion was as follows: Congressman Lenroot, of Wisconsin, moved that the Rules Committee report a rule establishing a woman suffrage committee. A substitute motion was made that the Committee set a future day (the date being given in the resolution) for considering the question. The substitute was lost and as it had been voted on as a substitute, the original motion could not at that meeting of the committee be considered, so the status of the resolution was practically the same as before the committee had been called. By this action the Rules Committee was by no means exhausted. The Committee is composed of eleven members, and six of those members, representing all three parties, had promised to support the resolution. We had a majority of the committee, and by a consideration with all members present, could have passed the resolution. Before this Committee met again, the Democratic caucus was called to pass upon the question of appointing a woman suffrage committee, and had dictated to the Democrats to vote "No." -2- The caucus was called on the signature of 51 members to a petition which had been advanced by the Congressional Union. The signing of the petition was urged and hastened by them and the members were urged to do everything in their power to get a caucus. The caucus failed entirely to put the members squarely on record and has placed an almost insurmountable barrier in the way of further progress of the bill in the House. The action of that caucus has given all members a shield to hide behind. The avowed purpose of the caucus was to get a suffrage committee, and while it was called to pass on that question, it passed a resolution which dictated "No" to every Democrat in the House. In the caucus a motion was made to "recommend that the Rules Committee report a rule favoring a suffrage committee." Here again a substitute motion was made "that it is the sense of this caucus that suffrage is a state and not a federal question." Debate was cut off by calling the previous question. The Chair ruled that the substitute was a good substitute and supplanted the original motion, and motion was taken on the substitute which was carried. Many men who believed in State's rights favored a Committee to discuss the matter of suffrage, so the vote which was taken was not on suffrage but on the states rights bugaboo and defeated the very purpose for which the caucus was called. It effectively stopped further consideration by the Rules Committee because the caucus had been called for the purpose of instructing -3- the Rules Committee. It made the Judiciary Committee, where the suffrage amendment was pending, (14 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Progressive) hard to deal with, and it is going to hinder the progress if the bill gets to the floor of the House. A caucus should never have been called without enough votes to carry the point. It is easier to work with 11 men, (Rules Committee) or with 21 men (Judiciary Committee) than it is to work with 290 men, (House Democrats). The action was premature because it dictated to 7 (Democrats) of the 11 members of the Rules Committee, whereas, without the caucus, we had 6 members (all three parties) pledged to vote for it when we could get a meeting of the entire Committee. The only hope in the Rules Committee was to avoid a caucus. OBJECTIONS TO THE POLICY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL UNION. 1. "The party in power", is an English term and does not apply to American politics. We have a "majority party" which becomes such by chance rather than by the unified intent of every section of the country. 2. No suffrage amendment has passed in any state without both the Democratic and Republican parties. How can a suffrage organization consistently oppose its friends of the past? Many who voted for us in the suffrage states are here in Congress now. 3. The women in the suffrage states are no longer primarily suffragists, but voters, and belong to all three parties. They will not unite as a body to oppose any party, while the suffragists in other states have no vote. 4. Many Democrats who oppose suffrage are fairly representing their own constituencies. We would be amusing to threaten to defeat such men. (On this point the policy of the Congressional Committee is to oppose men who vote against suffrage if their constituencies warrant a belief is that suffrage is popular in their Congressional districts). 5. Recently Washington papers announced that the Union is going to try to defeat Senator Thomas of Colorado who is Chairman of the Suffrage Committee of the Senate, which has already reported the amendment favorably. The same article proposed to defeat Senator Smith of Arizona, who favored the bill, - 1 - and Senator Chamberlain of Oregon, who introduced the suffrage resolution. These three men are the only Democratic senators from suffrage states up for re-election in 1914. 6. The Washington "Star" of March 7th published a statement that the Congressional Union has launched the fight against House members at a meeting held that evening by a speech against Representative Carlin of Virginia. It happens that Mr. Carlin is not on the Judiciary Committee which has the suffrage resolution under consideration. It is also worthy of notice that he is closer to the Chairman than any other member. The Committee only recently very courteously granted the Union a hearing, and has not yet voted on Suffrage, because it is considering in long, trying, daily sessions, the President's trust legislation. We cannot expect consideration until the trust bills are reported out, and we only lose strength, good will, and votes by crowding them now, or by attacking influential members in speeches made in a district where a man is the people's idol. Mr. Carlin has a good record in the things that concern his constituents. Such tactics also hurt the suffrage cause in those districts, being ill-advised. 