[*NAWSA*] SUBJECT FILE [*Equal Rights Amendment*] ARTHUR MEIER SCHLESINGER Professor of American History, Harvard University, and President of the American Historical Association ENDORSES THE Equal Rights Amendment Many well-meaning persons have opposed the Equal Rights Amendment on the ground that it would deprive women of special statutory protection in industry. In recent years, however, legislation has extended to men wage-earners most of the advantages earlier granted exclusively to women. Hence no substantial objection of a practical character remains for treating the two groups of workers differently, whereas the principles of democracy require that they should be treated alike. For these, as well as for other reasons, I favor the proposed Amendment. ARTHUR MEIER SCHLESINGER NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY WASHINGTON, D. C. TEXT OF EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT As now before Congress "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by an State on account of sex. "Congress and the several States shall have power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "This amendment shall take effect three years after the date of ratification." EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT PLANKS From Republican Platform--1944 "We favor submission by Congress to the States of an amendment to the Constitution providing for equal rights for men and women. "We favor job opportunities in the postwar world open to men and women alike without discrimination in rate of pay because of sex." From Democratic Platform--1944 "We favor legislation assuring equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. "We recommend to Congress the submission of a Constitutional amendment on equal rights of women." WHAT THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT WILL DO FOR YOU A Discussion Addressed to Working Men and Women Throughout the United States, Especially to Members of Organized Labor Bodies. TEXT OF EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT January, 1945 "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by an State on account of sex. "Congress and the several States shall have power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "This amendment shall take effect three years after the date of ratification." Issued by INDUSTRIAL WOMEN'S LEAGUE FOR EQUALITY Room 616, 220 West 42nd Street New York 18, N. Y. 142 PASSAGE of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will compel Congress and each of the forty-eight State Legislatures to amend all laws in each jurisdiction which do not provide equal justice to men and women, and to make each law equally applicable to men and to women. No laws will be immediately wiped out by enactment of the Amendment. Neither the benefits nor the mistakes of the past will be immediately destroyed. But its enactment will serve notice on all legislative bodies that certain mistakes and injustices of the past must be corrected. At the end of the third year following ratification of the Amendment, all laws discriminating between the rights of men and the rights of women must have been amended to give equal human rights to both. Necessity of amendments open the way to adoption of an enlightened program of legislation--especially labor legislation-- in keeping with the new era now dawning. Out of the patchwork of labor laws in the States--enacted during an economy that has vanished forever--a modern program of minimum legal requirement can and must be fashioned: one based on the policy represented by the Fair Labor Standards Act, as was recommended by President Roosevelt when the Federal act was adopted. HOW WORKERS CAN BENEFIT Amendments of paramount importance to working men and women are those to labor laws--Federal and State. Any device which will bring about enactment of universal hours-limitation, minimum wages, health and safety laws will prove a boon to working people, both in protection to each worker on his job and in the spread of employment to more workers, which is bound to result from proper limitation on hours of those not now under Federal or State limitations. PRESENT STATE LAWS OBSOLETE Labor laws within the States are based on the seeming needs of the early part of this century and on arbitrary rulings of the Supreme Court on various laws that were brought to it on appeal. Since World War I, industry has developed along new lines and needs of industrial workers have changed accordingly. The latest ruling of the Supreme Court finally and definitely points the way to an enlightened, modernized code of labor laws. MODERNIZATION OF CODES Revision of labor codes would be effected in the following manner: Compulsion for Action would be provided by the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. The Pattern would be established by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Immediate Need for Full Employment in the post-war period would provide the impetus for revision of such nature as to help provide jobs for all. The Power and Influence of Labor would secure a new and efficient industrial code that would provide the following protections by law for all workers: a ceiling over hours; a floor under wages; protections against industrial hazards; seats for workers in places of employment where continuous standing produces foot and leg ailments; health and safety regulations. States for all workers, but in most states only women workers are protected by such laws at present. New York State has a law providing that core rooms in foundries shall be separated from the ovens in which cores are baked by a partition extending from floor to ceiling, and openings in the partition shall be so protected that gases and fumes from the ovens cannot enter the core room--ONLY IF WOMEN ARE EMPLOYED IN THE CORE ROOM. If men only are employed therein, the partition is not necessary. One wonders how many men have died from sickness due to inhaling fumes from such ovens since this law was passed. The Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution will compel amendment of this law to give the same protection to men and women. TO SECURE BENEFITS FOR THE GENERATION Enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment is the quickest and surest way to bring the desired amendments before Legislative bodies over the country for prompt action. Without the time-limit provided by the Amendment, labor can spend years accomplishing the results immediately needed. Those now living will all be dead and buried before State laws are enacted giving to all workers in intrastate employment the same kind of protection furnished by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act to workers in interstate industry, unless the Equal Rights Amendment compels immediate attention. MATERNITY LAWS NOT AFFECTED Maternity legislation is sometimes referred to as a protective measure that would come within the scope of revisions made necessary by the Amendment. This is an error. Maternity laws apply only to a very limited number of women and for a short period of time. They are no more discriminations than medical care for World War I veterans are discriminations against men who are not veterans. The veteran has rendered a special service to the State and has earned a special consideration in return. A woman bearing a child is rendering a service to the State which is recognized in the form of maternity legislation. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS More than one thousand laws in the forty-eight states discriminate between the rights of men and of women--many discriminate against women, many against men. Neither are just. The average is about twenty-five such laws per State--a small grist of amendments for any legislative mill to grind over a three-year period. While equalization of the labor laws is of major importance to working people, they will share with all citizens in the removal of other discriminations necessitated by the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. Such discriminations include: inequality of property rights; rights to own and control earnings; contractual rights; inheritance rights; inequalities under marriage, divorce, support and guardianship laws, and others. This leaflet may be ordered in quantities, at a nominal price, from the Industrial Women's League for Equality, Room 616, 220 West 42nd St., New York 18, N. Y. March, 1949 To Fellow-members of the American Association of University Women: Certain parts of our legislative program seem to us, from experiences in our various branches, to be automatically continued or supported with little or no study by the general membership. Last year our national office supported the Status of Women bill which outlined a policy for the United States, legalizing sex distinctions "reasonably justified by differences in physical structure, biological, or social function." Few A.A.U.W. members were familiar with the provisions or implications of this bill. Of it the Federation of Women's Republican Clubs of New York State has this to say: "We criticize it for the futility of its purposes. We object to its underlying philosophy which seems to assume that there are legal discriminations against women which can be justified by a commission to be appointed by the President. This is offensive to women who have won equal political rights with men." Similar Status of Women bills are now before the Congress. We believe that serious study of these bills will show that they should be opposed by the A.A.U.W. We protest against continued opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment without a membership review of the case. This stand was taken before the rewording of the Amendment, suggested by Warren Austin and the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1943. How many members are familiar with the new wording? The Equal Rights Amendment, backed by the Judiciary Committees of two Congresses and the Senate Judiciary Committee of the 81st Congress, winning a majority vote in the Senate in 1946, included in the platforms of both political parties, and sponsored by most of the women in Congress, seems to us to deserve not traditional and emotional attention, but the objective and intellectual consideration of educated women. We shall be glad to send further information about these bills, and remain Cordially yours, Florence L. C. Kitchelt, New Haven, Connecticut Alma Lutz, Berlin, New York Harriet Newhall, South Hadley, Massachusetts 51 Mill Rock Road New Haven, 11, Connecticut The New York Times THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1948. Letters to The Times To Insure Women's Rights End to Present Discrimination Seen With Adoption of Amendment TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: Your paper carries astonishing news. Unfortunately, it is also true. Today we read that the United States delegate in the United Nations Economic and Social Council was one of four who voted against a resolution carried by the votes of nine other nations providing for equal economic rights of women, "equal rights with men in employment and remuneration, leisure, social insurance and professional training." Perhaps our representatives abroad are not well briefed on what is transpiring at home. They may not know that the one point of agreement in the platforms of the national political parties is the plank favoring the equal-rights-for-men-and-women amendment to the Constitution. THE NEW YORK TIMES also carried the news, last spring, of another refusal of our Government to include women in democratic progress. At the Ninth International Conference of American States at Bogota, all the twenty-one republics except our own signed a convention or treaty granting to women the same civil rights enjoyed by men. Is it any wonder that our claims to democracy are misunderstood abroad? Norman Armour, then Assistant Secretary of State, explained our failure to sign this treaty at Bogota "on the grounds that many of the generally accepted civil rights are matters for state rather than federal action under our Constitution." Let us note, however, that basic principles are generally in the Constitution, each state carrying out these principles in its own sweet fashion. Later Mr. Armour wrote me, "I believe you are correct in stating that if the Equal Rights Amendment were added to the Constitution of the United States there would be nothing of a constitutional nature to prevent this Government's signing such a convention." If any more arguments for the amendment were needed, this indeed is a compelling one. From the pen of Harrison Smith of the Saturday Review of Literature has come a revealing comment. He says the average man is bewildered by, and the majority of women do not know of, the steadily mounting campaign for equal rights for women under the Constitution. In Mr. Smith's words, "The goal [of this campaign] is partnership (replacing rivalry) with men in the economic, political and domestic life of the country. But before this program can become a vital and even resistless force, certain legal, economic or educational inequalities in several states must be done away with one by one, or destroyed in one blow by the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment could hardly be stated more simply. 'Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.'" The amendment is on the calendar of the present Congress, having been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committees of both houses. We confidently expect it will be voted in the next Congress, and that the representatives of our State Department abroad need no longer be embarrassed by our lack of democracy at home. FLORENCE L. C. KITCHELT, Chairman, Connecticut Committee for the Equal Rights Amendment. New Haven, Conn., Aug. 8, 1948. The Washington Post Saturday, April 2, 1949 Equal Rights The National Woman's Party is assembled in convention in Washington this weekend to press its fight for passage of the so-called equal rights amendment to the Constitution. Its zeal and persistence are worthy of a better cause. For in seeking to eliminate all distinctions in legal treatment of men and women, the proposed amendment would sweep away a vast body of protective legislation applicable to women. For that reason all major labor organizations are on record as opposed to this amendment, and Secretary of Labor Tobin has likewise voiced opposition to it. Also included among the numerous and numerically strong organizations that regard the amendment as a threat to the welfare of women rather than a benefit are such outstanding women's organizations as the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women, the National Women's Trade Union League, the National Board of the YWCA, and the National Councils of Catholic, Jewish and Negro Women. The foes of the equal rights amendment are not unmindful of the fact that women are the victims of discriminations rooted in custom and prejudice which are not justified by differences in sex. But they realize that this kind of discrimination cannot be eradicated by legislation. Moreover, insofar as legislation is concerned, their aim is to revise or abolish only those laws that reflect an irrational sex bias. The Women's Status bill which was before the Eightieth Congress has been introduced again with that purpose in mind. It has the backing of 38 national organizations, with a membership of more than 25 million, composing the National Committee on the Status of Women. This bill declares that it is the policy of the Federal Government to abolish distinctions based on sex in Federal Government and its administration, "except such as are 'reasonably justified by differences in physical structure or by maternal function." It also recommends that the States declare a similar policy and review their own laws and practices with the intention of bringing them into line with this new policy. An especially important provision of the bill calls for establishment of a presidential commission to study and report on all phases of the legal, economic and social status of women and make recommendations for such legislative action as may be required. The Women's Status bill outlines a practicable and rational method of dealing with problems of sex discrimination. That is shown by the fact that it is being actively supported by representative groups that have achieved notable victories over the years in battles to elevate the legal status and living conditions of women in industry and in the home. Equal Rights Official Organ, THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY CAPITOL HILL WASHINGTON, D. C. Vol. 21--No. 2 March 1, 1935 Price Five Cents MAKE THE AMENDMENT MOVE By ANITA POLLITZER EVERY member of the National Woman's Party should write at once to the members of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and the House, asking them to work and vote for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment which is now before these committees. At the present time when there are so many concrete examples of discriminations -- women, married and unmarried, being pushed back in great numbers into the field of unpaid labor ; married women all over the country deprived of their chance to continue to earn a living ; wage and hour provisions for women being urged which are a threat to women's economic security -- it is easier than in any preceding Congress to explain the justice of the Amendment and the need for its immediate passage. For years, women have been trying to remove discriminations against women, state by state, and law by law. More and more, representatives are beginning to see that this method is costly and inadequate, and therefore sentiment is more than ever for the Amendment. The members of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives of the 74th Congress are : Hatton W. Sumners, Chairman, Texas Andrew Montague, Virginia Emanuel Celler, New York William V. Gregory, Kentucky Zebulon Weaver, North Carolina John E. Miller, Arkansas Arthur D. Healey, Massachusetts Warren J. Duffey, Ohio Wesley Lloyd, Washington J. Leroy Adair, Illinois Robert L. Ramsay, West Virginia Francis E. Walter, Pennsylvania P. L. Gassaway, Oklahoma Walter Chandler, Tennessee Hubert Utterback, Iowa James P. B. Duffy, Iowa Charles F. McLaughlin, Nebraska