PART FOUR

VICTORY

“The vast and beckoning future is ours.” _The Suffragist._

I

THE NEW HEADQUARTERS AND THE LATER YEARS

AT the opening of the year 1918, the Woman’s Party made another change in the location of its headquarters. It will be recalled that during the first part of its history, it had premises in F Street. In the middle years, it was located at Cameron House. It was now to go directly across the Park to 14 Jackson Place. Like Cameron House, this new mansion had had a vivid and picturesque history. It was built by the Hon. Levi Woodbury while he was serving in the cabinet of President Jackson and President Van Buren. Later, it became the home of Schuyler Colfax, when he was Vice-President. During the Civil War, Postmaster William Denison, a member of Lincoln’s cabinet, lived there. And perhaps it was at this period that the house achieved the apex of its reputation for official hospitality. Later, it was the scene of the tragic triangle of General Sickles, his beautiful young Spanish wife and the brilliant Barton Key. Still later it fell into the hands of Mrs. Washington McLean, and then of her grandson’s family—the Bughers. Then it was turned into the Home Club.

It is a charming house. The façade is a pleasing combination of cream-colored tiling trimmed with white. Immediately, of course, the Woman’s Party adorned that delicate, lustrous expanse with the red, white, and blue of the big national banner, which always flies over their Headquarters, and the purple, white, and gold of the equally big Party tri-color. Later, in the little oval made by the porte-cochère, they erected a bulletin board presented by Mrs. O. H. P. Belmont. By this means the casual passer-by was kept informed, by bulletin and by photographs, of the activities of the Woman’s Party.

Inside there are rooms and rooms, rooms big and small, rooms of all sizes and heights. A spacious ball-room on the second floor with a seating capacity of three hundred, was of course of great practical advantage to the Party. The other rooms on this floor were made into offices; the rooms on the floor above into bedrooms. Mrs. Lawrence Lewis and Mrs. William Kent raised the money for the maintenance of this huge establishment.

Alice Paul, always economically inclined where expenditure is not absolutely necessary, immediately asked for contributions of furnishings. All kinds of things were given of course, from pianos to kitchen pans. From Mrs. Pflaster of Virginia came a load of heirlooms, in various colonial patterns—furniture which makes the connoisseur positively gasp. Chairs of the Hepplewhite and Sheraton periods; tables made by Phyffe; tables in the most graceful style of Empire furniture; mahogany cabinets, delicately inlaid—they gave the place an extraordinary atmosphere. Huge, dim, old-gold-framed mirrors and a few fine old paintings reinforced the effect.

Alice Paul’s office, which is on the second floor, was done in purple and gold; the woodwork of gold, the furniture upholstered in purple velvet.

Later, a large room, originally a stable at the rear of the first floor, was transformed into a tea-room. Vivian Pierce had charge of the decorations here; and she made it very attractive. The brick walls were painted yellow, the tables and chairs black. The windows and doors were all enclosed in flat frames of brilliant chintz, of which the background was black, but the dominating note blue. The many hanging lights were swathed in yellow silk. The tea-room rapidly became very popular in Washington; and, as rapidly, became one of the most interesting places in the city. Visitors of many distinguished kinds came there in preference to the larger restaurants or hotels. They knew the members of the Woman’s Party who lived in the house, and they gradually came to know the habitués of the tea-room. At meals, separated parties were always coalescing into one big party. People wandered from table to table. There was an air of comradeship and sympathy. Afterwards, groups often went up the little flight of stairs which leads to the ball-room, and sitting before the fire in the huge fireplace, drank their after-dinner coffee together. These talks sometimes lasted until midnight.

As for the atmosphere of the place itself—it can be summed up by only one word, and that word is—youth. Not that everybody who came to Headquarters was—as years go—young. There were, for instance, Lavinia Dock who was sixty, Mary Nolan who was seventy, and the Rev. Olympia Brown who was an octogenarian. Of course, though, when one considers that the Rev. Olympia Brown took part in that rain-drenched and wind-driven picket deputation of a thousand women on March 4, and that Mary Nolan and Lavinia Dock both served their terms in prison, one must admit that they were as young in spirit as the youngest picket there. But young pickets were there—I mean, young in actual years; young and fresh and gay; able and daring. Alice Paul, herself, whimsically relates what an obstacle their very youth seemed to them during the early part of the movement. When first they began to wage their warfare on the Democratic Party, old Suffragists rebuked them; and rebuked them always on the score that they were too young to know any better. “How hard we tried to seem old,” Alice Paul said. “On all occasions we pushed elderly ones into the foreground and when Mrs. Lawrence Lewis became a grandmother, how triumphant we were. Oh, we encouraged grandmotherhood in those days.” But now—triumphantly successful—they were no longer afraid of their own youth. They knew it was their greatest asset. They made the place ring with its gaiety. They made it seethe with its activity. They made it rock with its resolution. “The young are at the gates!” said Lavinia Dock. And these were young who would not brook denial of their demands.

As you entered Headquarters, that breath of youth struck you in the face with its wild, fresh sweetness. It was as pungent as a wind blowing over spring flowers. It was as vivid as the flash of spring clouds hurrying over the new blue of the sky. In actuality, youthful activity rang from every corner of the house. In the white entrance hall, a young girl sat at the switchboard; and she was always a very busy person. To the left was the Press Headquarters, full of that mad turmoil which, seemingly, is inevitable to any Press activity. Upstairs, Alice Paul was always interviewing or being interviewed; reading letters or answering them; asking questions or giving information; snatching a hurried meal from a tray; dictating all manner of business; or giving the last orders before she darted east, west, north, or south. She was sure to be doing one of these things, or some of them, or—this really seems not an exaggeration—all of them.

All about and from the offices that ran beside the ball-room sounded the click of typewriters—some one counted twenty-four typewriters in the house once. Everywhere, you ran into busy, business-like stenographers with papers in their hands, proceeding from one office to another. If it were lunch time, or dinner time, pairs of young girls, with their arms around each other’s waists, chattering busily, were making their way to the tea-room. At night, the big ball-room was filled with groups reading magazines at the big (and priceless) tables; or talking over the events of the day ... Congress ... the picketing. Late at night, the discussions still went on. Upstairs, they followed each other from bedroom to bedroom, still arguing, still comparing notes, still making suggestions in regard to a hundred things: organizing, lobbying, personal appeal to political leaders, et caetera, ad infinitum. The huge, four-poster bed—big enough for royalty—in Mrs. Lawrence Lewis’s room was the scene—with ardent pickets sitting all over it—of many a discussion that threatened to prolong itself until dawn.

And all day long, and all evening long—any time—organizers with their harvests of facts and ideas were likely to appear from the remotest parts of the country. Young, enthusiastic, unconscious of bodily discomfort, if the beds were all full, they pulled a mattress onto the floor and slept there or curled up on a couch—anything so long as they could stay at the friendly, welcoming Headquarters. To middle age, it was all a revelation of the unsounded, unplumbed depths of endurance in convinced, emancipate, determined youth. There was no end to their strength apparently. Apparently there was no possibility of palling their spirit. Arriving at nine at night from Oregon, they would depart blithely the next morning at six for Alabama. To those women who had the privilege of taking part, either as active participants, or enthralled lookers-on, this will always stand out as one of their most thrilling life experiences. Katherine Rolston Fisher’s fine descriptive phrase in regard to it all inevitably recurs: “It was,” she says, “the renaissance of the Suffrage movement.”

Speed was their animating force: “The Suffrage Amendment passed at once,” their eternal motto.

In the nomenclature of the Great War, the pickets were the shock troops of the Suffrage forces. They took the first line trenches. The forces of the organization back of them secured and maintained these positions; held those trenches until the time came for the next advance. As for the organizers working all over the country, they were the air force and—still using the nomenclature of that great struggle—they were like the little, swift, quickly-turning chase-planes which so effectually harassed the huge enemy machines.

The Woman’s Party never grew so big nor its organization so cumbrous that its object was defeated by numbers and weight. It was distinguished always by quality rather than quantity, and its mechanical organization was sensitive and light. It lay over its members as delicately as a cobweb on the grass; and it responded as instantly as a cobweb to the touch of changing conditions. News from Washington went to the uttermost parts of the country as swiftly as electricity could bear it. The results in action were equally swift. That was because youth was everywhere, not only youth of body, but, perhaps more important, youth of spirit. Senators and Representatives frequently marveled at the power and strength of an organization which had come to fruition in so few years. Had they all visited Headquarters—as some of them did—I think that all would have understood.

II

LOBBYING

I HAVE left until now all consideration of a department which had been, almost from the very beginning, of great importance to the Woman’s Party; the most important department of all; the crux of its work; a department which steadily augmented in importance—the lobbying.

From the moment in 1912 that the Suffragists started their work in Washington, relations had to be established with the House and the Senate. At first, tentative, a little wavering, irregular, the lobbying became finally astute, intensive, and constant. The lobby grew in numbers. After the Congressional Committee had become the Congressional Union, and had separated from the National American Woman Suffrage Association, the latter body sent its own lobbyists to Washington. The anti-Suffragists sent lobbyists too. By 1914, the stream had grown to a flood. The halls of Congress were never free from this invasion. The siege lasted without cessation as long as a Congress was in session. “This place looks like a millinery establishment,” a Congressman said once.

In the early days, the reception of the lobbyists at the hands of Congressmen lacked by many degrees that graciousness of which, at the very end, they were almost certain. A story of this early period taken from the Woman’s Party card-index, is most illuminating.

Two Suffrage lobbyists were calling on Hoke Smith. “As you are Suffragists,” Mr. Smith said, “you won’t mind standing.” He himself sat, lounging comfortably in his chair. He took out a big cigar, inserted it in his mouth, lighted it. The two women said what they had to say, standing, while Mr. Smith smoked contemptuously on.

Those two women were Emily Perry and Jeannette Rankin.

* * * * *

The lobbying for the Woman’s Party was directed at first by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns. Mrs. Gilson Gardner was the pioneer lobbyist, and the first-year lobbyists were all women voters. They made reports to Alice Paul and Lucy Burns every day. First these were oral; later they were written. This was the nucleus of the Woman’s Party card catalogue which has since become so famous. Finally, these written reports were put in tabulated form by Mrs. Grimes of Michigan.

As the work grew, unenfranchised women lobbied as often as enfranchised. The early lobbyists were: Mrs. Gilson Gardner, Mrs. William Kent, Mrs. George Odell, Lucy Burns, Abby Scott Baker, Mrs. Lowell Mellett. But not only the experienced lobbied. As has before been set down—following that wise instinct which impelled Alice Paul to give her workers glimpses of all phases of the movement—as fast as the organizers came back to Washington, she sent them up to the galleries of Congress to listen; she made them lobby for a while. And, as has elsewhere been stated, this was found to be a mutual benefit. Organizers took the temper and atmosphere of Congress back to the States, and sometimes to the very constituents of the Congressmen with whom they had talked; they put Congressmen in touch with what was happening at home. Whenever a woman visiting Washington called at Headquarters, Alice Paul immediately sent her to the Capitol to lobby the Congressmen and Senators of her own State.

In November, 1915, Anne Martin, as Chairman of the Legislative Department, became the head of the lobbying. Miss Martin is a born general. She brought to this situation an instinct for the strategy and tactics of politics. She supervised the work of those who were under her, sent them up to Congress with specific directions; received their reports; collated them; made suggestions for the next day’s work; developed a closer relation with the constituents and kept local chairmen in touch with the States of their own Congressmen and Senators. In 1916, Anne Martin ran for Senator in Nevada. She had of necessity to relinquish active work in Washington for the Woman’s Party.

In the spring of 1916, therefore, Maud Younger who was in a position to give her whole time to it, became Chairman of the Lobby Committee and chief lobbyist for the Amendment.

At all times this work was hard, and sometimes intensely disagreeable. Maud Younger in her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_, gives some of the actual physical strain. She says:

The path of the lobbyist is a path of white marble. And white marble, though beautiful, is hard. The House office building runs around four sides of a block, so that when you have walked around one floor, you have walked four blocks on white marble. When you have walked around each of the five floors you have walked a mile on white marble. When you have gone this morning and afternoon through several sessions of Congress you have walked more weary miles on white marble than a lobbyist has time to count.

But the Woman’s Party lobbyists were not balked by the mere matter of white marble. In a week they were threading that interminable intricate maze of Congressional alleys with the light, swift step of familiarity and of determination. All day long, they drove from the Visitors’ Reception Room to Senatorial offices, and from Senatorial offices back to the Visitors’ Reception Room. They flew up and down in the elevators. They found unknown and secret stairways by which they made short cuts. They journeyed back and forth in the little underground subway which tries to mitigate these long distances. At first Congressmen frankly took to hiding, and the lobbyist discovered that the Capitol was a nest of _abris_, but in the end, even Congressmen could not elude the vigilance of youth and determination. As for the mental and spiritual difficulties of the task—at first, Senators and Congressmen were frankly uninterested, or, more concretely, irritated and enraged with the Suffrage lobbyists. It is not pleasant to have to talk to a man who does not want to hear you. The lobbyists had to learn to be quiet; deferential; to listen to long intervals of complaint and abuse; to seem not to notice rebuffs; to go back the next day as though the rebuff had not occurred. This is not easy to women of spirit. Perhaps it could not have been borne, if it had not been a labor of love. Many times these women had to bolster a smarting sense of humiliation by keeping the thought of victory in sight.

In her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_, Maud Younger tells interestingly and with a very arch touch some of these experiences:

Mr. Huddleston, the thin, blonde type of Congressman, sat at his desk in his low-ceilinged, well-lighted office.

“What is it?” he greeted me when I entered. His manner was very brusque, but I refused to be repelled by it. I began to speak.

“There’s always some one hippodroming around here with some kind of propaganda,” he snapped, interrupting. “We’re very busy, we’ve got important things to do, we can’t be bothered with Woman Suffrage.” He made a jerky motion, rattling the papers on his desk, and turning his head to look through the window. I thought of several things to say to Mr. Huddleston, but this was obviously the time to say none of them. So I murmured, “Thank you,” and withdrew....

Mr. Whaley’s face is red; his head is prematurely gray outside and his thoughts prematurely gray inside. “We don’t need women voting in South Carolina,” he said with a large masculine manner. “We know how to take care of our women in our State. We don’t allow divorce for any reason whatever.”

He was continuing with expressed contempt for Suffrage and implied contempt for Suffragists, when the door opened and a negro, evidently a clergyman, entered.

“Get out of here!” said Mr. Whaley. “You stand in the hall till you’re called.” As the negro hastily retreated, Mr. Whaley turned to me and said with pride, “That’s the way to treat ’em.”...

A few minutes later, I opened Mr. Sisson’s door and saw him, very large and rugged, standing with some letters in his hand and dictating to a stenographer.

“I can’t discuss that subject,” he interrupted at my first words, and then he discussed it at length. He had meant that I was not to discuss it. He spoke of women in the kitchen, in the nursery, in the parlor. He spoke of her tenderness, her charm, her need for shelter and kindness. Wearily shifting from one foot to the other, I listened. At last I opened my mouth to speak, but he silenced me with a brusque gesture.

“The reason I’m so lenient with you,” he explained—for he had allowed me to stand and listen to him—“is because you’re a woman. If you were a man——” He left the end of the sentence in dark doubt. What would he have done to a man standing dumbly in my place, holding tight to a muff? I shall never know. Discretion did not allow me to ask him.

Mr. Reed sat at his mahogany desk—a large, rather good-looking Senator, with gray hair. His record in our card-index read: “He is most reactionary, not to say antediluvian.” So I was not surprised to hear him say slowly and solemnly:

“Women don’t know anything about politics. Did you ever hear them talking together? Well, first they talk about fashions, and children, and housework; and then, perhaps about churches; and then perhaps—about theatres; and then perhaps——” At each “perhaps,” he gazed down at his finger-tips where his ideas appeared to originate, looking up at me at each new point. “And then, perhaps—about literatoor!” he ended triumphantly. “Yes, and that is the way it ought to be,” he added, satisfied.

“But don’t you believe that voting might make women think?”

At this suggestion he recoiled, then recovered and grew jocose.

“Do you think I want my wife working against my interests? That’s just what she’d be doing—voting against me. Women can’t understand politics.”

I began to tell him about California women voters, but he interrupted. “Women wouldn’t change things if they did vote. They’d all vote just like their husbands.”

Sometimes they said to Miss Younger, “If you were a voter——”

“But I am a voter,” Miss Younger, who is from California, would reply.

Their attitude invariably changed.

Miss Younger comments: “They _said_ they respected femininity, but it was plain that they _did_ respect a voter.”

It was hard, hard work.

The lobbying was immensely more detailed and complicated than an outsider would ever suspect. All the time, of course, they were working for the passing of the Anthony Amendment. That was their great objective, but, as in all warfare, the campaign for the great objective was divided into many tiny campaigns. At the beginning of the Congressional Union work in Washington, for instance, they lobbied Senators and Representatives to march in the big parade of March 3, 1913. Later they lobbied them to go to mass-meetings, to attend conventions. In 1916, when they were having such difficulty with the Judiciary Committee, they lobbied Republicans and Democratic members of that Committee to get them to act. By a follow-up system, they sent other lobbyists in a few days to see if they had acted. When the Suffrage Envoys came back from the West, they lobbied Congressmen to receive them. In the Presidential election of 1916, they lobbied Congress first to get Suffrage planks in both Party platforms and when these planks proved unsatisfactory, they lobbied the Republican Suffragists in Congress to get Hughes to come out for the Federal Amendment and when Hughes came out for it, they lobbied the Democratic Congressmen to get the President to come out for it. When the Special War Session met, in April, 1917, fifty Woman’s Party lobbyists lobbied Congress—covering it in a month. When the Irish Mission visited Congress, and two hundred and fifty voted for the freedom of Ireland, they lobbied these Congressmen to vote for the freedom of women. When the arrests of the pickets began, they lobbied their Congressmen to go to see their constituents in jail. The Woman’s Party kept track of how Congressmen voted on different measures and wherever it was possible, they linked it up with Suffrage. To the Congressmen who voted against war, they sent lobbyists who could show what an influence for peace the women could be. To those who voted for war, they sent the women, who were war workers, to show how women could work for war.

Before the six years’ campaign of the Woman’s Party was over, the Republicans were sometimes sending Congressmen of one State to convert the unconverted ones of another, and, in the end, the young Democratic Senators had actually appointed a committee to get Suffrage votes from their older confrères. After Congress passed the Amendment, they lobbied the Congressmen to write the governors to call special sessions of the Legislature in the interests of ratification; then they lobbied them to write the Legislators; then they lobbied them to write political leaders.

Perhaps the hardest interval in their work was that which followed the campaign of 1916. Wilson had been elected again on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” The Republicans did not want to hear anything about the women voters of the West. The Woman’s Party lobbyists, who were often more informed on the Republican situation in parts of the West than were the Republicans themselves, had to educate them. They had to show them how remiss the Republicans themselves had been during that campaign, how Hughes for instance came out for Suffrage in the East, where women did not vote, and never mentioned it in the West, where they did. It was not easy work. Sometimes Congressmen would take up papers or letters and examine them, while the lobbyist was talking. Nevertheless, she would continue. And then, inevitably the degree of her information, her clear and forceful exposition of the situation, would arouse interest. Often in the end, the erstwhile indifferent Congressman would shake hands and bow her out.

As to the mechanics of lobbying work, perhaps nothing is more interesting than the cards themselves of the famous card-index.

No. 1—Contains the member’s name and his biography as contained in the Congressional Directory.

No. 2—A key card has these headings:

Ancestry, Nativity, Education, Religion, Offices Held, General Information.

No. 3—A sub-card under the foregoing, as are those yet to be given, contains these headings: Birth, Date, Place, Number of Children, Additional Information.

Nos. 4, 5, and 6—Are respectively for Father, Mother, Brothers. They have headings to elicit full information on these subjects, as Nativity, Education, Occupation.

No. 7—Education: Preparatory School and College.

No. 8—Religion: Name of Church, Date of Entrance, Position Held in Church, Church Work.

No. 9—Military Service: Dates, Offices, Battles, Additional Information.

No. 10—Occupation: Past, Present.

No. 11—Labor Record.

Nos. 12 and 13—Are set aside for Literary Work and Lecture Work.

No. 14—Newspapers: Meaning what newspapers the member reads and those that have the most influence over him.

Nos. 15 and 16—Are respectively for Recreation and Hobbies.

Nos. 17 and 18—Are devoted to Health and Habits.

No. 19—Political Life Prior to Congress: Offices Held. Whether Supported Prohibition Amendment, Offices Run For.

No. 20—Political life in Congress: Terms, Date, Party, Bills Introduced, Bills Supported, Committees.

No. 21—Suffrage Record: Outside of Congress, In Congress.

No. 22—Votes cast in Election of Member.

In an interview in the _New York Times_ of March 2, 1919, Miss Younger describes the working of this system.

If a Congressman said to a lobbyist, for instance, “I do not think my district is much interested in Woman Suffrage, I get very few letters in favor of it from my constituents,” then, immediately, by means of the information gained through the card-index, a flood of pro-Suffrage letters would descend upon him. Always, as far as possible, these letters would come from people he knew or who were influential.

If a Congressman had a financial backer, they tried to get at him. If he were from a strong labor district, they appealed to Labor to bring its influence to bear upon him.

When the lobbyist started for Congress, she was given a lobbying slip which had a list of entries printed on it. For instance, one heading was “Exact statements and remarks.” Miss Younger told me of one Congressman who said to her: “Put me down on the mourners’ bench. I am thinking about it.” Immediately Headquarters became very busy with this Congressman.

Another said, “Women in my State do not want it.” Miss Younger, commenting on that, said that it was always an encouraging case. We see immediately that he gets shoals of letters and telegrams from his State. One Congressman on whom such a campaign was waged said finally: “If you will only stop, I will vote for the Amendment. It keeps my office force busy all day answering letters about Suffrage alone.”

The hardest Congressmen to deal with were those who said, “I will not vote for it if every voter in my State asks me.” To such a one, we would send a woman from his own district. In one case, the Congressman was so rude to her that she came back to Headquarters, subscribed a hundred dollars to our funds, departed, and became a staunch Suffragist. We kept a list of men of this type and we sent to them any woman who was wavering on Suffrage. It never failed to make her a strong Suffragist.

Any bit of information on these cards might be used. If a man played golf, that might be a happy moment for a member of the Woman’s Party to talk Suffrage with him. If he had the kind of mother who was an influence in his life, they tried to convert the mother. If it was the wife who was the ruling influence, they tried to convert the wife. They were careful even in regard to brothers. The habits of Congressmen as disclosed by this index were of great importance. Some of them got to their office early, and that was often the best time to speak with them. If a Congressman drank, it was necessary to note that. Then when the lobbyists found him muddled and inarticulate, they knew to what to impute it.

Of course information of a blackmailing order was occasionally offered from outside sources to the Woman’s Party, but, of course, this was always ignored.

From 1916 on, the years in which Maud Younger was in charge of the lobby committee, twenty-two Senators changed their position in favor of Suffrage.

I have said that it was difficult for a Congressman to elude these swift and determined scouts of the Woman’s Party. But harder still was it to elude a something, an unknown quality—an x—which had come into the fourth generation of women to demand enfranchisement. That quality was political-mindedness. Congressmen had undoubtedly before run the gamut of feminine persuasiveness; grace; charm; tact. But here was an army of young Amazons who looked them straight in the eye, who were absolutely informed, who knew their rights, who were not to be frightened by bluster, put off by rudeness, or thwarted either by delay or political trickery. They never lost their tempers and they never gave up. They never took “No” for an answer. They were young and they believed they could do the impossible. And believing it, they accomplished it. Before the six years and a half of campaign of the Woman’s Party was over, Congressman after Congressman, Senator after Senator paid tribute—often a grudged one—to the verve and _élan_ of that campaign.

But though they talked man fashion, eye to eye, the lobbyists, when returned to Headquarters, were full of excellent information and suggestions and all that mysterious by-product which comes from feminine intuition.

III

ORGANIZING

ALTHOUGH it is impossible to do justice to any department of the National Woman’s Party, it seems particularly difficult in the case of the organizers. The reason for this is not far to seek. These young women were turned loose, sometimes quite inexperienced; sometimes only one to a State, with the injunction to come back with their shield or on it. They always came back with their shield—that is to say an organization of some sort in the State they had just left. As has been before stated, the National Woman’s Party has organized in every State in the Union at some time during its history—that is between the years 1912 and 1919. As has also been stated, the organizers divided into three groups—those who worked in the first two years; those who worked in the middle two; those who worked in the last two.

It has been shown with what careful instruction Alice Paul sent these young adventurers into the wide wide world of unorganized States; but perhaps justice has not been done to the trust she placed in them and the consequent extraordinary results. She kept in close telegraphic communication with them all the time—and yet always, she left them free to make big decisions and sudden changes in policy. “She made us feel that we could do it in the first place,” one of them said to me, “and somehow we did. That sense we had of her—brooding and hovering back there in Washington—always gave us courage; always gave us the physical strength to do the things we did and the mental strength to make the decisions we made.”

As one looks through the lists of these three groups of organizers, one is astounded at the various kinds of work they did; their versatility. Mabel Vernon for instance. Her activities form an integral part of the Woman’s Party history. Mabel Vernon traveling ahead of Sara Bard Field in her spectacular automobile trip across the country, was more responsible than anybody, except Mrs. Field herself, for the success of that trip. Mabel Vernon challenged the President in the course of his speech at the laying of the corner-stone of the new Headquarters of the American Federation of Labor in Washington. Mabel Vernon was one of the women who dropped the banner in the Senate when the President came to speak before them. Mabel Vernon picketed and went to jail. Mabel Vernon _seems_ to have organized or spoken in every State in the Union.

Elsie Hill, Doris Stevens—you find them everywhere, luminous spirits with a new modern adjunct of political-mindedness. Abby Scott Baker was always on the wing.

One’s mind stops at the names of Vivian Pierce, Lucy Branham, Mary Gertrude Fendall, Hazel Hunkins. How many and what varying and difficult things they did! Vivian Pierce in addition to speaking and organizing and picketing activities, edited the _Suffragist_, and designed the charming tea-room at Headquarters. As for Lucy Branham—she must have seemed a stormy petrel to all opposing forces—she had so much the capacity of being everywhere at once.

When one comes to the last group, a sense—almost of awe—is leavened by a decided sense of amusement. Julia Emory, Betty Gram, Anita Pollitzer, Mary Dubrow, Catherine Flanagan are all _little_ girls. But in Suffrage work, they were active, insistent, and persistent in inverse ratio to their size. In ratification, that legislature was doomed on which any two of them descended.

What they accomplished! Once Alice Paul turned Anita Pollitzer loose on the entire State of Wyoming and Anita Pollitzer brought Wyoming into camp. It is impossible to do justice to all of them, to any of them. But as an example of how they worked, I am quoting from letters written by Anita Pollitzer describing various experiences in her work of organization. I use Miss Pollitzer’s letters, not because they are exceptional but because they are typical. Space will not permit me to do equal justice to any of the others. But perhaps some day all those marvelous narratives will be collected. Miss Pollitzer writes me as follows:

Wyoming

“Campaign against the party in power”—late October, 1918—snow on the ground and no friends in the State—traveled miles to get help of most influential woman, found her lying on the floor of a church with brass tacks and a hammer—She said she was “chairman of the committee on laying carpets in the church,” and that was all she could undertake.

Cheyenne wonderfully beautiful—plains—most exceptional place for campaign purposes—forty minutes between street cars—snow miles high and every woman demanding a separate visit. Influenza epidemic so bad that it was considered immoral for six women to meet in a parlor—only way was to campaign by dodgers and street signs—Got permission from owner of building to put a forty-foot purple, white, and gold sign, suspended it from the most prominent building—Town literally gathered in groups to see it—I got up next morning at seven and sign was down—I had “antagonized”—so I went to call on the Mayor and we toured the town, and rehung the sign on an even more important street, and I had double publicity, the Mayor taking full responsibility for the sign even inquiring if it would “run in the rain.”

Such fearful snow, could get no billboard men to put up my big paper signs outside of the cities, and I wanted them on cross-country roads. I met a woman delivering newspapers, explained our campaign and my difficulties, and she offered us her eighteen-year-old daughter and a box of stickers, and we tramped the automobile roads and papered the tree trunks—Posters.

This is my first National Woman’s Party trip. Wyoming a real adventure—South where I have always lived (Charleston, South Carolina) so utterly unlike—When I went out to mail my thousands of circular letters each night at two A.M. funny Filipino bell boys and other kinds would escort me and carry the thousands of circular letters to mail box. Local post-office _really_ asked me to be “more considerate.”

South Carolina

Getting Senator Pollock’s vote seemed largely a question of getting the farmers of South Carolina. If Pollock (the Progressive) was to beat Senator Smith (the Reactionary) he must please the farm element.

So I journeyed out to Mayesville—arrived on hog-killing day—at the house of Dabs—impressive person, leading farmer of South Carolina. We ate all day, and sat around a glorious fire, and in the afternoon Mr. Dabs wrote a letter that he gave me to take to town to mail that helped more than we’ll ever know. In the letter Dabs spoke for the farmers, urged Pollock to declare for the Suffrage Amendment, and ended, “We farmers are doing little talking but a lot of thinking.”

I always believed if Pollock voted, he would vote “Yes.” But Mrs. William P. Vaughan of Greenville, our State Chairman, and I tramped the State up and down, saying, “There’ll be no vote—unless Pollock declares.”

Finally one night Senator Pollock’s secretary appeared at my hotel in Columbia, and he said, “Don’t say again that Pollock is defeating Suffrage by delay.” I said, “Well, then, get him to declare.” He said, “I’m going to Washington, going tomorrow. Good night. We will have a surprise for you within a week—within three days.” And at once, after weeks and weeks of campaigning, Senator Pollock of South Carolina broke the Conservative record of his State, declared “Yes,” and voted “Yes,” on the freedom of American women.

When it was all over—his vote and our campaign to get him to declare—I came back to Washington, had lunch with him at the Capitol, and sat, while he told me of the numerous people in South Carolina who had asked him to vote “Yes!” “You’ll never know the sentiment that exists in South Carolina,” was all he said. But I felt we knew.

Florida

Getting the South Florida Press Association at its annual meeting to endorse the Federal Suffrage Amendment was marvelous fun—I learned that Senator Trammell had gotten solid support from two counties, and owed this support to a man named Goolsby—editor. So I hired a car and made for Goolsby. He is a very powerful newspaper man. We sat around a log fire, with the wife, a parrot, and a cat, and finally he said he was going in two days to a meeting of the South Florida Press Association, and that he was President. I said, “I’m going too.” He said, “Well, there’s hope while there’s life—they’re against you, but you can try.” I felt that we could do it, talked it all over with him, and said that I would be down to put the resolution in regardless of the results—but that I knew it could pass.

Two days seemed like years. At daybreak—five—I climbed in a Ford and arrived at the Press Conference at ten. Goolsby was the only one I knew. He introduced me to the Resolutions Committee. I sat through speeches and speeches. At noon came a luncheon. The Chairman of the Resolutions Committee took me to that. Then an auto ride all through the orange groves—we got out and picked them, talking Suffrage all the while. Only the Resolutions Committee and I were in the car. The Chairman of the Committee finally said out of a clear sky to the elderly gentleman at my left—a strong anti—“I believe we ought to pass a resolution or something, don’t you, thanking Miss Pollitzer for coming?”—all in joke. I said: “No, but you ought to pass a resolution urging your own Florida Senators to stand behind President Wilson. They’re not.” He said, “They should.” I said, “Well, let’s pass it.” So in the car, speeding along, thanks to the marvelously smooth roads and my luncheon friend—we wrote the resolution. The old editor said, “What? Suffrage!” My young one said, “Yes; Suffrage; standing back of President Wilson.” When we got back, my old editor said: “Say, let’s make that strong—we’ve got to go on record unmistakably for Wilson.” He worked—Goolsby worked—of course the young one worked. I sat and ate oranges. It was all done—in less than fifteen minutes. The Resolutions Committee reported out a glorious resolution, calling on Senators Trammell and Fletcher to support the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, and it passed unanimously. The Resolution read: “Be it resolved that we stand with President Wilson in his advocacy of Woman Suffrage, and we urge our Representatives in Congress to vote for the enfranchisement of women!!!”

The most exciting adventure of my life was “holding up the Florida legislature” till midnight so Governor Catts could send a resolution in asking Trammell and Fletcher (Senators) to vote for Suffrage. I saw Senator Trammell in Washington, and he said he had not decided how he would vote on the Amendment. That his vote would represent “the people”—I asked him if in our government a State legislature didn’t represent “the will of the people.” He said, “Yes, but I don’t intend to instruct my legislature.” I said: “No, but maybe your legislature will instruct you.” I came home and told Miss Paul, who said, “Will you go down to Florida tonight?” and Bertha Arnold and I went. Helen Hunt, a capable young Jacksonville lawyer, joined us, and the campaign began.

It was absolutely essential to get Governor Catts to send in the Resolution, as messages from the Governor only took a majority—others a two-third vote, but we didn’t want this too soon. When we had our votes all there in the Senate, the leader, anti, moved that no new business not already in by noon, could come up at all—the legislature barring everything, to save themselves from Suffrage. This was fearful, as the House was most difficult, and we had planned to attack the Senate first. At four o’clock the last afternoon of the special session, called simply to discuss prohibition, we flew to the Governor’s office. Helen Hunt, a senator, a member of the House, and I got Governor Catts to say he’d send a message at once. 4.30 came—5.30 came—no message. In terror, I flew down. The Governor’s office was locked—I got one of the House to move a night session—we lobbied for that, it carried. The Night Session began at eight—Governor Catts still nowhere to be found. Finally, after phoning his home every five minutes it seemed—I called at ten and they said, “Governor Catts is in bed.”—I said we had to have him. The person who answered the phone said nothing could be done. His secretary had the office keys; he was ill at home; his stenographer had the desk keys; she was at a movie. These obstacles to be overcome, and Governor Catts to be rushed to the Capitol. I flew back to our night session at the Capitol. I sent in a little slip-written message to Mr. Stokes, saying: “Trust us—you said you’d help—keep this session going—filibuster—do anything—don’t let them adjourn.” I stood in the door and saw him nod “All right,” and flew.

Bertha Arnold in a taxi secured the outer key from the secretary—after arousing secretary and encountering a storm.

Helen Hunt in another taxi called for Governor Catts, waited till he got up from bed and dressed, and brought him and his daughter, Ruth, to the Capitol. I meanwhile stopped at a Western Union Office and got a messenger boy. He said, “What am I to take?” I said, “Me!” He knew the way, and together we ran through the streets of Tallahassee at midnight, covered every movie, and had the stenographer paged—brought her and her escort to the Capitol—produced the desk keys—got the resolution. Never was any sound more marvelous than Governor Catts’ thud when he walked up those Capitol steps at midnight—instantly he rushed it up—the door of the House opened—there stood my man Stokes, talking and hoarse. He had kept them there. The secretary announced, “Message from the Governor,” and our resolution was read!

The vote was closer than close—didn’t pass, but they had to stay till the next day at two—we stayed too, and in the morning—of the last day—we got a majority petition from the Florida legislature which showed Trammell and Fletcher that Florida wanted their Suffrage votes.

When I heard that Senator Trammell was arriving in Lakeland, I wired Miss Paul I would stay—Such a hectic and great day. I saw him with four antis in the hotel lobby. He looked dumbfounded, shook hands, discussed the climate, and acted as though I were touristing because Florida was beautiful—but he knew.

Then I went out of his life—but sent others in—all day I got out little delegations to him—the State Senator from that district—his minister—president of the Bank—leading Labor man—his editor. Mr. Trammell’s one day in Lakeland was a Woman’s Party event. I asked Mr. Smailes—a strong Labor man—boyhood friend of Trammell’s, to see him. That night they all came to me at the hotel and each reported his achievement with Park Trammell.

Smailes said: “I looked at him and said, ‘Park—it’s funny you can’t see it and those you were brought up with all can,’ and Park looked at me, and he said, ‘Well, there’s one thing worrying me a little. I don’t want women to get more than their share of electors.’ I just looked at him, and I said: ‘Park, you know Mrs. Smailes don’t want more than her share, but she ain’t got her share yet; that’s what she’s asking for.’”