7. The militant policy of suffragists of attacking members because they belong to the "party in power" is an incitement to members of that party to oppose suffrage. -2- Annonymous letter from Conn [? Any Union] Editor Woman's Journal: Mrs. Hepburn's letter in the Journal of Feb. 7th invites discussion. In deciding whether the most conspicuous work for suffrage in the United States shall be done by a self perpetuating and self supporting auxiliary society or by the committee provided for that purpose by the National Association, the Executive board decides which of two policies shall be official. One policy is to work against the Democratic party as a whole, if they fail to pass the amendment. The other is to work for those who will support the amendment. "Miss Paul and Miss Burns served their suffrage apprenticeship in the militant ranks of England," said Mr. Pankhurst recently in Hartford, "and they were almost the first to adopt the hunger strike." The Pankhurst method, the original cause of militancy, of opposing the election the election of every liberals candidate, even if he favored woman suffrage, naturally appeals to them. It may have been the best policy, it was probably inevitable, but it has not yet succeeded in winning the ballot and it has lead to results which are deplorable, whatever judgment we pass on the heroic Woman's Political Union of Great Britain. Whether it will provoke resentment and brutality in the American electorates as it did in the English, we may have the opportunity of learning. The Englishman is more interested in politics than the American, but that the latter is as deeply stirred when anything about which he feels strongly is threatened our lynching record proves. Arson and police brutality in highly civilized England and lynching in generous and kindly America show that the brute is not extinct in either people. What is the situation in Congress? The Democratic party has 342 representatives, and Senators and a majority of 147 in the House. The improbable event of the Congressional Union helping to elect Republicans and progressives in the place of any of the 159 Southern members will provoke deep resentment. Carpet Baggers are not popular in the South and that the bags contain lingerie will not save the situation. Moreover it will hardly fail to check the growth of the Southern State suffrage organizations. The States of the North and West where women have only "influence" or a partial vote supply 166 democrats. The race question does not enter here, but hoodlumism in the great cities and interference with the regular suffrage work of the Campaign States afford abundant opportunities for trouble. The States where women vote send but sixteen democrats, seven of them to the Senate where the Democratic majority is close. Persuading the women voters of the West to vote solidly will be difficult. Many of the voters were indifferent to suffrage, some were conscientiously opposed - one Western woman wrote to her sister in Connecticut: "I voted, but when I returned from the polls I retired to my room and fell upon my knees and begged my Creator to forgive me." The women leaders of the West have abundant non-partisan work cut out for them in getting out the women's vote and giving elementary instruction in sound political methods. They should be allowed to do this work, of great importance to the whole suffrage cause, in peace. A stronger reason why the woman voters of the West will not let themselves be moulded into a club to assassinate the Democratic party is the Elector's oath. The non-voting woman has one political duty -- to get the vote by using every honest method. we should hope, for their honor's sake, [that it?] will always be "practically impossible for us to use the big women's vote in the West." for the voting woman is pledged to be "true and faithful" -- not to us but to the State and nation and to vote without "respect of persons or favor of any man." One need not be a democrat to recognize that the president and congress have shown remarkable efficiency in enacting legislation demanded by the voting public. Woman Suffrage was not demanded, as the only party which stood for it was defeated. Attempts to hector or brow-beat a president of the character and political strength of President Wilson will go far to convince voters in the campaign states that women are unfit for political responsibility. We American suffragists have many causes for thankfulness, not only that nearly 2,000,000 of our fellow women can now vote, not only that we are surrounded by a less "intolerant and uncomprehending public opinion", but that we are opposed by no highly centralized government dominated by one obstinate and vindictive spirit. We have no been lied to or taunted with the fact that we have not burned or slaughtered as the men of the past did. We can overcome our enemies singly and prove by results that woman suffrage is a good thing. When the lever of suffrage States is long enough, Congress will submit to being the fulcrum, no matter under what system of tyranny - - caucus, speaker or some new invention of the undemocratic spirit - it may then be groaning. The Congressional Union has done a wonderful work. They can crown it by the sacrifice of their present scheme in the interest of harmony. There is work enough, even for their energy, in the campaign States and in helping local organizations to replace fossils and blatherskites by fair minded men of the same parties. In the isolation of separated homes and individual work women have learned patience and self-sacrifice, valuable in politics. They have not had a chance to learn team play and subordination to a majority. Here is the Unions great chance for heroism. I do not believe they will miss it. Yours respectfully A Connecticut private. Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.