William M. Citron, Connecticut Randolph Perkins, New Jersey U. S. Guyer, Kansas Clarence E. Hancock, New York William E. Hess, Ohio Earl C. Michener, Michigan John M. Robsion, Kentucky William H. Wilson, Pennsylvania (The address of these members is : House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.) The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are : Henry F. Ashurst, Chairman, Arizona William H. King, Utah Matthew M. Neely, Virginia Huey P. Long, Louisiana Frederick Van Nuys, Indiana Pat McCarran, Nevada M. M. Logan, Kentucky W. H. Dietrich, Illinois George McGill, Kansas Carl. A. Hatch, New Mexico E. R. Burke, Nebraska Wm. A. Borah, Idaho Geo. W. Norris, Nebraska Daniel O. Hastings, Delaware Thomas Schall, Minnesota Warren Austin, Vermont (The address of these members is : Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Will you do everything you can think of to get letters from prominent members of your community, leaders of women's clubs and political leaders to these representatives, urging them to support the Equal Rights Amendment, and to report it out of committee favorably? Will you get your clubs and organizations to pass resolutions urging these Senators and Representatives to report the Equal Rights Amendment favorably, and send copies of these resolutions to them, and to the Congressional Committee of the National Woman's Party? Every woman, whose Senator or Congressman is a member of these committees, has a responsibility and an opportunity. We are seeing these representatives in Washington, but it is important that they hear from their own districts. Pledges of support for the Equal Rights Amendment are being made almost daily by members of both Houses. Last week, one Congressman, on reading a letter just sent by Miss M. Carey Thomas, President Emeritus of Bryn Mawr College, in support of the Equal Rights Amendment, said that it should be read by every member of Congress. This message from an outstanding educator and a great feminist is an important contribution to the campaign and an inspiration. Miss Thomas says : "After having given the most careful consideration of which I am capable to the present legal and industrial disabilities of American women and also to what I am convinced will be the beneficent after effects of the Equal Rights Amendment now before Congress, I have reached the conclusion that it ought to be supported by every woman's organization and by every individual woman in the United States. Page Two EQUAL RIGHTS March 1, 1935 "During the present world-wide depression the majority of the men and women of the civilized world have lot--I believe forever--the savings of a lifetime and financial security. "In the future women as well as men must work for their living and for the joint support of their children. Women can no longer be supported by men. "We women of the older and of the present generation must combine together to make sure by passing the Equal Rights Amendment that all women throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction shall have equal legal and industrial rights with men to their children, to work paid for by the job and not by the sex of the worker, and to the pursuit of happiness." The Equal Rights Amendment which reads, "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction," was introduced in the House of Representatives, January 3, 1935, by Representative Louis Ludlow of Indiana, and in the Senate, January 4, 1935, by Senator John Townsend of Delaware. It has a preferred place on the calendars of both Houses as S. J. Res. No. 1 and H. J. Res. No. 1. With united national work for the Amendment it can be passed in this session. Women in every part of the country are demanding that this action be taken. The very ideals of our Government itself are on trial. After ten years of effort on the part of various women's organizations in the District of Columbia, a bill has passed both the House and Senate which will equalize the descent and distribution laws as between men and women in the District of Columbia. "FIELD OF HONOR" A NEW PLAY BY BETTY SOUBY Presented by the Pierce Hall Players PIERCE HALL, FIFTEENTH & HARVARD STS. Washington, D. C. Benefit Performance for District Branch, National Woman's Party Wednesday, Mary 27, at 8:30 P. M. Reservations through Mrs. Warner J. O'Leary, Clifton Terrace, South . . ADams 2692 Orchestra Seats, 75 Cents EQUAL RIGHTS (Registered in U. S. Patent Office) Published semi-monthly by The National Woman's Party, Capitol Hill, Washington, D. C. Subscription price, $1.00 per year ; foreign, $1.50. Entered as second-class matter at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Editors EMILY PERRY REBEKAH S. GREATHOUSE AGNES MORROW SCANDRETT Circulation Manager, MABEL VAN DYKE Officers of the National Woman's Party Chairman, FLORENCE BAYARD HILLES, Delaware Vice Chairmen, GAIL LAUGHLIN, Maine ANITA POLLITZER, South Carolina MRS. HARVEY W. WILEY, District of Columbia Secretary, REBEKAH S. GREATHOUSE, District of Columbia Treasurer, LAURA BERRIEN, Georgia ENDORSING THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT The recommendation of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs that the General Federation endorse the Equal Rights Amendment is a long step forward. The story is another chapter in the history of concerting public opinion which has been going on since 1848. Mrs. Harvey W. Wiley, president of the District Federation is the patient and persistent heroine of the story. She is surrounded by other stars, including Mrs. Horace J. Phelps and Miss Cornelia Hill. The foundation was laid by the compilation, under the committee on legislation, of a booklet showing the discriminations against women still existing in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Wiley arranged a debate before the District Federation in February, 1934, inviting the Woman's Party and an association opposed to the amendment to send speakers. The result was that a motion was made to the General Federation that the various clubs study the proposed amendment. The motion came up before the General Federation Convention in Hot Springs, Arkansas, in May, 1934. Burnita Shelton Matthews presented the case for the amendment, and Mrs. Jerome E. Cook, Missouri, for the opposition. The motion to place the subject on the study program of the General Federation was carried, and a pamphlet prepared by the National Chairman of Legislation, Mrs. S. Blair Lucky, presenting both sides of the question. In the meantime all the clubs of the District of Columbia were asked to have their members vote on the subject. Mrs. Wiley spoke at a meeting arranged by the Maryland Federation of Women's Clubs, covering the subject thoroughly. Twelve District clubs instructed their representatives to vote to endorse the amendment and a few were instructed against it. The uninstructed delegates were permitted to vote according to their beliefs. The result was that at a special meeting, February 14, the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. The question of endorsement will probably be put before the General Federation Convention in June of this year. The Woman's Democratic Club of Colorado Springs, Colorado, voted unanimously to endorse the Amendment at a meeting held on February 15, Susan B. Anthony's birthday! Copies of the resolution of endorsement were ordered sent to the members of the Colorado delegation in Congress. Mrs. Kerr presided at the meeting. News comes from New York that the National Democratic Club, of which Lillian Sire is President, voted its unanimous endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment and instructed the club to write the New York Senators and Representatives, urging them to vote for the amendment and to work to have it reported from Committee at this session of Congress. March 1, 1935 EQUAL RIGHTS Page Three YOU CAN HELP By enlisting the interest of members of the General Federation of Women's Clubs throughout the United States in the Equal Rights Amendment. By arranging for a speech on the subject before your club. By writing your Senators and Congressmen and asking their support for the Equal Rights Amendment. By sending news to EQUAL RIGHTS. By subscribing now to EQUAL RIGHTS, National Woman's Party, Washington, D. C. PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION The California Business Women's Legislative Council, an organization of thirty thousand affiliated women, whose purpose is equal legal and economic rights for men and women, left at the White House this week petitions to be presented to the President, containing 6,000 signatures, urging him to use his power to secure the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Mrs. Josephine Parker Smith, of Los Angeles, who brought the petitions, said: "California women are thoroughly aroused over the discriminations against women in the various States and the fact that the so-called protective legislation being enacted in the various States for women alone, actually in practice, prevents women from securing employment." "All discriminations on the grounds of sex and of marriage strike at the root of democratic government. The passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would correct these evils." Mrs. Smith was joined at the White House by Mr. John D. Vance, President of the Affiliated Teachers Organization of Los Angeles, an organization representing 10,000 teachers, which has gone on record for Equal Rights and the Amendment. They were unable to secure an interview with the President and left the petitions with a secretary. Women of the Danish Trade Union have adopted a resolution rejecting all special restrictions for women based on sex. PROTESTS DISCRIMINATIVE LEGISLATION In the name of the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs, Mrs. Harvey Wiley entered a protest before the District of Columbia Commissioners against the proposed 40-hour week for women in the District of Columbia. Mrs. Wiley calls attention to the fact that "however noble the motive prompting such legislation for women alone, employers generally would refuse the nuisance of employing women under the contemplated restrictions, and the result would be almost wholesale replacement of women by men and boys. Such restrictive legislation would be returning to the trend of 40 years ago in industry." INTERNATIONAL A recent communication from Alice Paul, under whose leadership at Geneva women's international organizations have succeeded in placing on the agenda of the Assembly of the League of Nations the equal nationality and the equal rights treaties, states that eight international organizations of women have endorsed the Equal Rights Treaty. This treaty was signed at Montevideo in 1933 by Cuba, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uraguay. The organizations that have endorsed the Equal Rights Treaty are: The Inter-American Commission of Women, the Women's Consultative Committee on Nationality, created by the Council of the League of Nations; International Soroptomist Clubs; the Women's International Congress Against War and Fascism; the Equal Rights International, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; the All Asian Conference of Women; the International Council of Women. The following resolution was passed by the Board of Officers of the International Council of Women in Paris, on February 12, 1933. "Considering that we desire to obtain for women equal rights and responsibilities with men in all countries and in every sphere of activity, "We hereby support the Montevideo Treaty signed in December, 1933, and urge the Assembly to endorse it as follows: "The contracting states agree that upon ratification of the treaty men and women shall have equal rights throughout the territory subject to their respective jurisdictions." Alice Paul writes in connection with the endorsement of the Equal Rights Treaty by the International Council of Women: "This action ought to be of great help in establishing unity of action among women, as the International Council is probably the largest and most influential feminist organization in the world." She adds, in a terse little sentence, the illuminating words: "We have worked a long time for this resolution." EQUAL NATIONALITY TREATY RATIFIED Mexico has ratified the Equal Nationality Treaty signed by nineteen American Republics at the Montevideo Pan American Conference. This treaty was recommended by the Inter-American Commission of Women. It guarantees to men and women equality in nationality in the law and practice of the countries concerned. The guarantee is now in effect between the United States, Chile and Mexico ; the United States and Chile having both ratified the treaty earlier last year. The Law Revision Committee in England proposes changes in the laws of that country which will give married women the same control over their property as single women have, and make them equally responsible for their contracts and torts. Page Four EQUAL RIGHTS March 1, 1935 THE WOMAN WORKER AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT By JANE NORMAN SMITH The economic rights of women in the United States are being attacked on every side, through specific laws in industrial states, interstate compacts, and now through international conventions. To settle for all time the right of women to paid work and their right to sell their labor on the same terms as men, there must be written into the Constitution of the United States at this session of Congress an amendment declaring: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction." Women have fought valiantly in every industrial State against restrictive labor laws and regulations applying to women but not to men, on the ground that they discriminate against women workers and handicap them in earning a livelihood. Their opposition to sex discrimination has caused, in some instances, but the defeat of the discriminative measures, but the defeat is only temporary and women have to spend time, money and energy in an effort to defeat them again. State legislation not proceeding rapidly enough to suit those who contend that because of the weakness of the health and morals of women they should have special "protection" not accorded to men ; labor organizations and reform groups think they will circumvent the Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional a minimum wage law for women and with the help of political leaders are attempting by interstate action to fasten on women more permanently and effectively laws which will keep them in a special labor class. Seven industrial states--Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania--have entered into a compact to regulate the minimum wages paid women and children. "Women and children" linked together again! The compact will become effective when ratified by the legislatures and sanctioned by Congress. The Interstate Minimum Wage Compact will probably come before Congress and these seven state legislatures during the present session. If this precedent is set, the way will be open for other interstate compacts restricting the labor of women. Now that the United States has become a member of the International Labor Organization, it is brought for the first time into full, responsible membership in one of the great autonomous organs of the League of Nations, an organ that has drafted many conventions to restrict the labor of women workers. Within recent years the International Labor Office released a series of scientific studies which purport to show that paid work is bad for women. The report solemnly sets forth that the rhythm of machinery is disturbing to the female organism and that office work is a still greater cause of sickness among women! The United States, as a member of the I. L. O., may be asked at this session of Congress to ratify the conventions on the employment of women at night (1919 and 1934), the conventions on minimum wage fixing machinery, on employment of women in white lead in painting, and the employment of women before and after childbirth. Women of the United States should protest to their U. S. Senators against ratification of these conventions and demand immediate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. AMENDMENT LITERATURE "The Equal Rights Amendment," a new leaflet on the legal aspects of woman's status under the proposed amendment, has just been issued by the literature committee of the National Woman's Party. This leaflet is a reprint of a speech by Burnita Shelton Matthews, delivered before the Council meeting of the General Federation of Women's Clubs at Hot Springs, Ark., and answers many questions in regard to the working of the law under the Equal Rights Amendment. Orders for the leaflet may be sent to Alma Lutz, Literature Chairman, 144 B Street, N. E., Washington, D. C. Single copies, five cents. Orders for twenty-five or more filled for one cent a copy. The following paragraph from the above speech indicated the valuable character of the information contained in this new publication of the literature committee. "The opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment throw out questions something like this: Since the amendment provides that men and women have equal rights, does it mean that a man in Arkansas and a woman in South Carolina have the same rights? South Carolina grants no divorces. Arkansas does grant divorces. Hence women in South Carolina and men in Arkansas do not have equal rights as to divorce. Which standard would be adopted under the Equal Rights Amendment--the Arkansas standard or the South Carolina standard? The answer is that each state would preserve its own standard, but the standard in any one state would apply equally to men and women in that particular state. In this connection it is pointed out that Congress passed a bankruptcy law under a constitutional provision giving that body power to establish a uniform bankruptcy law throughout the country. The law passed by Congress allowed each debtor exemptions provided by the laws of the debtor's state. Some states, as, for example, Mississippi, allow a debtor to keep his homestead. Other states, such as Maryland, do not allow a homestead. It was contended that there was no uniformity as required by the Constitution unless, for example, a Mississippi debtor and a Maryland debtor had exactly the same exemptions. Yet the bankruptcy law was held to be uniform in a constitutional sense. Likewise the Equal Rights Amendment would mean that in each of the 48 states women and men would have equal rights in any given state, but not the same rights in all states." 