I said, “Mr. Smailes, what do you think that Senator Trammell will do?” He said, “I don’t know. I’ve known him since we were babies, but he’s a Senator now.”

Helen Hunt met Trammell in Jacksonville when he arrived—on his “one day” to Lakeland. He said, “Where is _she_?” (meaning me). “Is she still in the State?” (Miss Younger thinks this funny because it shows how scared they are of the Woman’s Party—even one of us.)

Virginia

I think our hotel experiences are so funny.

We had a terrible time getting any one to consider taking action on Suffrage ratification at the Special Session. Virginia legislature called just for good roads—I went to Roanoke to see floor-leader Willis (strongest Suffragist in the House) and he announced he was scheduled himself to introduce a bill saying that nothing but good roads would come up. After a morning’s work with Willis, he decided he would bring up Suffrage provided Senator Trinkle agreed. He promised to see Trinkle the next morning, so I decided I’d better see Trinkle that night. Fortunately a train was leaving in ten minutes. I arrived at Wytheville at nine p.m. It was black. Senator Trinkle was on the platform. I picked him out because he was the biggest man obviously and I asked where Senator Trinkle lived and he said, “I am Senator Trinkle.” When my interview was at an end and it was fixed, he said that the last train out had left, and that I should go to the hotel, and say to the owner that he said to give me the best room. To my great consternation, the hotel proprietor escorted me into a room the size of a young stable, which contained six beds, explaining, “This is our best room. I’ll call it a single room for tonight.” Never can I describe the creaks of the empty five beds all night long. It doesn’t sound funny, but it was—I and six beds, some of them double, and a box of Uneeda crackers and Hershey’s milk chocolate.

The way we got the University of Virginia mass-meeting was amusing. I taught art at the University of Virginia Summer School. We had just staged a big pageant at the University. Director Maphis was grateful and said he’d do anything I wanted. That afternoon, Senator Martin arrived in Charlottesville, his home, and so I went to see Mr. Maphis to tell him I wanted Cabell Hall, the real University of Virginia Hall, and he said, “Yes.” I phoned Miss Paul and she sent Lucy Branham—we advertised with huge sheets on the front of each of the eight street cars, in Charlottesville and hand-made slides at movies and posters that my Art classes all were given to do as a “problem.”

The Hall was full and the wonderful old Jeffersonian University held its first Federal Suffrage Mass Meeting and passed resolutions urging Senator Martin to vote for the Amendment. Lucy Branham and I drove to his home the next morning, presented him with the resolutions, and described the meeting of his own constituents to him.

Here perhaps is the place to describe the work of the Political Department, of which Abby Scott Baker was Chairman. The Political Department supplemented the work of the Legislative and Organization Departments. Whenever the work of the National Woman’s Party demanded instant pressure on Congress and on State Legislatures, Alice Paul despatched Mrs. Baker at once to the power who could exert that pressure. She was a kind of perpetual flying envoy for the Woman’s Party.

IV

THE PRESIDENT CAPITULATES AND THE HOUSE SURRENDERS

IT will be remembered that after the eight months in which the Woman’s Party picketed the President, the House of Representatives created a Suffrage Committee in September, 1917. It will also be remembered that during the discussion on the floor, in regard to that Committee, Mr. Pou, Chairman, made the statement that there was no intention of passing the Amendment before the Sixty-sixth Congress. That Congress adjourned on October 6, 1917. Also, it will be remembered that that day, Alice Paul marched over to the White House gates carrying a banner inscribed with the words of the President:

THE TIME HAS COME WHEN WE MUST CONQUER OR SUBMIT. FOR US THERE CAN BE BUT ONE CHOICE. WE HAVE MADE IT.

It will be remembered too that Alice Paul was arrested and sentenced to seven months in jail.

Following the publicity which came from the Woman’s Party speakers all over the country and from the newspapers, protests of all descriptions began to pour into the White House and to the Democratic leaders: letters, resolutions, petitions.

Again it will be remembered that a week before Congress reconvened on December 3, 1917, all the imprisoned women were suddenly released.

In the new Session—a direct reversal of Mr. Pou’s announcement of two months earlier that the House would not pass the Amendment before 1920—a day was set for the vote on the Suffrage Amendment, a week after Congress assembled.

Again, it should be pointed out that all these things happened after those eight months of picketing.

That important day which the House set was January 10, 1918. In September, the Suffragists lacked seventy-three votes of the passage of the Amendment. Naturally all December was spent in working up that vote. The National Woman’s Party secured statements from Republican leaders like Mondell and Kahn, stating the strong Republican support of the measure and blaming the Democrats if it were defeated. The National Woman’s Party worked up the Republican majority from three-quarters of the House to five-sixths. The Democrats began to be frightened at the press statements of the Republicans. They began to work to increase their showing, as they feared the country would blame them if the Amendment were defeated.

But more important than any of these things was the capitulation of the President which won, as the Woman’s Party contended it would, the necessary votes in the house. On January 9, 1919, one year from the day the Inez Milholland Memorial Deputation visited him, President Wilson made his declaration for the Federal Amendment, and on January 10, the Amendment was passed in the House by a vote of two hundred and seventy-four to one hundred and thirty-six.

This important epoch in the history of the Suffrage Movement, Maud Younger describes in her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_.

The atmosphere had changed when I returned to Washington. Republican Congressmen had suddenly realized what an asset to the Republican Party would be their support of Suffrage. Democrats, seeing the blame that would attach to them for its defeat, were becoming alarmed.

“The country is fixing to blame the Democrats,” said Mr. Hull, of Tennessee, very thoughtfully, but not quite thoughtfully enough. As a member of the National Executive Committee of the Democratic Party he was thoughtful. As a Congressman with a vote in the House he was not quite thoughtful enough.

We lacked sixty votes in the House, and had only three weeks to get them. We worked day and night. Our friends in Congress, brightly hopeful, told us we had votes to spare, but we knew the truth. We lacked forty votes, then twenty, then ten, but we kept this to ourselves. Unless something happened we could not win.

Then, on January 9, the day before the vote, it happened. Late on that afternoon the President invited a deputation of Democratic Congressmen to wait on him. Knowing of the appointment, we went through the halls of Congress, on wings, all day. When the Congressmen went into the White House, a small group stood outside in the snow waiting for the first word of that interview. After what seemed an interminable time, the doors opened. Out came cheery Mr. Raker with the news: “The President has declared for the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, and will stay home from his game of golf tomorrow morning to see any Congressman who wishes to consult him about it.” Thus, just a year from the day he had told us we must concert public opinion, President Wilson declared for Suffrage.

There was a feeling of victory in the air as we went through the corridors that night. Yet our secret poll showed that we still lacked votes. We could do nothing more. We could only wait and see how much force the President would put behind his declaration.

Scrub women were still at work with brushes and buckets of soapsuds when I reached the Capitol that fateful morning. From the front row of the gallery we looked down on the floor of the House, with its seven rows of empty seats rising in semi-circular rows like an amphitheatre. A few people scurried here and there, the galleries were rapidly filling. We watched the Congressmen come in, sit down, walk about, or stand in groups talking and looking up at the galleries.

At the stroke of eleven all eyes turned toward the door of the Speaker’s lobby. Chattering ceased. The door opened, and a Roman mace appeared and advanced, supported by the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, who held it in his two hands before him. Very solemn, very mindful of his step, he ascended the three steps to the Speaker’s stand, followed by the Speaker, Champ Clark, dignified and magnificent in a tan frock coat, with a white flower in the buttonhole. Having ascended, the Sergeant-at-Arms laid the mace against the wall where all the Congressmen could look at it, and came down again with a little skip on the last step, while the Speaker impressively faced the House.

Prayer and routine business finished, the speeches began. Most of them were prosy and dull, delivered not for those who heard them, but for constituents hundreds of miles away. In the galleries we listened wearily. We had brought luncheon with us, which we ate as unobtrusively as possible. We would lose our seats if we left them, for through the ground-glass doors we dimly saw waiting multitudes trying to come in. All day the largest crowds the doorkeepers had ever known pressed against the doors. Inside the speeches droned on.

“What a dull ending for such a dramatic struggle,” said a newspaper man, leaning over from the press gallery. I could have wished it had been duller, for we never for an instant forgot we still lacked votes. We did not know how far the President’s message had carried since our last possible poll.

Suddenly a wave of applause and cheers swept over the floor. Every head turned toward the Speaker’s door, and there, on the threshold, we saw Mr. Mann, pale and trembling. For six months he had lain in a hospital—his only visitors his wife and secretary. It had been said that he would never come back to the House. Yet he had come to vote for our Amendment.

Now, through the skylight, we could see that the afternoon had gone, and evening had come. At last the time for speech-making ended and the vote was taken. Forty years to a day from the first introduction of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in Congress, one year exactly from the time the first picket line went to stand before the White House, the Federal Suffrage Amendment passed the House of Representatives. It passed with just one vote to spare. Six votes came to us through the President. He had saved the day!

Outside the doors of the gallery a woman began to sing, _Praise God from whom all blessings flow_. Others took it up, more and more voices joined, and through the halls of the Capitol there swelled our song of gratitude. Louder and louder it rose and soared to the high arches, and was carried out into the night to die away at last in the far distances. And still in our hearts we sang, _Praise God from whom all blessings flow_.

But our minds were not at rest, nor our thoughts quiet. Our victory was worth nothing unless we could consolidate it quickly. To do this we had to win the Senate. And the Senate is farther from the people than the House, and much, much harder to move.

V

FIGHTING FOR VOTES IN THE SENATE

THE House of Representatives passed the Susan B. Anthony Amendment on January 10, 1918, by a vote of two hundred and seventy-four to one hundred and thirty-six. The work of the Woman’s Party was now concentrated on the Senate. They needed only eleven votes there, and many Suffragists were optimistic—they thought victory a matter of but a few weeks. The Woman’s Party knew better. However, in the siege of the Senate, they continued their policy—to work downwards through the President, and upward through constituents and political leaders from the people.

In summing up the situation in the Senate, Alice Paul said:

If the Republicans had the vision to see that it was a wise Party policy to secure the credit for the passage of the Amendment in the House, and the Democrats believed it an unwise Party policy to be responsible for its defeat—the same argument must hold for the vote in the Senate, for while more than two-thirds of the Republicans had already promised their votes, only half the Democrats are at present pledged in the Senate.

The effect of the passing of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in the House was, however, not only profound, but immediate. In February, the Republican National Committee met in St. Louis for the selection of a Chairman. Abby Scott Baker appeared before the committee, urging a favorable stand on the Susan B. Anthony amendment. Two women representing the anti-Suffragists were also to speak. However, when the anti-Suffragist speakers presented themselves before the Committee, they found that it had already voted a resolution commending the stand of the Republican members of the House of Representatives in favor of the Suffrage Amendment. This was the first favorable expression of the National Republican Party on the question of Federal Suffrage.

Minnie Bronson said of the anti-Suffragist members:

I looked round for the thirty members who last night were opposed to Suffrage. I wonder what changed them over night.

Lucy Price, also an anti-Suffragist, asserted:

Your action without even hearing us was worse than a betrayal of us who are opposed to Suffrage. It was an admission that Party pledges are meant to be broken.

The Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee, which met that same day in Washington, held a telegraphic referendum of their entire national committee on the question of the Amendment. It is interesting to note that this was done at the insistence of the Democratic woman who had charge of the Democratic campaign among women in 1916, when the Woman’s Party made Suffrage the great issue. This telegraphic referendum showed more than a two to one desire for the national committee to take action that would put it on record as “urging the support” of the Amendment. The Executive Committee, therefore, adopted the resolution, endorsing the Federal Suffrage measure, and by a vote of five to two, calling upon the Senate to act at once favorably upon it.

For months thereafter, the Woman’s Party concentrated on obtaining the necessary eleven votes in the Senate. It was a period of comparative calm. There was no militant action of any kind. The pickets had all been released in December, and, although the appeal cases were coming up in the courts at intervals, picketing seemed an abandoned weapon.

In her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_, Maud Younger describes very delightfully how the first nine votes were obtained:

“We should get Senator Phelan now,” said Miss Paul. “He opposed Federal Suffrage because the President did. Now that the President has come out for it, Senator Phelan should do so. Send for him.”

I sent in my card and he came at once, very neat in a cut-away coat, his eyes smiling above his trimmed sandy beard. “Of course I’ll vote for the Amendment,” he said, as though he had never thought of anything else. He was plainly glad to have an excuse for changing his position.

“That leaves ten to get,” said Miss Paul. “Let’s go and see Senator McCumber.” The Senator from North Dakota is sandy and Scotch and cautious, and, like many other Senators, thinks it would be weak and vacillating to change his opinion.

“I voted against it in 1914. I cannot vote for it in 1918,” he said. “I cannot change my principles.”

“But you can change your mind?”

“No, I could not do that.”

“Then you might change your vote,” said I, urging progress. He, too, saw progress, but was wary of it. Looking cautiously around the room and back of us, he said slowly, “If the legislature of my State should ask me to vote for it, I would feel obliged to do so.”

That same night Beulah Amidon telegraphed to North Dakota,—her own State—to the Chairman of the Republican Party and the Non-Partisan League that controls the Legislature; to her father, Judge Amidon, and to others. The Legislature immediately passed a resolution calling on Senator McCumber to vote for our Amendment. Miss Amidon went to see him at once, with the news.

“But I haven’t seen how the resolution is worded yet,” said Senator McCumber cannily.

When the resolution arrived some one else went to see him.

“I want to look it over carefully,” he said. When he had looked it over carefully, he admitted, “I will vote for the Amendment. But to show loyalty both to constituents and principle,” he added hastily, “I will speak against it, and vote for it.”

“That leaves nine to get,” said Miss Paul, counting Senator McCumber off on her little finger and turning to a list of other legislatures in session. The difficulty was that the legislatures in session did not fit the Senators whose votes we must get. Mildred Glines, our Rhode Island chairman, was at our Headquarters, and Senator Gerry of Rhode Island was at the Capitol, and not for our Amendment. So Mildred Glines set out at once for Rhode Island, where she had a resolution presented and passed, and returned with it to Senator Gerry.

Then I went to see his colleague, Senator Colt. A scholarly-looking man, he sat at his desk deep in some volume of ancient lore. Arguing with himself while I sat listening, he stated the case for Suffrage and Senator Gerry. “But on the other hand,” he said—and then stated the other side.

“Yes,” he concluded deliberately, but with a twinkle in his eye, “Peter will vote for it.”

“That leaves eight to get,” said Miss Paul, very thoughtfully. “Have you seen Senator King lately?”

Though Senator King is not unpleasant to talk with, if one does not broach subjects controversial, persons who appealed to his reason had succeeded only in ruffling his manners. He smiled blandly and, leaning back in his chair, began what he believed to be a perfect case. “I’ve always been opposed to national Suffrage. I said so in my campaign, and the people elected me.”

We must appeal to his constituents. But how? His Legislature was not in session. Alice Henkle went post-haste to Utah, and at once newspapers began to publish editorials; all sorts of organizations, civic, patriotic, religious, educational, social, began to pass resolutions. Letters poured in upon Senator King. But always Miss Henkle wrote us, “They tell me everywhere that it’s no use; that Senator King is so ‘hard-shelled’ that I might as well stop.”

“Go to the Capitol and see,” said Miss Alice Paul.

I had just entered the revolving door when Senator Sheppard, hurrying past, stopped to say, “Do you know King is coming around! I think we may get his vote.”

So Miss Paul wired Alice Henkle that night: “Redouble efforts. They are having good effect.” Four weeks later, three Senators told me that Senator King had said in the cloak room, “I’m as much opposed to Federal Suffrage as ever, but I think I’ll vote for it. My constituents want me to.”

“That leaves six to get,” said Miss Paul, “counting Senator Culberson too.” For while we had been busy in Washington, Doris Stevens and Clara Wolfe had been busy in Texas on the trail of Senator Culberson.

The national committees of both political parties had taken a stand for Federal Suffrage in February. Also, Colonel Roosevelt and other Republican leaders were writing to Senators whose names we furnished, urging their support.

“Now,” said Senator Curtis, smiling, “I think we’ll get Harding and Sutherland. They both want to vote for it, but their States are against it. I’ll go see them again. Keep the backfires burning in their States.”

Senator Curtis has the dark hair and skin of Indian ancestry, and perhaps his Indian blood has given him his quick sense of a situation and his knowledge of men. Without quite knowing how it happened—it may have been his interest in listening or his wisdom in advising—he had become the guiding friend, the storm-center of our work on the Republican side of the Senate.

“Colonel Roosevelt has written to Senator Sutherland too,” I thought hopefully, while I sat waiting for him in the marble room. He came out, and said almost at once, “I’ve just had a letter from Colonel Roosevelt asking me to vote for your Amendment!”

“Have you?” said I.

“Yes. But I wish he had told me how I can do it, when the overwhelming sentiment of my State is against it.” I spoke of something else, but that night I reported this remark to Doris Stevens and Abby Scott Baker. Both of them immediately wrote to Colonel Roosevelt. Later, I again saw Senator Sutherland. He had evidently forgotten our former conversation.

“I’ve had a letter from Colonel Roosevelt about your Amendment,” he said. “It’s the second time he has written to me about it. He wants me to come to Oyster Bay so he can give me reasons for voting for it.”

“I should think it would be awfully interesting to go,” I encouraged gently. And soon we checked off Senator Sutherland’s name on our lists, and said, “Five more to get.”

“Do you think we can get Borah?” I asked Senator Curtis. “He’s one of the fathers of the Amendment. He introduced it in 1910.”

“He says he did that by request.”

“It doesn’t say so in the Record. Doesn’t a man always say so when it is so?”

“That is usual,” said Senator Curtis, stroking his mustache and not meeting my eyes, and I knew he said only half of what he thought.

“I think I’ll go and see him at once.”

Senator Borah is a most approachable person, but when you have approached, you cannot be sure you have reached. You see him sitting at his desk, a large unferocious, bulldog type of man, simple in manner. You talk with him, and you think he is with you through and through.... But you never quite know.... Sometimes you wonder if _he_ knows.

In April, Senator Gallinger told Miss Paul that the Republicans counted four more votes for Suffrage—Kellogg, Harding, Page, and Borah. “We understand Borah will vote for the Amendment if it will not pass otherwise. But he will not vote for it if it will pass without him. But if his vote will carry it, he will vote for it.”

Thus far we had come on our journey toward the eleven, when Senator Andreus Aristides Jones of New Mexico, Chairman of the Woman Suffrage Committee, rose in the Senate and announced that on May 10 he would move to take up the Suffrage resolution. There was great rejoicing. We thought that now the Administration would get the needed votes.

Indeed, with only two votes more to get, everything looked promising.

* * * * *

In May, members of the Woman’s Committee of the Council of National Defense were received by the President and Mrs. Wilson.

Florence Bayard Hilles, State Chairman in Delaware for the National Woman’s Party, who had campaigned for the Liberty Loan throughout her State, and was then working in the Bethlehem Steel Plant, as a munition maker, said to the President:

Mr. President, it would be a great inspiration to all of us in our war work if you would help towards our immediate enfranchisement.

Behind Mrs. Hilles came Mrs. Arthur Kellam, who is Chairman of the Woman’s Party in New Mexico, who said:

Mr. President, we, women of the West, are growing very restless indeed waiting for the long-delayed passage of the Federal Suffrage Amendment. Won’t you help to secure this recognition of citizens? The women of New Mexico and many other States have no redress save through the Federal Amendment. They are eagerly waiting for action on this measure in the Senate. Will you help us?

The President, with marked cordiality, answered:

“I will. I will do all I can.”

In the meantime, the President was receiving picturesque groups of many descriptions: Pershing’s Veterans went to the White House; the Blue Devils of France. Finally a group of women munition workers from the Bethlehem Plant, led by Florence Bayard Hilles, came to Washington to see the President in regard to Suffrage. They were: Catherine Boyle; Ada Walling; Mary Gonzon; Lula Patterson; Marie McKenzie; Isabel C. Aniba; Lilian Jerrold; Mary Campbell; Mildred Peck; Ida Lennox. The experience of the war workers was amusing. They wrote at once asking for an interview with the President. Mr. Tumulty responded saying that the President bade him to tell them that “nothing you or your associates could say could possibly increase his very deep interest in this matter.”

Mrs. Aniba despatched an answer, again asking for an interview. She said among other things:

The work I do is making detonators, handling TNT, the highest of all explosives. We want to be recognized by our country as much her citizens as soldiers are.

Every day this little group went to the White House and sat, waiting. They made a picturesque detail in the exceedingly picturesque war flood surging through the White House, wearing bands printed with the words, _munition workers_ on their arm and their identification badges. They knitted all the time. At first, one of the secretaries explained to them, “You are very foolish. You may have to wait for weeks. Even Lord Reading had to come back four times before he saw the President!”

Later, an under-secretary said: “You are becoming a nuisance. Other people have more consideration than to keep coming back; but you persist and persist.”

“Even Lord Reading had to come back four times before he saw the President,” quoted one of the munition girls.

They waited two weeks, but in the end they had to go back to work. They wrote a letter to the Senate, however, which was read there.

May 10 approached. I resume Miss Younger’s narrative:

When the proper time arrived next day, Senator Andreus Aristides Jones arose in his place. The galleries were packed. Our forces were all present except the three missing votes. There was Senator Smith of Michigan, who had come from California; Senator Smith of Arizona, who had left a sick relative to be present for the vote; and there were others who had come from far and wide. Senator Jones in the hush of a great moment, rose and announced that he would not call up the Amendment that day.

Our opponents looked at him and, grinning, taunted: “Haven’t you got the votes?” “We want to vote today.” “We’re ready now.”

Finally the women filed out of the galleries and went home, and the Senate resumed its usual business.

Later, however, Senator Jones announced that on June 27 he would take up the Suffrage Resolution.

Miss Younger says:

Senator Jones does not act on mad impulse. No one could imagine that placid, unhurried man buckling on his armor and brandishing his sword to lead his forces a second time up a blind alley only to lead them back again. Senator Jones was a strong Administration man and would not act without approval.

Moreover, he was a sincere Suffragist. In fact, he was a Father of the Amendment. So we kept at work, aiding and abetting all its Fathers. For the disabilities of fathers are manifest when you compare them with mothers. A father is so casual, especially when his child is an Amendment to the Constitution.

“Nagging!” said Senator Lenroot viciously, when I asked him to speak to Senator Borah. “If you women would only stop nagging!” And making a savage face at me, he hurried down the hall.

I stood still. It was but the second time we had spoken to him since he had come to the Senate. I wondered if he thought we liked “nagging”; if we liked going to the Capitol day after day, tramping on marble floors, waiting in ante-rooms—sometimes rebuffed, sometimes snarled at. I wondered if he thought we could do it for anything but a great cause—for the thousands of women toiling in the factories, for the thousands struggling under burdens at home. And then I bit my lips to keep back the tears, and putting aside such uncomfortable things as feelings, and putting forward such solacing things as a lace jabot and a smile, I sent for another Senator.

Senator Martin, of silvery white hair and determined manner would not sit down and talk Suffrage, nor would he stand up and talk Suffrage. The only way to discuss Suffrage with Senator Martin was to run beside him down the hall.

“The good women of Virginia do not want Suffrage,” he said, breaking almost into a trot, with eyes on his goal, which was an elevator.

“But if you were convinced that the good women of Virginia do want it?” you replied, breaking almost into a run, with your eyes on him.

“It’s only the professional agitators I hear from,” he answered.

It is interesting to talk Suffrage with Senator Martin, and very good exercise. But it was still more interesting to watch a deputation of good Virginia women talking to him.

“Every one knows where I stand, and yet the ladies waylay me all about the halls,” he complained. Yet when we had spoken before the Platform Committee of the Democratic Convention in St. Louis, he told me: “I said to those men, ‘There isn’t an equal number of you that could make as good speeches as those women made.’” So he was not to be considered as hopeless, though the path to his salvation was a strenuous one.

In June, Carrie Chapman Catt, President of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance, transmitted to the President a memorial from the French Union for Woman Suffrage asking him in one of his messages to proclaim the principle of Woman Suffrage to be one of the fundamental rights of the future.

The President replied in the following letter:

I have read your message with the deepest interest, and I welcome the opportunity to say that I agree, without reservation, that the full and sincere democratic reconstruction of the world, for which we are striving, and which we are determined to bring about at any cost, will not have been completely or adequately attained until women are admitted to the Suffrage. And that only by this action can the nations of the world realize for the benefit of future generations the full ideal force of opinion, or the full humane forces of action.

The services of women during this supreme crisis of the world’s history have been of the most signal usefulness and distinction. The war could not have been fought without them or its sacrifices endured. It is high time that some part of our debt of gratitude to them should be acknowledged and paid, and the only acknowledgment they ask is their admission to the Suffrage. Can we justly refuse it?

As for America, it is my earnest hope that the Senate of the United States will give unmistakable answer to this question by passing the Suffrage Amendment to our Federal Constitution before the end of this session.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

Miss Younger says:

The twenty-seventh of June approached. Again we were in the marble room talking with Senators. Absentees were on trains hurrying to Washington. The antis were in the reception room knitting votes into their wool. The Capitol thrilled with excitement. Even the Senators seemed to feel it. This time Sutherland would vote “yea,” and several opponents were absent. If none of them paired with a Suffrage Senator we could just manage the necessary majority. And the White House was taking a hand. Senator James of Kentucky, in a Baltimore hospital, had promised Mr. Tumulty that he would not pair—that is, that he would not ask a Suffrage Senator to refrain from voting to counterbalance his own enforced absence. Victory seemed in our hands.

The day arrived. The galleries were filled. The Senators came in all dressed up for the occasion—here a gay waistcoat or a bright tie, there a flower in a buttonhole, yonder an elegant frock coat over gray trousers.

Senator Jones arose to take up the Amendment. At once opposition developed. Our opponents were willing to have a vote, provided all absentees could be paired. Now, if all absentees were counted, we would not have enough votes. Senator James’ promise not to vote had given us our majority. But, stunned, we heard Senator Underwood read a telegram from Senator James pleading that some Suffragist pair with him. Senator Underwood said he had just confirmed the telegram. It was not until too late that we learned the truth. The telegram had been sent six weeks earlier for another occasion.

And now Senator Reed had the floor. “Oh, who will pair with Ollie James?” he cried. “That n-o-oble Ollie James! You all know that great, fine, noble specimen of manhood, Ollie James! A pair! A pair!” he cried with tears in his voice and arms outstretched. He went on and on.

We leaned over the balcony and watched Senator Curtis pleading with Borah, urging him to vote for us and save our Amendment. We watched breathlessly. We saw Borah listen, smile, and then, without a word, rise and walk slowly out of the room. We flew down to Senator Curtis.

“No, Borah won’t do it. They say King is going to. Reed won’t give up the floor unless we withdraw or furnish a pair. He and his friends will hold the floor for weeks, if necessary. And the military bill must pass before July first. The army needs money. You can see for yourself what’s happening. It’s a filibuster.”

Reed was still talking. They say he knows about a great many subjects, and I think he talked about all he knew that day. But nobody will ever know what they were, for no one listened; and he never allowed the speech to be printed in the Record.

Finally Senator Jones arose and withdrew the motion to take up Suffrage. Senator Reed, satisfied, sat down. His filibuster had succeeded. He had threatened to hold up the military bill to defeat us, so we had withdrawn. The Senate took up the military bill, and we went home.

“Suffrage is dead for this session,” said Senator McKellar. “The Senators don’t like being nagged any more. They are all very tired of it.”

But the Woman’s Party did not think it was dead. They worked at their usual strenuous pace all summer long. They did feel, however, that if the President had exerted himself, he could have obtained the two necessary votes for the Amendment to pass. They were, moreover, highly indignant over the filibuster of a Democratic Senator—Reed. Their patience was beginning to wear thin.

* * * * *

In the meantime, the primary Senatorial elections were coming up, and the President was taking an active part in them. He was working against Senator Vardaman of Mississippi and Senator Hardwick of Georgia, both Democrats of course and Vardaman a Suffragist. In other States, he helped to elect anti-Suffragists in the places of Suffragists. It is true that the President threw a sop to the Suffragists in that he asked Senator Shields of Tennessee to come out for Suffrage. The Shields incident is interesting.

Senator Shields was making it his sole issue in the primary campaign that he would carry out all the President’s war policies. Opposing Senator Shields was Governor Rye, a Democrat of course, and a Suffragist.

Maud Younger called at the White House on Secretary Tumulty one day to ask him if the President could not do something further for Suffrage. Mr. Tumulty’s answer was to read a letter from President Wilson to Senator Shields, asking him to vote for the Suffrage Amendment. Maud Younger, with characteristic political astuteness, saw at once the possibilities in the publication of that letter. She asked Mr. Tumulty for a copy and Mr. Tumulty, with a sudden sense of indiscretion, refused. However, Miss Younger went back instantly with the story to Headquarters, and presently Sue White and Lucy Branham became very busy—oh, very busy indeed—in the Tennessee campaign.

On July 26, Senator Shields notified the Suffragists in Tennessee that he would see them at three that afternoon. He told the fifty women who gathered to meet him that “he would hold the matter in consideration.” The same day a Columbia paper carried the story that President Wilson had requested Senator Shields by letter to vote for Suffrage. This brought the whole month-old correspondence before the public.

The letters ran as follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON.

June 20, 1918.

MY DEAR SENATOR:

I feel so deeply the possibilities latent in the vote which is presently to be taken by the Senate on the Suffrage Amendment that I am going to take a liberty which in ordinary circumstances I should not feel justified in taking, and ask you very frankly if it will not be possible for you to vote for the Amendment. I feel that much of the morale of this country and of the world will repose in our sincere adherence to democratic principles, will depend upon the action which the Senate takes in this now critically important matter. If it were merely a domestic question, or if the times were normal, I would not feel that I could make a direct request of this sort, but the times are so far from normal, the fortunes of nations are so linked together, the reactions upon the thought of the world are so sharp and involve such momentous issues that I know that you will indulge my unusual course of action and permit me to beg very earnestly that you will lend your aid in clearing away the difficulties which will undoubtedly beset us if the Amendment is not adopted. With much respect,

Sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

June 25, 1918.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

Your valued letter concerning the joint resolution proposing an Amendment on the Federal Constitution favoring Equal Suffrage, now pending in the United States Senate, has challenged my most thoughtful consideration, as do all your views upon public matters. The resolution involves fundamental questions affecting the sovereignty and powers of the Federal and State governments, most important and vital to the people of the State which I have the honor in part to represent in the United States Senate, and those of States with which they are closely allied in all social, economical, and governmental interests, upon which I have most profound convictions, unfavorable to it, known, and I believe approved, by the great majority of the people of Tennessee—arrived at after full consideration of conditions existing when I voted against a similar one some years ago and those now confronting our country. The reasons for my conclusions are those controlling the majority of my colleagues from the Southern States, well known to you and which would not be interesting to here re-state.

If I could bring myself to believe that the adoption of the Resolution would contribute to the successful prosecution of the war we are waging with Germany, I would unhesitatingly vote for it, because my whole heart and soul is involved in bringing it to a victorious issue and I am willing to sacrifice everything save the honor and freedom of our country in aiding you to accomplish that end. But I have been unable to do so. We cannot reasonably expect the proposed Amendment to be ratified within less than two years and the discussion of it would, unquestionably, divert the minds and energies of the people from the one great absorbing subject before us—the winning of the war—by involving those of many States in a most bitter controversy contrary to our earnest desire for that unity of thought and action of the American people now so imperatively required.

These are my sincere convictions, but, out of my very high respect for your views, I will continue to give your suggestion my most thoughtful and earnest consideration.

With the highest respect, I am,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN K. SHIELDS.

WASHINGTON, D. C.

June 26, 1918.

Thank you very sincerely for your frank letter of yesterday about the Suffrage Amendment. I realize the weight of argument that has controlled your attitude in the matter, and I would not have written as I did if I had not thought that the passage of the Amendment at this time was an essential psychological element in the conduct of the war for democracy. I am led by a single sentence in your letter, therefore, to write to say that I do earnestly believe that our acting upon this Amendment will have an important and immediate influence upon the whole atmosphere and morale of the nations engaged in the war, and every day I am coming to see how supremely important that side of the whole thing is. We can win if we have the will to win.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

Many believe that had President Wilson—in regard to Suffrage—gone over Shields’ head to his constituents as—in regard to other war policies—he had gone over the heads of Vardaman and Hardwick to their constituents, Senator Shields would have declared in favor of Suffrage.

On August 2, a letter written by the President to Senator Baird of New Jersey was made public:

The President writes:

The whole subject of Woman Suffrage has been very much in my mind of late and has come to seem to be a part of the international situation, as well as of capital importance to the United States. I believe our present position as champions of democracy throughout the world would be greatly strengthened if the Senate would follow the example of the House of Representatives in passing the pending Amendment. I, therefore, take the liberty of writing to call the matter to your serious attention in this light and to express the hope that you will deem it wise to throw your influence on the side of this great and now critical reform.

(Signed) WOODROW WILSON.

In spite of these letters, which of course were mere requests, Alice Paul well knew, as did the Senators themselves, that President Wilson was doing a little for Suffrage, but not all he could. He was not of course doing for the Suffrage Amendment a tithe of what he did for other measures in whose success he was interested. Nothing continued to happen with monotonous, unfailing regularity.

The Woman’s Party could wait no longer.

VI

BURNING THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS

AT half-past four on Tuesday afternoon, August 6, a line of nearly one hundred women emerged from Headquarters, crossed the other side of the street to the Park; turned into Pennsylvania Avenue. At the head of the long line floated the red, white, and blue of the American flag carried by Hazel Hunkins. Behind it came, banner after banner and banner after banner, the purple, white, and gold of the National Woman’s Party tri-color. The line proceeded along Pennsylvania Avenue until it came to the statue of Lafayette just opposite the east gate of the White House. All along the way, the crowds cheered and applauded the women; soldiers and sailors saluted the red, white, and blue as it passed.

At the Lafayette monument, two banner bearers emerged from the group; and stationed themselves on the platform at the base of the statue.

One of them, Mary Gertrude Fendall, bore Inez Milholland’s banner, inscribed with her memorable last words:

HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

The other, borne by Clara Wold and Blanche McPherson, carried what was really the message of the meeting:

WE PROTEST AGAINST THE CONTINUED DISFRANCHISEMENT OF AMERICAN WOMEN, FOR WHICH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS RESPONSIBLE.

WE CONDEMN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PARTY FOR ALLOWING THE OBSTRUCTION OF SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE.

WE DEPLORE THE WEAKNESS OF PRESIDENT WILSON IN PERMITTING THE SENATE TO LINE ITSELF WITH THE PRUSSIAN REICHSTAG BY DENYING DEMOCRACY TO THE PEOPLE WE DEMAND THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PARTY SECURE THE PASSAGE OF THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT THROUGH THE SENATE IN THE PRESENT SESSION. The other banner bearers marched to both sides of the statue where they made solid banks of vivid color. Mrs. Lawrence Lewis stepped forward. “We are here,” she said, “because when our country is at war for liberty and democracy....”

At the word “democracy,” the police, who had been drawing nearer and nearer, placed her under arrest. Other women standing about her were arrested, although they had not even spoken.

For a moment there was a complete silence.

Then Hazel Hunkins, who had led the line carrying the American flag, leaped upon the base of the statue and said:

Here, at the statue of Lafayette, who fought for the liberty of this country, and under the American flag, I am asking for the enfranchisement of American women.

She was immediately arrested. Another woman took her place, and she was arrested; another; and another; and on and on, until forty-seven women had been taken into custody.

Alice Paul, who had not participated in the parade, was standing in the middle of the street, watching and listening. She had no banner. She had not spoken. She had not moved. But a policeman, pointing at her, said: “That is the leader; get her!” And she was arrested.

Many women asked on what charge they were arrested. “Do not answer them! Do not tell them anything!” said a policeman. Others answered with very labored charges, which were not substantiated later by Police Headquarters. Patrol wagon after patrol wagon appeared, was filled with women, and dashed off, followed by the purple, white, and gold flutter of the banners.

When Hazel Hunkins was arrested, she forbade the policemen to take the American flag which she carried from her. At the Municipal Building, she refused to relinquish it. After the preliminaries of their arrest were over and the women released on bail, they marched back in an unbroken line behind Hazel’s flag.

