party. Those who contend that picketing had "set back the clock,"-that it did "no good,"-that President Wilson would "not be moved by it"-have, we believe, the burden of proof on their side of the argument. It is our firm belief that the solid year of picketing, with all its political ramifications, did compel the President to abandon his opposition and declare himself for the measure. I do not mean to say that many things do not cooperate in a movement toward a great event. I do mean to say that picketing was the most vital force amongst the elements which moved President Wilson. That picketing had compelled Congress to see the question in terms of political capital is also true. From the first word uttered in the House debate, until the final roll-call, political expediency was the chief motif.
Mr. Lenroot of Wisconsin, Republican, rose to say:
"May I suggest that there is a distinction between the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules and the Republican members, in this, that all of the Republican members are for this proposition?" This was met with instant applause from the Republican side.
Representative Cantrill prefaced his speech embodying the President"s statement, which caused roars and jeers from the opposition, with the announcement that he was not willing to risk another election, with the voting women of the West, and the amendment still unpa.s.sed.
Mr. Lenroot further pointed out that: "From a Republican standpoint-from a partisan standpoint, it would be an advantage to Republicans to go before the people in the next election and say that this resolution was defeated by southern Democrats."
An anti-suffragist tried above the din and noise to remind Mr.
Lenroot that three years before Mr. Lenroot had voted "No," but a Republican colleague came suddenly to the rescue with "What about Mr. Wilson?" which was followed by, "He
{252}
kept us out of war," and the jeers on the Republican side became more p.r.o.nounced.
This interesting political tilt took place when Representatives Dennison and Williams of Illinois, and Representative Kearns of Ohio, Republicans, fenced with Representative Raker of California, Democrat, as he attempted, with an evident note of self-consciousness, to make the President"s reversal seem less sudden.
MR. DENNISON : It was known by the committee that went to see the President that the Republicans were going to take this matter up and pa.s.s it in caucus, was it not?"
MR. RAKER: I want to say to my Republican friends upon this question that I have been in conference with the President for over three years upon this question . . . .
MR. KEARNS: How did the women of California find out and learn where the President stood on this thing just before election last fall? n.o.body else seemed to know it.
MR. RAKER: They knew it.
MR. KEARNS: How did they find it out?
MR. RAKER: I will take a minute or two
MR. KEARNS: I wish the gentleman would.
MR. RAKER: The President went home and registered. The President went home and voted for woman suffrage.
MR. KEARNS: He said he believed in it for the several states . .
MR. RAKER: One moment-
MR. KEARNS : That is the only information they had upon the subject, is it?
MR. WILLIAMS: . . . Will the gentleman yield?
MR. RAKER: I cannot yield.
MR. WILLIAMS: Just for a question.
MR. RAKER: I cannot yield . . . .
That the President"s political speed left some overcome was clear from a remark of Mr. Clark of Florida when he said:
{253}
"I was amused at my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Ferris, who wants us to ,stand with the President. G.o.d knows I want to stand with him. I am a Democrat, and I want to follow the leader of my party, and I am a pretty good lightning change artist myself sometimes (laughter); but G.o.d knows I cannot keep up with his performance. (Laughter.) Why, the President wrote a book away back yonder" . . . and he quoted generously from President Wilson"s many statements in defense of state rights as recorded in his early writings.
Mr. Hersey of Maine, Republican, drew applause when he made a retort to the Democratic slogan, "Stand by the President." He said:
"Mr. Speaker, I am still "standing with the President," or, in other words, the President this morning is standing with me."
The resentment at having been forced by the pickets to the point of pa.s.sing the amendment was in evidence throughout the debate.
Representative Gordon of Ohio, Democrat, said with bitter ness : "We are threatened by these militant suffragettes with a direct and lawless invasion by the Congress of the United States of the rights of those States which have refused to confer upon their women the privilege of voting. This att.i.tude on the part of some of the suffrage Members of this House is on an exact equality with the acts of these women militants who have spent the last summer and fall, while they were not in the district jail or workhouse, in coaxing, teasing, and nagging the Presi dent of the United States for the purpose of inducing him, by coercion, to club Congress into adopting this joint resolution."
Shouts of "Well, they got him!" and "They got it!" from all sides, followed by prolonged laughter and jeers, interrupted the flow of his oratory.
Mr. Ferris of Oklahoma, Democrat, hoped to minimize the effectiveness of the picket.
{254}
"Mr. Speaker," he said, "I do not approve or believe in picketing the White House, the National Capitol, or any other station to bring about votes for women. I do not approve of wild militancy, hunger strikes, and efforts of that sort. I do not approve of the course of those women that . . ., become agitators, lay off their womanly qualities in their efforts to secure votes. I do not approve of anything unwomanly anywhere, any time, and my course to-day in supporting this suffrage amendment is not guided by such conduct on the part of a very few women here or elsewhere."
(Applause.)
Representative Langley of Kentucky, Republican, was able to see picketing in a fairer light:
"Much has been said pro and con about "picketing",-that rather dramatic chapter in the history of this great movement. It is not my purpose to speak either in criticism or condemnation of that; but if it be true-I do not say that it is, because I do not know- but if it be true, as has been alleged, that certain promises were made, as a result of which a great campaign was won, and those promises were not kept, I wonder whether in that silent, peaceful protest that was against this broken faith, there can be found sufficient warrant for the indignities which the so-called "pickets" suffered; and when in pa.s.sing up and down the Avenue I frequently witnessed cultured, intellectual women arrested and dragged off to prison because of their method, of giving publicity to what they believed to be the truth, I will confess that the question sometimes arose in my mind whether when the impartial history of this great struggle has been written their names may not be placed upon the roll of martyrs to the cause to which they were consecrating their lives in the manner that they deemed most effective."
Mr. Mays of Utah was one Democrat who placed the responsibility for militancy where it rightly belonged when he said:
{255}
"Some say to-day that they are ashamed of the action of the militants in picketing the Capitol: . . . But we should be more ashamed of the unreasonable stubbornness on the part of the men who refused them the justice they have so long and patiently asked."
And so the debate ran on. Occasionally one caught a glimmer of real comprehension, amongst these men about to vote upon our political liberty; but more often the discussion stayed on a very inferior level.
And there were gems imperishable!
Even friends of the measure had difficulty not to romanticize about "Woman-G.o.d"s n.o.blest creature" . . . "man"s better counterpart" . . . "humanity"s perennial hope" . . . "the world"s object most to be admired and loved" . . . and so forth.
Representative Elliott of Indiana, Republican, favored the resolution because-"A little more than four hundred years ago Columbus discovered America. Before that page of American history was written he was compelled to seek the advice and a.s.sistance of a woman. From that day until the present day the n.o.ble women of America have done their part in times of peace and of war . . ."
If Queen Isabella was an argument in favor for Mr. Elliott of Indiana, Lady Macbeth played the opposite part for Mr. Parker of New Jersey, Republican . . . . "I will not debate the question as to whether in a time of war women are the best judges of policy.
That great student of human nature, William Shakespeare, in the play of Macbeth, makes Lady Macbeth eager for deeds of blood until they are committed and war is begun and then just as eager that it may be stopped." . . .
Said Mr. Gray of New Jersey, Republican: "A nation will endure just so long as its men are virile. History, physiology, and psychology all show that giving woman equal political rights with man makes ultimately for the deterioration of manhood. It is, therefore, not only because I want our country to
{256}
win this war but because I want our nation to possess the male virility necessary to guarantee its future existence that I am opposed to the pending amendment."