78TH CONGRESS } 1st Session SENATE { DOCUMENT No. 97 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT PREPARED BY THE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY HELENA HILL WEED Chairman PRESENTED BY MR. AUSTIN SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 15), 1943 Ordered to be printed UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1943 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE EQUAL-RIGHTS AMENDMENT 1. What is the text of the equal-rights amendment now before Congress? Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress and the several States shall have power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This amendment shall take effect 5 years after the date of ratification. 2. Why is the amendment called the "Lucretia Mott Amendment"? In honor of Lucretia Mott, mother of the organized world movement for equality of rights for men and women. Following the World Anti-slavery Convention in London, in 1840, where she and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had been denied seats as delegates on the ground of sex, these two pioneers started the first organized movement in the world for the emancipation of women, at Seneca Falls, N. Y., July 19-20, 1848. Adoption of the equal-rights amendment now before Congress would bring to a conclusion the movement launched in 1848 at Seneca Falls to establish equality of rights for women under the law. 3. When was the amendment first introduced in Congress? In 1923, by Senator Charles Curtis (Republican) of Kansas in the Senate, and by Representative Daniel R. Anthony (Republican) of Kansas, a nephew of the great suffrage leader, Susan B. Anthony, in the House. 4. How often has the amendment been introduced since 1923? In every Congress since 1923. 5. What congressional hearings have been held on the amendment? February 7, 1924, before subcommittee of Senate Judiciary; opposition only. February 4, 1925, before House Judiciary Committee; both sides. February 6, 1925, before subcommittee of Senate Judiciary; both sides. February 1, 1929, before subcommittee of Senate Judiciary; both sides. January 6, 1931, before subcommittee of Senate Judiciary; both sides. March 23, 1932, before House Judiciary Committee; both sides. February 7-10, 1938, before subcommittee of Senate Judiciary; both sides. 6. Are further hearings needed? The proponents of the amendment believe that further hearings are unnecessary. The many hearings already held have always brought 2 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT forth exactly the same arguments for and against the amendment. The reports of the hearings have been printed by Congress and the arguments pro and con may be read without the expenditure of time and money that would be involved in new hearings. At the close of the last hearing, before the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1938, Senator Burke of Nebraska made the following statement: May I say on behalf of the committee that this has been a remarkably strong presentation of evidence and argument in favor of the amendment. If both Houses of Congress are now, upon studying this matter, educated to the point of submitting the amendment, then the record of this hearing will be an interesting memento always. If, on the other hand, further education is needed before final victory is attained, the record of this hearing will be a fruitful source of information for the Members of both Houses of Congress. The only change in the situation since 1924 when the first hearing was held is that support of the amendment has steadily increased. 7. What congressional reports have been made on the amendment? June 4, 1936, subcommittee of House Judiciary reported favorably. June 16, 1937, subcommittee of House Judiciary reported favorably. June 23, 1937, subcommittee of Senate Judiciary reported favorably. March 21, 1938, Full Senate Judiciary Committee reported to Senate by a tie vote. April 26, 1939, subcommittee of House Judiciary reported favorably. August 1, 1941, subcommittee of House Judiciary reported favorably. August 4, 1941, subcommittee of Senate Judiciary reported favorably. May 11, 1942, Full Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably. April 5, 1943, subcommittee of Senate Judiciary reported favorably. May 28, 1943, Full Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably. June 22, 1943, subcommittee of House Judiciary reported favorably, with unanimous vote. 8. Has any adverse congressional report ever been made on the amendment? No. All committee reports have been favorable, except the Senate Judiciary Committee Report in 1938, which was without recommendation. 9. Who introduced the amendment in the present Senate? Senator Gillette (Democrat) of Iowa on January 21, 1943, with 23 cosponsors as follows: Senators O'Mahoney (Democrat), Wyoming; Barbour (Republican), New Jersey; Capper (Republican), Kansas; Caraway (Democrat), Arkansas; Chavez (Democrat), New Mexico; Clark (Democrat), Missouri; Guffey (Democrat), Pennsylvania; Hawkes (Republican), New Jersey; Holman (Republican), Oregon; Kilgore (Democrat), West Virginia; Lucas (Democrat), Illinois; McKellar (Democrat), Tennessee; Nye (Republican), North Dakota; Pepper (Democrat), Florida; Radcliffe (Democrat), Maryland; Reynolds (Democrat), North Carolina; Robertson (Republican), Wyoming; Stewart (Democrat), Tennessee; Thomas (Democrat), Oklahoma; Thomas (Republican), Idaho; Tunnell (Democrat), Delaware; Tydings (Democrat), Maryland; Wheeler (Democrat), Montana. EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 3 10. Who introduced the amendment in the present House of Representatives? Representative Louis Ludlow (Democrat) of Indiana on January 6, 1943, the opening day of Congress, with 42 cosponsors, as follows: Angell (Republican), Oregon; Baldwin (Democrat), Maryland; Barrett (Republican), Wyoming; Bender (Republican), Ohio; Beall (Republican), Maryland; Bradley (Republican), Michigan; Bryson (Democrat), South Carolina; Burdick (Republican), North Dakota; Byrne (Democrat), New York; Cannon (Democrat), Florida; Cunningham (Republican), Iowa; d'Alesandro (Democrat), Maryland; Ellison (Republican), Maryland; Flannagan (Democrat), Virginia; Gearhart (Republican), California; Gillie (Republican), Indiana; Guyer (Republican), Kansas; Harless (Democrat), Arizona; Hartley (Republican), New Jersey; Hendricks (Democrat), Florida; Ward Johnson (Republican), California; Jonkman (Republican), Michigan; McGranery (Democrat), Pennsylvania: Mott (Republican), Oregon; Murdock (Democrat), Arizona; Myers (Democrat), Pennsylvania; O'Toole (Democrat), New York; Peterson (Democrat), Florida; Ploeser (Republican), Missouri; Plumley (Republican), Vermont; Price (Democrat), Florida; Scanlon (Democrat), Pennsylvania; Shafer (Republican), Michigan; Sheridan (Democrat), Pennsylvania; Sikes (Democrat), California; Troutman (Republican), Pennsylvania; Voorhis (Democrat), California; Weaver (Democrat), North Carolina; Weiss (Democrat), Pennsylvania; Wilson (Republican), Indiana; Woodruff (Republican), Michigan; Wright (Democrat), Pennsylvania. 11. What action has been taken on the amendment in the present Senate? The Senate Judiciary Committee following a favorable report from the subcommittee, voted May 24, 1943, by a vote of 12 to 5, to report the amendment favorably. Those who voted favorably were Senators Van Nuys (Democrat) Indiana; O'Mahoney (Democrat) Wyoming; Hatch (Democrat) New Mexico; Kilgore (Democrat) West Virginia; Chandler (Democrat) Kentucky; McFarland (Democrat) Arizona; Wheeler (Democrat) Montana; Austin (Republican) Vermont; Wiley (Republican) Wisconsin; Langer (Republican) North Dakota; Ferguson (Republican) Michigan; Wherry (Republican) Nebraska. On May 28, 1943, the favorable report from the Judiciary Committee was presented to the Senate by Senator Austin of Vermont. The report was prepared for the Senate by Senators Austin, Kilgore, McFarland, and O'Mahoney. 12. What action has been taken in the present House? The Judiciary subcommittee voted unanimously in favor of the amendment on March 3, 1943, and again on June 16. The subcommittee submitted its report to the full committee on June 22. The members of the subcommittee who gave the unanimous favorable report were Representatives Weaver (Democrat) North Carolina; Byrne (Democrat) New York; Cravens (Democrat) Arkansas; Reed (Republican) Illinois; Towe (Republicans) New Jersey. (Mr. Guyer, one of the strongest supporters of the amendment on the Judiciary Committee, was a member of the subcommittee at the time of the March 3 vote but died before the June 16 voted.) 4 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 13. What is the present status of the amendment? In the Senate: On the Calendar awaiting a vote, with favorable recommendation from the Judiciary Committee. In the House: Before Judiciary Committee, with unanimous favorable recommendation from subcommittee. Congress recessed for the summer before the House Judiciary Committee had time to act on the subcommittee report. 14. Does any major political party support the amendment? Yes; the Republican Party. The national convention at Philadelphia, June 1940, adopted the following plank by unanimous vote: We favor submission by Congress to the States of an amendment to the Constitution providing for equal rights for men and women. 15. Is support for the amendment growing among women? Yes. Support for the amendment has grown steadily. When first introduced in Congress in 1923, it was supported only by the National Woman's Party. The amendment has now been endorsed by 25 national organizations of women. 16. What national organizations of women have endorsed the amendment? National Woman's Party. National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc. National board of directors, General Federation of Women's Clubs.1 Saint Joan Society (Catholic women). National Association of Colored Women. American Alliance of Civil Service Women. National Association of Women Lawyers. American Medical Women's Association, Inc. Association of American Women Dentists. Osteopathic Women's National Association. National Council of Women Chiropractors. American Women's Society of Certified Public Accountants. American Society of Women Accountants. Women's National Relief Corps (auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic). Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic. Mary Ball Washington Association of America. American Federation of Soroptimist Clubs (service clubs). Pilot International (service clubs). Alpha Iota Sorority (graduated of business colleges). We, the Mothers Mobilize for American. Mothers and Women of America, Inc. Avalon National Poetry Shrine (association of poets). Auxiliary to the American Osteopathic Association. Women's Auxiliary to the National Chiropractic Association. American Council for Equal Legal Status. 1 The national board of directors of the General Federation of Women's Clubs endorsed the equal-rights amendment in July 1943. Nineteen years before, the national board of directors had gone on record as opposed to the amendment, but in 1934, by action of the biennial convention of the federation, the member clubs began a study of the constitutional principles involved and of the amendment. As a result of this study, the national board of directors reversed its attitude by endorsing the amendment and submitting it to the member clubs for action. The State Federation of Women's Clubs in Maine, Arizona, Michigan, and the District of Columbia endorsed the amendment as soon as they had completed their study, while many regional and local clubs also took immediate action in favor of the amendment previous to the endorsement by the national board. EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 5 The two following groups have endorsed the principle of equal rights between men and women but have not taken action, as yet, on the proposed amendment. National Council of Women of the United States: The National Council of Women of the United States, Inc., an association of organizations with a combined membership of about 5,000,000, following the policy of the International council which "urges its member organizations to continue the work for the equality of rights between men and women in all fields," has recommended the equal-rights amendment to its member organizations for study and action. National Education Association of the United States: The National Education Association advocates, as a logical extension of the principles of democracy, that men and women shall have equal legal status throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction (Representative Assembly, Denver, Colo., July 1942). In addition, hundreds of State, regional, and local organizations of women, representing social, political, industrial, business, and religious groups, have endorsed the amendment. 17. Are the women's organizations that have endorsed the amendment working for its adoption? Yes. Most of the national organizations that have endorsed the amendment have joined in forming a Women's Joint Legislative Committee for Equal Rights and are working actively for the amendment. 18. Why do some women oppose the amendment? Many of the women who have registered opposition to the amendment have never studied the legal status of women and, in our opinion, do not understand the necessity for it, its scope and effect, or the benefits that all women will derive from it. All other advances that have been made in the status of women, including the suffrage amendment, have met this same type of opposition. 19. What is the object of the amendment? To establish equality of rights for men and women under the Constitution and laws of their respective States, and under Federal statutes. 20. What would be the effect of the amendment upon Federal and State laws? Adoption of the amendment would bring women under the full protection of the Constitution of the United States. It would make them persons, people, and citizens, as these words are used in the Constitution. It would abolish the principle that women are still subject to the common law of England as it existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, unless women, by specific statutes, had been released from that rule. It would establish instead, the principle of equality of rights of men and women under the laws of the Nation and the States, for the future guidance of legislators, judges, and civil officers. 6 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 21. Is the amendment in harmony with our system of government? Yes. On this point we call attention to the brief submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee August 15, 1941, by George Gordon Battle, distinguished New York lawyer. The brief takes up this point as follows: It seems strange that there should be any question that all citizens of a republic should have equal rights. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly enunciated this great principle. For example: "The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power (U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 555)." Those are the words of Chief Justice Waite, one of the greatest jurists who ever sat upon the bench of our highest court. The same principle has been enunciated in hundreds of cases in the Supreme Court and other Federal courts and in the State courts of this country (Senate Committee Print on Equal Rights, August 15, 1941). 22. Is the purpose of the amendment sufficiently important to justify an amendment to the Constitution? Yes. We quote again from the brief submitted by Mr. Battle: Of course there should be no amendment to the Constitution unless there is a real and urgent necessity therefor. Every amendment requires legislation for its enforcement and court action for its interpretation. Such legislative and court procedure causes delay, expense, and uncertainty. Is the game worth the candle? We submit that there can be no more important object than to secure equal rights to all our citizens, men and women alike. The present discrimination against women permitted by our law is by far the most serious defect in our governmental system. It is the most disgraceful blot upon our claims for democratic equality. All the arguments that were used in favor of female suffrage apply with added force to this amendment. To grant equal rights to women to vote, was only one of the equal rights to which women were entitled. It was a great step forward, but it was, after all, merely a step in a long progress toward equality of rights. The passage of this amendment will bring us to the top of the hill from which we can survey a land in which equal justice is rendered and equal rights accorded to all its citizens. 23. Why a Federal amendment instead of State action? A Federal amendment is the only way to insure prompt action by the States for the equalization of State laws. This method is also more permanent than State legislation. To quote the late Dr. M. Carey Thomas, president of Bryn Mawr College: It is strangely unsympathetic for opponents of an equal rights amendment to suggest removing the thousands of inequalities and injustices by slow and piecemeal work in the 48 State legislatures while women are born, living their lives, and dying without the justice which they have been waiting for since the time of the cave man. 24. Would the amendment interfere with States' rights? No; except to require recognition of the equality of rights of men and women under the law. In its favorable report to the Senate, May 28, 1943, the Senate Judiciary Committee said: The amendment does not deprive any State of its exclusive dominion over local public policy. 25. Would the amendment require uniformity of laws among the States? No. It would leave each State free to have any kind of laws desired provided only that it did not discriminate between the rights of men and women. On this point the Senate Judiciary report of 1943 says: The amendment does not require uniformity among the several States. EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 7 For a full discussion of the subject see also Missouri v. Lewis (101 U. S. 22). 