The arrested women were the following:

Hazel Adams, Eva E. Sturtevant, Pauline Clarke, Blanche A. McPherson, Katherine R. Fisher, Rose Lieberson, Alice Kimball, Matilda Terrace, Lucy Burns, Edith Ainge, May Sullivan, Mary Gertrude Fendall, Julia Emory, Anna Kuhn, Gladys Greiner, Martha W. Moore, Cora Crawford, Dr. Sarah Hunt Lockrey, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Ellen Winsor, Mary Winsor, Mrs. Edmund C. Evans, Christine M. Doyle, Kate Cleaver Heffelfinger, Lavinia Dock, Harriet Keehn, Alice Paul, Mary E. Dubrow, Lillian M. Ascough, Edna M. Purtelle, Ruby E. Koeing, Elsie Hill, Helena Hill Weed, Eleanor Hill Weed, Mrs. Gilson Gardner, Sophie G. Meredith, Louise M. Black, Agnes Chase, Kate J. Boeckh, Hazel Hunkins, Cora Wold, Clara P. Wold, Margaret Oakes, Mollie Marie Green, Gertrude Lynde Crocker, Effie Boutwell Main, Annie Arniel, Emily Burke Main.

The forty-seven were ordered to appear in court the next morning at half-past nine. The United States attorney told them, when he arrived at 10:30, that the case was postponed for a week. The police clerk told Clara Wold that she was arrested “for climbing the statue.”

Clara Wold describes her subsequent experiences when, dismissed by the court, she walked to Headquarters past the Lafayette monument, “there sat a colored man on the very same ledge—basket, bundles, and papers strewn about him as he comfortably devoured a sandwich.”

Lafayette Park was not under the District of Columbia, but directly under the President’s military aide—Colonel Ridley, who was also Superintendent of Public Buildings and grounds in Washington.

On August 13, the women appeared in the Federal Police Court, as ordered, for trial. The charge had been decided on; “For holding a meeting in public grounds.” But again the Court announced postponement until August 15.

After vigorous protests by the Suffragists against further delay, the cases of the eighteen, who were charged in addition with “climbing a statue,” were tried separately.

The women had no lawyers. Each spoke on her own behalf. They defended themselves on the ground of the constitutional right of free assemblage and appeal to the Government for the redress of grievances. They all pleaded, Not Guilty. Many of them added that they did not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. Hazel Hunkins explained: “Women cannot be law-breakers until they are law-makers.”

One of the witnesses was the Chief Clerk of Public Grounds, an elderly man. Elsie Hill suddenly asked him when he had taken office. He replied, “In 1878.” “Do you realize,” Miss Hill said, “that in that year a Federal Suffrage Amendment was introduced, and that since then women have been helping to pay your salary and that of other government officials under protest?” The Chief Clerk was so astounded that he merely shook his head.

The trial of the remainder of the women on the charge of “holding a meeting on public grounds” took place on August 15.

At the very beginning of proceedings Alice Paul said:

As a disfranchised class we feel that we are not subject to the jurisdiction of this court and therefore refuse to take any part in its proceedings. We also feel that we have done nothing to justify our being brought before it.

They then sat down and refused to answer any question put to them.

The judge was utterly nonplussed by this situation. He said that he would call a recess of fifteen minutes to consider the question of contempt. Among the spectators who packed the room was a lawyer—a visitor in Washington. He extracted a great deal of enjoyment out of this occasion, because, he said, “if the women are not afraid of jail, there is nothing the judge can do.” He awaited the judge’s decision with an entertained anticipation. Apparently the judge came to the same decision, for at the end of fifteen minutes, the Court reconvened and the trial went on as though nothing had happened.

The women refused to rise when charged. They refused to plead Guilty or Not Guilty. They sat and read, or knitted, or, as the proceedings bored them, fell asleep. The Park Police were, of course, the only witnesses. At last all the women whom they could identify were found Guilty. They were sentenced to pay fines of five or ten dollars or to serve in prison ten or fifteen days. They all refused to pay the fine. Mary Winsor said: “It is quite enough to pay taxes when you are not represented, let alone pay a fine if you object to this arrangement.” The prisoners were then bundled in the Black Maria and taken off to prison.

Before the pickets were released from prison at the end of the previous year, Superintendent Zinkham said to them:

Now don’t come back, for, if you do, I will have a far worse place than the jail fixed up for you. I will have the old workhouse fixed up for you, and you will have cells without sunlight, with windows high up from the ground. You won’t be as comfortable as you are here.

Everything happened as Superintendent Zinkham prophesied, and a great deal more that was worse. The old workhouse which he had promised them had been condemned in Roosevelt’s Administration, and had not been used for years. The lower tier of cells was below the level of the ground. The doors of the cells were partly of solid steel and only partly of grating, so that little light penetrated. The wash basin was small and inadequate. The toilet was open, the cots were of iron and without springs, and with a thin straw mattress on them. Outside, they left behind a day so hot as to be almost insupportable, but in the Workhouse, it was so cold that their teeth chattered. It was damp all the time. When the present writer visited this old Workhouse in October, 1919, beads of water hung on everything. The walls were like the outside of an ice water pitcher in summer. Several of the pickets developed rheumatism. But the unendurable thing about it was the stench which came in great gusts; component of all that its past history had left behind and of the closeness of the unaired atmosphere. Apparently something was wrong with the water, or perhaps it was that the pipes had not been used for years. Most of the women believe they suffered with lead poisoning. They ached all over; endured a violent nausea; chills.

However, all the twenty-six, with the exception of two elderly women, went on hunger-strikes. Lucy Burns presented a demand on behalf of the entire company to Superintendent Zinkham. She said: “We must have twenty-three more blankets and twenty-three hot-water bottles. This place is cold and unfit for human habitation.”

“I know it is cold and damp,” he replied, “but you can all get out of here by paying your fines.”

* * * * *

The Woman’s Party showed their usual ingenuity in bringing these conditions before the public. As fast as women were arrested, their State Senators and Representatives were besieged by letters and telegrams from home urging them to go to see these imprisoned constituents. The Press of their district made editorial question or comment. As long as this imprisoning of the pickets continued, there was a file of Representatives and Senators visiting the victims. Senator Jones of Washington was the first outside visitor to see them.

* * * * *

In the meantime, another meeting of protest, held at the Lafayette Monument on August 12, with the same speakers and many of the same banner bearers, was broken up by the police.

A curious feature of this case was that at Police Headquarters the police decided to confiscate, along with the banners, the Suffragist regalia—a sash of purple, white, and gold without any lettering whatever. The women refused to relinquish these sashes, and there was in every case a struggle, in which wrists were twisted, fingers sprained; bruises and cuts of all kinds administered. All the thirty-eight women were, however, released unconditionally.

* * * * *

On August 14, the women held two meetings of protest at the Lafayette Monument—one at half-past four in the afternoon, and one at eight o’clock in the evening.

This double protest came about in this way.

At the afternoon demonstration, the women were immediately arrested. They were held at Police Headquarters for two hours. The authorities feeling then that the hour was too late for further demonstrations, released them. They did not require bail, or a promise to appear in Court.

The women went at once to Headquarters, snatched a hasty dinner; slipped quietly out of the building, and marched to the Lafayette Monument. Everybody agrees that this evening demonstration was very beautiful. It was held in the soft dusk of the Washington August. The crescent moon, which seemed tangled in the trees of the park, gave enough light to bring out the Suffrage tri-color and the Stars and Stripes. As the women gathered closer and closer around the statue, the effect was of color, smudged with shadow; of shadow illuminated with color.

Elsie Hill, carrying the American flag in one hand, and the purple, white, and gold banner in the other spoke first; spoke wonderfully—as Elsie Hill always spoke. She said in part:

We know that our protest is in harmony with the belief of President Wilson, for he has stood before the world for the right of the governed to a voice in their own government. We resent the fact that the soldiers of our country, the men drafted to fight Prussia abroad, are used instead to help still the demand of American women for political freedom. We resent the suppression of our demands but our voices will carry across the country and down through time. The world will know that the women of America demand the passage of the Federal Suffrage Amendment and that the President insists that the Senate act.

There were only two policemen on duty. For two policemen to try to arrest nine lively and athletic pickets was a little like a scene in _Alice in Wonderland_. They would pull one woman down from the statue, start to get another, whereupon the first would be back again with her flying banner.

Finally, the police reserves arrived, but every woman had managed to make a speech.

* * * * *

While the Suffragists were still in the old Workhouse, Alice Paul, following her usual system of complete publicity, had announced another protest meeting at the Lafayette Monument.

Later Alice Paul received a letter from Colonel Ridley:

I have been advised that you desire to hold a demonstration in Lafayette Square on Thursday, August 22. By direction of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, you are hereby granted permission to hold this demonstration. You are advised good order must prevail.

Miss Paul replied:

We received yesterday your permit for a Suffrage demonstration in Lafayette Park this afternoon, and are very glad that our meetings are no longer to be interfered with. Because of the illness of so many of our members, due to their treatment in prison this last week, and with the necessity of caring for them at Headquarters, we are planning to hold our next meeting a little later. We have not determined on the exact date but we will inform you of the time as soon as it is decided upon.

As a result of the first series of protest meetings, the Administration had yielded to the point of no longer interfering with the meetings at the Lafayette Monument. But as time went by and neither the Senate nor the President did anything about Suffrage, the National Woman’s Party announced that a protest meeting would be held at the Lafayette Monument on September 16 at four o’clock. Immediately the President announced that he would receive a delegation of Southern and Western Democratic women that day at two.

The same day, September 16, as Maud Younger was coming back from the Capitol to Headquarters, Senator Overman of the Rules Committee came and sat by her in the car. In the course of his conversation, he remarked casually: “I don’t think your bill is coming up this session.”

That afternoon, Abby Scott Baker went to see Senator Jones of New Mexico, Chairman of the Suffrage Committee, to ask him to call a meeting of the Committee to bring Suffrage to the vote. Senator Jones refused. He said he would not bring up the Suffrage Amendment at this session in Congress.

When—still later—that delegation of Southern and Western Democratic women called on the President, he said to them:

I am, as I think you know, heartily in sympathy with you. I have endeavored to assist you in every way in my power, and I shall continue to do so. I shall do all that I can to assist the passage of the Amendment by an early vote.

This was the final touch.

The National Woman’s Party hastily changed the type of its demonstration. Instead of holding a mere meeting of protest, they decided to burn the words which the President had said that very afternoon to the Southern and Western Democratic women. At four o’clock instead of two, forty women marched from Headquarters to the Lafayette Monument. They carried the famous banners: HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY? MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WILL YOU DO FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE? At the Lafayette statue, Bertha Arnold delivered an appeal to Lafayette, written by Mrs. Richard Wainwright and beginning with the famous words of Pershing in France:

Lafayette, we are here!

We, the women of the United States, denied the liberty which you helped to gain, and for which we have asked in vain for sixty years, turn to you to plead for us.

Speak, Lafayette! Dead these hundred years but still living in the hearts of the American people. Speak again to plead for us, condemned like the bronze woman at your feet, to a silent appeal. She offers you a sword. Will you not use the sword of the spirit, mightier far than the sword she holds out to you?

Will you not ask the great leader of our democracy to look upon the failure of our beloved country to be in truth the place where every one is free and equal and entitled to a share in the government? Let that outstretched hand of yours pointing to the White House recall to him his words and promises, his trumpet call for all of us to see that the world is made safe for democracy.

As our army now in France spoke to you there, saying, “Here we are to help your country fight for liberty,” will you not speak here and now for us, a little band with no army, no power but justice and right, no strength but in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and win a great victory again in this country by giving us the opportunity we ask to be heard through the Susan B. Anthony Amendment?

Lafayette, we are here!

The police, having no orders to arrest the women, smiled and nodded. And while the crowd that had very quickly gathered applauded, Lucy Branham stepped forward. Beside her was Julia Emory, holding a flaming torch.

“We want action,” Miss Branham stated simply, “not words.” She took the torch from Julia Emory, held the words of the President’s message of that afternoon in the flames. As it burned, she said:

The torch which I hold symbolizes the burning indignation of women who for a hundred years have been given words without action. In the spring our hopes were raised by words much like these from President Wilson, yet they were permitted to be followed by a filibuster against our Amendment on the part of the Democratic Senate leaders.

President Wilson still refuses any real support to the movement for the political freedom of women....

We, therefore, take these empty words, spoken by President Wilson this afternoon, and consign them to the flames.

This is a symbol of the indignation of American women at the treatment given by the President to their plea for democracy.

We have protested to this Administration by banners; we have protested by speeches; we now protest by this symbolic act.

As in the ancient fights for liberty the crusaders for freedom symbolized their protest against those responsible for injustice by consigning their hollow phrases to the flames, so we, on behalf of thousands of Suffragists, in this same way today, protest against the action of the President and his Party in delaying the liberation of American women.

For five years, women have appealed to this President and his Party for political freedom. The President has given words, and words, and words. Today, women receive more words. We announce to the President and the whole world today, by this act of ours, our determination that words shall no longer be the only reply given to American women—our determination that this same democracy, for whose establishment abroad we are making the utmost sacrifice, shall also prevail at home.

Applause greeted these spirited words. As Jessie Hardy Mackaye started to speak, a man in the crowd handed her a twenty-dollar bill for the Woman’s Party. Others began passing money to her. The Suffragists were busy running through the crowd collecting it. The crowd continued to applaud and cheer.

Mrs. Mackaye said:

Against the twofold attitude on the part of the Senate toward democracy, I protest with all the power of my being. The same Congress and the same Administration that are appropriating billions of dollars and enlisting the services of millions of men to establish democracy in Europe, is at the same time refusing to do so common a piece of justice as to vote to submit the Woman Suffrage Amendment to the States.

This was the first time the President’s words were burned.

The President’s car drove up to the door during the progress of this demonstration, and President Wilson stepped in. But instead of going out at the usual gate, the driver turned the car about, so that he could make his exit elsewhere.

VII

THE PRESIDENT APPEALS TO THE SENATE TO PASS THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT

THE very next day occurred a remarkable example of direct action: that direct action coming within twenty-four hours. Senator Jones, who the day before had refused to bring up Suffrage in this session, arose in the Senate and announced that on September 26, he would move to take up the Suffrage Amendment, and keep it before the Senate until a vote was reached.

With this promise of definite action, the Woman’s Party immediately ceased their demonstrations.

On September 26, Senator Jones brought the Amendment up. Maud Younger says, in her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_:

Discussion began. Discussion went on. For five whole days it lasted, with waves of hope and waves of dismay, and always an undercurrent of uncertainty. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, the speeches went on. On Monday word went forth that the President would address the Senate on behalf of our Amendment.

I hurried to Senator Curtis, who was in his office signing letters. He said: “The other side claim that they have their men pledged: that the President comes too late. What do you expect?”

“I don’t know what I should expect. I hope.”

I went over to the Senate. There was very great excitement; a sense of something wonderful impending. On the floor there was the ceremonious atmosphere that attends the President’s coming.

“Look,” said a newspaper man in the gallery beside me, “he’s brought all his heavy artillery with him.” There on the floor of the Senate were the members of the Cabinet. Lesser dignitaries were scattered about the room. Congressmen stood, two-deep, lining the walls. The Sergeant-at-Arms announced in clear tones: “The President of the United States.”

The President came in, shook hands with the presiding officer, turned and read his speech. There is always an evenness about his public utterances, in manner, in voice, in reading; yet I thought he read this message with more feeling than his War message, or his Fourteen Points.

The President said:

Gentlemen of the Senate: The unusual circumstances of a world war in which we stand and are judged in the view not only of our own people and our own consciences but also in the view of all nations and peoples will, I hope, justify in your thought, as it does in mine, the message I have come to bring you.

I regard the concurrence of the Senate in the constitutional Amendment proposing the extension of the Suffrage to women as vitally essential to the successful prosecution of the great war of humanity in which we are engaged. I have come to urge upon you the considerations which have led me to that conclusion. It is not only my privilege, it is also my duty to apprise you of every circumstance and element involved in this momentous struggle which seems to me to affect its very processes and its outcome. It is my duty to win the war and to ask you to remove every obstacle that stands in the way of winning it.

I had assumed that the Senate would concur in the Amendment because no disputable principle is involved but only a question of the method by which the Suffrage is to be extended to women. There is and can be no Party issue involved in it. Both of our great national Parties are pledged, explicitly pledged, to equality of Suffrage for the women of the country.

Neither Party, therefore, it seems to me, can justify hesitation as to the method of obtaining it, can rightfully hesitate to substitute Federal initiative for State initiative, if the early adoption of this measure is necessary to the successful prosecution of the war and if the method of State action proposed in Party platforms of 1916 is impracticable within any reasonable length of time, if practicable at all.

And its adoption is, in my judgment, clearly necessary to the successful prosecution of the war and the successful realization of the object for which the war is being fought.

That judgment I take the liberty of urging upon you with solemn earnestness for reasons which I shall state very frankly and which I shall hope will seem as conclusive to you as they seem to me.

This is a peoples’ war and the peoples’ thinking constitutes its atmosphere and morale, not the predilections of the drawing-room or the political considerations of the caucus.

If we be indeed Democrats and wish to lead the world to democracy, we can ask other peoples to accept in proof of our sincerity and our ability to lead them whither they wish to be led nothing less persuasive and convincing than our actions. Our professions will not suffice. Verification must be forthcoming when verification is asked for. And in this case verification is asked for—asked for in this particular matter. You ask by whom?

Not through diplomatic channels; not by foreign ministers. Not by the intimations of parliaments. It is asked for by the anxious, expectant, suffering peoples with whom we are dealing and who are willing to put their destinies in some measure in our hands, if they are sure that we wish the same things they do.

I do not speak by conjecture. It is not alone the voices of statesmen and of newspapers that reach me, and the voices of foolish and intemperate agitators do not reach me at all. Through many, many channels I have been made aware what the plain, struggling, workaday folk are thinking upon whom the chief terror and suffering of this tragic war falls.

They are looking to the great, powerful, famous Democracy of the West to lead them to the new day for which they have so long waited; and they think in their logical simplicity, that democracy means that women shall play their part in affairs alongside men and upon an equal footing with them. If we reject measures like this, in ignorance or defiance of what a new age has brought forth, of what they have seen but we have not, they will cease to believe in us; they will cease to follow or to trust us.

They have seen their own governments accept this interpretation of democracy—seen old governments accept this interpretation of democracy—seen old governments like that of Great Britain, which did not profess to be democratic, promise readily and as of course this justice to women, though they had before refused it, the strange revelations of this war having made many things new and plain, to governments as well as to people.

Are we alone to refuse to learn the lesson? Are we alone to ask and take the utmost that our women can give—service and sacrifice of every kind—and still say we do not see what title that gives them to stand by our sides in the guidance of the affairs of their nation and ours?

We have made partners of the women in this war; shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not a partnership of privilege and right? This war could not have been fought either by the other nations engaged or by America, if it had not been for the services of the women—services rendered in every sphere—not merely in the fields of effort in which we have been accustomed to see them work, but wherever men have worked, and upon the very skirts and edges of the battle itself.

We shall not only be distrusted but shall deserve to be distrusted if we do not enfranchise them with the fullest possible enfranchisement, as it is now certain that the other great free nations will enfranchise them.

We cannot isolate our thought and action in such a matter from the thought of the rest of the world. We must either conform or deliberately reject what they propose and resign the leadership of liberal minds to others.

The women of America are too noble and too intelligent and too devoted to be slackers whether you give or withhold this thing that is mere justice; but I know the magic it will work in their thoughts and spirits if you give it to them.

I propose it as I would propose to admit soldiers to the Suffrage, the men fighting in the field for our liberties and the liberties of the world, were they excluded. The task of the woman lies at the very heart of the war, and I know how much stronger that heart will beat if you do this just thing and show our women that you trust them as much as you in fact and of necessity depend upon them.

Have I said that the passage of this Amendment is a vitally necessary war measure, and do you need further proof? Do you stand in need of the trust of other peoples and of the trust of our own women? Is that trust an asset or is it not?

I tell you plainly, as the commander-in-chief of our armies and of the gallant men in our fleets, as the present spokesman of this people in our dealings with the men and women throughout the world who are now our partners, as the responsible head of a great government which stands and is questioned day by day as to its purposes, its principles, its hopes, whether they be serviceable to men everywhere or only to itself, and who must himself answer these questions or be shamed, as the guide and director of forces caught in the grip of war and by the same token in need of every material and spiritual resource this great nation possesses—I tell you plainly that this measure which I urge upon you is vital to the winning of the war and to the energies alike of preparation and of battle.

And not to the winning of the war only. It is vital to the right solution of the great problems which we must settle, and settle immediately, when the war is over. We shall need then in our vision of affairs, as we have never needed them before, the sympathy and insight and clear moral instinct of the women of the world. The problems of that time will strike to the roots of many things that we have not hitherto questioned, and I for one believe that our safety in those questioning days, as well as our comprehension of matters that touch society to the quick, will depend upon the direct and authoritative participation of women in our counsels. We shall need their moral sense to preserve what is right and fine and worthy in our system of life as well as to discover just what it is that ought to be purified and re-formed. Without their counselings we shall only be half wise.

That is my case. That is my appeal. Many may deny its validity, if they choose, but no one can brush aside or answer the arguments upon which it is based. The executive tasks of this war rest upon me. I ask that you lighten them and place in my hands instruments, spiritual instruments, which I do not now possess, which I sorely need, and which I have daily to apologize for not being able to employ.

In this speech, the President had said: “The voices of foolish and intemperate agitators do not reach me at all.”

It was generally felt that the President, there, indicated the Woman’s Party. Commenting on that phrase the next day, the Republican Senators remarked, “Why it was that which brought him there!”

During the course of the debate between Poindexter and Pitman, Poindexter asked, “Wasn’t it the pickets that got the President?”

The next afternoon when the vote was called for, and the last Senator had answered to his name, the presiding officer announced the result:

“The joint resolution does not pass.”

The Suffrage Amendment still lacked two votes.

Miss Younger says in her _Revelations of a Lobbyist_:

Stunned, as though unable to grasp it, hundreds of women sat there. Then slowly the defeat reached their consciousness, and they began slowly to put on their hats, to gather up their wraps, and to file out of the galleries, some with a dull sense of injustice, some with burning resentment. In the corridors they began to form in groups. Every one wanted to discuss it. But Alice Paul took my arm.

“Come,” she said, “we must find out about the short-term candidates and go into the election campaign at once.”

Immediately after the vote was taken and defeated, Senator Jones of New Mexico changed his vote and moved that the measure be reconsidered; thereby placing it again on the Senate Calendar, ready to be called up any time and voted on.

By going to the Senate in this manner, the President had made his own record clean to the country at large. But he had not made it clean to the National Woman’s Party, because, although he had done something, he had not done enough. He appeared to be doing more than he was, but there was a great deal more that he could have done. He did not, for instance, start his appeal to the Senate early enough. That appeal came only a fortnight before the vote was taken. Possibly he had underestimated the opposition; probably he had overestimated the strength of his own influence. But the country at large of course did not understand that. For the time being, therefore, the Woman’s Party concentrated their drive on another point in the enemy line.

VIII

PICKETING THE SENATE

AS the Senate was still sitting and could at any time reverse its action in regard to the Suffrage Amendment, the Woman’s Party decided to protest against its defeat of the Amendment and to demand a reversal.

They began to picket the Senate and in especial the thirty-four Senators whose adverse vote had again delayed the passage of the Amendment.

On the morning of October 7, four banner bearers ascended the steps of the Capitol. They were: Elizabeth Kalb; Vivian Pierce; Bertha Moller; Mrs. Horton Pope. The lettered banner, flanked as usual with the Suffrage tri-color, read:

WE DEMAND AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED CONSTITUTION ENFRANCHISING WOMEN.

They had hardly mounted the steps when the Capitol police placed them under arrest. They took the prisoners to the guard room in the Capitol, kept them there for fifteen minutes, and then released them. It was, of course, not exactly an arrest; and no one seemed exactly responsible for the order. The banners were, however, confiscated.

That afternoon, the same women, except that Bertha Arnold was substituted for Mrs. Pope, mounted the steps bearing a large banner which read:

WE PROTEST AGAINST THE 34 WILFUL SENATORS WHO HAVE DELAYED THE POLITICAL FREEDOM OF AMERICAN WOMEN. THEY HAVE OBSTRUCTED THE WAR PROGRAM OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY HAVE LINED UP THE SENATE WITH PRUSSIA BY DENYING SELF-GOVERNMENT TO THE PEOPLE.

All the afternoon, the banner bearers were detained in the courtroom at intervals. When they were released, they went back to the Capitol; were arrested; detained in the courtroom again; released again.

On the morning of October 10, four more pickets, Edith Ainge, Bertha Moller, Maud Jamison, Clara Wold, started for the Capitol. Crowds of men and women gathered in the park to see what was going to happen, and rows of police stood on the Capitol steps awaiting the pickets. As soon as the big protest banner was unfurled, the police seized it. Maud Jamison and Clara Wold tried to mount the steps with the tri-color, but several policemen rushed upon them, and conducted them up the steps and into the Capitol building. As the police said over and over again that there were no arrests, the women insisted on carrying their banners.

Protesting against the curious and inconsistent action on the part of the police, the women were conducted into the presence of the captain. He iterated and reiterated that this action was all in accordance with the rules of Colonel Higgins, the Democratic Sergeant-at-Arms who is under the Rules Committee which carries out the Democratic program. The Suffragists demanded by what authority they were held and the captain informed them that it did not make any difference about the law, that Colonel Higgins had taken the law into his own hands. The four Suffragists waited for a few minutes. Their purple, white, and gold banners had been confiscated, but the protest banner was still there. Suddenly, without any interference from anybody, they took up their protest banner, walked out of the guard room, went over to the Senate Office Building and stood with it, at the top of the steps, the rest of the day. Later Vivian Pierce, Mrs. Stewart Polk, Mary Gertrude Fendall and Gladys Greiner joined this group of pickets.

In the meantime, other Suffragists were trying vainly to take the Suffrage colors to the Capitol steps. They walked from the Office Building on to the Plaza by twos. The instant they appeared, policemen, rushing down the steps, rushing from the curb, rushing from the crowd which had gathered, seized them. They tried to wrench the banners away; and this was, of course, an unequal contest, in which sometimes the women were pulled completely off the ground and always their wrists painfully twisted. But the women clung to the banners, walked as calmly as the situation permitted into the Capitol, and down to the guard room. Here the banners were always confiscated, but they, themselves, were released. If anybody in the crowd showed any disposition to resent the attitude of the police, he was placed under arrest too; but he also was released.

On October 11 the Suffragists picketed only the Senate Office Building, as Congress was not in session. At the beginning of the day, Mrs. George Atwater and Betty Cram held the banners. Mrs. Atwater’s two little girls, Edith and Barbara, assisted their mother by holding the tri-colors.

Others who picketed that day were: Grace Needham, Mrs. George Odell, Elizabeth Kalb, Virginia Arnold, Mary Gertrude Fendall, Gladys Greiner, Maud Jamison, Vivian Pierce, Bertha Moller, Clara Wold.

* * * * *

On October 13, plans for another demonstration were announced in the Washington papers. _Edith Ainge, bearing the American flag, was to lead a procession of Suffragists on to the Senate floor._ There the words of the anti-Suffrage Senators in praise of democracy were to be burned. For an hour before the line formed, the Capitol police were lined up, ready for the pickets. Above, Senators hung over the balcony where they could witness the demonstration. Below, motor after motor drove up to the curb and stopped, waiting to see what was going to happen. At length, the Suffragists arrived. They formed in line outside the Senate Office Building, and started towards the Capitol. They were beset by a battalion of police, and taken to the guard room. Women standing in the crowd, who were not in the procession, but who wore the Suffrage colors were taken along also. Alice Paul, who wore no regalia of any kind, was caught in the net.

These women were: Alice Paul; Vivian Pierce; Bertha Moller; Bertha Arnold; Elizabeth McShane; Edith Ainge; Edith Hilles; Julia Emory; Clara Wold; Elizabeth Kalb; Virginia Arnold; Grace Frost; Matilda Young; Mrs. K. G. Winston.

* * * * *

The Woman’s Party now decided to open a “banner” campaign on each of the Senators who had helped to defeat the Suffrage Amendment. They began with Senator Wadsworth. They unrolled on the steps of the Senate Office Building a banner which read:

SENATOR WADSWORTH’S REGIMENT IS FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY ABROAD. SENATOR WADSWORTH LEFT HIS REGIMENT AND IS FIGHTING AGAINST DEMOCRACY IN THE SENATE. SENATOR WADSWORTH COULD SERVE HIS COUNTRY BETTER BY FIGHTING WITH HIS REGIMENT ABROAD THAN BY FIGHTING WOMEN.

Later appeared another banner, proclaiming the case of Senator Shields:

SENATOR SHIELDS TOLD THE PEOPLE OF TENNESSEE HE WOULD SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT’S POLICIES. THE ONLY TIME THE PRESIDENT WENT TO THE SENATE TO ASK ITS SUPPORT, SENATOR SHIELDS VOTED AGAINST HIM. DOES TENNESSEE BACK THE PRESIDENT’S WAR PROGRAM OR SENATOR SHIELDS?

These banners were taken up by the newspapers of the Senators’ States and focussed unfavorable attention upon them.

By this time, the Capitol police had found that their system of arresting and detaining what threatened to prove an inexhaustible army of Suffragists was futile. So now they reverted to their policy of 1917. They stood aside and let the crowd worry the Suffragists. Mainly, however, these were small boys, who seized the banners and dragged them through the streets.

On October 23 appeared:

GERMANY HAS ESTABLISHED “EQUAL, UNIVERSAL, SECRET, DIRECT FRANCHISE.” THE SENATE HAS DENIED EQUAL UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE TO AMERICA. WHICH IS MORE OF A DEMOCRACY, GERMANY OR AMERICA?

The small boys, generally office boys, were allowed to tear up this banner too.

* * * * *

On October 24, Julia Emory and Virginia Arnold succeeded in getting to the top of the Capitol steps, unseen by the police who were grouped on the sidewalk. Their banner said:

WE CONDEMN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEFEATED SUFFRAGE. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS PLACED AMERICA BEHIND GERMANY AS A DEMOCRACY, IF GERMANY HAS, AS SHE SAYS, ESTABLISHED EQUAL, UNIVERSAL, SECRET, DIRECT FRANCHISE.

The instant they caught sight of this banner, the policemen took the two girls to the guard room, where they held them, until half-past seven that evening.

On October 25, as the Senate was not in session, the pickets returned to the Office Building, where hitherto they had been unmolested. There were four of them, and they carried the Great Demand banner. They were arrested, and held until six o’clock. They went back to the Capitol at eight in the evening, and were again arrested, and held until eleven o’clock. Friends or newspaper men, calling at the Capitol, could get no information about them. On various pretexts, the telephone answered nothing. These women were Matilda Young; Elizabeth Kalb; Julia Emory; Virginia Arnold.

On October 26, eight pickets bore the Wadsworth and Shields banners with the tri-color. As usual, the poles of their banners were broken; their banners themselves snatched from them; they were seized and held.

That afternoon, there was an aeroplane demonstration in Washington. Seven pickets went out with banners: Julia Emory, Maud Jamison, Bertha Arnold, Katherine Fisher, Minna Lederman, Elizabeth Kalb, Mrs. Frances Davies. They were handled with great roughness. Maud Jamison was knocked senseless by a policeman. Several men in uniform protested to the police.

On October 28, twenty-one women, each bearing the purple, white, and gold banners, started for the Capitol. They marched a banner’s length apart across the Capitol grounds.

They had gone halfway up the steps, when policemen in plain clothes appeared from all sides and grappled with them. Many women were injured. Annie Arniel was thrown to the ground so violently that she fainted. An ambulance was summoned to take her to the hospital. The other women were locked in a basement room until six o’clock, when they were released. They were escorted through the Capitol grounds by a member of the vigilant force of guards. He bore the American flag which had been carried at the head of their line. As they reached the limit of the Capitol grounds, he returned that to them, but all the lettered banners and tri-colors were retained.

The twenty-one women were: Edith Ainge; Harriet U. Andrews; Bertha Arnold; Virginia Arnold; Annie Arniel; Olive Beale; Lucy Burns; Eleanor Calnan; L. G. C. Daniels; Frances Davis; Julia Emory; Mary Gertrude Fendall; Mrs. Gilson Gardner; Sara Grogan; Maud Jamison; Elizabeth Kalb; Augusta M. Kelley; Lola Maverick Lloyd; Matilda Young; H. R. Walmsley; Alice Paul.

On October 29, two pickets went to the Capitol with a banner inscribed:

RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD.

They were seized and held until the afternoon.

By some divagation in the police policy, they were seized, while they were walking to the car after their release, and held for another hour.

On October 30, five pickets, carrying the Senator Baird banner and three tri-colors, picketed the north front of the Capitol for an hour. Then they marched to the south front, determined to take up their stand on the Senate steps. Halfway in their progress, they were seized, locked up, and held until six o’clock.

* * * * *

Indignant at these arrests without charge, the National Woman’s Party decided to protest the next day—Thursday.

On October 31, therefore, after the usual morning arrest, their lawyer applied to Judge Siddons of the District Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The Judge declared that the sergeant-at-arms had no right to hold any one without a charge, that he must either make a charge, or release the Suffragists. The sergeant-at-arms released them at once. Nevertheless, when the pickets returned in the afternoon, they were seized in the usual violent fashion and conducted to the guard room. However, although their banners were not returned to them, they were detained but a few minutes. On Friday, they were released as soon as their banners were seized. Fresh banners appeared from time to time all day long. Again consulted, Judge Siddons said that the police had no right to keep the banners. On Saturday, however, the police did not have to seize the banners; there appeared a variation in the picket line. A group of women walked up and down in front of the Senate Office Building. They bore no lettered banners; they bore no tri-colors; but they wore on their arms black mourning bands—in commemoration of the death of justice in the United States Senate.

* * * * *

On November 21, the Senate declared a recess without considering the Federal Suffrage Amendment. That day, twelve pickets protested against the recess, marching from the Senate Office Building to the Capitol. They were: Alice Paul, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Elizabeth Kalb, Clara Wold, Bertha Arnold, Sara Grogan, Julia Emory, Anita Pollitzer, Matilda Young, Mrs. Nicholas Kelly, Olive Beale, Maud Jamison.

They carried a banner which read:

AMERICAN WOMEN PROTEST AGAINST THE SENATE’S RECESSING WITHOUT PASSING THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT.

AMERICA ENTERS THE PEACE CONFERENCE WITH UNCLEAN HANDS FOR DEMOCRACY IS DENIED TO HER PEOPLE.

THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD CANNOT TRUST HER MEDIATION IF SHE PREACHES DEMOCRACY FOR ALL EUROPE WHILE AMERICANS ARE ARRESTED FOR ASKING FOR IT AT THE CAPITOL.

On this occasion, the women were treated outrageously. The police, two to a picket, pounced upon them as they approached the Capitol. One was heard to call, “Help! Help! They’re coming!” Clara Wold was knocked down twice on the Senate steps; was shaken like a rat. They dragged and pushed Alice Paul about as though personally enraged with her. When they were taken into the basement room of the Capitol a crowd of indignant men and women followed. Policeman No. 21 threatened to arrest a man in the crowd because he said: “Sure! I believe in Woman Suffrage.”

IX

THE THIRD APPEAL TO THE WOMEN VOTERS

ALL during this period, the National Woman’s Party was, of course, taking its part in the autumn campaign—the campaign of 1918. It was in the Senatorial elections only that the Woman’s Party was interested. The expedient quality of Alice Paul’s policy manifested itself notably here. It has been shown again and again how swift she was to adapt the tactics of the Woman’s Party to the needs of the moment. The Woman’s Party, it must always be remembered, was organized for but one object—to enfranchise the women of the United States by federal amendment. Other Suffrage organizations could and did divide their interests; could and did deflect their forces for those interests. On this point, Alice Paul never swerved. But as has been again and again demonstrated, she was as fluid as water, as swift as light, to adapt that single adamantine policy to the situation of the moment. At this juncture she extended her policy.

The circumstances were these:

In the Senate, Suffrage needed two more votes.

In the West, as usual, the Woman’s Party asked the women voters to defeat the Democrats as the Party in power and therefore the Party responsible. In two States in the East—New Jersey and New Hampshire—where the Republican candidates were anti-Suffragists and the Democratic candidates were Suffragists, the Woman’s Party supported the Democratic candidates.

That campaign, short as it was, was intensive. In the West Elsie Hill took care of Nevada; Catherine Flanagan of Montana; Anita Pollitzer of Wyoming; Clara Wold of Oregon; Louise Garnett of Kansas; Iris Calderhead of Colorado. In the East, Doris Stevens, Betty Gram, Bertha Arnold, Ruth Small, Rebecca Hourwich, Vivian Pierce, Bertha Moller, Lucy Branham, Caroline Katzenstein, Florence Bayard Hilles, Agnes Morey, Gladys Greiner, Maud Younger, Mary Beard, Abby Scott Baker, Mary Dubrow, Grace Needham, Lucy Burns, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Katherine Morey took care of New Jersey and New Hampshire.

The two vacancies in the Senate from New Jersey and New Hampshire had been caused by death. The Senators who would take those seats in November would fill out the remainder of the Congress then in Session. In New Jersey the Republican candidate—Senator Baird—had voted against the Suffrage Amendment in the Senate on October 1. The Democratic candidate—Charles O’Connor Hennessy—had fought all his public life in New Jersey for National Woman Suffrage.

In New Hampshire the Republican candidate—George H. Moses—was an anti-Suffragist. The Democratic candidate—John B. Jameson—was for the Federal Amendment.

The National Woman’s Party thought of course the President would assist them in their campaign for Hennessy and Jameson, as they were both Democrats as well as Suffragists and, in particular, because he had just told the Senate that the passing of the Federal Amendment was necessary to the successful prosecution of the war. But he gave them no help until the Woman’s Party forced him to do so, and then it was too late. But when the news came back from the Suffrage States of the West that the Woman’s Party speakers were telling of his inaction, he sent—in the last week in October—the following letter to Hennessy of New Jersey:

May I not say how deeply interested I am in the contest you are conducting? I cannot but feel that in ignoring my earnest appeal with regard to the Suffrage Amendment, made in public interest, and because of my intimate knowledge of the issues involved both on the other side of the water and here, Senator Baird has certainly not represented the true feeling and spirit of the people of New Jersey.

I am sure that they must have felt that such an appeal could not and should not be ignored. It would be a very great make-weight, thrown into the international scale, if his course of action while in the Senate could be reversed by the people of our great State.

Also, before the end of the campaign, the President came out in a statement endorsing Jameson. But he did not work so hard to elect these two Democrats, who were also Suffragists, as he did to defeat Vardaman and Hardwick, both of whom were Democrats and one a Suffragist. Hennessy and Jameson were both defeated. In the West, the election resulted in the defeat of Senator Shafroth of Colorado, thereby handing the Senate over to the Republicans. The defeat of Shafroth is universally ascribed to the Woman’s Party. The Woman’s Party believed that this election had brought them one vote, Pollock of South Carolina.

The Borah incident of the campaign of 1918 is a black page in the record of any gentleman who has Presidential aspirations. Catherine Flanagan and Margaret Whittemore were campaigning in western Idaho, asking the Idaho people to bring pressure on Borah to vote for Suffrage.

Shortly after casting his vote against the Federal Amendment, Borah came to Headquarters to see Alice Paul. He said that that vote represented his personal belief, but that in the future he would have to be bound by the Idaho Party (Republican) platform which had endorsed the Amendment. He said he would not give a public statement as that would look like trying to get votes, but he wrote out a statement that the Woman’s Party could understand as indicating his position. That statement is as follows:

We have talked over the Suffrage situation with Senator Borah and our understanding from the interview is that he will carry out his platform and vote for the Suffrage Amendment if re-elected.

The Woman’s Party telegraphed this statement to Idaho and asked his constituents to get him to confirm it. He was very evasive in replying to their questions and Alice Paul finally sent him the following letter:

October 29, 1918. SENATOR WM. E. BORAH,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BORAH:

In view of the statement that you have just telegraphed to one of our members, Mrs. Marcella Pride, in Boise, and in view of the statements which you have made to various newspaper correspondents in Washington since Mrs. Baker’s and my interview with you, giving them the impression that there was no basis for our understanding that you would vote for the Suffrage Amendment after November 5th, we feel that we have no course left but to throw all the strength which we possess in Idaho against you. I have, therefore, telegraphed to this effect today to Miss Whittemore, who is in charge of our Idaho work.

I am sure I need not tell you how much we regret that you have not felt able to say frankly what you would do after election, and that you are not willing to stand by the statement which you authorized us to give out as expressing the understanding to be derived by us from our interview with you.

Sincerely yours,

ALICE PAUL, National Chairman.

Thereupon the Woman’s Party campaigned against him until election. Borah was re-elected. Here—anticipating by three months—it must be mentioned that when on February 10, the Amendment came to a vote, Borah voted, “No.”

X

THE PRESIDENT INCLUDES SUFFRAGE IN HIS CAMPAIGN FOR CONGRESS

FOR the third time the Woman’s Party had waged in the West one of its marvelous campaigns against the Democratic Party. The repercussion of that campaign had reached the President. When Congress convened in December, he included the Federal Amendment in his message of December 2 to Congress as a part of the Administration program. He said:

And what shall we say of the women—of their instant intelligence, quickening every task that they touched; their capacity for organization and co-operation, which gave their action discipline and enhanced the effectiveness of everything they attempted; their aptitude at tasks to which they had never before set their hands; their utter self-sacrifice alike in what they did and what they gave? Their contribution to the great result is beyond appraisal. They have added a new luster to the annals of American womanhood.

The least tribute we can pay them is to make them the equals of men in political rights as they have proved themselves their equals in every field of practical work they have entered, whether for themselves or for their country. These great days of completed achievement would be sadly marred were we to omit that act of justice. Besides the immense practical services they have rendered, the women of the country have been the moving spirits in the systematic economies by which our people have voluntarily assisted to supply the suffering peoples of the world and the armies upon every front with food and everything else that we had that might serve the common cause. The details of such a story can never be fully written, but we carry them at our hearts and thank God that we can say that we are the kinsmen of such.

This was the first time that any President ever mentioned Suffrage as a part of his administrative program. It was a step forward. The women waited ten days to see whether he would follow this message with action.

The President sailed for France.

When the Woman’s Party discovered from the Administration leaders that he had left no orders to have Suffrage carried out, they decided to hold another protest meeting.

“In carrying on a campaign for Democracy abroad and utterly ignoring it at home,” Alice Paul said, “he has exposed his whole broadside to our attack.”

As always, whenever possible, the Woman’s Party announced their protest meeting through the newspapers. Lucy Branham went to Police Headquarters. She explained her errand, asking for a permit.

“Here’s your permit!” Colonel Ridley said.

Lucy Branham made further explanation, “We are going to burn the President’s words,” she warned him.

“Here’s your permit!” Colonel Ridley said.

XI

BURNING THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS AGAIN

ON December 16, a woman carrying an American flag, emerged from Headquarters. Behind her came a long line of women bearing purple, white, and gold banners. Behind them came fifty women bearing lighted torches. Behind them came women—more women and more women and more women. Always a banner’s length apart they marched and on they came ... and on ... and on ... and on.... People who saw the demonstrations say that it seemed as though the colorful, slow-moving line would never come to an end. Witnesses say also that it was the most beautiful of all the Woman’s Party demonstrations. They marched to the Lafayette Monument. Their leader, Mrs. Harvey Wiley, stopped in front of a burning cauldron which had been placed at the foot of the pedestal. The torch bearers formed a semi-circle about that cauldron. The women with the purple, white, and gold banners—who were the speakers—grouped themselves around the torch bearers.

Among these women were the State Chairman or a Woman’s Party representative from almost all the forty-eight States; some of whom had come great distances to be present on this occasion. There were three hundred in all.

In the meantime, a huge crowd, which augmented steadily in numbers and in excitement as the long line of Suffragists came on and on and on, formed a great, black, attentive mass, which hedged in the banner bearers, as the banner bearers hedged in the torch bearers. In that crowd were the National Democratic Chairman and many prominent Democratic politicians.

Dusk changed into darkness, and the flames from cauldron and torches mounted higher and higher.

After the Suffragists had assembled, there came a moment of quiet. Then Vida Milholland stepped forward and without accompaniment of any kind, sang with her characteristic spirit the _Woman’s Marseillaise_. Immediately afterwards, Mrs. John Rogers opened the meeting, and introduced, one after another, nineteen speakers, each of whom, first reading them, dropped some words of President Wilson’s on democracy into the flaming cauldron.

Mrs. John Rogers declared:

We hold this meeting to protest against the denial of liberty to American women. All over the world today we see surging and sweeping irresistibly on, the great tide of democracy, and women would be derelict to their duty if they did not see to it that it brings freedom to the women of this land.

England has enfranchised her women, Canada has enfranchised her women, Russia has enfranchised her women, the liberated nations of Central Europe are enfranchising their women. America must live up to her pretensions of democracy!

Our ceremony today is planned to call attention to the fact that the President has gone abroad to establish democracy in foreign lands when he has failed to establish democracy at home. We burn his words on liberty today, not in malice or anger, but in a spirit of reverence for truth.

This meeting is a message to President Wilson. We expect an answer. If it is more words, we will burn them again. The only answer the National Woman’s Party will accept is the instant passage of the Amendment in the Senate.

Mrs. M. Toscan Bennett was the first speaker. She said:

It is because we are moved by a passion for democracy that we are here to protest against the President’s forsaking the cause of freedom in America and appearing as a champion of freedom in the old world. We burn with shame and indignation that President Wilson should appear before the representatives of nations who have enfranchised their women, as chief spokesman for the right of self-government while American women are denied that right. We are held up to ridicule to the whole world.

We consign to the flames the words of the President which have inspired women of other nations to strive for their freedom while their author refuses to do what lies in his power to do to liberate the women of his own country. Meekly to submit to this dishonor to the nation would be treason to mankind.

Mr. President, the paper currency of liberty which you hand to women is worthless fuel until it is backed by the gold of action.

The Reverend Olympia Brown of Wisconsin, eighty-four years old, burned the latest words of President Wilson, his two speeches made on the first day of his visit to France. She said:

America has fought for France and the common cause of liberty. I have fought for liberty for seventy years and I protest against the President leaving our country with this old fight here unwon.

Mrs. John Winters Brannan burned the address made by President Wilson at the Metropolitan Opera House in opening the Fourth Liberty Loan Campaign, in which he justified women’s protest when he said:

We have been told it is unpatriotic to criticise public action. If it is, there is a deep disgrace resting upon the origin of this nation. We have forgotten the history of our country if we have forgotten how to object, how to resist, how to agitate when it is necessary to readjust matters.

Mary Ingham burned President Wilson’s speech of the Fourth of July, 1914, in which he said:

There is nothing in liberty unless it is translated into definite action in our own lives today.

Miss Ingham said:

In the name of the women of Pennsylvania who are demanding action of the President, I consign these words to the flames.

Agnes Morey burned President Wilson’s book, _The New Freedom_. She said:

On today, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, in the name of the liberty-loving women of Massachusetts, I consign these words to the flames in protest against the exclusion of women from the Democratic program of this Administration.

Henrietta Briggs Wall burned President Wilson’s address given at Independence Hall, July 4, 1919, when he said:

Liberty does not consist in mere general declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of these declarations into action.

Susan Frost, of South Carolina, burned President Wilson’s last message to Congress in which he again spoke words without results.

Mrs. Townsend Scott burned his message to the Socialists in France which declared:

The enemies of liberty from this time forth must be shut out.

Mrs. Eugene Shippen burned this message to Congress:

This is a war for self-government among all the peoples of the world as against the arbitrary choices of self-constituted masters.

Sara Grogan burned another message to Congress dealing with liberty for other nations.

Clara Wold burned the message to Congress demanding self-government for Filipinos.

Jessie Adler burned the speech to the Chamber of Commerce of Columbus:

I believe that democracy is the only thing that vitalizes the whole people.

Mrs. Percy Reed burned this message to Congress:

Liberty is a fierce and intractable thing to which no bounds can be set and no bounds ought to be set.

Sue White burned the President’s reply to President Poincaré of France.

Mary Sutherland burned the words:

I believe the might of America is the sincere love of its people for the freedom of mankind.

Edith Phelps burned the Flag Day address.

Doris Stevens burned a statement to Democratic women before election:

I have done everything I could do and shall continue to do everything in my power for the Federal Suffrage Amendment.

Dr. Caroline Spencer burned the words which President Wilson said when he laid a wreath on the tomb of Lafayette, “in memory of the great Lafayette—from a fellow servant of liberty.”

Margaret Oakes burned the Suffrage message to the Senate:

We shall deserve to be distrusted if we do not enfranchise our women.

Florence Bayard Hilles ended the meeting with a declaration that women would continue their struggle for freedom, and would burn the words of President Wilson even as he spoke them until he and his Party made these words good by granting political freedom to the women of America.

After the meeting was over, the long line marched back to Headquarters. A big, applauding crowd walked along with them.

XII

THE WATCHFIRES OF FREEDOM

ALICE PAUL spent all day Christmas of 1918 in bed resting. At least, she was resting physically. Mentally....

On that day she evolved a new plan of bringing the attention of the President, the attention of the country, the attention of the world, to the fact that the Susan B. Anthony Amendment must be passed. It was impossible—because of the action of the police in putting out the fires and arresting those who tended them—to carry out, in all its detail, her original plan which was extraordinarily striking and picturesque. Perhaps at no time in the history of the world has there ever been projected a demonstration so full of a beautiful symbolism.

The original plan was to keep a fire burning on the pavement in front of the White House till the Susan B. Anthony Amendment was passed. Wood for this bonfire was to be sent from all the States. Whenever the President made a speech in Europe for democracy, that speech was to be burned in the watchfire. While this was going on a bell, which was set above the door of Headquarters, would toll.

On the afternoon of New Year’s Day, 1919, therefore, a wagon drove up to the White House pavement and deposited an urn filled with firewood—on a spot in line with the White House door. Presently the bell at Headquarters began to toll, and a group of women marched from Headquarters to the urn. Edith Ainge lighted the fire, and Mrs. Lawrence Lewis dropped into the flames the most recent words, in regard to democracy, that President Wilson had addressed to the people of Europe.

The first was from the Manchester speech:

We will enter into no combinations of power which are not combinations of all of us.

The second was from his toast in Buckingham Palace:

We have used great words, all of us. We have used the words “right” and “justice,” and now we are to prove whether or not we understand these words.

The third was from his speech at Brest:

Public opinion strongly sustains all proposals for co-operation of self-governing peoples.

The fourth was from the speech to the English wounded:

I want to tell you how much I honor you men who have been wounded fighting for freedom.

As Mrs. Lewis burned these “scraps of paper,” Mary Dubrow and Annie Arniel, standing behind the urn, unfurled a lettered banner:

PRESIDENT WILSON IS DECEIVING THE WORLD WHEN HE APPEARS AS THE PROPHET OF DEMOCRACY.

PRESIDENT WILSON HAS OPPOSED THOSE WHO DEMAND DEMOCRACY FOR THIS COUNTRY.

HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISFRANCHISEMENT OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.

WE IN AMERICA KNOW THIS.

THE WORLD WILL FIND HIM OUT.

This was the first of the many Watchfires of Freedom kindled by the Woman’s Party.

After these words were burned, Mrs. Lewis addressed the crowd that had gathered. When Helena Hill Weed, who had followed her, was speaking, a group of soldiers and sailors rushed forward, overturned the urn, and began to stamp out the blazing pieces of wood. There were two sentinels on each side of the urn, Gertrude Crocker, Harriet U. Andrews, Mrs. A. P. Winston, Julia Emory. They bore the tri-color, but they also bore torches. They quickly lighted the torches from the embers, and held them aloft. The rioting continued, but Mrs. Weed went calmly on with her speech.

Suddenly there was an exclamation from the crowd. Everybody turned. Flames were issuing from the huge, bronze urn in Lafayette Square directly opposite the bonfire.

Hazel Hunkins—clinging to the high-pedestaled urn—was holding aloft the Suffrage tri-color. The flames played over the slender Tanagra-like figure of the girl and glowed through the purple, white, and gold. People said it was—that instant’s picture—like a glimpse from the _Götterdämmerung_. Policemen immediately rushed over there, followed by a large crowd. They arrested Alice Paul, Julia Emory, Hazel Hunkins, Edith Ainge.

In the meantime, the fire in front of the White House had been rebuilt and rekindled. It burned all night long and all the next day. Alice Paul, who had been released with her three companions after being detained at the police station for a while, remained on guard until morning. Annie Arniel and Julia Emory stayed with her. It rained all night. But until late, crowds gathered, quiet and very interested, to listen to the speeches. This was Wednesday. All day Thursday succeeding groups of women took up their watch on the fire.

Friday afternoon, the same banner was carried out. As soon as it was unfurled, a crowd of soldiers, sailors, and small boys, a chief petty officer in the navy being most violent, attacked the Suffragists, Mary Dubrow and Matilda Young. They tore the banner, broke the urn and attacked the purple, white, and gold flags. The fires, were, however, at once rekindled. It was still raining, and the rain was mixed with snow, which became a steady sleet. But the fires continued. Finally a force of policemen put them out with chemicals. That night they were relighted. Mary Logue and Miss Ross guarded it until two in the morning; Mrs. Lawrence Lewis and Julia Emory from two until seven.

Saturday afternoon, the bell at Headquarters tolled again. Immediately the flames leaped up on the White House pavement. Alice Paul, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, and Phœbe Munnecke burned the first speech on Liberty made by President Wilson on reaching Italy. They were arrested, and the police put out the watchfire with chemicals. Instantly the fire started in the urn. Mary Dubrow and Julia Emory were arrested. All five women were released on bail.

On Sunday, January 5, Julia Emory, Mary Dubrow, Annie Arniel, and Phœbe Munnecke started a fire in front of the White House. They burned the second speech on Liberty made by the President in Italy. All the time the bell pealed its solemn tocsin. The four sentinels were arrested. This time they refused to give bail and were sent to the house of detention. The fire had now burned all day and all night on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

All these sentinels were charged, when they were arrested, with breaking a Federal Park regulation. But when they came to court, they were charged with building a bonfire on a public highway between sunset and sunrise. Three of them went to prison for five days, and three for ten days. They all went on hunger-strike.

January 7, evidently the official mind changed. The fire which consumed the President’s speech on democracy delivered in Turin was allowed to burn for three hours. Nevertheless the crowd kept kicking it about, so that there was a line of flames across the pavement and trailing into the gutter. By hook or by crook—three of the Suffragists—Harriet Andrews, Mrs. A. P. Winston, Mrs. Edmund C. Evans—managed to keep it going.

At the end of three hours, new orders seemed to materialize out of the air; for then the police took a hand and put the fire out. With the extinction of the last ember, however, a second fire burst into flames at the base of the Lafayette Monument across the street. The police rushed to it, and put it out. Immediately another fire started at the opposite corner of the Park. And then fires became general ... here ... there ... everywhere....

The police arrested the three women who had kept the fire going. On the following day they were sentenced to five days in jail.

On the afternoon of that day, Mrs. M. Toscan Bennett and Matilda Young burned the speech that the President had just made at the statue of Columbus in Genoa. They were arrested at once, and they too were given five days in jail.

By this time, there were eleven women in jail, all on a hunger-strike.

* * * * *

On the afternoon of January 13, just as the thousands of government clerks began to pour down Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House, twenty-five Suffragists, each one bearing a banner of purple, white, and gold, came round the corner of Lafayette Square. They proceeded to the White House pavement, where they built a watchfire. The crowds, of course, stopped to watch the proceedings. Policemen finally broke through them and arrested three of the women. The other twenty-two closed in their line a little, and went on with their fire-building. The police returned, but they did not arrest the others. But they tried to break up the fire with huge shovels and a fire extinguisher. They tried to trample it out. But it was useless. Wherever a bit of the watchfire fell, it broke into flames. Finally, they arrested seventeen more women. Four remained, holding the purple, white, and gold banners.

Suddenly a great tongue of flame leaped upwards from the urn in Lafayette Square. The crowd rushed towards it. Then for a moment it seemed to go mad. A group of young men rushed over to the Headquarters; climbed up the pillars; tore down the flag, the uprights, and the pole. The bell ultimately crashed to the ground.

The police arrested the remaining four sentinels. By eight o’clock that afternoon, released on bail, all the women were back in Headquarters. Half an hour later, they went out with their banners again. The streets seemed deserted even by policemen. But, as they crossed the street, the park police began to materialize from the shrubs and trees of the square. However, they built their watchfire on the White House pavement, and stood there on guard for an hour and a half. Crowds gathered, of course. Occasionally, a man would rush over to one of the girls, and tear her banner from her. The girl would hold it as long as it was a physical possibility, the crowd meanwhile calling remonstrance or encouragement according to their sympathies. By ten o’clock the women were all arrested again. They spent the night in the house of detention. They were: Dr. Caroline Spencer; Adelina Piunti; Helen Chisaski; Mrs. C. Weaver; Eva Weaver; Ruth Scott; Elsie Ver Vane; Julia Emory; Lucia Calmes; Mrs. Alexander Shields; Elizabeth Kalb; Mildred Morris; Lucy Burns; Edith Ainge; Mrs. Gilson Gardner; Gertrude Crocker; Ellen Winsor; Kate Heffelfinger; Katherine Boyle; Naomi Barrett; Palys L. Chevrier; Maud Jamison; Elizabeth Huff.

* * * * *

Suffragists filled the court when these women came up for trial. Four of them were tried at once. They were sentenced to a ten-dollar fine or five days’ imprisonment. Their entrance into court had been greeted with applause from the audience. When the next four women appeared, they too were applauded. The Judge said, “The bailiffs will escort the prisoners out and bring them in again, and if there is any applause this time....”

The prisoners returned, and the applause was a roar. Three women among those who applauded were taken out of the mass. “The police will escort the women out of the courtroom,” said the Court. When they reached the door, “And see that they do not return,” added the Court. As the door closed, “And lock the doors,” shouted the Court. Thereafter, the prisoners were brought in one at a time, and were sent to jail immediately. Twenty-two women were thus sentenced. There remained one for whom there was no prosecuting witness—Naomi Barrett.

The next day, Naomi Barrett was tried alone. As she came forward, applause greeted her—applause long and continued. The Judge ordered silence. The applause continued. He ordered the applauders to be brought forward. One, Mrs. Pflaster, sank to the floor in a faint. She was picked up and put on a chair, but as she fell from the chair, the Judge ordered her removed at once. A physician was sent for. Her fellow Suffragists demanded that they be permitted to see her. Finally one of them was allowed to go to her. The Court had scarcely reached the next case when word came that Mrs. Pflaster was in a serious condition. The Suffragists came rushing in and demanded that the Judge come off the Bench and see what had happened; the Court obeyed. In due time the doctor arrived, a stretcher came, and the patient was taken to the Emergency Hospital.

The Judge resumed his seat, and sentenced Bertha Moller, Gertrude Murphy, Rhoda Kellogg, and Margaret Whittemore—the applauders—to twenty-four hours in jail for contempt of court. Mrs. Barrett was sentenced to five days in jail. They joined the twenty-two women who were already there and hunger-striking.

On January 27, six women kindled a Watchfire on the White House pavement. They were arrested on the charge of starting a fire after sundown. They were as usual, tried the next day; sentenced to five days in jail. They went on a hunger-strike of course. They were: Bertha Moller; Gertrude Murphy; Rhoda Kellogg; Mary Carol Dowell; Martha Moore; Katherine Magee.

In the meantime an interesting event took place in France. President Wilson received a delegation representing the working women of France, Saturday, January 25, at the Murat Mansion in Paris. The delegation urged upon the President that the Peace Conference include Woman Suffrage among the points to be settled by the Conference. President Wilson replied as follows:

Mlle. Thomson and ladies: You have not only done me a great honor, but you have touched me very much by this unexpected tribute; and may I add that you have frightened me, because realizing the great confidence you place in me, I am led to the question of my own ability to justify that confidence?

You have not placed your confidence wrongly in my hopes and purposes, but perhaps not all of those hopes and purposes can be realized in the great matter that you have so much at heart—the right of women to take their full share in the political life of the nations to which they belong. That is necessarily a domestic question for the several nations. A conference of peace settling the relations of nations with each other would be regarded as going very much outside its province if it undertook to dictate to the several states what their internal policy should be.

At the same time these considerations apply also to the conditions of labor; and it does not seem to be unlikely that the conference will take some action by way of expressing its sentiments, at any rate, with regard to the international aspects at least of labor, and I should hope that some occasion might be offered for the case not only of the women of France, but of their sisters all over the world, to be presented to the consideration of the conference.

The conference is turning out to be a rather unwieldy body, a very large body representing a great many nations, large and small, old and new; and the method of organizing its work successfully, I am afraid will have to be worked out stage by stage. Therefore I have no confident prediction to make as to the way in which it can take up the question of this sort.

But what I have most at heart today is to avail myself of this opportunity to express my admiration for the women of all the nations that have been engaged in the war. By the fortunes of this war the chief burden has fallen upon the women of France, and they have borne it with a spirit and a devotion which has commanded the admiration of the world.

I do not think that the people of France fully realize, perhaps, the intensity of the sympathy that other nations have felt for them. They think of us in America, for example, as a long way off. And we are in space but we are not in thought. You must remember that the United States is made up of the nations of Europe: that French sympathies run straight across the seas, not merely by historic association but by blood connection, and that these nerves of sympathy are quick to transmit the impulses of one nation to the other.

We have followed your sufferings with a feeling that we were witnessing one of the most heroic, and may I add, at the same time satisfactory things in the world, satisfactory because it showed the strength of the human spirit, the indomitable power of women and men alike to sustain any burden if the cause was great enough.

In an ordinary war there might have been some shrinking, some sinking of effort; but this was not an ordinary war. This was a war not only to redeem France from an enemy, but to redeem the world from an enemy. And France, therefore, and the women of France strained their hearts to sustain the world. I hope that the strain has not been in vain. I know that it has not been in vain.

This war has been popular and unlike other wars in that it seemed sometimes as if the chief strain was behind the lines and not at the lines. It took so many men to conduct the war that the older men and the women at home had to carry the nation. Not only so, but the industries of the nation were almost as much a part of the fighting as the things that took place at the fronts.

So it is for that reason that I have said to those with whom I am at present associated that this must be a people’s peace, because this was a people’s war. The people won this war, not the governments, and the people must reap the benefits of the war. At every turn we must see to it that it is not an adjustment between governments merely, but an agreement for the peace and security of men and women everywhere.

The little obscure sufferings and the daily unknown privations, the unspoken sufferings of the heart, are the tragical things of this war. They have been borne at home, and the center of the home is the woman. My heart goes out to you, therefore, ladies, in a very unusual degree, and I welcome this opportunity to bring you this message, not from myself merely, but from the great people whom I represent.

Mary Nolan—over seventy years old—immediately made Suffrage capital of this speech by the President. Mrs. Nolan’s record in the period of the Watchfires is positively heroic.

On January 19, with Bertha Arnold, Mrs. Nolan was arrested for the first time in connection with the Watchfires of Freedom demonstrations. On January 24, while under suspended sentence, the two women again fed the flames in front of the White House. They were immediately arrested; the next day, tried. Mrs. Nolan said:

I am guilty if there is any guilt in a demand for freedom. I protest against the action of the President who is depriving American women of freedom. I have been sent to represent my State Florida, and I am willing to do or suffer anything to bring victory to the long courageous struggle. I have fought this fight many years. I have seen children born to grow to womanhood to fight at my side. I have seen their children grow up to fight with us.

So great a storm of applause greeted these remarks that the Judge had thirteen of the applauders brought immediately to the dock and tried for contempt of Court. Thirteen women were sentenced to forty-eight hours in jail with no alternative of fines. These thirteen women were: Lucy Burns; Edith Ainge; Mary Gertrude Fendall; Phœbe Munnecke; Lucy Branham; Annie Arniel; Matilda Young; Ruth Crocker; Elsie Unterman; Kate Boeckh; Emily Huff; Lucile Shields; Elizabeth Walmsley.

Bertha Arnold received a sentence of five days, but Mrs. Nolan was released.

On Monday, January 27, Mrs. Nolan went out on the picket line again, this time with Sarah Colvin. As she burned in the Watchfire the text of the President’s words to the French workingwomen, she said:

President Wilson told the women of France that they had not placed their confidences wrongly in his hopes and purposes. I tell the women of France that the women of America have placed their confidence in President Wilson’s hopes and purposes for six years, and the Party of which he is a leader has continually, and is even now obstructing their enfranchisement.

President Wilson has the power to do for the women of this nation what he asserts he would like to do for the women of other nations.

There are thirty-one days left for the passage of the Suffrage Amendment in this Congress, of which his Party is in control. Let him return to this country and act to secure democracy for his own people. Then the words that he spoke for the women of Europe will have weight and will bear fruit. Sooner or later the women of the world will know what we know—that confidence cannot be placed in President Wilson’s hopes and purposes for the freedom of women.

The police seemed loath to arrest Mrs. Nolan, but they finally did so. The Court as reluctantly sentenced her to twenty-four hours in jail. Mrs. Colvin received the customary five days. Three more applauding Suffragists were committed at this last trial, for forty-eight hours: Cora Crawford, Margaret Rossett, Elsie Unterman.

* * * * *

On January 31, Mrs. Nolan was again arrested at a Watchfire demonstration with Mary Ingham and Annie Arniel. She was discharged by the Court. Mary Ingham and Annie Arniel, it may be mentioned, were held in jail for two days before they were brought to trial. There were no witnesses against them, and so they were freed.

* * * * *

On February 4, Mrs. Nolan was arrested again with Elsie T. Russian and Bertha Wallerstein for burning the President’s speech to French Deputies. There was the usual applause when the three women appeared in Court, and, as usual, the Judge ordered silence; as usual, the applause continued. Three applauders were thrown out.

Mrs. Russian made the following statement to the Court:

By burning the hypocritical words of President Wilson, we have expressed the unmistakable impatience of American women. In place of words, these women demand action. I am glad to have taken part in the expression of that demand.

The watchfires had been going since New Year’s Day, growing in numbers until they culminated in the biggest demonstration of all, two days before the day set for the vote.

On February 9, they burned the President in effigy.

At half-past four that Sunday, the bell at Headquarters began to toll. A procession of a hundred women, headed by Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer bearing the American flag, marched to the White House pavement. Behind Mrs. Havemeyer came Ella Riegel, bearing the purple, white, and gold banner. Behind the color bearers came Mrs. John Rogers and Mary Ingham, carrying a lettered banner which said:

ONLY FIFTEEN LEGISLATIVE DAYS ARE LEFT FOR THIS CONGRESS.

FOR MORE THAN A YEAR THE PRESIDENT’S PARTY HAS BLOCKED SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE.

IT IS BLOCKING IT TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN WOMANHOOD.

Behind this came Sarah T. Colvin and Mrs. Walter Adams, carrying a second lettered banner:

WHY DOES NOT THE PRESIDENT ENSURE THE PASSAGE OF SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE TOMORROW?

WHY DOES HE NOT WIN FROM HIS PARTY THE ONE VOTE NEEDED?

HAS HE AGREED TO PERMIT SUFFRAGE AGAIN TO BE PUSHED ASIDE?

PRESIDENT WILSON IS DECEIVING THE WORLD. HE PREACHES DEMOCRACY ABROAD AND THWARTS DEMOCRACY HERE.

Behind these banners came Nell Mercer and Elizabeth McShane bearing an earthen urn filled with fire. Behind them came Sue White and Gabrielle Harris, who were to perform the leading act of the demonstration.

After these came twenty-six wood bearers, and long eddying waves of the purple, white, and gold. The urn bearers deposited the urn in its place on the pavement opposite the White House door. The wood bearers and the banner bearers formed a guard about it. Sue White then advanced and dropped into the flames a paper figure—a cartoon—of the President. Mrs. Havemeyer then attempted to make a speech. Before she was arrested, she managed to say the following three sentences:

Every Anglo-Saxon government in the world has enfranchised its women. In Russia, in Hungary, in Austria, in Germany itself, the women are completely enfranchised, and thirty-four are now sitting in the new Reichstag. We women of America are assembled here today to voice our deep indignation that while such efforts are being made to establish democracy for Europe, American women are still deprived of a voice in their government here at home.

Speaker after speaker attempted to follow her, but they were all arrested. The police patrols were soon filled up, and nearby cars were commandeered. There was an enormous crowd present. The police—nearly a hundred of them—tried to force them back, and succeeded in getting them part way across Pennsylvania Avenue. When they turned back, more wood had been brought from Headquarters, and another fire started. Other women who came from Headquarters with further reinforcements of wood were stopped and arrested. The police then declared the open space between the encircling crowd and the banner-bearing women a military zone. No person was allowed to enter it. For an hour, therefore, the women stood there. For the most part, they were motionless, but at intervals they marched slowly round their small segment of sidewalk. The crowd stayed until the banner bearers started homeward. They followed them to the very entrance of Suffrage Headquarters.

All this time the bell was tolling.

Those arrested were: Mrs. T. W. Forbes, Mary Nolan, Sue White, Mrs. L. V. G. Gwynne Branham, Lillian Ascough, Jennie Bronenberg, Rose Fishstein, Nell Mercer, Amy Juengling, Reba Comborrov, Mildred Morris, Clara Wold, Louise Bryant, Bertha Wallerstein, Martha Shoemaker, Rebecca Garrison, Pauline Adams, Marie Ernst Kennedy, Willie Grace Johnson, Phœbe Munnecke, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, Edith Ainge, Lucy Daniels, Mary Ingham, Elizabeth McShane, Sarah T. Colvin, Ella Riegel, Mrs. William Upton Watson, Anne Herkner, Palys Chevrier, Anna Ginsberg, Estella Eylward, Annie Arniel, Cora Weeks, Lucy Burns, Helena Hill Weed, Mrs. John Rogers, Gladys Greiner, Rose G. Fishstein.

On February 10, the Anthony Amendment came up once more for the vote in the Senate of the United States. Perhaps at this juncture recapitulation in regard to the Senate situation will be illuminating.

It will be remembered that when the Amendment passed the House on January 10, 1918, the Suffragists were eleven votes short in the Senate, and how—Maud Younger told the story most vivaciously—nine of these votes were obtained. For a long time, the Suffragists continued to lack the remaining two votes. The first thing that promised to ameliorate this deadlock was the nomination in the South Carolina primaries of Pollock for the short term of the Sixty-fifth Congress, convening December 2, 1918. Senator Pollock confused the situation extraordinarily for the Suffragists. The South Carolina branch of the Woman’s Party interviewed him immediately after his election and it was their understanding that he told them that he would vote “yes” on the Amendment. When he came to Washington, however, he refused to state how he would vote. The Suffragists were in a difficult situation. Many of them believed that he intended to vote for the Amendment but he would not say that he did. They believed they had one of the two necessary votes but they could never be sure of it. All the time, therefore, they were trying to get the votes of Moses of New Hampshire, Gay of Louisiana, Hale of Maine, Trammell of Florida, and Borah of Idaho, as they seemed the most likely of the opposed or non-committal men.

Indeed, two kinds of campaigns were going on—one in the States among the constituents of these possible men and the campaign of the Watchfires in Washington. As soon as the Watchfires began, the President again began to work. He called various Senators asking them to support the Amendment. The Democratic leaders became alarmed at the effect on the country of this constant turmoil in front of the White House. In fact they did the thing they had always steadfastly refused to do—called a caucus to mobilize the Democrats back of the Suffrage Amendment. At this caucus, various Administration leaders appealed to the Party members in the Senate to give their support to the measure. Pollock then made his first public declaration that he would vote for the Suffrage Amendment.

The Amendment now needed but one vote.

The chairman of the Suffrage Committee then announced that another effort would be made to pass the measure and it would be brought up for a vote on February 10, although until the Watchfires started, they had repeatedly declared that it would be impossible to bring it up twice in the same session.