26. Would the amendment "clutter up the courts" with litigation? No. The amendment as at present before Congress would allow a period of 5 years between ratification and going into effect. This would permit the States to revise their codes so as to bring them into harmony with the equality principle, thus eliminating most dangers of litigation. The distinguished Connecticut lawyer, Mr. Charles G. Morris, a former Democratic candidate for Governor, made the following statement on this point on June 15, 1943: You tell me that an objection which has been raised to the proposed equal-rights amendment to the Constitution is that it will clutter the courts with cases. All that I can say is that, if that is a valid argument, no legislation should ever be proposed since any legislation, either in the form of a constitutional amendment or an amendment by the legislature, is necessarily subject to review by the courts to ascertain whether or not it conforms to the constitutional requirements. 27. Would the amendment deprive the States of the power to "classify" for the protection of the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the community? No. The only way this power would be touched would be that States could not longer set up the arbitrary basis of sex as a "classification." They would be bound by the restrictions now applying to legislation affecting men--that classifications may not be arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious, or be used as a basis of discrimination against any class of citizens. Discussing the limitations on the power to classify, the Supreme Court has said: In prescribing regulations for the conduct of trade it [legislation] cannot divide those engaged in trade into classes and make criminals of one class if they do certain forbidden things, while allowing another and favored class engaged in the same domestic trade to do the same things with impunity. * * * Such a statute is not a legitimate exercise of the power of classification, rests upon no reasonable basis, is purely arbitrary, and plainly denies the equal protection of the laws to those against whom it discriminates (Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540). 28. What is the meaning of the word "rights" in the amendment? On this point we refer again to the brief submitted by George Gordon Battle to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1941. Mr. Battle wrote: The next objection * * * is the word "right" as used in the amendment * * * In the familiar phrase of the Bill of Rights, the same word is used. In amendment 1 there is mentioned "the 'right' of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In amendment No. 2 it is provided that "the 'right' of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Amendment No. 4 says "the 'right' of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated * * *" In the Annotated Constitution of the United States, printed in Washington, 1938, the heading of the amendment 5 reads as follows: " 'Rights' of persons." The same heading of the amendment 6 reads: " 'Rights' of accused in criminal prosecutions." In the sixth amendment it is stated: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the 'right' to a speedy and public trial." And so forth. Amendment No. 7 speaks of "the 'right' of trial by jury." Amendment No. 9 states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain 'rights' shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The heading to the fourteenth amendment is: " 'Rights' of citizens." The fifteenth amendment says: "The 'right' of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." It will be seen that this word "right" that 80211--43----2 8 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT so much alarms * * * is found in very many of the amendments. It has a perfectly clear meaning (Senate Judiciary Committee Print, "Equal Rights," 1941). 29. Are there discriminations against women in the law at present? There are discriminations in regard to property rights, inheritance rights, divorce, the right to work for a living, the right to compete on fair terms with all others engaged in the same work, to own and control one's earnings, engage in all lawful occupations, jury service, Government service, the holding of public office and positions of trust, the right of contract, and many other phases of life. This situation results from statutes and from court interpretations of the status of women based on the ancient common law of England as it existed at the time our Constitution was adopted, in cases where their status has not been changed by statutes. To quote Dr. M. Carey Thomas again: Behind every man, as a man, stands the Constitution; but forever behind a woman is the medieval English common law which places upon her the stigma of inferiority and bondage. 30. Has any compilation been made of the discriminations against women? Yes. The United States Senate Document No. 270 (1936) contains a resume of State and Federal laws affecting women, showing which are equal and which are unequal, giving citations from Federal and State codes on each point. The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor published a similar compilation entitled "The Legal Status of Women in the United States of America" (Bull. 157, Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, 1938). The Women's Bureau also published a pamphlet on Labor Laws for Women in 1943. 31. Is the immediate adoption of the amendment of special importance to working women? Yes. When the war ends, hundreds of thousands of families will have lost the natural breadwinner as a result of the casualties of war, and women will be the sole support of these families. Justice demands that no artificial barriers of sex be set up against them in earning a living. Equality of opportunity with all other workers must be accorded them. 32. What would be the psychological effect of the amendment? To raise the status of all women. The adoption of the amendment would influence indirectly every employer, every university, every college, and every professional school which at present discriminates against women. It would encourage the election of women to office and their appointment to positions of public trust and responsibility because they would no longer be branded as a subclass of citizens, as not legal persons enjoying full equality of rights. It would help to remove a devastating inferiority complex in women themselves. 33. Would the amendment injure women in industry? No Under the amendment all labor legislation would of necessity be equal for men and women, but this would not mean the lowering of labor standards for both sexes. It is probably that under the amendment the higher standards for women (which are a real detriment to women when not applied to their male competitors) would be extended to cover all workers of both sexes. This decision would be in the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 9 hands of each State. Equality under the law does not require the abolition of humane laws. 34. Do women need a special code of safety and health laws? No. Safety and health laws should apply to all workers in an industry and should be based on the nature of the work not the sex of the worker. 35. Would the amendment prevent governmental control of sweatshop work in the home? No. Men also are engaged in home work, and laws for its control and regulation should cover workers of both sexes. The amendment would require this. 36. Would the amendment increase Government expense in enforcement of labor laws? No. Under the amendment there would be a saving for the Government --National, State and local--because one labor code for all industries, basing the regulations on the needs of individual industries instead of on the sex of the worker (as is now done for interstate commerce) would do away with much of the expense resulting from a double set of labor regulations. Many investigation and enforcement officials could in this way be eliminated. 37. How could labor standards be based on the nature of the work instead of on the sex of the worker? Equality could be established by legislation, or by giving the State labor commissions the power to fix equal standards for each industry, or by collective bargaining. The amendment would require observance of the principle of equality under whatever method was adopted. 38. What are the chief forms of "protective legislation" for women that would be affected by the amendment? Minimum wages, restricted hours of work, restrictions on the occupations in which women may work, compulsory seats for women workers, and regulation of home work. There is already in existence in one or more States, or Federally, equality between men and women in all of the above forms of protective legislation and no disastrous consequences have occurred. 39. How would the amendment affect the present practice of grouping adult women with minors in industrial legislation? The amendment would make it unlawful to continue the practice of classifying adult women with minors when regulating industry. It would put adults of both sexes under one set of regulations and place minors (who are wards of the State and who do not have contractual rights) under another class of regulations. The classification of adult women with minors, in industrial regulations, is injurious to mature women and unfair to minors, for restrictions and regulations necessary for the protection of immature, inexperienced minors are unduly onerous for adults, while the less stringent regulations required for adults do not give sufficient protection to minors. 40. What effect would be amendment have on "equal pay for equal work"? It would require the application of this principle to all workers in the Government service and would require all Government agencies 10 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT to observe it. An equal rights amendment to the Federal Constitution is the only way whereby this principle can be made permanent and enforced in the courts. Without the amendment, this policy can be altered at the will of legislators and administrative agencies. 41. Would working women welcome the opportunity which the amendment would provide to work on the night shifts? Married women who have testified at congressional hearings have repeatedly stated that the early night shift is often the most convenient shift for married women, especially those with young children. The following statements were made at the February 1938 hearings: We mothers were more of a mother to our children when we worked at night-- said Mary Murray, president of the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Women's League, at the Senate Judiciary hearing in 1938. When I was working on the day shift, every time I heard the ambulance go by I knew it was one of my children. * * * After supper children go to bed. * * * When you work at night the children know you are home in the daytime. * * * When you are on day work they will play truant. * * * When I was on night work they took their lunches to school or came home, and I could do my housework in God's daylight; and I got plenty of sleep. I was a happier woman. That is why mothers want to work at night, although the unmarried women will also give you good reasons why they want to work at night. Speaking for unmarried women workers Miss Mollie Maloney, former president of Local 66 of the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, American Federation of Labor, said at this same hearing: Back in 1913 there was enacted, signed by the Governor, and placed on the statue books of New York State, a law preventing women from working before 6 o'clock in the morning and after 10 o'clock at night. At that time there were several plants in New York operating on a three-shift schedule--a day shift, an afternoon and evening shift, and a night shift. On the two late shifts the women worked shorter hours and received higher pay, not because the work was any harder at night but that is the rule; a night shift calls for higher wages. On those two last shifts there were employed many widow women, women with sick husbands, women with delinquent husbands, or with children or dependents of one kind or another to support. What happened? Those women on the night shifts were thrown onto the day shift; and the plants not being equipped to place all of them, many of them had to wander away to more laborious and poorer paid lines of endeavor. These so-called welfare laws for women only that we are suffering under have set women in the bookbinding industry back 50 years. Twenty-five years ago in almost every bindery in New York City the head executive was a woman, and many highly skilled and well-paid mechanical jobs were held by women. That is all changed now. Through the working and operation of those so-called welfare laws for women, they can no longer advance to executive positions. Their employer knows that he cannot keep a woman an hour or two after work to finish a job, so he gives the job to her male competitor, who is not hampered by those laws. Down through the years there have been enacted other vicious and devastating laws, so that, with the shortage of work, and our hours being limited by law, we are unable to earn a decent living. Referring to the claim that women's morals are endangered by working on the night shifts, Mrs. Maud Williams, member of the International Typographical Union, No. 6, of New York City, dismissed this by saying: There is all this ridiculous poppycock about women working at night. You can be just as immoral at 10 o'clock in the morning as at 10 o'clock at night. I think it is time that sensible people drew this night-work question out into the open. EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 11 I would like to present to the committee some quotations from Bulletin 155, issued by the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, entitled "Women in the Economy of the United States," by Mary Elizabeth Pidgeon, an official of that Bureau: "Sometimes the fact that women cannot be employed at night reduces or eliminated their employment during the day. * * * "When applied indiscriminately to special occupations that are professional or semiprofessional in type, night-work prohibition or regulation has resulted in restrictions of women's employment. * * * "Prohibitory laws have really only one effect--the elimination of women from the occupations covered." 42. To what extent have labor standards been equalized already? The National Fair Labor Standards Act which regulates interstate commerce is based on equality between men and women workers. The Public Contracts Act, regulating labor standards in establishments having contracts of $10,000 or over with the Government, requires equality between men and women workers. The National Recommendations on Hours of Work for Maximum Production during the war, issued by the Department of Labor, recommends equal standards for men and women. Almost the only occupations not now regulated on an equality basis under these laws are mercantile establishments and the service industries in intrastate commerce. The amendment would require the States to enact for intrastate commerce. equality laws similar to those enacted for interstate commerce. Agricultural and domestic workers are not regulated as yet for either men or women. 43. When was "protective" legislation for women only first proposed? As far as we have been able to discover, it was in 1836, when the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics, and Other Workingmen, at the outset of the factory system in the United States, adopted the following resolution: Whereas, labor is a physical and moral injury to women and a competitive menace to men, we recommend legislation to restrict women in industry. Ever since that time, restriction of the competition of women, not protection of women, has been the primary objective of labor laws for women only. 44. Would the amendment interfere with maternity laws? No. Maternity legislation is similar to legislation for veteran soldiers' benefits; it is for a special service to rendered to society. It is not sex legislation as it does not apply to all women any more that veteran soldier legislation applies to all men. Both types of legislation are legitimate forms of "classification," and neither violates the principle of "the equal protection of the law." 45. Would the amendment change the liability of women for service in the Army and Navy? No. The Government now has power to conscript women as well as men for military service and legislation is now before Congress drafting both men and women for war work. But just as the Government does not send all men into combat duty but places them where they can render the most effective service, so it would have the same right under the amendment to use women for the best interests of the 12 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT country. This is a matter of public policy which the amendment would not affect. On this point the Battle brief, quoted above, states: Women are citizens, they have property, they owe the same obligation to the State that is owed by men. They should be drafted to protect the State in case of war. As to the service which they render, that would be determined by the appropriate statutes, releases, and regulations. Nurses now form a part of every army. There are many branches of the military service in which women play different parts. This like all other such matters must be left to the wisdom of the legislatures and courts for future determination. 46. Would the amendment destroy mothers' pensions? No. The allowances originally known as mothers' pensions are now known as aid to dependent children, and are administered by the States under the Social Security Board. Under the State Plans, this aid is granted to those of a wide degree of kinship to the dependent children, and in at least three States (Delaware, New Jersey, and North Dakota) to persons not of kin who stand in loco parentis, when the children are living in their homes. The allowance is not a pension for the one who cares for the children but is an allotment for the care and support of children of both sexes who are in need of financial assistance, the amount of the allotment being different in the different States. This is equality legislation (State Plans, Social Security Board, 1940). 