As Congress was coming to an end, it was decided to take the vote anyway, although, as things stood, even with Pollock, the Suffragists lacked one vote. Pollock did vote for Suffrage but the other vote was not forthcoming. The Amendment was therefore defeated on February 10.

From February 10 to June 4, the Woman’s Party was working to get that one vote.

* * * * *

While the Senate was debating Suffrage, thirty-nine of the women who had burned the President in effigy the day before were being tried. Twenty-five sentences of five days and one of two days were pronounced. Then the Judge demanded, “How many more women are there out there?” When he found that several were still waiting, he dismissed them without trial.

They were not charged with burning the effigy of the President, but with unlawfully setting fire to certain combustibles in that part of the District of Columbia known as the White House grounds.

* * * * *

The prison conditions which these Suffragists endured were as unpleasant as before. At first they went to the District of Columbia jail. Since previous incarcerations and the resulting complaints and investigations, soap and water had been used to some extent in this jail. So much, indeed, had soap and water been used that the prisoners could now clearly distinguish the vermin of more than one species creeping up and down the walls. The rats ran about in hordes. While conditions were somewhat improved, they were still bad.

Harriet Andrews, writing of her impressions of the jail in the _Suffragist_ of January 25, says:

The jail was real. And it was not funny. I had a book of poetry to read, but I was sorry I hadn’t taken a volume from the works of the late Henri Fabre. It would have been interesting to study the habits of cockroaches. I lay on my straw pallet and watched them clustered in the upper right hand corner of my cell waiting for my light to be put out before they began their nightly invasion. And when my light went out, the bulb that still burned in the corridor enabled me to watch them crawling down in a long, uninterrupted line.... There were also other things that crawled.

The last group were sent to the old Workhouse in which Suffragists had been imprisoned the August before.

Of that Helena Hill Weed says in the _Suffragist_ of February 22:

No fire had been built in the old Workhouse this winter until a few hours before we were imprisoned there. The dampness and cold of the first floor was quite unbearable. They permitted the women to sleep in the upper tier of cells, where the ventilation is better than on the ground floor where we were forced to sleep last summer. But these cells are too dark to stay in during the day, and the only other place is the cold, damp stone floor on the ground. The only fresh air in the prison enters the building through windows fifteen feet above the level of the floor where the women have to spend their waking hours. The warm air from the furnaces, which enters the building on the first floor immediately rises to the roof. The damp, icy winter air and all the noxious gases and foul odors sink to the floor, where the women have to sit. They are serving their imprisonment under practically cellar conditions. The authorities are not forcing us to drink the water in the pipes of the Workhouse this time, but are supplying fresh water.

Harriet Andrews said that in coming out, “the sense of air and light and space burst upon me like a shout.”

* * * * *

In the meantime, the Woman’s Party, carrying out its extraordinary thorough and forthright policy of publicity, had not failed to tell the country at large about all this. They sent throughout the United States a carfull of speakers; all women who had served sentences in prison. They were: Abby Scott Baker, Lucy Burns, Bertha Arnold, Mary Ingham, Mabel Vernon, Mrs. Robert Walker, Gladys Greiner, Mrs. A. R. Colvin, Ella Riegel, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, Mrs. W. D. Ascough, Mary Winsor, Elizabeth McShane, Vida Milholland, Sue White, Lucy Ewing, Lucy Branham, Edith Ainge, Pauline Adams, Mrs. John Rogers, Cora Week, and Mary Nolan.

This car was called the _Prison Special_ and the newspapers soon called the women the _Prison Specialists_. On the platform the speakers all wore duplicates of their prison costumes. Perhaps in all its history, the Woman’s Party has never gathered—not a more brilliant company of speakers—but speakers with so marvelous a story to tell. They spoke to packed houses. At their very first meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, traffic was actually stopped by the overflow meeting.

XIII

THE APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT ON HIS RETURN

THE President of the United States returned to America from Europe on February 24, 1919, landing in Boston. Boston arranged an enormous welcome-home demonstration. The Woman’s Party determined to take part in that welcome to remind him of the Suffrage work to be done, and they announced this to the world at large. Alice Paul went to Boston to arrange this demonstration. The Boston police announced in their turn that they would establish a dead line in front of the reviewing stand beyond which the Suffragists would not be allowed to penetrate. However, the Suffragists, following the Red Cross women, marched through the line of Marines who held the crowd back, and took up their position before the reviewing stand where the President was to appear. At the head of the line in the place of honor, waving the American flag, was Katherine Morey. On one side of the Stars and Stripes was the historic banner:

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

On the other side of the Stars and Stripes was a second historic banner:

MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WILL YOU DO FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE?

The special lettered banner for the occasion read:

MR. PRESIDENT, YOU SAID IN THE SENATE ON SEPTEMBER 30, “WE SHALL NOT ONLY BE DISTRUSTED BUT WE SHALL DESERVE TO BE DISTRUSTED IF WE DO NOT ENFRANCHISE WOMEN.”

YOU ALONE CAN REMOVE THIS DISTRUST NOW BY SECURING THE ONE VOTE NEEDED TO PASS THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT BEFORE MARCH 4.

This banner was carried by Lois Shaw and Ruth Small.

The police politely requested the pickets to depart and the pickets politely refused to go; whereupon the police politely arrested them. The arrested women were: Jessica Henderson, Ruth Small, Lou Daniels, Mrs. Frank Page, Josephine Collins, Berry Pottier, Wilma Henderson, Mrs. Irving Gross, Mrs. George Roewer, Francis Fowler, Camilla Whitcomb, Mrs. H. L. Turner, Eleanor Calnan, Betty Connelly, Betty Gram, Lois Warren Shaw, Rose Lewis, Mrs. E. T. Russian.

They were charged with “loitering more than seven minutes.”

In the afternoon while the President was making a speech in Mechanics Hall, a Watchfire demonstration occurred on Boston Common. A vast crowd gathered about it. From three o’clock in the afternoon until six, the women made speeches.

The speakers were: Louise Sykes, Mrs. C. C. Jack, Mrs. Mortimer Warren, Mrs. Robert Trent Whitehouse, Agnes H. Morey, Elsie Hill.

Louise Sykes burned the President’s words—and they were the words that he was speaking that very afternoon. Mrs. Mortimer Warren and Mrs. C. C. Jack were arrested at six o’clock and released immediately. Elsie Hill was detained on the charge of speaking without a permit.

* * * * *

That day the President’s carriage drove by the Boston Headquarters. When Wilson saw the purple, white, and gold colors, his expression changed. Quickly he looked the other way. It was observed that he held across his knees a newspaper whose flaring headlines announced that day’s picketing.

The Suffragists were tried on February 25, by what was very like a Star Chamber proceeding, in the Judge’s lobby on the second floor of the court house. The Press was not excluded from the hearing, but the public was. As usual, the Suffragists did not assist the Court by giving names or answering questions. As a result, in the words of the _Suffragist_, “There is quite a family of Jane Does in Boston.” Sixteen of them—everybody, except Wilma Henderson, who was discovered to be a minor, and several others who could not be identified—were sentenced to eight days in jail.

Some person—I quote from the _Suffragist_—entirely unknown and untraceable and unidentified, whom the policemen gave the name “E. H. Howe” paid the fines of these women. Katherine Morey, Ruth Small, and Betty Connelly were released on February 26; Josephine Collins on February 27; the others came out two at a time.

As usual, the complaints of the Suffragists called the attention of the people of the community to the filthy condition of their jail, which these experts pronounced one of the worst in the country. It was characterized by the “bucket system.” In each cell stood two buckets for toilet purposes. One contained the water in which they bathed. The other was emptied once a day or once in two days, according to the frequency with which the prisoner was permitted to go into the jail-yard for the purpose.

* * * * *

The Boston papers gave this demonstration enormous publicity. Boston institutions received in the press a muckraking which they had not experienced in years.

* * * * *

When President Wilson arrived in the Capitol at Washington—after this welcome in Boston—one of the first pieces of legislation which he took up was the Federal Suffrage Amendment. He went to the Capitol and conferred with Senator Jones of New Mexico (Democrat) Chairman of the Woman’s Suffrage Committee, about the Suffrage Resolution. After the vote of February 10, Senator Jones of New Mexico refused to introduce the Suffrage Resolution again, but Senator Jones of Washington, the ranking Republican, introduced the identical bill. The President expressed his regret over the failure of the measure on February 10, but he did not exert his influence towards getting it passed.

The Sixty-fifth Congress was about to adjourn in a few days. On February 28, in order to overcome the Parliamentary difficulty of the reconsideration of a measure which had been once reconsidered, Senator Jones of New Mexico introduced a Suffrage Amendment which was a variation of the Anthony Amendment and so of course to Suffragists not so satisfactory. It was referred to the Woman Suffrage Committee. Soon after this, Senator Gay of Louisiana, who had voted against the Amendment on February 10, announced that he would now vote for it. The President had obtained this vote, but like all his action on Suffrage, it came too late. There were only three days left and Senator Jones of New Mexico made several attempts to obtain the necessary unanimous consent for the consideration of his Resolution, but he was unsuccessful. On Saturday, March 1, Senator Wadsworth (Republican) objected. On Monday, March 3, Senator Weeks (Republican) objected. On Tuesday, March 4, Senator Sherman (Republican) objected. The session came to an end in the Senate without action on the Suffrage Amendment. The Republicans did not want the Democrats to get the credit of passing it, and so prevented it from coming to a vote.

XIV

THE APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT ON HIS DEPARTURE

WHEN Congress adjourned at noon March 3, President Wilson left immediately for Europe, stopping in New York to speak at the Metropolitan Opera House. Alice Paul arranged at once a demonstration in New York as a protest against the President leaving the Suffrage question still unsettled. Her plan was to have every word on democracy, uttered by the President inside the Opera House, immediately burned outside the Opera House.

On the evening of March 4 a long line of Suffragists started from the New York Headquarters at 13 East Forty-first Street. Margaretta Schuyler carried the American flag. Lucy Maverick followed her carrying the purple, white, and gold tri-color. Florence De Shan carried:

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

Beatrice Castleton bore:

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW LONG MUST WOMEN WAIT FOR LIBERTY?

The lettered banner for the occasion said:

MR. PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WOMEN PROTEST AGAINST THE DEFEAT OF SUFFRAGE FOR WHICH YOU AND YOUR PARTY ARE RESPONSIBLE. WE DEMAND THAT YOU CALL AN EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY TO PASS THE SUFFRAGE AMENDMENT. AN AUTOCRAT AT HOME IS A POOR CHAMPION FOR DEMOCRACY ABROAD.

At the corner of Fortieth Street and Broadway, this line met a barrier of more than a hundred policemen. As the Suffragists tried to pass through them, the police—assisted by soldiers and sailors from the crowd—rushed upon them; tore down the banners; broke them.

In her book, _Jailed for Freedom_, Doris Stevens tells how in perfect silence, but in the most business-like way, the New York police clubbed the pickets. They arrested six of the women; Alice Paul, Elsie Hill, Doris Stevens, Beatrice Castleton, Lucy Maverick, Marie Bodenheim. These were taken to the police station charged with disorderly conduct. After half an hour, they were suddenly released.

They went back to Headquarters, re-formed into a second line and started for the Opera House. At Fortieth Street, the police again rushed them, tearing and breaking their flags. The women were knocked down. Some were trampled underfoot, and picked up later, limp and bleeding from scrapes and bruises. Elsie Hill succeeded in retaining her torch. She began her meeting of protest. A messenger emerged from the Opera House with some of the words which the President had just uttered, and she burned them. The police rushed upon her, but they were too late. In the meantime, Alice Paul had succeeded in bringing the line of Suffragists up to the wall of police. There the crowds dashed on them again.

With the wonderful spirit which always characterized her, Elsie Hill called out to one of the soldiers: Did you fellows turn back when you saw the Germans come? What would you have thought of any one who did? Do you expect us to turn back now? We never turn back either—and we won’t until democracy is won!

Finally the police pushed the crowds back so far that there was no audience. The pickets returned to Headquarters. There they found that all the evening long, lawless citizens had been breaking in, carrying out great bundles of banners and burning them in the street.

Doris Stevens tells in _Jailed for Freedom_ how, when she attempted to enter Headquarters, she was knocked down by a hoodlum armed with one of their banner poles.

* * * * *

That night and the following day, sailors, privates and officers—military and naval—called at Suffrage Headquarters to apologize for the conduct of other men in uniform. They begged the women to believe that their action was not representative of the attitude of service men in general.

The Sixty-sixth Congress convened in special session on May 19, 1919, with the Republicans in control.

The Suffragists knew before this Congress convened, that it would pass the Anthony Amendment.

This was how it happened.

XV

THE PRESIDENT OBTAINS THE LAST VOTE AND CONGRESS SURRENDERS

THE Suffrage situation was a little confused. Senator Baird, opposed to Suffrage, of the old Congress, was succeeded by Edge, favorable to it. Pollock, favorable, was succeeded by Dial, opposed. Vardaman of Mississippi, favorable, was succeeded by Harrison. Drew of New Hampshire, opposed, was succeeded by Keyes. Hardwick of Georgia, opposed, was succeeded by Harris. These three last new Senators—Harrison (Democrat), Harris (Democrat), and Keyes (Republican)—maintained a steady silence as to how they would vote. It was necessary to get one of them.

Senator Harris was a close supporter of President Wilson. Alice Paul knew that Matthew Hale, former Chairman of the Progressive National Committee, a Suffragist but not a Democrat, was influential with the Administration. She therefore suggested to Anita Pollitzer that she see Mr. Hale at once and lay the situation before him. This was early in May and Congress was convening May 19. Mr. Hale was enthusiastic in his desire to help. The situation was complicated by the fact that the President was in Europe. Mr. Hale and Miss Pollitzer went over the Senate poll and from among the most favorable non-committal senators chose Harris of Georgia. He too was in Europe. Suddenly the field of the campaign crossed three thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean to France. The Woman’s Party concentrated their forces on getting President Wilson to influence Harris into declaring for Suffrage. Mr. Hale worked steadily with a group of people close to the President who rapidly increased in numbers. Ultimately this pressure bore fruit in a conference between Robert Woolley, Democratic Publicity Manager in the 1916 campaign, Homer S. Cummings, Chairman of the National Democratic Committee, William J. Cochran, Director of Publicity of the Democratic Committee, Joseph Tumulty, the President’s Secretary, Senator Walsh. The result of this conference was that Tumulty sent a cable to the President, suggesting that he confer with Senator Harris. Senator Harris was in Italy, but at the President’s request he went to France. Immediately came the news on the cable that Senator Harris would support the Suffrage Amendment.

Having secured Harris’ vote, President Wilson cabled a message to the new Congress on the night of May 20 which contained the following reference to the Susan B. Anthony Amendment:

Will you permit me, turning from these matters, to speak once more and very earnestly of the proposed Amendment to the Constitution which would extend the Suffrage to women and which passed the House of Representatives at the last session of the Congress? It seems to me that every consideration of justice and of public advantage calls for the immediate adoption of that Amendment and its submission forthwith to the legislatures of the several States.

Throughout all the world this long-delayed extension of the Suffrage is looked for; in the United States, longer, I believe, than anywhere else, the necessity for it, and the immense advantages of it to the national life, has been urged and debated by women and men who saw the need for it and urged the policy of it when it required steadfast courage to be so much beforehand with the common conviction; and I, for one, covet for our country the distinction of being among the first to act in a great reform.

As soon as Suffrage was assured by this sixty-fourth vote, Senator Keyes and Senator Hale in a convulsive effort to leap on the fast disappearing band-wagon announced that they would vote for the Amendment, thus giving the Suffragists two extra votes.

As this was a new Congress it was necessary for the House to pass the Suffrage Amendment again. On May 21, 1919, therefore, the new House passed it by three hundred and four votes to eighty-nine—forty-two more than the required two-thirds. It will be remembered that, when the previous House passed it on January 10, 1918, the vote was two hundred and seventy-four to one hundred and thirty-six—only one vote more than the required two-thirds.

The Amendment then went to the Senate.

In her _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_, Maud Younger says:

Four months later, on June fourth, for the fifth time in a little more than a year, we sat in the Senate gallery to hear a vote on the Suffrage Amendment. The new Congress, coming in on March fourth, had brought us two more votes—we now had our eleven. There was no excitement. The coming of the women, the waiting of the women, the expectancy of the women, was an old story. A whole year had passed in the winning of two votes. Every one knew what the end would be now. It was all very dull.

We walked slowly homeward, talking a little, silent a great deal. This was the day toward which women had been struggling for more than half a century! We were in the dawn of woman’s political power in America. Several days before the Senate passed the Amendment, Alice Paul left Washington to arrange for an immediate ratification by the legislatures in session.

XVI

RATIFICATION

“WOMEN ARE FREE AT LAST IN ALL THE LAND”

_Chant Royal_

Waken, O Woman, to the trumpet sound Greeting our day of long sought liberty; Gone are the ages that have held us bound Beneath a master, now we stand as he, Free for world-service unto all mankind, Free of the dragging chains that used to bind, The sordid labor, the unnoticed woe, The helpless shame, the unresisted blow, Submission to our owner’s least command— No longer pets or slaves are we, for lo! Women are free at last in all the land.

Long was the stony road our feet have found From that dark past to the new world we see, Each step with heavy hindrance hemmed around, Each door to freedom closed with bolt and key; Our feet with old tradition all entwined, Untrained, uneducated, uncombined, We had to fight old faiths of long ago, And in our households find our dearest foe, Against the world’s whole weight we had to stand Till came the day it could no more say no— Women are free at last in all the land.

Around us prejudice, emotion-drowned, Rose like a flood and would not let us free; Women themselves, soft-bred and silken gowned, Historic shame have won by their mad plea To keep their own subjection; with them lined All evil forces of the world we find, No crime so brazen and no vice so low But fought us, with inertia blind and slow, And ignorance beneath its darkling brand, these we strove and still must strive, although Women are free at last in all the land.

The serving squaw, the peasant, toil-embrowned, The household drudge, no honor and no fee— For these we now see women world-renowned, In art and science, work of all degree. She whom world progress had left far behind Now has the secret of full life divined,— Her largest service gladly to bestow; Great is the gain since ages far below, In honored labor, of head and hand; Now may her power and genius clearly show Women are free at last in all the land.

Long years of effort to her praise redound, To such high courage all may bend the knee, Beside her brother, with full freedom crowned, Mother and wife and citizen is she, Queen of her soul and body, heart and mind, Strong for the noble service God designed; See now the marching millions, row on row, With steady eyes and faces all aglow, They come! they come! a glad triumphant band,— Roses and laurels in their pathway strow— Women are free at last in all the land!

ENVOI

Sisters! we now must change the world we know To one great garden where the child may grow. New freedom means new duty, broad and grand. To make a better world and hold it so Women are free at last in all the land. CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN, _The Suffragist_, September, 1920.

THE Suffrage Amendment had now passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One step was necessary before it became a part of the Constitution of the United States—ratification by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States in the Union—by thirty-six States out of forty-eight. No time limit was set by Congress on ratification, but naturally Suffragists wanted it to come as soon as possible. Some people believed it would take twenty years. They did not reckon with Alice Paul however.

As soon as Congress passed the Suffrage Amendment, the whole situation—as far as Suffrage was concerned—changed. Now the President, the leaders in the Administration, the leaders in the great political Parties became potential allies.

In four States—Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts—the Legislatures were in regular session. In three States—Texas, Ohio, Michigan—called on matters not pertaining to Suffrage, the Legislatures were in special session. The first undertaking of the Woman’s Party was to get the convening Legislatures to ratify and the remaining States to call special sessions.

A race as to who should be the first to ratify, set in between Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois. All three ratified on June 10. But Illinois had to re-ratify later on June 17 because of an error in printing the Amendment on its first ratification on June 10. As between the other two, Wisconsin won.

The story of Wisconsin’s part in the race is interesting and humorous. D. G. James, the father of Ada James, former Chairman of the Wisconsin Branch of the Woman’s Party, was spending the day in Madison when the Legislature ratified. His daughter was, of course, exceedingly desirous that Wisconsin should achieve the honor of the first ratification, and he was equally desirous of aiding her. He assisted her in every way to avoid official delays and in getting the action of the Legislature properly certified. He commandeered his daughter’s traveling bag, made a few swift purchases of the necessities of traveling, and caught the first train to Washington. He procured a signed statement that Wisconsin’s ratification was the first to be received from the Department of State, on June 13. He brought his trophy in triumph to Headquarters and told his story to the newspaper men while the statement was being photographed.

That statement runs as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WASHINGTON.

June 13, 1919.

By direction of the Acting Secretary of State, I hereby acknowledge the receipt of a certified copy of the Joint Resolution of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin, ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the right of Suffrage to women, which was delivered by Special Messenger, D. G. James, on June 13, 1919, and is the first ratification of the Amendment which has been received.

J. A. TOWNER, Chief of Bureau.

Michigan, almost neck and neck in the race with Wisconsin, ratified on June 10. Kansas, Ohio, and New York ratified on June 16. Kansas was the first State to call its Legislature in special session to ratify the Suffrage Amendment, the first also in which the legislators paid their own expenses to attend the special session. Illinois, held up by that mistake in printing, ratified on June 17.

Pennsylvania, the first non-Suffrage State, ratified on June 24, but not without a struggle. The session of the Legislature was drawing to a close and it was difficult to get the measure introduced. The National Woman’s Party made a strenuous campaign. Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Ratification Committee, enlisted the aid of Governor Sproul and in a conference with Senator Penrose, who had been one of the strongest opponents to the Suffrage Amendment in the United States Senate, persuaded him to give his support to ratification. Mary Ingham, the State Chairman, brought all the Woman’s Party forces in the State to bear upon the situation. The scene in the Senate when the vote was taken was highly colorful. The floor was a waving mass of purple, white, and gold. The tri-color badges of the National Woman’s Party appeared everywhere on the floor and among the audience. There was such demand for the Woman’s Party colors that at the last moment the stock had to be replenished. After the final victory in the House, a parade of purple, white, and gold blazed its way through Harrisburg.

Massachusetts followed close on Pennsylvania, ratifying on June 25. Agnes Morey, the State Chairman of the National Woman’s Party, assisted by members of the State branch, and by Betty Gram, national organizer, made the intensive drive on the Legislature, which resulted in their bringing the Bay State into camp. Here, Senator Lodge, another hitherto unchangeable opponent to the Suffrage Amendment in the United States Senate, did not oppose the measure when it came up before the Massachusetts Legislature, although he did not give the support which Penrose of Pennsylvania gave.

Texas, the first Democratic “one-party” State to do so, ratified by special session on June 28. Iowa, after an appeal for a special session from Senator Cummins to Governor Harding—this was done at the instance of the Woman’s Party—ratified on July 2; Missouri ratified by special session on July 3.

In the meantime the Legislature of Alabama, which only convenes once in four years, met and although Suffragists had not wanted this session and had very little hope of success, they conducted a campaign for ratification. As it was the first Democratic State in which there was difficulty, an appeal was made to the President. He despatched the following telegrams:

WHITE HOUSE, July 12, 1919.

Hon. Thomas E. Kilby, Governor,

Montgomery, Alabama.

I hope you will pardon me if I express my very earnest hope that the Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States may be ratified by the great State of Alabama.

It would constitute a very happy augury for the future and add greatly to the strength of the movement which, in my judgment, is based upon the highest considerations, both of justice and experience.

WOODROW WILSON.

WHITE HOUSE July 14, 1919.

Hon. H. P. Merritt,

Speaker of House of Representatives,

Montgomery, Alabama.

I hope that you will not think that I am taking an unwarranted liberty in saying that I earnestly hope, as do all friends of the great liberal movement which it represents, that the legislature of Alabama will ratify the Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It would give added hope and courage to the friends of justice and enlightened policy everywhere and would constitute the best possible augury for future liberal policy of every sort.

WOODROW WILSON.

Alabama was the first State in which ratification was defeated.

By this time, the Legislature in Georgia was convening. Suffragists had no more hope of ratification here than in Alabama. Nevertheless the campaign was made. They appealed to the national Democratic leaders for help and the President despatched the following telegram:

WHITE HOUSE, July 14, 1919.

Governor Hugh M. Dorsey,

State Capitol,

Atlanta, Georgia.

I am profoundly interested in the passage of the Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution, and will very much value your advice as to the present status of the matter in the Georgia legislature. I would like very much to be of help, for I believe it to be absolutely essential to the political future of the country that the Amendment be passed. It is absolutely essential to the future of the Democratic Party that it take a leading part in this great reform.

WOODROW WILSON.

Georgia defeated ratification July 24, although the national Democratic leaders had aided in the entire campaign.

Arkansas ratified on July 20; Montana, July 20; Nebraska on August 2, all by special session.

Then came a lull in the ratification race. By August, only two States west of the Mississippi, had ratified and to the great surprise—and the intense disappointment—of Suffragists, the West continued to maintain this lethargy.

In the meantime, there came a special session for good roads in Virginia, another Democratic State. Since the session was meeting, the Suffragists had no alternative but to make the fight. In Virginia, they relied again on the Democratic national leaders to overcome the opposition of the local Democratic leaders. As in the case of Alabama and Georgia, although the national leaders did much, they did not do enough. The President, however, despatched the following letter:

August 22, 1919.

President of the Senate,

Richmond, Virginia.

May I not take the liberty of expressing my profound interest in the action which the Legislature of my native State is to take in the matter of the Suffrage Amendment to the United States Constitution. It seems to me of profound importance to our country that this Amendment should be adopted and I venture to urge the adoption on the Legislature. With utmost respect and with the greatest earnestness,

WOODROW WILSON.

Virginia did not ratify.

During all this period campaigns for special sessions continued. Typical of these is the following account by Julia Emory, national organizer, in the July _Suffragist_:

“Good-by, good luck, and don’t come back until Maryland ratifies!” This from the group of National Headquarters when I waved farewell and started over the hills and far away toward a special session in Maryland. Over the hills to Baltimore, and then early the next morning, very, very early, the big bay boat splashed down the Chesapeake to Cambridge where Governor Harrington was spending the week-end.

“It’s good of you to come,” the Governor greeted me. “Not good of me, but necessary, Governor, to let you know how much women need a special session in Maryland, now. Not just the 15,000 Maryland women of our organization who have asked me to come to you, but all the women in the United States.” “Ah!” said he. “You ladies are too impatient. We will have a regular session in January, why can’t you wait till then?” “Because,” I answered, “there is no need of prolonging the struggle. We have the necessary thirty-six States in view. We want the special session so that we can vote for the next Governor of Maryland at the election this November, and for members of our legislature at the same election.” “But the question of expense,” he suggested. “That is easily eliminated,” I said. “Take Kansas, for example, where the legislators waived all pay and mileage in order to push forward ratification. Surely our Maryland men will do the same. And, anyhow, two days at the outside would see the thing through. Think of the taxes women have paid for so many years. Think of the war for Democracy, think of the part women gave in human sacrifice, service and money, and then tell me if anybody would say that a special session called for the purpose of giving them a voice in their government would take too much out of the State treasury.” “That’s true,” said the Governor, “but special sessions are unpopular, and suppose the resolution should fail——” “Oh!” I said with a beaming smile of relief, “if what you want is a convincing poll, I’ll give you that,” thinking of the poll which, though still not yet completed, already showed a majority pledged in both Houses. “Next Tuesday,” said he. “Now,” said I. It was then Friday. But the Governor said Tuesday, and told me that in the meantime he was going to “feel around” for sentiment. And so did I.

First I went to a State Senator. “Why the special session?” he wanted to know. And when he found the thirty-six States were in view, he sat up. “The thing is upon us,” he said. We went over the situation from the political point of view from beginning to end. He was a Democrat. “And,” said he in a low voice, “if I had to bet on the fall elections, I’d—well, all I have to say is, if the Democrats want to get any credit, it’ll have to be by special session.”

“Will you say that to the Governor?” I asked.

“I will, tonight,” he said, “and as for the question of expense, I for one, will waive my pay.” Just then the train whistled. “You can’t make it,” said the Senator. “We are some distance from the station.” “I must,” I said. “I have to see another man.”

The Senator laughed and called to a man in an automobile and away I whisked and the conductor helped me to hop on the train as it moved off.

The man at the other end was in Chicago. And the next train was due in six hours. Then on to a little town where I sat on a pile of baggage and waited until the Republican delegate arrived. “I hope,” he said, “that the Republicans will take the initiative and ask for a special session. Yes, you bet, I’ll waive my pay.”

Then a Democrat, who said he would fight a special session to a finish. “Knowing what it will mean to your Party if you do?” I asked. We went into it from the political viewpoint. Then he saw the end in sight. We carefully went over the thirty-six States. He rubbed his head and looked at the opposite wall (or it may have been the State of Maryland he was gazing at so intently). “You know,” he said finally, “I am an anti-Suffragist at heart, but at the same time I am no fool. The thing is here, and the point is, what is the best thing to do about it. I will not urge a special session, but I will not fight it.”

Then on Tuesday, Mrs. Donald Hooker, our Maryland Chairman, went over the poll with the Governor. Man by man, they considered the delegates and senators. Yes, this one was sure, that one was practically sure but wasn’t pledged and so we wouldn’t count him yet, another was hopeful, another was hopeless, and the then uncompleted poll stood fifty-nine to thirty-eight in the House and thirteen to eleven in the Senate. We looked expectantly at the Governor. “I need more time to consider,” was what he said.

“In the meantime,” said Mrs. Hooker to me as we went out, “we will complete the poll as fast as possible. A big majority will surely convince him that it must go through.”

So off to Southern Maryland and the counties around Washington. One legislator I found in Washington in a big, cool office, dressed in a Palm Beach suit and on the point of departing for a vacation. I looked at him and thought of canoes and bathing suits which had been shoved aside for me till after the special session. “I hope you will have a good time,” I told him. “Mine will come after you have voted ‘yes.’” He smiled happily and his reply made me smile happily too.

One man was in his wheat field. ‘Way into the country we went by automobile where no trains ran and no electric cars penetrated. We reached the town and inquired at the hardware store for our legislator: “Mr. F——? Oh, he don’t live here, he just has his mail sent here, he lives ’bout fo’teen mile round yonder.” “Fo’teen mile round yonder,” we finally found his home. “Well, you see it’s this way,” explained his wife. “He might’ve been home, but Mr. So-and-So is thrashing wheat and my husband went over to help him get it in before the storm.” We noticed clouds in the sky. We went on to the So-and-Sos’ farm. At the farmhouse, we all alighted. My companions immediately made for the chicken yard where they made friends with Mrs. So-and-So and helped her to feed the chickens. Afterward, they told us of the strong Suffrage speech the farmer’s wife had made to them, who being the mother of eight children—six girls and two boys—had come to the conclusion that nobody needed Suffrage more than the farmer’s wife. Two of the little girls took me out to the field, up a dusty white road we walked, climbed rail fences and—oh! how good! picked a few blackberries—and came at last to the thrashing field. “No,” said my man, “I can’t see that Suffrage is right, and I can’t therefore vote for it.” “Did you think the war was right?” I asked. “Oh! of course.” “And why did we go to war?” I asked. “To get democracy,” he answered. “Exactly,” I said. “And President Wilson said that democracy was ‘the right of all those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government.’” “Now look here, Missie,” said my friend, “I believe women are superior beings to men, and if they were to vote, they’d have to be equals. Now look at this hay stack. You could no more pitch hay than——” “Will you lend me your fork?” I asked. I stuck in the form, gave it the peculiar little twist, then the little flop, squared my shoulder and up it went on the wagon. Three times. “Well, I’ll be jiggered,” laughed the legislator, “labor is scarce and now I’ll know where to look for help when I need it!” “Yes,” said I. “And we have come to you for help. We need your vote.”

On to the next, we climbed into the machine and sped away.

And so it runs. Sometimes, we strike an obstinate anti who will not even listen to what we have to say, even though I have traveled weary miles in trains and on foot to find him. Sometimes we have to put up at a funny little village hotel because an inconsiderate legislator has gone out of town for a day. Sometimes they are cordial, and offer all sorts of help. Sometimes the road lies through beautiful country, occasionally in hot, stuffy little towns. At fastest, it is slow work. Why do legislators live so far apart and in such inaccessible places? And generally so very far from anything to eat! Some evenings as it begins to grow dark, I am keenly aware that I have had nothing to eat since breakfast. But that is part of the game, and after all what does it matter when I can write to Headquarters before I fall into bed, “We can add the following names of legislators to the list of pledged, and all of them have offered to waive their pay.” So far only one has refused to waive pay.

So, with a big majority in both houses pledged to vote for the measure, there remains nothing but the calling of the special session. This, it is up to Governor Harrington to do at once.

And this, according to the following answer to Attorney General Palmer’s letter, he still refuses to do. Yet the Governor must surely yet see the light, as he knows that there IS no question of defeat if a special session is called to ratify.

The poll which has been so carefully and accurately drawn up demonstrates that fact most convincingly, and we are going to keep right on working until Governor Harrington sees it that way!

Maryland defeated ratification later.

Owing to the fact that most of the governors who must call special sessions were Republicans, the National Woman’s Party made a drive on the national Republican leaders to get them to act upon these governors. On August 14, Abby Scott Baker went to the Governors’ Conference at Salt Lake City where, assisted by Louise Garnett, State Chairman of the Woman’s Party in Utah, she succeeded in getting governors whose Legislatures had already ratified to organize an informal committee to work upon those whose Legislatures had not ratified. Some of these governors of these backward States—or rather some of the backward governors of these States—made tentative promises in regard to special sessions, but these promises were so vague that Mrs. Baker started, at the close of the Governors’ Conference, to California. We shall hear about her work there later.

Minnesota ratified on September 8; New Hampshire on September 10, both in special session. Utah—but there is a story about Utah.

Utah was backward. Alice Paul interested Isaac Russell, a newspaper man, and a native of Utah, in the situation. He prevailed upon Senator Smoot, Republican, to write a letter to Alice Paul saying that he was disappointed that Governor Bamberger, Democrat, was not calling a special session. Alice Paul gave this letter to the Press, and of course, the Republican papers of Utah carried it. Alice Paul waited a while and then she sent Anita Pollitzer to see the Democratic Congressmen from Utah, and to put it clearly to them that the responsibility for the delay was on their Party. As a result of Miss Pollitzer’s representations, Congressman Welling, a Democrat and a friend of Governor Bamberger, wrote a strong telegram to him in which he urged him to set the date of a special session at once. Early the next morning, Congressman Welling telephoned Headquarters that the telegram had brought results and read a message from Governor Bamberger announcing the date on which he would call that special session. Utah ratified on September 30.

In the meantime, we must go back to Abby Scott Baker, whom we left on her way to California. She found that an enormous amount of work had been done by Genevieve Allen, the State Chairman for California, and by the members of her organization, assisted by Vivian Pierce, a national organizer. Governor Stevens, however, seemed immovable on the subject of a special session. But with additional assistance from Mrs. William Kent, one of its national officers, the Woman’s Party inaugurated a vigorous newspaper campaign. Governor Stevens found himself inundated by an avalanche of telegrams, letters, petitions, resolutions; and finally of entreaties of the men who surrounded him. Governor Stevens is a Republican, and the Democratic women began to organize for ratification. Senator Phelan, Democrat, gave them his assistance. National leaders of both Parties brought pressure to bear. It was impossible to resist this current. Governor Stevens issued a call for a special session for November 1, and on that date California ratified.

The Woman’s Party refers to Maine as the first close call. This story is very interesting. Maine called a special session, but Maine was, so to speak, on the fence in regard to Suffrage, as, when the National Woman’s Party approached the State on the subject of ratification, a referendum on Presidential Suffrage was pending. So important was the situation there that Alice Paul joined Mrs. Lawrence Lewis and Mrs. Robert Treat Whitehouse, the State Chairman, who were working hard. In Maine, too, the antis were troublesome. They managed to introduce a resolution in the Legislature proposing postponement on the subject of ratification until after the referendum. The President and Secretary of the State Federation of Labor sent an official appeal to the Legislature to vote for this resolution. Immediately the Woman’s Party in Washington obtained a letter from Secretary Morrison of the American Federation of Labor to the Maine Federation, stating that the A. F. of L. stood strongly for ratification. Mrs. Whitehouse gave this letter to the newspapers; gave copies to every member of the Legislature. She conferred with the President of the State Federation, persuaded him to repudiate his former letter and to issue an appeal for the support of ratification. National leaders of both the Democratic and Republican Parties sent telegrams to legislators. Maine ratified on November 5—by a narrow margin of four votes.

After a long siege by the Woman’s Party on the Governor, North Dakota ratified in special session on December 1.

In the case of South Dakota, Governor Norbeck agreed to call a special session of the Legislature if the majority of the members would serve without mileage. Late in November, Alice Paul received a telegram from Governor Norbeck saying that the session would not be called as he was sixteen answers short of a majority who were willing to serve without expense to the State. Alice Paul immediately sent Anita Pollitzer to the Capitol to see Senator Sterling of South Dakota. Miss Pollitzer showed him Governor Norbeck’s telegram to Miss Paul and told him that the Suffragists would be greatly disappointed if the Republican Legislature of South Dakota refused to meet, and a Republican Governor refuse to call a special session. He agreed that was a political mistake and in Miss Pollitzer’s presence, sent telegrams to his law partner, the chief politician of the State, telling him to do everything possible to have a special session called; to the Chairman of the Republican State Committee, asking him to telegraph each member of the Legislature, urging him to answer the Governor’s appeal and to agree to come to the special session as the Governor had stipulated, at his own expense. Examining this situation superficially—or even closely—one would think that Miss Pollitzer had done everything that was possible. But there is no reckoning with Alice Paul. When Miss Pollitzer returned to Headquarters, Miss Paul said simply, “We can do more.”

That afternoon Miss Pollitzer visited Mr. McCarl, the Secretary of the Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, who sent telegrams to all the Republican leaders in the State, urging that they make clear to the Republican Governor and to the members of the Legislature the importance to the Republican Party of a good record on ratification. Three days later, a telegram came to Washington announcing that a majority, willing to serve at their own expense, had been secured. South Dakota ratified on December 4.

Colorado, the last State to ratify in 1919, did so on December 12—but only after a long campaign, the result of local conditions.

January of 1920, in which five States came into the fold, was a highly successful month for the ratification record. Rhode Island and Kentucky ratified in regular session on January 6. Oregon, whose Governor broke his promises many times, finally ratified in regular session on January 12. The State Chairman, Mrs. W. J. Hawkins, campaigned vigorously here, assisted by her State organization and Vivian Pierce, national organizer. Much equally vigorous work in Washington supplemented her.

Indiana ratified January 16 in special session.

Wyoming was the last of the five January States. For months, Governor Carey had refused to call a special session. He had been peculiarly obstinate at the Governors’ Conference at Salt Lake City on August 14, where he had stated that he would not call a special session even if it were needed as the very last State. Wyoming, it should be remembered, was the pioneer Suffrage State. Representatives of the Woman’s Party went at once to Wyoming. Mrs. Richard Wainwright, who was staying in the West, made it her special work to bring pressure on the Governor. Alice Paul sent Anita Pollitzer to the Capitol to talk with the Congressman and Senators from Wyoming. They said that circumstances had arisen which made it impossible for them to try to force the Governor. On the trolley car Miss Pollitzer met Frank Barrow, Secretary to Congressman Mondell, and asked him for help. He agreed to give it. Mr. Barrow had edited the _Cheyenne Tribune_, the leading Republican paper of the State, when Anita Pollitzer campaigned in Wyoming the year before. He began urging that a special session be called and charged the Governor with hurting the Republican record on Suffrage. Immediately a statement appeared in the Press from the Governor, saying that he would call a special session, but not at the expense of the State; that the men must come without pay or mileage. Wyoming is a huge State, and this was in January, a month of terrific snow storms. Unless extra political pressure was applied, the legislators might not come from far-away ranches at their own expense. In the meantime, whenever politicians from Wyoming arrived in Washington, members of the Woman’s Party saw them at once. Party members learned that a close political advisor of Governor Carey was going to spend one night in Washington. They called on him at his hotel and told him that the responsibility of all this delay lay squarely on the Republicans and on Governor Carey. He was highly indignant at the attitude of the Woman’s Party and their Press campaign. Nevertheless, he said that the Governor was going to call a special session at once.

It was necessary to bring extra political pressure to bear, so long as Governor Carey’s request for a special session put it up to the members of the Legislature, themselves, whether they would attend that session. Anita Pollitzer went to the Capitol and got the political line-up from the political leaders. They divided the State into districts for her and told her who were the political bellwethers of each district. With this information, Miss Pollitzer went to Dr. Simeon Fess, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Dr. Fess sent strong telegrams to every one of the Republican State leaders asking them to round up the legislators of their district, to see that they agreed to go to the special session at their own expense; asked them for a reply; told them he would wire again if a reply was not received.

On January 27, both Houses of the Wyoming Legislature ratified unanimously.

The Governor of Nevada, a Democrat, had refused to call a special session for many months because he was afraid that other measures besides Suffrage would be brought up; but after a long pressure brought upon him by the national Democratic leaders, he was induced to call the session. Nevada ratified February 7.

The next State in the ratification line was New Jersey, and New Jersey gave the Woman’s Party a terrific fight. Mrs. J. A. H. Hopkins, State Chairman, realized that with both the Republican and Democratic bosses opposed to Suffrage, New Jersey would never ratify unless the Woman’s Party made it a matter of the greatest political importance to the majority Party—the Republican Party. She engineered the fight, assisted by Betty Gram and Catherine Flanagan.

In Washington, Alice Paul sent Anita Pollitzer to Frank Barrow, Secretary to Congressman Mondell, who had assisted the Woman’s Party so signally in the Wyoming campaign, and asked him to go to New Jersey. “But I could speak with no authority,” he said, “and Mr. Mondell will need me here.” Anita Pollitzer told him that the Woman’s Party would attend to all those matters. She then went again to Dr. Fess, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and told him that they were likely to lose New Jersey unless somebody was immediately sent from the Congressional Committee to assist. At once, Dr. Fess wrote a letter to Mr. Barrow authorizing him to go to New Jersey in behalf of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Miss Pollitzer next went to Senator Poindexter, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and told him that the Woman’s Party wanted Mr. Barrow to go to New Jersey; that Dr. Fess had asked him to urge ratification on behalf of the Republican Congressional Committee and that the Woman’s Party wished him in addition to urge on behalf of the Republican Senatorial Committee. Senator Poindexter, thereupon, wrote a letter to Mr. Barrow authorizing him to go to New Jersey in behalf of the ratification of the Suffrage Amendment.

Last of all, Miss Pollitzer went to Congressman Mondell and broke the news to him that the Woman’s Party would like to commandeer his Secretary to go to New Jersey for as long a time as necessary, to work among Republicans for the ratification of Suffrage. Following an entirely natural impulse, Mr. Mondell said, “I am vitally interested in Suffrage, but I must say I need my own secretary in Washington!” Miss Pollitzer of course represented to him how much it meant to the National Woman’s Party to have Mr. Barrow go—that it would take at the most only a week out of his work; and that it might mean several years out of the lives of the women, if the Republicans allowed New Jersey to fail in ratification. She added that the responsibility was on him and got up to leave. Mr. Mondell said, “Tell Mr. Barrow to be in his office in ten minutes, as I shall want to see him there.” Fifteen minutes later, Miss Pollitzer called on Mr. Barrow, who told her that Mr. Mondell had asked him to go to New Jersey. In a letter to Miss Paul, Mr. Barrow listed the obstacles which he found in the way in the big New Jersey battle:

1. The last Republican State platform on which members of the legislature were elected, declared for a referendum.

2. The Republican State Chairman was an open and avowed anti-Suffragist.

3. The biggest Republican boss in N. J. was actively hostile to the Suffrage movement.

4. The biggest Democratic boss of N. J. was actively hostile to the Suffrage movement.

5. The tremendous political influence exerted through the liquor interests was actively and openly working against them.

New Jersey ratified on February 10.

In regard to the New Jersey campaign, Betty Gram has a vivacious article in the _Suffragist_ on March, 1920.

She says:

Miracles happen sometimes—but the ratification of the Suffrage Amendment on February 10th by the New Jersey Legislature was not the result of a miracle.

Every organizer of the Woman’s Party who had worked in the State whispered in my ear, “Don’t try New Jersey—it will never ratify.” It was therefore with reluctance that at the bidding of Miss Paul and Mrs. J. A. H. Hopkins, New Jersey State Chairman, I invaded the territory of the enemy and went to Trenton, where on September 30th both the Republican and Democratic State platform committees were sitting.

Despite all our efforts the Republicans that day in open convention under the leadership of Republican State Chairman Edward Caspar Stokes, declared in favor of a referendum, though each individual who had given a pledge to his constituents to support the Suffrage Amendment was left free to do so.

In significant contrast to this, the Democrats, holding convention just across the street, declared for immediate ratification. This was done upon the persistent demand of the Democratic candidate for governor, Edward I. Edwards, at the probable cost of the support of the most influential Democratic boss in the State, James R. Nugent, who in open convention fought the issue bitterly and pledged his twelve Essex County Assembly candidates against immediate ratification. They ran on that issue.

We watched the election returns on November 4th with acute anxiety. It was a critical point, for we had much to gain and everything to lose. The decision brought joy in one respect. Edwards, a Suffrage governor, was victorious, but alas! the result showed that the Republicans, who had adopted the referendum plank in their platform, had carried the Legislature. They had a majority in the Senate of fifteen to six and in the Assembly of thirty-three to twenty-seven—and among the twenty-seven Democratic members were the twelve Nugent men from Essex.

We had only a fighting chance at best—but we set about the task resolutely. As usual, the first duty was to obtain an authentic report of the position of each newly elected man. We had secured pre-primary pledges from the fifteen Edwards Democrats, as well as a few from some staunch Suffragists on the Republican side, but only a very few, for not only was their State Chairman opposed, but the Republican boss of South Jersey—former Senator Davis Baird, whom we knew would fight us to the end—through his tremendous influence.

In a few days our poll was completed. The Senate showed a bare but safe majority of one, for there we needed eleven votes. In the House our poll was much less encouraging. We needed thirty-one votes out of sixty—and we could count only twenty-five positive yeas. Where and how to get the six more supporters out of a Republican opposition was the bewildering—almost stupefying question. Political pressure—both national and local—was the one way out. The time had passed for meetings at which to arouse sentiment of constituents—only pressure of the most intimate nature would move a vote to our side.

We first set about to choose our leaders in the respective houses. We wanted wide-awake, active militants—parliamentarians who would not demand the assurance of the usual excess number of votes before moving; men who would take up the fight eagerly, revel in the chance of victory, and with odds against them enter enthusiastically into a neck to neck race.

At a dinner given by the National Woman’s Party at Newark on December 10th we accomplished our purpose—Senator Wm. B. MacKay, Republican, made an impassioned speech, publicly accepting the responsibility of leading our forces in the upper House. At this same dinner the newly chosen speaker-elect of the Assembly, W. Irving Glover, Republican, pledged his unequivocal support and straightforwardly stated that he would do all in his power to bring New Jersey into the line of ratified States. The happiest moment of the evening arrived when Republican majority leader of the House, Harry Hershfield, made known his position on the Suffrage issue and expressed his desire that New Jersey ratify. Great applause greeted his words that the backbone of opposition had been broken and that he anticipated victory and would exert every influence to that end. The day after the dinner, Mr. Hershfield permitted to be given out from our Headquarters a statement declaring that he would lead the fight in the House.

The next day I went to Washington. The interest of the two United States Senators from New Jersey as well as the Congressmen had to be recruited. Soon letters and telegrams were pouring into the State from Washington. The resolution passed unanimously by the Republican National Committee in Washington on December 10th did much to strengthen our position and before long the importance of the issue from a national standpoint began to dawn on the vision of some New Jersey Republicans.

The situation took on a more hopeful aspect—a few finishing touches only were needed—but just whose magic touch to summon was the problem.

We were at a standstill. Two votes were still needed to reach the required thirty-one. Then something happened.

Inauguration day came and with it the tactical error of the opposition which acted as a boomerang and assured the House majority leader his position as head of his party. It gave into our hands the strategic parliamentary advantage—which we had coveted and desired for so long. An unexpected resolution calling for a referendum on all constitutional amendments, including pending ones, wedged in among routine measures, was surreptitiously introduced on Inauguration Day by Assemblyman Coles of Camden and by a viva voce vote passed before more than fifteen members knew what had happened. Twelve Nugent men from Essex and three Baird men from Camden were responsible for the railroading through of this resolution. This act of course was a planned and deliberately malicious thrust at Suffrage.

The House adjourned and the anti-Suffragists believe they had scored a point. The reckoning came later. Editorials appeared in papers all over the State denouncing such methods. On the following Monday the House reconsidered the Coles’ resolution with a vote of forty-four to thirteen—and we proceeded with our fight. The ratification resolution was introduced immediately after and sent to the Federal Relations Committee, which was favorable to our measure—four to one. The referendum resolution had gone to the same committee.

Then the problem came of getting our resolution reported out first. We did not have a sufficient number of votes to hazard the chance of having the referendum resolution considered before ours, though some of our supporters preferred this procedure. A conference of leaders was called, to which I summoned Miss Paul, for the political leaders had had little comparative experience in handling constitutional amendments, while she had sponsored ratification in two dozen States.

A hearing before the committee was held on February 2nd. Our State Chairman, Mrs. Hopkins, and United States Senator Selden Spencer of Missouri, who came from Washington, made splendid appeals for Suffrage. That evening our resolution passed the Senate eighteen to two as a result of the Republicans having caucused in its support, after an appeal had been made to them to do so by Senator Spencer. There was no dissenting Democratic vote in the upper House. That same evening the House rejected the minority report of the Committee and accepted the favorable majority report on our measure. It was voted to a second reading and made the first order of business for Monday evening, February 9th.

That same week influenza seized various members of the Legislature and four of our most ardent supporters were ill. Their absence meant defeat. Every day we anxiously inquired after their welfare. For a time it seemed we would never have our thirty-one yeas together.

The day before the vote the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional committees sent a representative, Mr. Frank Barrow, from Washington to our aid. He worked with the doubtful Republican members.

At last the long looked-for moment arrived. At eight o’clock on Monday evening the Legislature which was either to reject or accept the ratification resolution convened.

The fight began with opposing men as aggressors and soon one resolution after another was being rushed to the speaker’s desk as a subterfuge of delay. Roll calls were asked on each and every occasion, and as we strained our ears for the yeas and nays we received each time a shock at the transference of a vote. A roll call to postpone lacked only one of the necessary thirty-one votes.

Debate lasted until one o’clock Tuesday morning—five hours of continuous fiery combat—and then a motion to move the previous question fell like a pall on the troubled assembly. With trembling, tired hands we turned to our last spotless roll call and began to mark the records of men on the sands of time. Clear and decisive came the yeas—inaudible and slow came the nays, and after them all the called, “Joint resolution number one adopted—thirty-four to twenty-four.”

Silence followed for long seconds and then the wild, almost hysteric cheers of women reverberated through the halls. Never had there been such a demonstration of joy in the New Jersey Capitol and out of the galleries poured countless smiling women—bearing banners of victory, to take their places among the liberated peoples.

Idaho, which ratified on February 11; Arizona on February 12; New Mexico on February 19; Oklahoma on February 27 did so only after a struggle, but their cases were special only in detail.

In the meantime, there had been two January defeats, Mississippi and South Carolina; two February defeats, Virginia for the second time, and Maryland.

West Virginia, which came into the fold on March 10, presents to ratification another dramatic story. I quote an article by Mary Dubrow, in the April _Suffragist_.

They are all true—the old adages about pride and falls, boasters who forget to rap on wood, chickens and hatchings—West Virginia proved it.

Last August the card catalogue files carefully compiled by Maud Younger, Legislative Chairman of the Woman’s Party, showed an overwhelming majority for ratification in the West Virginia legislature. To check up on this poll, a member of the Legislature took another and discovered the same overwhelming majority. Our National Headquarters kept in touch with the situation until the special session was called.

The West Virginia delegation in Congress, the Democratic governor of the State, and the Republican National Committee-man, all alike expressed certainty of ratification.

As I left for West Virginia I confided to every one I met how happy I was to go to a State which would probably ratify unanimously, and every leading citizen I interviewed for the first four days confirmed my expectation.

Then the legislators began to assemble at the Kanawha Hotel, the political center of Charleston. I had their written pledges and I approached them more to exchange pleasant anticipations of victory than for any other purpose, and my fall began—a gradual inch-by-inch fall. The first man I met said: “Well, I haven’t been here very long and I don’t know just how I will vote. You see our great State voted Suffrage down by a majority of——” And the second man said the same thing, and the third repeated the remark.

Then the splendid men who were leading our fight and who were standing staunch came to me with appalling reports of the wavering of this one and that one. It was an opposition stampede—nothing less.

I hurriedly told the Washington Headquarters the situation and the National Republican Senatorial Committee was prevailed upon to send a representative, Mr. Frank Barrow, to West Virginia to urge the Republicans in the Legislature to remember their Party and vote for ratification.

Our chairman in West Virginia, Mrs. William Gay Brown, a staunch Democrat, conferred with the Democrats and made them appreciate their responsibility. Miss Anita Pollitzer, legislative secretary of the Woman’s Party working in Washington, convinced Senator Sutherland that his State could not afford to defeat the Amendment.

We re-polled the House of Delegates and one hour before the vote was taken in that body on March 4 we knew we had forty votes and the opposition had forty-one, and that there were six members who would tell neither friend, enemy, nor Party leader how they stood—the silent six they were called.

In the Senate we were certain of fourteen both ways. But the Republican leaders were sure they could get one more. Some of them were even sure they could get three! Senator Harmer, who led the fight in the Senate and who is one of the best parliamentarians in the State, nevertheless was not for allowing ratification to come to a vote.

The vote was taken—and the clerk announced it—“fourteen to fourteen.” Senator Harmer saved the situation by changing his vote and making reconsideration possible. The Senate adjourned. It was the turn of the House. When the debate began speeches were tossed from man to man like balls in a game, and never for four hours was there a moment of silence in the House. At six o’clock the vote was taken. Forty-six men, in the face of the action of the Senate, stood sound—not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Suffragists, every one of the silent six voting for us.

With the announcement of the tie in the Senate, national leaders who had paid no attention to our repeated warnings of peril sprang into action. Representative Fess, Chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee, immediately wired the following telegram to Republicans:

“Can not overestimate importance from Party standpoint of Republican legislature West Virginia ratification and desire to maintain this position. Any attempt substitute referendum would be grave mistake. Can we count on your active and immediate aid?”

Senator Poindexter, Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee, told of the situation by leaders in Washington, sent the following message:

“Republican Senatorial Committee is deeply concerned over result of Suffrage vote in your Senate. We count on West Virginia’s ratification. Republican Party has pioneered every fight for Suffrage and every State where Republicans had control of the Legislature has ratified. Party will be greatly embarrassed if West Virginia breaks that most gratifying record through failure to co-operate with us in this critical time.”

Senator Capper and Senator Kendrick likewise sent messages urging the Republicans to reconsider this fatal step.

Senator Owen, Senator Walsh, and Attorney General Palmer, Secretary Daniels and Secretary Baker all used every effort to make it a Democratic victory.

As a climax to all this, the President himself, realizing that one Democratic vote could save the situation, sent every opposed Democratic member of the Senate a telegram urging him to cast the deciding vote. If we could not obtain one vote from this pressure, there was only one chance left to us.

Senator Bloch, who was wintering in California, had asked to be paired for Suffrage. The opposition refused to consider his request and no pressure could obtain from the opposed Senators this ordinary Senatorial courtesy. A long-distance call was put in for Senator Bloch in San Francisco. That night he started east.

Now came the test of all our resources and of the loyalty of our friends, and I do not believe that any stauncher loyalty has been displayed by any group of men in the whole ratification campaign than by the fourteen Suffrage senators of the West Virginia Legislature.

For five days these fourteen men had to wait in Charleston while the fifteenth vote crossed the continent. Every day they held conferences and buoyed one another up, while Betty Gram, who had been sent from Washington to help in the campaign, and I hovered round about trying, with radiant cheerfulness, to instill into every one the feeling: “Senator Block is on his way and all is well with the world.” Telegraphic despatches constantly arrived saying Senator Block was in New Mexico or Omaha or some other remote place that gradually grew nearer.

Our enemies once more began their attack in the House. The opposition tried to reconsider and were beaten; tried a referendum and were beaten; tried to prevent consideration from being tabled and were beaten. Nevertheless, all of the delegates of the lower House had to be held in Charleston as well as the Senators. One man got as far as his comfortable seat in the train, but we heard that he had bought a ticket. I took a taxicab, Miss Gram and Mrs. Puffenbarger, Chairman of the Woman’s Committee of West Virginia, took another. We arrived simultaneously and that bewildered delegate was rushed off the train and back to his less comfortable seat in the Capitol.

At one time it looked as if we could not get enough votes to recess from day to day until Senator Bloch arrived, and our friends prepared for continuous session. They carried pillows in their hands and playing-cards in their pockets, and we on the outside had our arrangements made for relaying them sandwiches and coffee. It was the opposition that weakened in the face of this ordeal.

Then came Monday, the day set for Mr. Bloch’s arrival and suddenly a senator disappeared. We thought that he had been abducted. His thirteen Suffrage colleagues rushed about searching for him. Miss Gram and I walked the streets, even daring to peer into barber-shop windows.

At last the mystery was solved. He had gone home and was delayed by a blizzard.

The Senate did not convene until he reappeared at 2:50 and saved the situation.

And then Senator Bloch arrived—one man alone in two coaches bouncing behind an engine that broke the world record for speed. He had chosen the special train rather than the airplane that was put at his disposal by the Republicans, but, as he said himself, he was traveling in the air most of the way to Charleston. As he got off the train, pale but smiling, he was grasping his golf sticks desperately in one hand and a thermos bottle of coffee in the other. And at 2:40 A.M., when his private train pulled in, the town was out to meet him.

While the senator tried to catch his breath, he gave this statement to the press:

“The fourteen men who have so splendidly held together until my arrival deserve all the credit for the victory which we hope to gain tomorrow.”

Even then our victory was won as by a miracle, for while we brought our vote from California, the anti-Suffragists were also bringing a senator more quietly from Peoria, Ill. Senator Montgomery, who had moved out of the State and resigned from the Senate, was persuaded to come back and attempt to regain his seat. But one of the opposition whom it had happened by chance Senator Montgomery had told personally of his resignation, refused to dishonor himself by voting to reseat even a member of his own Party under these conditions, and the day was saved again for the women of America.

The last Western State—Washington—ratified on March 22.

Thirty-five States had now accepted the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. One more and it would become part of the Constitution. However, that last State, every one knew, would be hard to get. The chances looked brightest in Delaware and the Woman’s Party concentrated all its energies there.

Ratification was brought up twice in Delaware, the first time on April 1 and the second time on May 5. The fight was an intensive one, but it failed. This campaign had a quality of picturesqueness given to it by its _mise en scene_—the open square where the State House stands. Dover Green is surrounded by charming colonial houses with a beautiful colonial Capitol dominating them. Here, when the news came from Philadelphia of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a crowd burned the picture of King George—“Compelled by strong necessity, thus we destroy even the shadow of that King who refused to reign over a free people.” The ancient whipping-post still stands in a yard adjoining the State House. A log cabin, which was put up fifty years ago, is still used as a lawyer’s office. The _Suffragist_ noted the fact that a yoke of oxen, drawing a plow in the ancient way, had been seen near Dover when the ratification campaign was going on. This accumulation of historic atmosphere added its subtle weight to the regret of the Suffragists when Delaware failed them.

Against highly organized opposition, the Suffragists began work in Delaware. Florence Bayard Hilles, State Chairman, conducted this important fight. She had the assistance of six national organizers: Mary Dubrow, Anita Pollitzer, Catherine Flanagan, Betty Gram, Vivian Pierce, Elsie Hill; of Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, National Ratification Chairman; of Mabel Vernon, National Secretary of the Woman’s Party. Ultimately Alice Paul joined them. This able group produced a triumph of Suffrage ratification in the Senate on May 5. The vote was eleven to six. In the usual course of events, the ratification measure would have gone, after the Senate passed it, to the House. The votes necessary to pass it in the House were not forthcoming. The Legislature adjourned.

The Woman’s Party used the interval until May 17 when the Legislature reconvened to wage a campaign against their opponents, by means of petitions, mass-meetings, and appeals to State leaders. President de Valera, Frank Walsh, and other champions of Irish freedom used their influence with the four Irish members of the Lower House. The American Federation of Labor also helped in this campaign. On June 2, when it became evident that the Republicans in this strongly Republican Legislature, would not ratify, President Wilson asked the Democrats to give their aid. The President’s telegram ran:

May I not as a Democrat express my deep interest in the Suffrage Amendment, and my judgment that it will be of the greatest service to the Party if every Democrat in the Delaware Legislature should vote for it.

Delaware had been the first to ratify the Constitution of the United States but it failed to ratify this second great instrument of freedom.

* * * * *

For two months the Delaware members of the Republican Party had delayed the ratification of the Amendment. In spite of repeated appeals to them, the Republican national leaders refused to give the necessary support to assure victory in that State.

On May 18, Will H. Hays, Chairman of the Republican Party, spoke at the Hotel Willard, Washington, to women especially selected because of their wealth—in the hope that they would answer an appeal for funds for the support of the Republican Party. As each member of the audience took her seat, she found on her chair a slip which read in effect, “For the use of the Republican National Committee, I herewith enclose a check for $1,000.”

When Mr. Hays arose from his seat, Elsie Hill, well known as a national organizer of the Woman’s Party, arose from hers. As he started to speak, she said, “Before you ask us to support the Republican Party, Mr. Hays, won’t you tell us what the Republican Party is going to do about ratification in Delaware?”

The Chairman immediately intervened. “I am sure Mr. Hays, if he has time in the course of his remarks, will answer that.” Instantly Sue White, one of the State chairmen, arose and demanded that the question be answered at once. Mr. Hays apparently did not hear. He moved to the front of the platform, opened his lips to speak. Immediately Benigna Green Kalb, a well-known member of the Woman’s Party, arose and said, “Mr. Hays, women will not give money for the next elections until they know whether or not they are going to vote in them. In Delaware, Connecticut, and Vermont the Republican Party can answer that question.”

Mr. Hays said, “I suppose I may as well take this matter up at once. My dear ladies, if any one of you know anything whatever about practical politics, you would know that we do not carry Legislatures around in our pockets. Why don’t you go to Delaware and work for Suffrage?”

Instantly Anita Pollitzer was on her feet. “I have been working in Delaware, Mr. Hays, for six months. The legislators of Delaware seem to think that the Republican Party can do something about Suffrage in that State. Some of the leading Republicans of the Lower House telephoned to me last night and asked, ‘What are the national Republican leaders going to do about this deadlock here?’”

Mr. Hays attempted explanation; apology; prophecy. “Every Republican hopes that Delaware will ratify. Some one of the remaining States will be intelligent enough to act between now and election time. I feel sure women will vote in the next elections.”

Abby Scott Baker interposed, “Mr. Hays, why are you sure women will vote in the next elections? If the Republican Party cannot persuade the Republican Legislature of Delaware to ratify, can it persuade the Republican governors of Connecticut and Vermont to call special sessions, or are you depending upon the Democratic States to enfranchise the women to whom your Party is now appealing for funds?”

Woman after woman arose and brought up the matter of Delaware. Mr. Hays’ speech was rapidly disappearing before the onslaught. He had spoken on nothing but Suffrage. Many of the audience liked the interruptions no better than Mr. Hays. They groaned and hissed. But the Suffragists kept on. Edith Ainge spoke. Elsie Hill arose for a second time and a third. Finally, definitely enraged, Mr. Hays accused her of being a Democratic woman who had come to interrupt his meeting. Miss Hill replied, “My father was for twenty years Republican Congressman from Connecticut and for several years ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.”

Mr. Hays talked for nearly five minutes after this last interruption. He slid off the subject of Delaware. He progressed as far away as Abraham Lincoln. Lucy Branham arose to bring his mind back to Delaware. Mr. Hays was saying, “The great Republican leaders of the past——” and his hands were uplifted to emphasize his statement. Glancing down between them, his gaze was attracted by Miss Branham’s movement. “Not now, young lady, not now,” he commanded, or suggested, or perhaps begged. Miss Branham bore up the aisle. Neither Mr. Hays’ gesture nor sentence completed itself. “In conclusion,” he said, “I desire to state that the few women who are about to be enfranchised could do no better——” Mr. Hays’ conclusion merged with air.

* * * * *

In the meantime, the anti-Suffragists in Ohio had brought a suit attacking the validity of the Ohio ratification on the ground that the State of Ohio had the initiative and referendum on all acts by the State Legislature and therefore must have it on ratification, if it were demanded by petition. They therefore demanded a referendum on the ratification of Suffrage. The Woman’s Party contested this suit, engaging the following counsel: Shippen Lewis, George Wharton Pepper, and William Draper Lewis. It went through the Courts of Ohio to the Supreme Court of the United States, which sustained the validity of the Ohio ratification.

The Republican Convention began on June 8 in Chicago. Delaware—whose Legislature and Governor were Republican—had just-defeated ratification. There were only two other States from which it seemed possible at this time to obtain final ratification—Vermont and Connecticut. There were, to be sure, two other States which had not acted on the Amendment—Florida and Tennessee. But there were clauses in their constitutions which provided that an election must occur between the submission of an Amendment and its ratification. The fact that both Vermont and Connecticut were Republican put the responsibility of finishing up ratification on the Republicans. As repeated appeals to the National Republican leaders had failed to induce them to bring sufficient pressure on the Republican governors of Vermont and Connecticut, the Suffragists felt that it was necessary to make a stronger protest than hitherto they had exerted against this Republican inaction. They therefore decided to picket the Republican National Convention. The first day of the Convention, Mabel Vernon led a long white-clad line of women, carrying lettered banners and the purple, white, and gold tri-color, from the Woman’s Party Headquarters to the Coliseum, directly opposite, where the Convention was held. They marched across the street and took up their brilliant tri-color stand at intervals against its dull walls.

Mary Ingham bore a banner which said:

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS THE POWER TO ENFRANCHISE WOMEN. WHEN WILL IT DO SO?

Doris Stevens’ banner read:

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH RESOLUTIONS. GIVE US THE 36TH STATE.

Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer’s banner said:

THEODORE ROOSEVELT ADVOCATED WOMAN SUFFRAGE. HAS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FORGOTTEN THE PRINCIPLES OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT?

Mrs. M. Toscan Bennett’s banner said:

WE PROTEST AGAINST THE CONTINUED DISFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN FOR WHICH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOW RESPONSIBLE.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEFEATED RATIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE IN DELAWARE.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS BLOCKING SUFFRAGE IN VERMONT.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS BLOCKING SUFFRAGE IN CONNECTICUT.

WHEN WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STOP BLOCKING SUFFRAGE?

This banner was also carried by Catherine Flanagan and Lou Daniels.

These banners were held during the first two days of the Convention. On the third day, each of thirty women carried a new banner:

VOTE AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS LONG AS IT BLOCKS SUFFRAGE.

This quotation from Susan B. Anthony also appeared on the picket line:

NO SELF-RESPECTING WOMAN SHOULD WISH OR WORK FOR THE SUCCESS OF A PARTY THAT IGNORES HER SEX. —Susan B. Anthony in 1872 and 1894.

A favorite banner was:

REPUBLICANS WE ARE HERE. WHERE IS THE 36TH STATE?

These banners were typical; many others appeared.

During the course of the Convention the Republicans inserted the following plank in their platform:

We welcome women into full participation in the affairs of government and the activities of the Republican Party. We earnestly hope that Republican legislatures in States which have not yet acted upon the Suffrage Amendment will ratify the Amendment to the end that all of the women of the nation of voting age may participate in the election of 1920, which is so important to the welfare of our country.

On the last day, therefore, a group of pickets hung, from the balcony in the Convention hall, facing the speakers platform, a banner which was the answer to this ratification plank. It read:

WHY DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK SUFFRAGE?

WE DO NOT WANT PLANKS.

WE DEMAND THE 36TH STATE.

The effect of all this was that instant and urgent pressure to call special sessions was brought on the Republican governors of Vermont and Connecticut by Republican leaders.

In contrast to the treatment which the police of Washington, Boston, and New York had accorded the pickets, the police of Chicago were friendly and accommodating. Sometimes they even held the banners for them.

Immediately following the nomination of Senator Harding, members of the Woman’s Party met him in Washington in an interview arranged by Genevieve Allen. Miss Paul introduced Mrs. Albion Lang, Helena Hill Weed, and Florence Bayard Hilles, each representing one of the three Republican States which had not acted favorably on ratification; Mrs. John Carey, Helen Hoy Greeley, Emma Wold and Genevieve Allen, representing women who could vote, and Sue White, Mary Ingham, Mrs. John Gordon Battelle, Mrs. Donald R. Hooker, representing women who could not vote. The interview was utterly unsatisfactory—Senator Harding listened and evaded.

On June 15, Louisiana, which met in regular session, defeated ratification. Here, anticipating a little, it may be stated that on August 19, North Carolina defeated ratification, also in regular session.

In the meantime, the Woman’s Party turned its attention to Tennessee. Up to this time, it had been considered impossible to ratify there, as there is a clause in the Tennessee State Constitution which says that the Tennessee Legislature cannot act on any Amendment to the Federal Constitution unless a new Legislature is elected between the time when the Federal Amendment shall have passed Congress and its ratification by Tennessee. The decision in the Ohio case which was handed down at this moment and which indicated that both Tennessee and Florida could ratify legally, changed the whole complexion of the Suffrage fight. The Ohio decision, it will be remembered, was that ratification was an act of a Legislature which was not subject to a referendum to the people. The Woman’s Party pointed out—and they had consulted many eminent lawyers on this subject—that the clause in the Tennessee Constitution was equal to requiring a referendum before submitting a constitutional amendment to the Legislature. Since by the Ohio decision a referendum on such a matter was illegal, that clause in the Tennessee constitution could not stand in the way of ratification by the existing Legislature. Sue White, Tennessee State Chairman, instituted an immediate campaign on Governor Roberts, pointing this out to him and asking him to call a special session. The Woman’s Party concentrated on getting the National Democratic leaders to bring pressure on Governor Roberts.

In the meantime, leading Democrats had gathered in San Francisco, preparing for their National Convention. Abby Scott Baker took charge of the campaign to get the Democratic leaders to bring pressure on the Governor of Tennessee. The Democratic National Committee passed a resolution calling on the Governor to convene his session. Homer S. Cummings, Chairman of the National Democratic Committee, called him on long-distance telephone and asked this of him. Many others appealed to him. On June 23, President Wilson telegraphed Governor Roberts as follows:

It would be a real service to the Party and to the Nation if it is possible for you to, under the peculiar provisions of your State Constitution, having in mind the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Ohio case, to call a special session of the Legislature of Tennessee to consider the Suffrage Amendment. Allow me to urge this very earnestly.

The President also sent a letter to acting United States Attorney General William L. Frierson, asking his opinion on the constitutionality of ratification by a special session of the Tennessee Legislature.

Mr. Frierson’s reply closed with this sentence:

I am therefore confident that if the Tennessee Legislature is called in session, it will have the clear power to ratify the Amendment notwithstanding any provision of the Tennessee Constitution.

The Democratic National Convention met in San Francisco on June 28. On the opening day of the Convention, Governor Roberts announced that he would call the session on August 9. Among the women who represented the Woman’s Party at the Convention were Abby Scott Baker, Betty Gram, Mrs. Lawrence Lewis, Mrs. William Kent, Sara Bard Field, Ida Finney Mackrille, Izetta Jewel Brown. The Democratic Party inserted a plank in their platform endorsing the Federal Amendment and calling for ratification.

Tennessee then became the center of the Woman’s Party campaign—a storm center. It was a foregone conclusion that a tremendous anti-Suffrage pressure would be brought on Tennessee, the last State necessary to ratification, as it had been brought on Delaware when Delaware seemed likely to be the last State. Alice Paul realized that great national political pressure must be brought upon the Tennessee legislators.