47. Would the amendment result in difficulty is regard to guardianship of children? No. In 1936, in the laws of 42 States the father and mother were already equal guardians of their children when the parents were living together. In 38 States neither father no mother had paramount rights of guardianship when the parents were living apart. In these States the court decides the question of guardianship, basing the appointment on the best interests of the child. Extension of this principle of equality to all the States would not destroy the home. On the contrary, it would dignify the position of the mother and make her more respected in the eyes of her children (S. Doc. 270, p. 193; and Bulletin 157, Women's Bureau, pp. 67-71). 48. How would the amendment affect support laws? It would require that husbands and wives be treated equally in regard to their responsibility for the support of the other spouse and of the children, as is now the case in approximately one-third of the States. (See S. Doc. 270 and Bulletin 157, Women's Bureau.) The majority of wives contribute to the support of the family by their combined labor and services in the home, a contribution that has a money value to the husband if he is deprived of it by the unlawful acts of a third party. Any man who has lost his wife and is obliged to pay others for the unpaid services she has rendered to the home and family knows well their financial value. Under the amendment each State could make its own support laws and could declare by law that contribution of the wife in services to her husband and family entitled her to a share in the funds of the family. 49. Would the amendment do away with alimony? No. The amendment would require that the husband and wife be treated equally in the matter of support by the other on dissolution of the marriage or during divorce proceedings. This is already the case in 13 States, where either husband or wife may now be allowed alimony, at the discretion of the court. No unfortunate results have occurred EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 13 in States where equality on this subject has been established. (See S. Doc. 270 and Bulletin 157 of the Women's Bureau.) 50. How would the amendment affect divorce laws? It would not affect the divorce laws in any way except to require both parties to the divorce to be treated alike, with the same grounds for divorce for husband and wife. In 30 States divorce laws are now different for husband and wife. (See S. Doc. 270 and Bulletin 157 of the Women's Bureau.) 51. Would laws against rape be abrogated by the amendment? No. No one has the "right" to commit an act which the State has declared to be a crime. Colorado has defined rape as a crime of which both men and women may be capable, and has also declared that both men and women who are accessories to the commission of this crime are also responsible. Equality would require equal punishment of all persons who commit the same criminal acts, but would not prevent stigmatizing as crimes acts which only one sex is physically capable of committing. (See Colorado Criminal Code.) 52. What have the courts said respecting the powers of the State legislatures, in the absence of constitutional limitations? In Munn v. Illinois (94 U. S. 113) the Court said: The law itself, as a rule of conduct, may be changed at the will, or even at the whim, of the legislature, unless prevented by constitutional limitations. Many decisions have recognized the unlimited authority of the legislatures when not restricted by constitutional limitations. These are best summed up in Berthoff v. O'Reilly (14 N. Y. 509, 30 Am. Rep. 323) when the Court said: No law can be pronounced invalid for the reason simply that it violated our notions of justice, is oppressive or unfair in its operations, or because, in the opinion of some or all of the citizens of the State, it is not justified by public necessity or designed to promote the public welfare. We repeat, if it violates no constitutional provision, it is valid and must be obeyed. These, and many other similar decisions, establish the absolute necessity for constitutional restrictions on the power of the State legislatures over women if equal justice under the law is to prevail. 53. Would the amendment deprive widows of special allowances on the death of their husbands while the estate is being settled? No. Many States now make identical special allowances pending settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse or for the longer periods, for widow and widower. Theses allowances include use of the household goods, wearing apparel of the deceased spouse, and expenses of summary administration in the case of a very small estate. The duration and amount of the monthly allowance, and the time during which the surviving spouse may occupy the homestead vary in the different States. Under the amendment each State could establish equality according to its own preferences. The only requirement resulting from the amendment would be that the benefits be equal for the surviving spouse, as is already the case in many States. (See Bulletin 157, of the Women’s Bureau, and Senate Document 270.) 54. How would the amendment affect dower and curtesy laws? Dower and curtsey laws would be equalized for husband and wife, as is already the case in 17 States. Some States have abolished dower 14 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT and curtsey laws altogether, and have substituted for them an equal share for the surviving spouse in the estate of the deceased spouse. In 45 States the law makes no distinction between the rights of the surviving spouses to inherit real or personal property when there is no will. The law differs in various States, but the principle of quality of rights in the estate of the deceased spouse has been adopted almost universally. Each State would be free under the amendment to decide for itself what share each spouse would be entitled to in the real and personal property of the other, provided only that the share was the same for husband and wide. (See Bulletin 157, Women’s Bureau, Department of Labor.) 55. How would the amendment affect jury service for women? It would make women eligible for jury service in the Federal courts and in all States on the same terms as men. At present, women are eligible for jury duty in 30 States, under varying rules. The States that still deny this right to women on the grounds of set are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Colorado now has pending a legislative measure to extend this right to women. 56. How would the amendment affect the marriage age for boys and girls? The legislature would make the age the same in cases where they are different at present. On this point we quote from a brief on the amendment prepared by Rebekah Scandrett Greathouse, formerly professor of law at the Washington College of Law, for the National Association of Women Lawyers, as follows: No State should find it hard to decide upon a marriage age to be required of both boys and girls. At present the age for each varies from State to State and is already the same for both in six States. As we have so often pointed out the States will have time to change their legislation to conform to the amendment. 57. Would the amendment abrogate laws requiring health certificates for men before marriage? No. Such a law could be made to apply to both parties to the marriage. Some States now require health certificates from both men and women before marriage license is issued. All could do so. This would be a matter for each State to decide. 58. Would the amendment require women to do road work in the States requiring this service from me? Many States do not have such laws. In some of those where this obligation exists, it may be discharged by the payment of taxes at so much per day covering the number of days’ work required, or the citizen may employ a substitute to work in his place. Women, if they did not desire to do such work, could hire substitutes or pay the additional tax. 59. Is it proper to press for the amendment during the present world conflict? Yes. To quote again from the brief by Mrs. Greathouse, referred to in question 56: It is most appropriate that the that the United States of America, looked to as a bulwark of democracy, should give to all citizens, all the prerogatives of democracy and make a reality of the phrase “equal justice before the law.” EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 15 60. How has the Supreme Court defined "the equal protection of the laws"? In discussing this point when men protested against unequal laws, the Supreme Court has said: The equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 119 U.S. 356). The guaranty of the equal protection of the law means that "No person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or classes in the same or in like circumstances." (Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540.) 61. Do "women already enjoy equality of rights with men under the woman suffrage amendment," and is the equal rights amendment "an unnecessary and frivolous demand upon the attention of Congress," as claimed by some opponents of the amendment? Supreme Court decisions have established the fact that the only right women won under the suffrage amendment was the right to vote. The civil rights of women were unaffected by the suffrage amendment. Women are still subject to the medieval English common law as it existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, in 1789, unless that rule has been changed in some particular by the voluntary action of a State legislature or Congress. We find women in some States still bound by these ancient common law rules with respect to property or other rights, while in some other States they may enjoy partial or complete equality with men on these same points. There is no rule of law, however, which makes these gains permanent in any State, for what the State had the power to grant it has the power to take away-- and has often exercised this power to revoke rights once given. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution will ensure equalization of the civil rights of men and women and the permanent observance of this principle. The amendment is therefore neither unnecessary nor frivolous. 62. Is it true that "the equal rights amendment does not add anything to the opportunity of equal citizenship given under the woman suffrage amendment?" No. The equal rights amendment would make equality of citizenship a certainty by requiring observance of this principle by all States in their constitution and laws, and by the Federal Government, as well as by all administrative and judicial officers in the Nation and the States. Without the amendment, the attainment of this equality of citizenship is only a theoretic possibility, impermanent in character, which might be won by women voters through political influence. It would not be an unalienable right. 63. Is "the patriotism of women belittled by asking for an equal rights amendment in wartime?" No. It is continually asserted, by press, pulpit, radio, and the Government, that the basic reason for our entry into this war was to protect the inalienable rights of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--with all that these words mean in a legal sense. If these assertions are true, then the struggle of women to win these inalienable rights for their sex is a supremely patriotic movement. 16 EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT 64. Why was the text of the original equal rights amendment altered? The revised text (given in the answer to question 1) was adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, with the assent of the women's organizations supporting the original text, because some of the supporters of the principle of equal rights in Congress preferred the new text as obviating all possibility of misconstruction as to meaning and intent, while maintaining intact the original purpose of the amendment. REFERENCES CITED IN QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, AND THE SOURCES FROM WHICH THESE DOCUMENTS MAY BE OBTAINED The following documents were printed at the Government Printing Office and may be had on application to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Senate Document 270, Seventy-fourth Congress, second session, A Comparison of the Political and Civil Rights of Men and Women in the United States. Compiled originally by the Inter-American Commission of Women as the United States section of a comparative study of the rights of men and women in all the 21 American Republics, by direction of the Sixth Conference of American States, Havana, 1938, and presented to the Seventh Conference, Uruguay, 1933. This report was revised up to August 1, 1936, by Dr. Emma Wold of the Inter-American for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for the use of the United States delegates to the Special Conference of American States held at Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1936 (20 cents). Bulletin 157, Women's Bureau, United States Department of Labor, The Legal Status of Women in the United States, a summary of legislation affecting property rights, domestic relations, and political jurisdictions. As originally prepared (1938) by the Women's Bureau, the report was made for the League of Nations Survey of the status of women in the various countries of the world but was revised and completed up to 1941 by Sara Louise Buchanan of the Women's Bureau for general use (15 cents). Hearings before the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the proposed equal rights amendment, February 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1938, and supplemental statements, letters, and telegrams submitted at these hearings for inclusion in the printed copies of the hearing, March 7, 1938 (20 cents for both). Equal Rights, Senate committee print, August 15, 1941, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session. This print includes a memorandum prepared by Stephen E. Rice, assistant legislative counsel of the United States Senate, and an answering memorandum by George Gordon Battle, attorney at law, New York City, on behalf of the National Woman's Party, concerning the proposed equal rights amendment. The Battle brief includes a brief prepared by Mary Philbrook, a member of the New Jersey Bar, on the equal rights amendment, and a reprint of the pamphlet, The Denial of Justice to Women, by Burnita Shelton Matthews, a member of the District of Columbia Bar (5 cents). State Plans, issued in 1940, may be obtained from the Social Security Board, Washington, D. C. Labor Laws for Women Advocated by the Women's Bureau and other leaflets on women in industry may be had on application to the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. The brief by Rebecca Greathouse may be obtained on application to the National Woman's Party, 144 B Street NW., Washington, D. C. American Journal of Nursing April 1954 The Equal Rights Amendment The Board of Directors of the American Nurses’ Association reiterates its position on the Equal Rights Amendment. A statement on this position was published in the Journal in June 1952. The opinion presented here was prepared by Janet M. Geister, a member of the ANA Board, and Julia M. Thompson, ANA assistant executive secretary. THE Equal Rights Amendment has been before Congress for 30 years. Only once in that period has it passed a body of Congress. In 1950 the bill was passed by the Senate, but only with a rider that actually nullified its purpose. The rider, introduced by Senator Hayden of Arizona, provided that nothing in the new legislation should affect the existing, special laws protecting women. The bill has undergone some modifications since the original one, called the “Lucretia Mott Amendment,” was introduced in 1923, but in essence its purpose remains unchanged - the elimination of legal discriminations against women through a constitutional amendment. While arguments, pro and con, have varied and multiplied the basic principles involved remain unchanged. The bill as introduced at the last session of Congress provides that: Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress and the several States have power within their respective jurisdictions to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This amendment grew out of the marked legal discriminations against women that existed in this country in its early decades. Our judicial system, based on the common law of England, was established on the theory that marriage destroyed a woman’s identity. Hence the discriminations related in the main to married women. Under the common law existing when our Constitution was adopted, the married woman ceased to exist as a legal person. Her property became her husband’s; she could not sign a contract, sue in court, or make a will. Her earnings and services belonged to her husband, as did those of the children. She became a natural guardian of the children only upon the death of her husband. She had no protection against her husband’s desertion, or failure to provide for his family, or his disposal of property to others. Women could not vote, participate in government, or serve on juries. These were the legal discriminations in the main, though there were many others of a social nature- such as barring women from professional schools and practices. THE Women’s Rights Convention in 1848 marked the beginning of women’s long struggle to escape from this position of inferiority. Organized by two militant leaders, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it struck out bravely on its prodigious task. It took 72 years to get the vote but in the meantime other gains were being achieved. Ohio enacted a 10-hour law for women as early as 1852, but the first enforceable law was that of Massachusetts, as amended in 1879. In 1908, fifteen years before the Amendment was first introduced, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of maximum hours laws for women in 20 states. Much of the early exploitation of working women was in the sweated