Governor Cox, the Democratic nominee, was, of course, a focus for most of this political pressure. The Woman’s Party determined to make him realize, if possible, that Tennessee, as a Democratic State, was his responsibility. A huge deputation of Woman’s Party leaders from all over the country called upon Governor Cox in his office in Columbus on July 16. Governor Cox said that he would co-operate with the Woman’s Party in this matter and he asked to have a committee appointed to confer with him in regard to Tennessee. The Democratic National Committee met on July 20. The Woman’s Party lobbied this Committee and got a resolution through urging immediate ratification by Tennessee. On July 23, Governor Cox conferred with the Committee—consisting of Sue White, Anita Pollitzer, and Mrs. James Rector—which he had asked Miss Paul to appoint.

The Republican National Committee met on July 21. Anita Pollitzer, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, Mrs. James Rector, and others saw the members of this Committee and secured from them a resolution urging that the Republicans do all they could to obtain the last State.

On July 22, the date of Harding’s notification that he was nominated for the Presidency, two hundred members of the Woman’s Party, coming from all over the United States, dressed in white and carrying purple, white and gold banners, marched through Marion to Senator Harding’s lawn. The lettered banners, borne by two pioneer Suffragists, Mrs. L. Crozier French and Mrs. E. C. Green, read:

THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM ENDORSES RATIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE.

THE FIRST TEST OF THE PLATFORM WILL COME WHEN THE TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE MEETS IN AUGUST.

WILL THE REPUBLICANS CARRY OUT THEIR PLATFORM BY GIVING A UNANIMOUS REPUBLICAN VOTE IN TENNESSEE FOR SUFFRAGE?

Mrs. John Gordon Battelle, Sue White, Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, addressed Senator Harding and told him that he, as the Republican leader, had the power to line up the Republican members of the Tennessee Legislature and would be held responsible for them.

All this time the campaign in Tennessee had been going on.

That campaign, which was to become fiercer and more intensive until it moved like a whirlwind, was conducted in three ways.

First, Sue White, the State Chairman and other members of the State organization, assisted by Betty Gram, Catherine Flanagan and Anita Pollitzer, national organizers, conducted the campaign. After the Legislature convened Mrs. Florence Bayard Hilles, Delaware State Chairman, and Mary Winsor, of the Advisory Council, assisted in Nashville. Mabel Reber and Edith Davis carried on an extensive and intensive work of publicity.

Second, in Ohio, Abby Scott Baker, co-operating with Mrs. James Rector, kept in close touch with Cox and Harding, in order to get them to act upon the specific requests of the Woman’s Party which began to come from Tennessee.

Third, Alice Paul remaining in Washington, planned every move, and kept in close communication with the political leaders who could influence Cox and Harding.

Sue White, immediately on her arrival at Nashville, opened Woman’s Party Headquarters and took charge of the campaign on the legislators.

Anita Pollitzer went to the eastern part of the State and concentrated on the Republican leaders.

Betty Gram went to the western part of the State and worked in the Speaker’s district.

Catherine Flanagan went into the districts of men soon to be elected, and secured pledges from some of the nominees that they would support ratification. In one case, Miss Flanagan secured the pledge of a Republican candidate whose Democratic opponent was a strong anti-Suffragist. A prominent Democrat in the district came out in support of the Republican nominee because he was for ratification.

If the three organizers had not made this intensive survey of these sections, they would not have realized that ratification votes were rapidly dropping away. Legislators gave the excuse that although they voted for Presidential Suffrage in a previous session, they would not vote for ratification in this session because they considered it unconstitutional. Alarmed at this defection, which was particularly noticeable among the Republican legislators, Anita Pollitzer secured opinions favorable to the constitutionality of ratification by Tennessee at this special session from the most eminent legal minds in the State, and sent them to each member of the Legislature.

Anita Pollitzer also sent a telegram to Abby Scott Baker, who, it will be remembered, was standing guard over the two Presidential candidates in Ohio, stating that the situation demanded Harding’s immediate active support. Mrs. Baker telegraphed Alice Paul that she had seen Harding in regard to this matter and that he had telegraphed two Republican Congressmen to give their support to ratification, and his friend, ex-Governor Ben Hooper of Tennessee, to send him a poll of the Republicans. Immediately on receipt of a telegram from Alice Paul giving this information, Anita Pollitzer hurried to the “hill-billy” region of the State, where ex-Governor Hooper lived. Miss Pollitzer went over the entire situation with him in detail, giving him the only first-hand information that he had received. The result was that he spent the whole day telephoning the doubtful Republican legislators. He also telegraphed Harding that the situation was critical and urged him to give all possible aid to the Tennessee situation.

Miss Pollitzer then told ex-Governor Hooper that it was absolutely necessary to have a Republican caucus. Candler, the Chairman of the Joint Caucus Committee, was an anti-Suffragist. Congressman J. Will Taylor had, however, a strong influence with him. Miss Pollitzer started late that afternoon for Knoxville, where Congressman Taylor lived, and arriving early in the evening put her case to him. He said that he had voted for Suffrage in Congress and would do all he could to help. The next afternoon Miss Pollitzer saw Congressman Taylor to see what had been accomplished. He said that he had been unable to get Candler all day, was leaving the city in an hour. Miss Pollitzer called up the operator in Athens. She said, “This is a matter of life and death. Congressman Taylor must speak with Senator Candler. I have been in Athens myself and I know it is such a tiny place that you have only to look out of the door to know where Senator Candler is. You must find him for me.” In a few minutes Senator Candler came to the telephone. Congressman Taylor asked him if he would call a caucus of the Republicans, and he agreed to do it. That night Miss Pollitzer took notices of this to all the papers. A telegram was sent to every Republican member urging him to come to the Legislature in time to attend this caucus. It was a necessary step to call this caucus, but it was equally necessary that all the important Republican leaders of the State be there. Catherine Flanagan and Anita Pollitzer brought so much pressure to bear on these leaders—and this included getting their reservations and actually seeing them on the train—that they were all there. The Republican leaders said in effect to the Republican members of the Legislature who were present, “We want the Republican members of the Legislature to give a majority of votes to ratification for the sake of their Party.”

Before the Legislature convened, Betty Gram saw the Speaker of the House, Seth Walker, a very influential person and to the Suffragists, because of his position, probably the most important member of the Legislature. He told Miss Gram that he was looking into the question of the constitutionality of ratification at this session, and if he became convinced of its constitutionality, he might even lead the fight for ratification. A few days later, just before the Legislature convened, he told Miss White and Miss Gram that he had decided that it was constitutional for Tennessee to ratify and that they might count on his support. On the opening day of the Legislature, Betty Gram asked Speaker Walker to go over the poll with her. To her intense astonishment, he told her that he had changed his mind and could not vote for ratification in this session.

When the Woman’s Party forces joined Miss White in Nashville at the convening of the Legislature, the town had filled with strangers. The anti-Suffrage forces had poured into the Capital. Lobbyists for railroads, manufacturing interests, and corporations of various kinds, came too.

One curious member of this army used to interrogate legislators as to their views. He said he was a reporter for a syndicate. Nobody had ever heard of the syndicate he represented. When Parley Christensen, candidate for President on the Farmer Labor ticket, came to Nashville to help with ratification among the labor members of the Legislature, he investigated the record of this gentleman, accused him, through the Press, of sinister purposes in lobbying. When this accusation appeared, the man hastily left town.

To off-set all this, the Suffragists of the State, as was usual in the State campaigns, poured into the Capital.

The atmosphere of Nashville grew rapidly more active ... tense ... hectic.

The Tennessee legislature convened on the ninth of August. It ratified on the eighteenth of August. The nine days between were characterized by work more intensive than ratification had yet known.

The Tennessee campaign was a miniature reproduction of the big national campaign which the Woman’s Party had been waging ever since 1912. Here the Woman’s Party was confronted with a double responsibility. It had to prove to the Democratic governor, Roberts—and it never relaxed for an instant in bringing it home to him—that he, as leader of the dominant Party in this Democratic Legislature, was responsible for ratification and could bring it about. In addition and at the same time, the Woman’s Party had to make the Republican minority realize that they were responsible for votes favorable to ratification from their men.

In all this work in Tennessee, the Woman’s Party was enormously assisted by the political sagacity of their chairman, Sue White, and the fact that all the politicians recognized that political sagacity. The experienced politicians said that they had never seen a more bitter fight in Tennessee. When the Legislature met, the Suffragists had a majority on paper. But they knew from previous experience they could not trust this paper majority to remain stable.

The ratification resolution was introduced in the House and the Senate on the same day, August 10. It was referred to a committee in both Houses and these committees held a joint hearing on August 11. This hearing, a notable and picturesque occasion, took place in the great Assembly Hall of the Capitol. Both floor and gallery were dotted with the colors of the opposing forces. The most famous State authorities on constitutional law appeared in behalf of the Suffragists.

The Woman’s Party had, of course, immediately ascertained who were the members of both Houses who always supported Governor Roberts’ measures. They found that many of these were not supporting ratification. They went with a list of these men to Governor Roberts, called his attention to this significant state of things. They also sent the news to Abby Scott Baker, who approached Cox daily on the subject. Cox responded by urging Governor Roberts to do all in his power to put ratification through.

Sue White gave out daily statements that were models of succinctness and comprehensiveness, which warned Governor Roberts that he would be held responsible and warned the Democratic Party that it would be held responsible, if ratification did not go through.

Realizing that they were strongest in the Senate, the Woman’s Party wanted first to bring the matter to a vote there. They accomplished that on August 13, when ratification passed by twenty-five to four. Until this vote was cast, the Suffragists themselves did not realize what a degree of interest—due to their pressure on and from political leaders—they had developed in Tennessee. The vote proved a great stimulus to the men of the Lower House, who, up to this point, had been much more wavering in their attitude towards ratification.

The Capitol in these last few days presented a scene of activity on the part of the Woman’s Party members such as no ratification campaign had ever known. They were at the House morning, noon, and night. They had to be there all the time because the fact that a member was numbered among their forces in the morning did not at all mean that he would be among them at night. The enemies of ratification made every possible attempt to steal Suffrage adherents. Realizing at last that they could not deflect men who were immovable on the ratification side, they began to introduce measures the passage of which would have been tantamount to defeat. For instance, a resolution was suddenly brought up one morning providing that the question of ratification should be referred to mass-meetings of the people to be held in every district on August 21. This would have meant a fatal postponement of ratification. Many of the legislators would have liked to hide behind a measure of this sort, but realizing this, the Woman’s Party members told them that they would consider such a vote hostile to Suffrage and would hold them responsible. The Suffragists obtained sufficient support against the measure to get it tabled.

When it came to the last few days, the Woman’s Party members seemed to work twenty-four hours out of the twenty-four, and some think they worked twenty-five. The situation was complicated, as always at the last hour, by rumors. Reports started and gained force every day that men were being bribed; so that legislators, about to declare for Suffrage, were often held up by the feeling that that act might lay them open to suspicion. This brought about a condition of such uncertainty that neither side, Suffragist nor anti-Suffragist, could prophesy the outcome. The instant a man wavered, the Woman’s Party members, who, before the Legislature convened, had been working in the legislative districts, immediately got in touch with the political leaders who controlled the situation in those districts. Notwithstanding that nothing seemed stable at this period, the Woman’s Party members met every few hours and compared polls. These polls served a second purpose. They gave political leaders definite data as to the position of every man in the Legislature. In all this confusion, the Woman’s Party always knew where it stood.

On the morning of the vote the Suffrage workers rounded up all their legislative forces and saw that they arrived safely at the Capitol. More rumors were afloat that legislators would change their vote at the last moment. In every case, the Woman’s Party saw these men again and made them realize that they were committed, not only to them, but to their political leaders.

Just before the vote was taken, Seth Walker ruled all the women off the floor of the House.

Two dramatic incidents marked the close of the campaign. The hero of one of these episodes was Banks Turner, of the other Harry Burn. To the very end the Woman’s Party was uncertain of both their votes.

Banks Turner was one of Governor Roberts’ closest friends. In considering the case of Banks Turner, it must always be held in mind that the Woman’s Party steadfastly kept the Democrats to their pledges through Cox’s constant pressure on Governor Roberts. It had at last penetrated Roberts’ psychology that if he permitted ratification to fail in Tennessee, the Democrats would be held responsible by the women in the coming elections. The Woman’s Party saw Governor Roberts before the vote and reminded him of this. The Woman’s Party also saw Cox before the vote and reminded him of this; also reminded him to remind Roberts. When the vote was actually imminent, the Roberts forces began to get alarmed; for they realized they had played with the issue too long. As has been said Banks Turner was one of the Governor’s closest friends. Banks Turner had never actually said he was against ratification, but he had never said he was for it. No Suffragist counted on him.

As for Harry Burn——

When Anita Pollitzer had been working among Republican leaders, she had gone to Harry Burn’s Republican county chairman to ask him if they could count on Harry Burn’s support for ratification. In her presence, he telephoned to Harry Burn and assured Miss Pollitzer that the Suffragists could depend on him. When Mr. Burn appeared in the Legislature, he was approached by Suffragists and anti-Suffragists in close and quick succession. After a while, he announced that he was uncertain. The fact that he was the youngest member of the Legislature—scarcely more than a lad indeed—and that he was immensely popular and beloved—seemed to add an especial acuteness to the situation. To Suffragists who approached him a few days before the vote, he said, “I cannot pledge myself, but I will do nothing to hurt you.”

Of course that could be translated that he would not vote yes, but would not vote no—not vote at all in short.

With the poll virtually a tie, the Suffragists could take no chances. Miss Pollitzer telephoned at once to the county chairman who had assured her of Harry Burn’s vote and told him the situation. The next day Betty Gram saw a letter, written to Harry Burn by one of the foremost political leaders of the State, which practically urged him—for his own political good—to vote no. Members of the Woman’s Party saw Harry Burn and told him that they knew pressure was being brought upon him from State leaders against ratification. He would make no statement of support but he urged them to trust him and begged the Suffragists not to tell the political leaders of the State that they knew these political leaders had broken faith and were persuading him not to vote for ratification. He was obviously much wrought up over the situation.

The date of the vote came and on the Suffrage poll, Harry Burn was still marked doubtful. When he appeared in the corridors of the House, however, he wore the red rose of the anti-Suffragists. One of the Woman’s Party organizers said to him just before the vote was taken, “We really trusted you, Mr. Burn, when you said that you would never hurt us.” He said, “I mean that—my vote _will_ never hurt you.”

Still he continued to wear the red rose of the anti-Suffragists....

It was known to many that Harry Burn had recently received a letter from his mother asking him to support ratification. It was known only to the Woman’s Party how much political pressure to support it had been brought upon him.

* * * * *

The supreme moment arrived. Ninety-six members were present out of a total membership of ninety-nine. The first test of strength came in a motion to table the Resolution. Harry Burn’s name was called early in the roll. True to the promise of that red rose, he voted yes. The roll call went on, the members answering exactly according to expectation. What would Banks Turner do? If he voted with the Suffragists, the result would be a tie, forty-eight to forty-eight; the motion would not be tabled. His name was called; he did not answer. The vote was now inevitably forty-eight to forty-seven for the motion to table. All seemed lost. But before the final announcement of the vote, Turner arose and after a moment’s hesitation said:

“I wish to be recorded as against the motion to table.”

The Resolution was still before the House, but this test vote showed a tie—one short of a majority.

Then came the final vote.

Now the stillness was like death. Unless Turner stayed with the Suffragists and, in addition, another vote was gained, the Amendment was lost. When Harry Burn’s name was called, he answered in a clear, loud voice, “Yes.” The death-like stillness settled again over the audience in the galleries as the roll call approached the name of Banks Turner. He had voted against tabling; that did not make it certain that he would vote for the Resolution.

“Banks Turner!” called the clerk.

“Yes,” he answered in a solemn, low voice.

The Resolution had carried—forty-nine to forty-seven.

Instantly Speaker Walker, white-faced, was on his feet. “I change my vote from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’” he said. Of course he made this lightning change in order that he might move to reconsider the Resolution. But he missed one point. The vote now stood fifty to forty-six. His vote had given the Resolution a _constitutional majority_, that is a majority, not only of the membership present of the Lower House but of the entire Lower House. Unwittingly, Speaker Walker killed one legal attack already prepared by the anti-Suffragists in case the measure should pass.

An uproar of enthusiasm greeted the vote. State leaders who had assisted the Suffrage campaign, yelled, clapped, stamped. Women alternately laughed and wept; cheered and applauded. One legislator producing a bell from somewhere, rang it steadily. As for the Suffragists themselves, naturally they went wild with joy; particularly the Tennessee women, who were triumphant that their State had proved to be the needed thirty-sixth to give the franchise to women.

Of course, the anti-Suffragist red roses were in great evidence all during the voting. But after the vote was taken, they seemed to fade into the background. The yellow jonquils of the Suffragists, the great purple, white, and gold banners of the Woman’s Party made tiny flares and big slashes of light and color everywhere.

* * * * *

The bizarre and sensational moves of the opposition—the withdrawal of the anti-Suffragist members of the Tennessee Assembly to Alabama until the Suffrage members got tired and went home, the return of the anti-Suffragist members, their assembly in a Rump Legislature, their “reconsidered” vote against the Amendment—all that seemed important at the time. Now it has faded to insignificance. The anti-Suffragists, on this and other grounds, instituted a suit against the validity of the Tennessee ratification. That suit and six attacks, also directed against the validity of ratification, are still pending.

In the meantime, however, Connecticut has ratified.

In brief, the facts in regard to Connecticut are these: Governor Marcus Holcomb, one of the foremost anti-Suffragists in the country, called a session of the Connecticut legislature to provide the legal machinery to enable the women of Connecticut to vote in the coming elections. The call was issued for September 14. The Suffragists instantly took advantage of this special session to institute a campaign for ratification.

In addressing the legislators, Governor Holcomb said in effect: “Do not ratify this session. It will be illegal, as ratification was not mentioned in my call. I will call you again for that purpose a week from today.”

Nevertheless Connecticut ratified on September 14.

Catherine Flanagan of the Woman’s Party personally brought the ratification from the Secretary of State of Connecticut to the State Department in Washington.

A week later, to avoid any question as to the legality of the first ratification, which had been attacked on the ground that the subject was not included in the governor’s message, Connecticut ratified again.

* * * * *

The women of the United States voted in the Presidential election of 1920.

XVII

THE LAST DAYS

TO A COMRADE

Oh, you of the unquenchable spirit— How I adore you! I could light forever the waning fires of my courage At the incessant, upleaping flame of your being!

You,—creature of light and color and vivid emotions— Of radiant action,—who ever could dream of you passive, Submissive, your small self stilled into lazy contentment? You, fired with the beauty of ardor, Lovely with love for all that is clean and earnest and forceful, Yourself daring anything So long as it be for Womanhood, and the cause of justice and progress— Daring to lead and daring to follow— Giving us each of your unfailing inspiration.

You, over whom the jeers and the mockings and the ugly thoughts of those who understand not Pass lightly, like a spent breath of foul air in a still cavern, Unflicking the steadfast torch of you— I could re-light forever the waning fires of my courage At the incessant, upleaping flame of your being! ELIZABETH KALB, _The Suffragist_, January 25, 1919.

IN 1917 occurred the great leap forward in the activity of the Woman’s Party; in swift succession came the picketing; the burning of the President’s words; the Watchfires of Freedom. And Headquarters from 1917 on—as can be easily imagined—was a feverishly busy place. From the instant the picketing started, it grew electric with action. As for the work involved in making up the constant succession of picket lines——

It was not easy at an instant’s notice to find women who had the time to picket. But always there were some women willing to picket _part_ of the time and some willing to picket _all_ of the time. Mary Gertrude Fendall was in charge of this work. That her office was no sinecure is evident from the fact that on one occasion alone—that memorable demonstration of March 4, 1917—she provided a line of nearly a thousand. Of course, too, as fast as the women went to jail, other women had to be found to fill their places. In those days Miss Fendall lived at the telephone and between telephone calls, she wrote letters which invited sympathizers to come from distant States to join the banner-bearing forces. Those women who could always be depended on for picketing were, in the main, Party sympathizers living in Washington; Party workers permanently established at Headquarters; organizers come back suddenly from their regular work. But volunteers came too—volunteers from the District of Columbia and from all parts of the United States. In the winter, as has been before stated, picketing was a cold business. The women found that they had to wear a surprising amount of clothes—sweaters and coats, great-coats, mufflers, arctics and big woolly gloves. Many of the pickets left these extra things at Headquarters and the scramble to disengage rights and lefts of the gloves and arctics was one of the amusing details of the operation of the picket line. Banners took up space too; but they added their cheering color to the picture.

When the arrests began, the atmosphere grew more tense and even more busy. But just as—when trouble came—a golden flood poured into the Woman’s Party treasury, so volunteer pickets came in a steadily lengthening line. Anne Martin had said to the Judge who sentenced her: “So long as you send women to jail for asking for freedom, just so long will there be women willing to go to jail for such a cause.” This proved to be true. Volunteers for this gruelling experience continued to appear from all over the country. Mrs. Grey of Colorado, sending her twenty-two year old daughter, Nathalie, into the battle, said:

I have no son to fight for democracy abroad, and so I send my daughter to fight for democracy at home.

It interested many of the Woman’s Party members to study the first reactions of the police to the strange situation the picketing brought about. Most of the policemen did not enjoy maltreating the girls. Some of them were stupid and a few of them were brutal, but many of them were kind. They always deferred to Lucy Burns with an air of profound respect—Miss Lucy, they called her. But a curious social element entered into the situation. Large numbers of the women were well-known Washingtonians. The police were accustomed to seeing them going about the city in the full aura of respected citizenship. It was very difficult often, to know—in arresting them—what social tone to adopt.

Mrs. Gilson Gardner tells an amusing story of her first arrest. In the midst of her picketing, an officer suddenly stepped up to her. He said politely: “It is a very beautiful day.” She concurred. They chatted. He was in the meantime looking this way and that up the Avenue. Suddenly, still very politely, he said: “I think the patrol will be along presently.” Not until then did it dawn on Mrs. Gardner that she was arrested.

Later, when the Watchfires were going, Mrs. Gardner was again arrested while she was putting wood on the flames. There was a log in her arms: “Just a minute, officer,” she said, in her gentle, compelling voice, and the officer actually waited while she crossed the pavement and put the remaining log on the fire. Later, when Mrs. Gardner’s name was called in the court, she decided that she preferred to stand, rather than sit in the chair designated for the accused. The policeman started to force her down. Again she said, in the gentle, compelling tone: “Please do not touch me, officer!” and he kept his hands off her from that time forth.

Of course, the unthinking made the usual accusation that these women were doing all this for notoriety. That was a ridiculous statement, whose disproof was easy. The character and quality of the women themselves were its best denial. The women who composed the Woman’s Party were of all kinds and descriptions; they emerged from all ranks and classes; they came from all over the United States. The Party did not belong exclusively to women of great wealth and social position, although there were many such in its list of membership; and some of these belonged to families whose fortunes were internationally famous. It did not belong exclusively to working women, although there were thousands of them in its ranks; and these represented almost every wage-earning task at which women toil. It did not belong exclusively to women of the arts or the professions; although scores of women, many nationally famous and some internationally famous, lent their gifts to the furtherance of the work. It did not belong exclusively to the women of the home, although scores of wives left homes, filled with the beauty which many generations of cultivation had accumulated—left these homes and left children; and although equal numbers left homes of a contrasting simplicity and humbleness—left these homes and left children to go to jail in the interests of the movement. It may be said, perhaps, that the rank and file were characterized by an influential solidity, that they were women, universally respected in their communities, necessary to it. It was an all-woman movement. Indeed, often women who on every other possible opinion were as far apart as the two poles, worked together for the furtherance of the Federal Amendment. On one occasion, for instance, on the picket line, two women who could not possibly have found a single intellectual congeniality except the enfranchisement of women stood side by side. One was nationally and internationally famous as a conservative of great fortune. The other was nationally and internationally famous as a radical. In other words, one stood at the extreme right of conservatism and the other at the extreme left of radicalism. It was as though, among an archipelago of differing intellectual interests and social convictions, the Party members had found one little island on which they could stand in an absolute unanimity; stand ready to fight—to the death, if it were necessary—for that conviction.

Some of the stories which they tell at Headquarters to illustrate the Pan-woman quality of the Party are touchingly beautiful. There is the case, for instance, of a woman government clerk, self-supporting, a widow, and the mother of a little girl. Every day for weeks, she had passed that line of pickets standing silently at the White House gates. She heard the insults that were tossed to the women. She saw the brutalities which were inflicted on them. She witnessed arrests. Something rose within fluttered ... tore at her.... One day when Alice Paul was picketing, this young woman, suit-case in hand, appeared before her. She said “I am all ready to picket if you need me. I have made all the necessary arrangements in case I am arrested. Where shall I go to join your forces so that I may picket today?” She was arrested that afternoon and sent to prison.

Two other government clerks, who appeared on the picket line, were arrested and jailed. They appealed to the government authorities for a month’s leave of absence on the score of their imprisonment. All these three women, of course, ran the risk of losing their positions. But in their case the instinct to serve their generation was stronger than the instinct to conserve any material safety. It is pleasant to record that they were not compelled to make this sacrifice. Others, however, suffered. A school teacher in the Woman’s Party, for instance, lost her position because of her picketing.

If the foregoing is not denial enough of the charge, common when the picketing began, that these women were notoriety-seeking fanatics, perhaps nothing will bring conviction. It scarcely seems however that the most obstinate antagonist of the Woman’s Party would like to believe that delicately reared women could enjoy, even for the sake of notoriety—aside from the psychological effect of spiders and cockroaches everywhere, worms in their food, vermin in their beds, rats in their cells—the brutalities to which they were submitted. Yet many women who had endured this once, came back to endure it again and again.

One of the strong points of the Woman’s Party was its fairness. In reference to the President, for instance, Maud Younger used to say that the attitude of the Woman’s Party to him was like that of a girl who wants a college education. She teases her father for it without cessation, but she goes on loving him just the same. Another strong point of the Woman’s Party was its sense of humor on itself. They tell with great delight the amusing events of this period—of the grinning street gamin who stood and read aloud one of the banners, _How long must women wait for liberty?_ and then yelled: “T’ree months yous’ll be waitin’—in Occoquan.”—of a reporter who, coming into Headquarters in search of an interview, found a child sliding down the bannisters. Before he could speak, the child announced in a tone of proud triumph: “My mother’s going to prison.”

A story they particularly like is of that young couple who, having had no bridal trip at the time of their marriage, came to Washington for a belated honeymoon. They visited Headquarters together. The bride became so interested in the picketing that she went out with one of the picket lines and was arrested. She spent her belated honeymoon in jail, and the groom spent his belated honeymoon indignantly lobbying the Congressmen of his own district.

Later, when they were lighting the Watchfires of Freedom on the White House pavement, the activity at Headquarters was increased one hundred-fold.

The pickets themselves refer to that period as the most “messy and mussy” in their history. Everything and everybody smelled of kerosene. All the time, there was one room in which logs were kept soaking in this pervasive fluid. When they first started the Watchfires they carried the urn and the oil-soaked logs openly, to the appointed spot on the pavement in front of the White House. Later, when the arrests began and the fires had to be built so swiftly that they had to abandon the urn, they carried these logs under coats or capes. The White House pavement was always littered with charred wood even when the Watchfires were not going. Once the fires were started it was almost impossible to put them out. Kerosene-soaked wood is a very obstinate substance. Water had no effect on it. Chemicals alone extinguished it. Amazed crowds used to stand watching these magic flames. Often when the policemen tried to stamp the fires out, they succeeded only in scattering them.

It was an extraordinary effect, too, when the policemen were busy putting out one fire, to see others start up, in _this_ corner of the Park, in _that_ corner, in the great bronze urn, near the center.

Building a fire in that bronze urn was as difficult a matter as it seems. A Woman’s Party member, glancing out from a stairway window at the top of the house at Headquarters, had noted how boldly the urn stood out from the rest of the Park decoration....

At three o’clock one morning, Julia Emory and Hazel Hunkins, two of the youngest and tiniest pickets, bore over to the Park from Headquarters several baskets of wood which they concealed in the shadows under the trees. The next problem was to get a ladder there without being seen. They accomplished this in some way, dragging it over the ground, slow foot after slow foot, and placed it against the urn. At intervals the policeman on the beat, who was making the entire round—or square—of the Park, passed. While one girl mounted the rudder and filled the urn with oil-soaked paper, oil-soaked wood, and liberal libations of oil, the other remained on guard. When the guard gave the word that the policeman was near, the two girls threw themselves face downward on the frozen grass. It is a very large urn and by this stealthy process it took hours to fill it. It was two days before they started the fire. Anybody might have seen the logs protruding from the top of the urn during those two days, but nobody did.

The day on which the urn projected itself into the history of the Woman’s Party, the Watchfires were burning for the first time on the White House pavements. The street and the Park were filled with people. A member of the Woman’s Party, passing the urn, furtively threw into it a lighted asbestos coil. The urn instantly belched flames which threatened to lick the sky. The police arrested every Woman’s Party member in sight. All the way down the street as the patrol carried them away, Hazel Hutchins and Julia Emory saw the flames flaring higher and higher.

“How did they do that?” one man was heard to say. “I’ve been here the whole afternoon and I didn’t see them light it.”

Twice afterwards fires were started in the urn. For that matter, fires were started there after the police had set a watch on it.

Hazel Hunkins, young, small, slender, took the urn under her special patronage. One of the pictures the Woman’s Party likes to draw is the time Hazel was arrested there. She had climbed up onto the pedestal and was throwing logs into the pool of oil when two huge policemen descended upon her. The first seized one foot and the second seized the other; and they both pulled hard. Of course in these circumstances, it was impossible for her to move. But she is an athlete and she clung tight to the urn edge. Still the policemen pulled. Finally she said gently, “If you will let go of my feet, I will come down myself.”

Later asbestos coils were introduced into the campaign. This—from the police point of view—was more annoying than the kerosene-soaked logs; for they were compact to carry, easy to handle, difficult to put out, and they lasted a long, long time.

Another picture the Woman’s Party likes to draw is of Mildred Morris starting asbestos coils. With her nimbus of flaming hair, Miss Morris seemed a flame herself. She was here, there, everywhere. The police could no more catch up with her than they could with a squirrel. One night, with the assistance of two others, she—unbelievably—fastened some asbestos coils among the White House trees; but to her everlasting regret the guards found them before the illumination could begin.

The stories they tell about arrests at this time are endless. Little Julia Emory, who was arrested thirty-four times, is a repository of lore on this subject.

They were a great trial to the police—the arrests of these later months. While under detention, the pickets used to organize impromptu entertainments. This was during the period, when at their trials, the Suffragists would answer no questions and the court authorities were put to it to establish their identities. They related with great glee how in his efforts to prove Annie Arniel’s identity, a policeman described one of their concerts in court.

And then, your Honor, that one there said, “We’ll now have a comb solo from a distinguished combist, who has played before all the crowned heads of Europe, Annie Arniel,” and then, your Honor, the defendant got up and played a tune on a comb.

When, for instance, Suffragists refused bail, the police did not like to hold them overnight because it was such an expense to the District of Columbia to feed them. Julia Emory describes one evening when a roomful of them, arrested, and having refused to put up bail, were waiting the will of the powers. During this wait, which lasted several hours, they entertained themselves by singing.

Once a policeman came in:

“Will you pay your bail if we put it at twenty-five dollars?”

“No,” answered the pickets promptly.

He went out, but later he returned.

“Will you pay your bail if we put it at five dollars?”

“No.”

“Then march out.”

But those light moments were only foam thrown up from serious and sometimes desperate times. When a crowd of ex-pickets gather together and indulge in reminiscences, extraordinary revelations occur. Looking at their faces and estimating their youth, one wonders at a world which permitted one per cent of these things to happen.

And as for their experiences with the mobs.... Not the least of the psychological factors in the situation was the slow growth of the crowds; the circle of little boys who gathered about them first, spitting at them, calling them names, making personal comments; then the gathering gangs of young hoodlums who encouraged the boys to further insults; then more and more crowds; more and more insults; the final struggle.

Often of course the pickets stood against the White House fence, an enormous mob packed in front of them, with the knowledge that police protection—according to the orders of the day—might be given them or might not.... Sometimes that crowd would edge nearer and nearer until there was but a foot of smothering, terror-fraught space between them and the pickets. Literally those women felt they had their backs to the wall. Occasionally they had to mount the stone coping! Always too they feared that any sudden movement within the packed, slowly approaching hostile crowd might foam into violence. Occasionally, when the police followed orders to protect the pickets, violent things happened to people in the crowd. Catherine Flanagan saw a plain-clothes man hit six sailors over the head in succession with a billy. They went down like nine pins. Yet when after hours of a seemingly impressive waiting the actual struggle came—something—some spiritual courage bigger than themselves—impelled them to hold on to their banner poles to the last gasp. They were big in circumference—those banner poles—but the girls clutched them so tightly that often it took three policemen to wrench them away. Catherine Flanagan had deep gashes on the inside of her palms where her own nails had penetrated her flesh and great wounds on the outside of her hands where the policemen had dug their nails into them. Virginia Arnold’s hands and arms were torn as though in a struggle with some wild beast.

Yet, I repeat, Headquarters saw its lighter moments even in those most troubled times. And during those most troubled times, that gay spirit of youth managed to maintain itself. The onlookers marveled at it. But it was only because it was a spiritual quality—youth of the soul, in addition to youth of the body—that it could endure. During the course of the eight years of its history, the members of the Woman’s Party had been subjected to disillusion after disillusion. The older ones among them bore this succession of shocks with that philosophy which a long experience in public affairs engenders. But the younger ones—believing at first, as youth always believes, in the eternal verities, and in their eternal prevalence—witnessed faith-shaking sights and underwent even more faith-shaking experiences.

In their contact with public men, they saw such a man as Borah for instance—perhaps the chief of the Knights of the Double Cross—give the Woman’s Party what virtually amounted to his pledged word to support the Amendment and then coolly repudiate it. They saw Moses of New Hampshire play a quibbling trick on them which involved them in weeks of the hardest kind of work only calmly to ignore his own pledge at the end. They contended with such differing personalities as the cold, cultured mind, immutably set in the conventions of a past generation, of Henry Cabot Lodge; the unfairness, or fatuity, or brutality of such men as Penrose of Pennsylvania, Thomas of Colorado, Wadsworth of New York, Reed of Missouri, Brandegee of Connecticut, Hoke Smith of Georgia.

When the picketing began, they saw outside forces get their Headquarters from them; saw them influence scores of property owners sometimes after an advance rent had been paid, not to let houses to them; saw them try to influence the people who gave money, to withhold such financial support; saw them try to influence the newspapers to be less impartial in their descriptions of Woman’s Party activities. As the picketing went on and the burning of the President’s words and the Watchfires succeeded it—while they were exercising their inalienable right of peaceful protest—they knew the experience of being harried by mobs at the very door of the President of the United States; harried while the President passed in his carriage through their midst; later to be harried in collaboration by both mobs and police. Under arrest and in prison, they underwent experiences which no one of them would have believed possible of the greatest republic in the world. They were held incommunicado; they could see neither counsel nor Party members. They were offered food filled with worms. They were submitted to incredible brutalities.

And yet, I have said that spirit of youth prevailed. It prevailed because they were speaking for their generation. They developed a sense of devotion to their ideal of freedom which would have stopped short of no personal sacrifice, not death itself. They developed a sense of comradeship for each other which was half love, half admiration and all reverence. In summing up a fellow worker, they speak first of her “spirit,” and her “spirit” is always _beautiful_, or _noble_, or _glorious_, or some such youth-loved word.

Once, when one party of pickets, about to leave Occoquan, was in the dining-room, a fresh group, just sentenced, were brought into luncheon and placed at another table. Conversation was not permitted. Not a word was spoken, but with one accord the released pickets raised their water-glasses high, then lowered them and drank to their comrades.

Yes, that was their strength—spirit of youth. Lavinia Dock said, “The young are at the gates.” The young stormed those gates and finally forced them open. They entered. And leaving behind all sinister remembrance of the battle, they turned their faces towards the morning.

THE END

INDEX

Abbot, Minnie D., 225

Adams, Abigail, 103

Adams, Hazel, 357

Adams, Pauline, 236, 238, 404, 407

Adams, Mrs. Walter, 402

Addams, Jane, 13, 39, 42

Adler, Jessie, 389

Ainge, Edith, 238, 357, 373, 374, 375, 377, 392, 393, 396, 400, 404, 407, 446

Allen, Genevieve, 429, 449

Allender, Nina, 15, 18, 19, 46, 208

American Federation of Labor, 166

Amidon, Beulah, 47, 124, 193, 203, 232, 342

Andrews, Harriet U., 377, 393, 394, quoted 406

Anglin, Margaret, 107

Aniba, Isabel C., quoted 346

Arizona ratifies, 423

Arkansas ratifies, 439

Armes, Mrs. George A., 63, quoted 92

Arniel, Annie, 220, 221, 238, 357, 377, 392, 393, 394, 400, 401, 404, 472

Arnold, Bertha, 332, 363, 372, 375, 377, 379, 381, 400, 407

Arnold, Virginia, 71, 77, 124, 220, 221, 230, 233, 374, 375, 376, 377, 474

Ascough, Lillian M., 357, 404

Ascough, Mrs. W. D., 151, 407

Ashurst, Senator, 54

Asquith, Herbert, 10

Atwater, Mrs. George, 374

Austin, Mary, 114

Baird, Senator Davis, 381, 415, 436

Baker, Abby Scott, quoted 152; 177, 201, 238, 291, 301, 318, 328, 334, 340, 344, 381, 407, 428, 429, 446, 450, 451, 453, 454, 457

Baker, Secretary of War, 160, 441

Bamberger, Governor, 428

Bar Association, 295, 297

Barnes, Mrs. Charles W., 251

Barnett, John T., 89

Barrett, Naomi, 396, 397

Barrow, Frank, 432, 438, 440

Barry, John D., 255

Bartelme, Judge Mary A., 157

Bartlett, Dorothy, 238

Battelle, Mrs. John Gordon, 450, 453

Beach, Cornelia, 238

Beale, Olive, 377, 379

Beard, Mary, 13, 43, 51, 145, 155, 300, 381

Beckwith, Mrs. Carol, 145

Beim, Mrs. A. N., 251

Belmont, Mrs. O. H. P., 51, 73, quoted 105; 106, 113, 129, 201, 290, 311

Bennett, Mrs. M. Toscan, quoted 387; 395, 448

Bergen, Mrs. William, 251

Black, Judge W. W., 88

Black, Louise M., 357

Blair, Henry W., 215

Blatch, Harriot Stanton, 13, 96, 151, 153, 167, 174, 195

Bloch, Senator, 441, 442

Blumberg, Hilda, 243, 252

Bodenheim, Marie, 413

Boeckel, Florence Brewer, 46, 47, 186

Boeckh, Kate J., 236, 357, 400

Boissevain, Inez Milholland, 21, 25, 96, 158, 174, memorial service, 185-7

Borah, Senator, 344, 350, 382

Bovee, Mrs. Virginia, 267, quoted 268

Boyle, Catherine, 346, 396

Brady, Senator, 84

Brandeis, Miss, 81

Branham, Lucy, 124, 238, 328, 334, 351, quoted 364; 381, 385, 400, 407, 446

Branham, Mrs. L. V. G. Gwynne, 404

Brannan, Mrs. John Winters, 129, 190, 201, 226, 250, 251, quoted 252; 274, 279, 282, 388

Brisbane, Arthur, 158

Bristow, Senator, 56

Bristow-Mondell Amendment, 36, 77

British Mission, 207

Bronenberg, Jennie, 404

Bronson, Minnie, quoted 256, 341

Brooke, Minnie E., 66, 176

Brown, Izetta Jewel, 451

Brown, Miss, 11

Brown, Mrs. William Gay, 440

Brown, Rev. Olympia, 204, 313, quoted 388

Brownlow, Commissioner, 267

Bruere, Mrs. Henry, 145

Bryan, J. W., 93

Bryant, Louise, 404

Burn, Harry, 459, 460, 461

Burns, Lucy, 9, 13, 16-7, 42, 46, 51, quoted 62, 68; 69-70, 74, 77, 129, 148, 151, 181, 201, 208, 210, 220, quoted 223, 230, 233, 238, 251, 264, quoted 267-8; 274, 279, quoted 281; 301, 318, 357, 360, 377, 381, 396, 400, 404, 407, 466

Burritt, M. Tilden, 251

Butterworth, Mrs. Henry, 251, 275

Calderhead, Iris, 124, 222, 380

California ratifies, 429

Calmes, Lucia, 396

Calnan, Eleanor, 238, 377, 409

Campbell, Agnes, 151

Campbell, Mary, 346

Candler, Senator, 454

Capper, Governor, 147, 441

Caraway, Representative, 137

Carey, Governor, 431, 432

Carey, Mrs. John, 449

Carlin, Representative, 133, 137

Carpenter, Alice, 155, 300

Casey, Josephine, 77

Castleton, Beatrice, 412, 413

Catt, Mrs. Carrie Chapman, 162, 348

Catts, Governor, 331-2

Chamberlain-Mondell Amendment, 36

Chamberlain, Senator, 35

Chandler, Representative, 137

Chase, Agnes, 357

Chevrier, Palys L., 396, 404

_Cheyenne Tribune_, quoted 88

Chi, Mrs. Chem., 101

Chicago Republican Convention, 447-9

Chisaski, Helen, 396

Chisholm, Mrs. W. W., 238

Christensen, Parley, 456

Churchill, Winston, 10

Clark, Champ, 338

Clark, Maude F., 70

Clarke, Pauline, 46, 124, 220, 357

Club Women’s Deputation, 60

Cochran, William J., 416

Cohen, Cynthia, 251

Coles, Assemblyman, 437

College Equal Suffrage League, 34

Collins, Josephine, 409, 410

Colorado ratifies, 431

Colt, Mrs. William L., 181, 252

Colt, Senator, 343

Colvin, Sarah T. (Mrs. A. R.), 151, 400, 402, 404, 407

Comborrov, Reba, 404

Condon, Miss, 295

Congressional Committee, 3, 31-2, 33, 35, 39, 45-6

Congressional Union, 37, 47-8, 49, 55, quoted 88-93, 101-7, 123, 129, 131-2, 156, 157

Connecticut ratifies, 463

Connelly, Betty, 409, 410

Constable, Anna, 151

Cosu, Alice, 251, 273

Cox, Governor, 452, 457

Crabtree, Hon. W. R., 299

Crans, Lillian, 209

Crawford, Cora, 357, 401

Crewe, Lord, 10, 11

Crocker, Gertrude Lynde, 128, 201, 248, 357, 393, 396

Crocker, Ruth, 128, 233, 242, 400

Crone, Berta, 220, 293

Culberson, Senator, 343

Cummings, Homer S., 416, 451

Cummins, Senator, 305, 422

Curtis, Senator, 82, 179, 343, 350, 366

Cuthbert, Mrs. Lucius M., 78

Dabs, Mr., 330

Dale, Representative, 137

Daniels, L. G. C., 377

Daniels, Lou C., 245, 251, 409, 448

Daniels, Lucy, 404

Daniels, Secretary, 441

Davis, Edith, 453

Davis, Mrs. Frances, 377

Day, Dorothy, 251, 272

Dean, Ella Morton, 230, 231

Debs, Eugene, 153

Decker, Eva, 251

Democratic Women’s Deputation, 63

Dennett, Mary Ware, 13, 38

De Shan, Florence, 412

De Valera, President, 444

Devoe, Emma Smith, 39, 66

De Young, M. H., 106

Dial, Senator, 415

Dixon, Edna, 236

Dixon, Mary Bartlett, 251

Dock, Lavinia, quoted 212; 220, 221, 236, 313, 357

Doolittle, Representative, 89

Dorr, Rheta Childe, 46, 60, 158

Dorsey, Hugh M., 423

Doty, Madeline, 300

Dowell, Mary Carol, 397

Doyle, Christine M., 357

Drew, Senator, 415

Drumheller, Roscoe, 92

Dubrow, Mary E., 124, 328, 357, 381, 392, 393, 394, quoted 439-43

Dyer, Mrs. E. Tiffany, 145

Dyer, Representative, 137

Eastman, Crystal, 13, 51, 66, 158

Edge, Senator, 415

Edwards, Edward I., 435

“E. H. Howe,” 410

Emory, Julia, 124, 238, 251, 263, 273, 275, 328, 357, 364, 375, 376, 377, 379, 393; 394, 396, quoted 424-8; 470, 472, 473

Evans, Mrs., 19

Evans, Mrs. Edmund C., 357, 394

Evans, Ernestine, 300

Evans, Mrs. Evan, 155

Evans, Mrs. Glendower, quoted 59

Ewing, Lucy, 229, 236, 407

Eylward, Estella, 404

Fendall, Mary Gertrude, 124, 140, 218, 328, 355, 357, 373, 374, 377, 400, 465

Fess, Simeon, 433, quoted 440

Field, Sara Bard, quoted 101; 105, 107-8, quoted 108-14; 114, 115, 118, 153, 157, 164, 165, 174, quoted 188; 190, 328, 451

Findeisen, Ella, 251

Fisher, Katherine Rolston, 242, quoted 261; 269, 315, 357, 377

Fishstein, Rose, 404

Fishstein, Rose G., 404

Fitch, Ruth, quoted 183-4

Fitzgerald, Representative, 128

Flanagan, Catherine, 124, quoted 230-2; 233, 236, 249, 250, 328, 380, 382, 433, 443, 448, 453, 455, 463, 474

Flegel, Mr., 92

Forbes, T. W., 404

Fotheringham, Janet, 225

Fotheringham, Margaret, 236; quoted 237; 238

Fowler, Frances, 409

French Commission, 207

French, Mrs. L. Crozier, 452

Frierson, William L., quoted 451

Frost, Grace, 375

Frost, Susan, 389

Fuller, Clara Kinsley, 236, quoted 237

Gale, Zona, quoted 67; 186

Gallagher, Andrew, quoted 104

Gallinger, Senator, 345

Gannon, Dr., 280

Gard, Representative, 118, 137

Gardner, Commissioner, 279

Gardner, Gilson, 25, 203, quoted 204; 226, 227, quoted 234; 235, 267

Gardner, Mrs. Gilson, 20, 51, 69, 70, 94, quoted 95; 129, 134, 201, 225, quoted 265; 266, 318, 357, 377, 396, 466

Garnett, Louise, 380, 428

Garrison, Rebecca, 404

Gasch, Marie Manning, 251

Gates, Wellington H., 88

Gay, Senator, 411

Gerberding, Elizabeth, 155

Germany, war declared, 205

Gerry, Senator, 342

Gilbert, Mildred, 181

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, quoted 418-9

Ginsberg, Anna, 404

Glines, Mildred, 342

Glover, W. Irving, 436

Goode, Edith, 151

Goode, Jane, 151

Gonzon, Mary, 346

Goolsby, Mr., 330

Gram, Alice, 47, 251

Gram, Betty, 124, 251, 328, 374, 380, 409, 422, 433, quoted 435-9; 441, 442, 443, 451, 453, 455, 460

Gray, Natalie, 233, 236, 466

Gray, Mrs. S. H. B., 220, 466

Greeley, Helen Hoy, 449

Green, Mrs. E. C., 452

Green, Mrs. Frances, 223

Green, Mollie Marie, 357

Greiner, Gladys, 220, 222, 242, 248, 357, 373, 374, 381, 404, 407

Grey, Sir Edward, 11

Grimes, Mrs., 318

Grogan, Sara, 22, 377, 379, 389

Gross, Mrs. Irving, 409

Guggenheim, Leo U., 88

Guilford, Ella, 251

Gwinter, Eleanor, 242

Hale, Matthew, 415

Hamilton, Elizabeth, 251

Hara, Ernestine, 243

Harding, Warren G., 345, 422, 449, 454

Hardwick, Senator, 350, 415

Hardy, Jennie C. Law, 117

Harmer, Senator, 440

Harper, Ida Husted, 43

Harrington, Governor, 424

Harris, Gabrielle, 403

Harris, Senator, 415

Harrison, Senator, 415

Hasbrouck, Olive, 66

Havemeyer, Mrs. H. O., 174, 402, quoted 403; 404, 407, 448, 452, 453

Hawkins, Mrs. W. J., 431

Hawley, ex-Governor, 84

Hawley, Senator, 92

Hayden, Congressman, 83, 90

Hays, Will H., 444, quoted 445

Hearst, Phoebe A., 157

Heffelfinger, Kate Cleaver, 245, 247, 249, 357, 396

Henderson, Jessica, 409

Henderson, Wilma, 409-10

Henesy, Minnie, 245, 247, 249

Henkel, Alice, 124, 343

Hennessy, Charles O’Connor, 381-2

Henry, Mr., quoted 68; 69, quoted 94-5; 127

Hepburn, Mrs. Thomas, 290

Herendeen, Anne, quoted 7

Herkner, Anne, 404

Herndon, Mrs., 271

Hershfield, Harry, 436

Higgins, Colonel, 373

Hill, Alberta, 63

Hill, Elsie, 34, 51, 124, 129, 133, 175, 176, 205, 290, 328, 357, 358, quoted 361, 380, 409, 413, 443, 445, 446

Hilles, Florence Bayard, 117, 151, 181, 201, 225, quoted 345; 346, 381, 390, 443, 449, 453

Hinchey, Margaret, quoted 58

Hinshaw, Virgil, 300

Holcomb, Governor Marcus, 463

Hollis, Senator, 306

Hooker, Mrs. Donald R., 51, 129, 201, 301, 426, 450

Hooper, ex-Governor, 454

Hopkins, J. A. H., 226, 227, 267, 300, quoted 301

Hopkins, Mrs. J. A. H., 201, 225, 227, 433, 435, 438

Hornesby, L. H., 251

Hourwich, Rebecca, 124, 296, 381

House Suffrage Committee, 302, 306, 307

Howe, Julia Ward, 103

Howell, Representative, 109

Howry, Elizabeth, 186

Huddleston, Mr., 320

Huff, Elizabeth, 396

Huff, Emily, 400

Hughes, Charles Evans, 27, 28, 161, 162

Hull, Mr., 337

Hunkins, Hazel, 124, 177, 209, 220, 222, 225, 328, 355, 356, 357, 358, 470

Hunt, Helen, 332

Hunter, Gertrude, 77, quoted 80; 236

Hurlburt, Julia, 151, 225

Hutton, May Arkwright, 154

Hyattsville, Mayor of, 38

Idaho ratifies, 439

Igoe, Representative, 137

Illinois ratifies, 420

Indiana ratifies, 431

_Indianapolis News_, quoted 112

Industrial Workers deputation, 57

Ingham, Mary H., quoted 388, 401, 402, 404, 407, 421, 447, 450

Iowa ratifies, 422

Jack, Mrs. C. C., 409

Jackson, Mrs. Mark, 242

Jacobson, Pauline, quoted 245

Jakobi, Paula, 251, 273, 275, quoted 278, 281

James, Ada, 420

James, D. G., 420

James, Senator, 349

Jameson, John B., 381-2

Jamison, Maud, 220-1, 238, 245, 247, 249, 373, 374, 377, 379, 396

Jerrold, Lilian, 346

Johns, Peggy Baird, 243, 251

Johnson, Senator, 305, 306

Johnson, Willie Grace, 404

Joliffe, Frances, 105, 107-8, 113, 114, 115, 118

Jones, Margaret Graham, 47

Jones, Senator Andreus Aristides, 305, 345, 347, 349, 366, 411

Jones, Senator Wesley L., 40, 305, 360, 411

Jost, Mayor, 109

Judiciary Committee, 35

Juengling, Amy, 251, 404

Kahle, Louise Lewis, 245

Kalb, Benigna Green, 445

Kalb, Elizabeth, 46, 372, 374, 375, 377, 379, 396, quoted 464

Kansas ratifies, 421

Katzenstein, Caroline, 151, 381

Keating, Senator, 92

Keehn, Harriet, 357

Kellam, Mrs. Arthur, quoted 345

Keller, Helen, 158

Kelley, Augusta M., 377

Kelley, Florence, quoted 101-2, 113

Kellogg, Rhoda, 397

Kellogg, Senator, 345

Kelly, Mrs. Nicholas, 379

Kelly, Representative, 71

Kendall, Ada Davenport, 270, 287-9

Kendall, Anna Norris, 204

Kendall, Mrs. Frederick Willard, 242

Kendrick, Senator, 441

Kennedy, Marie Ernst, 404

Kent, Representative, 128

Kent, Mrs. William, 18, 51, 94, 100, 129, 134, quoted 144, 174, 186, 195, 201, 219, 251, 253, 290, 301, 312, 318, 429, 451

Kentucky ratifies, 431

Kessler, Margaret Wood, 243

Keyes, Senator, 415

Kilby, Thomas E., 422

Kimball, Alice, 357

Kin, Dr. Yami, quoted 105

Kincaid, Mrs. B. R., 225

Kindberg, Maria, 107

Kindstedt, Ingeborg, 107

King, Dr. Cora Smith, 34, 90

King, Senator, 343

Koeing, Ruby E., 357

Kruger, Hattie, 251

Kuhn, Anna, 357

Kuli Khan, Mme. Ali, 105

Ladd, Dr., 281

Lamont, Mrs. George W., 167

Lancaster, Elsie, 77, 89

Lang, Mrs. Albion, 449

Latimer, Edna S., 77

Latimer, Mrs., quoted 81-2

Laughlin, Gail, quoted 103; 153, 174

Lawrence, David, 254

Lederman, Minna, 377

Lennox, Ida, 346

Lenroot, Senator, 347

Lewis, Mrs. Lawrence, 13, 51, 66, 129, 201, 220, 223, 251, 279, quoted 280; 292, 312, 313, 356, 357, 379, 381, 391, 394, 421, 430, 443, 451

Lewis, Rose, 409

Lewis, Shippen, 447

Lewis, William Draper, 447

Lieberson, Rose, 357

Lincoln, Kathryn, 251

Lloyd, Lola Maverick, 377

Lockrey, Dr. Sarah Hunt, 357

Lockwood, Mrs. Henry L., 236

Lodge, Senator, 422

Logan, Mrs. Ellis, 60

Logue, Mary, 394

Lloyd George, 10

Lowenburg, Mrs. Harry, 181

Lowry, Catherine, 209

Ludlow, Dr. Clara E., 70

McCarl, Mr., 431

McCormick, Mrs. Medill, 122

McCormick, Vance, quoted 180

McCoy, Representative, 40, 41

McCue, Anne, 77

McCumber, Senator, 342

McDuffie, Mrs. S. B., 71

McKellar, Senator, 350

McKenzie, Marie, 346

McPherson, Blanche A., 355, 357

McShane, Elizabeth, 251, 253, 375, 402, 404, 407

Mackay, Senator, 436

Mackaye, Mrs. Benton, 203

Mackaye, Jessie Hardy, quoted 365

Mackrille, Ida Finney, 174, 451

Magee, Katherine, 397

Main, Effie Boutwell, 357

Main, Emily Burke, 357

Maine ratifies, 430

Maki, Mayi, 102

Mallon, Winifred, 15, 23, 151

Malone, Dudley Field, 201, 239-42, 254, 259, 267, 282, 287, 290, 300

Malone, Maude, 238

Mann, Representative, 93, 339

Maphis, Director, 334

Marion, Kitty, 222, 223, 225

Marlborough, Duchess of, 73

Maroney, Lieut., 154

Marsden, Edith, 46

Marsh, Eleanor Taylor, 47

Martin, Anne, 15, 23, 94, 108, 115, 129, 131, quoted 134-6; 149, 157, 186, 201, 225, quoted 259; 292, 293, 299, 301, 303, 318, 319, 465

Martin, Senator, 334, 348

Martinette, Catherine, 251

Massachusetts ratifies, 422

Maverick, Lucy, 412, 413

Mead, Mrs. Cyrus, 151

Mellett, Mrs. Lowell, 134

Men’s League for Woman Suffrage, 45

Mercer, Nell, 402, 404

Meredith, Mrs. Sophie, 249, 357

Merritt, H. P., 423

Michigan ratifies, 420

Milholland, Inez, _see Boissevain_

Milholland, Vida, 202, 222, 249, 387, 407

Miller, Alice Duer, 130, 131

Mellett, Mrs. Lowell, 318

Minnesota ratifies, 428

Missouri ratifies, 422

Mitchell, Mayor, 114

Moller, Bertha, 372, 373, 374, 375, 381, 397

Mondell, Representative, 35, 67, 69, 114, 116, 128, 432, 433

Monroe, Lila Day, 148

Montana ratifies, 423

Montessori, Mme. Marie, quoted 105

Montgomery, Senator, 442

Moore, Martha W., 357, 397

Moran, Mrs. F. B., quoted 166

Morey, Agnes H., 151, 251, 381, quoted 388-9, 409, 422, 152, 208, 209, 210, 220-1, 231, 250, 278, 381, 408, 410

Morgan, Mary, 185

Morgan, Representative, 137

Morris, Mildred, 396, 404, 472

Morrison, Secretary, 430

Moses, George H., 381

Moss, Mr. Hunter, 121, 137, 138

Moulton, Arthur L., 79

Moyle, James H., 92

Mullowny, Judge, 226, 243, 248, 249, 252

Munds, Mrs. Frances, 90

Munnecke, Phoebe, 394, 400, 404

Murdock, Senator, 82

Murphy, Gertrude, 397

National American Woman Suffrage Association, 3, 13, 42, 43, 66, 168

National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, 255-6

National Council of Women Voters, 34, 39

National Federation of Women’s Clubs, 59

Nebraska ratifies, 423

Needham, Grace, 374, 381

Neely, Representative, Kansas, 82, 92

Neely, Representative, W. Va., 137

Nelson, Representative, 132, 133, 137

Newell, Gertrude B., 152

_New Freedom_, quoted 198

New Hampshire ratifies, 428, 435

New Jersey Women’s Deputation, 40-1

New Mexico ratifies, 439

New York ratifies, 421

_New York Tribune_, quoted 114, 122

Nevada ratifies, 433

Nolan, Mrs. Mary A., 251, 313, 272, quoted 400; 404, 407

Northcliffe, Lord, quoted 301

North Dakota ratifies, 430

Noyes, Ruth, 77

Nugent, James R., 435

Oakes, Margaret, 357, 390

O’Brien, Matthew, 238, 259, quoted 260; 279, 378

Occoquan Workhouse, 263-78

Odell, Mrs. George, 318, 374

Ohio ratifies, 421

Oklahoma ratifies, 439

Older, Mrs. Fremont, quoted 105

Oregon ratifies, 431

Overman, Senator, 363

Owen, Senator, 441

Page, Mrs. Frank, 409

Page, Senator, 345

Palmer, Attorney General, 441

Pankhurst, Mrs. 9

Panama-Pacific Exposition, 100

Papandre, Elizabeth, 181

Patterson, Lulu, 346

Paul, Alice, résumé of achievements, 4-5; youth and training, 7-8; work in England, 8-9; meeting with Lucy Burns, 9; Scottish campaign, 10-11; experiences in Glasgow, 11; starts work for Constitutional Amendment in Washington, 12-13; Convention of National American Association in Philadelphia, 13; Chairman Special Committee of National American Woman Suffrage Association, 13; description and tributes, 14-16; starts work in Washington, Dec., 1912, 18; methods of working, 19-28; and President Wilson, 32; leads Congressional Committee Deputation, 33; deputation of New Jersey women, 41; plans for 1914, 51; preparations for demonstration May 2, 1914, 66; Congressional Union deputation, 69; quoted, 74-77; outline for 1915, 99; Telegraph Editor of _San Francisco Bulletin_, 106; and Judiciary Committee, Dec., 1915, 116-22; Congressional Union National Convention, 128; and William Elza Williams, 133; quoted 142; formation of Woman’s Party, 149-51; Hughes campaign, 161-2; White House picketing, 196; National Woman’s Party organized, 199; declaration of war with Germany, 206; assaulted while picketing, 232; arrested, 245; quoted 246-7; in prison, 249; interviewed in prison, 254; in psychopathic ward, 268; in Occoquan, 284; hunger-striking, 285; lobbying, 318; Susan B. Anthony Amendment passes House of Representatives, 340; quoted 358; Lafayette Monument meetings, 360-3; arrested, 377, 379; and Senator Borah, 382-3; watchfires, 393; President Wilson’s homecoming demonstration, 408; Metropolitan Opera House demonstration, 412-3; Utah ratification, 428; Maine ratification, 430; Delaware ratification, and Senator Harding, 449; Cox and Harding campaign, 453

Peck, Mildred, 346

_Pendleton Tribune_, quoted 91

Pennsylvania ratifies, 421

Penrose, Senator, 421

Pepper, George Wharton, 447

Perry, Emily, 318

Pflaster, Mrs., 312, 397

Phelan, Senator, 342, 429

Phelps, Edith, 390

Philippine Bill, 93

Picketing, details, 464-8

Pierce, Vivian, 46, 124; quoted 177; 220, 238, 244, 312, 328, 372, 373, 374-7, 375, 381, 429, 431, 443

Pinchot, Mrs. Amos, 145

Pincus, Jane, 77, quoted 83

Piunti, Adelina, 396

Poindexter, Senator, 434, quoted 441

Polk, Mrs. Stewart, 373

Pollitzer, Anita, 124, 328, quoted 329-34; 379, 380, 415, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 440, 443, 445, 452, 453, 454, 455, 460

Pollock, Senator, 330, 382, 404, 415

Pope, Mrs. Horton, 372

Pottier, Berry, 409

Pou, Mr., 69, 127, quoted 306

Price, Lucy, 341

Pride, Mrs. Marcella, 383

“Prison Special,” 407

Puffenbarger, Mrs., 442

Pugh, Judge, 236, 237

Pullman, Major, 210, 234

Purtelle, Edna M., 357

Quay, Mrs. R. B., 251

Raker, Mr., 338

Rankin, Hon. Jeannette, 300, 318

Read, Mrs. Percy, 152

Reading, Lord, 346

Reams, Captain, 259

Reber, Mabel, 453

Rector, Mrs. James, 452, 453

Reed, Mrs. Percy, 389

Reed, Senator, 109, 321, 349

Reyneau, Mrs. Paul, 225

Rhode Island ratifies, 431

Ridley, Colonel, 357, 362, 385

Riegel, Ella, 152, 402, 404, 407

Robb, Justice, quoted 259

Roberts, Governor, 450, 456, 457

Robertson, Mrs. C. T., 251

Robinson, Senator Helen Ring, 42

Roewer, Mrs. George, 409

Rogers, Mrs. John, Jr., 152, 154, 181, 226, 290, quoted 301, 387; 402, 404, 407

Roosevelt, Theodore, 25, 155, 161, 216, 343

Root, Elihu, 229

Ross, Margery, 20, 124, 394

Rossett, Margaret, 401

Rowe, Clara Louise, 124

Rumley, Dr. E. A., 300

Russell, Isaac, 428

Russell, Mrs. Charles Edward, 134, quoted 136

Russian Commission, 208

Russian, E. T., 401

Russian, Mrs. H. D., quoted 401, 409

Rye, Governor, 351

_Salt Lake City Republican Herald_, quoted 89

Samardin, Nina, 242

_San Francisco Bulletin_, quoted 106

Sargent, Senator, 36

Schuyler, Margaretta, 412

Scott, Melinda, quoted 57

Scott, Mrs. George, 251

Scott, Mrs. Townsend, 152, 181, 220, 389

Scott, Ruth, 396

_Seattle Times_, quoted 88

Seldomridge, Representative, 92

Shafroth-Palmer Resolution, 54-6

Shafroth, Senator, 54, 382

Shaw, Anna Howard, 13, 37, 42, 44

Shaw, Lois Warren, 409

Sheinberg, Belle, 251

Sheppard, Senator, 343

Sherman, Senator, 411

Sherwood, General, 215

Shields, Lucile, 223, 400

Shields, Mrs. Alex, 396

Shields, Senator, 351, letters quoted 352-3; 375

Shippen, Mrs. Eugene, 389

Shoemaker, Martha, 404

Short, Mrs. J. H., 251

Siddons, Judge, 378

Sisson, Mr., 320

Smailes, Mr., 333

Small, Ruth, 381, 409, 410

Smith, Elizabeth, 233, 252

Smith, Hoke, 317

Smith, Senator Ellison D., 330

Smith, Senator John M. C., 347

Smith, Senator Marcus A., 83, 90, 92, 347

Smoot, Senator, 428

Smyth, Chief Justice, 259

South Dakota ratifies, 431

Spargo, John, 300

Spencer, Dr. Caroline, 181, 244, 248, 390, 396

Spencer, Senator Selden, 438

Sproul, Governor, 421

Stafford, Kate, 251

Steele, Representative, 128, 137

Sterling, Senator, 430

Stevens, Counsel, quoted 259

Stevens, Doris, 77, 78, 106, 124, 145, 195-6, 201, 249, quoted 267, 278, 292, 293, 328, 343, 344, 380, 390, 413, 414, 448

Stevens, Governor, 429

Stimson, Secretary of War, 29

Stokes, Edward Caspar, 435

Stone, Lucy, 103

Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 103

Stubbs, Jessie Hardy, 66, 77, quoted 78; 79

Sturgess, Georgiana, 231

Sturtevant, Eva E., 357

Stuyvesant, Elizabeth, 220, 223, 230, 231, 232, 233

Suffrage Amendment, 3, 34-6, 43, 161, 404-5, 417, 421

“Suffrage Special” Western tour, 152

_Suffragist_, established, 46; quoted 45, 49, 52, 60, 68, 94-5, 114, 134, 164-5, 167, 169, 178, 215, 237, 244

Sullivan, May, 357

Sutherland, Mary, 390

Sutherland, Senator, 114, 116, 162, 344, 440

Sykes, Louise, 409

Taggart, Representative, 117, 119, 137

Tarbell, Ida M., quoted 158

Taylor, J. Will, 454

Tennessee ratifies, 456; Anti-Suffrage suit, 463

Terrace, Matilda, 357

Texas ratifies, 422

Thomas, Representative R. Y., 137

Thomas, Senator Charles S., 92

Thompson, Mayor, quoted 111

Thompson, Mrs. Sinclair, 124

Todd, Helen, 117, 152, 167, 174

Torrence, Olivia Dunbar, 251

Trammell, Senator, 330

Trax, Lola C., 77, quoted 79

Trinkle, Senator, 334

Tumulty, Joseph, 145, 147, 346, 351, 416

Turner, Banks, 459-60

Turner, Mrs. H. L., 409

Ueland, Mrs. Andreas, 117

Underwood, Senator, 349

Unterman, Elsie, 400, 401

Utah ratifies, 429

Van Gasken, Dr. Frances G., 63

Van Orsdel, Justice, 259-60

Van Winkle, Mina, 167

Vardaman, Senator, 350, 415

Vaughan, Mrs. William P., 330

Vernon, Mabel, 8, 46, 66, quoted 85; 106, 111, 117, 124, 147, 157, 166, 181, 201, 210, 220-1, quoted 263; 292, 293, quoted 300; 303, 328, 407, 443, 447

Ver Vane, Elsie, 396

Volstead, Representative, 121, 137

Waddill, Judge Edmund, 254, 280, 282, 290

Wadsworth, Senator, 375, 411

Wainwright, Mrs. Richard, 300, quoted 303; 363, 432

Walker, Amelia Himes, 225

Walker, Mrs. R., 407

Walker, Representative, 137

Walker, Seth, 455, 456, 459, 462

Wall, Henrietta Briggs, 389

Wallace, Alfred, quoted 157

Wallace, W. R., 89

Wallerstein, Bertha, 401, 404

Walling, Ada, 346

Walmsley, Elizabeth, 400

Walmsley, H. R., 377

Walsh, Frank P., quoted 104, 110, 444

Walsh, Senator, 113, 416, 441

Warren, Mary, 103

Warren, Mrs. Mortimer, 409

_Washington Post_, quoted 43, 181

Washington ratifies, 443

Watson, Madeline, 232, 236

Watson, Mrs. William Upton, 404

Weaver, Eva, 396

Weaver, Mrs. C., 396

Webb, Representative, 117-8, 127, 130, 137, 301, quoted 302

Weed, Eleanor Hill, 357

Weed, Helena Hill, 15, 77, quoted 84-5, 156; 222, 223, 251, 357, 392, 404, quoted 406-7; 449

Weeks, Cora, 251, 404, 407

Weeks, Senator, 411

Welling, Congressman, 429

West Virginia ratifies, 439

Whaley, Representative, 137, 320

Whitcomb, Camilla, 251, 409

White, Mrs. John Jay, 37, 106

White, Sue, 46, 295, 296, 351, 389, 403, 404, 407, 445, 450, 452, 453, 456, 457

Whitehouse, Mrs. Robert Trent, 409, 430

Whitman, Governor, 113

Whittaker, Superintendent of Occoquan, 227, 259, 264, 280

Whittemore, Margaret, 77, 78, 124, 222, 382, 397

Whittemore, Mrs. Nelson, 152

Wiley, Dr. Harvey, 271

Wiley, Mrs. Harvey, 60, 251, quoted 252; 253, 260, 386

Williams, Genevieve, 251

Williams, Senator, 118, 127, 128

Williams, William Ezra, 133-4, quoted 135-7

Willis, Senator, 334

Wilson, Woodrow, 3; election campaign, 28; inauguration, 29; attitude toward Woman Suffrage, 31-2; reply to New Jersey deputation, 41; reply to Industrial Women’s deputation, 58-9; reply to Club Women’s deputation, 60-2; reply to Democratic Women’s deputation, 64-5; and the Filipinos, 94; votes for Woman Suffrage, 108; receives San Francisco petition, 115-6; delegation of New York women, 144-7; visits Kansas, 147-8; letters, 162-3; addresses National American Woman Suffrage Association, 169-71; letter to National Woman’s Party Conference, 172-4; receives resolutions passed at Inez Milholland Memorial, 188-9; acknowledges resolutions of National Woman’s Party, 205; declares for Federal Amendment, 256; becomes actively interested in Woman Suffrage, 302; receives Woman’s Committee of the Council of National Defense, 345; reply to French Union for Woman Suffrage, 348; correspondence with Senators re Suffrage Amendment, 351-4; delegation of Southern and Western Democratic Women, 363; address to Senate re Woman Suffrage, 367-70; letter to Senator Hennessy, 381-2; message to Congress Dec. 2, 1918, 384; sails for France, 385; reply to delegation of French Working Women, 398-9; burned in effigy, 403; returns from Europe, 408; Boston demonstration, 408-10; leaves for Europe, 412; cabled message to Congress quoted, 416; ratification in Alabama and Georgia, 422-4; requests Delaware ratification, 444; requests Tennessee ratification, 451

Wilson and Marshall League, 64

Winslow, Rose, quoted 58; 77, 174, 177, 245, quoted 247-9, 283

Winsor, Ellen, 357, 396

Winsor, Mary, 229, 238, 357, quoted 359, 407, 453

Winston, Mrs. A. P., 393, 394

Winston, Mrs. K. G., 375

Winthrop, Hannah, 103

Wisconsin ratifies, 420

Wold, Clara P., 46, 355, 357, 373, 374, 375, 379, 380, 389, 404, 449

Wold, Cora, 357

Wolfe, Clara, 343

Woman’s Committee of the Council of National Defense, 345

Woman’s National Democratic League, 165

Woman’s Party, 15, 28, 29, 172-4, 158-9, 199, 259, 311, 275, 380, 428, 452, 457-9, 467, 469

Woman Suffrage Committee, 35, 36, 43

Women’s Trade Union League, 57

Woolley, Robert, 415

_Wyoming Leader_, quoted 87

Wyoming ratifies, 433

Wyoming State convention, 20-1

Young, Joy, 124, 223, 245, 297, 298

Young, Matilda, 245, 252, 375, 377, 379, 393, 395

Younger, Maud, 15, 21, 25, 28, quoted 104; 124, 131, 144, quoted 156; 174, 177, 184, 201, quoted 255; 290, 292, 294-6, 298, quoted 303-5; quoted 324; 351, 363, 381, 400, 469; _Revelations of a Woman Lobbyist_ quoted, 132, 138-42, 189-90, 319-24, 337-9, 341-5, 347-50, 366-71, 417

_Yuma Examiner_ quoted, 91

Zinkham, Warden at Washington Jail, 250, 258, 359

● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was corrected. ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected. ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book. ○ Text in italics is enclosed by underscores like this _italics_).