trades. The battle against these exploitations, led by the National Consumers’ League, was beginning to bear fruit. A new type of legislation, protective in nature and based on biological and social distinctions between men and women, began appearing in state legislatures. The trend toward correction of the inequities slowly, but steadily, gathered momentum. With the passage of the Equal Suffrage Amendment (the Nineteenth) in 1920, the National Woman’s Party, which was organized to gain suffrage, disbanded. A new association with the same name was at once formed for the purpose of following the same method- a constitutional amendment - in securing equal rights for women. This amendment at first sight, then as now, was tempting; it looked like a short-cut to secure for women all the rights they have been achieving step by step, through action in state legislatures. A more critical second look, however, brought to many of the early trail-blazers, an awareness of the great perils involved in attempting to achieve these rights through a constitutional amendment. Josephine and Pauline Goldmark, whose labor studies became classics, Florence Kelley, militant executive of the National Consumers’ League, Dr. Alice Hamilton and other Hull House leaders, were among those who took strong issue with the proposal. They recognized that the gains already won in women’s work laws, night work laws, and minimum wage laws enacted in the states, would by the passage of a federal law, be thrown into the U.S. Supreme Court for interpretation as to their constitutionality. There was the real probability, too, that these laws would be nullified by the passage of the amendment bill. Thus all the hard-won gains in protective legislation were placed in jeopardy by the proposal. A split occurred in the hitherto solid front of the so-called “feminist movement,” which put associations like the National Women’s Party and the National League of Women Voters in direct opposition to each other. The two opposing groups remained united on one point; they both want all remaining discriminations against women wiped out. From that point on, however, their philosophies and policies are diametrically opposed. THE main point of conflict lies in the method to be followed ed in removing the remaining discriminations against women from the statute books. The proponents believe this can be best achieved through a constitutional amendment. The opponents hold to the belief that the risks involved in this method are much greater than the promise. But there are other major points of difference. First is the proponent’s stand that special safety and health laws for women are unnecessary. They believe that such laws actually militate against women, barring them from more lucrative jobs, or, as one speaker put it, “from working all night if they want to in whatever job they care to.” This attitude was quickly recognized. Josephine Goldmark, writing of the early years of the controversy states, “Those of us who believed in special labor legislation, soon realized that the leaders of the Women’s Party actually wanted such legislation destroyed.” Almost APRIL 1954 VOL. 54, NO. 4 469 30 years later Senator Hayden made the same charge in the Senate and similar charges were made in the House. In the plea of the General Federation of Women's Clubs for the amendment, its spokesman said, "We believe that labor laws should be based on the nature of the work and not on the sex of the workers." This is also the expressed philosophy of the National Women's Party, the National Association of Women Lawyers and the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs. OPPONENTS vigorously contend that biological differences between men and women must be recognized by special protective legislation. In 1924 the U. S. Supreme Court in up-holding the constitutionality of minimum hours laws for women, declared that "The physical differences between men and women must be recognized." While the protective laws may keep some women from more lucrative positions, say the opponents, and retard others who are willing to undergo risks and strains now prohibited, these losses are greatly offset by the general gains to all working women and homemakers. They charge the proponents with confusing equality with identity. Men and women are equals in their right to dignity, to the development of personality, to participation in all the common affairs of our society. Women can, and do, demonstrate complete sexlessness, or equality, in their abilities at the work bench, in executive or educational posts, in governmental and similar areas. Nature has weighed out intelligence and judgment with an impartial hand. But no argument can alter the fact that women are not identical with men in physical make-up and needs and in social function. No one quarrels with the premise that certain standards, such as those relating to plant equipment and environment, affect men and women equally. Their common needs for health and safety protections run parallel in many common areas. In lead industries, for example, men as well as women should suffer a minimum of hazards, yet a pregnant woman has no place there at all. While the health and safety laws apply in the main to women who are working outside the their homes, other special laws protect women who choose homemaking as a career. The opponents hold that because these women give up gainful employment for homemaking, they and their children must be afforded legal protections against the wage earner's death, incapacitation or desertion. The wide spread of widows' pension laws, and the special considerations for wives and widows in the compensation and social security laws, all reflect the traditional American respect for the home, and regard for the actual potential mothers of the race. A third major point of difference occurs in the insistence of the proponents that the passage of the amendment "would not automatically abrogate existing laws." They apparently have no quarrel with "classified" legislation such as widows' pensions and social security provisions, and they assure their members that these will be continued without pause. They also assure those who read their brochures that no prolonged litigation will follow the passage of the amendment. The fact is, however, says competent legal authority, that no absolute statement can be made regarding the fate of our present laws under the amendment, until they have been subjected to Supreme Court test and a ruling. This authority also believes it to be a certainty that the passage of the amendment would open up an era of extreme confusion in constitutional law. It is highly probable too that it would "open up an era of regrettable consequences for the legal status of women in this country." These opinions were concurred in by 43 eminent jurists and law school professors. A FOURTH major point of difference lies in the opposing concepts regarding the nature and site of the remaining discriminations. The proponents assert that the U.S. Constitution does not specifically guarantee equal rights between men and women--and that the absence of such an asserted principle places American women in an inferior position. They claim that until such equality is established in the Constitution states may rescind any present legislation for women's protection. In reply to this it is stated that our laws reflect public opinion, and that the substantial advance in public opinion favoring protective legislation in the past 60 years is a protection in itself. Furthermore, if public disfavor with this kind of legislation should grow to the point of cancelling out any part of it, there can be no guarantee that a constitutional amendment cannot also be invalidated. This occurred with regard to the Prohibition Amendment. The proponents claim that women's "constitutional inferiority" bars the United States from full participation in the United Nations program for bringing equal rights throughout the world. In rebuttal it is pointed out that a quarrel with the proposed method of achieving equal rights not be interpreted as opposition principles of equal rights. There is a vast difference, too, between a declaration of equality and the actual establishment of equality. IT is also pointed out in rebuttal that at present there is not a law on the federal books that discriminates against women. Frequent references are found in proponent literature to the Fourteenth Amendment, the only one in our constitution in which the word "male" appears. This amendment, effective in 1868, which protects "male" voters was invoked in a Supreme Court decision in 1874 denying a Missouri woman the right to vote. The grant of full suffrage in 1920, however, removed any bar to women's voting rights. And this, "being the supreme law of the land," says Norton, an authority on the constitution, "rendered ineffectual forever the provisions in many acts of Congress, in many state constitutions, and in the enactments of many state legislatures which contain the word 'male' with respect to suffrage." A Congressional act of 1907 which expatriated a woman marrying a foreigner, even though residing in the United States, was amended in 1922 to give women independent status and the right of decision in this matter. The American Medical Women's Association, endorsing the amendment, base their support on their difficulty in getting even temporary recognition in military medical service. The doctors have confused military rulings and prejudices with constitutional prerogatives. There is nothing in our federal laws to keep qualified women from running for and holding public office. The Republican National Committee, in its annual survey of "Women in Public Office" recently pointed out that 289 women served in state legislatures in 1953; 31 were in such positions as secretary of state, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, et cetera --and 5000 were in important state appointive positions. Women constitute 22 percent of government workers in continental United States. While the phrase "equal rights for men and women" appears in the United Nations' charter and in the new constitution of seven countries, does the absence of the specific phrase in our own constitution place American women in an "inferior" position? And finally, must we believe that a constitutional amendment aimed at 470 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING wiping out undefined inequalities will have a more powerful effect on backward world conditions than the example this country sets? The proponents have prepared charts showing where discriminations against women still remain on statute books. No one, least of all the opponents, denies that some discriminations do remain. But they point out, first, that the major inequalities that remain are more the results of prejudice, custom and tradition than they are legal. Second, they show that all of the remaining legal inequalities lie within the states, and that the same state legal processes that wiped out major discriminations in the past, can be relied upon to continue to operate. The public mind is geared in this direction. These gains have been made without a constitutional amendment. Citizenship is now acquired in the same way by both men and women. Women may vote and hold public office in all states. Any women who meets the established qualifications for official positions in the national government is eligible either for election or appointment to posts in the executive and legislative branches or for appointment to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court of the United States. This is equally true in state and local governments. In all but six states women may now serve on juries. The wife generally has full property rights; her personal earnings are hers. Guardianship laws mainly recognize rights of both husband and wife. Women have a legal right to enter professions and practically all profitable occupations and trades not specifically injurious to them. Thirteen states and one territory (Alaska) now have equal-pay laws. AFTER reading many pages of testimony one cannot escape the conclusion that many of the endorsers of the Equal Rights Amendment were approving the principle of equal rights, without a comprehension of the enormous risks and confusions that would attend the effort to attain them through a constitutional amendment. The arguments for the amendment are highly plausible and are bound to stir the emotions. Only the objective and patient examination of all the factors involved reveals the weaknesses and dangers in the proposed method of achieving these rights. And only a judicious and informed weighing of the values can bring a wise decision regarding the need for an importance of special legislation for women. It is significant that Congress, bombarded for 30 years by pressure groups to enact what on the surface seems only to be justice, has steadily refused to pass the Equal Rights Amendment bill. It may be that some of this reluctance is due to Congressional unwillingness to cross state lines in this kind of "domestic" legislation. In the same 30 years and more, state legislators have reflected increasingly in state laws their recognition of the dual and triple functions of women as workers, homemakers, and mothers. Nurses have a dual interest in this question, first because 98 percent of the profession is made up of women; and second, because the profession exists because of its concern in human welfare. It is concerned not only with the actual practices related to the nursing process, and with nurses' interests, but with the health and well being of our society as a whole. IMPORTANT in the whole question is not only the risk involved in the proposed method of achieving rights for women, but the issue of the need of special legislation for the protection of women. Women are now an integral part of the labor force--19 million are there now in contrast to 8 1/2 million in 1920. Over half the women in this country's labor force are married, and about 25 percent of all women workers have children under 18 years. While 45 percent of these women are under 35 years of age, the median age has moved up to 37 years as many older women have gone out to work. About half of these women are doing clerical work or are operatives in the production line. They are rapidly broadening their scope of activities and proving their abilities to hold their own with men in tasks that require deftness, concentration, and dependability. The chief engineer in a metal processing plant said recently, "Our women over 45 are our best workers on certain jobs. We wouldn't replace them with men if we could." There is little doubt in the minds of many that women will continue to be a major factor in the labor force. The question then of whether the need for health and safety laws for their protection will mount instead of diminish is of first importance. In all the pro and con arguments on the amendment we find no concrete facts to support either side--no testimony by doctors and nurses, especially from those in industry. We believe, however, that a good deal of factual material is already available in the large plants that have classified their jobs according to their physical, as well as skill demands. Industrial nurses with whom the question was discussed are unanimous in their insistence that the need for special protections for women is increasing instead of decreasing. The Antibiotic Cocktail in Venereal Disease Control What are some of the factors influencing favorably the long-term trend in the decline of syphilis? Antibiotic therapy has made a contribution, but not dramatically nor alone. . . . The decrease in syphilis incidence in Europe and the United States began almost a century ago and has continued downward since then except during periods of war and civil unrest. Factors other than effective therapy have been responsible for this progress. The fact that the character of syphilis has changed from a virulent acute type of infection to one of great chronicity suggests that by a process of gradual adaptation, the virulence of the syphilis organism has decreased, while individual resistance to the disease has increased. Other important factors in the decreasing incidence of syphilis are attributed to the progressive improvement in socio-economic conditions and the application of modern public health control measures. The modern public health program in venereal disease control includes finding and treating infected people, as well as making information available to the public. These measures have been effective in reducing infant and adult morbidity, mortality and admissions to mental hospitals. . . . The unprecedented decline in reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea during the last seven years has created undue optimism for control in most quarters, with the antibiotics being given great credit in this situation. Are we ready to accept the statement that syphilis is a vanishing disease and that gonorrhea and the other venereal diseases are no longer of public health significance? Undue optimism is, I believe, unwarranted and unrealistic. Neither should we be overly pessimistic. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. To predict the speedy eradication of diseases as complex in their clinical and epidemiological aspects as the venereal diseases is indeed unrealistic, while to deny the widespread use of the antibiotic cocktail's influence in the control program is like hiding one's head in the sand. --BREWER A. FRANK. Dangers of the antibiotic cocktail in VD control. J. Social Hyg. 39: 301-306, Oct. 1953. APRIL 1954 VOL. 54, NO. 4 471 Student's Page NSNA's First Year The history, highlights, and hopes of the National Student Nurse Association are presented here by its first president. By Mary W. Smith The first year of the National Student Nurse Association is drawing to a close. During this year we have written many letters and answered numerous questions concerning the association. There must still be many people, however, who do not fully understand the reasons for and purposes of a national student organization. For many years--since 1924--students have gone to national conventions, attended luncheons, and visited exhibits. But it was not until 1948 that students began to have their own program at national meetings. By this time the students in several large cities throughout the states had organized district associations. At the 1948 biennial convention of the national associations in Chicago the students held two scheduled meetings. They were also introduced to the Chicago Student Nurse Association and learned how organizations work and what they can accomplish. Further interest in student organizations was evidenced at the 1950 biennial when student meetings were scheduled and sponsored by graduate nurses. At this time the students discussed a national organization comprised of state student nurse associations. After much deliberation the majority felt that it was not yet time for such a major step. The students needed the assistance and guidance of the professional nurse organizations, that were themselves planning a change in their own structure. The students went home from this convention to concentrate on strengthening their state organizations and to form new ones. The students met again in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in June 1952. The professional nurse organizations had arranged for regular meeting rooms for the students. While only five hundred students were expected, almost twice that many arrived. Some of them came with thoughts of forming a national organization, others to witness the graduates make history, and still others solely because their schools had sent them. Despite the differences in the reasons that had brought them together, the feeling of the need for a national organization spread through the entire group and the discussions were loud and long. The students had guidance from several of the graduates who met with them each time and made many valuable suggestions. At the final meeting, the group delegated to the students of the state where the next national convention was to be held the task of setting up a constitution and bylaws for a national association, plus the responsibility for planning a program. The [*Miss Smith, president of the National Student Nurse Association, is a senior student at Los Angeles County General Hospital School of Nursing in California*] next convention was to be in Cleveland and there was no state student nurses association in Ohio at the time. However, the Ohio students returned home and did a wonderful job of organizing a state student association; they also worked with students from six nearby states and planned an excellent program. A committee of students from several states and members of both ANA and the NLN staffs met in New York City in December 1952 to plan the student's program for the Cleveland convention. Betty Hilton, then a student at Philadelphia General and the president of the Student Nurses Association of Pennsylvania, was designated to chair the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. Miss Hilton worked with students from five other states and together they drew up a tentative constitution and bylaws for the national organization. The Cleveland Meeting At the time of the NLN convention in June 1953, over 1000 organization-minded students registered in Cleveland, Ohio. Their attitude was different from that of the students who had met in Atlantic City the previous year; they were determined to form a national organization. Once again, the ANA and the NLN had underwritten the cost of the student convention so that they would have rooms in which to meet. On hand to give very able assistance were such interested nurses as Mabel Montgomery of Virginia, Elouise Collier of the ANA staff, Mrs. Elva Evans of Cleveland, and Mrs. Winifred Harby of Washington, and Frances Tompkins who was, at that time, a member of the NLN staff. The parliamentarian, Mrs. Harry Thomas, helped greatly in organizing the business of the meetings and editing the constitution and bylaws. It was interesting to learn that many students had gone home from Atlantic City and promoted the organization of new state associations. We wonder how many students joined their state association because the national association had been organized. At first each state student group seemed to be working alone. Then, with a sudden shift, everyone was working together for the good of all concerned. Unity really prevailed! The students seriously accepted the task of organizing a national association. They elected to run their association in a democratic and representative way. They amended and adopted the constitution and bylaws and elected their officers. During the formation of NSNA, and during our first year, we have had support from many individual graduates, from many of the state nurses associations and state leagues, from the NLN, and from the ANA which is helping to finance the 1954 convention so that the NSNA treasury will not be entirely depleted. In addition, we have received considerable sup- THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING March, 1943 100 copies, 75¢ Look Twice At the "Equal Rights" Amendment Everyone wants "equal rights" for women--especially now when the work of women is essential to winning the war. But, the proposed so-called "Equal Rights" amendment to the Federal Constitution raises a lot of questions : In some States the legal age for marriage is lower for girls than for boys. Is this "equal rights," or would the age have to be raised for girls or lowered for boys? Who knows? Nobody! Who must decide? The courts. In some States the husband's failure to support his wife is cause for divorce. Under "equal rights" may her husband divorce her if she does not support him? Who knows? Nobody! Who must decide? The courts. In some States a women reaches the age of majority at 18 years, a man at 21. Does the age for a man become 18 or that of a women, 21, under "equal rights"? Who knows? Nobody! Who must decide? The courts. The property of rights of married men and women are different in all the States. Would these rights be affected? Who knows? Nobody! Who must decide? The courts. In California and some other States husband and wife own together property acquired during marriage. Would this be true in every State? Who knows? Nobody! Who must decide? The courts. In some States jury service for women in compulsory, in some optional, in some prohibited; some require women to serve but excuse those who have the care of young children. Which laws would be valid under "equal rights"? Who knows? Nobody! Who must decide? The courts. Do you want the courts, state and federal, burdened with litigation as to the validity of existing state legislation pertaining to girls and women? Do you want the Congress to take on the task of legislating in fields now reserved to the states? The proposed Equal Rights amendment reads: Sec. 1. Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The amendment would cause great confusion and further burden already over-burdened courts. The mischievous vagueness of the amendment means that every law treating men and women differently would certainly be open to challenge in the courts if this amendment were adopted. If "equal" means "identical" the amendment fails to consider the differences between men and women. What does equal rights "throughout the United States" mean? Does it mean uniform treatment of men and women throughout the United States? Would it mean only equal treatment of men and women within each State? The amendment isn't needed. Legal discrimination against women in state laws or state constitutions will be changed as fast as enough women in those states want them changed. The vote gives them that power. The amendment would be the greatest single step toward centralization of government control ever taken. It authorizes the Congress to pass legislation in the whole field of social and property legislation - property rights, marriage and divorce - dependency - legitimacy - age of consent - inheritance, etc. The real discriminations against women result from custom and prejudice - not from laws. A constitutional amendment won't change these attitudes. It could aggravate them. National League of Women Voters, 726 Jackson Place, Washington, D. C. Miss Marguerite M. Wells, President Other citizens would appreciate reading this broadside. Will you pass it on? Corinne Allen 76 L U. N. EXAMPLE CITED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS Tom Clark, at Dinner to Press for Amendment, Backs Set-Up as Goal for U.S. Women By BESS FURMAN Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. WASHINGTON, April 2—Attorney General Tom Clark said at a dinner of the National Women's Party tonight that this country should follow the example of the United Nations by giving more rights to women. As an example, he urged that women should be allowed to serve on juries in all states. But he added that women were entitled to more that "rights"; and, like the G.I. in Government service, were entitled to preference. The Attorney General mentioned the "vast body of law applicable to women and children primarily of a protective character," and also "support guarantees and dower rights" for the housewife. He held that such safeguards must be preserved. Representative Katharine St. George of New York, chief sponsor of the equal rights amendment, for which the National Women's Party has been campaigning for twenty-six years, said that women neither needed nor wanted protective legislation. The amendment, she maintained would not work a hardship on any one. Backs Maternity Bonuses She told the party's delegates that maternity bonuses and furloughs would be possible under such legislation, in a sense rather comparable to special grants to soldiers. The mother of a child, like the soldier, is giving to her nation, she held. "What a farce it is to not allow women to run elevators at night, at higher pay, or to wait on tables at night when trays are lighter and tips higher, and then allow them to do the heavy cleaning in officers at low pay all through the night," she said. Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller said that the long fight or enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment was, in effect, won. She told of its official backing by both political parties and of its heavy sponsorship in both houses of Congress. Its opponents would still argue against it, she added, "but we've got the atom bomb." Mrs. Miller, who presided at the dinner, read a letter from J. Howard McGrath, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in which he strongly supported the Equal Rights Amendment. Traces Fight for Adoption His letter read in part: "We of the Democratic party and the Democratic National Committee stand solidly with the National Woman's Party in constantly working for equal rights for women. "Progress is being made. Last month the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the Equal Rights Amendment without opposition. This was the first time this measure had been reported favorably without a dissenting vote. This support for your—and our— cause has gained steadily since the amendment was first introduced in 1923." The speakers were introduced by Mrs. George Mesta. 2 DIE IN AUTO CRASHES 7 Injured, 4 of Them Students, in One Accident in Jersey Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. ASBURY PARK, N.R., April 2 —Two person were killed and seven others hospitalized this morning after two automobile accidents on near-by county roads. The dead were Clayton Aumack, 24 years old, of Oakhurst and Miss Mildred Morgan, Manasquan, a teacher in the high school there. Mr. Aumack, a civilian chauffeur in Fort Monmouth, was alone in his car, which struck a tree in Wayside, near his home, about 2:30 A.M. Miss Morgan was a passenger in a car being driven by Kirk Grunwald, a fellow-teacher, when it struck an automobile in Wall Township, being driven by George May of Woodbridge. Taken to Fitkin Hospital were Mr. Grunwald, Edwina Leaycroft, 18; Carol Hayes, 16; Delores Vanduren, 17, and Colletter Lussier, 15, all students at the high school. who were in the Grunwald car. Also in the hospital are Jack Tamboer, 17, and Oscar Iverson, 19, who were in the car driven by Mr. May. BACK GI BILL EXTENSION Young Progressives Also Urge Fight on Discrimination Charging discrimination against THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, B Women's Groups Hear Talks On Equal Rights Amendment Women's Activities By Alice Myers Assistant Women's Editor of The Christian Science Monitor With the pending equal rights amendment likely to be brought up for debate in Congress in the near future, its pros and cons are being discussed by many women's groups these days. At least two local organizations had lively debates on the subject in Boston yesterday—the Women's Republican Club of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Association of Women Lawyers. Mrs. Hattie Smith, Assistant Commissioner of Labor and Industries, spoke against it at both meetings. Miss Louise Earl of Lynn, Past President of the College Club and of the Radcliffe Phi Beta Kappa Society and a member of the National Women 's Party, which has long been sponsoring the amendment, presented the affirmative view at the Women's Republican Club, and Miss Elizabeth Curry, Boston lawyer, did the same at the second meeting. Mrs. Smith took the stand that much more equality would be lost than gained by passage of the amendment. She said it would undermine the economic status of women in industry by making unconstitutional ever State labor law that does not apply equally to men and women. This would mean that Satte minimum wage and hour and other protective laws for women would be thrown out of the window forever unless they should be repassed for the benefit of both sexes. Nothing to Prevent To the argument that it would be a good thing to have these laws apply to men, she replied that there is at present nothing to prevent States from making minimum wage or other legislation pertain to men. Only one State, however, has applied minimum wages to men, and she is skeptical of getting any states to apply minimum hours to men. Meanwhile, why destroy the legislative gains women have so laboriously achieved? Mrs. Smith further asserted that the amendment would not give equal pay for equal work, or assure women equal job opportunity, or secure them equal seniority rights. She also said that an official of the United States Department of Labor had told her it would put the Women's Bureau out of existence, and she feels women cannot afford to lose the help of that Bureau. In short, she "cannot see the amendment in any way," and strongly urged the women to continue to work for the elimination of each specific discrimination separately. She especially urged support of the equal pay for equal work bill which has been filed in Congress. Legal Opinion Both proponents of the amendment hailed it as a measure that could at last make women persons and citizens under the Con[st]itution. Both stated that as now interpreted by the courts, the words "persons" and "citizens" used in the U. S. Constitution mean "male persons" and "male citizens." Miss Earl insisted that there was competent legal opinion which held that many of the so-called protective laws that give security to women and aid them in their service to the community would be untouched by the amendment. "There is no reason to suppose that men will be rewarded and women penalized for their service if they become citizens." she said. Believing that the possibility of legislation against work opportunities for women is a serious postwar threat, Miss Curry thinks it is particularly important right now to have an amendment passed that would make such legislation impossible. To the argument which is frequently advanced that the amendment will interfere with States' rights, and tend to lower labor standards in the more progressive States, Miss Curry pointed out that "equality" does not mean "uniformity." Laws within each States would have to apply equally to men and women, she explained, but the laws of Massachusetts, for instance, would not have to be the same as those of Ohio or any other State. The States will construe the amendment individually as they do the rest of the Constitution, she said. She does not think passage of the amendment would mean any great overturn of laws in the States. As for the contention that women and children would suffer because men would no longer have to pay alimony, she pointed out that some States already force women to support husbands when they can afford it. As far as the children are concerned, she added, both parents should be responsible. When it actually comes to deciding on support in a court, the ability to pay is taken into consideration, she said. She feels, therefore, that the amendment will have little effect on such cases. Party for Children The Women's Republican Club of Massachusetts is to give a Christmas party for children, grandchildren and other young relatives of its members tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock. Carols will be sung by boys from the Trinity Church Choir; Miss Ruth E. Wheeler, who is a graduate of Leland Powers School of the Theater, will read Christmas stories; and the Winchester Bell Ensemble will perform, dressed in colorful Elizabethan costumes. The party has been planned by Mrs. William C. Cusack, director of the Activities Department, and members of her committee. TIMES, SUNDAY, APRIL 10, 1949. WOMEN'S PARTY FIGHTS ON Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. WASHINGTON, April 9-The National Women's party, for twenty-six years crusader for an Equal Rights Amendment, appeared to have high hopes for success as it held its convention here this week. For the first time, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would put women on a plane of absolute legal equality with men, had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without any opposition. And it had been reported earlier in the session than ever before in previous years. The amendment backers not only could point to a plank in their favor in both party platforms, but also had in hand a statement from Chairman J. Howard McGrath of the Democratic National Committee, saying that the Democratic party "stand solidly" with the National Women's party on equal rights. For the first time the Women's party could meet the long-time opposition of labor to their bill with counter-quotes from labor leaders. Maurice Tobin, Secretary of Labor, had endorsed equal rights when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Mary Norton, long-time chairman of the House Labor Committee and author of the Fair Labor Standards Act, said that she concurred in the Democratic party platform. Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, always a proponent of protective legislation for women, has consistently opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. So has the National League of Women Voters and many other women's organizations interested in keeping a body of laws which include women's dower rights. These groups endorse a legal status bill which would have for its purpose the gradual elimination of remaining discriminations against women. [*000246*] First Lady Opposes Equal Rights Move CLEVELAND, Aug. 18 (AP)-Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt and 79 other woman leaders have signed a letter opposing the equal rights amendment pending in the U. S. Senate, Miss Elizabeth Magee, general secretary of the National Consumers League, announced today. Copies of the letter were mailed to every U. S. senator and representative, Miss Magee said in a statement. She termed the amendment a "gold brick that may glitter, but would hurt if it hit." Miss Magee said other signers included : Mrs. R. A. Angelo, president of the National Council of Catholic Women ; Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, former ambassador to Norway ; Freda Kirchwey, editor of the Nation, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, veteran leader of the National American Women's Suffrage Association, Miss Magee reported. Celler Bill Aims To Block Fake 'Equal Rights' CONGRESSMAN EMANUEL CELLER, veteran Democratic representative from a Brooklyn district, and formerly chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has reintroduced his bill to create a commission charged with the job of studying the legal status of women in every state of the Union, with a view to removing any discriminations against women which may still exist. The Celler bill, if adopted, would knock the last leg from under the fake "Equal Rights Amendment" which the National Woman's Party and the National Association of Manufacturers have been pressing for years and which had been introduced this year by Congresswoman Katherine St. George, Republican of New York. As LABOR has frequently pointed out, the "Equal Rights Amendment," while pretending to remove discriminations against women, would wipe out all laws passed to protect working women. The Celler bill, while removing real discriminations against women, would safeguard the labor laws which protect them. loughs would be possible under such legislation, in a sense rather comparable to special grants to soldiers. The mother of a child, like the solider, is giving to her nation, she held. "What a farce it is not to allow women to run elevators at night, at higher pay, or to wait on tables at night when trays are lighter and tips higher, and then allow them to do the heavy cleaning in offices at low pay all through the night," she said. Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller said that the long fight for enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment was, in effect, won. She told of its official backing by both political parties and of its heavy sponsorship in both Houses of Congress. Its opponents would still argue against it, she added, "but we've got the atom bomb." Mrs. Miller, who presided at the dinner, read a letter from J. Howard McGrath, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in which he strongly supported the Equal Rights Amendment. Traces Fight for Adoption His letter read in part: "We of the Democratic party and the Democratic National Committee stand solidly with the National Woman's party in constantly working for equal rights for women. "Progress is being made. Last month the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the Equal Rights Amendment without opposition. This was the first time this measure had been reported favorable without a dissenting vote. This support for your-and our- cause has gained steadily since the amendment was first introduced in 1923." The speakers were introduced by Mrs. George Mesta. 2 DIE IN AUTO CRASHES 7 Injured, 4 of Them Students, in One Accident in Jersey Special to The New York Times ASBURY PARK, N. J., April 2 Two persons were killed and seven others hospitalized this morning after two automobile accidents on near-by county roads. The dead were Clayton Aumack, 24 years old, of Oakhurst, and Miss Mildred Morgan, Manaquan, a teacher in the high school there. Mr. Aumack, a civilian chauffeur in Fort Monmouth, was alone in his car, which struck a tree in Wayside, near his home, about 2:30 A. M. Miss Morgan was a passenger in a car being driven by Kirk Grunwald, a fellow-teacher, when it struck an automobile in Wall Township, being driven by George May of Woodbridge. Taken to Fitkin Hospital were Mr. Grunwald, Edwina Leaycroft, 18; Carol Hayes, 16; Delores Vanduren, 17, and Collette Lussier, 15, all students at the high school, who were in the Grunwald car. Also in the hospital are Jack Tamboer, 17, and Oscar Iverson, 19, who were in the car driven by Mr. May. BACK GI BILL EXTENSION Young Progressives Also Urge Fight on Discrimination. Charging discrimination against young workers in industry, including Negro veterans of World War II, members of the Young Progressives of New York urged support yesterday of legislation pending in the House of Representatives to extend to July 25, 1951, the allowances granted by the GI Bill. At the first general conference for young workers since their organization after the convention of the Progressive part in Philadelphia last July, the delegates also stressed the need for a "one dollar an hour minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, neighborhood committees to fight discrimination in employment, a broad program of public works, adequate job insurance for all unemployed, on-the-job training programs under union supervision and a shorter work week at present pay." Murray Portnoy, business agent of Local 430 of the United Electric, Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, was chairman of the meeting held at the local's headquarter's 137 Fifth Avenue. 1,500 Visit Tax Office Fifteen hundred person passed through the offices of the Income Tax Bureau at 80 Center Street yesterday to pay their state income tax, get information about it, or obtain blanks for returns. Morris Meyerson, administrative supervisor of the bureau, said: "As soon as you tear off March from your calendar, they become tax conscious." vocates of ? legislation had not stopped by buster of Southe Northern Republ Officials of th viewed in detail t but took care no any specific Senat In addition to re resolutions against political parties, te refrained from me dent Truman. Leslie Perry, dire sociation's politic Washington, explai down of resolution reaction to the d delegates had ta opening of the E gress "The advocates though jolted, are told the gathering ciation will redou get Fair Emplo Commission, an poll tax and ant enacted. We ask in your minds following years who tried to s as civil right Stressing building up voting as w ship, he Negro vot doubled. Negro 1,000,000 AM J.D. orch ganist Christ pequa home, 1 heart a fifty-four of the la musical c? member of Mr. Lamp? former Chr? daughters, M? and Patricia : seph B., and Fr all of Amityvill Mrs. Dorothy K Village, Queens, Murray of Elmon Clyde M. Special to The New South Pasa April 2 - Clyde M. ern California bank at his home here at Mr. Church, for twenty-five years v and manager of the National Bank's Hi and South Pasadena a native of Marsha he came to Californ was active in civic been treasurer of ? tried of Southern He leaves his three daughters, ? Nitt, Evelyn L. R C. Johnsons, and tw O. and Henry A. Paul ? AKRON, O Paul R. Bisho Akron Beaco today of a h 61 years ol Mr. Bish vertising since 19 served a city edit He also Clevelan Akron in New Bishop ? Surviv son and DR. G Specia CHICAG here were death in Wednesday ture, a for city and or city Heath Women's Groups Hear Talks On Equal Rights Amendment Women's Activities By Alice Myers Assistant Women's Editor of The Christian Science Monitor With the pending equal rights amendment likely to be brought up for debate in Congress in the near future, its pros and cons are being discussed by man women's groups these days. At least two local organizations had lively debates on the subject in Boston yesterday-the Women's Republican Club of Massachusetts and The Massachusetts Association of Women Lawyers. Mrs. Hattie Smith, Assistant Commissioner of Labor and Industries, spoke against it at both meetings. Miss Louise Earl of Lynn, Past President of the College Club and of the Radcliffe Phi Beta Kappa Society and a member of the National Woman's Party, which has long been sponsoring the amendment, presented the affirmative view at the Women's Republican Club, and Miss Elizabeth Curry, Boston lawyer, did the same at the second meeting. Mrs. Smith took the stand that much more equality would be lost than gained by passage of the amendment. She said it would undermine the economic status of women in industry by making unconstitutional every State labor law that does not apply equally to men and women. This would mean that Satte minimum wage and hour and other protective laws for women would be thrown out of the window forever unless they should be repassed for the benefit of both sexes. Nothing to Prevent To the argument that it would be a good thing to have these laws apply to men, she replied that there is at present nothing to prevent States from making minimum wage or other legislation pertain to men. Only one State, however, has applied minimum wages to men, and she is skeptical of getting any states to apply minimum hours to men. Meanwhile, why destroy the legislative gains women have so laboriously achieved? Mrs. Smith further asserted that the amendment would not give equal pay for equal work, or assure women equal job opportunity, or secure them equal seniority rights. She also said that an official of the United States Department of Labor had told her it would put the Women's Bureau out of existence, and she feels women cannot afford to lose the help of that Bureau. In short, she "cannot see the amendment in any way," and strongly urgent the women to continue to work for the elimination of each specific discrimination separately. She especially urged support of the equal pay for equal work bill which has been filed in Congress. Legal Opinion Both proponents of the amendment hailed it as a measure that ?ould at last make women per?ons and citizens under the Con??itution. Both stated that as now ??terpreted by the courts, the ?ords "persons" and "citizens" ?sed in the U.S. Constitution ?ean "male persons" and "male ??tizens." Miss Earl insisted that there was ?omptent legal opinion which held ??at many of the so-called protec??ve laws that give security to ?omen and aid them in their service to the community would be untouched by the amendment. "There is no reason to suppose that men will be rewarded and women penalized for their service if they become citizens." she said. Believing that the possibility of legislation against work opportunities for women is a serious postwar thread, Miss Curry thinks it is particularly important right now to have an amendment passed that would make such legislation impossible. To the argument which is frequently advanced that the amendment will interfere with States' rights, and tend to lower labor standards in the more progressive States, Miss Curry pointed out that "quality" does not mean "uniformity." Laws within each States would have to apply equally to men and women, she explained, but the laws of Massachusetts, for instance, would not have to be the same as those of Ohio or any other State. The States will construe the amendment individually as they do the rest of the Constitution, she said. She does not think passage of the amendment would mean any great overturn of laws in the States. As for the contention that women and children would suffer because men would no longer have to pay alimony, she pointed out that some States already force women to support husbands when they can afford it. As far as the children are concerned, she added, both parents should be responsible. When it actually comes to deciding on support in a court, the ability to pay is taken into consideration, she said. She feels, therefore, that the amendment will have little effect on such cases. Party for Children The Women's Republican Club of Massachusetts is to give a Christmas party for children, grandchildren and other young relatives of its members tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock. Carols will be sung by boys from the Trinity Church Choir; Miss Rute E. Wheeler, who is a graduate of Leland Powers School of the Theater, will read Christmas stories; and the Winchester Bell Ensemble will perform, dressed in colorful Elizabethan costumes. The party has been planned by Mrs. William C. Cusack, director of the Activities Department, and members of her committee. THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, BO 'Cut' in War Bonds A? ? ? ? o I? ha of qu wa Fi dr th m in ar ti n th w 0 o ? TIMES, SUNDAY, APRIL 10, 1949. ?OODS ?rat and s a ons ery the for WOMEN'S PARTY FIGHTS ON Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. WASHINGTON, April 9-The National Women's party, for twenty-six years crusader for an Equal Rights Amendment, appeared to have high hopes for success as it held its convention here this week. For the first time, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would put women on a plane of absolute legal equality with men, had been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without any opposition. And it had been reported earlier in the session than ever before in previous years. The amendment backers not only could point to a plank in their favor in both party platforms, but also had in hand a statement from Chairman J. Howard McGrath of the Democratic National Commitee, saying that the Democratic party "stands solidly" with the National Women's party on equal rights. For the first time the Women's party could meet the long-time opposition of labor to their bill with counter-quotes from labor leaders. Maurice Tobin, Secretary of Labor, had endorsed equal rights when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Mary Norton, longtime chairman of the House Labor Committee and author of the Fair Labor Standards Act, said that she concurred in the Democratic party platform. Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, always a proponent of protective legislation for women, has consistently opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. So has the National League of Women Votes and many other women's organizations interested in keeping a body of laws which include women's dower rights. These groups endorse a legal status bill which would have for its purpose the gradual elimination of remaining discrimination against women. T c a b ?mand- of one ?l cases ?e loss f both ?g over ? at all. ?eral as- ad done sforming e to thor- avy equip- mentioned thrusts by ?ly the sec- resistance, on the eat ?. ermans were ?ower left no ?n disappoint- got out. But ceeding diffi- small craft in edec that the in evacuating ves but prob- equipment ?00 was given as ?an strength in when invasion strength was not n. Walter D.S. s chief of staff, y that the Amer- ?e-third less than ? when the blow down of enemy ?wer estimate of the enemy unded were Ger- r S? Kentuc? who was reta? ?r the girl, immediate? a possible line of defe? newsmen "if she is guilty, s? medical attention; if she is in it is cruel to keep her in dete Kiger and his son died a fusilade of shots fired as they shortly after midnight Tuesday. First Lady Opposes Equal Right Move CLEVELAND, Aug. 18 (AP)- Mrs. Frankling D. Roosevelt and 79 other woman leaders have signed a letter opposing the equal rights amendment pending in the U.S. Senate Miss Elizabeth Magee, general secretary of the National Consumers League, announced today. Copies of the letter were mailed to every U.S. senator and representative, Miss Magee said in a statement. She termed the amendment a "gold brick that may glitter, but would hurt if it hit." Miss Magee said other signers included: Mrs. R.A. Angelo, president of the National Council of Catholic Women; Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, former ambassador to Norway; Freda Kirschwey, editor of the Nation, and Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, veteran leader of the National American Women's Suffrage Association, Miss Magee reported. Boy of 17 Captured In Hit and Run Case A 17-year-old Cambridge boy, said to have been the operator of a stolen truck that was struck and injured a soldier, was captured by police early today, after a short chase in the Central square section of Cambridge. Victim of the hit-and-run driver was Pvt. Aram Sohigian, 28 attached ?he Wood Island Coast Artiller? East Boston. He was tre idge City Hospita re of ? Celler Bill Aims To Block Fake 'Equal Rights' CONGRESSMAN EMANUEL CELLER, veteran Democratic representative from a Brooklyn district, and formerly chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has reintroduced his bill to create a commission charged with the job of studying the legal status of women in every state of the Union, with a view to removing any discriminations against women which may still ecist. The Celler bill, if adopted, would knock the last leg from under the fake "Equal Rights Amendment" which the National Woman's Party and the National Association of Manufacturers have been pressing for years and which has been introduced this year by Congresswoman Katherine St. George, Republican of New York. As LABOR has frequently pointed out, the "Equal Rights Amendment," while pretending to remove discriminations against women, would wipe out all laws passed to protected working women. The Celler bill, while removing real discriminations against women, would safeguard the labor laws which protect them. 000247 Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.